You might want to unstick this:
Posted on 05/25/2015 10:05:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
“’aligning’ with liberals here is the condemnation of (a) Josh Duggar’s molestation of his sisters”
Liberals, as I have pointed out, have publicly promoted the exact evil acts as the boy committed to be normal and healthy. Recognizing that they are destructive and harmful is a conservative view. Liberals only want to destroy the whole family using the rehashed memories and public regurgitation of these vile acts to bring down people who are against things like homosexual marriage. If the same thing happen in the Kardashian home, liberals would be celebrating it.
” (b) Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar’s failure to protect the victims”
When? Before these things happened? Immediately after they happened? Later when they actually found out they happened? Even more later after the son had been sent away and returned home? Even later when he was grown and out of the home but still part of their TV show (apparently)?
The parents parenting style failed to stop the sexual abuse and might have even led to it, unintentionally on their part of course. Perhaps the fact it took so long for them to find out was also a failure on their part to protect their daughters.
The debate here has revolved around how they should have handled it when it became known. Many people here seem to think they had a duty to remove themselves from the public eye as far as their role in politics and having a TV show, but at the same time the son was supposed to go to prison or something. What’s worse is the proponents of these views are not merely content to second guess the parents choice of how to deal with what happened, but apparently anyone here who disagrees with the supposed superior moral judgment of those who wanted the whole family off the air and out of politics and the son incarcerated, must be promoters of pedophiles. And that is beyond ridiculous. We are discussing opinions here, but one side seems to think they have divine revelation about what should have been done and therefore feel free to unload their hellfire and brimstone on any dissenters. It is a very liberal way of debating.
“while at the same time covering up the abuse to protect their financial and political interests”
Bringing a very private offense to other family, friends, clergy, police, counselors, etc. is not a “cover up”. Just because the Duggar parents did not start wearing t-shirts that said “our oldest son molested his sisters” does not constitute a “cover up”.
Further, assuming their motives was purely to protect political and financial issues is claiming knowledge that is not possible to have unless the accuser personally knows these people or have heard them admit their reasons. Presumption of innocence is a bedrock of conservatism. Presuming the worst possible motives of people is not. The desire to make money, influence politics, or even be famous does not make people evil or prove they have evil motives. And the act of discretely dealing with a painful matter for everyone involved could easily be purely from the motive of caring about them rather than exploiting them to make a buck.
Yes, it is.
" Compensating is something else."
No, it isn't.
" That is what people do for their own perceived shortcomings. Often though, people who have been hurt or have a loved one who has been hurt, project their own experiences onto different situations and look for justice and vindication in the wrong place. While it is understandable, it does not make it right. Just like it can be understood how some children who are molested go on to become molesters themselves. Doesn’t make it right or excusable. People who have been hurt may see this situation through a distorted and unrealistic perspective. Maybe that is you and maybe it isn’t. Only you really know."
See, this is incredibly interesting...revealing, too. You toss out that flipness which basically amounts to mocking and belitting someone for potentially having suffered some kind of abuse in the past...even as a child, maybe. You use it as a "gotcha" point.
But the bottom line is, what if you were really posting to an abuse victim? It's clear as crystal that you don't give a rip, as long as you think you can score a point.
What kind of person does this make you, unlearner? Maybe you should give that some consideration before you throw around Jesus's name. You think?
The MOST interesting takeaway from your post, however, is the revelation that you're a male. Wow. That's actually stunning. I don't know any men who are so theatrically over-dramatic and who indulge in such hysterics. Those qualities are rather womanly.
No parent, no matter how Christian, and how good, has raised perfect children. I would not judge someone for what they did as a child.
Then. According to the police report, Jim Bob found out about the abuse in March 2002. Did nothing. Jim Bob found out in July 2002 that another incident had occurred. Again, did nothing. Then, Jim Bob found out in March 2003 that yet another incident had occurred. That's when Jim Bob took the (minor and completely inadequate, in my opinion) step of sending him away to the so-called "counseling."
They found out that their daughters were being molested, and they did nothing for a YEAR. Nothing. Let that sink in for a second.
As far I can tell, they are still a wholesome Christian family made up of depraved sinners, just like every other wholesome Christian family. I don't know how much they've made, but they made it, just like the unwholesome and pagan Kardashians, by living in a fishbowl.
“They found out that their daughters were being molested, and they did nothing for a YEAR. Nothing. Let that sink in for a second.”
I’m sure they prayed about it, so they did something.
Sounds great - but I will no longer use them as my role model. I can judge whoever I want, whenever I want. I just can’t judge their souls.
I don’t know what would have happened. I don’t know the procedures the Arkansas police (and child protection agencies) use in cases like this. Might it have have been a risky move? Sure. But, in my opinion, the risk would be well worth it. If I were a parent in that situation, I would (strongly) view my primary obligation as being to protect my daughters. Sitting back and doing nothing for over a year is not protecting them, nor is sending the molester away for a few months to help build a house.
Okay, so you call the police. The state might remove your other children while it investigates further. If that happens, you'll have to hope the state places your daughters with trustworthy people because you really won't be able to protect them then.
Meanwhile, maybe your 14yo son will be charged with a crime - or maybe not. But, let's assume he's arrested, charged, found guilty, and sentenced. Maybe he'll be locked up with other juvenile offenders for up to a year.
So, instead of four months away in a Christian rehab program, he might spend four months locked up by the state with other juvenile offenders.
Then he would've been released again. Now what? By then, if the state did remove your other children, maybe your daughters will be back home. What do you do now with the 14yo (or maybe now-15yo)?
I'm asking because it's my contention that this situation (involving a 14yo) is much more complicated than many of you are making it out to be.
nor is sending the molester away for a few months to help build a house.
He went to a rehab facility in Little Rock. It seems the young people there also had to work on renovating the building.
“Yes, it is.””Yes, it is.” “Yes, it is.” “Yes, it is.” “Yes, it is.”
No, even if you say it over and over, it still isn’t what I said. You could be a good debater if you would stick to the facts.
“You toss out that flipness which basically amounts to mocking and belitting someone for potentially having suffered some kind of abuse in the past...even as a child, maybe. “
Nothing in the statement you quoted even remotely in the slightest way supports your outlandish, insulting, horrible, demeaning attack. STOP LYING. You have no idea that I have in fact had to help people through worse abuse. Stating FACTS is not mocking, and in no way was it belittling. As I said, I have no way of knowing if it applies to you. But what does apply to you is that you hurl outlandish, over the top insults non-stop with the only supporting evidence to be your gut feelings.
“But the bottom line is, what if you were really posting to an abuse victim? “
I am not insulting an abuse victim. Or if I have called out someone for their idiocy and they happen to be an abuse victim, me calling them out is not because they are an abuse victim but because of what they are saying. Does being an abuse victim excuse being hateful? Does it excuse damning people with no justification? Does it excuse malicious, false accusations?
What if it turns out that Josh Duggar was sexually abused and was acting out as a result? Would that make it okay to do what he did? DON’T LIE AGAIN by saying that this is my position, because it isn’t. But if he was an abuse victim, wouldn’t that make you guilty of the very thing you are accusing me of? If an abuse victim does or SAYS evil things, are they off the hook in your mind? So you could be unknowingly attacking an abuse victim like you say I may have been. No, I don’t think it would let him off of the hook or exempt him from being called out for what he did, but you are making up your own rules. So it seems reasonable you should be held to your own made up standard.
“Maybe you should give that some consideration before you throw around Jesus’s name. “
I want to see a quote of where I was doing what you are claiming.
You are the one throwing around His name. Did I once claim my OPINION represented His? NO!
Did I once claim my life is somehow a good representation of what He taught or practiced? NO!
QUIT LYING by insinuating that I have thrown Jesus name around to win an argument. IT IS YOU WHO ARE DOING THIS NOW AND IT IS DISGUSTING.
“I don’t know any men who are so theatrically over-dramatic and who indulge in such hysterics. Those qualities are rather womanly.”
You can’t even admit the most simple of mistakes without somehow projecting insults can you? What kind of person can enter a debate with no fear of anyone even knowing who they are and cannot even simply say “Sorry, my mistake”?
Can’t you even just admit that simple fault? Apparently instead you have to try to distract from even the most mild error you make by SCREAMING insults in hopes no one will notice. But it is okay to make mistakes Catherine. It is human. Just stop doubling down on them.
“According to the police report, Jim Bob found out about the abuse in March 2002. Did nothing. Jim Bob found out in July 2002 that another incident had occurred. Again, did nothing. Then, Jim Bob found out in March 2003 that yet another incident had occurred.”
I was not aware of this at all. I do not have time to look into it further at the moment, but will plan to when I can.
If you are correct, then I will have to rethink my position.
Emotional incest, not physical incest.
Can you define “emotional incest”?
Here is what I found online:
“Covert incest (also known as emotional incest or psychic incest) is a relationship between a parent and child that puts a child in the place of fulfilling adult emotional roles. It is a term strictly describing interactions between a parent and child that are exclusive from sexual abuse, as they typically do not include the type of physical contact that would be considered child sexual abuse. These relationships are considered to be harmful, placing the child in a position of an inappropriate emotional role.” — Wikipedia
I don’t see how the parents were guilty of that. Either way, there is a big difference between a made up concept that borrows the term “incest” to describe some completely different kind of harmful behavior.
Incest is wrong because God said so. So incestuous lust would be “emotional incest” I suppose. Regardless of the definition, I am unconvinced at this point that the parents are guilty of such.
However, someone pointed out some alarming information about their actions I do need to research more. So I am in kind of a holding pattern for defending their behavior further until I learn more as to the validity of these claims.
You might want to unstick this:
Wasn’t Jim Bob an Arkansas state Rep at the time ? He must have concluded in the interest of his political life if they had to do anything it would start out as discrete and unofficial as possible.
All I know is he ran for Senate in 2002, but given the fact that Josh ended up with a big role at FRC, politics seems to be a primary consideration for them.
Do you even know what you are talking about on something as simple as caps lock and shouting? Apparently not. I never used the caps lock on any of these posts because emphasis on words and phrases works when caps are used sparingly.
But you are so tone deaf apparently that even if the entire post, thread, and forum were shouting you still would be plugging your ears and ignoring facts and reality.
When you can’t win an argument, just try distracting people. You are a master. Irrelevant time waste.
You’ve dedicated every effort at discourse to these side-shows.
But posting a pic that perhaps makes you think you are so clever does not erase the reality that you failed to answer EVERY (yeah I can still use caps if I want to) issue that was put forward:
> repeating something over and over does not constitute a point of reason in a dispute
> specific lies you have made were identified, and you neither apologized for your lying insults nor offered any PROOF (yeah, caps) contrariwise.
> more lies accusing me of using Jesus name to win an argument while doing the EXACT (yeah, more) thing you are accusing and are therefore, by definition a hypocrite.
> refusing to provide a quote from me of the above which in any remote fashion supports your lying insult.
> failure to admit even the most modest error on your part when it was exposed
> responding to the FACT (here’s another one) when I pointed out your “SCREAMING insults in hopes no one will notice” by this new side show
Don’t try to change the subject until these important issues have been addressed.
Please get back to me when you have some facts, logic, or a legitimate point rather than digging the hole deeper for yourself with more banal LIES (once more), false accusations, and distractions from your being exposed.
This is from the Duggar girls book.
“Nike...
That’s a signal to the boys, and even to Dad, that they should nonchalantly drop their eyes and look down at their shoes as we walk past her... It’s meant to help keep the guys’ eyes from seeing things they shouldn’t be seeing. By using the single-word signal, the warning can be given quietly and discreetly.”
These young girls were charged by their parents with the responsibility for even their father’s sexuality. I’m calling this emotional incest. Not only is it that, they willingly disrupted their daughters purity by giving them the burden and responsility for their father’s possible moral impurity.
While this has very clearly turned out to be an example of horrible parenting, I cannot go along with applying such an emotionally charged term.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not disputing your use of it. I am just saying I would not use such a term to describe it because it is too imprecise for something fairly specific. And it infers something I don’t think is true - namely it implies parents being sexually attracted to their children.
I would agree to say that this kind of approach to supposedly protect their children’s purity seems to have backfired and may have been the primary thing that allowed the assaults to happen in the first place.
I think this is an issue a lot of Christian parents struggle with: at what point do we accept that our children are sinners who we cannot prevent from sinning? In this case the approach failed and resulted in behavior worse than probably most families, secular, Christian, or other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.