# Josh Duggar molestation accusations ?



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

http://www.people.com/article/josh-duggar-molestation-accusations-duggars-respond


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

he admitted it, they protected him, some of the victims were his younger sisters... my gut tells me there is more to this family than meets the eye.... the longer they spend in the public eye the more skeletons are going to leak out of their very large closet.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

mrsgcpete said:


> he admitted it, they protected him, some of the victims were his younger sisters... my gut tells me there is more to this family than meets the eye.... the longer they spend in the public eye the more skeletons are going to leak out of their very large closet.


I think so too.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Josh Duggar is now "Executive Director" of "FRC Action," an affiliate organization of the far-right Family Research Council.

Do you think his job is why is is coming out now I had not seen anything


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

He's already stepped down from that job because of this, Forcast


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

wounder if that other large family they visit was involved in this?

So I guess the girls are tainted now, think any more marriages will happen? Maybe thats why all the ones old enough got married so fast? 

When we had cable I would watch the show but only cause Mom had it on but its been 2 years I guess since I've seen it. Shame I like the soap recipe.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mrsgcpete said:


> he admitted it, they protected him, some of the victims were his younger sisters... my gut tells me there is more to this family than meets the eye.... the longer they spend in the public eye the more skeletons are going to leak out of their very large closet.


Have they not been in the public eye for years now? You do know this happened a few years ago? His parents reported this to the authorities, done everything they have been told to do. What's the issue?


----------



## Jokarva (Jan 17, 2010)

With that many kids the law of probabilities says there'll be some with issues. No idea how deep his issues run, but he won't be the only one, and we shouldn't be too shocked.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> Have they not been in the public eye for years now? You do know this happened a few years ago? His parents reported this to the authorities, done everything they have been told to do. What's the issue?


And the one authority they reported it to is now in prison for 54 years for having child pornography on his computer and in his home.


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Have they not been in the public eye for years now? You do know this happened a few years ago? His parents reported this to the authorities, done everything they have been told to do. What's the issue?


it took them over a year to report it, its coming out now because some did some digging, did you read the reports, they refused to produce him for questioning, they covered it up. the "counselor" they sent him, taught him construction. not how to deal with his feelings. 

i know i lean a little more liberal than most on this site but THE ISSUE IS CHILD MOLESTATION, in a family filled with children.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> Have they not been in the public eye for years now? You do know this happened a few years ago? His parents reported this to the authorities, done everything they have been told to do. What's the issue?


I went and did some more reading, it was reported to one officer around a year after it happened and the young man was sent to some kind of camp for retraining or hard work, the actual reports that are online were not taken or filed until after the statute of limitations had run out, convenient wouldn't you say?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

People are defending this on FB as 'normal teenage curiosity', even after they've read the police report. Because they like the show. 

Totally flabbergasted.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Have they not been in the public eye for years now? You do know this happened a few years ago? His parents reported this to the authorities, done everything they have been told to do. What's the issue?


Someone very close to me was abused by a 13 year old when they were 8.

They are now in their 40s...try asking them what's the issue :flame:


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Thats my question as well why is it coming out now if this happened when he was 17? Is it because of the anti gay program? Like Bill Cosby and the accusations from all the women? Not sure what he was promoting but someone didnt like it and started the scandal up again.,
And I guess what bothers me most is some people that have connections (government) wasnt Jim Bob in politics , they seem to get a go free pass. And are the girls so dumb that they didnt see anything wrong with big brother actions? Normal teenage curiosity ! Not with my brother or sister, it's not like they live on an island, they are around people all the time, they join many large families on visit. So I would think the show is over. On another post about the littlest one being sick and Mother wondering how she was ..... someone posted that Jim Bob creeps her out, well the apple didnt fall far from the tree. Sad But you have to think TLC knew all about it and still kept the show on.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> Someone very close to me was abused by a 13 year old when they were 8.
> 
> They are now in their 40s...try asking them what's the issue :flame:


Ok, how do I reach them, since you offered? :shrug:

It appears he did what was asked, what more do you want? Prison?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

I'm stepping away from this now. 

Disgusted.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> I'm stepping away from this now.
> 
> Disgusted.


Was this post really necessary?


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> Was this post really necessary?



Were your last 2 posts''necessary''? Child molestation discussions are not the place for flippant answers. If it was an atempt to goad someone ,that is a different kettle of fish!


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

:rotfl:

Yea some may think the above is inappropriate.. But it isn't

You have a known pedophile hanging out with the ex pres and the future wanna be pres. yet nothing is done. No one questions the association!
You have a known pedophile producing movies and such and yet he makes millions. No one cares!
You have a known pedophile using a college campus to abuse kids. and no one says a word until years later..

And the list goes on..
They all have one thing in common, they all bring in big money for someone or some group..

So all this garbage about caring about child molestation is a ruse..

The actions of the people have said they don't care.


Like it or not.. It's the sad truth..

Oh I understand those affected, care and along with those around them, but beyond that the public doesn't care.
In fact they are now even importing a entire religion that condones pedophilia.. 

So I have to laugh at the thought that "the people" or Government care.

They don't! Period! 
The Harsh reality isn't pretty..


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Wanda said:


> Were your last 2 posts''necessary''? Child molestation discussions are not the place for flippant answers. If it was an atempt to goad someone ,that is a different kettle of fish!


Whoa! This is getting kinky. Was there a kettle of fish involved in the story? I have no idea who the guy is or what the show he is on. However, on the Baltimore thread, on the politics forum, 2 brothers about 24 years old shot by a cop are described as kids. This guy was 17 at the time, so why isn't he being described as a kid when he did this? The term "kid" is used to mentally influence people's judgement on such stories. When we hear kid we mentally picture a little child and that image influences how we feel about the story. We all know kids do stupid things and most of us did our share of them. But apparently this guy is a conservative and that means he is excluded from being called a kid when he was 17. Is there a shred of evidence that he continued the behavior into adulthood? If so, he needs to be investigated and prosecuted,


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Not all that.......but when holy-er then thou people with a TV show on TLC put themselves out as this wonderful family that has 20 kids and can manage them all (they dont really they give the younger ones to the older ones to be tended)it just show it cant be done. Jim Bob is or was in politics. So my question is why is this coming to the public light NOW, is it because of Josh being involved in the anti guy marriage agenda? And 17 is plenty old enough to not be considered a child. If my 17 year old molested a younger than him I bet my kid would be in jail. He would be on the child predator list for ever.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Don't know who this guy is so I don't have any predetermined thoughts about him so. . .

There's a lot of things to think about from the article linked. 

First off my math says he was 15 at the time. 27 - 12 = 15 We all know 15 y.o. do a lot of stupid things. 

Second it doesn't define "molesting". Did he fondle them though their clothes or did he tie them up and keep them in the basement for days? Makes a LOT of difference based on his age a the time.

Third it doesn't say how old the girls were. A 15 y.o. fooling around with a 13 y.o. is much different than if the girls were 6.

Fourth it says it was dealt with at the time, authorities contacted and counseling all around. Its implied that he wasn't caught but confessed. While that might be spin if its true it would show that this was a single event not part of his life. 

How many of us have something in our early teenage past that is/was illegal or immoral or just looked bad that was just a 'stage' or single event which we would like to stay hidden?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I've watched similar play out with a local family and it always seems the victims are forgotten. It's generally explained as a young guy's curiosity, playing 'doctor' or simply something that happens. 

The people who are forgotten are the victims and they are victims if they were made to feel uncomfortable or they didn't feel saying no was an option. If it's okay to fondle a 8, 9 or 12 year old, when does it become not okay? By diminishing the act, one also diminishes the value of the victim by simply allowing her to feel that she is nothing more than an object for another's research. 

I'm left to wonder if Pop Duggar would have been as relaxed about the whole thing if a neighbor's son had done this to his daughters.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

WR very well said


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

wr said:


> I'm left to wonder if Pop Duggar would have been as relaxed about the whole thing if a neighbor's son had done this to his daughters.



Probably not, would have wanted them to string the fella up.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

watcher said:


> Don't know who this guy is so I don't have any predetermined thoughts about him so. . .
> 
> There's a lot of things to think about from the article linked.
> 
> ...


You have a lot of nerve injecting facts and common sense into the discussion. I agree the word molestation covers a wide area and it is up to the person to define it exactly. Every straight 15 year old boy is interested in the female anatomy, with no exceptions. Molestation and far worse occurs every day in this country and no one bothers to post about it. How about the 13 and 14 year old girls having babies? Why is there no outcry to prosecute the fathers for statutory rape, let alone molestation? Is it because many of them are blacks in cities and liberals take the position that "well, you know, they are blacks and are victims themselves"? I suspect this case draws so much attention from liberals because the guy is a white conservative.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...irls-parents-Jim-Bob-Michelle-covered-up.html

19 Kids and Counting taken off the air by TLC in wake of revelation that son Josh molested young girls and his parents Jim Bob and Michelle covered it up


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wr said:


> I've watched similar play out with a local family and it always seems the victims are forgotten. It's generally explained as a young guy's curiosity, playing 'doctor' or simply something that happens.
> 
> The people who are forgotten are the victims and they are victims if they were made to feel uncomfortable or they didn't feel saying no was an option. If it's okay to fondle a 8, 9 or 12 year old, when does it become not okay? By diminishing the act, one also diminishes the value of the victim by simply allowing her to feel that she is nothing more than an object for another's research.
> 
> I'm left to wonder if Pop Duggar would have been as relaxed about the whole thing if a neighbor's son had done this to his daughters.


My wife was raped when she was 14. Her position is this....she refuses to be a victim because that empowers that attacker, suck it up and move on, dwelling on it only causes more distress. Worked for her. I'm curious about how this evidence came to be. I thought records of juveniles were sealed? And no one is saying exactly what he did. It may be as simple as "playing doctor" like someone mentioned. Because of their beliefs, that may have been enough. It appears that the family had it under control, until the media festered over it.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

watcher said:


> Don't know who this guy is so I don't have any predetermined thoughts about him so. . .
> 
> There's a lot of things to think about from the article linked.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your post!

I don't know much of anything about these people and wouldn't know them if they passed by me at Walmart. 

Words do have a way of meaning a lot of possible things and without more information, it tends to be a bit of a 'free for all' as to just what did or didn't happen. 

In a world where a simple swat on the rear end to get a kid's attention gets trumped up to "child abuse", it's not hard to understand how the accusation of "molestation" could happen from something rather insignificant. 

I don't know what happened. Might have been worse than they're saying. Might have been something pretty stupid. Without real information, it's all speculation.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

From some of the reports, some of his sisters were victims. Hard to make a decision or even bother with it without the facts. Now they have dropped the show, so wonder if this will go away. 

All I could say on it is that if this happened with my daughters, that person would never be allowed to watch or be around them again. Period, no matter who it was.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> My wife was raped when she was 14. Her position is this....she refuses to be a victim because that empowers that attacker, suck it up and move on, dwelling on it only causes more distress. Worked for her. I'm curious about how this evidence came to be. I thought records of juveniles were sealed? And no one is saying exactly what he did. It may be as simple as "playing doctor" like someone mentioned. Because of their beliefs, that may have been enough. It appears that the family had it under control, until the media festered over it.


I agree with your wife's position but I'm pretty sure that she's also not of the opinion that 'boys will be boys' and girls should simply expect boys to 'play doctor', explore or experiment with their bodies, with or without consent. 

I do understand not being a victim and live much the same myself but it's inexcusable to teach daughters that even if they don't want to be touched, fondled or just a live exhibit, it's just what young guys do. 

My responses are general and directed only toward the belief that boys just do these things and it's generally okay, not in any way directed toward the Duggar family because I have no intimate knowledge of how they did handle the situation or if it was handled at all.


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

I just spent some time on several sites reading up on this. I've been able to glean that the occurances happened when he was approx 14 -15 hears old and consisted of touching the genitals of several females under the ages of approx 11-12. From the police report which was in 2006 and prompted by an alert fromy the Harpo production team the parents had taken action in 2002-2003 and reported it to a local trooper who did not file a report. While the parents did not take the steps to get the proler couseling the situation promlts me to wonder if it was just curiosity in an improler manner considering the christian bent of the family or was it something more morbid. It seems a proper investigation in 2006 led police to not file charges although there seems to be questions about statute of limitations. Should thenreport have been released as it involved all jeveniles who are instantly recognizable3 due to the nature of the public forum in which they live? I dont think so as now th3 girls allnhave to live withte publicity surrounding the issue and qll are being victimized by many who will say they are just trying to reveal the truth. 

As a child who went through molestation by an adult male who was a recognized international person whomnonce he wqs caught many would not beleive he was a child molester ai cqn relate to the anger these girls are likely feeling as well as the feelings of victimization asntheir life has been ripped open and revealed for allnto see. It does not excuse the behavior of their molester but they have no protection due to their public lives. If this was all a case of curiosity the aggressor has a lot to losean dhas already lost because of the ppublicity

I am not trying to excuse the accused but there are a lllot of peopem invovled here who are hurting because this is now very public knowledge and i feel worried for the young women who are now having to face a lot of awful things. I was able to work thru my issues and resolve the molestation without professional help and years ago while talking to a psycho therapist she was quite surprised at how well adjusted i was but that had a lot to do with my nature these girls do not have the same typenof education or open forum in which to deal with this and it might make more issues since it is hard to face this sort of thing and come out well adjsuted. I had thr chance to face my abuser and was willing to testify against him in court which really helped me find the final closure but he died before I could do so and all i could thinknof was perfect karma. 

I only hope the victims get help and can come thru this debacle with good mental health but somehow i doubt they will


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> Ok, how do I reach them, since you offered? :shrug:
> 
> It appears he did what was asked, what more do you want? Prison?


Yes, as it would be for anyone else. This is not a family matter nor one for a church. This is a legal and medical matter. He needed to be prosecuted as a juvenile, receive medical and psychological assessment and treatment if possible and to be registered and monitored. 

And what about medical and psychological assessment and treatment for the victims? Because they are victims. When you have been assaulted you do not have to live as a victim for the rest of your life but you do need to be treated and cared for. Hiding what was done serves no one and certainly not God.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

We are, I think, going a little overboard on this "molestation" thing. I suspect that a great many girls are exposed to "playing doctor" by cousins, neighbor kids, even brothers. Certainly teen-age girls are as curious as boys, but far more mature so that they are usually approached by adults. 

Somewhere in there is a line that should be drawn between childish curiosity, teen hormones and outright malicious, conscious molestation. 

I've seen both; a co-worker once told me that he learned about sex from his older female cousins. When I was first employed as an investigator one of my fellow investigators came upon a case where a father was raping his teen daughter. Where do you draw the line?


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

Oxankle said:


> We are, I think, going a little overboard on this "molestation" thing. I suspect that a great many girls are exposed to "playing doctor" by cousins, neighbor kids, even brothers. Certainly teen-age girls are as curious as boys, but far more mature so that they are usually approached by adults.


Did you play doctor on your five year old sister when you were 14 or 15 years old, and if so did that include a pelvic exam that was done while she was sleeping...find and read the police reports, this is not simple "curisoity" or "playing doctor", this was molestation.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

So, some people are upset about certian deviants but not others. Moohomad had a child bride,but he is ok, beastality?? Gay sex is a form of preversion , and that is ok. So, it's up to a part of the population to decide what is OK or not? That's progress?


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

7thswan said:


> So, some people are upset about certian deviants but not others. Moohomad had a child bride,but he is ok, beastality?? Gay sex is a form of preversion , and that is ok. So, it's up to a part of the population to decide what is OK or not? That's progress?


Wow, could you toss more straw men arguments into one sentence??


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

RichNC said:


> Wow, could you toss more straw men arguments into one sentence??


Sure, but I know you don't really want to have to seperate your loyalitys.
So, do "straw men " burn for what they have done, or just some of them?


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

7thswan said:


> So, some people are upset about certian deviants but not others. Moohomad had a child bride,but he is ok, beastality?? Gay sex is a form of preversion , and that is ok. So, it's up to a part of the population to decide what is OK or not? That's progress?


Moohomad? Your method of debating the story a self-proclaimed Christian man in the middle of a sex scandal is to take the name of a figure from an _entirely unrelated_ religion and bastardize it in your remarks? This is the best contribution you have to add to the discussion? Do you really expect people to seriously consider what you have to say when it's laced with childish nonsense like this?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

emdeengee said:


> Yes, as it would be for anyone else. This is not a family matter nor one for a church. This is a legal and medical matter. He needed to be prosecuted as a juvenile, receive medical and psychological assessment and treatment if possible and to be registered and monitored.
> 
> And what about medical and psychological assessment and treatment for the victims? Because they are victims. When you have been assaulted you do not have to live as a victim for the rest of your life but you do need to be treated and cared for. Hiding what was done serves no one and certainly not God.


It was decided to let the family deal with it by the police. Family matter. They ALL went for counciling. Not everyone needs to be "treated", some do just fine on their own. Not sure who hid this, since the family knew! I think the family decided what to do as a family, I agree with that. Why not let them deal with it? You seem to want to make his life hell forever because he's Christian. I base that on your previous posts here!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

bloogrssgrl said:


> Moohomad? Your method of debating the story a self-proclaimed Christian man in the middle of a sex scandal is to take the name of a figure from an _entirely unrelated_ religion and bastardize it in your remarks? This is the best contribution you have to add to the discussion? Do you really expect people to seriously consider what you have to say when it's laced with childish nonsense like this?


So you don't understand the hypocrisy of this do you? Fair enough.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> It was decided to let the family deal with it by the police. Family matter. They ALL went for counciling. Not everyone needs to be "treated", some do just fine on their own. Not sure who hid this, since the family knew! I think the family decided what to do as a family, I agree with that. Why not let them deal with it? You seem to want to make his life hell forever because he's Christian. I base that on your previous posts here!


When a serious crime is alleged to have been committed, it is no longer a family matter. Especially since at least one of the girls was not a family member.

And the cop they took it to was a friend who is now serving 50+ years for having child porn. Yes sir they really took this seriously


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> So you don't understand the hypocrisy of this do you? Fair enough.


I am totally leaving the religious element out of this. But what the heck does a guy who lived a long time ago have to do with this.

Conservatives here get bent out of shape when Bush and his mistakes are brought up-they say "ancient history", "doesn't matter now".

It boggles my mind how some people here are just trying to brush this way.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Ok, so we've gotten that there was a "touching of genitals". That's still awfully vague and leaves open an enormous range of possibilities the smallest of which could be changing a baby's diaper. 

??


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

Bellyman said:


> Ok, so we've gotten that there was a "touching of genitals". That's still awfully vague and leaves open an enormous range of possibilities the smallest of which could be changing a baby's diaper.
> 
> ??


Do 11 year old girls wear diapers??


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

RichNC said:


> Do 11 year old girls wear diapers??


Most 11 year olds don't. I thought I had read "under 11" somewhere but didn't know exactly what that meant. I'd have to reread to know for sure.

The point was that without being more specific, some are really going to think the worst possible when that may not be what actually happened.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

RichNC said:


> Do 11 year old girls wear diapers??


Some do! My 93 year old father does! Just saying!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

keenataz said:


> I am totally leaving the religious element out of this. But what the heck does a guy who lived a long time ago have to do with this.
> 
> Conservatives here get bent out of shape when Bush and his mistakes are brought up-they say "ancient history", "doesn't matter now".
> 
> It boggles my mind how some people here are just trying to brush this way.



"I'm totally leaving the religious aspect out of this.....BUT" ound:

Because "the profit Moohomad" is a modern day religious icon to over a billion people, that's why! And according to their book, he was a pedophile. I think some folks here have seen that Dugger has paid dearly for his actions, but this did happen over a decade ago. Why are you worrying about "ancient history" now?


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> So you don't understand the hypocrisy of this do you? Fair enough.


Call it a thread drift, but what I don't understand is the necessity of the name twist. If she honestly wants to bring the tenants of Islam into the debate, by all means, go for it. But is it not able to be done with a level of maturity? 
You see nothing wrong with her remark? Fair enough.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Oxankle said:


> We are, I think, going a little overboard on this "molestation" thing. I suspect that a great many girls are exposed to "playing doctor" by cousins, neighbor kids, even brothers. Certainly teen-age girls are as curious as boys, but far more mature so that they are usually approached by adults.
> 
> Somewhere in there is a line that should be drawn between childish curiosity, teen hormones and outright malicious, conscious molestation.
> 
> I've seen both; a co-worker once told me that he learned about sex from his older female cousins. When I was first employed as an investigator one of my fellow investigators came upon a case where a father was raping his teen daughter. Where do you draw the line?



Some of the girls were significantly younger and if you wade through the blacked out report, the girls were primarily asleep when fondled, with the exception of one incident when he pulled up a dress and pulled down the pants of one girl to touch her. 

Im not sure why this would be a faith based issue. The family is certainly not saying that it is a part of their beliefs nor are they indicate they condone the behaviour.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

wr said:


> Some of the girls were significantly younger and if you wade through the blacked out report, the girls were primarily asleep when fondled, with the exception of one incident when he pulled up a dress and pulled down the pants of one girl to touch her.
> 
> Im not sure why this would be a faith based issue. The family is certainly not saying that it is a part of their beliefs nor are they indicate they condone the behaviour.


I agree it has nothing to do with religion. But I just find it amazing how some are downplaying it. Playing doctor, changing diapers. 

He molested his sisters for goodness sake. That is disgusting

And yes if Mohammed molested children that is disgusting too. As is all child molestation.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

bloogrssgrl said:


> Moohomad? Your method of debating the story a self-proclaimed Christian man in the middle of a sex scandal is to take the name of a figure from an _entirely unrelated_ religion and bastardize it in your remarks? This is the best contribution you have to add to the discussion? Do you really expect people to seriously consider what you have to say when it's laced with childish nonsense like this?


So, you refuse to say why you defend sick "groups". Calling them a "religion"meens nothing to me. I bastardized nothing. You and others, left can still not say why you protect a group of people that hate their women, abuse children/women/animals. Just tell me why you side with sick people and want to hand over our Country to horrible nonsense. I know you say it's childish, but it's a ignorant"religion" like islam = perfict example. Stop attacking me, and give me something that makes sense. "Childish nonsence", tell me how I'm wrong ? Well, unless it's childish to ignore what's going on and their past. All muslims know what I'm talking about.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

RichNC said:


> Do 11 year old girls wear diapers??


OMG- I had to look for diapers for my old Rottie- I found diapers for CHILDREN that weigh ---135 lbs at Wallyworld.Ya, abused people do have "issues".
Thank goodness, girlly dog is on Proin for her peepee problems.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

7thswan said:


> OMG- I had to look for diapers for my old Rottie- I found diapers for CHILDREN that weigh ---135 lbs at Wallyworld.Ya, abused people do have "issues".
> Thank goodness, girlly dog is on Proin for her peepee problems.


I don't believe any of his sisters age 5 through 11 or 12 were in diapers at that time, but glad to know you found some that worked for you dog.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wr said:


> I agree with your wife's position but I'm pretty sure that she's also not of the opinion that 'boys will be boys' and girls should simply expect boys to 'play doctor', explore or experiment with their bodies, with or without consent.
> 
> I do understand not being a victim and live much the same myself but it's inexcusable to teach daughters that even if they don't want to be touched, fondled or just a live exhibit, it's just what young guys do.
> 
> My responses are general and directed only toward the belief that boys just do these things and it's generally okay, not in any way directed toward the Duggar family because I have no intimate knowledge of how they did handle the situation or if it was handled at all.


Boys will be boys and girls will be girls. Throughout history each side has been proven to willingly 'play doctor'. To think that only boys are curious about what the other gender must keep hidden in their undies would mean you are either naive, ignorant or shutting your eyes to the truth.

I think a lot of here grew up and raised our kids on a farm. On a farm kids learn very quickly that boy critters and girl critters have different parts and just how those parts go together as well as what the result of that togetherness is. 

City folk are different. I remember my daughter being confused when she was about 6 when one of her friends and the friend's mother had a "reaction" upon seeing one of our geldings 'hanging loose' as we call it. My daughter had seen such things almost from birth and didn't think anything about it and had the hardest time understanding why they were so embarrassed and thought it was so scandalous. They probably would have dropped dead if our roo had mounted a hen in the yard.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

RichNC said:


> To the best of my knowledge and from everything I read in the police reports none of his sisters or the other girl were wearing diapers that needed to be changed in their sleep.


You asked or made a statement about diapers for 11 year olds. Just trying to inform you and others that it must be common that "children" 135lbs can wear diapers easly bought at walmarts-as if that is normal for a child or any age or weight in relation to a 11 year old.
But just ignore the aspect of why anyone would condone any kind of pedophile or beastatility or abuse of women-you can't even, tho you are the side of "compassion" for the downtrodden. Just educate me if you all are so "wise" and "compassionate". Name calling, ect. is so old/boring.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

keenataz said:


> I agree it has nothing to do with religion. But I just find it amazing how some are downplaying it. Playing doctor, changing diapers.
> 
> He molested his sisters for goodness sake. That is disgusting
> 
> And yes if Mohammed molested children that is disgusting too. As is all child molestation.


Well I find it entirely possible that some are "UP-PLAYING" it and making more out of it than what happened.

The term "molested" still has not been defined in such a way as to give any real clue to the situations as they happened. Context is important. "Looking" isn't exactly uncommon among siblings. "Pulling down pants" is not an uncommon prank. "Touching" can mean a LOT of different things that vary a whole lot by context. 

I'm not advocating that bad behavior go unpunished. But before we hang the guy on the end of a rope, don't you think we should understand what really happened? Unless someone knows more than they're telling, we don't know all of the details.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

watcher said:


> Boys will be boys and girls will be girls. Throughout history each side has been proven to willingly 'play doctor'. To think that only boys are curious about what the other gender must keep hidden in their undies would mean you are either naive, ignorant or shutting your eyes to the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, you're of the opinion that a 5 or 6 year old sister was a willing participant or possibly initiated this fondling while she was sleeping?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

keenataz said:


> I agree it has nothing to do with religion. But I just find it amazing how some are downplaying it. Playing doctor, changing diapers.
> 
> He molested his sisters for goodness sake. That is disgusting
> 
> And yes if Mohammed molested children that is disgusting too. As is all child molestation.


Here's some questions for you. Do you think that all people should face the same punishment for the same actions? Should the age of the person be taken to account? Should a 5 y.o. who goes into his sister's bedroom and fondles her genitals be arrested, tried and imprisoned for 10-30 years if found guilty? If not a 5 y.o. what about a 6 y.o.? 7? 9? What age should we start?


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

7thswan said:


> So, you refuse to say why you defend sick "groups". Calling them a "religion"meens nothing to me. I bastardized nothing. You and others, left can still not say why you protect a group of people that hate their women, abuse children/women/animals. Just tell me why you side with sick people and want to hand over our Country to horrible nonsense. I know you say it's childish, but it's a ignorant"religion" like islam = perfict example. Stop attacking me, and give me something that makes sense. "Childish nonsence", tell me how I'm wrong ? Well, unless it's childish to ignore what's going on and their past. All muslims know what I'm talking about.


I did not bring Islam into the discussion, you did. I'm not here to discuss the tenants of the religion. I'm merely questioning why you have to sink to the level you do in order feel you are getting your point across. 
You bastardized nothing? You really think the prophet's name is Moohomad? It's Muhammad. The fact that you put religion in quotes when referring to Islam is a further example of childish behavior rather than adult discussion and debate. Just because you don't happen to agree with it, it is still a religion. Buddhism is a religion. Paganism is a religion. Satanism is a religion. It's just an innocuous term used to describe a system of faith and worship.
I cannot give you something that makes sense as you seem dead set against processing anything of the like. 
And understand this, I don't protect anyone that hates or abuses - whether they be Muslim or Christian. But I will at the very least conduct myself with a certain level of civility out of respect for the more moderate people of those groups. 
Have a lovely night 7thswan.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

7thswan said:


> You asked or made a statement about diapers for 11 year olds. Just trying to inform you and others that it must be common that "children" 135lbs can wear diapers easly bought at walmarts-as if that is normal for a child or any age or weight in relation to a 11 year old.
> But just ignore the aspect of why anyone would condone any kind of pedophile or beastatility or abuse of women-you can't even, tho you are the side of "compassion" for the downtrodden. Just educate me if you all are so "wise" and "compassionate". Name calling, ect. is so old/boring.


Ma'am, I have never called you any names, and I don't condone pedophilia, bestiality or the abuse of women and have stated that in this thread. I personally think that young Mr. Duggar should have spent some time in Juvenal lockup, but it seems that his family's influence kept that from happening and that makes me very sad for the young girls he by his onw admission abused.


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

7thswan said:


> So, some people are upset about certian deviants but not others. Moohomad had a child bride,but he is ok, beastality?? Gay sex is a form of preversion , and that is ok. So, it's up to a part of the population to decide what is OK or not? That's progress?



REALLY, you went there? Child brides are wrong (but Muhammad is not the only religious leader to have them, Warren Jeffs?), beastiality wrong... but to compare the love between two consenting adults to child molestation is sick. Touching children is a whole different and disgusting ball game. A 15 year old touching the genitals of younger children, including his own sisters, is illegal and the parents did nothing. they sent him off to learn home remodeling, and had him talk to another pedophile, thats must have been successful "counselling":flame:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

In all my years here this is the worst thread I have ever seen hands down. Ever. I have seen some things defended that genuinely blew my mind but this takes the cake. 

First 5 girls were molested, 4 were his sisters and 1 a cousin. The youngest was 6 or younger. The oldest was 12 at the time. The others ranged between those ages. All of them were fondled under their clothing, most at night while they were in bed but 2 during the day time and one in public. According to the family interviews it took place over anywhere up to a year and a half. The state trooper was later convicted on child pornography charges. 

Michelle Duggar later admitted they lied about getting Josh treatment, they actually just sent him off to work with a contractor in Little Rock. They also never received treatment as a family nor did the girls. They did not report this to the police. Their church got wind of what was happening and forced Jim Bob to bring in Josh and they spoke to him and then had a state trooper who was a friend speak to Josh. Even though by law they were required to report this as was the police officer none of them did. 

Someone in the know reported this to Oprah's staff when the Duggars were scheduled to be on her show. They actually followed the law and reported it. Jim Bob lawyered up and refused to allow Josh to be questioned by the police. Eventually they did bring the girls in and those interviews are in the police report. http://imgur.com/a/zqPMi#10

By the time they got the kids in and interviewed the statute of limitations had run out and they couldn't do anything about it. 

I have a feeling there is more to come on this one.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

watcher said:


> Here's some questions for you. Do you think that all people should face the same punishment for the same actions? Should the age of the person be taken to account? Should a 5 y.o. who goes into his sister's bedroom and fondles her genitals be arrested, tried and imprisoned for 10-30 years if found guilty? If not a 5 y.o. what about a 6 y.o.? 7? 9? What age should we start?


I think a 15 year old fondling a 5 year old sister is a good place to start. If you don't fine for you. 

For crying out loud this isn't little Billy peaking through the curtains. This is an older brother fondling his little sisters genitals while she is asleep. And I think we can all guess his other hand was busy too. If people are ok with this I feel shamed for the human race.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Finally got to have a look at the police reports. Doesn't sound as innocent as I had hoped it would be. My apologies for making light where it wasn't appropriate. I'm glad that the incidents weren't more damaging but they were more deviant than just "kids playing" or what would be considered "normal" but most of us.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

keenataz said:


> I think a 15 year old fondling a 5 year old sister is a good place to start. If you don't fine for you.


So just to be clear you have no problem locking up a 15 y.o. for say 15 years for fondling his sister. And since he seems to have done it more than once shall you add 15 years for each time? Or only 15 years for each victim? IIRC, they are saying he did it to something like six girls so we should lock him up for 90 years. Does that really sound like a plan? 

What if he had been 14? Same plan? How about 12? 10? At what age do you think we should start considering people 'adults' and hold them totally responsible for their actions?

Something else would you want to lock up a 21 y.o. man for having sex with a 15 y.o. girl? After all you seem to think that at 15 people are mature enough to be held totally legally responsible for their sexual actions shouldn't we also consider them old enough to decide to have sex with an "adult"? 




keenataz said:


> For crying out loud this isn't little Billy peaking through the curtains. This is an older brother fondling his little sisters genitals while she is asleep. And I think we can all guess his other hand was busy too. If people are ok with this I feel shamed for the human race.


I don't think its ok for a kid to swipe a candy bar from a store but neither do I think its ok for him to have to do a nickle in San Quentin when he's caught.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wisdom from Watcher.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

RichNC said:


> I don't believe any of his sisters age 5 through 11 or 12 were in diapers at that time, but glad to know you found some that worked for you dog.


I dont think normal health children ware diaper after 4, children with disabilities, do. Children that have been sexually abused sure might.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> So just to be clear you have no problem locking up a 15 y.o. for say 15 years for fondling his sister. And since he seems to have done it more than once shall you add 15 years for each time? Or only 15 years for each victim? IIRC, they are saying he did it to something like six girls so we should lock him up for 90 years. Does that really sound like a plan?
> 
> What if he had been 14? Same plan? How about 12? 10? At what age do you think we should start considering people 'adults' and hold them totally responsible for their actions?
> 
> ...


A 15 year old that has fondled at least 5 girls including his sisters has problems. He needs at the very least therapy. Serious therapy. We don't know if this rises to the need for incarceration because the parents did not deal with this properly. We don't really need to know but the authorities and professionals should have been involved.

You can play that what if and what may have happened game all you want but it does not address the problem. A 15 year old boy seriously crossed the line. If he had been dealt with properly we would have heard about it by now.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

.....well I read the report that was linked , thats a lot to take in. And if you cant get a lawyer to take your case is that good or bad? Statute of limitation had past so nothing was done? Wonder if the elders of the church will be charged with not reporting?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> A 15 year old that has fondled at least 5 girls including his sisters has problems. He needs at the very least therapy. Serious therapy. We don't know if this rises to the need for incarceration because the parents did not deal with this properly. We don't really need to know but the authorities and professionals should have been involved.


Hum. . .are you saying that we need to treat him differently than other sexual predators because of his age, the number of victims or the fact that they were related? 




painterswife said:


> You can play that what if and what may have happened game all you want but it does not address the problem. A 15 year old boy seriously crossed the line. If he had been dealt with properly we would have heard about it by now.


I look at the other way. If it had *NOT* been dealt with properly we would have heard about it by now. People with major sexual problems do not just snap out of it and become normal on their own. Without treatment they do not just stop, AAMOF they tend to escalate.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> Hum. . .are you saying that we need to treat him differently than other sexual predators because of his age, the number of victims or the fact that they were related?
> 
> No, I am saying that the authorities and experts should have dealt with this. It should not have been hidden by the church.
> 
> ...


That would be crap. Lots of older sex offenders around who are really good at not being caught.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Forcast said:


> .....well I read the report that was linked , thats a lot to take in. And if you cant get a lawyer to take your case is that good or bad? Statute of limitation had past so nothing was done? Wonder if the elders of the church will be charged with not reporting?


I would say it is bad. The elders were not charged and neither was the police officer although he was later arrested and convicted twice and is currently in prison for child pornography and other offenses.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I don't see what the issues are-

1) he did it, he admits he did it and it was very wrong
2) his parents took action to correct his behavior when they found out but did not report it as a crime- doubt as if anyone one else would have done differently as parents if it was unknown, except some would have been in denial and took no action at all
3) Be people who try to live by a moral code does make it worse but only because people, even themselves, expect better results from their code of behavior
4) Their code of behavior allows for forgiveness of sins so acknowledging and reforming are ways to be part of the community again- members make up their own mind about the validity of the reforming
5) the TV show was suspended because the public revelation created doubts that will have to be resolved one way or another

So what is the source of all the spitting? That some feel that preaching people are hypocrites because they are not perfect? That failure to live up to the standards invalidates the attempt? That a person's own faith can not survive another's failure ? That forgiveness it not allowed? That Christianity is the real target? That Christianity is clearly a failure because its practitioners are sinners? That no one should blindly accept the preaching of another because we're all sinners?

Just what is it all about?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bellyman said:


> Finally got to have a look at the police reports. Doesn't sound as innocent as I had hoped it would be. My apologies for making light where it wasn't appropriate. I'm glad that the incidents weren't more damaging but they were more deviant than just "kids playing" or what would be considered "normal" but most of us.


Thank you for reading the report and basing your opinion on the facts.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> I don't see what the issues are-
> 
> 1) he did it, he admits he did it and it was very wrong
> 2) his parents took action to correct his behavior when they found out but did not report it as a crime- doubt as if anyone one else would have done differently as parents if it was unknown, except some would have been in denial and took no action at all
> ...


:facepalm: Why don't you start with reading the police report and then work your way from there? If you really think this is just Christian bashing once again I can't help you.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

watcher said:


> So just to be clear you have no problem locking up a 15 y.o. for say 15 years for fondling his sister. And since he seems to have done it more than once shall you add 15 years for each time? Or only 15 years for each victim? IIRC, they are saying he did it to something like six girls so we should lock him up for 90 years. Does that really sound like a plan?
> 
> What if he had been 14? Same plan? How about 12? 10? At what age do you think we should start considering people 'adults' and hold them totally responsible for their actions?
> 
> ...


I haven't seen anyone here actually ask for him to do prison time? Strawman argument is all I see here.

As for what should have happened his parents should have gotten him actual therapy. His sisters and cousin should have received therapy too. His Church elders had a legal responsibility to report this molestation. They did not. They should have been charged. The state trooper who talked to Josh off the record also had a legal responsibility to report the abuse. He also should have been charged for failing to do so. 

Because no treatment was given and no one around this family was warned about what happened we do not know if any other children were molested. His parents wanted to pray over it, ask for forgiveness and then forget all about it. People who do not want to deal with these situations will turn a blind eye to anything they see because they do not want to see it. It's quite possible it continued.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

This article was written by a young woman who is a Christian and was homeschooled and grew up in he same sort of family as the Duggars. Maybe you would appreciate her perspective: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejo...know-about-the-josh-duggar-police-report.html


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> :facepalm: Why don't you start with reading the police report and then work your way from there? If you really think this is just Christian bashing once again I can't help you.


And there you go right into expressing contempt without even an attempt at reading or responding from somewhere other than internal triggers.

And BTW Christian bashing is so commonly expressed here that I am sure that it is the point for some. Which is part of the trouble with it- it takes over from many discussions that would be productive otherwise.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> I haven't seen anyone here actually ask for him to do prison time? Strawman argument is all I see here.
> 
> As for what should have happened his parents should have gotten him actual therapy. His sisters and cousin should have received therapy too. His Church elders had a legal responsibility to report this molestation. They did not. They should have been charged. The state trooper who talked to Josh off the record also had a legal responsibility to report the abuse. He also should have been charged for failing to do so.
> 
> Because no treatment was given and no one around this family was warned about what happened we do not know if any other children were molested. His parents wanted to pray over it, ask for forgiveness and then forget all about it. People who do not want to deal with these situations will turn a blind eye to anything they see because they do not want to see it. It's quite possible it continued.


That is at least a point. Has he truly understood what he did was wrong? That's what I meant about people making up their own minds about it.

Does he and his family have an obligation to prove that their way achieved that result? I don't know. It needs thinking. But if you mean that he has an obligation to make you personally happy he simply can't do it no matter what.


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

just to be clear, I am not christian bashing, i am molestor bashing and while it may have been the parents protecting their son, they also had a duty to his victims to make it right.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Again this has nothing to do with religion or a kid stealing a chocolate bar or anything else. This person did a disgusting thing. We have no idea what it did to the young girls. He was 15 obviously knew it was wrong. 

But for those who seem to think no big deal I am assuming you will no longer bring up the Clinton-lewinsky episode. It's been dealt with and time to move seems to be the way to go


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Thank you for reading the report and basing your opinion on the facts.


I wish I could have read the reports before my previous comments. Not sure removing them now would be the right thing either. 

The boy has issues that need to be dealt with. I suspect jail time would make them worse. The girls need some counseling as well. Its not so simple or easy.

Again, I apologize for making light of matters more serious than I realized.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

keenataz said:


> Again this has nothing to do with religion or a kid stealing a chocolate bar or anything else. This person did a disgusting thing. We have no idea what it did to the young girls. He was 15 obviously knew it was wrong.
> 
> But for those who seem to think no big deal I am assuming you will no longer bring up the Clinton-lewinsky episode. It's been dealt with and time to move seems to be the way to go


Do you agree that President Clinton should go seek treatment for being a sexual predator too!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> And there you go right into expressing contempt without even an attempt at reading or responding from somewhere other than internal triggers.
> 
> And BTW Christian bashing is so commonly expressed here that I am sure that it is the point for some. Which is part of the trouble with it- it takes over from many discussions that would be productive otherwise.


See this thread is a perfect example of why I find it hard to take that complaint seriously from you. Did you miss this flame war gem? 



7thswan said:


> So, some people are upset about certian deviants but not others. Moohomad had a child bride,but he is ok, beastality?? Gay sex is a form of preversion , and that is ok. So, it's up to a part of the population to decide what is OK or not? That's progress?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> That is at least a point. Has he truly understood what he did was wrong? That's what I meant about people making up their own minds about it.
> 
> Does he and his family have an obligation to prove that their way achieved that result? I don't know. It needs thinking. But if you mean that he has an obligation to make you personally happy he simply can't do it no matter what.


In the end this has nothing to do with me and everything to do with those he molested. Too many people are trying to spin this into Josh Duggar being the true victim here. He isn't. 

And he can't complain about anyone taking him to task over his sexual sins when his entire job and life has revolved around taking others to task over what he considers their sexual sins. He lobs insults at those who are gay, accuses them all of being child molestors with no grounds at all. He spends his time lobbying our state legislature to take away any sort of rights for the LGBTQ citizens. He lobbied hard to get protections taken away that had been duly voted in by the people of Fayetteville. 

You reap what you sow and in his case he spent his adult life sticking his nose into other people's bedrooms and private lives. He can't whine now that the tables are turned.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> See this thread is a perfect example of why I find it hard to take that complaint seriously from you. Did you miss this flame war gem?


Because of the profits name is misspelled? How about all those folks calling a Christians god, sky daddy? That sure helps your cause out doesn't it? 

Not sure why you continue to post here if it's such a horrible forum? There are other forums more suitable for progressives than HT. :shrug:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> Because of the profits name is misspelled? How about all those folks calling a Christians god, sky daddy? That sure helps your cause out doesn't it?
> 
> Not sure why you continue to post here if it's such a horrible forum? There are other forums more suitable for progressives than HT. :shrug:


Because nothing in her post had anything to do with the subject at hand. It's just the usual pile of strawmen and red herrings some here are so fond of throwing out. I have not seen the term "sky daddy" used here by anyone. I also have never seen anyone here defend Muhammed for being a pedophile.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> See this thread is a perfect example of why I find it hard to take that complaint seriously from you. Did you miss this flame war gem?


Nonsense- your post was a direct expression of contempt for me. And without even trying to read what I said.

I am not bound to criticize every statement of others that offends your ideas. If you noticed, it contained an assumption of Christian bashing. An assumption fostered by previous posts. So, if you chose to aggressively respond to arguments involving religion routinely, it is not surprising that people assume that is the issue here.
All you had to do was to make it clear that you don't believe that Christianity encourages abusing children, and the argument could move on. (Hold breath, waiting for that, well moving on .....) 
By the standard you espouse, then you would also defend people from using contempt for all religions, including Christianity in arguments. Which certainly has not happened.

The worst I have said about Islam is that its adherents need to take action to stop violence among their own co religionists and that its theology seems to favor a vengeful justice rather than a tolerant one. But if others take it further, that is not the same as if they said to me that I was incapable of understanding and they were so disgusted that it was impossible to say anything more.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Nonsense- your post was a direct expression of contempt for me. And without even trying to read what I said.


I read your post twice actually. And no it was not a direct expression of contempt for you. It was disappointment that you like so many others in this thread missed the facts of the case and went on the defensive. Instead of addressing the fact that he molested 5 young girls and the epic failure of his parents and the police to actually do anything about it you launched straight into why do you all hate Christians:


> So what is the source of all the spitting? That some feel that preaching people are hypocrites because they are not perfect? That failure to live up to the standards invalidates the attempt? That a person's own faith can not survive another's failure ? That forgiveness it not allowed? That Christianity is the real target? That Christianity is clearly a failure because its practitioners are sinners? That no one should blindly accept the preaching of another because we're all sinners?
> 
> Just what is it all about?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> I am not bound to criticize every statement of others that offends your ideas. If you noticed, it contained an assumption of Christian bashing. An assumption fostered by previous posts. So, if you chose to aggressively respond to arguments involving religion routinely, it is not surprising that people assume that is the issue here.
> All you had to do was to make it clear that you don't believe that Christianity encourages abusing children, and the argument could move on. (Hold breath, waiting for that, well moving on .....)
> By the standard you espouse, then you would also defend people from using contempt for all religions, including Christianity in arguments. Which certainly has not happened.
> 
> The worst I have said about Islam is that its adherents need to take action to stop violence among their own co religionists and that its theology seems to favor a vengeful justice rather than a tolerant one. But if others take further, that is not the same as if they said to me that I was incapable of understanding and they were so disgusted that it was impossible to say anything more.


You have gone after me multiple times now in multiple threads about dragging in inflammatory comments, misconstruing other people's opinions in order to attack or belittle them, etc. I pointed out the last time you brought it up that I would take it more seriously if you were more even handed. Once again you blipped right past a post aimed at nothing but insulting people and dragging misconceptions into the thread and went for me. So once again if you want me to take you seriously start being more even handed.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> I read your post twice actually. And no it was not a direct expression of contempt for you. It was disappointment that you like so many others in this thread missed the facts of the case and went on the defensive. Instead of addressing the fact that he molested 5 young girls and the epic failure of his parents and the police to actually do anything about it you launched straight into why do you all hate Christians:


Find a quote that supports that. It was why both people thinking it was lightly dismissive and people who were angry that people said it was dismissive.
If you read what I said without assuming that I meant something else, I said that everyone agrees it was wrong. And they actually did do something about it. And I asked why people were so angry with that. I offered some explanations of what I thought might be why.
That might be insufficient did not occur to me and that might be a valid issue. But that was not the response you offered before, yes, using the inarticulate rolling eye emoticonpto express contempt. 
Heck you're still at it with the "disappointed that the (I) missed the point." If you don't make the point, and pretty clearly, then it becomes apparent that a point is not more important than venting on someone. So make the point instead of belittling. Or at least give it a try first.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

one of my problems with this mess is some people get passes and some dont. Did the Duggers get a pass long enough for the time for prosecuting ran out? Was this a more widely know thing and Josh's job against gay rights and one man one women stand, push someone on the pro side of gay rights agenda to bring this up now? I guess I dont understand the timing. from 2006 - 2015. What is Josh doing in his lobby job that has sparked this? Even the Opraemail show was 2006 right?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> You have gone after me multiple times now in multiple threads about dragging in inflammatory comments, misconstruing other people's opinions in order to attack or belittle them, etc. I pointed out the last time you brought it up that I would take it more seriously if you were more even handed. Once again you blipped right past a post aimed at nothing but insulting people and dragging misconceptions into the thread and went for me. So once again if you want me to take you seriously start being more even handed.


Again I am not obligated to be even handed, especially using your definition of it. I do try to explain, probably with way too many words, but I do try. To have someone so hardened in their own world that they can not even read and derive meaning but must insist on arguing what HAS NOT BEEN SAID is frustrating. 
I admit I have tried reforming your manner of posting, somewhat in that I like the expression of contrary ideas to make me think and there are few that can do that for me, but mostly because the accusations drag every single thread down the same worn rut and it prevents others from providing a challenge too.

Well, this too has become a rut. I will leave with the last word on this partcular rut. Arguing personality over ideas is just too wearing.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Find a quote that supports that. It was why both people thinking it was lightly dismissive and people who were angry that people said it was dismissive.
> If you read what I said without assuming that I meant something else, I said that everyone agrees it was wrong. And they actually did do something about it. And I asked why people were so angry with that. I offered some explanations of what I thought might be why.
> That might be insufficient did not occur to me and that might be a valid issue. But that was not the response you offered before, yes, using the inarticulate rolling eye emoticonpto express contempt.
> Heck you're still at it with the "disappointed that the (I) missed the point." If you don't make the point, and pretty clearly, then it becomes apparent that a point is not more important than venting on someone. So make the point instead of belittling. Or at least give it a try first.


I can't understand what you are trying to say here in your first paragraph. Sorry. 

Not everyone did agree it was wrong. They did not do the correct things to deal with the situation. That's why everyone was angry. 

I think you are trying to say that the last half of your post was meant to be pure speculation and not an attempt to say he was attacked because he was a Christian? That's not the impression I got. The bolded part turned it all into he is being picked on because of his faith. 



where I want to said:


> I don't see what the issues are-
> 
> 1) he did it, he admits he did it and it was very wrong
> 2) his parents took action to correct his behavior when they found out but did not report it as a crime- doubt as if anyone one else would have done differently as parents if it was unknown, except some would have been in denial and took no action at all
> ...


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Again I am not obligated to be even handed, especially using your definition of it. I do try to explain, probably with way too many words, but I do try. To have someone so hardened in their own world that they can not even read and derive meaning but must insist on arguing what HAS NOT BEEN SAID is frustrating.
> I admit I have tried reforming your manner of posting, somewhat in that I like the expression of contrary ideas to make me think and there are few that can do that for me, but mostly because the accusations drag every single thread down the same worn rut and it prevents others from providing a challenge too.
> 
> Well, this too has become a rut. I will leave with the last word on this partcular rut. Arguing personality over ideas is just to wearing.



You know I would love for us to understand each other. I really would. But again you bring up arguing what was not said. The bringing of Islam into the discussion would be a perfect example of that. So would what you said in your post: 



where I want to said:


> So what is the source of all the spitting? That some feel that preaching people are hypocrites because they are not perfect? That failure to live up to the standards invalidates the attempt? That a person's own faith can not survive another's failure ? That forgiveness it not allowed? That Christianity is the real target? That Christianity is clearly a failure because its practitioners are sinners? That no one should blindly accept the preaching of another because we're all sinners?
> 
> Just what is it all about?


Nobody said that and it was a bomb dropped in the thread.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Forcast said:


> one of my problems with this mess is some people get passes and some dont. Did the Duggers get a pass long enough for the time for prosecuting ran out? Was this a more widely know thing and Josh's job against gay rights and one man one women stand, push someone on the pro side of gay rights agenda to bring this up now? I guess I dont understand the timing. from 2006 - 2015. What is Josh doing in his lobby job that has sparked this? Even the Opraemail show was 2006 right?



That's a good question. I am not sure why this came up now. I was looking for that yesterday and got side tracked.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

Looks like the pendulum has swung fully in both directions in this thread already. I do not have an answer to the problem of where the line should be drawn as to what is molestation and what is not however I see that we as a society continually cross the line and re-victimize the victims in these cases. I do not want someone to know that my uncle touched me when I was five, I do not want someone to know that I have had sexual relations when I did not want to, I also do not want anyone to know any other very private information about myself. As soon as a "thing" gets caught up in the media both the alleged perpetrator and the victim both are destroyed publicly. I am smart enough to know the difference between loving sex and controlling sex. Rape is controlling sex and I hope that all victims realize this is not a world ending event. It is a physical act that really has nothing to do with sexuality- it is just similar to any aggravated assault with a weapon. Ok, now I am rambling...sorry...I also kind of like the show and am sorry it is cancelled.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Because nothing in her post had anything to do with the subject at hand. It's just the usual pile of strawmen and red herrings some here are so fond of throwing out. I have not seen the term "sky daddy" used here by anyone. I also have never seen anyone here defend Muhammed for being a pedophile.


Are you saying it did not happen? You can do a search really easy to find out for your self. Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. It has, many, many times. Search for your self.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> Are you saying it did not happen? You can do a search really easy to find out for your self. Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. It has, many, many times. Search for your self.


I did do a search and came up with zip.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

I think Willow was the one that used the term the most. How often do you suppose that term is ''flung around'' as an insult to Christians? Daily ,weekly, monthly or often enough to remember that it yanked your chain, just like it was intended to.:hobbyhors

































/


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> I did do a search and came up with zip.


Worked for me! Easy peasy!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I don't know that I've read every thread over the years but I'm reasonably confident that I haven't seen it used in a very long time and even when used, I'm not sure how someone can be responsible for someone else's comment.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

A man who lives two houses up from me was convicted of multiple counts of rape and sodomy when he was 14. My property is an L shape with two adjoining lots making the long side of the L that runs up behind his house. He is now married with 2 kids and had asked me if it was ok if his little ones came out and petted my pitbull when we would tie him outside during the day and if it was okay to feed him some of their scraps. I have also helped him do a few things like work on his mower and gave him a second set of hands when I saw him working on something where it looked like he needed help. All of this happened before I found out he is on the sex offender registry.

I do not know the details of his convictions other than he pleaded guilty to all the charges. It took me some soul searching but I have decided that whatever that guy did when he was 14 is not the same person I have met and been around now that he is 30. I believe that people can really mess up and then turn their life around, and until this guy does something that causes me to rethink that, I will still lend him a second set of hands if I see him needing some. 

I know nothing of this Duggar person other than knowing who the family is. Maybe he has turned his life and maybe he has not. I don't know. I am not in a position that I will ever know. I am not going to rush, walk, or crawl to any judgment about him over this because I do not trust the media and ultimately this is an issue for him, his family and his associates to sort through and I am none of the above.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

My daughter was invited to the home of a school friend and after the visit my daughter told me that the grandfather was a sex offender (my daughter was 9), ( the grandfather was at the party). I asked her how she knew that and she told me that at school they have a picture of him in the office. I never let my daughter visit the home again but the child was welcome in my home. I never understood why that man was allowed to be in the home when children were around. If the man is not allowed on school grounds why would a parent allow him around children? I guess my point is if sex offenders risk being put back in jail to attend a 9 year olds birthday party and parents let it happen who is protecting who?


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

Forcast said:


> My daughter was invited to the home of a school friend and after the visit my daughter told me that the grandfather was a sex offender (my daughter was 9), ( the grandfather was at the party). I asked her how she knew that and she told me that at school they have a picture of him in the office. I never let my daughter visit the home again but the child was welcome in my home. I never understood why that man was allowed to be in the home when children were around. If the man is not allowed on school grounds why would a parent allow him around children? I guess my point is if sex offenders risk being put back in jail to attend a 9 year olds birthday party and parents let it happen who is protecting who?


Not all registered sex offenders have a no contact with children order. It largely depends on when they were convicted in my state.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> Worked for me! Easy peasy!


Well then give us a quote. Burden of proof is on you since you are making the claim.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Well then give us a quote. Burden of proof is on you since you are making the claim.


You don't believe WR or Wanda?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> You don't believe WR or Wanda?



If you're going to use my statement, please clarify how you believe Patchouli should be held accountable for someone else's comments.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wr said:


> If you're going to use my statement, please clarify how you believe Patchouli should be held accountable for someone else's comments.


I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals. And that they use derogatory and demeaning terms for those things they disagree with. I never said anyone should be accountable for the statements of others, have i? Should I be?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals. And that they use derogatory and demeaning terms for those things they disagree with. I never said anyone should be accountable for the statements of others, have i? Should I be?



Nope but lashing out at someone because someone else used a term years ago seems pointless to me.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wr said:


> Nope but lashing out at someone because someone else used a term years ago seems pointless to me.


Lashing out? Pointing out is the reality! Hypocrisy knows no bounds. ound:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> You don't believe WR or Wanda?


You said you found it via the search function. I tried searching multiple ways and got zip. So since you could find it so easily put it up there. 

I have no reason not to believe Wanda or wr but it's easy to see a term flung around elsewhere and then think maybe you saw it here. Maybe it was used years ago. Maybe it was used once. If it was used it isn't common or surely I would have run across it by now. 

And in the end this has nothing whatsoever to do with Josh Duggar. Or molestation cases and how they should be handled. It's just another red herring meant to steer the conversation off the rails. I am starting to see a common thread here in your comments.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> You don't believe WR or Wanda?




Since you decided to use my name would you have time to respond to my post on the subject? It is post #101 in this thread.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Since you decided to use my name would you have time to respond to my post on the subject? It is post #101 in this thread.


I didn't know that was directed at me since there was no quote from me. It was used enough to remember. You remember too!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> You said you found it via the search function. I tried searching multiple ways and got zip. So since you could find it so easily put it up there.
> 
> I have no reason not to believe Wanda or wr but it's easy to see a term flung around elsewhere and then think maybe you saw it here. Maybe it was used years ago. Maybe it was used once. If it was used it isn't common or surely I would have run across it by now.
> 
> And in the end this has nothing whatsoever to do with Josh Duggar. Or molestation cases and how they should be handled. It's just another red herring meant to steer the conversation off the rails. I am starting to see a common thread here in your comments.


As do i! 
If you don't like my posts.......don't read them, or put me on ignore. Quite simple. It has to do with the comments YOU made about someone else's use of the profits name. If you hadn't made a comment, I would not have responded.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Lashing out? Pointing out is the reality! Hypocrisy knows no bounds. ound:



How can you possibly accuse someone of being a hypocrite when these are not their words?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wr said:


> How can you possibly accuse someone of being a hypocrite when these are not their words?


They are the words of liberals. Liberal attribute something that a conservative says to ALL conservatives, I can play that way too! Did anyone denounce the remark? What I read was that if I can't prove it, it didn't happen. Some of you proved it for.me, thanks!!!! And some may have search issues. Personally, I don't care.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> They are the words of liberals. Liberal attribute something that a conservative says to ALL conservatives, I can play that way too! Did anyone denounce the remark? What I read was that if I can't prove it, it didn't happen. Some of you proved it for.me, thanks!!!! And some may have search issues. Personally, I don't care.




How does this ''magic formula'' work that identifies those dreaded liberals for you? Is it someone that does not agree with your line of thinking 100%?Curious libertarian minds would love to be enlightened.:nanner:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Wanda said:


> How does this ''magic formula'' work that identifies those dreaded liberals for you? Is it someone that does not agree with your line of thinking 100%?Curious libertarian minds would love to be enlightened.:nanner:



No magic formula, just common sense! 
Reading the posts here and the posters use of emoticons is very telling. Ones like this one....:nanner: Now you have been enlightened! I'm not sure that you truly know what a libertarian really is?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Yes, searching is difficult!

Here are 3 quotes found quickly using the search function for those who care.

"who used to call our Christians as believers in the "Sky Daddy"...I found that VERY offensive, + seems there was another 'phrase' they used can't remember now. I never 'flagged' his post, I think I've only done that once."

"I remember the "Sky Daddy" term too. I found it crass, but considered the source."

"Call me crazy but I kind of like 'sky daddy'. I had never heard that until now."

Some of the others have been deleted due to the poster being banned or requesting the removal of their posts. Anyone whose been here and payed attention would remember those rabid liberal posters.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, searching is difficult!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And who used this term? Was it the people you're verbally attacking or someone else?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> You don't believe WR or Wanda?


It has nothing to do with "belief" and everything to do with you backing your claims with the evidence you say you found, but expect others to search for

And why does what a "non Christian" says matter to a real Christian?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, searching is difficult!
> 
> Here are 3 quotes found quickly using the search function for those who care.
> 
> ...


Oh my, I liked that song Sky Piolet and then that one thing at the end of the night---I reached out and touched the face of GOD. But then, I guess not many have heard people call the barbrians-moose-lums. 

Here's why noone should trust the nation of islam(CULT) even if they are not"radical"http://www.citizenwarrior.com/

4. Increase your numbers inside the non-Muslim country. Orthodox Muslim men sometimes have several wives, even in western democracies where it is illegal, and have many children per wife. Muslim men sometimes try to get non-Muslim women to marry them, but get them to convert first. Another way they increase their numbers is to help get more Muslims to immigrate into the non-Muslim countries. They recognize the power of numbers and they are actively pursuing that course. Serge Trifkovic (author of The Sword of the Prophet) said Muslims have proven throughout history that "once they reach the numbers that allow them to impose their will, they will do so." Raymond Ibrahim calls it the Rule of Numbers.

5. Gain small, incremental, legal concessions from non-Muslim countries. And make sure you give no concessions in return. For example, the Phoenix airport capitulated to some Islamic women's demands to change the uniform of their employees. The airport's uniform included pants, and the Islamic women said they couldn't wear them and they wanted to wear skirts. So the airport conceded. No big deal, right? Concessions like this are being made constantly, with more and more frequency. When it all adds up, it is a big deal. The fact that each concession is so small is one of the reasons people allow it. 

These five strategies are already being done right under our noses. The way to stop the slow-encroachment invasion is to educate non-Muslims. Once people can see what orthodox Muslims are doing, they'll vote against it, and they'll vote for representatives who demonstrate they see it too.

The end result will be no more concessions to Islam. The encroachment must be stopped. You can help. In fact, you must help. We need all the help we can get, and the sooner the better. Have conversations like these with people you know. Talk to them about Mohammad. Share articles with them. Loan them good DVDs. Start today. We can stop the invasion; we just have to be smart about it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Yes, searching is difficult!
> 
> Here are 3 quotes found quickly using the search function for those who care.


Obviously posting links is even more difficult.
None of what you posted is someone actually using the term for more than a topic of discussion, the same way you are

And again, why does it matter what they say?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> No magic formula, just common sense!
> Reading the posts here and the posters use of emoticons is very telling. Ones like this one....:nanner: Now you have been enlightened! I'm not sure that you truly know what a libertarian really is?


Wow that was insulting. She doesn't know what her own political beliefs are and you can prove it by her using a dancing banana? I think you outdid yourself with this one....


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, searching is difficult!
> 
> Here are 3 quotes found quickly using the search function for those who care.
> 
> ...


None of those are actual quotes. Quotes have links to the original post. For all I know you just typed those up yourself. All three of those are also someone referring to someone else supposedly using the term not someone using the term as a pejorative. 

So again I need a true quote that actually shows someone using the term Sky Daddy as a pejorative.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

http://www.parentsformeganslaw.org/public/statistics_offenders.html

*The average adolescent sex offender will, without treatment, go on to commit 380 sex crimes during his lifetime.*

http://childprotection.lifetips.com/cat/63573/sex-offender-statistics/index.html

*Reoccurrence of Sex Crimes Among Convicted Sex Offenders*

According to the U. S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, 5% of convicted sex offenders were re-arrested for another sex offense within three years of their release from confinement. 
Consider the following statistics: 
* Within three years of their release, 5.3% of national sex offenders were rearrested for another sex crime. When including all other crimes, the percentage of sex offenders that were rearrested is estimated at 43%. 
* While convicted sex offenders were not as likely as non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any crime, they were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for a sexual offense. 
* Those convicted sex offenders who had the highest rate of rearrest of another sex crime typically had a criminal record of arrests for various crimes. 
* Of those released sex offenders who were accused of another sex crime, 40% were arrested for the new offense with a year after their release.




Frightening


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Wanda said:


> I think Willow was the one that used the term the most. How often do you suppose that term is ''flung around'' as an insult to Christians? Daily ,weekly, monthly or often enough to remember that it yanked your chain, just like it was intended to.:hobbyhors/


It was Willow (I miss her) and she used several different terms like "sky daddy" and such.
I think it was more just to get under the skin of a few, than anything else.
She never used that language with me (a Believer). 
She was always more than respectful.......but that is because I treated her with respect, even though she did not 'believe like me'.

Hmmmmm. Go figure.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> http://www.parentsformeganslaw.org/public/statistics_offenders.html
> 
> *The average adolescent sex offender will, without treatment, go on to commit 380 sex crimes during his lifetime.*
> 
> ...


 ... Which is why I hope he can get some serious help now, before he reaches full maturity.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> No magic formula, just common sense!
> Reading the posts here and the posters use of emoticons is very telling. Ones like this one....:nanner: Now you have been enlightened! I'm not sure that you truly know what a libertarian really is?



If I live thru this day I will be on this earth 66 years tomorrow and have met a lot of wonderful people in this journey. I have found that the vast majority of people are very nice if you give them the chance to be. I find it amazing that you can come to a conclusion on character so swiftly. I have been on this board for around 12 1/2 years and have posted around 1700 times. But you can condense this down to the use of :nanner:as apposed to:banana:to define my character and political and moral beliefs. I truly would like to share in the ''secrete formula''.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Bellyman said:


> ... Which is why I hope he can get some serious help now, before he reaches full maturity.



He's 27 now so I would think that he's fully mature. Based on the ages of the girls at the time, one or possibly two meet the legal definition of pedophilia. 

Based on my research, not all pedophiles act in their urges but counselling does show some success at preventing them from acting on them.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> It was Willow (I miss her) and she used several different terms like "sky daddy" and such.
> I think it was more just to get under the skin of a few, than anything else.
> She never used that language with me (a Believer).
> She was always more than respectful.......but that is because I treated her with respect, even though she did not 'believe like me'.
> ...


I kinda felt bad... Willow and I had an exchange or two that maybe weren't the best... we disagreed on some Biblical interpretations. And she did push my buttons a bit. And I pushed back. But then she left. Wasn't the kind of note I'd have liked to have left things on. Still feel kinda bad about that. We didn't agree on some things but some we did and I wish maybe I'd have been a bit more kind in my disagreement... Live and learn...


----------



## Possumcat (Oct 2, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> http://www.parentsformeganslaw.org/public/statistics_offenders.html
> 
> *The average adolescent sex offender will, without treatment, go on to commit 380 sex crimes during his lifetime.*
> 
> ...


This. 
I keep wondering when more victims will come out of the woodwork. I have a feeling the Duggar parents will end up getting sued by the time this is all over.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

I know why this happened NOW! Josh has been hangin with the republican presidential candidates. I knew this had to do with something political


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Forcast said:


> I know why this happened NOW! Josh has been hangin with the republican presidential candidates. I knew this had to do with something political


The information was outed by someone that used the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to the molestation/rape. It doesn't matter to me the motive for releasing the information only that it was made public. 

I found a rather creepy bit of information yesterday, in 2002 Jim Bob was campaigning for office and indicated, "Rape and incest represent heinous crimes and as such should be treated as capital crimes." This was the same time period that he caught his son molesting his sisters...


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

wr said:


> He's 27 now so I would think that he's fully mature. Based on the ages of the girls at the time, one or possibly two meet the legal definition of pedophilia.
> 
> Based on my research, not all pedophiles act in their urges but counselling does show some success at preventing them from acting on them.


Sorry. This thing has so many twists and turns I can't keep up. Many posts speak as though it just happened. So if this is 10 or 12 years ago, what has happened since? Did he get help? Have there been more incidents?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bellyman said:


> Sorry. This thing has so many twists and turns I can't keep up. Many posts speak as though it just happened. So if this is 10 or 12 years ago, what has happened since? Did he get help? Have there been more incidents?


Does it matter? Girls were molested, it's less about the sex offender because the crimes were covered up until the statute of limitations had expired, and more about them now. 

I found this timeline this morning.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/...|htmlws-main-bb|dl18|sec1_lnk3&pLid=316711940


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

In IL a underage victim may have charges prosecuted till the 18th anniversary of their 18th birthday.
Are other states similar ?


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Does it matter? Girls were molested, it's less about the sex offender because the crimes were covered up until the statute of limitations had expired, and more about them now.
> 
> I found this timeline this morning.
> 
> http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/...|htmlws-main-bb|dl18|sec1_lnk3&pLid=316711940


Ok, so he's a slime ball. I get that. So far, no one has given any indication that the deviant behavior has continued (but the way this thread is running, that bit of info will be along shortly for all to see).

This thread is quite the soap opera. I can't wait to see what comes next! (sarcasm...)


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> In IL a underage victim may have charges prosecuted till the 18th anniversary of their 18th birthday.
> Are other states similar ?


It varies from state to state. Apparently Arkansas is 3 years from last molestation/rape. Hopefully that will change.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Bellyman said:


> Sorry. This thing has so many twists and turns I can't keep up. Many posts speak as though it just happened. So if this is 10 or 12 years ago, what has happened since? Did he get help? Have there been more incidents?


It 'appears' it was 'buried' for the last 10-12 years.....
I wonder if there are others out there (sunday school, VBS, etc) where he molested.




Irish Pixie said:


> Does it matter? Girls were molested, it's less about the sex offender because the crimes were covered up until the statute of limitations had expired, and more about them now.
> 
> I found this timeline this morning.
> 
> http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/...|htmlws-main-bb|dl18|sec1_lnk3&pLid=316711940


Sickening.
I hope the girls get the help/counseling they need.....it's bad enough your own brother is pedaphile; but your own parents cover it up?
And for what?
Money?
Sickening. Just sickening.

Thank you for the time line. It shows the pattern, and the fact that no matter what he says; those urges are there......


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> <snip>Thank you for the time line. It shows the pattern, and the fact that no matter what he says; those urges are there......


In my opinion he is still molesting but is just better at covering it up than he was when he was a teenager.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> In my opinion he is still molesting but is just better at covering it up than he was when he was a teenager.


I would have to agree with you.
So many studies have proven that this kind of deviant behavior cannot be rehabilitated or undone.....

I sure hope those girls get help.
I really hate that they have been devalued, and swept under the rug.
That's total horse poop.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Actions such as those alledged are either wrong or they're not. Hiding them is either wrong or it's not. If it's not wrong why worry about why or when it's revealed. If it is wrong why worry about why or when it's revealed.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Actions such as those alledged are either wrong or they're not. Hiding them is either wrong or it's not. If it's not wrong why worry about why or when it's revealed. If it is wrong why worry about why or when it's revealed.


The "when" is important. According to some of the logic I've been seeing, if the boy molested his sisters when he was a kid, he continues to be guilty of committing the same crime over and over again, to this current day, with no hope that he has had any recovery, forgiveness or a putting in the past of things when he was legally a child. It's the same logic as pointing to someone who stole a bicycle as a teenager and letting that follow them around for the rest of their lives implying that they're a thief now because they were a thief then and no amount of any punishment or counseling or sorrow for past thievery will ever let them get past them being a thief forever and ever, nothing anyone can do except hang' em high on the end of a rope. 

I don't condone what he's done. Hey, I've done some things in the past I don't care to talk about. That doesn't mean I continue to do them each and every time I have the opportunity yet today. I doubt there are many people on this forum that can say they've never done anything wrong, never had a bad habit, never hid something because they were ashamed. Doesn't mean they still are guilty of committing the same offense over and over and over, and we just know it even though we have no evidence, we just do, because "they're like that".

Show me some evidence that he's molesting his children and I'll buy you the rope. Until there is at least some shred of evidence, I absolutely will not condemn him for something I don't know he's done. The continued insinuations could be considered slander and unless I'm mistaken, that might be considered to be "bearing false witness". Oops. That judgement thing that Jesus talked about, maybe that's pretty serious stuff.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bellyman said:


> The "when" is important. According to some of the logic I've been seeing, if the boy molested his sisters when he was a kid, he continues to be guilty of committing the same crime over and over again, to this current day, with no hope that he has had any recovery, forgiveness or a putting in the past of things when he was legally a child. It's the same logic as pointing to someone who stole a bicycle as a teenager and letting that follow them around for the rest of their lives implying that they're a thief now because they were a thief then and no amount of any punishment or counseling or sorrow for past thievery will ever let them get past them being a thief forever and ever, nothing anyone can do except hang' em high on the end of a rope.
> 
> I don't condone what he's done. Hey, I've done some things in the past I don't care to talk about. That doesn't mean I continue to do them each and every time I have the opportunity yet today. I doubt there are many people on this forum that can say they've never done anything wrong, never had a bad habit, never hid something because they were ashamed. Doesn't mean they still are guilty of committing the same offense over and over and over, and we just know it even though we have no evidence, we just do, because "they're like that".
> 
> Show me some evidence that he's molesting his children and I'll buy you the rope. Until there is at least some shred of evidence, I absolutely will not condemn him for something I don't know he's done. The continued insinuations could be considered slander and unless I'm mistaken, that might be considered to be "bearing false witness". Oops. That judgement thing that Jesus talked about, maybe that's pretty serious stuff.


I have no idea whether he continued his actions or not. My point is that if you feel that the family's actions in this matter were correct it doesn't really matter whether the information came out when it happened, ten minutes ago or ten years from now. If an off the record conversation with a family friend cop and some work program were felt to be the proper procedures then defend them as so. They were defendable then, defendable now and defendable in the future. But why were the actions and consequences hidden? Could it be that they aren't quite that easily defended? Could it be that the family feared some economic loss? Had they dealt with it properly at time would there be any discussion today?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I would have to agree with you.
> So many studies have proven that this kind of deviant behavior cannot be rehabilitated or undone.....
> 
> I sure hope those girls get help.
> ...


I do hope the girls receive the help they need but ironically, all the concern and publicity related to this is very likely victimizing them over and over again. Because of the very young ages of some, these documents would have very likely remained confidential or at the very least, not have made the national news and the tabloids and each time it does, they have to relive this again and again. 

In my opinion, the whole thing is a sad state of affairs but like so many before and so many more in the future, the media and shrewd marketing makes them household names and then the media is right there to topple them ..... when the time is right.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wait a second let me get this straight, because I played Doctor with 5 year olds when. I was 5 I must continue to desire sex with them at 60? Because I fooled around with teens when I was a teen I must still be ?
There's just no hope ?
Woe is me !


----------



## debbydoo1966 (Jan 15, 2007)

"In all my years here this is the worst thread I have ever seen hands down. Ever. I have seen some things defended that genuinely blew my mind but this takes the cake"

Same goes for me. I'm absolutely disgusted by this thread.

I've been on this site (mostly reading) for many years. I had a great deal of respect for most long time posters on here. Not anymore! Never again!

What 15 yr old PLAYS doctor? Do you guys and gals actually BELIEVE that? Really ?
And, that is OK with you? Really? He was 15 !!!! 

You guys have no idea..............REALLY !!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> It varies from state to state. Apparently Arkansas is 3 years from last molestation/rape. Hopefully that will change.


Sadly it was 3 years at the time it was finally reported to the police. It was changed in 2013 to extend it to when the victim is 28. So if it had been reported today he would have been prosecuted. Or at least hopefully he would have.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

wr said:


> So, you're of the opinion that a 5 or 6 year old sister was a willing participant or possibly initiated this fondling while she was sleeping?


No, I don't think that what he meant.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Wait a second let me get this straight, because I played Doctor with 5 year olds when. I was 5 I must continue to desire sex with them at 60? Because I fooled around with teens when I was a teen I must still be ?
> There's just no hope ?
> Woe is me !


I guess that all depends on perspective. If your 15 year old son was fondling your 5 year old daughter and she didn't enjoy playing doctor, would you be inclined to tell the young man that it's a perfectly normal thing to do? If so, would you tell your five year old daughter that's what boys do and she should just learn to accept the situation? 

Would it be equally as okay if the 15 year old boy next door fondles your 5 year old daughter in a way she dislikes? 

Where I come from, 15 year old boys really don't care what a 5 year old girl parts look or feel like, they want to know what 15 year old girls look and feel like.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Wait a second let me get this straight, because I played Doctor with 5 year olds when. I was 5 I must continue to desire sex with them at 60? Because I fooled around with teens when I was a teen I must still be ?
> There's just no hope ?
> Woe is me !


If you are 15 and fondling a 5 year old, yes.....there is something desperately wrong with you. 
And yes, statistic show that MOST 15 year olds that fondle 5 year old, have that twisted desire all their lives.
And yes, woe is them.
IF ANYONE should know better "it would be better to have a mill stone hung around your neck and thrown into the sea, if you hurt a little one" it's the Duggars. 
Woe is right.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> Would it be equally as okay if the 15 year old boy next door fondles your 5 year old daughter in a way she dislikes?
> 
> 
> 
> Where I come from, 15 year old boys really don't care what a 5 year old girl parts look or feel like, they want to know what 15 year old girls look and feel like.



What I ment to point out was that the child's (15 is a child) situation wasn't fixed. 
I learned about what I was interested in at 5 then I moved on to learn about new things. At 7 I was no longer interested in 5 year olds but those older ladies (12) were beginning to catch my interest. 
Now in my 50s those teens look a lot like 5 year olds there's just not enough there to be interesting. 

In writing this out it occurs to me that perhaps this kid was in a very restricted learning situation on this subject. ? Perhaps at 15 he was learning at the level of a 5 year old then made quick progress and now has caught up just fine ?


----------



## tlrnnp67 (Nov 5, 2006)

The Duggar parents have released a video statement:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zupB2uMHSI[/ame]


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

well the older girls are planing on filing charges on the person that opened the file and sent it to the Oprah Show. But I still think it all comes down to his anti gay political hanging with the Republican Party look how fast they stepped away from Josh.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The person that told the Oprah show did not open a police file. That person found a letter in a book at the Duggar's home about the abuse.
http://defamer.gawker.com/the-web-has-known-about-josh-duggar-for-years-when-did-1706258269


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Did anyone watch the interview?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wr said:


> Did anyone watch the interview?


Yup, but i urge folks, if their interested enough, to watch it for themselves.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

wr said:


> Did anyone watch the interview?


I probably will tomorrow. I don't think it did them much good though even with nothing but pandering questions.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> I probably will tomorrow. I don't think it did them much good though even with nothing but pandering questions.



Their interview was in conflict with the police report.


----------

