Josh Duggar (of TLC's 19 Kids and Counting) admits to molesting.... [W:171,357]

Gathomas88 · May 21, 2015

Josie said:
I might agree with you if it was ONE girl very close in age to him. It wasn't. It was FIVE girls and at least one was a very young child. That's not normal behavior... that's a pedophile.

If it were to turn out that this was something that happened many, many different times, over the course of an extended interval, I would agree. If it were to also turn out that the Duggar parents were aware of that, and simply let it happen, I'd agree that they were despicable.

However, from what I'm hearing, at least, that doesn't seem to be what actually happened. It seems to be the case that there were only two incidents, and that the only reason Josh Duggar's "body count" is so high is that each of those incidents happened to involve more than one girl at a time.

It also seems that he was pretty severely punished for this behavior, and that it never happened again afterwards (again, as far as we know).

Sooo... Yea. Barring the possibility that some new information comes out and makes this exponentially worse, it wouldn't really strike as being a case of either "pedophilia" or neglect on the part of the Duggar family. It would strike me as being a case of some dumbass overly sheltered kid doing something pervy, getting his peepee slapped for it, and learning his lesson afterwards.

:shrug:

Gathomas88 · May 21, 2015

Superfly said:
Hogwash. If he was 14 and molested a 4 year old, he needed help, not that it would have helped much anyway. Child molesters have a very high recidivism rate. If I were his wife, I'd certainly keep a close eye on my children. But she knew about this before she married him, which tells me that all she is concerned about is money and fame anyway.

Disgusting. I never watched the show. I appreciate why she had that many kids - she was unable to have kids, and made a promise to God that if He helped her have children, she'd have as many as she could to live for Him. So that's why she has so many kids - it was a promise to God. That being said, I've always wondered how she could truly be there for her kids, with that many. I mean, she has her own sweatshop. The older kids have to help be responsible for the younger kids, and that's not fair to them. When you have that many kids something is always going to slip by, and in this case, it was something horrible.

See my response to Josie.

I think a lot of people are jumping to conclusions here that might not necessarily be justified, at least not given the information we have available so far.

Superfly · May 21, 2015

Gathomas88 said:
See my response to Josie.

I think a lot of people are jumping to conclusions here that might not necessarily be justified, at least not given the information we have available so far.

I don't know why you feel the need to defend this guy, but he admitted what he did, and said he acted "inexcusably." That doesn't sound like anybody is jumping to conclusions. Just sounds like you are defending a child molester.

Gathomas88 · May 21, 2015

Superfly said:
I don't know why you feel the need to defend this guy, but he admitted what he did, and said he acted "inexcusably." That doesn't sound like anybody is jumping to conclusions. Just sounds like you are defending a child molester.

Would you want to be judged by your actions at age 14? :lol:

No one's denying that he behaved like a perv. However, calling him a "pedophile," and insinuating that he's probably molesting his children now, at age thirty, because of something that happened when he was an adolescent, is kind of pushing things to say the least.

A) It's character assassination.

B) There's simply no evidence to support such a conclusion.

Josie · May 21, 2015

There IS evidence that people who molest young children have a high recidivism rate. Right? So why wouldn't Anna want to keep an eye on her children around him? That doesn't mean he's doing anything to them -- just that there's a good chance he might. Just like an alcoholic might fall off the wagon one night .... or a former fat girl might eat a whole box of donuts by herself.

Superfly · May 21, 2015

Gathomas88 said:
Would you want to be judged by your actions at age 14? :lol:

No one's denying that he behaved like a perv. However, calling him a "pedophile," and insinuating that he's probably molesting his children now, at age thirty, because of something that happened when he was an adolescent, is kind of pushing things to say the least.

A) It's character assassination.

B) There's simply no evidence to support such a conclusion.

If I was touching 4 year olds at age 14, yes I SHOULD be judged by my actions.

And do a little research on recidivism rate of child molesters.

It's not character assassination if he admitted he did it (which he did).

There is evidence because he admitted that he did it, and his parents admitted that they covered it up.

Have you even read the article, or are you just jumping to conclusions yourself?

Josie · May 21, 2015

And, FYI .... I find it fascinating that some people who are (rightfully) disgusted by Josh Duggar's actions completely laughed off and ridiculed anyone who was disgusted by Lena Dunham's exact same actions.

Fiddytree · May 21, 2015

Josh Duggar (of TLC's 19 Kids and Counting) admits to molesting....

Gathomas88 said:
I beg to differ. Some transgressions legitimately require legal intervention, and some do not. Given what we know about the case, this would strike me as being the latter.

In any eventuality, I certainly wouldn't leap to ruin my child's life before it had even started (and my family's reputation in the process) over one or two questionable events that might very well prove to be correctable using less drastic means. I am a slave to neither law, nor societal conventions, and I reserve the right to defer to my own best judgement where my adherence to either is concerned.

You still have other children under your care to protect from harm. It's no longer about that kid's reputation. You have to protect your other children, otherwise it is abuse and neglect.

Josie · May 21, 2015

Superfly said:
If I was touching 4 year olds at age 14, yes I SHOULD be judged by my actions.

And do a little research on recidivism rate of child molesters.

It's not character assassination if he admitted he did it (which he did).

There is evidence because he admitted that he did it, and his parents admitted that they covered it up.

Have you even read the article, or are you just jumping to conclusions yourself?

I think he's saying it's character assassination for saying he's molesting his own daughter. But you didn't say that.

Gathomas88 · May 21, 2015

Superfly said:
If I was touching 4 year olds at age 14, yes I SHOULD be judged by my actions.

And do a little research on recidivism rate of child molesters.

It's not character assassination if he admitted he did it (which he did).

There is evidence because he admitted that he did it, and his parents admitted that they covered it up.

Have you even read the article, or are you just jumping to conclusions yourself?

Is that your expert opinion, Supes? :roll:

Again, 14 isn't that far removed from being a "child" one's self. There is also absolutely no evidence to suggest that the behavior in question was ever repeated outside of those two incidents, which the Duggar family took active steps to correct.

It would appear to me that people are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Josie · May 21, 2015

Gathomas88 said:
It would appear to me that people are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I'm sorry.... molesting young children is never a mole hill.

Gathomas88 · May 21, 2015

Fiddytree said:
You still have other children under your care to protect from harm.

And I suggested taking steps to do so.

Gathomas88 said:
I mean... Sure. Move him to a separate room, put locks on the doors to all his siblings' rooms, give him a damn stern talking to, seek counseling, and keep an eye on him just in case. However, I don't see any reason to jump straight to sending him "up the river."

That's a last resort, not the first.

Frankly, so did the Duggar family. Furthermore, they seem to have worked, as far as we're aware.

Fiddytree · May 22, 2015

Gathomas88 said:
And I suggested taking steps to do so.

Frankly, so did the Duggar family. Furthermore, they seem to have worked, as far as we're aware.

You have to expose yourself to a mandatory reporter, if not start the process yourself with social services.

It's a situation that you cannot tolerate to happen in the home and must take serious measures to protect your other children.

Lutherf · May 22, 2015

Gathomas88 said:
Is that your expert opinion, Supes? :roll:

Again, 14 isn't that far removed from being a "child" one's self. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the behavior in question was ever repeated outside of those two incidents, which the Duggar family took active steps to correct.

It would appear to me that people are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Um, you may want to rethink that analysis considering that the dude got busted with kiddie porn...twice.

Gathomas88 · May 22, 2015

Josie said:
There IS evidence that people who molest young children have a high recidivism rate. Right? So why wouldn't Anna want to keep an eye on her children around him? That doesn't mean he's doing anything to them -- just that there's a good chance he might. Just like an alcoholic might fall off the wagon one night .... or a former fat girl might eat a whole box of donuts by herself.

Josie said:
I'm sorry.... molesting young children is never a mole hill.

Again, if we're talking about someone who was only 14, and only engaged in the behavior twice, and did so with girls of a range of different ages, it's kind of dubious whether they qualify for the title at all.

There's no evidence to suggest that he falls under the auspices of clinical "pedophilia."

Superfly · May 22, 2015

Josie said:
I think he's saying it's character assassination for saying he's molesting his own daughter. But you didn't say that.

No I didn't say that. But I did say that Duggar's wife should keep a close on her kids. And she should.

Gathomas88 · May 22, 2015

Fiddytree said:
You have to expose yourself to a mandatory reporter, if not start the process yourself with social services.

It's a situation that you cannot tolerate to happen in the home and must take serious measures to protect your other children.

I don't believe in "social services," nor do I necessarily recognize their authority. I don't have to do jack sh*t.

I'll involve the government if I feel there is a need for them, not before.

Lutherf said:
Um, you may want to rethink that analysis considering that the dude got busted with kiddie porn...twice.

Josh Duggar? Do you have a source for that?

I'm pretty sure that would've made a far bigger stink than this.

Fiddytree · May 22, 2015

Gathomas88 said:
I don't believe in "social services," so I don't have to do jack sh*t.

Social services doesn't really need your admission, Gath. It gets involved when it feels like it needs to.

Child molestation will easily qualify.

Superfly · May 22, 2015

Gathomas88 said:
Is that your expert opinion, Supes? :roll:

Again, 14 isn't that far removed from being a "child" one's self. There is also absolutely no evidence to suggest that the behavior in question was ever repeated outside of those two incidents, which the Duggar family took active steps to correct.

It would appear to me that people are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

If they were all 14, it would be different. In one of the articles I read, it said that one of the children could be as young as 4. I can't see how anyone could justify this, but then it is you, and nothing you do or say surprises me in the least.

Let a 14 year old touch your 4 year old, and then come back and run your mouth. :roll:

Superfly · May 22, 2015

Gathomas88 said:
I don't believe in "social services," nor do I necessarily recognize their authority. I don't have to do jack sh*t.

I'll involve the government if I feel there is a need for them, not before.

When it comes to child protection, you don't get to choose when you get a visit from the government, or social services. You also don't have to recognize their authority. :lol: That was pretty laughable.

You'd know this if you had children.

Fiddytree · May 22, 2015

Josh Duggar (of TLC's 19 Kids and Counting) admits to molesting....

Superfly said:
When it comes to child protection, you don't get to choose when you get a visit from the government, or social services. You also don't have to recognize their authority. :lol: That was pretty laughable.

You'd know this if you had children.

No kidding. My family went through a really complicated battle with our SS that ended legally in our favor.

When they get involved...they get involved

Gathomas88 · May 22, 2015

Fiddytree said:
Social services doesn't really need your admission, Gath. It gets involved when it feels like it needs to.

Child molestation will easily qualify.

Well, if government wants to intrude, then they are going to have to appeal to the "might makes right" principle, because I'm sure as sh*t not inviting them in.

My family, my business. End of story. I don't care what the law has to say about, because I frankly don't really care all that much about secular law.

See? I do have a bit of a Libertarian streak in me, after all.

Superfly said:
If they were all 14, it would be different. In one of the articles I read, it said that one of the children could be as young as 4. I can't see how anyone could justify this, but then it is you, and nothing you do or say surprises me in the least.

Let a 14 year old touch your 4 year old, and then come back and run your mouth. :roll:

Again, you can think what you want. The simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't hold any weight whatsoever as far as the man's actual mental health and personal character is concerned.

Frankly, trashing someone for something they did as young teen, and freely admit was a mistake, would strike me as being rather petty and low.

Josie · May 22, 2015

Superfly said:
If they were all 14, it would be different. In one of the articles I read, it said that one of the children could be as young as 4. I can't see how anyone could justify this, but then it is you, and nothing you do or say surprises me in the least.

Let a 14 year old touch your 4 year old, and then come back and run your mouth. :roll:

Exactly. At first I was thinking.... well, many kids like to experiment with sexual touching around that age. And then I read that one of the girls was 4 or 5. I literally wanted to throw up. That's not experimenting with your peers --- that's pedophilia. Normal 14 year old boys don't have urges to feel up their kindergarten-aged sisters.

Gathomas88 · May 22, 2015

Superfly said:
When it comes to child protection, you don't get to choose when you get a visit from the government, or social services. You also don't have to recognize their authority. :lol: That was pretty laughable.

You'd know this if you had children.

Fiddytree said:
No kidding. My family went through a really complicated battle with our SS that ended legally in our favor.

When they get involved...they get involved

All the more reason to keep things "in house," imo.

Sorry, but I'm not relying on some - most likely, militantly Left Wing - petty bureaucrat on a power trip to make decisions for my family. I'm especially not doing so if I'm someone like the Duggar family, who knows damn well that such individuals have a vested interest in trying squash people with views like my own under heel.

beefheart · May 22, 2015

Gathomas88 said:
All the more reason to keep things "in house," imo.

Sorry, but I'm not relying on some - most likely, militantly Left Wing - petty bureaucrat on a power trip to make decisions for my family. I'm especially not doing so if I'm someone like the Duggar family, who knows damn well that such individuals have a vested interest in trying squash people with views like my own under heel.

That kind of thinking is what keeps molesters and pervs on the streets, causing harm.

Josh Duggar (of TLC's 19 Kids and Counting) admits to molesting.... [W:171,357]

Salty, defiant, and completely non-compliant.

Loves third parties and steak

Salty, defiant, and completely non-compliant.

Loves third parties and steak

Neocon Elitist

Loves third parties and steak

Loves third parties and steak

Neocon Elitist

Salty, defiant, and completely non-compliant.

Neocon Elitist

Salty, defiant, and completely non-compliant.

Salty, defiant, and completely non-compliant.

Neocon Elitist

Loves third parties and steak

Why a duck?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency