PDA

View Full Version : Josh Duggar



Rusty Jones
05-23-2015, 07:31 PM
Okay... we all know what he did, but... what's up with all of the support he's getting from well known people on the religious right, Mike Huckabee probably being the most notable?

garhkal
05-23-2015, 07:49 PM
Maybe cause they feel that demonizing him and his entire family for acts he MAY have done in the past, without him actually getting arrested/charged and convicted is wrong.

Compare that to Saida Grundy, the black professor at Boston Uni, who is in the news YET again..
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/23/remember-the-professor-who-said-white-males-are-the-problem-take-a-look-at-what-she-was-doing-online-in-2007/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/saida-grundy-boston-u-professor-accused-of-tauntin/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093222/Controversial-black-Boston-University-professor-told-rape-victim-cry-set-fake-profile-adult-dating-site-jealous-woman-ex.html


At least Josh was a TEEN when he supposedly did wrong. Ms Grundy was in her 20s when she did her wrong.

Rusty Jones
05-23-2015, 08:00 PM
Maybe cause they feel that demonizing him and his entire family for acts he MAY have done in the past, without him actually getting arrested/charged and convicted is wrong.

Compare that to Saida Grundy, the black professor at Boston Uni, who is in the news YET again..
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/23/remember-the-professor-who-said-white-males-are-the-problem-take-a-look-at-what-she-was-doing-online-in-2007/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/saida-grundy-boston-u-professor-accused-of-tauntin/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093222/Controversial-black-Boston-University-professor-told-rape-victim-cry-set-fake-profile-adult-dating-site-jealous-woman-ex.html


At least Josh was a TEEN when he supposedly did wrong. Ms Grundy was in her 20s when she did her wrong.

Oh, shit... I really didn't believe that the general conservative population supported Duggar. I really didn't. I didn't want to believe that. But is that the case?

Okay, so Grundy commits identity theft. Okay, so what? If someone makes a post about a particular person committing a crime, is the counter argument to make a post mentioning someone of another race that committed a crime? An unrelated, lesser crime at that?

Here's the deal... the people supporting Duggar actually believe that he did it. Huckabee even said something to the effect of good people doing bad things. Like, seriously, we're supposed to overlook someone in his line of work molesting children?

Get the fuck outta here!

Update: he admitted to doing it yesterday.

garhkal
05-24-2015, 04:58 AM
Oh, shit... I really didn't believe that the general conservative population supported Duggar. I really didn't. I didn't want to believe that. But is that the case?

Okay, so Grundy commits identity theft. Okay, so what? If someone makes a post about a particular person committing a crime, is the counter argument to make a post mentioning someone of another race that committed a crime? An unrelated, lesser crime at that?

Here's the deal... the people supporting Duggar actually believe that he did it. Huckabee even said something to the effect of good people doing bad things. Like, seriously, we're supposed to overlook someone in his line of work molesting children?

Get the fuck outta here!

Update: he admitted to doing it yesterday.

What i was trying to get at is what Ms Grundy did WAS actually proven and she paid for it, where as Josh was just acused, not found guilty. So why was one person's potential crime ruining not just HIS life/career, but his family, while someone eles's which was proven not ruining hers?

Rusty Jones
05-24-2015, 10:40 AM
What i was trying to get at is what Ms Grundy did WAS actually proven and she paid for it, where as Josh was just acused, not found guilty. So why was one person's potential crime ruining not just HIS life/career, but his family, while someone eles's which was proven not ruining hers?

The only reason his case didn't go to court is because it was beyond the statute of limitations. The legal aspect of this is irrelevant anyway. The point is, he molested his sisters and even admitted to it. Yet, he has the support of the religious right.

What's the difference? Grundy is not a child molester. Furthermore, she doesn't have people (at least not any names that anyone has heard of) coming in droves to support her. Hell, I've never even heard of her myself until you posted those links.

sandsjames
05-24-2015, 01:32 PM
The only reason his case didn't go to court is because it was beyond the statute of limitations. The legal aspect of this is irrelevant anyway. The point is, he molested his sisters and even admitted to it. Yet, he has the support of the religious right.

What's the difference? Grundy is not a child molester. Furthermore, she doesn't have people (at least not any names that anyone has heard of) coming in droves to support her. Hell, I've never even heard of her myself until you posted those links.

I'd never heard of this guy 'til you mentioned it.

The Christian right are going to defend him for the same reason that many, many people supported, defended, and made excuses for Michael Jackson. It's because they want to believe that someone they idolized could never do something like this and if they did it then there must be some outside factor that caused it.

My wife, to this day, gets pissed off when someone makes a Michael Jackson joke. It's ridiculous but it's what people do when they put their blinders on.

Mjölnir
05-24-2015, 03:39 PM
The Christian right are going to defend him for the same reason that many, many people supported, defended, and made excuses for Michael Jackson. It's because they want to believe that someone they idolized could never do something like this and if they did it then there must be some outside factor that caused it.

You could say this just about anytime that someone is involved in a scandal, whether a political figure, religious leader, entertainer etc. If someone admires or 'likes' the person involved they often are dismissive of and/or make excuses for their activity -- activity that they otherwise would condemn if done by someone they do not hold favorably.

Nothing new going on, just a lot of people using this Duggar guy and the situation (never watched the show and only heard of them in passing) as a reason to bash what the other 20 or so people in the family represent or their side of the socio-political spectrum.

Rusty Jones
05-24-2015, 05:35 PM
I'd never heard of this guy 'til you mentioned it.

The Christian right are going to defend him for the same reason that many, many people supported, defended, and made excuses for Michael Jackson. It's because they want to believe that someone they idolized could never do something like this and if they did it then there must be some outside factor that caused it.

My wife, to this day, gets pissed off when someone makes a Michael Jackson joke. It's ridiculous but it's what people do when they put their blinders on.

Well, the big difference is that Michael Jackson fans believe that he didn't do it. He never admitted it, and he never got convicted. I'm not saying what I believe happened in the case of Michael Jackson; but the huge difference is that Duggar admitted to it, so his supporters know that he did it.

garhkal
05-24-2015, 05:50 PM
I'd never heard of this guy 'til you mentioned it.

The Christian right are going to defend him for the same reason that many, many people supported, defended, and made excuses for Michael Jackson. It's because they want to believe that someone they idolized could never do something like this and if they did it then there must be some outside factor that caused it.

My wife, to this day, gets pissed off when someone makes a Michael Jackson joke. It's ridiculous but it's what people do when they put their blinders on.

That is true. Just like the left seems to never sour on Hillary, no matter what she does, there are those on the right (and left), who will never sour on certain stars.. No matter what they do.

sandsjames
05-24-2015, 10:02 PM
Well, the big difference is that Michael Jackson fans believe that he didn't do it. He never admitted it, and he never got convicted. I'm not saying what I believe happened in the case of Michael Jackson; but the huge difference is that Duggar admitted to it, so his supporters know that he did it.

But they're the same thing. If Jackson would have admitted it, his supporters would have blamed it on his upbringing. I heard several people use that excuse..."he never got to be a child"..."he had a tough upbringing...IF he did it, it's not his fault". Don't pretend you didn't hear those same sentiments.

Either way, I don't care...This Duggar guy (not sure why he's famous) did what he did and, apparently, it's an excuse for the liberals to use their version of the "double standard" argument usually reserved for conservatives defending Christianity. Different case, same ol' story.

Everybody has a double standard, whether they admit it or not. There's always a way to justify something one likes and vilify something one dislikes, even in similar situations. The left does it, the right does it, you do it, I do it, EVERYBODY does it. It's funny that people act surprised or make a big deal about it when it happens.

Rusty Jones
05-25-2015, 04:41 AM
But they're the same thing. If Jackson would have admitted it, his supporters would have blamed it on his upbringing. I heard several people use that excuse..."he never got to be a child"..."he had a tough upbringing...IF he did it, it's not his fault". Don't pretend you didn't hear those same sentiments.

I heard people say those things, but not in the context of defending him if he did molest or rape those children. Those things were usually said to explain his general eccentric or immature behavior - like playing with children's toys or owning pet chimpanzees.


Either way, I don't care...This Duggar guy (not sure why he's famous) did what he did and, apparently, it's an excuse for the liberals to use their version of the "double standard" argument usually reserved for conservatives defending Christianity. Different case, same ol' story.

Everybody has a double standard, whether they admit it or not. There's always a way to justify something one likes and vilify something one dislikes, even in similar situations. The left does it, the right does it, you do it, I do it, EVERYBODY does it. It's funny that people act surprised or make a big deal about it when it happens.

Josh Dugger himself is not what bothers me. It's the support that he's getting from those who are fully aware of his guilt.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-25-2015, 11:20 AM
I heard people say those things, but not in the context of defending him if he did molest or rape those children. Those things were usually said to explain his general eccentric or immature behavior - like playing with children's toys or owning pet chimpanzees.


That is basically true, but I think it did extend to his having sleep overs with kids. Still a step to two away from having sex with kids.



Josh Dugger himself is not what bothers me. It's the support that he's getting from those who are fully aware of his guilt.

That's one of the things that bothers me about Christianity. They will take any believer, no matter what they have done.

The idea of magically washing away sin has them covered.

As a matter of fact, the most horrendous sin is not believing. You can't wash that one away.

sandsjames
05-25-2015, 11:53 AM
I heard people say those things, but not in the context of defending him if he did molest or rape those children. Those things were usually said to explain his general eccentric or immature behavior - like playing with children's toys or owning pet chimpanzees. Just as to the point I made, you are justifying how this is different.



Josh Dugger himself is not what bothers me. It's the support that he's getting from those who are fully aware of his guilt.OJ

garhkal
05-25-2015, 08:05 PM
That's one of the things that bothers me about Christianity. They will take any believer, no matter what they have done.

The idea of magically washing away sin has them covered.

As a matter of fact, the most horrendous sin is not believing. You can't wash that one away.

I agree with you there AA. It is strange that 'god' will forgive anything you have done, if you ask. BUT won't forgive someone who just disbelieves.

sandsjames
05-25-2015, 10:42 PM
I agree with you there AA. It is strange that 'god' will forgive anything you have done, if you ask. BUT won't forgive someone who just disbelieves.

Forgiveness has to be asked for. You can't ask someone for something if you don't believe they exist.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-26-2015, 12:29 AM
I agree with you there AA. It is strange that 'god' will forgive anything you have done, if you ask. BUT won't forgive someone who just disbelieves.

Actually all sins are pardonable except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.



Matthew 12:31-32New International Version (NIV)

31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.



You have to be careful when you listen to Christians who don't read the bible or even go to church. They get a lot of things wrong, and only halfway right because they rely primarily on their own opinions instead of scripture.

MikeKerriii
05-26-2015, 12:34 AM
Maybe cause they feel that demonizing him and his entire family for acts he MAY have done in the past, without him actually getting arrested/charged and convicted is wrong.

Compare that to Saida Grundy, the black professor at Boston Uni, who is in the news YET again..
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/23/remember-the-professor-who-said-white-males-are-the-problem-take-a-look-at-what-she-was-doing-online-in-2007/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/saida-grundy-boston-u-professor-accused-of-tauntin/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093222/Controversial-black-Boston-University-professor-told-rape-victim-cry-set-fake-profile-adult-dating-site-jealous-woman-ex.html


At least Josh was a TEEN when he supposedly did wrong. Ms Grundy was in her 20s when she did her wrong.

There is no "might have', he and his father have both publicly admitted what happened.

TJMAC77SP
05-26-2015, 03:41 AM
Not to condone but I am sure everyone realizes that these offenses occurred when Duggar was 15 years old. Does that matter to anyone? Just curious.

garhkal
05-26-2015, 06:39 AM
There is no "might have', he and his father have both publicly admitted what happened.

Yes, now he has admitted to it. BUT my comments came before his admittance.

Rusty Jones
05-26-2015, 09:48 AM
Yes, now he has admitted to it. BUT my comments came before his admittance.

No, they came the day after. I even told you that he admitted it. And you're just now acknowledging it.

Rusty Jones
05-26-2015, 10:09 AM
Just as to the point I made, you are justifying how this is different.


OJ

Make it out to be a petty difference if you want to, but I don't know a single person that meets both criteria of believing that Michael Jackson is guilty AND defending him. Not saying I know for a fact that there are none out there, but Josh Duggar has tons of support from people who do meet both criteria in his case.

Rusty Jones
05-26-2015, 11:49 AM
Not to condone but I am sure everyone realizes that these offenses occurred when Duggar was 15 years old. Does that matter to anyone? Just curious.

It doesn't matter to me. I can't find any articles that go into much detail on who the girls were; or their ages. All I can find is that there were five victims that ranged in age from 4 to 12; and that "some" of those victims were his sisters. It only stands to reason that some weren't his sisters.

If you had a four year old daughter that was getting fondled by a 15 year old boy; are you telling me that you'd write that off as a 15 year old being dumb and not knowing any better? Think back to when you were 15... would a 15 year old you not know better? If you were 15 and had a four year old sister, and a friend your age said he wanted to fondle her... what's going to be your first reaction? Are you going to invite him over your house Saturday morning while everyone else is asleep?

The point is this: a 15 year old knows better. If he didn't at 15, then why should anyone believe that he does now? And this is assuming that he didn't know better because... he did. After all, it's not like he committed these acts out in the open or told people he did it. No, he did these things in hopes that no one would find out.

The only way I might be able to cut him some slack is if his only victim was 12 year old non-relative he was 14 at the time; maybe he grabs a boob or a butt cheek, and she runs off and tells her parents. That's a situation where, if it was my daughter, I could simply tell the boy's parents to keep his son the fuck away from my daughter and as long as they do, they'll never see or hear from me again.

But a 14 or 15 boy fondling a four year old? Inexcusable.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-26-2015, 12:12 PM
You can view a copy of the police report here: http://m.imgur.com/a/zqPMi

It wasn't a one-time incident.

I sure as hell wouldn't want this guy anywhere near my kids. Don't care if he did it when he was 15, his image is rightly tarnished.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-26-2015, 12:22 PM
Not to condone but I am sure everyone realizes that these offenses occurred when Duggar was 15 years old. Does that matter to anyone? Just curious.

Are you in favor of giving him a pass?

There are many things a person can do at 15 that will follow them for the rest of their life.

Sneaking into the bedroom of your step-sisters and rubbing their vaginas and breasts is something that will follow you forever.

Especially if you try to create a career as a reality TV show star. Something like that is going to be even more relevant if the name of TV show happens to be 19 Kids and Counting.

TJMAC77SP
05-26-2015, 01:45 PM
Are you in favor of giving him a pass?

There are many things a person can do at 15 that will follow them for the rest of their life.

Sneaking into the bedroom of your step-sisters and rubbing their vaginas and breasts is something that will follow you forever.

Especially if you try to create a career as a reality TV show star. Something like that is going to be even more relevant if the name of TV show happens to be 19 Kids and Counting.

I specifically stated at the beginning of my post that I wasn't condoning his actions so that answers your question.

Truthfully the only reference I could find regarding the ages of the victims was their being described as 'teens'. Not that fact would necessarily negate these charges but it certainly paints a different picture than with victims 4 years old. Given that then no, nothing can negate that. And no I wouldn't want this guy around anyone's children.

Having said that I do believe that just as his support is motivated by the religious status of those supporters I believe the condemnation is at least partially motivated by the anti-religious status of some. I find both equally disingenuous.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-26-2015, 02:23 PM
I specifically stated at the beginning of my post that I wasn't condoning his actions so that answers your question.

You weren't very clear about your position with that preface followed by offering the fact that he was 15.

It sounded as if you were providing a reason to be dismissive of his actions because of his age.




Truthfully the only reference I could find regarding the ages of the victims was their being described as 'teens'. Not that fact would necessarily negate these charges but it certainly paints a different picture than with victims 4 years old. Given that then no, nothing can negate that. And no I wouldn't want this guy around anyone's children.

Go read the police report. That sounds like predatory behavior to me, and definitely not innocent teenage behavior.

He violated basic trust as a family member in a way that destroys every being trusted again.



Having said that I do believe that just as his support is motivated by the religious status of those supporters I believe the condemnation is at least partially motivated by the anti-religious status of some. I find both equally disingenuous.

Call me a biased atheist all you want, but I don't like this guy.

Rainmaker
05-26-2015, 02:43 PM
Are you in favor of giving him a pass?

There are many things a person can do at 15 that will follow them for the rest of their life.

Sneaking into the bedroom of your step-sisters and rubbing their vaginas and breasts is something that will follow you forever.
Especially if you try to create a career as a reality TV show star. Something like that is going to be even more relevant if the name of TV show happens to be 19 Kids and Counting.

Don't be so closed-minded Abs. We live in a multi-cultural society. You have to consider that Josh Dirt is probably just a product (victim) of his environment, in Arkansas, this sort of thing is not abnormal to the political power class of the NWO... . Note the complete media blackout of Bubba Clinton's 12 visits to Epstein's pedophile Island..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4utH5uWK6c

TJMAC77SP
05-26-2015, 02:52 PM
You weren't very clear about your position with that preface followed by offering the fact that he was 15.

It sounded as if you were providing a reason to be dismissive of his actions because of his age.



Go read the police report. That sounds like predatory behavior to me, and definitely not innocent teenage behavior.

He violated basic trust as a family member in a way that destroys every being trusted again.



Call me a biased atheist all you want, but I don't like this guy.

Well, you are a biased atheist but I do agree with what you are saying.

Rusty Jones
05-26-2015, 10:13 PM
Holy shit! Look at this quote coming straight from one of Duggar's relatives: http://seewalds.com/grace-greater-than-our-sin/


Many times it is simply lack of opportunity or fear of consequences that keep us from falling into grievous sin even though our fallen hearts would love to indulge the flesh. We should not be shocked that this occurred in the Duggar’s home, we should rather be thankful to God if we have been spared such, and pray that he would keep us and our children from falling.

Wait a second... he's saying that everyone would molest a child, and that the only thing that keeps people from doing it is fear of the law or not being around children to begin with! Man...

TJMAC77SP
05-26-2015, 10:21 PM
Holy shit! Look at this quote coming straight from one of Duggar's relatives: http://seewalds.com/grace-greater-than-our-sin/



Wait a second... he's saying that everyone would molest a child, and that the only thing that keeps people from doing it is fear of the law or not being around children to begin with! Man...

Well, in the sense that molesting a child is one of many 'grievous sins' then you are correct. He also said 'many times' so, other than your obvious biased agenda at work (AA...........this is what I was referring to) then your statement is a little too universal.

I see nothing untoward in his statement and actually find it pretty on point and cogent.

Rusty Jones
05-26-2015, 10:35 PM
Well, in the sense that molesting a child is one of many 'grievous sins' then you are correct. He also said 'many times' so, other than your obvious biased agenda at work (AA...........this is what I was referring to) then your statement is a little too universal.

I see nothing untoward in his statement and actually find it pretty on point and cogent.

I really don't see the significance of "many times." If he said "Many times, we like to go to the beach;" does that really give it a much different meaning than "we like to go the beach?"

Not to me.

If fear of consequences or lack of opportunity is what's keeping him "indulging in the flesh," then that's one fucked up family. Oh, and he needs to speak for himself. Or his family.

sandsjames
05-26-2015, 10:53 PM
I really don't see the significance of "many times." If he said "Many times, we like to go to the beach;" does that really give it a much different meaning than "we like to go the beach?"

Not to me.

If fear of consequences or lack of opportunity is what's keeping him "indulging in the flesh," then that's one fucked up family. Oh, and he needs to speak for himself. Or his family.

I'm pretty sure that he's not just referring to molestation. He's referring to all such things his beliefs call sin...adultery, pre-marital sex, etc. Those things are also "indulging in the flesh". Of course molestation is not the same as those other things in society, in our law, and in the way we as people judge it, sin is sin, and we are all subject to the temptation of it.

Rusty Jones
05-26-2015, 10:58 PM
I'm pretty sure that he's not just referring to molestation. He's referring to all such things his beliefs call sin...adultery, pre-marital sex, etc. Those things are also "indulging in the flesh". Of course molestation is not the same as those other things in society, in our law, and in the way we as people judge it, sin is sin, and we are all subject to the temptation of it.

Looks to me like you're grasping at straws on that one.

Bos Mutus
05-26-2015, 11:00 PM
Okay... we all know what he did, but... what's up with all of the support he's getting from well known people on the religious right, Mike Huckabee probably being the most notable?

What would expect your friends to do if your family was in trouble?

Run away and throw scorn in your direction?

Absinthe Anecdote
05-26-2015, 11:03 PM
Well, in the sense that molesting a child is one of many 'grievous sins' then you are correct. He also said 'many times' so, other than your obvious biased agenda at work (AA...........this is what I was referring to) then your statement is a little too universal.

I see nothing untoward in his statement and actually find it pretty on point and cogent.

Come on TJ, go read what Seewald said again.

He said we should not be shocked that this happened. Yes, we should be shocked by it.

It wasn't merely sins of the flesh either. His crime was not just indulging in the flesh. His crime was the betrayal of his sisters, and preying upon those weaker and younger.

As their brother, he should be their protector, not a little creep that sneaks into their bedroom at night to molest them.

He failed miserably as a brother on so many levels.

Seewald's veiw of morality is seriously flawed in my opinion. Forcibly fondling one's sister is unthinkable, and if the only reason has he never done that is because he is afraid of getting caught, or he hasn't had the opportunity, then Seewald is a tremendous piece of shit.

sandsjames
05-26-2015, 11:04 PM
Looks to me like you're grasping at straws on that one.That doesn't surprise me that it looks that way to you.

sandsjames
05-26-2015, 11:06 PM
Come on TJ, go read what Seewald said again.

He said we should not be shocked that this happened. Yes, we should be shocked by it.

It wasn't merely sins of the flesh either. His crime was not just indulging in the flesh. His crime was the betrayal of his sisters, and preying upon those weaker and younger.

As their brother, he should be their protector, not a little creep that sneaks into their bedroom at night to molest them.

He failed miserably as a brother on so many levels.



Agree...this guy needs his junk cut off like all the other molesters need.

Bos Mutus
05-26-2015, 11:18 PM
This question presumes that he's family. So... how is he related to me in your scenario? Is he my son? Did he molest my daughters?

Okayyy...sure. Whatever it is. If something horrible happened in your family...do you think your friends would call and say, "I love you, man"...or would they say "Rusty, you scumbag, how could you let this happen?"...or what?

I dunno...I can't imagine being in their shoes... what Josh did was absolutely horrible and he deserved to be turned in to authorities.... that Mom and Dad didn't do that, is wrong, but I can see that would be a very difficult thing to do.

I think it's a lot easier to condemn them for not protecting their daughters going forward...I get all of that argument...

If they were good friends of mine though...I think I would come at it from the angle of them not needing another person to condemn them, but maybe a person to say "I love you guys"...then whatever happens, let it be.

I don't think anyone is condoning what Josh did, or saying it isn't that bad, etc....Huckabee just said, "I love that family and that's all I"m gonna do"...

Rusty Jones
05-26-2015, 11:22 PM
What would expect your friends to do if your family was in trouble?

Run away and throw scorn in your direction?

In the case of child molestation? That's what I'd expect. In American culture, any sex crime involving a child is the absolute worst crime you can commit. It's the only crime where, all other factors being equal, you'll be target by other inmates. It's the only crime that forces you to go on a registry as an offender. You might have a convicted murderer in your neighborhood and not even know it. But you know what you DO know whether or not you have in your neighborhood? A child molester.

Again... someone touches a child like that, my full expectation is that they're on their own.

Rusty Jones
05-26-2015, 11:23 PM
Okayyy...sure. Whatever it is. If something horrible happened in your family...do you think your friends would call and say, "I love you, man"...or would they say "Rusty, you scumbag, how could you let this happen?"...or what?

I dunno...I can't imagine being in their shoes... what Josh did was absolutely horrible and he deserved to be turned in to authorities.... that Mom and Dad didn't do that, is wrong, but I can see that would be a very difficult thing to do.

I think it's a lot easier to condemn them for not protecting their daughters going forward...I get all of that argument...

If they were good friends of mine though...I think I would come at it from the angle of them not needing another person to condemn them, but maybe a person to say "I love you guys"...then whatever happens, let it be.

I don't think anyone is condoning what Josh did, or saying it isn't that bad, etc....Huckabee just said, "I love that family and that's all I"m gonna do"...

I deleted that post because, after reading it, I realized that I didn't answer your question.

Bos Mutus
05-27-2015, 12:04 AM
In the case of child molestation? That's what I'd expect. In American culture, any sex crime involving a child is the absolute worst crime you can commit. It's the only crime where, all other factors being equal, you'll be target by other inmates. It's the only crime that forces you to go on a registry as an offender. You might have a convicted murderer in your neighborhood and not even know it. But you know what you DO know whether or not you have in your neighborhood? A child molester.

Again... someone touches a child like that, my full expectation is that they're on their own.

Okay, I can see that.

TJMAC77SP
05-27-2015, 12:57 AM
I really don't see the significance of "many times." If he said "Many times, we like to go to the beach;" does that really give it a much different meaning than "we like to go the beach?"

Not to me.

If fear of consequences or lack of opportunity is what's keeping him "indulging in the flesh," then that's one fucked up family. Oh, and he needs to speak for himself. Or his family.

I suppose it is possible that your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are deficient. Alternatively it could be you see the fallacy of your attempt to twist the man's statement to your agenda.

Let's look at it.

"Many times it is simply lack of opportunity or fear of consequences that keep us from falling into grievous sin even though our fallen hearts would love to indulge the flesh."

We are all tempted to do wrong, to commit 'grievous sin'. A host of things would fit that category. None of us are above committing such a sin (or offense if sin offends your anti-Christian beliefs)


"We should not be shocked that this occurred in the Duggar’s home, we should rather be thankful to God if we have been spared such, and pray that he would keep us and our children from falling."

Knowing that we are all fallible and subject to bad behavior if should be thankful that we nor our children have committed any of the myriad of 'grievous sins'. Alternatively we can be thankful that the entire world doesn't know about our actual failings.

If you see his statement as the same as 'many times we like to go to the beach' and 'we like to go to the beach' so be it.



((really?!??!..........many times we like to go to the beach))

TJMAC77SP
05-27-2015, 01:04 AM
Come on TJ, go read what Seewald said again.

He said we should not be shocked that this happened. Yes, we should be shocked by it.

It wasn't merely sins of the flesh either. His crime was not just indulging in the flesh. His crime was the betrayal of his sisters, and preying upon those weaker and younger.

As their brother, he should be their protector, not a little creep that sneaks into their bedroom at night to molest them.

He failed miserably as a brother on so many levels.

Seewald's veiw of morality is seriously flawed in my opinion. Forcibly fondling one's sister is unthinkable, and if the only reason has he never done that is because he is afraid of getting caught, or he hasn't had the opportunity, then Seewald is a tremendous piece of shit.

You are reading way too much into the statement and I understand why.

In no way is he condoning anything that has occurred. He made a general statement about temptation, human weakness and implied forgiveness. He is exercising his beliefs that all are sinners and subject to temptation.

You too are completely ignoring the relevant part of the statement that puts his citation of "lack of opportunity or fear of consequences" that keeps one from committing offenses. Same thing RJ did which is troubling but again I understand why. I too believe that 'many times' we are kept honest only or at least mainly by our fear of consequences and/or the lack of opportunity. If you don't then I either flatly don't believe you or you are far more naïve then I have ever thought. He spoke of grievous sins in the most general way, never mentioned child molestation and doesn't even come close to condoning it or asking anyone to condone it

Absinthe Anecdote
05-27-2015, 02:17 AM
You are reading way too much into the statement and I understand why.

In no way is he condoning anything that has occurred. He made a general statement about temptation, human weakness and implied forgiveness. He is exercising his beliefs that all are sinners and subject to temptation.

You too are completely ignoring the relevant part of the statement that puts his citation of "lack of opportunity or fear of consequences" that keeps one from committing offenses. Same thing RJ did which is troubling but again I understand why. I too believe that 'many times' we are kept honest only or at least mainly by our fear of consequences and/or the lack of opportunity. If you don't then I either flatly don't believe you or you are far more naïve then I have ever thought. He spoke of grievous sins in the most general way, never mentioned child molestation and doesn't even come close to condoning it or asking anyone to condone it

You seem to be ignoring what Seewald was responding to with his statement. He was responding to criticism of a boy molesting his sisters.

If Seewald was indeed talking in generalities about temptation, then he was glossing over what Duggar did in the hopes of deflecting criticism of the family.

That is very sleazy on Seewald's part and ultimately disrespectful to those little girls. Seewald is a jackass for trying divert attention away from the seriousness of Duggar's failure.

It is also extreme moral weakness to not commit a crime based solely on the fear of getting caught.

I am a smart guy, and I am very confident that I could be a very successful criminal if I wanted to be a criminal.

If I wanted to, I think I could steal large sums of money and get away with it.

Why don't I?

I don't want to be a fucking criminal, that's why.

Go read some Aristotle, and see what he has to say about becoming a virtuous person.

All this patter about being a weak and sniveling sinner is ridiculous, especially when the conversation is about a guy who molested his sisters.

Seriously, are your fucking standards that low?

TJMAC77SP
05-27-2015, 03:30 AM
You seem to be ignoring what Seewald was responding to with his statement. He was responding to criticism of a boy molesting his sisters.

If Seewald was indeed talking in generalities about temptation, then he was glossing over what Duggar did in the hopes of deflecting criticism of the family.

That is very sleazy on Seewald's part and ultimately disrespectful to those little girls. Seewald is a jackass for trying divert attention away from the seriousness of Duggar's failure.

It is also extreme moral weakness to not commit a crime based solely on the fear of getting caught.

I am a smart guy, and I am very confident that I could be a very successful criminal if I wanted to be a criminal.

If I wanted to, I think I could steal large sums of money and get away with it.

Why don't I?

I don't want to be a fucking criminal, that's why.

Go read some Aristotle, and see what he has to say about becoming a virtuous person.

All this patter about being a weak and sniveling sinner is ridiculous, especially when the conversation is about a guy who molested his sisters.

Seriously, are your fucking standards that low?

No my fucking standards are pretty high. Or so I like to think.

My fucking standards are tempered by a realization that I am an imperfect person who has been tempted to do wrong things at time and has done things I am not very proud of. Not of course in the same universe as we are speaking of with Dugar but wrong is wrong.

Please show me the words in which you think Seewald is "trying divert attention away from the seriousness of Duggar's failure."

It is interesting that you now describe Seewald as sleezy. Are you now intimating that he too is a molester? Am I reading too much into your vehement speech?

TJMAC77SP
05-27-2015, 03:51 AM
Perhaps we should read all of Michael Seewald's comments from his actual blog. It might shed more light than The Talking Points Memo website.

http://seewalds.com/grace-greater-than-our-sin/

It seems Seewald had a lot more to say than the cherry picked passage.

You may not agree with his religious concepts but that hardly justifies vilifying him to support a personal anti-Christian agenda. Worse yet if that agenda is borrowed and not even an original thought.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-27-2015, 01:05 PM
No my fucking standards are pretty high. Or so I like to think.

My fucking standards are tempered by a realization that I am an imperfect person who has been tempted to do wrong things at time and has done things I am not very proud of. Not of course in the same universe as we are speaking of with Dugar but wrong is wrong.

Please show me the words in which you think Seewald is "trying divert attention away from the seriousness of Duggar's failure."

It is interesting that you now describe Seewald as sleezy. Are you now intimating that he too is a molester? Am I reading too much into your vehement speech?

I read Seewald's original blog post from the link Rusty provided. Rusty provided a working link to it, while your link does not work. Again, low standards, go back and fix that.

Seewald's entire purpose is to defend the Duggar family. He launches his defense of them by pointing out that we are all mired in sin and even uses the filthy rags analogy of Isaiah 64:6.

While it might be true that none of us are perfect, and that all are capable of sin; I contend that all sins are not equal.

Saying, "Wrong is wrong" in regards to Duggar is incredibly stupid. It seems like you and Seewald want to heap people who molest their sisters into the same basket as people who break the speed limit.

I called Seewald sleazy because he trampled over the victims in his defense of Duggar.

After reading Seewald's entire blog post, I was ready to back off of that claim because he did devote a significant portion of his post to the victims.

Upon further reflection, I still think his primary concern is defending the Duggar family, and he fails in providing balance in his message.

By rolling around in Isaiah's filthy rags, Seewald dirties himself in sleaze.

I am willing to condemn and shun a person who sneaks into the room of his younger sisters to take advantage of them as they sleep.

You and Seewald seem to want focus on the fact that there is dirt on all of us. While that maybe true, some of us are far dirtier than others.

TJMAC77SP
05-27-2015, 02:31 PM
I read Seewald's original blog post from the link Rusty provided. Rusty provided a working link to it, while your link does not work. Again, low standards, go back and fix that.

Seewald's entire purpose is to defend the Duggar family. He launches his defense of them by pointing out that we are all mired in sin and even uses the filthy rags analogy of Isaiah 64:6.

While it might be true that none of us are perfect, and that all are capable of sin; I contend that all sins are not equal.

Saying, "Wrong is wrong" in regards to Duggar is incredibly stupid. It seems like you and Seewald want to heap people who molest their sisters into the same basket as people who break the speed limit.

I called Seewald sleazy because he trampled over the victims in his defense of Duggar.

After reading Seewald's entire blog post, I was ready to back off of that claim because he did devote a significant portion of his post to the victims.

Upon further reflection, I still think his primary concern is defending the Duggar family, and he fails in providing balance in his message.

By rolling around in Isaiah's filthy rags, Seewald dirties himself in sleaze.

I am willing to condemn and shun a person who sneaks into the room of his younger sisters to take advantage of them as they sleep.

You and Seewald seem to want focus on the fact that there is dirt on all of us. While that maybe true, some of us are far dirtier than others.

I see it didn't take you long to revert to irrelevant insults when arguments aren't going exactly as you wish. Sorry my link didn't work and I didn't see that Rusty had linked the blog, only that he had cherry picked a portion of it.

Let's get back to relevance.

So, Seewald devotes a good portion of the blog to the victims and victims of abuse in general but he still trampled on the victims in defense of Duggar. I find that illogical stance puzzling to say the least.

I again ask...........Please show me the words in which you think Seewald is "trying divert attention away from the seriousness of Duggar's failure." In fact please show me where he is defending Josh Duggar. Not the Christian beliefs of the Duggar family but the actions of Josh Duggar.

Molestation = breaking the speed limit ?!?! Did RJ suggest that because it sounds as smart as his "like going to the beach" analogy. How about adultery. While again not on par with child molestation would you be opposed to forgiving someone who does this? Would you shun them? Ask your wife how she feels about that potential 'grievous sin'.

Let's cut through all the bullshit. This vehemence you (and RJ but that really isn't original thought) are showing here has not a fucking thing to do with the actions of Josh Duggar. Sure, you are outraged by his molestation as are we all. The real and ongoing issue is you hate everything the Duggars represent. They are a very publically Christian family with evidently a large following and that simply pisses you off. Truth is that overly devout religious people make me a bit uncomfortable. I don't hold their beliefs and sometimes find myself with little in common but as I have said time and time again, they have the right to practice their religion.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-27-2015, 02:45 PM
I again ask...........Please show me the words in which you think Seewald is "trying divert attention away from the seriousness of Duggar's failure." In fact please show me where he is defending Josh Duggar. Not the Christian beliefs of the Duggar family but the actions of Josh Duggar.



Go back and read my post again, if you still don't understand, I'll explain it to you.

Hint, saying that we are all sinners is where he diverts attention from Duggar toward the reader.

PS

It is you and Seewald that put molesters in the same basket as speeders, not me.

I'll get to the rest of your post later, got to run for now.

Rainmaker
05-27-2015, 03:00 PM
I see it didn't take you long to revert to irrelevant insults when arguments aren't going exactly as you wish. Sorry my link didn't work and I didn't see that Rusty had linked the blog, only that he had cherry picked a portion of it.

Let's get back to relevance.

So, Seewald devotes a good portion of the blog to the victims and victims of abuse in general but he still trampled on the victims in defense of Duggar. I find that illogical stance puzzling to say the least.

I again ask...........Please show me the words in which you think Seewald is "trying divert attention away from the seriousness of Duggar's failure." In fact please show me where he is defending Josh Duggar. Not the Christian beliefs of the Duggar family but the actions of Josh Duggar.

Molestation = breaking the speed limit ?!?! Did RJ suggest that because it sounds as smart as his "like going to the beach" analogy. How about adultery. While again not on par with child molestation would you be opposed to forgiving someone who does this? Would you shun them? Ask your wife how she feels about that potential 'grievous sin'.

Let's cut through all the bullshit. This vehemence you (and RJ but that really isn't original thought) are showing here has not a fucking thing to do with the actions of Josh Duggar. Sure, you are outraged by his molestation as are we all. The real and ongoing issue is you hate everything the Duggars represent. They are a very publically Christian family with evidently a large following and that simply pisses you off. Truth is that overly devout religious people make me a bit uncomfortable. I don't hold their beliefs and sometimes find myself with little in common but as I have said time and time again, they have the right to practice their religion.

You're wasting your time TJ. Because, It's always the same with these Militant atheists. On one hand they'll say that there's no God. But, then on the other , they'll constantly vilify the Christian God.

They talk of "progress" as being this virtuous long steady, climb up out of the mists (through evolution). This completely ignores the reality that Human Nature is a Bitch.

Progressives preach sexual immorality, legalization of drugs, the destruction of the family, leaving nothing behind but, despair and ruins, and then they'll offer to hire you a social worker to "fix it" for you (for a nominal fee). It's nonsensical, I know. But, in a nutshell they are suffering from a mental disorder (clinically depressed hysteria) because bad stuff happens on the Earth and Mean People suck.

TJMAC77SP
05-27-2015, 03:01 PM
Go back and read my post again, if you still don't understand, I'll explain it to you.

Hint, saying that we are all sinners is where he diverts attention from Duggar toward the reader.

PS

It is you and Seewald that put molesters in the same basket as speeders, not me.

I'll get to the rest of your post later, got to run for now.

I read and understood it the first time and I think you know that. You know equally that he was in no way defending Josh Duggar (despite your repeated attempts to say that). He defended the family and their response to finding out what their son had done.

You in no way have proven your point that he was "trying divert attention away from the seriousness of Duggar's failure." or that he is defending Josh Duggar.

Rollyn01
05-27-2015, 03:27 PM
You're wasting your time TJ. Because, It's always the same with these depressed atheists. On one hand they'll say that there's no God. But, then on the other , they'll constantly vilify the Christian God.

They talk of "progress" as some long virtuous climb up (through evolution). This completely ignores Progressivism preaches immorality, drug use, the breakdown of the family, then offers to hire social workers to fix it. It's nonsensical But, in a nutshell they are clinically depressed because bad stuff happens on Earth.

Negative, not all of us are depress... more disappointed than anything else. As for being anti-Christian, every other religion would be considered anti-Christian is some way because they don't believe in the Christian God. Atheist just, in total, don't believe in anyone's god. When it comes down to it, the history of many religion only seems to be about establishing control over others by appeal of authority. I'm sure even you know that just because you have appeal of authority doesn't make you right. I'm certain you have seen higher ranking individuals say or do things that is wrong but excuse themselves or escape punishment just because of their rank. This is one of the main points of the argument of why Atheist don't believe (or at least just me) in any god.

As such, the religion with the largest visibility of appeal to authority is Christianity (although Islam is making their stake known more now). The higher vis targets are the ones that get the most attention. If it was another religion, it would be them (i.e. Islam). Besides, it seems like every religion wants to have the control over the local governments so that they can get everything they can out of the people instead of actual spiritual improvement. And if it seems wrong that I say that, I dare you to explain what is with all these mega-churches that seem to collect money en masse and yet, as much as they say they wish to live in service to their lord, the preachers/pastor/ministers seem more interested in getting the new Mercedes/Benz or a new multimillion dollar jet while most of their congregation somehow lives on less than average means?

Rainmaker
05-27-2015, 03:42 PM
Negative, not all of us are depress... more disappointed than anything else. As for being anti-Christian, every other religion would be considered anti-Christian is some way because they don't believe in the Christian God. Atheist just, in total, don't believe in anyone's god. When it comes down to it, the history of many religion only seems to be about establishing control over others by appeal of authority. I'm sure even you know that just because you have appeal of authority doesn't make you right. I'm certain you have seen higher ranking individuals say or do things that is wrong but excuse themselves or escape punishment just because of their rank. This is one of the main points of the argument of why Atheist don't believe (or at least just me) in any god.

As such, the religion with the largest visibility of appeal to authority is Christianity (although Islam is making their stake known more now). The higher vis targets are the ones that get the most attention. If it was another religion, it would be them (i.e. Islam). Besides, it seems like every religion wants to have the control over the local governments so that they can get everything they can out of the people instead of actual spiritual improvement. And if it seems wrong that I say that, I dare you to explain what is with all these mega-churches that seem to collect money en masse and yet, as much as they say they wish to live in service to their lord, the preachers/pastor/ministers seem more interested in getting the new Mercedes/Benz or a new multimillion dollar jet while most of their congregation somehow lives on less than average means?

Agree. Don't misunderstand Rainmaker's meaning that Only the Militant Ones are depressed. Just as Christianity has its zealots, so does atheism or any other religion for that matter (some more than others). Rainmaker is not a religious fundamentalist. In fact believes the Bible is allegory and not meant to be taken literally. And it matters not whether any of the characters ever walked the face of the Earth (who knows?) but, should be used more as a blue-print for living. absolute truth can not be known through reason alone. See? Now, Got to get back to work Rollyn. Those Jamaicans you hired to remove the oak trees at the Homestead dropped one on the outbuilding...

Rollyn01
05-27-2015, 03:59 PM
Agree. Don't misunderstand Rainmaker's meaning that Only the Militant One's are depressed. Just as Christianity has it's zealots, so does atheism or any other religion for that matter (some more than others). Rainmaker is not a fundamentalist. In fact believes the Bible is allegory and not meant to be taken literally. And it matters not whether any of the characters ever walked the face of the Earth (who knows?) but, should be used more as a blue-print for living. absolute truth can not be known through reason alone. See? Now, Got to get back to work Rollyn. Those Jamaican's you hired to remove the oak tree at the Homestead dropped one on the outbuilding...

Fair enough, we all have our zealots. And it seems more often that not, they're causing the most problems. Oddly enough though, this seems to be how most religions begin. An offshoot from a main religion that somehow gain traction. Then somehow, because they have more believers, they think that they're the real religion. Smh.

As for the work, you approved them so I don't know why you're blaming me like that. Besides, that thing needed to be destroyed. An easily broken bunker is oxymoroninc in nature. I'm redrawing the specs to stand up to an actual nuclear blast. Oh, and you really need to go back to the shop. They're trying to screw us on the repairs on the Nk-19. $1500 for the sear? Who's repairing it? NASA?

Rainmaker
05-27-2015, 04:14 PM
Fair enough, we all have our zealots. And it seems more often that not, they're causing the most problems. Oddly enough though, this seems to be how most religions begin. An offshoot from a main religion that somehow gain traction. Then somehow, because they have more believers, they think that they're the real religion. Smh.

In the beginning God gave man the truth. Then the devil showed up and created religion.

Rollyn01
05-27-2015, 06:42 PM
In the beginning God gave man the truth. Then the devil showed up and created religion.

Lmao. Good thing I believe in neither one. I'm still trying to figure out how people believe the story of Job was God's triumph over the devil and how faith in God is beneficial. The devil basically tricked God into allowing him to punish a man. Nope, I would rather believe that it was just Job blaming his misfortunes and fortunes on forces unseen (devil and God respectively). I mean, think about it, knowing what we know now about the food chain, it would seem to make sense that when his crops went bad and anything else that depended on them would fall ill, from his livestock up to kids and wife and then to himself. Not knowing what we know, it would just make sense to him that it was someone else fault instead of maybe his own due to lack of knowledge. As such, if he had the knowledge to better tend his crops, we probably would have never heard of him or the wager.

Just saying that for many people in such times, their lack of the tools and the ideas needed to understand how nature works were filled in by the only thing that they did understand: other people. Everything was personified because that was the only thing they knew. They didn't know of anything that was smaller than what they could perceive with their own senses (with the minor exception of the Greeks assertion of the existence of the atom and elemental makeup of the universe). You end up with gods who look and act like people and some who incorporate animals into their physiology due to connections between the animals' behavior and how a sentient being would act in their supernatural role in the regional religious cosmology. Think about what we know about Odin's ravens and what we know of ravens in general. We know that many ravens tend to be seen picking out the eyes of other dead animals. They also tend to stay in a tree waiting patiently for an animal to kick the bucket but would fly off for seemingly no reason. Enter in Odin who happens to be missing an eye (it's in his staff apparently) and the ravens are reporting to him on what's going on in the mortal plain.

Human beings have an incredible power to create very interesting associations where there may or may not be. Such associations gave rise to religions in a world where answers don't come easy or naturally. However, these same type of associations have given rise to science as well. The main difference is that science wants people to believe by using a self-correcting system that demands consistency within its varied topics regardless of what is being proposed as truth because questions are always welcomed. Religion, on the other hand, demands that people follow and believe without the people trying to correct it or even without people questioning it because it is already asserted as true with nothing to ensure consistency.

I'm good on all that. I have a moral compass that tells me that the support this guy is getting is highly misguided. It is only logical that they are acting more to protect the religion rather than just protecting him. This would help to support the notion that just because you believe in God, that doesn't mean you're a good person. I think that's what they're trying to get ahead of. I think they shouldn't defend him like that because it makes all of them look like they don't care about the victims and I find that the worst part of this.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-28-2015, 01:39 AM
I read and understood it the first time and I think you know that. You know equally that he was in no way defending Josh Duggar (despite your repeated attempts to say that). He defended the family and their response to finding out what their son had done.

You in no way have proven your point that he was "trying divert attention away from the seriousness of Duggar's failure." or that he is defending Josh Duggar.

I really don't think you understand.

If Seewald wasn't diverting attention away from the seriousness of Duggar's crime against his sisters, then what was the purpose of his message?

TJMAC77SP
05-28-2015, 02:53 AM
I really don't think you understand.

If Seewald wasn't diverting attention away from the seriousness of Duggar's crime against his sisters, then what was the purpose of his message?

To express solidarity and support for his family which he thinks they need and deserve at this time. I believe the Dugar family is quite large and not composed of just Josh. Isn't that one of their shticks (being a large family). Seeing as he is part of the family via marriage that seems a pretty normal thing to do.

Again, I think you saw that as well.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-28-2015, 01:07 PM
To express solidarity and support for his family which he thinks they need and deserve at this time. I believe the Dugar family is quite large and not composed of just Josh. Isn't that one of their shticks (being a large family). Seeing as he is part of the family via marriage that seems a pretty normal thing to do.

Again, I think you saw that as well.

Duh!

He expressed solidarity and support with a message that he opened with by refusing to address the particulars of what Josh did and the legal issues surrounding it.

He then went on to focus attention on how everyone sins and highlighted the fact that Josh was 15 years-old.

That is diverting attention from the seriousness of what Duggar did.

You can be intellectually dishonest about it to support your narrative that I am a mean Christian basher if you want, but you don't need to.

I'll admit to being a Christian basher own my own if it makes you happy.

TJMAC77SP
05-28-2015, 01:36 PM
Duh!

He expressed solidarity and support with a message that he opened with by refusing to address the particulars of what Josh did and the legal issues surrounding it.

He then went on to focus attention on how everyone sins and highlighted the fact that Josh was 15 years-old.

That is diverting attention from the seriousness of what Duggar did.

You can be intellectually dishonest about it to support your narrative that I am a mean Christian basher if you want, but you don't need to.

I'll admit to being a Christian basher own my own if it makes you happy.

I give you credit for being honest about your personal agenda. Unfortunately you aren't really being honest here because you are claiming to be a Christian basher but failing to admit this is what is driving your opinion of Seewald's blog post.

The age of Duggar when he committed these acts is indeed relevant. There is no evidence he has ever repeated this behavior as an adult. While that doesn't excuse what he did it certainly is relevant. Inconvenient, but relevant.

Imagine one of your children does something horrifically illegal. There is national coverage of these crimes. Now imagine a close friend or family member with a public outlet issues a statement of support for you and your family. He/she doesn't condone or excuse that your child has done but expresses support for the family. Expresses concern for the victims and all such similar victims. If he/she then goes on to spell out all the details of the crime (which is already widely known) would you still feel his message was supporting?


You can be intellectually dishonest and claim you would but we both know the truth. The honest and objective truth.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-28-2015, 01:58 PM
The age of Duggar when he committed these acts is indeed relevant. There is no evidence he has ever repeated this behavior as an adult.


Here he is at age 20, five years after he molested his sisters, joking about incest.


http://youtu.be/o0vSNSIGASE



From the Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/josh-duggar-jokes-incest-2008-797889

Amidst controversy circling Josh Duggar's child molestation charges, an unsettling video of the 19 Kids and Counting star on the TLC show back in 2008 has resurfaced online.

The clip shows a then-20-year-old Duggar talking about his plans to take Anna (now his wife of nearly seven years) on a movie date. He explains that his sister Jinger was initially chosen to be their chaperone, but couldn't attend due to the movie being fit for viewers over 18 years old. "So, we chose Jana and John David. We thought, 'Why not have a double date?' " Duggar says, before jokingly adding, "We are from Arkansas!"

That sounds unrepentant to me, but you go right along supporting this jackass just because he is a Christian.

You go ahead and keep on thinking that I hate all Christians too. I don't, but you can think that I do if it makes you feel better.

TJMAC77SP
05-28-2015, 02:07 PM
Here he is at age 20, five years after he molested his sisters, joking about incest.


http://youtu.be/o0vSNSIGASE




That sounds unrepentant to me, but you go right along supporting this jackass just because he is a Christian.

You go ahead and keep on thinking that I hate all Christians too. I don't, but you can think that I do if it makes you feel better.

So you consider that joke indicative of his continuing criminal behavior? That is a bit laughable.


So am I now back to being a Christian supporter? I thought we had a 15 page thread where I ended up not being a Christian after all.

You go ahead and keep attempting to attribute my position to merely supporting Christians. It isn't true but it does fit nicely into your agenda.

BTW. I have never thought you hated Christians. I do believe you wish there weren't such a thing and make every effort to ridicule them and their faith. I get it and understand. You were beat up pretty badly by the bible as a youth. You rebelled. You continue to rebel. Understandable. I held similar animosity towards the Catholic clergy (particularly nuns) for quite awhile. I lightened up over time but I haven't experienced what you must have so again it's understandable.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-28-2015, 02:12 PM
Imagine one of your children does something horrifically illegal. There is national coverage of these crimes. Now imagine a close friend or family member with a public outlet issues a statement of support for you and your family. He/she doesn't condone or excuse that your child has done but expresses support for the family. Expresses concern for the victims and all such similar victims. If he/she then goes on to spell out all the details of the crime (which is already widely known) would you still feel his message was supporting?

No, I don't want to imagine one of my kids doing that.

I would rather imagine one of your kids doing that, and I'll be in the role of Seewald.

I'm Seewald and I'm not going to make any blog posts about your family, for or against.

I'm also putting some distance between us and let you cope with the three-ring circus of a mess that you created on your own.

Your train wreck of a TV show and your horny untrustworthy son are too much drama for me.

You just lost a friend.




You can be intellectually dishonest and claim you would but we both know the truth. The honest and objective truth.

I have no idea what you are saying. Extremely poor sentence construction, go back and fix that.

TJMAC77SP
05-28-2015, 02:18 PM
No, I don't want to imagine one of my kids doing that.

I would rather imagine one of your kids doing that, and I'll be in the role of Seewald.

I'm Seewald and I'm not going to make any blog posts about your family, for or against.

I'm also putting some distance between us and let you cope with the three-ring circus of a mess that you created on your own.

Your train wreck of a TV show and your horny untrustworthy son are too much drama for me.

You just lost a friend.




I have no idea what you are saying. Extremely poor sentence construction, go back and fix that.

I wouldn't have lost a good friend. Especially considering one of my children is married to one of yours.

I am curious why do you want to imagine one of my children committing the crime? Other than the transparent attempt to turn the point around.

You completely understood the sentence.

"BTW its comments like 'your train wreck of a show' which again sheds light on the real agenda you are working from. My guess is that like me you have never watched the show.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-28-2015, 02:27 PM
So you consider that joke indicative of his continuing criminal behavior? That is a bit laughable.

No, I said it sounded unrepentant. Are you even reading what I post?

If you are doing crap like that just to annoy me, great job! It is working.



So am I now back to being a Christian supporter? I thought we had a 15 page thread where I ended up not being a Christian after all.

I think I called you a shitty Christian, or not a real Christian based on how you described the way you practiced your faith.

According to the bible and the churches that I used to belong to, you aren't a practicing Christian.

A failed Christian, or a weak Christian might be more accurate.




You go ahead and keep attempting to attribute my position to merely supporting Christians. It isn't true but it does fit nicely into your agenda.

BTW. I have never thought you hated Christians. I do believe you wish there weren't such a thing and make every effort to ridicule them and their faith. I get it and understand. You were beat up pretty badly by the bible as a youth. You rebelled. You continue to rebel. Understandable. I held similar animosity towards the Catholic clergy (particularly nuns) for quite awhile. I lightened up over time but I haven't experienced what you must have so again it's understandable.

Frankly, I attribute your position primarily to the fact that you enjoy crossing swords with me.

You seem to eagerly pick up an opposite viewpoint just to fence with me. Don't worry about it, I do that too.

Rainmaker
05-28-2015, 02:52 PM
Lmao. Good thing I believe in neither one. I'm still trying to figure out how people believe the story of Job was God's triumph over the devil and how faith in God is beneficial. The devil basically tricked God into allowing him to punish a man. Nope, I would rather believe that it was just Job blaming his misfortunes and fortunes on forces unseen (devil and God respectively). I mean, think about it, knowing what we know now about the food chain, it would seem to make sense that when his crops went bad and anything else that depended on them would fall ill, from his livestock up to kids and wife and then to himself. Not knowing what we know, it would just make sense to him that it was someone else fault instead of maybe his own due to lack of knowledge. As such, if he had the knowledge to better tend his crops, we probably would have never heard of him or the wager.

Just saying that for many people in such times, their lack of the tools and the ideas needed to understand how nature works were filled in by the only thing that they did understand: other people. Everything was personified because that was the only thing they knew. They didn't know of anything that was smaller than what they could perceive with their own senses (with the minor exception of the Greeks assertion of the existence of the atom and elemental makeup of the universe). You end up with gods who look and act like people and some who incorporate animals into their physiology due to connections between the animals' behavior and how a sentient being would act in their supernatural role in the regional religious cosmology. Think about what we know about Odin's ravens and what we know of ravens in general. We know that many ravens tend to be seen picking out the eyes of other dead animals. They also tend to stay in a tree waiting patiently for an animal to kick the bucket but would fly off for seemingly no reason. Enter in Odin who happens to be missing an eye (it's in his staff apparently) and the ravens are reporting to him on what's going on in the mortal plain.

Human beings have an incredible power to create very interesting associations where there may or may not be. Such associations gave rise to religions in a world where answers don't come easy or naturally. However, these same type of associations have given rise to science as well. The main difference is that science wants people to believe by using a self-correcting system that demands consistency within its varied topics regardless of what is being proposed as truth because questions are always welcomed. Religion, on the other hand, demands that people follow and believe without the people trying to correct it or even without people questioning it because it is already asserted as true with nothing to ensure consistency.

I'm good on all that. I have a moral compass that tells me that the support this guy is getting is highly misguided. It is only logical that they are acting more to protect the religion rather than just protecting him. This would help to support the notion that just because you believe in God, that doesn't mean you're a good person. I think that's what they're trying to get ahead of. I think they shouldn't defend him like that because it makes all of them look like they don't care about the victims and I find that the worst part of this.

This is why you're invited to the Homestead Rollyn. We are going to need deep thinkers during the coming troubles.

God and Religion are 2 different things. Religion is flawed because it is made by man. And this is not the real reality (It could be a sort of cosmic testing lab?) so Rainmaker have no qualms with someone being "disappointed" in God that life's a bitch sometimes.

Where the Militant Atheistic argument breaks down for me is when they say that there can't possibly be a God because bad stuff happens on Earth. Or That anyone who believes in a God must have no critical thinking skills. It's the height of arrogance.

So, just curious where do you stand on Evolution, as written by Darwin in "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"? Progressive academics always shorten the title, Because, Charles Darwin was a racist (and that's Inconvenient for them). He was also a Christian, which is the only thing which prevented him from advocating the forced elimination from the gene pool of the "Less Favored" races.

Personally, I do believe in Evolution (Science) as the How and God as the Why. Without a Creator as the ultimate source of individual liberty, the Republic will die. This is why Marxist Psychopaths always seek to get rid of religion in order to transfer ultimate power to the atheistic state. This is why Christianity is under constant attack in the media and Federal Court system, that they now control. Then in the vacuum they create, they'll set the state (themselves) up as God.

Maybe Genesis is the story of genetic engineering of our species by something. Call it God, Ancient Astronaut Aliens, Natural Selection, whatever you choose?

Absinthe Anecdote
05-28-2015, 03:04 PM
I wouldn't have lost a good friend. Especially considering one of my children is married to one of yours.

I am curious why do you want to imagine one of my children committing the crime? Other than the transparent attempt to turn the point around.

I didn't want to imagine myself in the role of being disgraced by having an incestuous son. That is very unpleasant. I'd rather put you in that role.

Plus, we were talking about Seewald. I wanted to respond about Seewald, not Duggar. I would have kept out of that mess and distanced myself from it if I were Seewald.


You completely understood the sentence. No, I didn't understand that sentence.




"BTW its comments like 'your train wreck of a show' which again sheds light on the real agenda you are working from. My guess is that like me you have never watched the show.

It is a show that was pulled of the air amid a scandal involving incest, train wreck is putting it lightly.

What is it with you and agendas? The way you accuse people of having agendas, it sounds like you believe that is a horrible thing to have an agenda.

So fucking what.

I have entire squadrons of agendas that I like to hide. I load these hidden agendas with ulterior motives then I stealthily deploy them in the dark of night.

Seriously, find something a bit more substantial to harp on.

TJMAC77SP
05-28-2015, 03:13 PM
No, I said it sounded unrepentant. Are you even reading what I post?

If you are doing crap like that just to annoy me, great job! It is working.



I think I called you a shitty Christian, or not a real Christian based on how you described the way you practiced your faith.

According to the bible and the churches that I used to belong to, you aren't a practicing Christian.

A failed Christian, or a weak Christian might be more accurate.



Frankly, I attribute your position primarily to the fact that you enjoy crossing swords with me.

You seem to eagerly pick up an opposite viewpoint just to fence with me. Don't worry about it, I do that too.

Isn't it a fairly small jump to believe that someone who is unrepentant is or would continue to commit the acts he is allegedly unrepentant for? That was why I asked if you found the joke to be an indication he was continuing his criminal behavior.

So according to what you were taught I am not a practicing Christian. Isn't that the same as "not being a Christian after all"? I am not seeing a real difference. What is your contention with what I said?

Well I like exercising my brain and you certainly help me do that. That is why I have missed you on the MTF. I don't pick my positions based on that. That would be intellectually dishonest. I truly believe what I post as I am sure you do.

TJMAC77SP
05-28-2015, 03:24 PM
I didn't want to imagine myself in the role of being disgraced by having an incestuous son. That is very unpleasant. I'd rather put you in that role.

Plus, we were talking about Seewald. I wanted to respond about Seewald, not Duggar. I would have kept out of that mess and distanced myself from it if I were Seewald.

No, I didn't understand that sentence.



It is a show that was pulled of the air amid a scandal involving incest, train wreck is putting it lightly.

What is it with you and agendas? The way you accuse people of having agendas, it sounds like you believe that is a horrible thing to have an agenda.

So fucking what.

I have entire squadrons of agendas that I like to hide. I load these hidden agendas with ulterior motives then I stealthily deploy them in the dark of night.

Seriously, find something a bit more substantial to harp on.

Well none of us would like imagining ourselves in the role the Duggars are now in. I am sure that is what motivated Seewald. Support to people he admires. I would imagine they would rather have anyone else in that role but that isn't really why you reversed a completely hypothetical situation.

So you have just now concluded the show is bad and a 'train wreck'? Before this incident you had no issues with the Duggars? I am still imagining you have never watched an episode. I further imagine that like me you merely heard about their family and beliefs in the media and that is what formed your opinion. That opinion was more than likely formed quite awhile ago.

We all have agendas. When we obfuscate those agendas in our posts with logically flawed arguments and specious positions I find that intellectually dishonest (I am really liking your phrase. Hope you don't mind my continued use of it).

A typical response is to accuse me to be completely in the camp of the person or persons whom you deem I am supporting. This is a well worn issue. You certainly aren't the only one to do it but you do it without resorting to lies and insults (minor snarky insults yes). Despite my statements to the contrary the intimation is that I somehow support Duggar and Seewald because I am a Christian and yet through your own words that isn't really true so what it the alternative? That I have an agenda that is merely to support the objective truth? Well, that's no fun.

Rainmaker
05-28-2015, 03:39 PM
To express solidarity and support for his family which he thinks they need and deserve at this time. I believe the Dugar family is quite large and not composed of just Josh. Isn't that one of their shticks (being a large family). Seeing as he is part of the family via marriage that seems a pretty normal thing to do.

Again, I think you saw that as well.

So, the Duggars are 18 for 19 on kids turning out ok? That's a pretty good track record. 95%. Notice how the media is all over this but, continues to ignore Clinton's 12 trips to Epstein's Pedofile Island? I think we all know why.

Rainmaker
05-28-2015, 03:45 PM
Here he is at age 20, five years after he molested his sisters, joking about incest.


http://youtu.be/o0vSNSIGASE




That sounds unrepentant to me, but you go right along supporting this jackass just because he is a Christian.

You go ahead and keep on thinking that I hate all Christians too. I don't, but you can think that I do if it makes you feel better.

Did the Pentecostal preacher's daughter that dumped you wear those kind of dresses too? You have to admit they're kinda hard to resist

Absinthe Anecdote
05-28-2015, 03:51 PM
Epstein's Pedofile Island?

What in the hell are you talking about? I would try to find out on my own, but there is no way in hell that I'm typing that into a search engine.

What place are you saying Clinton went to?

Absinthe Anecdote
05-28-2015, 03:54 PM
Did the Pentecostal preacher's daughter that dumped you wear those kind of dresses too? You have to admit they're kinda hard to resist

Baptist girl, and yes she wore dresses like that as a child.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-28-2015, 04:15 PM
Well none of us would like imagining ourselves in the role the Duggars are now in. I am sure that is what motivated Seewald. Support to people he admires. I would imagine they would rather have anyone else in that role but that isn't really why you reversed a completely hypothetical situation.

So you have just now concluded the show is bad and a 'train wreck'? Before this incident you had no issues with the Duggars? I am still imagining you have never watched an episode. I further imagine that like me you merely heard about their family and beliefs in the media and that is what formed your opinion. That opinion was more than likely formed quite awhile ago.

We all have agendas. When we obfuscate those agendas in our posts with logically flawed arguments and specious positions I find that intellectually dishonest (I am really liking your phrase. Hope you don't mind my continued use of it).

A typical response is to accuse me to be completely in the camp of the person or persons whom you deem I am supporting. This is a well worn issue. You certainly aren't the only one to do it but you do it without resorting to lies and insults (minor snarky insults yes). Despite my statements to the contrary the intimation is that I somehow support Duggar and Seewald because I am a Christian and yet through your own words that isn't really true so what it the alternative? That I have an agenda that is merely to support the objective truth? Well, that's no fun.

I had never heard of it until this thread popped up. I have no problem labeling it a train wreck based on its current state. It was removed from the air because of a scandal involving incest. That is deserving of the lable train wreck in my book.

I think I also said that the Duggar's had made a three-ring circus of their lives, and I stand by that remark without having watched a single episode of the show.

I am basing it on my opinion of those whose sign on to do a reality TV show.

Be it the Duggar's, Gene Simmons, the Jersey Shore kids, the Kardashians, the midget couple, or the Honey Boo Boo family.

When you invite reality TV cameras into your home, you are going to be ridiculed by me to a certain degree. You are making your life into a circus, I might watch and enjoy it, I might not. It is circus like entertainment in my opinion.

Of course you can happily laugh your way to the bank as I sit and mock you on the MTF. You really shouldn't care what I think because, you put yourself in the spotlight.

Rainmaker
05-28-2015, 04:22 PM
What in the hell are you talking about? I would try to find out on my own, but there is no way in hell that I'm typing that into a search engine.

What place are you saying Clinton went to?

Oh Come on Now AA? I thought you were supposed to be an analyst? I guess they don't allow you guys to look at anything other than LexisNexis or Reuters anymore, lest you do some independent research and figure it out?

Absinthe Anecdote
05-28-2015, 04:37 PM
Oh Come on Now AA? I thought you were supposed to be an analyst? I guess they don't allow you guys to look at anything other than LexisNexis or Reuters anymore, lest you do some independent research and figure it out?

I got this from typing in "Epstein Clinton"

http://nypost.com/2015/02/14/bill-clintons-libido-threatens-to-derail-hillary-again/

You are screwing up the terminology, according to the New York Post, it is "Orgy Island" and the airplane that takes you there is the "Lolita Express."

If you would tighten up your language, I might read what you post more often.

Rainmaker
05-28-2015, 04:46 PM
I got this from typing in "Epstein Clinton"

http://nypost.com/2015/02/14/bill-clintons-libido-threatens-to-derail-hillary-again/

You are screwing up the terminology, according to the New York Post, it is "Orgy Island" and the airplane that takes you there is the "Lolita Express."

If you would tighten up your language, I might read what you post more often.

Yes, that's a tame version. But, at least it's starting to (finally) leak out. I'm surprised how many people have never heard of this. A lot of my clients are Europeans. We'll usually end up talking politics at some point or another. They've known all about this because it's been all over the British media for a while now. It's been interesting for me to notice how this has hardly been covered at all by the Zionist American Ministry of Propaganda. Now after years of these gangsters selling the country down the river, they're throwing Hitlery under the bus, because they can't keep the lid on it very much longer.

sandsjames
05-28-2015, 04:53 PM
Yes, that's a tame version. But, at least it's starting to (finally) leak out. I'm surprised how many people have never heard of this. A lot of my clients are Europeans. We'll usually end up talking politics at some point or another. They've known all about this because it's been all over the British media for a while now. It's been interesting for me to notice how this has hardly been covered at all by the Zionist American Ministry of Propaganda. Now after years of these gangsters selling the country down the river, they're throwing Hitlery under the bus, because they can't keep the lid on it very much longer.

What does it have to do with Hillary?

Rainmaker
05-28-2015, 05:10 PM
What does it have to do with Hillary?

Nothing really.... Notice how, she's suddenly being taken to task for email servers and the corruption of the clinton foundation? They are still soft-balling her. But, at least they are talking about it. .The shape shifting bitch has done far worse and gotten away scot free..But, as Rusty said. it's the modern day scarlet letter.

A billionaire convicted pervert, pleading the 5th when asked about his associations with a former POTUS and potential future first Husband is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Having just traveled to 2016 and back in My Hot-tub time machine I can tell you that your next election "choice" is between Senator Pochahontas Warren vs. John Ellis Bush 3.

Rainmaker
05-28-2015, 05:34 PM
If you would tighten up your language, I might read what you post more often.

You must always be ready to separate the chaff from the wheat with your winnowing fork my friend!

TJMAC77SP
05-28-2015, 06:27 PM
I had never heard of it until this thread popped up. I have no problem labeling it a train wreck based on its current state. It was removed from the air because of a scandal involving incest. That is deserving of the lable train wreck in my book.

I think I also said that the Duggar's had made a three-ring circus of their lives, and I stand by that remark without having watched a single episode of the show.

I am basing it on my opinion of those whose sign on to do a reality TV show.

Be it the Duggar's, Gene Simmons, the Jersey Shore kids, the Kardashians, the midget couple, or the Honey Boo Boo family.

When you invite reality TV cameras into your home, you are going to be ridiculed by me to a certain degree. You are making your life into a circus, I might watch and enjoy it, I might not. It is circus like entertainment in my opinion.

Of course you can happily laugh your way to the bank as I sit and mock you on the MTF. You really shouldn't care what I think because, you put yourself in the spotlight.

Ok, I can believe that. I don't ever remember you posting any opinions on other reality shows but of course that doesn't mean you didn't have opinions.

I do wholeheartedly agree with you about reality tv and it's 'stars'.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-28-2015, 06:50 PM
Ok, I can believe that. I don't ever remember you posting any opinions on other reality shows but of course that doesn't mean you didn't have opinions.

I do wholeheartedly agree with you about reality tv and it's 'stars'.

Which is yet another reason why I find Seewald's defense of them dumber than hell.

The Duggar's invite TV cameras into their home. In my eyes they are saying,"look at us! Look at us!"

Then the public sees something something unsavory. They aren't getting any sympathy from me, even if I was unfortunate enough to be related to that clan.

I don't understand why you are trying to claim they are being picked on by the media for being Christians either.

Maybe you have a case for saying that I am being harsh on them because I am a well known Christian basher, but not the media. It is a valid story in the entertainment section of the news.

TJMAC77SP
05-28-2015, 09:26 PM
Which is yet another reason why I find Seewald's defense of them dumber than hell.

The Duggar's invite TV cameras into their home. In my eyes they are saying,"look at us! Look at us!"

Then the public sees something something unsavory. They aren't getting any sympathy from me, even if I was unfortunate enough to be related to that clan.

I don't understand why you are trying to claim they are being picked on by the media for being Christians either.

Maybe you have a case for saying that I am being harsh on them because I am a well known Christian basher, but not the media. It is a valid story in the entertainment section of the news.

Well I am not sure I said the media was picking on them and there is no denying that it is a valid story. In all honesty I think the media is jumping on the story in part because of their well publicized Christian beliefs not so much out of anti-Christian motivation but because it makes for a juicier story.

The one thing I don't understand (when the anti-Christian bias is removed) is why you are condemning the whole family for one child's acts.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-28-2015, 09:53 PM
Well I am not sure I said the media was picking on them and there is no denying that it is a valid story. In all honesty I think the media is jumping on the story in part because of their well publicized Christian beliefs not so much out of anti-Christian motivation but because it makes for a juicier story.

The one thing I don't understand (when the anti-Christian bias is removed) is why you are condemning the whole family for one child's acts.

I'm not condemning the entire family. I do have a large dose of disdain for horny boy, and I think I can level some very strong criticism at the parents for choosing to have so many children, but that is ultimately their business.

Well, it would have been their business, but they are the ones who decided to become public figures.

They entered the public arena, and invited people to watch them and have conversations about them, so I can talk about them and criticize them if I want.

I don't think having 19 children is wise. With a family that large, at some point, one or more of their kids are going to be neglected, or be raised by other siblings.

Putting older siblings in charge of younger siblings for indefinite periods of time isn't right in my book.

Foisting that amount of responsiblilty on the older kids isn't fair, nor is it good for the younger ones.

Apparently they have the monetary resources for such big family, but I question if two parents have the time to tend to that many kids.

I would imagine that alone time is exceptionally rare in that house, and that one-on one interaction between parent and child is even more of a rarity.

Plus, the revelation of incest in the family is a pretty big indicator of something going horribly wrong in the family dynamic.

But what do I know? I'm just applying common sense and logic to form my opinion.

Perhaps I should delude myself with the belief that since Jesus is in their house they are great parents.

TJMAC77SP
05-28-2015, 10:14 PM
I'm not condemning the entire family. I do have a large dose of disdain for horny boy, and I think I can level some very strong criticism at the parents for choosing to have so many children, but that is ultimately their business.

Well, it would have been their business, but they are the ones who decided to become public figures.

They entered the public arena, and invited people to watch them and have conversations about them, so I can talk about them and criticize them if I want.

I don't think having 19 children is wise. With a family that large, at some point, one or more of their kids are going to be neglected, or be raised by other siblings.

Putting older siblings in charge of younger siblings for indefinite periods of time isn't right in my book.

Foisting that amount of responsiblilty on the older kids isn't fair, nor is it good for the younger ones.

Apparently they have the monetary resources for such big family, but I question if two parents have the time to tend to that many kids.

I would imagine that alone time is exceptionally rare in that house, and that one-on one interaction between parent and child is even more of a rarity.

Plus, the revelation of incest in the family is a pretty big indicator of something going horribly wrong in the family dynamic.

But what do I know? I'm just applying common sense and logic to form my opinion.

Perhaps I should delude myself with the belief that since Jesus is in their house they are great parents.

Just couldn't help yourself could you?

Wouldn't be you if you didn't throw in a snarky anti-Christian remark.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-28-2015, 10:27 PM
Just couldn't help yourself could you?

Wouldn't be you if you didn't throw in a snarky anti-Christian remark.

I didn't want to disappoint you.

What do you think about a family that large? Do you think it is all happy with the kids marching around like the singing Von Trapp family?

I think it would have to be chaotic at times. I can see the children with dominate personalities overshadowing the more timid ones.

There has to be a whole host of problems and unique challenges associated with raising that many kids.

It has to be like growing up in a barracks or even an orphanage, even though they are all their natural children.

The incest incident points to that. Heck, that is exactly the kind of horror story you hear about in group homes and orphanages.

TJMAC77SP
05-29-2015, 12:16 AM
I didn't want to disappoint you.

What do you think about a family that large? Do you think it is all happy with the kids marching around like the singing Von Trapp family?

I think it would have to be chaotic at times. I can see the children with dominate personalities overshadowing the more timid ones.

There has to be a whole host of problems and unique challenges associated with raising that many kids.

It has to be like growing up in a barracks or even an orphanage, even though they are all their natural children.

The incest incident points to that. Heck, that is exactly the kind of horror story you hear about in group homes and orphanages.

I have only known one person first hand who was from such a large family. He was Mormon and his dad was on his third wife. I think the count of children was more than twenty. I am sure they all didn't live under the same roof and of course some were already adults. He seemed well rounded and happy though. Was actually a really nice guy.

Bottom line is that I am not ready to make such a judgment. I certainly don't equate having 18 siblings with living in a group home or orphanage either. Hell it isn't even equal to living in a foster home and I have pretty extensive experience with that (although honestly I got lucky when I was nine. Before that, you don't want to know).

The home being chaotic, absolutely. It doesn't take 19 kids for one of more's personality to overshadow others.

Rollyn01
05-29-2015, 03:18 AM
This is why you're invited to the Homestead Rollyn. We are going to need deep thinkers during the coming troubles.

God and Religion are 2 different things. Religion is flawed because it is made by man. And this is not the real reality (It could be a sort of cosmic testing lab?) so Rainmaker have no qualms with someone being "disappointed" in God that life's a bitch sometimes.

Where the Militant Atheistic argument breaks down for me is when they say that there can't possibly be a God because bad stuff happens on Earth. Or That anyone who believes in a God must have no critical thinking skills. It's the height of arrogance.

So, just curious where do you stand on Evolution, as written by Darwin in "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"? Progressive academics always shorten the title, Because, Charles Darwin was a racist (and that's Inconvenient for them). He was also a Christian, which is the only thing which prevented him from advocating the forced elimination from the gene pool of the "Less Favored" races.

Personally, I do believe in Evolution (Science) as the How and God as the Why. Without a Creator as the ultimate source of individual liberty, the Republic will die. This is why Marxist Psychopaths always seek to get rid of religion in order to transfer ultimate power to the atheistic state. This is why Christianity is under constant attack in the media and Federal Court system, that they now control. Then in the vacuum they create, they'll set the state (themselves) up as God.

Maybe Genesis is the story of genetic engineering of our species by something. Call it God, Ancient Astronaut Aliens, Natural Selection, whatever you choose?

Deep thinking is the preferred requirement to truly wielding any weapon or tool to its full potential. With that said, I'm tacking that to the bunker wall and outside the razor-wire/claymore fence. "Deep thinkers may pass, all others will be converted to a pink mist." Subject to approval of course, just to put that out there.

When it comes to deities and the religion surrounding them, I would rather not have to know about what religion a person identifies with. Just as I don't favor a song by the genre it's in but on how it sounds, I don't necessarily judge a person by the religion that they identify with, only their actions and intent to harm. I don't care if you believe in Jesus, Mohammed, Heracles, the Ancient Ones... none of these are of consequence to me. You cause any harm to someone, you will be judge by that regard only. Nothing justifies the harm of others unless it's purpose is to protect oneself or those who can't defend themselves. Saying that your god told you to kill others is bullshit. To say that you need money to help others by buying a million dollar jet is bullshit. To say that if everyone just believe in your religion everything would be better is the greatest of bullshit because it's usually followed by demands of blind obedience. I am servant to no man and no god. I'm only a servant of my kids and that's where my servitude ends. With that said, anything I do is of my own volition and not of someone else. To say otherwise, be by man or god, diminishes me to nothing but a puppet. Last I checked, there wasn't a stick up my ass or a hand that makes me talk or anything else. I have a brain that does that for me and as such, require no such comforts that would come with putting faith or blame on someone/something else for my successes or failures. I succeed, I share the wealth as best I could and demand nothing of the sort of bullshit that many religions do. I fail, I learn from it to do better when that opportunity comes up again instead of directing my frustration on a figment of my imagination because it is time wasted that could be used to make myself better. In short, I'm not disappointed with the deities that people worship, I'm disappointed with the people themselves who don't see themselves as the problem. They rather blame others just like they place their faith in others because it could never possibly be their own fault. From pedophile priest to money-grubbing ministers to cults infiltrating government agencies so they can destroy documents, I don't look at their religion, I look at them and wonder, "What the fuck as wrong with all of you?"

As for evolution, I favor it. I mean, most people who support creationism are of the mind that evolution can't possibly the way that God made the world and all of its inhabitants. They are also of the mind the man is of a special creation separate from the other creatures. To diminish this view by believe of evolution is consider blasphemy. Of course, this is ignoring the incentive of having a hold on peoples view on how the world works. If God made the world, then as a member of the church's leadership, you hold sway of the people. Challenging the church's hold by reducing God's role will make it so that the church will not have absolute dominion of the people. There's a lot of money in being a "servant" of the cloth, not to mention the power and trust that comes with it. As such, it would only make sense that Darwin's work was not accepted for some time. He related different species together in a more logical fashion and man's place in it was included. Here again, we see the reaction as a defense of the religion than proper criticism of the merits of his work. To them, man is not a lesser species (which Darwin never implied) but rather the pinnacle of God's creation and thus the reason for any excuse to claim superiority over others which just leads to more harm than good.

Personally, I believe in evolution as the how as well. For the why, that I rather leave that question for later when civilization solves many of the basic of issues such as health, food, shelter and other things that are known to be necessary to us to be able to live a smart, healthy, happy live. At that point, we can have more people who can then devout themselves to such a question without being impeded by such issues and truly find an answer that is revolutionary. Where we are now, we're so busy with petty infighting, no answer would be sufficient to bring us to what I believe would be the next step in our evolution.


At one point in trying to rationalize the bible, I came to that same conclusion of Genesis. I even thought it was interesting in how it supports the notion that all humans descend from somewhere in Africa. Man from dirt could only refer to something of a dark color and Africa is also known to has oases that can easily fit the description of Eden. However, I was very turned off by those who assert that creationism and evolution are incompatible to the point of being complete opposites of each other. Added in that creationism is limited to only certain eras (days due to the lack of the understanding of larger time scales in keeping with me stating that they lack the proper ideas), we only see bits and pieces that only tell part of what the writers knew or thought. Lack more information for the writers prohibit me from accepting it as complete or even as a theory. If anything, it's an untested hypothesis that is not falsifiable so I can't give it a pass. However, it was an interesting read... till things went south oh so quickly.

UncaRastus
05-29-2015, 01:56 PM
Just a thought, but George Foreman has it right. Every kid is a George or a derivative thereof!

On second thought, no derivatives.

Everything that is an animal around here is a George. Every plant is a Mad Dog, because Morning Glory is too hard to remember.

Yeah. Georges and Mad Dogs, all over the place.

Rainmaker
05-29-2015, 02:10 PM
Just a thought, but George Foreman has it right. Every kid is a George or a derivative thereof!

On second thought, no derivatives.

Everything that is an animal around here is a George. Every plant is a Mad Dog, because Morning Glory is too hard to remember.

Yeah. Georges and Mad Dogs, all over the place.

Genghis Khan, the ultimate alpha male

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news11

"Genghis Khan lived from 1162-1227 and raped and pillaged from Mongolia to the gates of Vienna. Once he captured a village or town, he would essentially kill all the men and rape the women. While deplorable from a social point of view, it seems to have been wildly successful from a biological point of view. As I said above, 1 in 200 males today may trace their lineage to Genghis and his sons."

Absinthe Anecdote
05-29-2015, 02:26 PM
Genghis Khan, the ultimate alpha male

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news11

"Genghis Khan lived from 1162-1227 and raped and pillaged from Mongolia to the gates of Vienna. Once he captured a village or town, he would essentially kill all the men and rape the women. While deplorable from a social point of view, it seems to have been wildly successful from a biological point of view. As I said above, 1 in 200 males today may trace their lineage to Genghis and his sons."

http://youtu.be/WA4tLCGcTG4

Mjölnir
07-01-2015, 04:27 PM
Something just popped in my head about this issue:

Josh Duggar, molested his sister(s) and he (and in large part his family and their values) was pretty crucified by the media.

Lena Dunham admitted molested she her sister in her book last year ... crickets.

Rainmaker
07-01-2015, 05:11 PM
Something just popped in my head about this issue:

Josh Duggar, molested his sister(s) and he (and in large part his family and their values) was pretty crucified by the media.

Lena Dunham admitted molested her sister in her book last year ... crickets.

If Rainmaker had to venture a guess why, it'd probably be Because Girls is the Hit new show in Modern day Sodom and Gomorrah were that Bastion of Journalistic Integrity Brian Williams daughter gets her ass eaten out on the big screen. And Ms. Dunham has obsessive compulsive disorder and It takes a Noble Courageous person to overcome those kind of things and still be able to produce works of art.

Mjölnir
07-01-2015, 05:36 PM
If Rainmaker had to venture a guess why, it'd probably be Because Girls is the Hit new show in Modern day Sodom and Gomorrah were that Bastion of Journalistic Integrity Brian Williams daughter gets her ass eaten out on the big screen. And Ms. Dunham has obsessive compulsive disorder and It takes a Noble Courageous person to overcome those kind of things and still be able to produce works of art.

My take would be similar, I don't like the hypocrisy nor the "don't pay attention to this person's transgression but pay attention to this one's" ... from anyone.

Rainmaker
07-01-2015, 06:39 PM
My take would be similar, I don't like the hypocrisy nor the "don't pay attention to this person's transgression but pay attention to this one's" ... from anyone.

Rome is burning. Justice is compromised. The supreme court just ruled that states can't require proof of citizenship to vote in Federal Elections. America today exists in Name only. Attention Passengers, This is your Captain Speaking....Prepare to Crash.

garhkal
07-01-2015, 06:42 PM
My take would be similar, I don't like the hypocrisy nor the "don't pay attention to this person's transgression but pay attention to this one's" ... from anyone.

Same with me. If you are going to point out one person's faults, point them out for everyone.