Bells
Staff member
Nope. I said exactly this:
You dont think Josh's sexual development was a bit delayed by his lack of social contact and rigid family structure?
and I said:
Shaped and Delayed. Fine.
and I said something like:
I dont agree that this incident encompasses molestation. At the worst it can be described as light petting. Very light.
And we hold back school kids who are just not at the same level as the other kids in their age group; its not about intelligence, they are just not developmentally on par with their peers. And most of the time they can keep up being placed in a younger age group. Once in a while they gotta be kept back a 2nd time.
And that works with behavior too. Josh was held back by his parents. He caught up fast though.
Are you now trying to deny you actually said this:
It was totally about Josh's emerging sexuality
What emerging sexuality?Josh was just a kid with limited resources in dealing with his emerging sexuality.
Why do you keep bringing his sexuality up? What does his heterosexuality have to do with his child molestation?
You are completely missing the point, aren't you?more grammar/spelling fanaticism?
I use xmas alot too. Its like using afaik or brb.
But you knew that... ad hominem. Strawman. Quite average behavior even.
Not probably. You actually did.Probably have. Sometimes I dont agree with whats being defined as a 'crime'. Sometimes I think a juries verdict is wrong too. Sometimes I think cops lie. And I know lawyers lie.
Yes. And?UPDATE: Amy Webb, spokesperson for the Arkansas Department of Human Services, tells Radar that “parents who home school children in Arkansas are not mandated reporters.”
This was already covered earlier in the thread. I wasn't talking about the parents being mandated reporters. Why are you trying to change the subject again?
It's about the victims. Not about a juvenile offender.oh, I read it alright.
You don't need to. Just read the legislation. That is pretty clear.I seriously dont trust your opinion on what is required to be confidential by the various denominations in Arkansas.
Didn't you read the link?Accredited By Who?
Who do you think does the accreditation for professionals?
What, exactly, do you think is meant by "accredited"?Without that knowledge you cannot make the absurd claim of professional counselor who are licensed.
Prove it. Accredited is, by any definition, a licensed professional. It appears as though you are trying to deny reality, lie and claim that the clergy are accredited counselors when it is clear that the State of Arkansas has a fairly detailed standard for how accreditation can be obtained. I even linked it for you, for Arkansas. Even if the clergy involved in this case have a master's degree in psychology and are accredited, it still does not mean that they are not mandated reporters. The legislation is very clear on the matter and when and if any exemptions apply. Josh did not confess to them, nor was this treated as a confidential discussion between the criminal and his priest. The Church community were aware of it.You assume its by the state of arkansas. Their 'accredited' counselor can be accredited by the church of the sub-genius in this context.
Completely different state and completely different thing.Seen it all the time as people tried to become licensed in MN and found out their college wasnt accredited by the right org. That piece of paper didnt mean shit for them. But the college they chose didnt lie about it being an 'accredited' degree. And arkansas has EXEMPTIONS for licensure; meaning religions dont need a license to partake in some types of counseling (marriage and family therapy being one).
And as the legislation you linked, clergy are not exempt from reporting in this particular case. Nor did the parents advise that their children were counseled by their priest. Instead, the parents advised they received counseling from "accredited professionals". Note his words, as linked earlier:
Jim Bob Duggar said the counseling came from “accredited professional counselor.”
Pay particular attention to the word "accredited". Look it up if you don't understand what that means.
Do you even understand that what you linked contradicts you?
And what does this have to do with this discussion?We had this fun one in MN:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110203035125/http://www.bachmanncounseling.com/drbachmann/
I took the time to look up his employees licensure at the time this was 'big news' (for the few MN online license check at that time). Bachmann was the only one Not Licensed in MN in the areas his degrees may have qualified for. But then, he didnt advertise himself as a licensed anything.
Context and keeping up with discussions is a foreign concept for you, isn't it?Yeah? So? whats your point. Are you accusing these unnamed and unknown people of being mandatory reporters too?
The point, milkweed, is that it wasn't a confidential issue if the whole church knew about it. Ergo, it was clearly not a confession to the clergy, who was a mandated reporter.
So are people now disputing that Josh Duggar, at 14, was not considered a child? I remember some time back when liberals kept referring to Trayvon Martin, a 5ft 11in 17 year old who bashed a grown man, as a 'child'. Yet said liberals are now chomping at the bit to treat a 14 year old as an adult in our justice system. It's interesting how what liberals consider a 'child' is so nebulous, and changes according to their race and religion. Or maybe if Josh had been carrying Skittles when he committed his alleged crimes, he'd be getting more sympathy from the left.
And it is interesting at the amount of hoops the right are going through to excuse and protect the molestation of children. No one is chomping at the bit to treat him like an adult. But to suggest that at 14 and then 15 years of age, he didn't know it was wrong to sexually molest his sisters and the baby sitter, and even his 5 year old sister when he was 15 years of age is laughable at best and despicable and deranged.
And comparing a situation in which an unarmed 17 year old was murdered by a deranged gun toting lunatic to a 14 and then 15 year old molesting multiple children is ridiculous and perverted.
The belief that it is normal or just simple curiosity that drove him to molest even his 5 year old sister is perverted. It wasn't a mistake. It was a deliberate act and he did it multiple times. And now conservatives are treating child molestation as a political battle ground and they are defending the molestation of children? Really? It has come to this? This is how low people are going to go?
When people can't even agree that molesting children is bad and they view any criticism of child molestation as being an attack on Christianity or the Right, then it's a fairly safe bet that they lost any political ground or battle or whatever you want to call it, before they even begin.