You support the protection and hiding of sexual molesters from the law.
Statistically its unlikely. But if that isnt good enough for you, his sisters (two of them) have come forward and said it didnt happen again. The police report from 2006 said the sisters (all of them) said it didnt happen again. Are you accusing them of being liars? You cant trust the 'victim' testimony? They told what he had done before just fine.. They werent in there telling the cops in 2006 "I dont remember that".How do you know he isn't?
Um yeah right.. whatever... little manchurian candidates all of 'em...His wife would not be allowed to report it if he was molesting his daughters, for example. She needs his permission to do something like that.
And he clearly did not learn appropriate behaviour. If he had, he would never have molested in the first place. He learned that if he sinned, he would go to hell and ruin his future. The future of his victims mattered not. They are mere cattle in the quiverful movement. Owned by their fathers and brothers who even chose their spouses for them.
Oh no! It's not in wiki! Whatever will you do?
Yawn... Their lifestyle wasnt about a 'rape culture' and they sure as hell didnt promote Josh's behavior. Your claims are unbelievable.It is part of rape culture. Let us know if you need to look that up and need further explanation.
I had it sorted out before I posted. Recidivism does not apply in the case of Josh's behavior.Do you still have issues with what recidivism means? Or have you finally got that sorted out?
I want you to talk to my kid about something that happened in the past is notNothing like making the case for your opponent, eh Milkweed?
So, once again, with the definitions (this one from Wiki, so it must be true, right?)
In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)#cite_note-1[1] Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense.
Please enlighten us - how are two people, one of which a LEO, that are discussing a crime and agreeing not to report it (a crime in itself) followed by the overt act of actually failing to report the crime not a conspiracy, exactly?
But minimizing abuse of children is normal in our society.Then let us make that clear: Minimizing, excusing, and empowering sexual abuse of children is not normal, and there is no good route for you to get there.
What motivates so many to misrepresent the relative nature of sibling violence?Deliberately misrepresenting history in order to empower sexual abuse of children is not normal, and there is no good route for you to get there.
In the same sense that Josh is a child molester, all who physically and verbally inflict any degree of violence on their siblings are child abusers. For some reason people don’t tend to get so angry about that.No, Josh is a child molester. People tend to be angry about that.
No, what’s puzzling here is the nature of your game. You seem to have the need to minimize the offensive nature of other forms of sibling abuse in order to maximize the offensive nature of sibling sexual abuse. Why the obsession with the impact of sibling sexual interaction when in reality it pales in significance to the nonsexual? Is it ideology, prudishness, or both that compromise your objectivity in these matters?There is actually much to discuss about the ideology the Duggars represent; it's just that right now we're a bit busy trying to figure out why our neighbors are so obsessed with normalizing, legitimizing, and empowering child molestation.
Milkweed said:I want you to talk to my kid about something that happened in the past is not
at some time in the future.
Capracus said:But minimizing abuse of children is normal in our society.
If parents and mandatory reporters aren’t universally going to the authorities over nonsexual abuse, why expect more urgency for the sexual variety?
Are you really trying to suggest that instead of touching the breasts of his sisters through their clothes as they slept, it would’ve’ been preferable for Josh to engage in activity with them that included throwing, kicking, burning, biting or cutting a child, striking a child with a closed fist, shaking a child, striking a child on the face or head, interfering with a child’s breathing, pinching, biting or striking a child in the genital area, tying a child to a fixed or heavy object or tying a child’s limbs together, permitting a child to ingest a poisonous or mood altering substance including but not limited to alcohol, illegal drugs? You know all that stuff that not only siblings, but children in general commonly engage in while growing up. I mean listen to you, trying to minimize the potential danger of physical violence between siblings, shame on you.Capracus... are... are you REALLY suggesting that a sibling scrap (such as a simple fight over a toy) is somehow equivalent to sexually abusing/ molesting your younger sibling... that using that position of power as "big brother" to perpetrate such an act is somehow the same as two siblings fighting in the back seat?
The thing is that many mandatory reporters are also parents, who like the rest of us parents grew up in households where varying degrees of sibling violence, coercion and exploitation were considered just normal socialization, so while they might in the course of occupational duty pursue cases of more blatant abuse, off the job they tend to act just like the rest of us. As to your fight vs. fisting conundrum, we can come up with all kinds of scenarios where some low level sexual contact would be greatly preferred to a sever beating.What, really? We're supposed to take that seriously?
No, seriously, what does that question mean? I live in an area where mandatory reporters report all of that. Sure, I can imagine there are places where the mandatory reporters are less vigilant, but, to the one, that might be something about a particular community. To the other, I don't know, how would you feel? There is a reason sexual violations have a certain primal power. Part of this is inherent, part acquired. The inherent is pretty straightforward. Have you ever been in a fight? Unsettling, to be certain. But, yeah, in truth, most days it beats a fist up the ass. You know, unless you're into that sort of thing. And then add in, with no irony whatsoever despite the temptation, that we're also talking about a family that grotesquely exaggerates sex and sexuality, sexualizes young children, and teaches such victims they have sinned while conspiring to protect and empower the abuser. Now, maybe your question involves some sort of invocation of kicking shins, or something, but honestly, it's pretty easy to tell the difference between normal socialization between peers and intercohort exploitation.
And I wouldn’t be surprised if Josh had occasionally engaged in some degree physical assault on his sisters over the years, I know I did with my four sisters. And like I did, I’m sure Josh learned to eventually control the impulse to engage in such behavior.Yes, if Josh Duggar, at age fifteen, had been repeatedly physically assaulting his five year-old sister in a nonsexual manner―say, kicking her in the shins―this, too, would be exceptionally problematic.
You’re unwilling to examine issues of abuse because the details of such creep you out? I had a girlfriend who went through years of sexual abuse as a child, and she had no problem discussing the details of her abuse and its relative significance to other childhood traumas. If you can’t rationally and objectively delve into these issues, why bother with the topic at all? Unless of course you’re simply here as an ideological preacher rather than an objective investigator.But as long as you wish everyone to go fishing for red herrings in order to help you defend child molestation, yeah, it's going to stand out as kind of creepy, dude. Part of it, really, is that there comes a point at which people just get creeped out trying to study it. But think of it this way: Fifty years later, it still has an effect. I can see that in the behavior of people in my own life. And yes, it's a different effect than other violence. And part of your error here seems to be that you're chasing after some sort of clean, simple resolution when there is none. Life in general is out of the frying pan and into the fire; these issues only exacerbate that kind of transition.
Sexual abuse even more so; why? Certainly not from any objective evaluation you’ve presented comparing the relative offensive value of abuse and its resulting outcomes. You said it yourself, you can’t fathom what sexual abuse does to the female psyche, and if you where honest you’d say the same of any category of abuse, regardless of the gender of the victim.Child abuse in general sets patterns that will echo throughout life, increasing an individual's chances of experiencing or inflicting further harm. Sexual abuse even more so, and pointedly. Furthermore, in addition to the statistical outcome, I can recall not so long ago that anti-gay poltical argumentation used to speak about natural instinct, and men and women. And while their error was in presuming nature to be absolutely consistent―that every person is born inherently heterosexual―it seems quite strange that here we are in an issue where young females have been exploited, and now we are expected to forget the basic connection between psyche and sexual behavior. The thing is that I'm not a woman, so I can't explain what those things mean to females, but at the same time, the amount of urogenital detail required to answer this bizarre skepticism suggests that's actually the point of the inquiries. Just like your earlier perversions of the question, we're not about to dissect degrees of harm. This is in the eye of the abused.
Oh, so that’s my mission, to build a society in which sexual molestation is no big deal. So by objectively comparing sexual abuse to other forms abuse, that makes me an advocate for sexual abuse. By such reasoning, since you give sexual abuse more gravity than other forms of abuse, you’re an advocate for manslaughter.And if you really are so determined to help build a society in which sexual molestation is no big deal, this isn't the way to go about it. After all, consider how urgent sexual issues were for this pious family. Then again, if we start from a more objective assessment, that grooming females to be sexually exploited is actually a fundamental purpose of ownership culture, especially as we see it manifest in this American post-Christian iteration―Promise Keepers, purity balls, expelling young women from school for not being girly enough, Christian re-education camps for gay youth, Quiverfull, &c.―the behavior of individuals involved actually starts to make a certain amount of sense. That is to say, while society has its own reasons for urgent focus on sexual exploitation of children, so also do the Duggars have their own reasons for urgent focus on sex, sexuality, and the sexualization of children.
I’m not confused in the slightest, at least about the nature of abuse, because at least unlike you, I’m willing to see it for what it is, not what some dogmatic assumption says it must be.You are so confused, contorted, and self-contradictory it occurs to wonder if you're thinking things through at all, or just plowing forward again in search of a new turducken.
Capracus said:Are you really trying to suggest that instead of touching the breasts of his sisters through their clothes as they slept, it would’ve’ been preferable for Josh to engage in activity with them that included throwing, kicking, burning, biting or cutting a child, striking a child with a closed fist, shaking a child, striking a child on the face or head, interfering with a child’s breathing, pinching, biting or striking a child in the genital area, tying a child to a fixed or heavy object or tying a child’s limbs together, permitting a child to ingest a poisonous or mood altering substance including but not limited to alcohol, illegal drugs?
I’ll bet this soccer ref would’ve rather taken this fist up his ass.
You’re unwilling to examine issues of abuse because the details of such creep you out?
Oh, so that’s my mission, to build a society in which sexual molestation is no big deal. So by objectively comparing sexual abuse to other forms abuse, that makes me an advocate for sexual abuse. By such reasoning, since you give sexual abuse more gravity than other forms of abuse, you’re an advocate for manslaughter.
Did you tell her it wasn't that big of a deal and it could have been worse.. That her abuser could have smacked her on the shins instead?You’re unwilling to examine issues of abuse because the details of such creep you out? I had a girlfriend who went through years of sexual abuse as a child, and she had no problem discussing the details of her abuse and its relative significance to other childhood traumas. If you can’t rationally and objectively delve into these issues, why bother with the topic at all? Unless of course you’re simply here as an ideological preacher rather than an objective investigator.
You have argued that sexual molestation isn't that big of a deal and incest and a teenager sexually molesting his little sisters isn't that important or worthy of external intervention. You also praised the hiding and protecting of a child molester, not to mention praising a paedophile for protecting, lying and breaking the law in said protection of said child molester.I’m not confused in the slightest, at least about the nature of abuse, because at least unlike you, I’m willing to see it for what it is, not what some dogmatic assumption says it must be.
You’re f***ing hilarious, you portray physical violence between children as acceptable normal socialization and you call me dangerous? Ha!Even playing "doctor" or "house".
I would suggest that your attempt to confuse normal socialization within an age cohort and intercohort exploitation is actually rather quite dangerous, but that's really nothing new about your excremental view of humanity. Indeed, the danger you present to communities is the only reason people pay attention to you. Like your rape advocacy. It's really stupid, and I would rather not give a damn about it at all. But you're a dangerous human being, Capracus, and advocating danger unto others.
Why, for intentionally sitting on his fist? Or leaving it covered in shit? Any more brilliant questions?I’ll bet this soccer ref would’ve rather taken this fist up his ass.
What do you think the odds are that if he had, in fact, taken a fist up the ass, he would be expected to apologize to his abuser?
Because making qualitative assessments of various forms of abuse is advocacy for abuse. More pearls of wisdom from Tiassa.Your attempt to erase such distinctions is a hallmark of your open rape advocacy, Capracus.
If you’re going to quantify the offensive nature of abuse then you must fully describe how the details of abuse relate to the details of the damage it causes. How much pleasure can Tiassa get from watching children batter each other if the details are censored?It's just that when someone comes up with such an extraordinary position in defense of child molestation as you have, Capracus, and then pretends established, recognized social science is somehow an outlier, others start wondering what it is you're after. To wit, maybe you just want people to start talking about details of sexual abuse so you can get off.
Unlike you, I don’t wake up and put on ideological blinders each day, so I fully understand the potential for damage from all forms of abusive behavior, that’s why I don’t advocate it. I also expect abusive behaviors to be objectively and consistently evaluated in relation to their potential for harm and remediation, something unfortunately you don’t deem necessary.When you can't even be bothered to do basic research on the impacts of child sexual abuse, but then want to pretend that entire corpus is bogus so you can pretend a teenager molesting little girls is no different than two five year-olds having a playground argument, you are not presenting objective anything. You're just making excuses for, and thereby advocating, child sexual abuse. Yes, Capracus, you are a child abuse advocate. You are a rape advocate. You are a danger to your fellow human being. I can only encourage you to seek immediate psychiatric help.
No, it was she who informed me that the coercion, manipulation and ridicule that stemmed from regular social situations were far worse than the unwanted sexual activity.Did you tell her it wasn't that big of a deal and it could have been worse.. That her abuser could have smacked her on the shins instead?
It’s you who are demonstrating the confusion. I said that degrees of sexual abuse are comparable to degrees of other forms of abuse that are not as aggressively addressed, and that it’s not fair to expect special treatment for one over the other. As for external intervention, I simply stated the facts as to when most people feel compelled to resort to it, regardless of its ideal suitability or legality.You have argued that sexual molestation isn't that big of a deal and incest and a teenager sexually molesting his little sisters isn't that important or worthy of external intervention. You also praised the hiding and protecting of a child molester, not to mention praising a paedophile for protecting, lying and breaking the law in said protection of said child molester.
The only thing being praised in that statement was Josh’s luck, not the trooper or his actions. Did you notice the Jim Bob comment about the advantage of an alternate strategy? No, of course you didn’t, because it’s not proper fodder for your brand of demonization.I’m not defending him at all; I’m just not sensationalizing the nature of his offense. He needed to be corrected before an ongoing and escalating pattern of personal violation was established. He was lucky that the ex trooper didn’t refer the complaint to the cops. His daddy’s lies served him well. On the other hand, if Jim Bob had told the truth and got josh into mandatory counseling, it could’ve been factored into their future TV show as a social redemption story, instead of the reputational flogging the family is currently enduring.
Capracus said:You’re f***ing hilarious, you portray physical violence between children as acceptable normal socialization and you call me dangerous? Ha!
Why, for intentionally sitting on his fist? Or leaving it covered in shit? Any more brilliant questions?
Because making qualitative assessments of various forms of abuse is advocacy for abuse. More pearls of wisdom from Tiassa.
If you’re going to quantify the offensive nature of abuse then you must fully describe how the details of abuse relate to the details of the damage it causes. How much pleasure can Tiassa get from watching children batter each other if the details are censored?
Unlike you, I don’t wake up and put on ideological blinders each day, so I fully understand the potential for damage from all forms of abusive behavior, that’s why I don’t advocate it. I also expect abusive behaviors to be objectively and consistently evaluated in relation to their potential for harm and remediation, something unfortunately you don’t deem necessary.
No, it was she who informed me that the coercion, manipulation and ridicule that stemmed from regular social situations were far worse than the unwanted sexual activity.
I said that degrees of sexual abuse are comparable to degrees of other forms of abuse that are not as aggressively addressed, and that it’s not fair to expect special treatment for one over the other.
Some degree of all behavior is expected between children, violence and sexual contact included. Whether or not these behaviors are defined as normal or socially tolerated, they all have the potential to constitute abuse if chronically practiced.Some degree of violence is expected between children. This is a normal part of the social development of a human being.
Any positions that contradict your myopic soapbox narrative eventually get branded as trolling, big surprise. I sometimes honestly apply the same irrational standard of logic used by you to mischaracterize my views to evaluate your own. If you don’t like it then stop doing it yourself.Then again, this is also how we know you're trolling; you're either being completely dishonest or else you are so ignorant of the subject you should think thrice before opining.
The soccer ref had a choice of a fisting or death from a single punch. I can’t think of anything more virtuous in this case than agreeing to be the fistee.For failing to guard his virtue? You know, like we've seen of Quiverfull? As we've been discussing in this topic?Capracus said:Why, for intentionally sitting on his fist? Or leaving it covered in shit? Any more brilliant questions?
Because sibling abuse isn’t just about sex and gender, and you’ve taken an example that happens to include those qualities and given it disproportional representation. A playground scrap can embody abusive qualities, as can age inappropriate sexual touching. Without contextual detail, one doesn’t necessarily trump the other in terms of potential for harm.One thing that would probably help you, Capracus, is if you stopped making these threads pertaining to sex and gender issues so damn personal. What's your stake in all this? Why do you need people to believe a playground scrap between kindergarteners is the same as intercohort sexual abuse?
Speaking of weakness in the logic department, your cohort question is a prime example. Intracohort socialization, which would embody what you describe as age appropriate physical violence, which if practiced chronically becomes age appropriate physical abuse. Intercohort sexual contact, which can embody age inappropriate sexual contact, which if practiced chronically becomes age inappropriate sexual abuse. You keep coming up with these false distinctions. Abuse is abuse no matter how you package it; if your study of abuse were more comprehensive you’d already realise this.Read a book someday. Something having to do with developmental psychology. Part of the problem is that your inquiry is so ghastly in its pretentious ignorance that it's really rather hard to know where to start. Your argument presupposes against everything observable; you have made extraordinary assertions and refuse to back them.
Show me a study that says intercohort sexual abuse is no different than intracohort socialization and differentiation.
Start with that. Give us some hint that you're actually being logical.
Problem is, you can't. And I think you already know that.
Yes, two grown children who are presently different genders.Ever actually been a parent, Capracus?
No.Are you some sort of child counselor?
YesDo you have any experiential clue how to relate your posts to a genuine living experience?
No, I’m not.The thing is that both academically and practically you are relying on extraordinary propositions.
This sometimes happens? This type of abuse is far more common than the sexual variety, and thus has a greater potential for personal and social harm.Capracus said:No, it was she who informed me that the coercion, manipulation and ridicule that stemmed from regular social situations were far worse than the unwanted sexual activity.
Yes, that happens sometimes. Learn some psychology.
Wow, you’re amazing! How did you do it? Hack their e-mail and phone messages, and plant surveillance devices in their home? Because I’m quite sure they would have no recollection of ever being interviewed by you about the intimate details of their lives. Please don’t tell me this psychological assessment was derived solely from various media sources, because if that’s the case the next thing we can expect from you is IQ estimates of the Duggars based on cranial measurements of their online images.The Duggars, for instance, specifically groom young women for sexual abuse and exploitation; it's part of the overt phallocentrism of ownership culture in the United States. With others, though, well, to each situation its own circumstances. You can psychoanalyze your one case for the rest of your life and never unravel it entirely; this is part of the damage that sexual abuse and exploitation does. But I doubt you can provide enough information about that one case to make the psychoanalysis of any use.
What circumstances can you document lending to what she told you? Otherwise you have one case, and virtually nothing can be extrapolated from that.
No, a better analogy would be a 15 year old boy touching a 5 year old girl’s shin. But let’s look at your proposition that a touch to the breast or vagina would be worse than kick to the shin. If a123 lb boy kicked the shin of a 40 lb girl, what sort of physical and emotional trauma could you imagine resulting from such an act? I can imagine a lot. Please describe how the mere touch of a 5 year old girl’s breast and vagina would cause comparable damage.And a fifteen year old kicking a five year-old in the shins would be worrying as well, suggestive of a larger problem. But neither would it present the immediate danger that sexual abuse presents.
Yes, two grown children who are presently different genders.
Capracus said:Some degree of all behavior is expected between children, violence and sexual contact included. Whether or not these behaviors are defined as normal or socially tolerated, they all have the potential to constitute abuse if chronically practiced.
Any positions that contradict your myopic soapbox narrative eventually get branded as trolling, big surprise. I sometimes honestly apply the same irrational standard of logic used by you to mischaracterize my views to evaluate your own. If you don’t like it then stop doing it yourself.
The soccer ref had a choice of a fisting or death from a single punch. I can’t think of anything more virtuous in this case than agreeing to be the fistee.
Because sibling abuse isn’t just about sex and gender, and you’ve taken an example that happens to include those qualities and given it disproportional representation. A playground scrap can embody abusive qualities, as can age inappropriate sexual touching. Without contextual detail, one doesn’t necessarily trump the other in terms of potential for harm.
Speaking of weakness in the logic department, your cohort question is a prime example. Intracohort socialization, which would embody what you describe as age appropriate physical violence, which if practiced chronically becomes age appropriate physical abuse. Intercohort sexual contact, which can embody age inappropriate sexual contact, which if practiced chronically becomes age inappropriate sexual abuse. You keep coming up with these false distinctions. Abuse is abuse no matter how you package it; if your study of abuse were more comprehensive you’d already realise this.
No, I’m not.
This sometimes happens? This type of abuse is far more common than the sexual variety, and thus has a greater potential for personal and social harm.
Wow, you’re amazing! How did you do it? Hack their e-mail and phone messages, and plant surveillance devices in their home? Because I’m quite sure they would have no recollection of ever being interviewed by you about the intimate details of their lives. Please don’t tell me this psychological assessment was derived solely from various media sources, because if that’s the case the next thing we can expect from you is IQ estimates of the Duggars based on cranial measurements of their online images.
Unlike your armchair psychoanalysis fueled by media punditry, the details of the case I referenced were substantiated by other involved parties, so it wasn’t some limited perspective of events. And the abusive behaviors encountered in this case are exemplified in documented cases of abuse in general, so it’s not just an isolated case.
No, a better analogy would be a 15 year old boy touching a 5 year old girl’s shin. But let’s look at your proposition that a touch to the breast or vagina would be worse than kick to the shin. If a123 lb boy kicked the shin of a 40 lb girl, what sort of physical and emotional trauma could you imagine resulting from such an act? I can imagine a lot. Please describe how the mere touch of a 5 year old girl’s breast and vagina would cause comparable damage.
Therefore this applies to everyone equally?No, it was she who informed me that the coercion, manipulation and ridicule that stemmed from regular social situations were far worse than the unwanted sexual activity.
Oh I am sorry. You expressed a level of gratitude at the luck that a paedophile protected a child molester.It’s you who are demonstrating the confusion. I said that degrees of sexual abuse are comparable to degrees of other forms of abuse that are not as aggressively addressed, and that it’s not fair to expect special treatment for one over the other. As for external intervention, I simply stated the facts as to when most people feel compelled to resort to it, regardless of its ideal suitability or legality.
And please show me where I praised a pedophile. If you’re referring to this quote then it’s just more confusion on your part.The only thing being praised in that statement was Josh’s luck, not the trooper or his actions. Did you notice the Jim Bob comment about the advantage of an alternate strategy? No, of course you didn’t, because it’s not proper fodder for your brand of demonization.
The myopic line of reasoning that you and Tiassa have brought to the discussion has established that you two are advocates of child battery and I’m an advocate of child molestation, so I guess I should consider being labeled less morally reprehensible than yourself a compliment. Thank you.Oh I am sorry. You expressed a level of gratitude at the luck that a paedophile protected a child molester.
The fact that you have spent pages defending the sexual molestation of children, and normalising it, and then you tried to claim that this is how most people would respond.. No. This is not how normal people respond to child molestation.
um no that hasn't been established. just because you don't like your defense of child molestation called out doesn't mean anyone else has supported the battery of children. thats just an out and out slander.The myopic line of reasoning that you and Tiassa have brought to the discussion has established that you two are advocates of child battery and I’m an advocate of child molestation, so I guess I should consider being labeled less morally reprehensible than yourself a compliment. Thank you.
Since we’re not knowingly broadcasting our statements by mouth, slander doesn’t apply in this situation. But in light of what of I’ve actually posted on the matter, their written characterization of my position could be considered libelous. Are you looking to join them?um no that hasn't been established. just because you don't like your defense of child molestation called out doesn't mean anyone else has supported the battery of children. thats just an out and out slander.