Dugger vs Dunham

[Midnightrider]

Does that mean you think there is a third option, or that your answer is option (2)? Or option (1)? You seem incapable of answering a really direct question.

I've answered your question numerous times. Now I am bored with you again :shrug:

This was molestation of 5 of his sisters and one person not related to him. You can try to minimize that by calling it 'feeling up another kid', but violating a young girl is a serious crime to me and to the proper authorities.

 

[This_person]

I've answered your question numerous times. Now I am bored with you again :shrug:

This was molestation of 5 of his sisters and one person not related to him. You can try to minimize that by calling it 'feeling up another kid', but violating a young girl is a serious crime to me and to the proper authorities.

You've never once answered the question.

I get you'd turn your kid in, but I didn't ask that. I get that you believe it to be a serious crime, but I didn't ask that. I get that you believe the proper authority over your own child is the government, but I didn't ask that. You're great at answering questions I did NOT ask, now try answering one that I did ask.

I asked: Do you believe: (1) turning the child over to the government for this case is better for the child, or, (2) you accept that turning your child over to the government is not better for your child, but you don't care what's better, you simply believe the government needs to be involved for some reason. If there is a third option, please provide it.

TRY and answer the question asked, not stuff I didn't ask.

 

[Amused_despair]

You've never once answered the question.

I get you'd turn your kid in, but I didn't ask that. I get that you believe it to be a serious crime, but I didn't ask that. I get that you believe the proper authority over your own child is the government, but I didn't ask that. You're great at answering questions I did NOT ask, now try answering one that I did ask.

I asked: Do you believe: (1) turning the child over to the government for this case is better for the child, or, (2) you accept that turning your child over to the government is not better for your child, but you don't care what's better, you simply believe the government needs to be involved for some reason. If there is a third option, please provide it.

TRY and answer the question asked, not stuff I didn't ask.

So what YOU are saying is that you would sacrifice the safety of your daughters to keep your son from facing the consequences of his actions and just maybe getting some help? Nice to know your son means more to you then your daughters. In a nutshell he sexually assaulted someone. He should have been reported to the authorities. it is a little thing we have here called the LAW. If you want to go by biblical law then little Joshua should have been taken out back and stoned. I understand you feel that you are above the law, sounds like a great plan for you, hope it works out for you and yours.

 

[Midnightrider]

You've never once answered the question.

I get you'd turn your kid in, but I didn't ask that. I get that you believe it to be a serious crime, but I didn't ask that. I get that you believe the proper authority over your own child is the government, but I didn't ask that. You're great at answering questions I did NOT ask, now try answering one that I did ask.

I asked: Do you believe: (1) turning the child over to the government for this case is better for the child, or, (2) you accept that turning your child over to the government is not better for your child, but you don't care what's better, you simply believe the government needs to be involved for some reason. If there is a third option, please provide it.

TRY and answer the question asked, not stuff I didn't ask.

Go back and read, I've answered numerous times
I get that you think you, and your imaginary kids, are above the law and that you don't have to answer for your crimes. I get that you think this is a great value to teach your imaginary children, I disagree with that opinion.I get that you think hiding child molestation is actually taking responsibility for said crime. I aging disagree with your opinion. Since you are teaching your imaginary kids that they are above the law you must be trying to raise either 1) a young Clinton, or )2 a young Kennedy. Since those are the only two options, which is it?
Meh

 

[This_person]

Go back and read, I've answered numerous times
I get that you think you, and your imaginary kids, are above the law and that you don't have to answer for your crimes. I get that you think this is a great value to teach your imaginary children, I disagree with that opinion.I get that you think hiding child molestation is actually taking responsibility for said crime. I aging disagree with your opinion. Since you are teaching your imaginary kids that they are above the law you must be trying to raise either 1) a young Clinton, or )2 a young Kennedy. Since those are the only two options, which is it?
Meh

Now, pay close attention, because this is what answering the question looks like.

I don't believe it is either 1 or 2 of your options. [edit: Note: I gave you an option of "or provide option 3 if 1 and 2 are not accurate".] I do not have imaginary kids, I have real kids. While none of my real kids were ever accused of this particular type of crime, there are other things that happened when raising kids, like playground scuffles. By your discussion, those playground scuffles would have been taken to the police, or I would be "hiding" the crime. There was no "hiding" the crime. I simply chose to not involve the government into my parenting.

I'm guessing by the way you are answering that you do not have children. The questions I've asked you repeatedly and you've never answered is if you think involving the government into your parenting is better for your child or not, or, if you even care if it is better for the child or not. Since you can't answer that, the only possible assumption - based on your repeatedly calling the crime serious - is that you do not care what would be best for your child but rather some implied social contract wherein the government is the "proper authority" over your child. I know you'll say that's not what you're saying, but you won't answer that basic, simply question - which is better for your child, involving the government or not.

What you really don't like is being put in the position of acknowledging the consequences of your opinions.

 

[PsyOps]

I do not have imaginary kids, I have real kids. While none of my real kids were ever accused of this particular type of crime, there are other things that happened when raising kids, like playground scuffles. By your discussion, those playground scuffles would have been taken to the police, or I would be "hiding" the crime. There was no "hiding" the crime. I simply chose to not involve the government into my parenting.

I suppose it’s pointless to have this discussion with people that don’t have kids and have never been confronted with a REAL situation. They can throw all sorts of hypotheticals and theories out there about what they THINK they would do; but have no experience in a real situation. I’m inclined not to entertain their advice or opinion.

 

[vraiblonde]

and to the proper authorities.

Apparently not because they declined to charge him.

So far all you've brought to support your argument is fictional what-if scenarios. The real truth is that you don't know any more than anyone else except for the parties directly involved. You've opined as to who the victims were; you've made up additional victims; you've come up with all sorts of things that you do not know to be true, and have never been alleged by the authorities or the Duggars themselves.

Why the witch hunt?

 

[PsyOps]

Apparently not because they declined to charge him.

So far all you've brought to support your argument is fictional what-if scenarios. The real truth is that you don't know any more than anyone else except for the parties directly involved. You've opined as to who the victims were; you've made up additional victims; you've come up with all sorts of things that you do not know to be true, and have never been alleged by the authorities or the Duggars themselves.

Why the witch hunt?

He has to win. He has to prove how right he is and how wrong everyone else is. Always the last word.

 

[This_person]

He has to win. He has to prove how right he is and how wrong everyone else is. Always the last word.

Which is why he seems to balk at questions that point out the problems with his argument. He says "that's not what I said", but can't find a way to show how what he said is different from what everyone read he said. Then, suddenly, he's bored with the person. He apparently can't figure out the difference between boredom and realizing the faults with his own argument.

 

[Midnightrider]

Now, pay close attention, because this is what answering the question looks like.

I don't believe it is either 1 or 2 of your options. [edit: Note: I gave you an option of "or provide option 3 if 1 and 2 are not accurate".] I do not have imaginary kids, I have real kids. While none of my real kids were ever accused of this particular type of crime, there are other things that happened when raising kids, like playground scuffles. By your discussion, those playground scuffles would have been taken to the police, or I would be "hiding" the crime. There was no "hiding" the crime. I simply chose to not involve the government into my parenting.

I'm guessing by the way you are answering that you do not have children. The questions I've asked you repeatedly and you've never answered is if you think involving the government into your parenting is better for your child or not, or, if you even care if it is better for the child or not. Since you can't answer that, the only possible assumption - based on your repeatedly calling the crime serious - is that you do not care what would be best for your child but rather some implied social contract wherein the government is the "proper authority" over your child. I know you'll say that's not what you're saying, but you won't answer that basic, simply question - which is better for your child, involving the government or not.

What you really don't like is being put in the position of acknowledging the consequences of your opinions.

I did answer your question. go back and try reading for a change. If you had you wouldn't be 'guessing about me having kids, and being wrong while doing so.

Apparently not because they declined to charge him.

So far all you've brought to support your argument is fictional what-if scenarios. The real truth is that you don't know any more than anyone else except for the parties directly involved. You've opined as to who the victims were; you've made up additional victims; you've come up with all sorts of things that you do not know to be true, and have never been alleged by the authorities or the Duggars themselves.

Why the witch hunt?

The police report is pretty straight forward. They interviewed 6 people, 5 of whom lived in the home and were related. The only assumption i made was that the victims were all girls, which is what the Duggars have said.

As for why the police didn't press charges when this report was filed, it apprently has to do with statute of limitations. From what i have read the police contact with Hutchins started the clock and it had expired by the 2006 report.

An Arkansas State Police corporal who gave Josh Duggar "a very stern talk" in 2003 about the teen's improper sexual conduct started the clock on the time limit for filing any charges, according to police records and Arkansas law.

The time in which charges could be filed expired before police received an anonymous tip Dec. 7, 2006, about the same conduct by Duggar, records show.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/josh-duggar-joseph-hutchens-state-trooper
oh, and that trooper was convicted of child porn....

He has to win. He has to prove how right he is and how wrong everyone else is. Always the last word.

I dont have to win, and getting the last word would be tough with this group, but being right, thats easy.

 

[This_person]

I did answer your question. go back and try reading for a change. If you had you wouldn't be 'guessing about me having kids, and being wrong while doing so.

Not once did you say, "I think option 1 (or 2) is what I think," nor did you say,"what I think would be best for my child is..."

You've discussed what you think "taking responsibility" means (abdication of your parental authority to the state), and what you think the severity of the crime is, and you've said any other opinion than yours is retarded, but you've never said, "the best interest of my child is served by..."

You consider that you have, but reality and what you consider to be reality are often at odds, including this belief of yours.

 

[Amused_despair]

Not once did you say, "I think option 1 (or 2) is what I think," nor did you say,"what I think would be best for my child is..."

You've discussed what you think "taking responsibility" means (abdication of your parental authority to the state), and what you think the severity of the crime is, and you've said any other opinion than yours is retarded, but you've never said, "the best interest of my child is served by..."

You consider that you have, but reality and what you consider to be reality are often at odds, including this belief of yours.

"And what is truth? Is truth some unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?"

 

[This_person]

"And what is truth? Is truth some unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?"

I am not speaking of the existential. I am speaking of the solid and verifiable.

 

[Midnightrider]

Not once did you say, "I think option 1 (or 2) is what I think," nor did you say,"what I think would be best for my child is..."

You've discussed what you think "taking responsibility" means (abdication of your parental authority to the state), and what you think the severity of the crime is, and you've said any other opinion than yours is retarded, but you've never said, "the best interest of my child is served by..."

You consider that you have, but reality and what you consider to be reality are often at odds, including this belief of yours.

yeah, i answered your question. your reality may differ, but that is what happened. I dont care that it isn't satisfying to you

did you go back and figure out that your guess is wrong too?

 

[Roman]

If my daughter was the one that wasn't related to the Duggars, and Josh fondled her, I would have reported it to the authorities, no question. Now if Josh did this to his own sisters, I could understand them not going to LEO, and trying to handle it themselves, but with the help of a Psychologist, and/or the Church if that's what makes them happy. I just wonder why the family of the unrelated girl didn't press charges? I know that Josh was only 14 when this happened, but by the age of 14, he knew right from wrong, otherwise he would have gotten his jollies during the day, in front of whomever, but he chose to sneak in the middle of the night, when everyone was in bed. Chances are that by the time Josh turned 18, those records would be expunged.

 

[This_person]

yeah, i answered your question. your reality may differ, but that is what happened. I dont care that it isn't satisfying to you

did you go back and figure out that your guess is wrong too?

It was just a guess :shrug: Please link me to the answer that shows what you think is the thing that is in the best interest of your child.

TYIA

 

[Midnightrider]

It was just a guess :shrug: Please link me to the answer that shows what you think is the thing that is in the best interest of your child.

TYIA

Just like the answer to your question, the correct answer to that 'guess' was spelled out, you just ignored it.

 

[This_person]

Just like the answer to your question, the correct answer to that 'guess' was spelled out, you just ignored it.

Please link me to the answer that shows what you think is the thing that is in the best interest of your child.

 

[Midnightrider]

Please link me to the answer that shows what you think is the thing that is in the best interest of your child.

I already answered your question. Go back and read for yourself.

 

[digitallest]

Hey, please do me a favor, and stop trivializing the sexual assault of children by other children? Stop calling it "fondling" and "copping a feel" and "playing doctor" and all the other cutesy names, as if to diminish what it is, and how it truly feels to be experimented on in ones sleep. It is a real crime, and both the victim and perpetrator need to know it is a big deal. The victim, so they feel like it is ok to seek help and "make a big deal" of the emotions, and the perp so they do not become a serisl rapist. It is not normal, not harmless, and everyone does not do it. Boys will be boys should not mean boys will be sexual predators. Come up, society, please.

If you woke up to a 14 year old fondling your privates, when you were a kid, it would be no big deal? How about at your current age?