This_person
Well-Known Member
I already answered your question. Go back and read for yourself.
Re-read the thread. You never did. That's why you can't show me differently.
Dugger vs Dunham
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Re-read the thread. You never did. That's why you can't show me differently.
This_person
Well-Known Member
You're makingthe same mistake MR made. No one is suggesting it is not a serious crime. Everyone is suggesting that the perpetrator should be both properly disciplined and given psychological help, as should the victims as needed. But let's be realistic, it is not rape. The charge of fondling is the word on the report, not someone here.
digitallest
New Member
It is not specifically the people here, it is everywhere. Just two years ago, a young, innocent family member woke to find an overnight guest, a friend of her cousins, only a year older than her, working at getting her pjs off, he was touching her. She really suffered emotionally. Her parents got her help, and left it up to her if she wanted to press charges (she did not) she struggles with it still, but is a lot better off than she was. I saw this happy, bubbly girl become so sad, and isolated in her darkest days. Even reaching out for help was hard for her, and the whole family. She felt defined by it, and we came very close to losing her to suicide.
So, when people use terms that mischaracterize what happened to her, it strikes a nerve. To me, fondling is a gentle touch, not a searing memory that makes a person want to give up on life. I wish all of society were more clear with kids. Fwiw, I am glad not to be related to either Dunham or Duggar, and wanted to neuter the kid who touched my family member with a blunt, rusty object. I am grateful not to have been put in the position of having to protect my daughter from my son. I can not imagine the heartache. The legal description of "fondling" grosses me out, too, I would like to see it changed to something more fitting.
It is a subject I will always personalize, since that happened, it left a deep scar in the family. It is an event that left a mark on ME, it broke my heart to see how one horny little jackass with boundary issues could hurt a vulnerable girl so much. She was afraid to sleep, stopped wanting to socialize, the world became a more malevolent place, overnight.
So, when people use terms that mischaracterize what happened to her, it strikes a nerve. To me, fondling is a gentle touch, not a searing memory that makes a person want to give up on life. I wish all of society were more clear with kids. Fwiw, I am glad not to be related to either Dunham or Duggar, and wanted to neuter the kid who touched my family member with a blunt, rusty object. I am grateful not to have been put in the position of having to protect my daughter from my son. I can not imagine the heartache. The legal description of "fondling" grosses me out, too, I would like to see it changed to something more fitting.
It is a subject I will always personalize, since that happened, it left a deep scar in the family. It is an event that left a mark on ME, it broke my heart to see how one horny little jackass with boundary issues could hurt a vulnerable girl so much. She was afraid to sleep, stopped wanting to socialize, the world became a more malevolent place, overnight.
littlelady
God bless the USA
You may have been listening to Megyn Kelly's interview tonight, as was I. What I got out of it is if you put yourself out there on a reality show and some scoop gets wind of juvenile records, you get what you get. The family made themselves public figures and celebrities. They seemed surprised that the tabloids and news would go after them. The mom has a really whiny crying voice. I made the mistake here on the forum of putting out too much info about my wayward son, and paid the price, but, seriously, she was grating on my last nerve. I was thinking I would feel sorry for them, but I don't. When they said the system failed them, that was all I had to hear. All families have skeletons in the closet. Why would they think they are immune? Because they are so religious? Maybe 19+ children was too many to parent in the first place. As always, jmo.
Last edited:
Bann
Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
Immune from skeletons - no. As a family they dealt with the skeletons. How they dealt with those skeltons was a matter that was apparently/eventually addressed/handled in court and apparently was warranted and deemed appropriate, otherwise, the case wouldn't have been closed. (and SEALED because their son was a MINOR at the time)
The Duggars are absolutely correct that the (court) system failed them, as there is a system in place for dealing with minors/juveniles. They had a right to expect, as does every other family of a juvenile with a sealed record, to that privacy because it is the court (a Judge) that orders those records sealed. The Duggars didn't order it. Their lawyer did not order that. The court did.
Someone, (one little cog in that wheel of "the system") violated that court order, and they therefore, broke the law in order to further their agenda (which if I recall correctly, Mrs. Duggar stated)
OTOH, YOUR family skeletons, concerned your adult child, who's transgressions are a matter of public record, and which you exposed to the forums. The court did not, and your adult son did not. You did - and I suspect from your posting about it here that you are the one who is bitter and nasty because you didn't receive the reception you were hoping for (whatever that was) after venting your spleen about it post after post, night after night, way back when.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Then change the police report that stated it was ‘forcible fondling’. I think it’s been stated enough that no one approves of what Josh did. The problem I have is dredging this up 10+ years later, and that there is no evidence that Josh committing any other sexual acts against any child since he was ‘corrected’. He is now married with children. The girls do not appear to be suffering any long-term mental/sexual problems from all of this – the two interviewed on Fox don’t even seem to remember what happened. They said they’re more distraught over the media attention of this than the actual sexual acts Josh committed against them. So, who’s actually committed the assault now?
The family dealt with this. The law decided not to press charges. The kids are older now and appear to be well adjusted and balanced kids. It serves no purpose to dredge something up 10 years after the fact, all in a cause to ruin a family. You can talk all you want about the abuse Josh inflicted on these girls, but you folks don’t seem to realize this sort of incessant attention on a matter that happened 10 years and was dealt with can also be a form of abuse.
PsyOps
Pixelated
I totally get that there are people our there that their only purpose in life is to find ways to destroy lives because they philosophically disagree with them.
littlelady
God bless the USA
You do have some valid comments...but I have 2 questions. How long does it take you to get over a grudge, and do you have a backup supply of soapboxes?
Last edited:
Bann
Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
What grudge? You brought up the fact that the Duggars have no right to immunity to past skeletons. :shrug:
PsyOps
Pixelated
What the heck are you talking about 'grudge'? The grudge is in the people (activists and the media) for dredging up a story that is 14 years old and long-since resolved. The Duggars moved way beyond this and on with their lives. The two daughters interviewed said that having this dredged up again is far more painful than what Josh did.
I know this is a hard concept for a lot of you folks to understand Christian forgiveness. The girls allegedly forgave Josh. Josh received help. Josh is now married with kids. No evidence of subsequent incidents since Josh received help. This is no one's business.
Bann
Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
That is incorrect. The FOIA does not include juvenile records, Arkansas law also addresses that issue. I had to post the link to this video clip. Transcripts are not available from Megyn Kelly's show, or else I would include the transcript.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/42720204...g-duggar-record/?intcmp=related#sp=show-clips
Also - I'm understanding that the police report was apparently not sealed, according to the City Attorney, which is why they released it. (supposedly reluctantly, but that's another story) Names are redacted, due to the ages of the juveniles. I think the City Attorney and the Sheriff are skating on very thin ice stating that the record should not have been sealed because Josh was 18 when this was all reported. Maybe later when I can find it, I will be able to post the transcript, but last night on Kelly's show she said that a judge declared those records SHOULD HAVE BEEN sealed.
However - back to the huge public outcry that Christians are somehow above making mistakes and should not, therefore, judge others - what a load of hooey.
From the interviews I watched (both nights) at NO TIME did either of the parents claim that somehow their son was not wrong. They completely think now and then that he WAS wrong. They did all the right things that they thought they should do, both to get their son help and to help the other children, and their family.
Good freaking grief. Just because someone is very opinionated about moral issues and such, doesn't mean they don't make mistakes, fall from grace or any other thing of that sort. This family obviously suffered - but they WORKED to get things right again. They made decisions to HELP affect positive change in their own family. How is that wrong? They know right from wrong - they aren't "immune" from doing wrong and never do they claim to be immune from doing wrong. It's what you do to correct that wrong, that counts. It seems to me, from what I have seen in the interviews and such that they have done all they could in order to correct those wrongs.
I find it astounding that at the same time, a lot of these critics of the Duggars believe Bruce Jenner taking female hormones, growing tits, long hair, and fingernails and dressing up like Jayne Mansfield and posing on the cover of Vanity Fair is considered totally okay and perfectly fine because "that's who s/he feels like s/he is" and is not considered a mental illness.
I don't really understand what the haters hope to accomplish with all this vitriol toward Josh Duggar. Just to trash him because you all have nothing better to think about? This situation has been resolved for years. Years! So why is it still a thing?
This_person
Well-Known Member
See, the Duggar family is a happy, successful, and Christian family. People who subconsciously know that their own lives are not really what they want it to be would rather find a reason to believe that the happy and successful people aren't really happy or successful. If this family is both happy and Christian, then they MUST be lying somewhere.
If we use the pretzel logic that Christians may never voice their opinions on morality if they have EVER made a moral mistake themselves, then we can be all superior to the Duggars because they have had moral mistakes in their lives and still try to spread their truth about morality. So, the Duggar-haters can now feel all superior about themselves and therefore their own ####ed-up lives, and they no longer have to worry about improving their lives because, by comparison to the inferior Duggars, they are doing just fine.
PJay
Well-Known Member
^^^
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
I repeat my post number 91
I don't have to wonder at all. It's the old jealous Bs about bringing someone down.
The guy is doing well now and the a-holes cannot stand that, they have to bring him down.
Didn't we see it with Romney
Didn't we see it with something as stupid as spelling potato wrong with a Vice president?
We see the idiot Joe Biden daily making stupid remarks, but a republican spells potato wrong and the a-holes jump all over him.
It's just the small people who do not want to see anyone get ahead unless that person is a liberal.
We saw this when Fritz ran for States Attorney. A few enemies bringing up BS to make their miserable lives feel better by bringing down someone else.
These same people want criminals to be allowed to vote because they have changed their lives in prison, but a person who has not been to prison cannot change, they want to see the crucifixion. It isn't hard to understand them. They are pathetic a-holes.
I don't have to wonder at all. It's the old jealous Bs about bringing someone down.
The guy is doing well now and the a-holes cannot stand that, they have to bring him down.
Didn't we see it with Romney
Didn't we see it with something as stupid as spelling potato wrong with a Vice president?
We see the idiot Joe Biden daily making stupid remarks, but a republican spells potato wrong and the a-holes jump all over him.
It's just the small people who do not want to see anyone get ahead unless that person is a liberal.
We saw this when Fritz ran for States Attorney. A few enemies bringing up BS to make their miserable lives feel better by bringing down someone else.
These same people want criminals to be allowed to vote because they have changed their lives in prison, but a person who has not been to prison cannot change, they want to see the crucifixion. It isn't hard to understand them. They are pathetic a-holes.
Salvador
One Nation Under God
Yeah. How dare them bring up the rape to try and bring him down. That was years ago. There is a time clause for rape right? I mean women get raped every day. No big deal right. You ignorant piece of trash.
