PsyOps
Pixelated
You are.
Dugger vs Dunham
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
You are.
In fairness though, that was only two of his victims. Do we know if the others feel the same way?
That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. For me, I haven't really made my mind up about this yet. On the face, it seems disturbing that he has more than a couple victims and some are outside of his family. Having said that, you replied to a post where I showed a guy he was wrong. He said nobody was not saying these incidents were serious crimes and that everybody said they were. I pointed out what you are now saying.
What is it you want to argue about?
in relation to ?
a group of 10 no one would [probably] be 0
a group of 100 no one could be 0 probably less that 5
a group of 10,000 no one could be less than 1000
the population of the United States [aprox 325 million] no one could be less that 10,000,000
'no one / everyone' is relative to the outrage being portrayed in the media ...
... everyone I know wants drugger hung in the city square [I have 10 friends on facebook]
... everyone I know Wants the drugger matter dropped - I have a blog follow by 10,000 people
PsyOps
Pixelated
I really don't care. It was something that happened 14 years ago, the family dealt with it, Josh got help and came back a better person, he has since gotten married and has kids, they all moved on with their lives. Not one bit of this is anyone's business; but folks sure love to make it their business.
Dredging this up serves no other purpose than for people that hate people like the Duggars to take their cheap stabs at this family in an effort to ruin their lives. Some people have nothing better to do in their pathetically hateful lives.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
ridiculous as usual....
please quote where i have done anything like that.
no, this was a public record. there is no expectation of privacy. Its exactly the same for the duggars as it is for EVERYONE else. If you commit a crime and the police make a report, its a public record. Its a shame that this coming out now dredged up the bad memories for these girls, including the one that wasn't his sister. But that is really the fault of the parents for not handleing this properly when he was a minor and for thrusting their family into the public eye. If they hadn't chosen to put their family life on display no one would have known who they were even if this did come out.
put the blame where it belongs people. you guys are usually all for exposing other peoples public records
Not your pedantic nitpickery, that's for sure.
Bann
Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
In the discussion this_person was having with midnight rider, no one and everyone was relevant to the people in this thread. I'd say there are about 10 people commenting, so based on your conclusion, this_person was wrong.
Where are you getting this formula any way? Is this made up in your head?
You are the person who commented on MY post. This_person was the one who was talking about people in this thread when he said NO ONE. You are making assumptions in your silly little head about things and when shown to be wrong, attempt to belittle people. It's a common tactic I've seen you use before. My skin is as thick as your scull, so your attempts at insulting me are to no avail.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I think what she said, and said well, is that I wasn't actually wrong. She said that the vast majority of people on here who have been charged with saying it's no big deal have said it's a big deal. Prior to my saying that, Vrai had not said (to the best of my recollection) that it wasn't something wrong.
In the strictest sense of the words, "no one" would mean absolutely not a single person on the face of the earth. In the real world, where people just talk, "no one" means "none of the people you're accusing of this are saying what you're accusing them of".
So, if you need to be right, you are technically right. If you want to talk like the average person does, I wasn't wrong.
This_person
Well-Known Member
It would seem, based on the promise of privacy to the victims, that there actually WAS an expectation of privacy. One of the problems with how this has been handled is that it is now less likely a victim will come forward for fear their story will be "leaked" as well.
The family took the child to the police three years before the police report, so they handled it in the way you deemed "proper". Or, besides counseling for all involved, punishment of the perpetrator, and police involvement at the time, what else would you have had them do?
Being "on display", as I mentioned previously, is not a reason to suggest they have no privacy. Should their medical records be public? Should their discussions with lawyers no longer have confidentiality? How about private fears they discuss with family members when the cameras are not on - should their house be bugged to make sure those things are public?
Thinking that just because they're on TV they have no right to privacy is lunacy.
Bann
Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
I think what she said, and said well, is that I wasn't actually wrong. She said that the vast majority of people on here who have been charged with saying it's no big deal have said it's a big deal. Prior to my saying that, Vrai had not said (to the best of my recollection) that it wasn't something wrong.
Your recollection is wrong. She said a number of times prior to you making that statement that it was no big deal.
In the strictest sense of the words, "no one" would mean absolutely not a single person on the face of the earth. In the real world, where people just talk, "no one" means "none of the people you're accusing of this are saying what you're accusing them of".
I, nor you were talking about all the people on earth. YOU were talking about the people in this thread, where about 30% of them expressed that they did not think this was a serious crime. That's where you went wrong.
So, if you need to be right, you are technically right. If you want to talk like the average person does, I wasn't wrong.
I don't need to be right....I just am. You can't even get the fact right here.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Okay, Midnight, you win
But, what I said was that the people to which I was referring were the ones you said were not saying it. You said I said it was no big deal, and I didn't. You said Psy said it was no big deal, and Psy never did. Please provide the 30% calculation (who do you think believe it is not a big deal to vs. those who believe it is a big deal divided by the total number of posters in this thread). TYVM
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
What did the duggars do the other 2 times they 'discovered' josh was molesting girls? Did they take him back to see that child pornographer/ state trooper who had been recoomended by a friend?
its hilarious that you are worried that people might not report this kind of crime in the future but you are fine with it not being reported in the past.
BTW, you are wrong. this was a public record. there was no expectation of privacy. That is the same for everyone. The duggars do not get a special set of laws to live by.
Okay, Midnight, you win
But, what I said was that the people to which I was referring were the ones you said were not saying it. You said I said it was no big deal, and I didn't. You said Psy said it was no big deal, and Psy never did. Please provide the 30% calculation (who do you think believe it is not a big deal to vs. those who believe it is a big deal divided by the total number of posters in this thread). TYVM
I'm not midnight, so another fact you got wrong.
Nicely said from the lady who was wrong....so now is calling me a dick. Well it takes a cuint oledo to know one