Josh Duggar acknowledges he sexually molested underage girls including some of his sisters,

[Tom Sawyer]

Huckabee's actually got a point here. Crimes one makes when they're a minor shouldn't follow them into adulthood. If there's an issue with how it was handled, that's an issue with Duggar, not an issue with Duggar's parents.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

With of course the exception of the crime of being gay.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

With of course the exception of the crime of being gay.

Oh ya, if you touch another dude's balls at summer camp once, you deserve to be hounded for life over that abomination. I'm just talking about the petty hijinks that kids get up to like jaywalking and sexual assault.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Huckabee's actually got a point here. Crimes one makes when they're a minor shouldn't follow them into adulthood. If there's an issue with how it was handled, that's an issue with Duggar, not an issue with Duggar's parents.

Only on the legal part. I'll confess I don't quite understand what the Duggars are in terms of celebrities. The parents had a ton of kids and a television show people loved to hate? But I would think part of the equation is that the shitty behaviour of Josh as an adult has followed the trail back to his childhood.

 

[RavenSky]

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/05/tlc-pulls-duggar-show-from-schedule.html#disqus_thread

10 to 1 they are pulling a Duck Dynasty

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Huckabee's actually got a point here. Crimes one makes when they're a minor shouldn't follow them into adulthood. If there's an issue with how it was handled, that's an issue with Duggar, not an issue with Duggar's parents.

Only on the legal part. I'll confess I don't quite understand what the Duggars are in terms of celebrities. The parents had a ton of kids and a television show people loved to hate? But I would think part of the equation is that the shitty behaviour of Josh as an adult has followed the trail back to his childhood.

I disagree. The point of young offenders laws is that your actions as a minor don't follow you into adulthood. I don't think that this should only hold to the legal arena. If he's an asshole as an adult (I know nothing about him so I can't say), then hold him accountable for his adult actions. The shit that he did when he was 14 isn't really relevant, though.

 

[Potoooooooo]

Oh ya, if you touch another dude's balls at summer camp once, you deserve to be hounded for life over that abomination. I'm just talking about the petty hijinks that kids get up to like jaywalking and sexual assault.

 

[Underseer]

A fourteen year old boy commits acts of sexual impropriety!
Good job TMZ. Stay on it.

Wow. Really?

What would someone have to do to count as immoral in your eyes? Just curious.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Only on the legal part. I'll confess I don't quite understand what the Duggars are in terms of celebrities. The parents had a ton of kids and a television show people loved to hate? But I would think part of the equation is that the shitty behaviour of Josh as an adult has followed the trail back to his childhood.

I disagree. The point of young offenders laws is that your actions as a minor don't follow you into adulthood. I don't think that this should only hold to the legal arena. If he's an asshole as an adult (I know nothing about him so I can't say), then hold him accountable for his adult actions. The shit that he did when he was 14 isn't really relevant, though.

That's wildly unrealistic. You are connected to your past whether you like it or not. While we can provide some consideration for the mistakes of youth and allow people to move on, that connection doesn't break. If you go on to scapegoat a group of people for the sort of actions you yourself committed, your past is going to haunt you.

Here is a Family Research Council statement on gender identity protections:
http://www.frc.org/onepagers/gender-identity-protections-bathroom-bills

Various localities, states, and the federal government are being urged to expand the protected categories under existing civil rights laws to bar "discrimination" in employment, housing, and/or public accommodations on the basis of "gender identity." "Gender identity" is typically described as "a gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior of an individual regardless of the individual's assigned sex at birth." These bills would provide special protections for "transgender" individuals--an umbrella category that includes transsexuals (people who have had "sex-change" surgery), transvestites (cross-dressers), "drag queens" and "drag kings" (people who cross-dress for entertainment purposes only). Among the implications of these bills is that the use of sex-specific facilities, such as men's and women's public restrooms, locker rooms, and showers, could no longer be limited on the basis of a person's actual biological sex. As a result, these bills have been dubbed "Bathroom Bills."

1. To suggest that the identification of a human being's sex at birth represents merely an "assignment," as though it were entirely a social construct agreed upon by the child's parents and physician, is absurd. Sex is an objective biological reality, identified based on the presence of external genitalia, internal sex organs, and chromosomes, which in the overwhelming majority of cases are entirely consistent and unambiguous at birth. It is simply foolish to treat this as a characteristic that can be changed at will.
2. Such bills often state that an employer can still maintain "appearance, grooming, and dress standards." However, most ordinary Americans would consider dressing in ways that are culturally appropriate for one's biological sex to be the most fundamental "appearance, grooming, and dress standard" that could be conceived of--yet requiring that is exactly what these bills are designed to forbid. Likewise, for any job involving customer service or contact with other clients, dressing in a way appropriate for one's biological sex may be "a bona fide occupational qualification," because the adoption of the "gender identity" of the opposite sex is often highly unconvincing and therefore disturbing to witnesses.
3. The government should never purposefully threaten the public safety of women and children by creating the legitimized access that sexual predators tend to seek.
4. It would be impossible for a young girl to determine whether or not the man in the restroom is a "peeping tom," a rapist or a pedophile, and it is unconscionable for any legislator to purposefully place her in such a compromising position.
5. No government should be so irresponsible as to deliberately compromise its citizenry's safety and wellbeing in order to appease minority demands based on personal sexual preferences.
6. Bathroom Bills would adversely affect business owners who hold religious, conscientious or moral objections to others' privately held pan-sexual predilections. Advocates have reportedly claimed that transgendered men fear physical attack in the men's room and must therefore use the ladies' room in public. Legislators should not allow the rights of transgendered men to transcend the rights of women and vulnerable children.

Now, Josh's actions have little to do with whether or not these arguments are correct [to be clear, they are not], but it's still problematic to have his name behind this position. With a stance like this, transgender people are being asked to take responsibility for the crimes of other people. Josh is one of the criminals for which transgender people are being asked to take responsibility -- people who have molested girls and women. Josh cannot reasonably be one of the people who makes that request in good standing. It's absurd.

Granted, people may just be after Josh because they want to knock him down a peg. I don't know, but I cannot agree he deserves protection from his own past here.

 

[Underseer]

Huckabee's actually got a point here. Crimes one makes when they're a minor shouldn't follow them into adulthood. If there's an issue with how it was handled, that's an issue with Duggar, not an issue with Duggar's parents.

It wasn't handled. It was swept under the rug.

And the problem with this kind of molestation is that people who do this kind of thing often can't stop themselves from doing it again.

 

[Potoooooooo]

Huckabee's actually got a point here. Crimes one makes when they're a minor shouldn't follow them into adulthood. If there's an issue with how it was handled, that's an issue with Duggar, not an issue with Duggar's parents.

It wasn't handled. It was swept under the rug.

And the problem with this kind of molestation is that people who do this kind of thing often can't stop themselves from doing it again.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/05/headline-of-day_22.html#disqus_thread

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/05/tlc-pulls-duggar-show-from-schedule.html#disqus_thread

How many conservative reality TV stars does that make now?

 

[Potoooooooo]

On the one hand, I was going to give credit to the Duggars for immediately seeking counseling for their son and the victims when the incidents happened (though I suspect "counseling" was really "churching").

On the other hand,



and



and

Following a Freedom of Information Act request from The Washington Post for the police report published by In Touch, the Springdale Police Department responded by emailing a court document that ordered that the report “be destroyed and expunged from the public records…and that any and all copies of the same be destroyed.”

The court order was the result of a motion to expunge filed by one of the alleged victims. It was signed by judge Stacey Zimmerman on May 21 — the same day The Post’s FOIA request was submitted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...esearch-council-amid-molestation-allegations/

and the "counseling" apparently wasn't all that immediate. If I am following the time line correctly, and the reports are accurate, Josh was molesting his younger sisters (including a 4-year old) and a neighbor girl during 2002 & 2003. Somehow, the parents and police found out in 2006. The current spin is that Josh confessed, but I suspect one of the girls finally reported what he was doing to the police. That is when this "counseling" started; and was likely part of some plea agreement, or informal agreement with police to avoid any charges.

I wonder if the purpose of getting the records destroyed are to prevent anyone from speaking to the neighbor girl. I wonder if she will be coming forward on her own at some point.

Yep, I have defended this family for years, even back in my more militant atheist days, but fuck that. I ddefended them because most of the criticism lobbed at them had to do with stupid, knee-jerk reactions to having so many kids. Just being weird is no justification for being hated. One of the things I most object to in regard to religious belief is exactly that sort of hate over things that don't fucking matter.

And although I expected a "tell all" type of expose on this family to come out eventually due to their belief system being the sort that so often fosters hypocrisy and cruelty to kids, I expected it would likely be about behind-the-scenes physical and psychological abuse, a la Bing Crosby. So I'm not surprised at shocking secrets revealed, but I didn't expect sexual abuse.

They have always been pretty shitty

http://defamer.gawker.com/tell-your-duggar-tales-did-michelle-duggar-get-a-gay-c-1706502185

In 2008 I worked on the set of what was then known as “17 Kids and Counting” and I have something to tell you. ...

During this time, the Duggars had very limited exposure to what they called the “outside world” and so most of the crew members being from larger cities, we were all very surprised at how very little they knew or understood about places like New York, Los Angeles, and London. All of their perceptions of these places were the most exaggerated stereotype cariacatures as if their only source of news was from locally produced religious cartoons from the 1980s. As in, LA is full of surfer dudes and Valley girls, and everyone in New York talks and walks like John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever, walks in packs carrying switchblades, spray paints graffiti at every turn, with the only safe haven oddly being the mighty Trump Tower. Yes, Trump Tower was Jim Bob’s go-to when talking anecdotally about the elegance of lavish and luxurious places. ... They didn’t own a television or had an Internet connection at that time, so, really, next to second hand church gossip, the local newspaper was really their only link to anything outside of Arkansas. The producers of the show had instructed crew members to not ever engage in conversation on our own with Jim Bob or Michelle in fears that we may either say something normal that they would find objectionable or that they would say something to where we’d react funny because we weren’t used to their level of “unwordliness” I think it was put.

We were constantly reminded that we were not to upset them or taint their version of the world, which is why they wanted limited conversation. Even a lighthearted conversation that might actually educate them about something they were horribly ignorant about was seen as tainting their view. It was very much like being told to not tell your little sister about Santa Claus.

So, during the leadup to their first family trip to New York to appear on the Today Show, Michelle started approaching some of us about New York and if it’s “scary for kids”. Because Michelle came to us, it was acceptable to entertain conversing with her but producers would always rush over and monitor the conversation. That very day we had a couple of crewmembers new to the set not familiar with the drill. She had directed this question to four of us who all happened to be standing together. As tempting as it was to give some ridiculous answer, the producer’s face reminded us to just be polite and give her the answer she wants. Well, the followup question is when it went completely off the rails. “Well, I hear the city is overrun by ..... gays... has that been causing a lot of problems?” One of the new crewmembers laughed and said “Why don’t you ask “Jimmy”? (Changed his name) and then proceeds to yell over his shoulder “Hey, Jimmy, you giving the city lots of problems???” Jimmy as you can guess, was gay, but this fact was completely lost on the Duggars.

It took her a minute to process that the joke answer might mean that there might really be one of these gays she’s always heard about nearby! In her house, even! She pulled the producer over to the corner and started yelling at him and demanding to know if what was just said was a joke, and that she wants to see Jimmy. We’re all watching this go down from a distance dying inside at how funny this was, and how shit is about to really hit a very big fan. The producer is now in a very tough position, because Jimmy is a veteran of the industry and is excellent at what he does, but now the Duggars’ weird uncultured Pollyanna worldview is threatening to disrupt the production staff. We could see the producer trying to calm her down and offering to have a talk with Jimmy (who we all thought was at a rig about 500 feet away, far enough out of ear shot) when suddenly Jimmy appears. ...

Michelle asked point blank “So ... you’re .... gay???” The four of us are staring at this from a distance as if we’re on the edge of our seats, completely shocked that someone in 2008 would even do that, and Jimmy ... suddenly strikes a pose like a model in a pinup photo, and responds “Well, darling, depends on who’s asking!” Holy shit, the four of us watching were doubled over in pain laughing so hard at this. ...

Well, when we returned, we found out that Jimmy was removed, fired from the set, and transferred to another production, and that none of us are to breathe a word of what we saw to anyone. The official reason given to pacify the Duggars was that he was “fired due to causing conflicts with the talent”. Talent! Amazing how such a small sentence can contain so much hyperbole. He was fired 100% because he was gay and for no other reason. The conflict was because he was gay. Of course, he wasn’t really fired fired, but taken off this particular crew. Jimmy was super cool and took it all in stride, and understood the reasoning and the delicate balance the producers needed to have to please these stupid people. And the reason he never came forward or made a stink was because he was paid a bonus and moved to a more desirable production. The dramatics of the “firing” was inflated for the Duggars’ benefit, stupid enough to believe that normal people from more progressive parts of America would support the removal of a gay person from a job filled with union democrats. (Another secret they weren’t aware of!)

...They kept a very tight lid on this incident, because on future tapings when new crews would be swapped in, they were suspiciously more and more straight-edged Christian than you’d typically see on the set of a television show, any television show, outside of the 700 Club. As long as the Duggars are comfortable and safe from the scary city gays, all went according to plan. ...

Sorry this was so long, I guess I could have just told you that Michelle got someone fired because they were gay, but I thought setting the scene is important to the story. Enjoy!

 

[Angry Floof]

Yep, I have defended this family for years, even back in my more militant atheist days, but fuck that. I ddefended them because most of the criticism lobbed at them had to do with stupid, knee-jerk reactions to having so many kids. Just being weird is no justification for being hated. One of the things I most object to in regard to religious belief is exactly that sort of hate over things that don't fucking matter.

And although I expected a "tell all" type of expose on this family to come out eventually due to their belief system being the sort that so often fosters hypocrisy and cruelty to kids, I expected it would likely be about behind-the-scenes physical and psychological abuse, a la Bing Crosby. So I'm not surprised at shocking secrets revealed, but I didn't expect sexual abuse.

They have always been pretty shitty

http://defamer.gawker.com/tell-your-duggar-tales-did-michelle-duggar-get-a-gay-c-1706502185

In 2008 I worked on the set of what was then known as “17 Kids and Counting” and I have something to tell you. ...

*snipped quote for brevity and to make everyone scroll to get the rest of the story

Wow. I don't even know what to say to that. Give 'em enough rope...

To clarify, though, I never claimed that the Duggars were good or bad people, but rather defended the fact that what they were most often kicked around for in the press and on the internet wasn't much more than knee-jerk, judgmental reactions to the oddness of their family size. Some people were even forwarding accusations of the family being on welfare and other falsehoods and non-issues. I call that out when I see it in a religious framework and I called that out in people who decided to just lob the same thoughtless shit back at people who, as far as I could tell at that time, weren't hurting anyone by having a ton of kids. They may have deserved some criticism and concern about denying their children a view of the world they actually live in and reinforcing a narrow conformity, but they didn't deserve the verbal stoning people gave them based on nothing more than their family size and what their religion is.

Nonetheless, the clown car references to Michelle Duggar's vagina were funny.

 

[Derec]

To clarify, though, I never claimed that the Duggars were good or bad people, but rather defended the fact that what they were most often kicked around for in the press and on the internet wasn't much more than knee-jerk, judgmental reactions to the oddness of their family size. Some people were even forwarding accusations of the family being on welfare and other falsehoods and non-issues.

They may not have been on welfare proper but it's still the fact that we as taxpayers have to subsidize their "quiverful" lifestyle through generous tax deductions, child tax credit and possibly even food stamps. For example, for a household of 17 the food stamp limit is ~100k annual income which means they were very likely eligible for them before they started earning the TV money.

 

[credoconsolans]

He was 15, not a 8 year old playing 'doctor'.

He knew what he was doing.

The only counseling he got was from the church. Which relies heavily on prayer, manual labor on a farm somewhere, and forgiveness.

His sisters, who had to live with him afterwards, got the same.

But sadly for them, being raised in a household where they are told to be submissive to men, it makes me wonder if they really forgave him or were just pushed to do so,since I'm sure at some point, Eve's sin was brought up to them.

None of them got professional help.

And yes, his parents covered it up, let the statue of limitations run out so their daughters could do nothing - the fucks, and paraded themselves on TV as a model, Christian family.

They make me sick.

And now he has children of his own. How do we know he's not doing it again? No way to tell since he never got professional counseling and constant supervision to see that he didn't 'fall back' on his 'sin'.

 

[ronburgundy]

They may have deserved some criticism and concern about denying their children a view of the world they actually live in and reinforcing a narrow conformity, but they didn't deserve the verbal stoning people gave them based on nothing more than their family size and what their religion is.

Except that "what their religion is" is a set of harmful, intellect-harming, authoritarian, emotionally abusive, ideas. Thus, it is more than valid to criticize them for their religion and their abusive imposition of it they put on their kids. Their number of kids is not directly relevant, although it means all the more kids they abused with their religion. In addition, the authoritarian and sexual-shaming aspects of their religion are relevant to the sexual abuse and its cover-up.

 

[Derec]

He was 15, not a 8 year old playing 'doctor'.

Still young, and also important that he was close in age to the girls. I do not think there is any indication he is into young girls as an adult.

And yes, his parents covered it up, let the statue of limitations run out so their daughters could do nothing - the fucks, and paraded themselves on TV as a model, Christian family.

Doesn't SOL only start running when the alleged victims turn 18?

And now he has children of his own. How do we know he's not doing it again?

Do you have any indication that he is into young girls as an adult?

 

[Angry Floof]

They may have deserved some criticism and concern about denying their children a view of the world they actually live in and reinforcing a narrow conformity, but they didn't deserve the verbal stoning people gave them based on nothing more than their family size and what their religion is.

Except that "what their religion is" is a set of harmful, intellect-harming, authoritarian, emotionally abusive, ideas. Thus, it is more than valid to criticize them for their religion and their abusive imposition of it they put on their kids. Their number of kids is not directly relevant, although it means all the more kids they abused with their religion. In addition, the authoritarian and sexual-shaming aspects of their religion are relevant to the sexual abuse and its cover-up.

Right. I agree that this is a relevant conversation to have about ideology and its effects, but by simply having a million kids they haven't done anything to not be treated as human beings. I object more to the punishment mentality of both the religious and anyone criticizing them than I would to 22 kids existing, regardless of their family's beliefs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I call bullshit on this story. Seeing that none of the girls went to the police and there is absolutely no evidence of these "events", I call bullshit. This probably just a bunch of girls that wanted to play doctor and then felt bad about it afterwards and changed their story. Bitches! Lying bitches!