Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
One cannot reasonably argue that bringing public attention to the problem would have resulted in a better outcome for any of the parties involved.The issue is whether the parents addressed the issue in an appropriate manner, and all the evidence we have points to 'yes'.Is there evidence the son's behaviour persisted beyond the parents' disciplinary intervention 10 years ago?
Weeeeeee! It's all good. He stopped fingering little girls. It's all good.
If you dispute that, perhaps you should articulate how a different course of action would have led to a better outcome.
They did not address it in an appropriate manner.
They decided to open up their family to public scrutiny....and they PREACHED THE GOSPEL while lining their pockets..........while hiding this information from the public.
Not appropriate.
Blind speculation.Statistik: is there evidence that the parents tolerated the behaviour?more concern is being shown for the molester than the victims
Yes. That just breaks my heart.
Apparently, the parents didn't give a flying fuck about the young girls who were sexually abused. It was far more important for the Duggars to obtain fame and fortune than to protect their own daughters.
This is truly disgusting.
They spoke with their son, and when his behaviour persisted, they disciplined him, forgave him, and reconciled him to his sisters ten years ago. Beyond that, there's no evidence the problem persisted. All of this happened well before they were famous.
On what basis are you claiming they didn't care about their daughters?
Jim Bob could not afford to risk his powerful public position in Arkansas; there
Statistik: is there evidence that the parents tolerated the behaviour?more concern is being shown for the molester than the victims
Yes. That just breaks my heart.
Apparently, the parents didn't give a flying fuck about the young girls who were sexually abused. It was far more important for the Duggars to obtain fame and fortune than to protect their own daughters.
This is truly disgusting.
They spoke with their son, and when his behaviour persisted, they disciplined him, forgave him, and reconciled him to his sisters ten years ago. Beyond that, there's no evidence the problem persisted. All of this happened well before they were famous.
On what basis are you claiming they didn't care about their daughters?
Is it love when a father chooses his powerful public position over his daughters?
Who knows what goes on inside the Josh Dugger home? His wife is a second-class citizen; therefore, she would never disclose her husband's misdeeds.
Again, nothing but baseless speculation.The issue is whether the parents addressed the issue in an appropriate manner, and all the evidence we have points to 'yes'.Is there evidence the son's behaviour persisted beyond the parents' disciplinary intervention 10 years ago?
Weeeeeee! It's all good. He stopped fingering little girls. It's all good.
If you dispute that, perhaps you should articulate how a different course of action would have led to a better outcome.
And the answer is painfully obvious: NO, they did not.
They did not report it to the authorities for more than one year.
Instead, they sent their son to a quack who himself is now in prison for a 56 year sentence for child porn. Super!!!
It is just one fuck-up after another, but since they're the "King's Kids" and stupid shit like that, then it's ok.
They claimed that they sent him to counseling. That was a lie.
The also claim that all of the victims also went into counseling. I will bet good money that that is also a big, fat lie. And I also bet good money that within months from now, more victims will be coming forth. A lot more.
Perhaps you're right, but presently there's no evidence the problem persisted beyond ten years ago.
Until such evidence is forthcoming, you've got nothing but castles in the sky.
Looks to me like declaring victory is your best option wing nut what a stupid asshole LOL... smegma breathImitation is the best flattery...thanks wing nut...
Wow, looks like I whipped your sorry ass pretty bad. Poor baby.
You still do not understand that this is not a specifically left-right issue and quite apparently you are cool with sexual abuse of minors as long as a "Christian" is doing it.It's too bad they never cared about the domestic terrorist like Ayers and Holder Obama hung out with. We not be in this mess we are in today.
They are so predictable. they'll latch onto anything because they don't have anything else.
Vote out this progressive/democrat party in 2016 folks. get this kind of CRAP out of lives and our government
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.One cannot reasonably argue that bringing public attention to the problem would have resulted in a better outcome for any of the parties involved.The issue is whether the parents addressed the issue in an appropriate manner, and all the evidence we have points to 'yes'.Is there evidence the son's behaviour persisted beyond the parents' disciplinary intervention 10 years ago?
Weeeeeee! It's all good. He stopped fingering little girls. It's all good.
If you dispute that, perhaps you should articulate how a different course of action would have led to a better outcome.
They did not address it in an appropriate manner.
They decided to open up their family to public scrutiny....and they PREACHED THE GOSPEL while lining their pockets..........while hiding this information from the public.
Not appropriate.
Blind speculation.Statistik: is there evidence that the parents tolerated the behaviour?Yes. That just breaks my heart.
Apparently, the parents didn't give a flying fuck about the young girls who were sexually abused. It was far more important for the Duggars to obtain fame and fortune than to protect their own daughters.
This is truly disgusting.
They spoke with their son, and when his behaviour persisted, they disciplined him, forgave him, and reconciled him to his sisters ten years ago. Beyond that, there's no evidence the problem persisted. All of this happened well before they were famous.
On what basis are you claiming they didn't care about their daughters?
Jim Bob could not afford to risk his powerful public position in Arkansas; there
Statistik: is there evidence that the parents tolerated the behaviour?Yes. That just breaks my heart.
Apparently, the parents didn't give a flying fuck about the young girls who were sexually abused. It was far more important for the Duggars to obtain fame and fortune than to protect their own daughters.
This is truly disgusting.
They spoke with their son, and when his behaviour persisted, they disciplined him, forgave him, and reconciled him to his sisters ten years ago. Beyond that, there's no evidence the problem persisted. All of this happened well before they were famous.
On what basis are you claiming they didn't care about their daughters?
Is it love when a father chooses his powerful public position over his daughters?
Who knows what goes on inside the Josh Dugger home? His wife is a second-class citizen; therefore, she would never disclose her husband's misdeeds.
Again, nothing but baseless speculation.The issue is whether the parents addressed the issue in an appropriate manner, and all the evidence we have points to 'yes'.Is there evidence the son's behaviour persisted beyond the parents' disciplinary intervention 10 years ago?
Weeeeeee! It's all good. He stopped fingering little girls. It's all good.
If you dispute that, perhaps you should articulate how a different course of action would have led to a better outcome.
And the answer is painfully obvious: NO, they did not.
They did not report it to the authorities for more than one year.
Instead, they sent their son to a quack who himself is now in prison for a 56 year sentence for child porn. Super!!!
It is just one fuck-up after another, but since they're the "King's Kids" and stupid shit like that, then it's ok.
They claimed that they sent him to counseling. That was a lie.
The also claim that all of the victims also went into counseling. I will bet good money that that is also a big, fat lie. And I also bet good money that within months from now, more victims will be coming forth. A lot more.
Perhaps you're right, but presently there's no evidence the problem persisted beyond ten years ago.
Until such evidence is forthcoming, you've got nothing but castles in the sky.
Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
So much for that Right-Wing lie!Explain this :Open letter to Hillary Clinton from Juanita Brodderick
AN OPEN LETTER TO HILLARY CLINTON BY JUANITA BROADDRICK
In 1997, Broaddrick signed an affidavit and gave a deposition in the Jones case, denying twice under oath that Clinton raped her. "These allegations are untrue and there is no truth to these rumors."
The wing nuts do not let that stuff faze them...the response to that was "she was coerced" presumably by Bill Clinton...the wing nuts have severe mental health issues...So much for that Right-Wing lie!
i wonder who the duggers will blame for the killing of the golden goose...the son or the victims....
as for the actions of the parents....i would do the same to protect my child...i would protect him from the law etc....seek counseling privately ...the one major thing i would not do.....sign up for a reality tv show
did they not know it would come out ....
and one has to just shake one's head at the fact the leo who counseled him is now serving time for child porn
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.One cannot reasonably argue that bringing public attention to the problem would have resulted in a better outcome for any of the parties involved.The issue is whether the parents addressed the issue in an appropriate manner, and all the evidence we have points to 'yes'.Weeeeeee! It's all good. He stopped fingering little girls. It's all good.
If you dispute that, perhaps you should articulate how a different course of action would have led to a better outcome.
They did not address it in an appropriate manner.
They decided to open up their family to public scrutiny....and they PREACHED THE GOSPEL while lining their pockets..........while hiding this information from the public.
Not appropriate.
Blind speculation.Statistik: is there evidence that the parents tolerated the behaviour?Apparently, the parents didn't give a flying fuck about the young girls who were sexually abused. It was far more important for the Duggars to obtain fame and fortune than to protect their own daughters.
This is truly disgusting.
They spoke with their son, and when his behaviour persisted, they disciplined him, forgave him, and reconciled him to his sisters ten years ago. Beyond that, there's no evidence the problem persisted. All of this happened well before they were famous.
On what basis are you claiming they didn't care about their daughters?
Jim Bob could not afford to risk his powerful public position in Arkansas; there
Statistik: is there evidence that the parents tolerated the behaviour?Apparently, the parents didn't give a flying fuck about the young girls who were sexually abused. It was far more important for the Duggars to obtain fame and fortune than to protect their own daughters.
This is truly disgusting.
They spoke with their son, and when his behaviour persisted, they disciplined him, forgave him, and reconciled him to his sisters ten years ago. Beyond that, there's no evidence the problem persisted. All of this happened well before they were famous.
On what basis are you claiming they didn't care about their daughters?
Is it love when a father chooses his powerful public position over his daughters?
Who knows what goes on inside the Josh Dugger home? His wife is a second-class citizen; therefore, she would never disclose her husband's misdeeds.
Again, nothing but baseless speculation.The issue is whether the parents addressed the issue in an appropriate manner, and all the evidence we have points to 'yes'.Weeeeeee! It's all good. He stopped fingering little girls. It's all good.
If you dispute that, perhaps you should articulate how a different course of action would have led to a better outcome.
And the answer is painfully obvious: NO, they did not.
They did not report it to the authorities for more than one year.
Instead, they sent their son to a quack who himself is now in prison for a 56 year sentence for child porn. Super!!!
It is just one fuck-up after another, but since they're the "King's Kids" and stupid shit like that, then it's ok.
They claimed that they sent him to counseling. That was a lie.
The also claim that all of the victims also went into counseling. I will bet good money that that is also a big, fat lie. And I also bet good money that within months from now, more victims will be coming forth. A lot more.
Perhaps you're right, but presently there's no evidence the problem persisted beyond ten years ago.
Until such evidence is forthcoming, you've got nothing but castles in the sky.
Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
It may surprise you to know that 'counseling' for sexual abuse and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. The only facts of significance are i) the parents stopped the molestation, and ii) the sisters were ultimately reconciled to their brother.
Moreover, you're ignoring what it is I'm actually asking: what evidence do you have that the parents' disciplinary action ten years ago didn't solve the problem? I'm assuming that ongoing abuse is the basis for your "parents are monster" claims. If you're claiming they're monsters simply because they didn't involve the police and public, you're out of your mind. The public is an insane mob. Half the people in this thread would hang the parents, boil the son alive, and convince the daughters they were better off dead if they could.
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.One cannot reasonably argue that bringing public attention to the problem would have resulted in a better outcome for any of the parties involved.The issue is whether the parents addressed the issue in an appropriate manner, and all the evidence we have points to 'yes'.Weeeeeee! It's all good. He stopped fingering little girls. It's all good.
If you dispute that, perhaps you should articulate how a different course of action would have led to a better outcome.
They did not address it in an appropriate manner.
They decided to open up their family to public scrutiny....and they PREACHED THE GOSPEL while lining their pockets..........while hiding this information from the public.
Not appropriate.
Blind speculation.Statistik: is there evidence that the parents tolerated the behaviour?Apparently, the parents didn't give a flying fuck about the young girls who were sexually abused. It was far more important for the Duggars to obtain fame and fortune than to protect their own daughters.
This is truly disgusting.
They spoke with their son, and when his behaviour persisted, they disciplined him, forgave him, and reconciled him to his sisters ten years ago. Beyond that, there's no evidence the problem persisted. All of this happened well before they were famous.
On what basis are you claiming they didn't care about their daughters?
Jim Bob could not afford to risk his powerful public position in Arkansas; there
Statistik: is there evidence that the parents tolerated the behaviour?Apparently, the parents didn't give a flying fuck about the young girls who were sexually abused. It was far more important for the Duggars to obtain fame and fortune than to protect their own daughters.
This is truly disgusting.
They spoke with their son, and when his behaviour persisted, they disciplined him, forgave him, and reconciled him to his sisters ten years ago. Beyond that, there's no evidence the problem persisted. All of this happened well before they were famous.
On what basis are you claiming they didn't care about their daughters?
Is it love when a father chooses his powerful public position over his daughters?
Who knows what goes on inside the Josh Dugger home? His wife is a second-class citizen; therefore, she would never disclose her husband's misdeeds.
Again, nothing but baseless speculation.The issue is whether the parents addressed the issue in an appropriate manner, and all the evidence we have points to 'yes'.Weeeeeee! It's all good. He stopped fingering little girls. It's all good.
If you dispute that, perhaps you should articulate how a different course of action would have led to a better outcome.
And the answer is painfully obvious: NO, they did not.
They did not report it to the authorities for more than one year.
Instead, they sent their son to a quack who himself is now in prison for a 56 year sentence for child porn. Super!!!
It is just one fuck-up after another, but since they're the "King's Kids" and stupid shit like that, then it's ok.
They claimed that they sent him to counseling. That was a lie.
The also claim that all of the victims also went into counseling. I will bet good money that that is also a big, fat lie. And I also bet good money that within months from now, more victims will be coming forth. A lot more.
Perhaps you're right, but presently there's no evidence the problem persisted beyond ten years ago.
Until such evidence is forthcoming, you've got nothing but castles in the sky.
Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
It may surprise you to know that 'counseling' for sexual abuse and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. The only facts of significance are i) the parents stopped the molestation, and ii) the sisters were ultimately reconciled to their brother.
Moreover, you're ignoring what it is I'm actually asking: what evidence do you have that the parents' disciplinary action ten years ago didn't solve the problem? I'm assuming that ongoing abuse is the basis for your "parents are monster" claims. If you're claiming they're monsters simply because they didn't involve the police and public, you're out of your mind. The public is an insane mob. Half the people in this thread would hang the parents, boil the son alive, and convince the daughters they were better off dead if they could.
I have no issues dude, you are the one that fell apart. You are the one judging others, not me.
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.One cannot reasonably argue that bringing public attention to the problem would have resulted in a better outcome for any of the parties involved.The issue is whether the parents addressed the issue in an appropriate manner, and all the evidence we have points to 'yes'.
If you dispute that, perhaps you should articulate how a different course of action would have led to a better outcome.
They did not address it in an appropriate manner.
They decided to open up their family to public scrutiny....and they PREACHED THE GOSPEL while lining their pockets..........while hiding this information from the public.
Not appropriate.
Blind speculation.Statistik: is there evidence that the parents tolerated the behaviour?
They spoke with their son, and when his behaviour persisted, they disciplined him, forgave him, and reconciled him to his sisters ten years ago. Beyond that, there's no evidence the problem persisted. All of this happened well before they were famous.
On what basis are you claiming they didn't care about their daughters?
Jim Bob could not afford to risk his powerful public position in Arkansas; there
Statistik: is there evidence that the parents tolerated the behaviour?
They spoke with their son, and when his behaviour persisted, they disciplined him, forgave him, and reconciled him to his sisters ten years ago. Beyond that, there's no evidence the problem persisted. All of this happened well before they were famous.
On what basis are you claiming they didn't care about their daughters?
Is it love when a father chooses his powerful public position over his daughters?
Who knows what goes on inside the Josh Dugger home? His wife is a second-class citizen; therefore, she would never disclose her husband's misdeeds.
Again, nothing but baseless speculation.The issue is whether the parents addressed the issue in an appropriate manner, and all the evidence we have points to 'yes'.
If you dispute that, perhaps you should articulate how a different course of action would have led to a better outcome.
And the answer is painfully obvious: NO, they did not.
They did not report it to the authorities for more than one year.
Instead, they sent their son to a quack who himself is now in prison for a 56 year sentence for child porn. Super!!!
It is just one fuck-up after another, but since they're the "King's Kids" and stupid shit like that, then it's ok.
They claimed that they sent him to counseling. That was a lie.
The also claim that all of the victims also went into counseling. I will bet good money that that is also a big, fat lie. And I also bet good money that within months from now, more victims will be coming forth. A lot more.
Perhaps you're right, but presently there's no evidence the problem persisted beyond ten years ago.
Until such evidence is forthcoming, you've got nothing but castles in the sky.
Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
It may surprise you to know that 'counseling' for sexual abuse and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. The only facts of significance are i) the parents stopped the molestation, and ii) the sisters were ultimately reconciled to their brother.
Moreover, you're ignoring what it is I'm actually asking: what evidence do you have that the parents' disciplinary action ten years ago didn't solve the problem? I'm assuming that ongoing abuse is the basis for your "parents are monster" claims. If you're claiming they're monsters simply because they didn't involve the police and public, you're out of your mind. The public is an insane mob. Half the people in this thread would hang the parents, boil the son alive, and convince the daughters they were better off dead if they could.
"There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No
sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary."
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.One cannot reasonably argue that bringing public attention to the problem would have resulted in a better outcome for any of the parties involved.The issue is whether the parents addressed the issue in an appropriate manner, and all the evidence we have points to 'yes'.
If you dispute that, perhaps you should articulate how a different course of action would have led to a better outcome.
They did not address it in an appropriate manner.
They decided to open up their family to public scrutiny....and they PREACHED THE GOSPEL while lining their pockets..........while hiding this information from the public.
Not appropriate.
Blind speculation.Statistik: is there evidence that the parents tolerated the behaviour?
They spoke with their son, and when his behaviour persisted, they disciplined him, forgave him, and reconciled him to his sisters ten years ago. Beyond that, there's no evidence the problem persisted. All of this happened well before they were famous.
On what basis are you claiming they didn't care about their daughters?
Jim Bob could not afford to risk his powerful public position in Arkansas; there
Statistik: is there evidence that the parents tolerated the behaviour?
They spoke with their son, and when his behaviour persisted, they disciplined him, forgave him, and reconciled him to his sisters ten years ago. Beyond that, there's no evidence the problem persisted. All of this happened well before they were famous.
On what basis are you claiming they didn't care about their daughters?
Is it love when a father chooses his powerful public position over his daughters?
Who knows what goes on inside the Josh Dugger home? His wife is a second-class citizen; therefore, she would never disclose her husband's misdeeds.
Again, nothing but baseless speculation.The issue is whether the parents addressed the issue in an appropriate manner, and all the evidence we have points to 'yes'.
If you dispute that, perhaps you should articulate how a different course of action would have led to a better outcome.
And the answer is painfully obvious: NO, they did not.
They did not report it to the authorities for more than one year.
Instead, they sent their son to a quack who himself is now in prison for a 56 year sentence for child porn. Super!!!
It is just one fuck-up after another, but since they're the "King's Kids" and stupid shit like that, then it's ok.
They claimed that they sent him to counseling. That was a lie.
The also claim that all of the victims also went into counseling. I will bet good money that that is also a big, fat lie. And I also bet good money that within months from now, more victims will be coming forth. A lot more.
Perhaps you're right, but presently there's no evidence the problem persisted beyond ten years ago.
Until such evidence is forthcoming, you've got nothing but castles in the sky.
Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
It may surprise you to know that 'counseling' for sexual abuse and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. The only facts of significance are i) the parents stopped the molestation, and ii) the sisters were ultimately reconciled to their brother.
Moreover, you're ignoring what it is I'm actually asking: what evidence do you have that the parents' disciplinary action ten years ago didn't solve the problem? I'm assuming that ongoing abuse is the basis for your "parents are monster" claims. If you're claiming they're monsters simply because they didn't involve the police and public, you're out of your mind. The public is an insane mob. Half the people in this thread would hang the parents, boil the son alive, and convince the daughters they were better off dead if they could.
"There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No
sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary."
Just suppose that Josh Duggar had been attending public school and his 25 year-old, very attractive female teacher, succumbed to his flirting and fondled his genitals in a secluded parking lot, do you think the Duggars would have dealt with the molestation legally? Would Josh have been scarred? Should the teacher have been labeled a monster?
You're probably thinking, well, the teacher was the adult and she should have known better. Could the same be said about Jim Bob and Michelle?
They told their friend, a highway patrolman, about the molestation(s) and then the crimes were erased in order that Josh would not be stigmatized, and after all, Jim Bob held a powerful public office, and that could have caused him embarrassment to the point of losing his job and his reputation as a devout Christian.
What if one of the little girls had been your daughter, how would you feel? Would you think Josh was a monster?
Would you want your little girl to be reconciled to the person who abused her?
It seems in the above scenario that Josh acted irresponsibly, and was somehow miraculously cured from his impulses to rape little girls, so all is well. Do you really believe all is well?
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.One cannot reasonably argue that bringing public attention to the problem would have resulted in a better outcome for any of the parties involved.They did not address it in an appropriate manner.
They decided to open up their family to public scrutiny....and they PREACHED THE GOSPEL while lining their pockets..........while hiding this information from the public.
Not appropriate.
Blind speculation.Jim Bob could not afford to risk his powerful public position in Arkansas; there
Is it love when a father chooses his powerful public position over his daughters?
Who knows what goes on inside the Josh Dugger home? His wife is a second-class citizen; therefore, she would never disclose her husband's misdeeds.
Again, nothing but baseless speculation.And the answer is painfully obvious: NO, they did not.
They did not report it to the authorities for more than one year.
Instead, they sent their son to a quack who himself is now in prison for a 56 year sentence for child porn. Super!!!
It is just one fuck-up after another, but since they're the "King's Kids" and stupid shit like that, then it's ok.
They claimed that they sent him to counseling. That was a lie.
The also claim that all of the victims also went into counseling. I will bet good money that that is also a big, fat lie. And I also bet good money that within months from now, more victims will be coming forth. A lot more.
Perhaps you're right, but presently there's no evidence the problem persisted beyond ten years ago.
Until such evidence is forthcoming, you've got nothing but castles in the sky.
Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
It may surprise you to know that 'counseling' for sexual abuse and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. The only facts of significance are i) the parents stopped the molestation, and ii) the sisters were ultimately reconciled to their brother.
Moreover, you're ignoring what it is I'm actually asking: what evidence do you have that the parents' disciplinary action ten years ago didn't solve the problem? I'm assuming that ongoing abuse is the basis for your "parents are monster" claims. If you're claiming they're monsters simply because they didn't involve the police and public, you're out of your mind. The public is an insane mob. Half the people in this thread would hang the parents, boil the son alive, and convince the daughters they were better off dead if they could.
"There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No
sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary."
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.One cannot reasonably argue that bringing public attention to the problem would have resulted in a better outcome for any of the parties involved.They did not address it in an appropriate manner.
They decided to open up their family to public scrutiny....and they PREACHED THE GOSPEL while lining their pockets..........while hiding this information from the public.
Not appropriate.
Blind speculation.Jim Bob could not afford to risk his powerful public position in Arkansas; there
Is it love when a father chooses his powerful public position over his daughters?
Who knows what goes on inside the Josh Dugger home? His wife is a second-class citizen; therefore, she would never disclose her husband's misdeeds.
Again, nothing but baseless speculation.And the answer is painfully obvious: NO, they did not.
They did not report it to the authorities for more than one year.
Instead, they sent their son to a quack who himself is now in prison for a 56 year sentence for child porn. Super!!!
It is just one fuck-up after another, but since they're the "King's Kids" and stupid shit like that, then it's ok.
They claimed that they sent him to counseling. That was a lie.
The also claim that all of the victims also went into counseling. I will bet good money that that is also a big, fat lie. And I also bet good money that within months from now, more victims will be coming forth. A lot more.
Perhaps you're right, but presently there's no evidence the problem persisted beyond ten years ago.
Until such evidence is forthcoming, you've got nothing but castles in the sky.
Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
It may surprise you to know that 'counseling' for sexual abuse and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. The only facts of significance are i) the parents stopped the molestation, and ii) the sisters were ultimately reconciled to their brother.
Moreover, you're ignoring what it is I'm actually asking: what evidence do you have that the parents' disciplinary action ten years ago didn't solve the problem? I'm assuming that ongoing abuse is the basis for your "parents are monster" claims. If you're claiming they're monsters simply because they didn't involve the police and public, you're out of your mind. The public is an insane mob. Half the people in this thread would hang the parents, boil the son alive, and convince the daughters they were better off dead if they could.
"There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No
sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary."
Just suppose that Josh Duggar had been attending public school and his 25 year-old, very attractive female teacher, succumbed to his flirting and fondled his genitals in a secluded parking lot, do you think the Duggars would have dealt with the molestation legally? Would Josh have been scarred? Should the teacher have been labeled a monster?
You're probably thinking, well, the teacher was the adult and she should have known better. Could the same be said about Jim Bob and Michelle?
They told their friend, a highway patrolman, about the molestation(s) and then the crimes were erased in order that Josh would not be stigmatized, and after all, Jim Bob held a powerful public office, and that could have caused him embarrassment to the point of losing his job and his reputation as a devout Christian.
What if one of the little girls had been your daughter, how would you feel? Would you think Josh was a monster?
Would you want your little girl to be reconciled to the person who abused her?
It seems in the above scenario that Josh acted irresponsibly, and was somehow miraculously cured from his impulses to rape little girls, so all is well. Do you really believe all is well?
Cured or not? Not sure, he was 14, were the girls the older ones or the younger ones. The older ones could be written off as experimentation. However I don't know the whole story. The question would be where does his sexual stimulation now begin. 18 year olds or younger? We don't know without knowing what his sexual stimulus point is.
I would never let young girls around him, ever.
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.One cannot reasonably argue that bringing public attention to the problem would have resulted in a better outcome for any of the parties involved.They did not address it in an appropriate manner.
They decided to open up their family to public scrutiny....and they PREACHED THE GOSPEL while lining their pockets..........while hiding this information from the public.
Not appropriate.
Blind speculation.Jim Bob could not afford to risk his powerful public position in Arkansas; there
Is it love when a father chooses his powerful public position over his daughters?
Who knows what goes on inside the Josh Dugger home? His wife is a second-class citizen; therefore, she would never disclose her husband's misdeeds.
Again, nothing but baseless speculation.And the answer is painfully obvious: NO, they did not.
They did not report it to the authorities for more than one year.
Instead, they sent their son to a quack who himself is now in prison for a 56 year sentence for child porn. Super!!!
It is just one fuck-up after another, but since they're the "King's Kids" and stupid shit like that, then it's ok.
They claimed that they sent him to counseling. That was a lie.
The also claim that all of the victims also went into counseling. I will bet good money that that is also a big, fat lie. And I also bet good money that within months from now, more victims will be coming forth. A lot more.
Perhaps you're right, but presently there's no evidence the problem persisted beyond ten years ago.
Until such evidence is forthcoming, you've got nothing but castles in the sky.
Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
It may surprise you to know that 'counseling' for sexual abuse and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. The only facts of significance are i) the parents stopped the molestation, and ii) the sisters were ultimately reconciled to their brother.
Moreover, you're ignoring what it is I'm actually asking: what evidence do you have that the parents' disciplinary action ten years ago didn't solve the problem? I'm assuming that ongoing abuse is the basis for your "parents are monster" claims. If you're claiming they're monsters simply because they didn't involve the police and public, you're out of your mind. The public is an insane mob. Half the people in this thread would hang the parents, boil the son alive, and convince the daughters they were better off dead if they could.
"There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No
sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary."
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.One cannot reasonably argue that bringing public attention to the problem would have resulted in a better outcome for any of the parties involved.They did not address it in an appropriate manner.
They decided to open up their family to public scrutiny....and they PREACHED THE GOSPEL while lining their pockets..........while hiding this information from the public.
Not appropriate.
Blind speculation.Jim Bob could not afford to risk his powerful public position in Arkansas; there
Is it love when a father chooses his powerful public position over his daughters?
Who knows what goes on inside the Josh Dugger home? His wife is a second-class citizen; therefore, she would never disclose her husband's misdeeds.
Again, nothing but baseless speculation.And the answer is painfully obvious: NO, they did not.
They did not report it to the authorities for more than one year.
Instead, they sent their son to a quack who himself is now in prison for a 56 year sentence for child porn. Super!!!
It is just one fuck-up after another, but since they're the "King's Kids" and stupid shit like that, then it's ok.
They claimed that they sent him to counseling. That was a lie.
The also claim that all of the victims also went into counseling. I will bet good money that that is also a big, fat lie. And I also bet good money that within months from now, more victims will be coming forth. A lot more.
Perhaps you're right, but presently there's no evidence the problem persisted beyond ten years ago.
Until such evidence is forthcoming, you've got nothing but castles in the sky.
Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
It may surprise you to know that 'counseling' for sexual abuse and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. The only facts of significance are i) the parents stopped the molestation, and ii) the sisters were ultimately reconciled to their brother.
Moreover, you're ignoring what it is I'm actually asking: what evidence do you have that the parents' disciplinary action ten years ago didn't solve the problem? I'm assuming that ongoing abuse is the basis for your "parents are monster" claims. If you're claiming they're monsters simply because they didn't involve the police and public, you're out of your mind. The public is an insane mob. Half the people in this thread would hang the parents, boil the son alive, and convince the daughters they were better off dead if they could.
"There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No
sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary."
Just suppose that Josh Duggar had been attending public school and his 25 year-old, very attractive female teacher, succumbed to his flirting and fondled his genitals in a secluded parking lot, do you think the Duggars would have dealt with the molestation legally? Would Josh have been scarred? Should the teacher have been labeled a monster?
You're probably thinking, well, the teacher was the adult and she should have known better. Could the same be said about Jim Bob and Michelle?
They told their friend, a highway patrolman, about the molestation(s) and then the crimes were erased in order that Josh would not be stigmatized, and after all, Jim Bob held a powerful public office, and that could have caused him embarrassment to the point of losing his job and his reputation as a devout Christian.
What if one of the little girls had been your daughter, how would you feel? Would you think Josh was a monster?
Would you want your little girl to be reconciled to the person who abused her?
It seems in the above scenario that Josh acted irresponsibly, and was somehow miraculously cured from his impulses to rape little girls, so all is well. Do you really believe all is well?
Cured or not? Not sure, he was 14, were the girls the older ones or the younger ones. The older ones could be written off as experimentation. However I don't know the whole story. The question would be where does his sexual stimulation now begin. 18 year olds or younger? We don't know without knowing what his sexual stimulus point is.
I would never let young girls around him, ever.
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.One cannot reasonably argue that bringing public attention to the problem would have resulted in a better outcome for any of the parties involved.
Blind speculation.
Again, nothing but baseless speculation.
Perhaps you're right, but presently there's no evidence the problem persisted beyond ten years ago.
Until such evidence is forthcoming, you've got nothing but castles in the sky.
Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
It may surprise you to know that 'counseling' for sexual abuse and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. The only facts of significance are i) the parents stopped the molestation, and ii) the sisters were ultimately reconciled to their brother.
Moreover, you're ignoring what it is I'm actually asking: what evidence do you have that the parents' disciplinary action ten years ago didn't solve the problem? I'm assuming that ongoing abuse is the basis for your "parents are monster" claims. If you're claiming they're monsters simply because they didn't involve the police and public, you're out of your mind. The public is an insane mob. Half the people in this thread would hang the parents, boil the son alive, and convince the daughters they were better off dead if they could.
"There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No
sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary."
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.One cannot reasonably argue that bringing public attention to the problem would have resulted in a better outcome for any of the parties involved.
Blind speculation.
Again, nothing but baseless speculation.
Perhaps you're right, but presently there's no evidence the problem persisted beyond ten years ago.
Until such evidence is forthcoming, you've got nothing but castles in the sky.
Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
It may surprise you to know that 'counseling' for sexual abuse and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. The only facts of significance are i) the parents stopped the molestation, and ii) the sisters were ultimately reconciled to their brother.
Moreover, you're ignoring what it is I'm actually asking: what evidence do you have that the parents' disciplinary action ten years ago didn't solve the problem? I'm assuming that ongoing abuse is the basis for your "parents are monster" claims. If you're claiming they're monsters simply because they didn't involve the police and public, you're out of your mind. The public is an insane mob. Half the people in this thread would hang the parents, boil the son alive, and convince the daughters they were better off dead if they could.
"There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No
sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary."
Just suppose that Josh Duggar had been attending public school and his 25 year-old, very attractive female teacher, succumbed to his flirting and fondled his genitals in a secluded parking lot, do you think the Duggars would have dealt with the molestation legally? Would Josh have been scarred? Should the teacher have been labeled a monster?
You're probably thinking, well, the teacher was the adult and she should have known better. Could the same be said about Jim Bob and Michelle?
They told their friend, a highway patrolman, about the molestation(s) and then the crimes were erased in order that Josh would not be stigmatized, and after all, Jim Bob held a powerful public office, and that could have caused him embarrassment to the point of losing his job and his reputation as a devout Christian.
What if one of the little girls had been your daughter, how would you feel? Would you think Josh was a monster?
Would you want your little girl to be reconciled to the person who abused her?
It seems in the above scenario that Josh acted irresponsibly, and was somehow miraculously cured from his impulses to rape little girls, so all is well. Do you really believe all is well?
Cured or not? Not sure, he was 14, were the girls the older ones or the younger ones. The older ones could be written off as experimentation. However I don't know the whole story. The question would be where does his sexual stimulation now begin. 18 year olds or younger? We don't know without knowing what his sexual stimulus point is.
I would never let young girls around him, ever.
Are you always so cavalier in way of thinking? A molestation victim, young or old, can never be written off as an experiment. I personally do not know when a male's sexual stimulation begins, but I've heard there are ways to sate it other than rape.
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.One cannot reasonably argue that bringing public attention to the problem would have resulted in a better outcome for any of the parties involved.
Blind speculation.
Again, nothing but baseless speculation.
Perhaps you're right, but presently there's no evidence the problem persisted beyond ten years ago.
Until such evidence is forthcoming, you've got nothing but castles in the sky.
Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
It may surprise you to know that 'counseling' for sexual abuse and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. The only facts of significance are i) the parents stopped the molestation, and ii) the sisters were ultimately reconciled to their brother.
Moreover, you're ignoring what it is I'm actually asking: what evidence do you have that the parents' disciplinary action ten years ago didn't solve the problem? I'm assuming that ongoing abuse is the basis for your "parents are monster" claims. If you're claiming they're monsters simply because they didn't involve the police and public, you're out of your mind. The public is an insane mob. Half the people in this thread would hang the parents, boil the son alive, and convince the daughters they were better off dead if they could.
"There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No
sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary."
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.One cannot reasonably argue that bringing public attention to the problem would have resulted in a better outcome for any of the parties involved.
Blind speculation.
Again, nothing but baseless speculation.
Perhaps you're right, but presently there's no evidence the problem persisted beyond ten years ago.
Until such evidence is forthcoming, you've got nothing but castles in the sky.
Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
It may surprise you to know that 'counseling' for sexual abuse and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. The only facts of significance are i) the parents stopped the molestation, and ii) the sisters were ultimately reconciled to their brother.
Moreover, you're ignoring what it is I'm actually asking: what evidence do you have that the parents' disciplinary action ten years ago didn't solve the problem? I'm assuming that ongoing abuse is the basis for your "parents are monster" claims. If you're claiming they're monsters simply because they didn't involve the police and public, you're out of your mind. The public is an insane mob. Half the people in this thread would hang the parents, boil the son alive, and convince the daughters they were better off dead if they could.
"There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No
sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary."
Just suppose that Josh Duggar had been attending public school and his 25 year-old, very attractive female teacher, succumbed to his flirting and fondled his genitals in a secluded parking lot, do you think the Duggars would have dealt with the molestation legally? Would Josh have been scarred? Should the teacher have been labeled a monster?
You're probably thinking, well, the teacher was the adult and she should have known better. Could the same be said about Jim Bob and Michelle?
They told their friend, a highway patrolman, about the molestation(s) and then the crimes were erased in order that Josh would not be stigmatized, and after all, Jim Bob held a powerful public office, and that could have caused him embarrassment to the point of losing his job and his reputation as a devout Christian.
What if one of the little girls had been your daughter, how would you feel? Would you think Josh was a monster?
Would you want your little girl to be reconciled to the person who abused her?
It seems in the above scenario that Josh acted irresponsibly, and was somehow miraculously cured from his impulses to rape little girls, so all is well. Do you really believe all is well?
Cured or not? Not sure, he was 14, were the girls the older ones or the younger ones. The older ones could be written off as experimentation. However I don't know the whole story. The question would be where does his sexual stimulation now begin. 18 year olds or younger? We don't know without knowing what his sexual stimulus point is.
I would never let young girls around him, ever.
Are you always so cavalier in way of thinking? A molestation victim, young or old, can never be written off as an experiment. I personally do not know when a male's sexual stimulation begins, but I've heard there are ways to sate it other than rape. We know he molested 5 little girls and he and his self-righteous parents thought he got away with it, but it seems he didn't.
A stunning and very alarming report has emerged involving the Duggar family.
According to a recently uncovered police report, Josh Duggar, one of the many stars of TLC's 19 Kids and Counting, allegedly molested five girls — some of whom, were reportedly his sisters — starting in 2002. He was around 14 at the time...
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
It may surprise you to know that 'counseling' for sexual abuse and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. The only facts of significance are i) the parents stopped the molestation, and ii) the sisters were ultimately reconciled to their brother.
Moreover, you're ignoring what it is I'm actually asking: what evidence do you have that the parents' disciplinary action ten years ago didn't solve the problem? I'm assuming that ongoing abuse is the basis for your "parents are monster" claims. If you're claiming they're monsters simply because they didn't involve the police and public, you're out of your mind. The public is an insane mob. Half the people in this thread would hang the parents, boil the son alive, and convince the daughters they were better off dead if they could.
"There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No
sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary."
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
It may surprise you to know that 'counseling' for sexual abuse and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. The only facts of significance are i) the parents stopped the molestation, and ii) the sisters were ultimately reconciled to their brother.
Moreover, you're ignoring what it is I'm actually asking: what evidence do you have that the parents' disciplinary action ten years ago didn't solve the problem? I'm assuming that ongoing abuse is the basis for your "parents are monster" claims. If you're claiming they're monsters simply because they didn't involve the police and public, you're out of your mind. The public is an insane mob. Half the people in this thread would hang the parents, boil the son alive, and convince the daughters they were better off dead if they could.
"There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No
sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary."
Just suppose that Josh Duggar had been attending public school and his 25 year-old, very attractive female teacher, succumbed to his flirting and fondled his genitals in a secluded parking lot, do you think the Duggars would have dealt with the molestation legally? Would Josh have been scarred? Should the teacher have been labeled a monster?
You're probably thinking, well, the teacher was the adult and she should have known better. Could the same be said about Jim Bob and Michelle?
They told their friend, a highway patrolman, about the molestation(s) and then the crimes were erased in order that Josh would not be stigmatized, and after all, Jim Bob held a powerful public office, and that could have caused him embarrassment to the point of losing his job and his reputation as a devout Christian.
What if one of the little girls had been your daughter, how would you feel? Would you think Josh was a monster?
Would you want your little girl to be reconciled to the person who abused her?
It seems in the above scenario that Josh acted irresponsibly, and was somehow miraculously cured from his impulses to rape little girls, so all is well. Do you really believe all is well?
Cured or not? Not sure, he was 14, were the girls the older ones or the younger ones. The older ones could be written off as experimentation. However I don't know the whole story. The question would be where does his sexual stimulation now begin. 18 year olds or younger? We don't know without knowing what his sexual stimulus point is.
I would never let young girls around him, ever.
Are you always so cavalier in way of thinking? A molestation victim, young or old, can never be written off as an experiment. I personally do not know when a male's sexual stimulation begins, but I've heard there are ways to sate it other than rape.
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
It may surprise you to know that 'counseling' for sexual abuse and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. The only facts of significance are i) the parents stopped the molestation, and ii) the sisters were ultimately reconciled to their brother.
Moreover, you're ignoring what it is I'm actually asking: what evidence do you have that the parents' disciplinary action ten years ago didn't solve the problem? I'm assuming that ongoing abuse is the basis for your "parents are monster" claims. If you're claiming they're monsters simply because they didn't involve the police and public, you're out of your mind. The public is an insane mob. Half the people in this thread would hang the parents, boil the son alive, and convince the daughters they were better off dead if they could.
"There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No
sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary."
There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary. This thread is a shining example of why.Uhm, no.
No evidence that the underage victims of deliberate sexual abuse ever received counseling, nor was this ever dealt with legally, as should have been done.
The parents even admit this.
Which part of "admit" do you not understand?
Or does the well-being of females mean nothing to you?
It may surprise you to know that 'counseling' for sexual abuse and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. The only facts of significance are i) the parents stopped the molestation, and ii) the sisters were ultimately reconciled to their brother.
Moreover, you're ignoring what it is I'm actually asking: what evidence do you have that the parents' disciplinary action ten years ago didn't solve the problem? I'm assuming that ongoing abuse is the basis for your "parents are monster" claims. If you're claiming they're monsters simply because they didn't involve the police and public, you're out of your mind. The public is an insane mob. Half the people in this thread would hang the parents, boil the son alive, and convince the daughters they were better off dead if they could.
"There's no benefit to dealing with it legally. It would stigmatize the son, stigmatize the daughters, disgrace the family. No
sensible parents would involve the police and the raging public unless absolutely necessary."
Just suppose that Josh Duggar had been attending public school and his 25 year-old, very attractive female teacher, succumbed to his flirting and fondled his genitals in a secluded parking lot, do you think the Duggars would have dealt with the molestation legally? Would Josh have been scarred? Should the teacher have been labeled a monster?
You're probably thinking, well, the teacher was the adult and she should have known better. Could the same be said about Jim Bob and Michelle?
They told their friend, a highway patrolman, about the molestation(s) and then the crimes were erased in order that Josh would not be stigmatized, and after all, Jim Bob held a powerful public office, and that could have caused him embarrassment to the point of losing his job and his reputation as a devout Christian.
What if one of the little girls had been your daughter, how would you feel? Would you think Josh was a monster?
Would you want your little girl to be reconciled to the person who abused her?
It seems in the above scenario that Josh acted irresponsibly, and was somehow miraculously cured from his impulses to rape little girls, so all is well. Do you really believe all is well?
Cured or not? Not sure, he was 14, were the girls the older ones or the younger ones. The older ones could be written off as experimentation. However I don't know the whole story. The question would be where does his sexual stimulation now begin. 18 year olds or younger? We don't know without knowing what his sexual stimulus point is.
I would never let young girls around him, ever.
Are you always so cavalier in way of thinking? A molestation victim, young or old, can never be written off as an experiment. I personally do not know when a male's sexual stimulation begins, but I've heard there are ways to sate it other than rape. We know he molested 5 little girls and he and his self-righteous parents thought he got away with it, but it seems he didn't.
Nice twist of the words, the ages of the kids is relevant. In his status as a molester on kids in the future. A 14 year old with a 13 is a lot different than a 30 year old with 13 year old. I am not minimizing the victims at all, even consensual sex at that age is wrong and leads to issues in the future.
The difference is how he will view sex in the future and what his turn on are.
He was wrong, I have stated that over and over, he is wrong. I have stated over and over that the parents are in more contempt as far as I am concerned, they had an obligation to the families of the victims, to their own children, to Josh. They also neglected their responsibility to the community.
i wonder who the duggers will blame for the killing of the golden goose...the son or the victims....
as for the actions of the parents....i would do the same to protect my child...i would protect him from the law etc....seek counseling privately ...the one major thing i would not do.....sign up for a reality tv show
did they not know it would come out ....
and one has to just shake one's head at the fact the leo who counseled him is now serving time for child porn
The whole story is questionable, why come on TV as a super clean large family with this skeleton. Add pervert LEO as a mentor and counselors, you begin to wonder how screwed up Josh Duggar maybe.
Who really cares how Josh will view sex today and tomorrow, much less what his turn-ons are.
