The Duggars: A deeper, more personal question

[thalassa]

Re: The Duggars: A deeper, more personal question

But there still within their social and cultural rights to believe and act as they do. It's imposing of another groups beliefs upon them and the way they decide to live. An imposing that if it were directed at those insisting upon it they'd scream foul and demand it be changed even as they push those same expectations and truths upon another. That's the base of it, a collective you does not like the way they live and what you think they should be doing and insist it be changed to how you want it. Presuming of course or implying you (collective) know what is better for the group as a whole as well as any individual within the group. The observer outside the fishbowl who is demanding a right to influence and change what they are observing within the fishbowl. Yet not once actually living it themselves or leaving it for those within the fishbowl to decide if they even want to change. Then often employing they are children and can't decide for themselves while often stating legal wise it's up to their parents to be accountable and decide for them.

Pretty sure its not legal to beat a baby or have sex with a 13 year old in most states in the United States of America. If their activities are legal, then its their business. It still doesn't mean its free from criticism--I accept that my beliefs are open to criticism as well...I may not like the criticism or find it applicable, but that doesn't mean that they don't have the right (or in some cases, duty) to do so. Criticism isn't intolerance.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: The Duggars: A deeper, more personal question

Pretty sure its not legal to beat a baby or have sex with a 13 year old in most states in the United States of America. If their activities are legal, then its their business. It still doesn't mean its free from criticism--I accept that my beliefs are open to criticism as well...I may not like the criticism or find it applicable, but that doesn't mean that they don't have the right (or in some cases, duty) to do so. Criticism isn't intolerance.

I agree that criticism is not bad in and of itself. It's to me the base foundation of the compare and contrast aspect of society. Where I think it gets dangerous is when its used as the basis to say I am right and they are wrong with the criticism as the justification. It's like you indicate beating a baby yet define beating? I've seen a swat on the hands defined a abuse and compared to intentionally burning you child. Seen smacking a child's butt equated to abuse because another group thinks it's wrong to their standards. Always those outside the fishbowl observing those within and using their ethics, morality and social / cultural norms to state what is going on in the fishbowl is wrong because of it.

Regarding sex I know most states say age of consent is something like 15 - 17 yet I do not know of any state limitations on how young or old a person can be to get married with parental consent. Yet to be married is also to imply that sexual union will occur. Don't see it that often but still see girls of 11 or 12 getting married with parental consent, perhaps even younger in some locals if the rag mags are to be believed. So which is the more correct? Consent by the person at 15 - 17 or permission via consent for marriage as early as 12 with the implied assumption that sexual union will result from the marriage. To many legal loop holes though people keep trying to impose their own morals and ethics upon what they see and observe in my opinion.

[thalassa]

Re: The Duggars: A deeper, more personal question

Blanket training is where you put a baby, starting around 6 months (or younger) and smack them every time they try to get off the blanket (the Pearl's advocate using plastic electrical conduit or narrow gauge PVC piping in a gauge appropriate for the age and sturdiness of the child). The expressed purpose blanket training is that, even if you call them, even if you stick a bottle out of reach off the blanket when they're hungry, even if you stick their favorite toy or a kitten out of reach from the blanket. The purpose of blanket training is to so thoroughly terrorize your child to associate "leaving blanket" with pain. The purpose of blanket training is to squelch any sense of curiosity or independence, in favor of complete compliance and breaking their spirit. Breaking their spirit, in particular, is the specific goal, because it is only by breaking their spirit completely and fostering complete submission to their parents (particularly their father) that they can ever have complete submission to God. In the mind of those that do this (and yes, I have first hand knowledge of several family that raise their children this way), you have to do it early enough that they don't ever think of themselves as their own person with their own needs or desires or thoughts.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: The Duggars: A deeper, more personal question

Is it wrong to want to seek out certain people and shoot them, or is it only wrong if I actually do it?

I'm going to go with the second option, and I'm not real sure about that. I wouldn't train a dog like that.

[LearningMan]

Re: The Duggars: A deeper, more personal question

Blanket training is where you put a baby, starting around 6 months (or younger) and smack them every time they try to get off the blanket (the Pearl's advocate using plastic electrical conduit or narrow gauge PVC piping in a gauge appropriate for the age and sturdiness of the child). The expressed purpose blanket training is that, even if you call them, even if you stick a bottle out of reach off the blanket when they're hungry, even if you stick their favorite toy or a kitten out of reach from the blanket. The purpose of blanket training is to so thoroughly terrorize your child to associate "leaving blanket" with pain. The purpose of blanket training is to squelch any sense of curiosity or independence, in favor of complete compliance and breaking their spirit. Breaking their spirit, in particular, is the specific goal, because it is only by breaking their spirit completely and fostering complete submission to their parents (particularly their father) that they can ever have complete submission to God. In the mind of those that do this (and yes, I have first hand knowledge of several family that raise their children this way), you have to do it early enough that they don't ever think of themselves as their own person with their own needs or desires or thoughts.

Jesus Christ! That's like what a Care Bear villain would do!

[habbalah]

Re: The Duggars: A deeper, more personal question

Sorry to break in on the debate here, but I just had to vent about why the Duggar scandal and the reaction of "well, Jesus forgave them" makes me so disgusted and furious. I'm going to put what I say under a spoiler cut, because my reasons are very personal, and could be triggering. Discussion of child abuse and rape will be under the cut.

Spoiler!

I was molested when I was eight years old by a family member, and was too just...scared and confused to tell anyone until I was almost eleven. We did try to go the prosecution route, but the thought of facing him in court terrified me, so I refused. Even now, at 32, the idea of seeing him scares me.

This is where the issue comes in. There is a lot of mental illness on that side of the family, including schizophrenia and DID. My aunt, who has DID, bipolar disorder (not sure which type) and who knows what else, suppressed a memory of being raped. It apparently came out during hypnotherapy. Because the memory had been buried for so long, she ended up displacing her attacker with my grandpa, and accused him.

Now, with more therapy she was able to place the correct attacker (either the boyfriend or son of someone that babysat her, I don't recall which), but it ruined her relationship with her dad (as you'd imagine it might). When my own attack came out, the man who did it, of course, denied it. My grandpa believed him. Most of the rest of that side of the family thinks not that I'm lying, but that I'm having similar mental issues as my aunt--that I'm either displacing him, or that I created a false memory.

One of my cousins absolutely believes me. Yet, that man still goes to family events, and I asked her how she could stand to be around him, knowing what he did. She said that because she's Catholic (the whole side of the family is, including him), she has to forgive him, and that he's going to hell. So, I challenged her and pointed out that if he confesses, he goes to heaven, according to her faith. She had to admit that that was true.

The entire idea infuriated me. That my own blood could have the attitude of "I have to forgive him because god says so, and if he confesses, then he's okay with god". Not by admitting that he did anything wrong. Not by trying to apologize to me, or even acknowledging that he had a huge negative impact on my life. But as long as he does enough Hail Marys, it's all right. I'm not attacking Catholicism--I'm just angry at the idea of "as long as someone else forgave him, what he did to hurt YOU is fine".

[LearningMan]

Re: The Duggars: A deeper, more personal question

I'm terribly sorry you had to go through all that, habbalah.

[habbalah]

Re: The Duggars: A deeper, more personal question

I'm terribly sorry you had to go through all that, habbalah.

Thanks. I'm not going to say "it's okay", because that implies that it's fine that it happened, but I've come to terms with it.

[thalassa]

Re: The Duggars: A deeper, more personal question

Jesus Christ! That's like what a Care Bear villain would do!

Every couple of years another kid dies (like this one) because the parents followed the parenting methods (of Debbie and Michael Pearl) that the Duggars have gone on record as using.

[anunitu]

Re: The Duggars: A deeper, more personal question

Is it wrong to want to seek out certain people and shoot them, or is it only wrong if I actually do it?

I'm going to go with the second option, and I'm not real sure about that. I wouldn't train a dog like that.

Not a prob B. De.,I am with you on this one..grabs spiked bat from secret hiding place.

[Munin-Hugin]

Re: The Duggars: A deeper, more personal question

Regarding sex I know most states say age of consent is something like 15 - 17 yet I do not know of any state limitations on how young or old a person can be to get married with parental consent. Yet to be married is also to imply that sexual union will occur. Don't see it that often but still see girls of 11 or 12 getting married with parental consent, perhaps even younger in some locals if the rag mags are to be believed. So which is the more correct? Consent by the person at 15 - 17 or permission via consent for marriage as early as 12 with the implied assumption that sexual union will result from the marriage.

Take a look here https://globaljusticeinitiative.file...nt-table11.pdf . There are only 4 states that have the legal minimum age for marriage WITH parental consent to be listed as under the age of 15. Two are either 13 or 12 (NH and MA respectively) and the other two are no age limit (MS and CA).

[Medusa]

Re: The Duggars: A deeper, more personal question

Molesting your sisters and some other kids is bad. Mkay?

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: The Duggars: A deeper, more personal question

According to several news sources, Josh Duggar had an account with Ashley Madison, the website for people who want to have affairs. Because sometimes your wife AND sisters just aren't enough?

http://gawker.com/family-values-activist-josh-duggar-had-a-paid-ashley-ma-1725132091?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[Medusa]

Re: The Duggars: A deeper, more personal question

I read that a little while ago.
I'm cackling. CACKLING!

[habbalah]

Re: The Duggars: A deeper, more personal question

According to several news sources, Josh Duggar had an account with Ashley Madison, the website for people who want to have affairs. Because sometimes your wife AND sisters just aren't enough?


http://gawker.com/family-values-acti...ium=socialflow

That is delicious icing on the "f%^K you" cake.