Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:07 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
I dunno. What does the homeschooling literature she uses to brainwash her children say?
You proposed the illustration. Now that it's not working for you, you abandon it?

No, no: according to you, we can make safe assumptions about a Serious Fucking Catholic.

So what does she think about altar girls?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #252  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:10 AM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
But it's a reasonable assumption. Who said it wasn't? It's not fair to say it's likely.

Are you of the opinion that those mean the same thing?
Holy shit. That is a hair split thin.

What are your percentage chances for both please? I need to enter that into the Bricker robot I'm building.

A reasonable assumption has a 22.7% chance of being true, while a likely assumption is 50.01%? I need to know this for science, man!
  #253  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:13 AM
LavenderBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 6,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJane View Post
I know it's been suggested many times, including Pit threads, but can y'all just pretend Bricker is not participating. I understand I am a dedicated lurker, and it appears it is easier said than done. But taking conversations off topic with his nit picking and obsession with semantics is his thing. I don't think he is capable of understanding his OCD style participation is not considered by most to be "on topic".
Yeah that would be great. This is a message board. It is not some ludicrous court of law with him as obnoxious judge and jury and us as poor peons to be told to obey or be held in contempt.

Quote:
Back on topic. What kind of repercussions do y'all think may be felt by TLC? In hind site it seems they probably knew much more than they have admitted to at this point. The internet and Social Media is full of folks with excellent sleuthing skills. I will not be surprised if a lot more negative attention is coming their way as more is discovered about what they actually knew and when. I can't agree more with everyone's deduction that it is likely, victim blaming is the Duggar's default choice of response. Not only does it align with many of their stated beliefs, it is also very much human nature. Blaming the victim is often easier than dealing with the perpetrator. It is a common means of denial. Can we state that as a fact, no, but we have every right to state it as an opinion in a Cafe Society discussion of a Reality show family who has been found to have some serious skeletons in their closet.
I don't think anything will happen to the network. I think the Duggars will have a home on the fundie Christian circuit but will be taboo anywhere else. It may also have a mild effect of the Reps as there are pics around of many Rep pres candidates happily hanging out with Josh.
  #254  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:17 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJane View Post
I don't think he is capable of understanding his OCD style participation is not considered by most to be "on topic".
What appears to me to be "on topic," is the freedom to level any accusation whatsoever against the hated Duggars.

And because everyone here -- or ALMOST everyone here -- knows just how awful the Duggars are, it's perfectly fine. Hey, we all get it. It's all good, right?

And what's amazing is I have no particular interest in defending the Duggars. I don't know how they feel about Catholics, but it's not impossible that they feel I'm hell-bound for my religious error.

What animates me here is that in the middle of eighty-four different fruitful lines of attack against their legitimate and obvious public positions, we somehow should just ignore the eighty-fifth attack, which confidently claims something that is nowhere in evidence.

Why should I remain silent? Why do you?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #255  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:19 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by LavenderBlue View Post
Yeah that would be great. This is a message board. It is not some ludicrous court of law with him as obnoxious judge and jury and us as poor peons to be told to obey or be held in contempt.
It's a message board devoted to fighting ignorance, on which you are passionately defending your right to advance an argument from ignorance.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #256  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:22 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
Holy shit. That is a hair split thin.

What are your percentage chances for both please? I need to enter that into the Bricker robot I'm building.

A reasonable assumption has a 22.7% chance of being true, while a likely assumption is 50.01%? I need to know this for science, man!
Not at all. A reasonable assumption is assumption that arises from a reasoned process.

If I roll a pair of dice, it's a reasonable assumption to hear that they came up snake-eyes. But it's not a likely outcome.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #257  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:23 AM
AustinJane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by LavenderBlue View Post

It may also have a mild effect of the Reps as there are pics around of many Rep pres candidates happily hanging out with Josh.
I must admit, that would not bother me at all.
  #258  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:24 AM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
You proposed the illustration. Now that it's not working for you, you abandon it?
You're the one who goofily brought up altar girls. I was talking about abortion. And likening it to the sexual clusterfuck that is evangelical Christianity. Altar girls is a rounding error of no import. I get that you're suggesting that even a SFC can find elements to differ from doctrine. It's just not pertinent. I'd assume she's inline with Church position. If she's not, then I guess she's No True Catholic.

Quote:
No, no: according to you, we can make safe assumptions about a Serious Fucking Catholic.
On the subject of abortion. Which matters. Unlike altar girls, which has to do with Church business, and little to do with the dictates of the Jesus. Do you actually think you're making an amazing point, or is this just you going full McCoy on me, expecting me to blubber a confession because of the pressure?

Quote:
So what does she think about altar girls?
I bet she doesn't fingerblast them in their sleep like the guy we're talking about.
  #259  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:26 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Yes.

There's a difference between "It's reasonable to assume," and the bald assertion of fact.

It's a reasonable assumption. That doesn't make it likely, and it certainly doesn't allow for the confident assertion that Honey offered up.

But it's a reasonable assumption. Who said it wasn't? It's not fair to say it's likely.

Are you of the opinion that those mean the same thing?
Except that I was not responding to this

Quote:
Originally Posted by Honey View Post
The worst part is that JimBob and J'chelle believe that if a woman is sexually assaulted it's her fault for stirring up desires in the male. I can fully believe that they would have blamed their daughters for all of this. They are truly sickening people.

How long until TLC cancels the show and the gravy train is over? Right his moment TLC is airing a rerun of an interview with the family by Erica Hill.
I was responding to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Why is it likely?

See, here's the thing about fighting ignorance: it involves asking what the factual basis for claims is.
Does fighting ignorance mean fighting the logical conclusion?
  #260  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:30 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
You're the one who goofily brought up altar girls. I was talking about abortion. And likening it to the sexual clusterfuck that is evangelical Christianity. Altar girls is a rounding error of no import. I get that you're suggesting that even a SFC can find elements to differ from doctrine. It's just not pertinent. I'd assume she's inline with Church position. If she's not, then I guess she's No True Catholic.
There is a church position, which is that altar girls are permissible. Many older traditional Catholics don't like this position; many others don't.

In short: there's no way to know.

It's my response to the claims in this thread that there's no way to know that the Duggars believe that the victims of sexual assault are at fault for their assault.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #261  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:31 AM
boytyperanma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
LGBT rights are very firmly entrenched in America. the Family Research Council has absolutely no chance of ever reversing LGBT. Let them huff and puff all they want. Waste tons of money. They'll never get anywhere. There's no way anyone can reset the clock back to 1950. Won't happen. Guaranteed.
Firmly entrenched? You know you can be fired for being gay in 29 states? That remains try because organizations like FRC.

The Family Research Council has spent decades demonizing LGBT people and convincing politicians to vote against the passage of any laws that protect gay people. To claim they aren't bad people is ridiculous. They are horrible people who have told lies about LGBT people to oppress them.

The money they receive isn't just used in the US it is also used in other countries to promote anti gay laws. While the tide is changing in the US, the tides been forced the other way in countries like Uganda due to influence of this organization and others like them.

They're the supposed 'Christian' organization when they had power and opportunity to forgive they offered nothing. I'm under no obligation to offer their bigoted beliefs mercy they should be exposed repeatedly till the light of day burns them out of existence.

Josh Duggar is a horrible person for being a member of Focus on Family. He's likely a horrible person for committing sexual assaults as well. I'll let Bricker dance around the issue of proof on the second, he seems to like defending awful people.
  #262  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:33 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,897
The big problem I see is with 19 kids and 2 parents, something bad was bound to turn up. Its a simple matter of math and possibilities. Get enough people together and theirs bound to be one bad apple. Even Jesus had that one disciple.

What the family should have done years ago was drop the tv show and just live their lives quietly.
  #263  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:34 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
Except that I was not responding to this



I was responding to this:


Does fighting ignorance mean fighting the logical conclusion?
The logical conclusion must be one that has convincing evidence supporting it, not a guilt-by-association mishmash of Guy #1 said X, and Guy #2 follows lots of Guy#1's ideas, so ...... Guy#2 must believe X.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #264  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:38 AM
LavenderBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 6,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnetennba View Post
Do you understand what it means to be a bloviating pettifogger, and do you know why your presence here is shitting up the thread?
I love that phrase. Bloviating pettifogger. I must share it with my twelve year old daughter. She's been collecting words like that as if they were small jewels. We had the most charming game the other day. We sat there discussing the most fairy like words we could think of for a story she's going to write this summer. Gossamer came up along with opaque, lithe, birch, translucent, shimmery, diaphanous, wispy, whimsy, and aqua.

I wonder if I could talk her into naming the villain of her story Bloviating Pettifogger.



Or Jimmy Bob the Duggar.
  #265  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:41 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by boytyperanma View Post

Josh Duggar is a horrible person for being a member of Focus on Family. He's likely a horrible person for committing sexual assaults as well. I'll let Bricker dance around the issue of proof on the second, he seems to like defending awful people.
See? This is exactly the problem.

I'm defending the Duggars on one point. One unjustified accusation.

Somehow, boytyperanma believes I am defending something else.

Please explain why it's ok to level an unjust attack against an awful person. They're awful, so it's OK to say whatever?

I have zero defense of Josh Duggar for the charge of being a horrible person. Did you read my previous posts on the subject?

What the hell?

But if you accuse Josh of being an arsonist, I'm going to ask for a cite.

Do you understand why I would do that?

Let me ask you what you would do if someone else posted that Josh was an arsonist. What would you do? Defend that horrible person? Or let it go, maybe chime in, because he's horrible?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #266  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:42 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
The logical conclusion must be one that has convincing evidence supporting it, not a guilt-by-association mishmash of Guy #1 said X, and Guy #2 follows lots of Guy#1's ideas, so ...... Guy#2 must believe X.

Guy 1 explained his position, and why. Why does Guy 2 still argue?
  #267  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:45 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
Guy 1 explained his position, and why. Why does Guy 2 still argue?
In my example, Guy #1 is Gothard; Guy #2 is JimBob.

In your post, who are #1 and #2?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #268  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:45 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
Guy 1 explained his position, and why. Why does Guy 2 still argue?
Guy 2 denies Guy !. Why? Why do we assume he does?
  #269  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:50 AM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Not at all. A reasonable assumption is assumption that arises from a reasoned process.

If I roll a pair of dice, it's a reasonable assumption to hear that they came up snake-eyes. But it's not a likely outcome.
It is a reasonable assumption that you will attempt to divert threads into meaningless pedantic jibba-jabba. It is also a likely outcome.

If I'm late for our weekly D&D game, and I have always (over several years) in the past shown up. It's a reasonable assumption that I will again this week. It is also likely that I will show up.



You can't reasonably assume that the dice rolled snake-eyes. You could reasonably assume that they rolled 5 or higher (for instance).

I'd say that when most people use, reasonably assume, they mean it to be that the assumption is a likely occurrence. You didn't show up for D&D and didn't call. I'm not going to reasonably assume you're dead.
  #270  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:53 AM
AustinJane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 28
To pretend groups like the Family Research Council and the Duggars are harmless and unaffecting to the LGBT community ignores the reality that many bigots in this world will use anything to support their hatred.
  #271  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:57 AM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
There is a church position, which is that altar girls are permissible. Many older traditional Catholics don't like this position; many others don't.

In short: there's no way to know.

It's my response to the claims in this thread that there's no way to know that the Duggars believe that the victims of sexual assault are at fault for their assault.
There is no way to know. There are ways, I'd say, to reasonably assume. Now mind you, if they say otherwise, I'll accept it. I'm not tied to the idea, I just think it's a likely extrapolation from what we know.
  #272  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:00 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
The logical conclusion must be one that has convincing evidence supporting it, not a guilt-by-association mishmash of Guy #1 said X, and Guy #2 follows lots of Guy#1's ideas, so ...... Guy#2 must believe X.
I'm sorry, but you believe that guilt by associate is same as the as promoting the tenets of a particular religion?

Last edited by raventhief; 05-24-2015 at 01:02 AM.
  #273  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:11 AM
boytyperanma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Do you understand why I would do that?

Let me ask you what you would do if someone else posted that Josh was an arsonist. What would you do? Defend that horrible person? Or let it go, maybe chime in, because he's horrible?
Sure I understand you offering a defense, defending conservatives being unjustly disparaged is what you do. You're a man of principle I suppose.

My point of view is you're not Josh's attorney you have no obligation to defend the guy. My opinion is let it go, standing up in his defense only makes you look like an ass who supports horrible people.
  #274  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:12 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
There is no way to know. There are ways, I'd say, to reasonably assume. Now mind you, if they say otherwise, I'll accept it. I'm not tied to the idea, I just think it's a likely extrapolation from what we know.
So if there's no way to know, then is the following statement a correct one?

The worst part is that JimBob and Michelle believe that if a woman is sexually assaulted it's her fault for stirring up desires in the male.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #275  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:16 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by boytyperanma View Post
Sure I understand you offering a defense, defending conservatives being unjustly disparaged is what you do. You're a man of principle I suppose.

My point of view is you're not Josh's attorney you have no obligation to defend the guy. My opinion is let it go, standing up in his defense only makes you look like an ass who supports horrible people.
And if someone else posted that Josh was an arsonist, you'd just let it go, or maybe chime in, so no one would ever think you were an ass that supports horrible people?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #276  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:22 AM
boytyperanma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
And if someone else posted that Josh was an arsonist, you'd just let it go, or maybe chime in, so no one would ever think you were an ass that supports horrible people?
Depends on the audience. If I'm among friends I might want to correct their ignorance or mine if there is a cite for the claim available. In the general public I'd let it go, why risk my public image for some ass I'd rather see run out of town. I wouldn't chime in on the accusers behalf either that person is also wrong.
  #277  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:33 AM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
So if there's no way to know, then is the following statement a correct one?

The worst part is that JimBob and Michelle believe that if a woman is sexually assaulted it's her fault for stirring up desires in the male.
I'd tuck a probably, or likely, or apparently, or to all appearances, or according to their homeschooling manual, in there.

But I try to not make absolute statements. I don't always do it. But I try. It's the way to tell me from Der Trihs.
  #278  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:36 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Similarly, our not being in a courtroom (once again, ISTM) suggests that the bar for "baselessness" could be raised a bit higher than "suitable evidence upon which to base a claim," particularly in the absence of anyone vested with the authority to decide what is and what is not "suitable." I might not be comfortable with innuendo, but extrapolation from what we know of Gothardite teaching materials, and the degree to which the family has already demonstrated strict adherence to Gothardite principles should move the assessment of some statements from "baseless" to AT LEAST "circumstantial."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
In what specific way does that differ from "innuendo?"
I'm afraid I can't give you an answer wrt a specific way in which it differs from "innuendo," but that doesn't mean that I accept it as exactly the same.

Truth to tell, the task of exploring, explicating, and exhaustively defending the nuances that inform my perception that it DOES differ is something that I find myself without the time and inclination to undertake. Also possibly the talent.

I find myself tempted to simply illustrate the difference by contrasting the analysis in raventhief's post 172 with your

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Or because "possible" plus "a target I don't like" combines to create "likely."

Mmmmmmm?
and leaving it at that, but I find that unsatisfying.

So instead, I'll withdraw my use of the word "innuendo" as poorly chosen, and stipulate that I am comfortable with the concept of building and being persuaded by a case for an assertion based on circumstantial evidence, while retaining the right to sneer with derision when I encounter one that is poorly executed and/or presented.
  #279  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:41 AM
aceplace57 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 26,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
So if there's no way to know, then is the following statement a correct one?

The worst part is that JimBob and Michelle believe that if a woman is sexually assaulted it's her fault for stirring up desires in the male.
How is this even relevant? Nobody, no matter how religiously conservative would imply that a 5 year girl somehow attracted a man. That's what sets very young kids apart. They aren't really male or female. They are just innocent kids. Sex doesn't even enter into the equation.

Which is why pedophilia is so abhorrent. What they want to do with young kids is unnatural and sickening.

Last edited by aceplace57; 05-24-2015 at 01:44 AM.
  #280  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:42 AM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,951
Now that The Dio Show has been cancelled, does this mean we're going to be watching The Bricker Show instead?

Can we at least say that it's probably likely that, given their views on modesty and sexuality (not even allowed to hold hands until a person's engaged, and you can't even kiss until you're freaking married!), that their daughters are much more likely to believe themselves responsible, even if their parents don't follow that belief? Given that many victims of sexual abuse blame themselves, and that these girls have been taught that they're supposed to remain "pure" until their wedding night, that they may be feeling some type of guilt for what happened? "Did I not dress modestly enough? Did I give him reason to think he could do this to me?" "Did I incite him to commit a sin?" etc.

I'm not saying that perhaps they were blamed for this. But we're not rational individuals, and I could definetly see a girl living in that environment be that much more likely to feel dirty after something like that happening. Especially given that I don't recall anything about them receiving counseling, just Josh (and that was just going and helping some friend of his family at some camp)
  #281  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:47 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by boytyperanma View Post
Depends on the audience. If I'm among friends I might want to correct their ignorance or mine if there is a cite for the claim available. In the general public I'd let it go, why risk my public image for some ass I'd rather see run out of town. I wouldn't chime in on the accusers behalf either that person is also wrong.
Wow.

How about on a board that supposedly has a strong interest in fighting ignorance?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #282  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:48 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
How is this even relevant?
Do you know where the words in italics came from?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #283  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:49 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
I'd tuck a probably, or likely, or apparently, or to all appearances, or according to their homeschooling manual, in there.

But I try to not make absolute statements. I don't always do it. But I try. It's the way to tell me from Der Trihs.
I didn't ask what you would do. I asked if the statement was correct.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #284  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:51 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Now that The Dio Show has been cancelled, does this mean we're going to be watching The Bricker Show instead?

Can we at least say that it's probably likely that, given their views on modesty and sexuality (not even allowed to hold hands until a person's engaged, and you can't even kiss until you're freaking married!), that their daughters are much more likely to believe themselves responsible, even if their parents don't follow that belief? Given that many victims of sexual abuse blame themselves, and that these girls have been taught that they're supposed to remain "pure" until their wedding night, that they may be feeling some type of guilt for what happened? "Did I not dress modestly enough? Did I give him reason to think he could do this to me?" "Did I incite him to commit a sin?" etc.

I'm not saying that perhaps they were blamed for this. But we're not rational individuals, and I could definetly see a girl living in that environment be that much more likely to feel dirty after something like that happening. Especially given that I don't recall anything about them receiving counseling, just Josh (and that was just going and helping some friend of his family at some camp)
Yes, that seems very possible.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #285  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:58 AM
boytyperanma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Wow.

How about on a board that supposedly has a strong interest in fighting ignorance?
Considering how this debate is going, do you think you are being more effective fighting ignorance or damaging your public image?

I'd say they later, which is why I'd let it go. It's not a thread where people are really concerned about the facts. The issue is no one really wants to debate the subject, it's mud slinging, you're just getting dirty playing along. It probably belongs in the pit where people can just express their outrage and move on.

If the facts are truly important to you I'd start a thread in Great Debates or something, where there is a real expectation of cites. Doubt you'll find many participants though.
  #286  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:59 AM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I didn't ask what you would do. I asked if the statement was correct.
And from my answer, what do you think I think?

If I would do something, do you think that something is, in my opinion, right or wrong?
  #287  
Old 05-24-2015, 02:14 AM
joyfool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Texas
Posts: 9,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by boytyperanma View Post
Firmly entrenched? You know you can be fired for being gay in 29 states? That remains try because organizations like FRC.



The Family Research Council has spent decades demonizing LGBT people and convincing politicians to vote against the passage of any laws that protect gay people. To claim they aren't bad people is ridiculous. They are horrible people who have told lies about LGBT people to oppress them.



The money they receive isn't just used in the US it is also used in other countries to promote anti gay laws. While the tide is changing in the US, the tides been forced the other way in countries like Uganda due to influence of this organization and others like them.



They're the supposed 'Christian' organization when they had power and opportunity to forgive they offered nothing. I'm under no obligation to offer their bigoted beliefs mercy they should be exposed repeatedly till the light of day burns them out of existence.



Josh Duggar is a horrible person for being a member of Focus on Family. He's likely a horrible person for committing sexual assaults as well. I'll let Bricker dance around the issue of proof on the second, he seems to like defending awful people.

As usual, he has no clue what he's blathering on about. He never does.

And now the thread has become completely monopolized by the ridiculously pointless rules-lawyering of one who has no desire to have actual reasoned discourse, but instead to just derail everyone else because their opinions counter his beliefs. So as such, I'm bailing on this circus. Hopefully those who are still fighting the good fight on topic will forgo any more diversionary tactics.
  #288  
Old 05-24-2015, 02:17 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnetennba View Post
Do you understand what it means to be a bloviating pettifogger, and do you know why your presence here is shitting up the thread?
I just want to say that I put "bloviating pettifogger" into a Google search and this thread is the first thing that came up. I'm not entirely sure what that means, but it's probably not good.
  #289  
Old 05-24-2015, 02:23 AM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,951
To be fair to Bricker, I don't think he's defending Duggar. Just playing lawyer and semantics Nazi like he always does. It gets really old after awhile, dude.

Oh, and aceplace57, this is for you.

Last edited by Guinastasia; 05-24-2015 at 02:27 AM.
  #290  
Old 05-24-2015, 07:37 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
What appears to me to be "on topic," is the freedom to level any accusation whatsoever against the hated Duggars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
And if someone else posted that Josh was an arsonist, you'd just let it go, or maybe chime in, so no one would ever think you were an ass that supports horrible people?
Do you notice that NOBODY IS ACCUSING HIM OF BEING AN ARSONIST? Nobody is leveling "any accusation whatsoever" against him. Nobody has accused him of eating babies or of kicking puppies or of ghost-writing Fifty Shades of Gray or of eating the last doughnut and leaving the box on the table or of being the true identity of Jack the Ripper.

People have accused him of believing one of the things that his cult leader espouses, a thing that is very commonly associated with a belief that women and girls must focus on extreme modesty in their dress in order not to inflame men.
  #291  
Old 05-24-2015, 07:41 AM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,398
No, he's just running the Bricker show, taking it on the road. How it's not thread shitting, is beyond me. Why anyone continues to engage when he takes over discussions like this is also beyond me.

Do yourselves a favour and save your breath. He ain't got nothing new to say, it's just the same old endless lawyering and nitpicking of trivialities and purposeful misinterpretations. It ruins so many discussions by bringing them to a grinding halt, seemingly so we can all admire his lawyering abilities.
  #292  
Old 05-24-2015, 08:50 AM
tnetennba is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,339
I reported it for thread shitting several pages ago, but got no response from the mods.
  #293  
Old 05-24-2015, 09:07 AM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,441

Mod Hat On


This thread is Pit material and belongs there. Even without the insults and snipes between posters, it's pretty clear that Josh Duggar is the subject of a Pit thread.
  #294  
Old 05-24-2015, 09:11 AM
Honey is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Adirondacks ♀
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Nice try.

But you can't transform me into the proponent. I was responding to Honey.
The claim I made was not at all extraordinary or exaggerated. I have been watching the Duggars for over 10 years. I have heard Jim Bob and Michelle say over and over that modesty is one of their most important beliefs. I can't recall a single show in 10 years where that fact wasn't mentioned.

"A woman must keep modest so that she doesn't stir up feelings in a man that cannot be righteously fulfilled" I have heard that phrase so many times, it's burned into my brain. That phrase puts all the responsibility for the man's actions squarely on the woman's shoulders.

When they are out in public and one of the sisters sees a woman immodestly dressed she yells "Nike"! (a code word they agreed upon), all the men and boys then cast their eyes down to their shoes.

So yes, they do think that the actions of the man are the fault of the woman.

Last edited by Honey; 05-24-2015 at 09:12 AM.
  #295  
Old 05-24-2015, 09:16 AM
tnetennba is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,339
The thread was critical of a child molester, but it was hardly a pit thread. Why not just correct the thread-shitter?
  #296  
Old 05-24-2015, 09:22 AM
Honey is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Adirondacks ♀
Posts: 4,773
Nm

Last edited by Honey; 05-24-2015 at 09:24 AM.
  #297  
Old 05-24-2015, 10:20 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
If that's what the girls received then it was terrible.

Exposing this story now (12 years later) makes it worse. That 5 year old kid is probably a senior in high school. The comments from her classmates won't be kind.
She's a Duggar, she doesn't go to an actual school. And at 17, she's already being primed for marriage if not married yet.
  #298  
Old 05-24-2015, 11:22 AM
Rushgeekgirl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Memphis
Posts: 6,091
This has been hard for me to watch. I never paid much attention to the show. I knew what it was about and while it wasn't for me, I have a lot of friends who enjoy it. I even defend the mom a lot because if we are demanding women have rights to make reproductive choices she has the right to have as many as she can care for. More even, and it's not any of my business.

But my little girl. Many of you know she was raped by three pre-teen boys. They stalked her. They watched to see when there might be a chance. They pretended to be her friend, her big brother even. Then one day they held her down and violated her and stole her innocence. She thought she was going to die. Its been four years now and she still has nightmares. She still clings to me and therapy, while helpful, ain't a miracle. I do fear for her future. So fucking stop pretending that this was a case of "boys will be boys" because it's not. Defending this sick shit doesn't make you extra good at debate. It doesn't make you come off as smarter than the pack. It just makes you sound like a clueless asshole who gets off on arguing more than considering the reality of the situation.

I mean, I know you like your show and I get that they're Christians so this is a "sensitive issue" for believers. But the shit I've seen? It's disgusting. Excusing his actions I can ALMOST understand because as a young person someone else should have been chaperoning his alone time activities. Especially after it happened. But we know they didn't protect their girls. We know they let him come home and they had to be around him. It would be like me allowing those rapists to come back and play with my daughter because aw shucks boys will be boys and it's only natural or them to stick their fingers in little girls' panties, right?

Sick.
  #299  
Old 05-24-2015, 11:38 AM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,803
If you've got Jesus, your life will never be ruined. Faith isn't supposed to help you get through the good times...when you're mugging on TV and everyone loves you. It's supposed to strengthen in you in bad times. Surely these Christian warriors expected that their star would eventually fall. So don't weep for them too much, ace.

Besides, being forgiven does not mean you don't have to face consequences for your actions. There are plenty of people sitting in jail right now who are repentant too.

Now, I do think it is a shame that youthful malfeasance can follow a person into their adulthood. The way those kids are raised, it's no wonder a teenaged boy would feel he could get away with what he did. But if a person is going to capitalize on his wholesome, moral righteousness as Josh has done as an adult, he needs to be rather open about his bad history too. Christians love them some "come to Jesus" stories, so such honesty wouldn't have been a career-destroying move necessarily. Maybe if Josh had disclosed his sordid history and had testimony on how he overcame his demons (not literally), then maybe he and his parents wouldn't come across as such two-faced hypocrites.
  #300  
Old 05-24-2015, 11:41 AM
tnetennba is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,339
Rusheekgirl, I am sincerely sorry to read your story, and wish your daughter well.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017