# Josh Duggar (Duggar kid 1/19) to be executive director of Family Research Council **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 19, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369 "2013-06-19T16:22:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/241 "2015-05-24T03:42:14Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > The Duggars and people who belong to their particular brand of religion. > > I’m not talking about mainstream Muslims and/or Christians. I’m talking about your extreme fundamentalists. And I think you know it. > We’ve given you plenty of cites to show that the sect the Duggars belong to teach that girls bear a responsibility NOT to tempt men’s desires. (NOT that they are totally at fault, but that they do share some of the blame). > > [Here](http://gawker.com/the-duggar-homeschool-programs-terrifying-advice-on-sex-1706406324). > > And [THIS](http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/Counseling_Sexual_Abuse-540x700.jpeg) is what the program teaches about sexual abuse. > > Notice certain parts under, “Why did God let it happen?”: > > -immodest dress > -indecent exposure > > There’s also a section called “Is there Any Guilt”. As well as “If Abused Was Not At Fault”. Notice the IF part. > > If that’s not enough for you, I give up. **Bricker** , the Straight Dope is not a court of law, and no one is required to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt here. You play this game every time and I can’t be the only one who’s tired of it. > > Here’s another [cite](http://powderroom.kinja.com/how-are-the-duggars-dealing-with-the-gothard-sex-scanda-1581883720), if you’re interested. And where is the cite that the Duggars believed, taught, or in any way accepted that? See, this is the hop you want everyone to make. And it’s not a justified one. You were so eager to splash blame on Josh that you quoted him as saying he asked for forgiveness from his victims, and then indignantly criticized him for failing to ask forgiveness from his victims. That is pointed out, and you shrug it off and continue. Is it possible that you’re so consumed with joy at this story that you have abandoned any interest in assessing the claims here fairly? You certainly eschewed fairness in your own recitation of Josh’s faults in apologizing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/242 "2015-05-24T03:43:47Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > My hand is ABSOLUTELY raised. In fact, I established why I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the Duggars do believe this utter crap. I then asked you to explain why YOU assume that they don’t. Given the evidence that they adhere to the teaching of Gothard, please explain why that’s still in doubt for you. Because there’s a gap between following general religious teachings and slavish adherence to each and every utterance the man makes. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/243 "2015-05-24T03:44:20Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > My hand is ABSOLUTELY raised. In fact, I established why I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the Duggars do believe this utter crap. I then asked you to explain why YOU assume that they don’t. Given the evidence that they adhere to the teaching of Gothard, please explain why that’s still in doubt for you. In other words, I supported my claim. your claim, in response, was that there was no reason to believe that the Duggars supported every tenet. So I would like to see the reasons for your doubt. My reason for believing that they do support the tenets is that they have yet to denounce ANY tenet. PLEASE prove me wrong. ---
**Author:** ![River\_Hippie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/river_hippie/32/26_2.png) [@River\_Hippie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/River_Hippie)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/244 "2015-05-24T03:44:49Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > 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. Agree. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/245 "2015-05-24T03:47:08Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Don’t you think these followers of a small cult, who advocate its teachings to the extent of turning Ms. Duggar into a human t-shirt cannon, might be presumed to follow said teachings across the gamut? If I meet a Catholic, that person may be for or against abortion. Casual believers believe whatever they want. > > If I meet a member of a small cult that only a complete nutjob would be a member of, I think the presumption is that he takes his religion a little more seriously. > > If the Duggars were casual about their beliefs, they could choose a less shitty religion. Is there anywhere you’re aware of that they don’t vapidly toe the line? > > If you told me your nana is a, “Serious Fucking Catholic.” I’d assume she’d be against abortion. I see no evidence that these whakadoos aren’t Serious Fucking Gothtards. Sure. Because abortion is a serious issue for Catholics, and the Church admits to no diversity of acceptable opinion on the issue. But what does my nana believe about altar girls? She’s a Serious Fucking Catholic. That’s a Catholic issue. What does she think? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/246 "2015-05-24T03:48:40Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > In other words, I supported my claim. your claim, in response, was that there was no reason to believe that the Duggars supported every tenet. So I would like to see the reasons for your doubt. My reason for believing that they do support the tenets is that they have yet to denounce ANY tenet. PLEASE prove me wrong. Nice try. But you can’t transform me into the proponent. I was responding to **Honey**. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/247 "2015-05-24T03:50:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > Have you read all the posts in this thread? > > **Guin** brought up Islam first; I was replying to her. > > **Honey** made the extraordinary claim that the Duggars believed sexual assault victims are at fault for their own assault. I replied to that claim. > > Do you recall that sequence of events? Jesus God, Bricker. An assumption was made. You challenged, others supported with cites, I supported with cites. You continued to challenge. We have tried to explain, that. based on every other indicator available, it is reasonable to assume that the Duggars also accepted this as the church’s teachings. And yet, I am the one who can’t grasp the problem here? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/248 "2015-05-24T03:50:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. Because abortion is a serious issue for Catholics, and the Church admits to no diversity of acceptable opinion on the issue. > > But what does my nana believe about altar girls? She’s a Serious Fucking Catholic. That’s a Catholic issue. What does she think? I dunno. What does the homeschooling literature she uses to brainwash her children say? ---
**Author:** ![AustinJane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/df788c/32.png) [@AustinJane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AustinJane)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/249 "2015-05-24T03:59:50Z")
I know it’s been suggested many times, including Pit threads, but can y’all just pretend Bricker is not participating.:smack::smack: 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”. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/250 "2015-05-24T04:05:31Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > Jesus God, Bricker. An assumption was made. You challenged, others supported with cites, I supported with cites. You continued to challenge. We have tried to explain, that. based on every other indicator available, it is reasonable to assume that the Duggars also accepted this as the church’s teachings. And yet, I am the one who can’t grasp the problem here? 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/251 "2015-05-24T04:07:20Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/252 "2015-05-24T04:10:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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! ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/253 "2015-05-24T04:13:11Z")
> [@AustinJane](#): > > I know it’s been suggested many times, including Pit threads, but can y’all just pretend Bricker is not participating.:smack::smack: 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. > [@](#): > > 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](http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/05/22/heres-half-the-gop-presidential-field-chilling-with-child-molester-josh-duggar-screenshots/) hanging out with Josh. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/254 "2015-05-24T04:17:25Z")
> [@AustinJane](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/255 "2015-05-24T04:19:16Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/256 "2015-05-24T04:22:03Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![AustinJane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/df788c/32.png) [@AustinJane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AustinJane)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/257 "2015-05-24T04:23:15Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > It may also have a mild effect of the Reps as there are pics around of many Rep pres candidates [happily](http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/05/22/heres-half-the-gop-presidential-field-chilling-with-child-molester-josh-duggar-screenshots/) hanging out with Josh. I must admit, that would not bother me at all. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/258 "2015-05-24T04:24:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. 😃 > [@](#): > > 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? > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/259 "2015-05-24T04:26:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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 > [@Honey](#): > > 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: > [@Bricker](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369/260 "2015-05-24T04:30:55Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/josh-duggar-duggar-kid-1-19-to-be-executive-director-of-family-research-council/661369.md?page=14)