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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. :o
I find myself tempted to simply illustrate the difference by contrasting the analysis in raventhief’s post 172 with your
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.
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.
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)
