Fixed your links.
And it’s already been posted – he doesn’t care. According to The Bricker Show, it doesn’t matter if they strictly follow Gothard’s teachings, we have to show exact proof that they follow THAT SPECIFIC TEACHING. :rolleyes:
If Bricker subscribes to the rule of thumb that “silence implies assent,” we might legitimately interpret his absence from this thread for the past ten days as conceding the point.
So the Duggars are trying to claim that Josh only touched his sisters over their clothing but that’s a lie. They also paraded out one of his victims to defend him.
Bunch of gross lying rape apologists. (Free Jessa!)
Jim Bob is actually thinking of suing the woman who handed the original police report over to In Touch. I’m sure that will go over great! I can see nothing wrong with this plan!
I encourage Jim Bob to pursue this in a court of law!
Too bad for them though because In Touch magazine now has a second police report that’s less heavily redacted. Check it out -
That site has pdfs of the whole report. Josh told the police that the five year old was sitting on his lap, being read to, when he molested her. Also, Josh put his hand up one of the girl’s dresses in the laundry room at some point. So the whole, “they were sleeping, so no harm done” thing is bullshit (but then we all knew that, right?)
In all, In Touch says there were multiple acts on multiple occasions.
So the family is lying their heads off. Oh, and they claim that the kids all got professional counseling but they don’t provide any corroboration. They don’t remember the name of the program they sent Josh to, for example, except that they think maybe it was connected to the local police department.
These people are disgusting and I’m glad everyone outside of Fox news agrees.
Oh, I so wish this were true! I had to swear off reading comments on articles about this because the sheer volume of so-called “good Christians” who are apparently just dandy with groping little girls if a Duggar does it is causing my blood pressure to spike.
I’ve just been reading that. Yowza, but there are a lot of people in that comments thread claiming to be *former *supporters. I was particularly taken by this one:
Ouch.
Oh, sorry - I meant to type, “everyone outside of Fox news viewers”.
I have this thing where I skip words when I type. I touchtype and sub-vocalize all my thoughts. My brain just declaims a sentence and my fingers do the typing and my eyes on the screen never spot the word that, for some reason, my brain neglects to order my fingers to transcribe. Brains are weird.
Anyway, Fox News Viewers. Those fuckers are a lost cause. I don’t think Duggars running their mouths last night will do anything to bring their show’s sponsors back.
No. I have made my objections known. Nothing in the thread posted subsequent to my last post has refuted any point I have raised.
Apart from you, however, very few people in this thread had any interest whatsoever in reading and responding to the specific points I raised, instead being more interested in attacking strawmen.
But I was not silent – there is no concept or rule that requires I continually re-state my argument, is there?
No, but then it’s perfectly reasonable to think you’ve given up on an argument that has been refuted by multiple people, when you refuse to change that argument.
Your argument remains that we cannot reasonably assume that they follow Gothard’s teachings about a specific situation, despite the fact they are part of a cult that tends to follow his teachings, gladly promote his teachings, and are currently acting in a way that is congruent with his teachings. You even got so desperate you tried to redefine “reasonable.”
It’s so cut and dried that I actually am baffled that you are continuing. As someone who prides himself on being open to changing his mind, you do a huge discredit to yourself by continuing on this.
(emphasis on key point added)
Given the new evidence (the interview in which their responses are pure Gothardism 101) that clearly cannot be squared with Bricker’s previous argument, it’s clearly incumbent upon him to either provide an explanation or admit that he has none.
None of their interview responses alleged they blamed the girls.
“Come back! Now that we have some facts, we won’t need to bullshit you anymore!”
Sorry. I learned my lesson in this thread. A return to debate will be met with more attack and strawmanning.
They do follow the principle of ‘defrauding’, which is defined in Gothard-speak as stirring up sexual feelings in someone that they cannot righteously fulfill.
From this post written by Michelle Duggar there is pretty clear victim blaming.
If something you say, do, wear or anything else contributes to someone having a sexual thought about you (let alone them actually acting on it), it’s at least partially your fault. Even sitting in IBLP and ATI conferences as a kid and hearing this stuff I thought it was pure bullshit…and that’s before I even really knew the concept of victim blaming.
Of course they would never admit to blaming the girls on camera. But they did minimize the impact on the girls by claiming they were either asleep or had no idea that it was bad touching. They did nothing to protect the girls after Josh’s first confession, and it kept happening.
It was also clear they were a lot more concerned about Josh than they were about the girls. Megyn Kelly had to prompt them several times with things like, “I’m talking to you as the father of your girls…” and “What about your daughters?”
The most telling part was when Michelle listed all the strict gender divisions they put in place, such as boys no longer babysitting their sisters, playing hide and seek with them, or changing their diapers. Those are not rules a normal family has to enforce. Michelle and Jim Bob need to take a serious look at how their own attitudes toward sexuality contributed to this. It was not surprising when Jim Bob said they knew other families in their church who had dealt with the same problem.
Facts *are *a bit harder to handwave than bullshit. Better to handwave the whole discussion altogether, I agree.
:rolleyes:
All the cites, links, etc. provided for you should be proof enough that the Duggars follow what Gothard says about blaming the victims or holding them at least partially responsible for what is done to them. It’s reasonable to infer that much.
Perhaps you would be satisfied if we could fly Michelle Duggar to your home and have her tell it to you from her own lips. Then again, you might ask that two witnesses be present along with a notary public after you ask her to sign a statement.
One last effort:
No, it isn’t, because nothing the Duggars have said applies to victims of sexual assault. You’re asking me to accept that because they accept OTHER Gothard teachings, they necessarily accept this one, and that’s not a reasonable inference.
Your, and your cohort, are evidently incapable of understanding that claim and arguing against it. Instead, you offer strawman spectres of notaries public. There is no reason for me to continue. I don’t like the Duggars, I don’t care about defending them, and my only interest was in fighting ignorance, which the crowd in this thread has declared it’s profoundly uninterested in doing. It’s threadshitting, according to this view, to point out the lack of support for this particular claim. So I’m done.
And any lack of further replies is not in any way an indication that I have conceded the question.
I didn’t realize until today that Gothard is being accused of sexually inappropriate behavior with 34 female victims of his own, one of which who was only FIVE at the time. No wonder all these people are fucking evil.
Wait a minute. What? That’s a perfectly reasonable inference. Which is more likely?
- We’ve supported the ATI for years. Own their books, promote the organization, go to their annual conference, sent our son to them for counseling. BUT! We agree with them on everything except this one point.
or
- We’ve supported the ATI for years. Own their books, promote the organization, go to their annual conference, sent our son to them for counseling. And as part of our commitment to the ATI, we, of course, made use of their materials on sexual abuse in counseling our sons and daughters about what happened.
Doesn’t Occam come into play here at some point? Especially given that Michelle is on record as having used a specific term (defrauding) that is mentioned in the ATI literature and specifically places blame on the victim.
Now you can argue that it’s not dispositive, but to say it’s not a reasonable inference?
For once, I would have loved the Duggars to have been interviewed by some stereotypically confrontational Englishman. Some one who would ask, while the Duggars were denying the harm, if they could go ahead and touch their girls some because apparently the parents are cool with it.
They really aren’t understanding that the extreme anti-sex obsession they are instilling in their even very young children, is doing nothing but making them sex obsessed.
It is mind boggling that they are going to girls as young as four and telling them how they must cover their bodies at all times to avoid inflaming uncontrollable male passions.
Growing up in this bizarre sex obsessed, everything is sexualized culture must do a doozy on the minds of both male and female children.
What I find amazing is that a guy who thought the response to Indiana’s RFRA was overblown because we should just assume that the courts will treat it like any other RFRA law also thinks that we can’t assume the Duggars follow a specific teaching of Gothard simply because they’re followers of his overall philosophy. Apparently it’s safe to assume different courts in a different state with a different law will enforce it the same as other, similar laws, but it’s not safe to assume that a family who follows Gothard’s teachings follow any one particular teaching of Gothard.