So my wife watched the interview last night, and I made it through a little bit.
One thing I want to mention, that they did last night: fuck this magazine and fuck all these people attacking them and the Boy and taking zero fucking time to think, for an instant, how fucking shitty this is for the victims.
I don’t imagine the victims want it spread around the entire fuckign world that they were abused. And I can imagine some may not even be ready to talk about it with people close to them, let alone the motherfuckign world.
The biggest mind fuck in all this is, what if you were the parents? How hard (ignore what the Duggars did for sake of argument for a second) would it be to bring your boy to the police station if he came to you and admitted this?
I’d be devastated, but I’d do it. Spoke with my wife and she would too. You have too. My fear is the parents that wouldn’t. [/quote]
THAT is a very tough question.[/quote]
It’s god damn terrifying to think about.
I think I’d rather have my kids end up junkies than be a monster like this. [/quote]
This is a good question. I think I would do the right thing and turn him in, but maybe not.
But if I didn’t, I know I would be taking a risk. Not only could I end up in jail, but I could be responsible if he continues to offend. If you take the risk and get caught, don’t make fucking excuses.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You fellers that keep throwing the “sheltered” accusation up in the air need have some evidence that this was actually the case. If you’re saying that strictly because you read the boy was home-schooled then you’re about to get a paddling for being ignorant.[/quote]
I mean come on, being home-schooled, with no tv and closely monitored exposure to media, is pretty sheltered. Not saying its a bad thing, actually much preferable to the opposite, but sheltered at 14 is not a big leap to make in this case.
[quote]doogie wrote:
He diddled those girls and faced no consequences.
The good Christian family allowed him to continue diddling the girls after they knew it was happening.
The good Christian family-friend sheriff (who was later convicted of child pornorgraphy) just gave the diddler a stern talk rather than arresting him.
That’s not a media witch-hunt, no matter how Huckabee wants to spin it. That’s just plain old fucked up shit.[/quote]
Spot on. How would his tune change if this was an atheist liberal person?
[/quote]
Lena Dunham diddled her sister as a baby, what did he say about that?[/quote]
I don’t believe he made comment or likely knows who Lena Dunham is? I’m doubtful he would have rushed to her defense.
He had no problem calling the President’s parenting out for his teenage daughters listening to Beyonce.
I don’t think this is defensible as a good people make mistakes thing. Yeah good people do make mistakes. Repeatedly molesting your siblings isn’t a mistake.
I haven’t read everything on it, but it seems as if the parents didn’t remove him from the situation either? [/quote]
So to answer the question as to what if it had been a liberal atheist in the same position he said nothing.
So there was an example of one that he would have an opportunity to say something about and he didn’t.
I am not a fan of Huckabee, btw, I just don’t think he defending this family for having troubles is a ship-sinker.
[quote]doogie wrote:
He diddled those girls and faced no consequences.
The good Christian family allowed him to continue diddling the girls after they knew it was happening.
The good Christian family-friend sheriff (who was later convicted of child pornorgraphy) just gave the diddler a stern talk rather than arresting him.
That’s not a media witch-hunt, no matter how Huckabee wants to spin it. That’s just plain old fucked up shit.[/quote]
Spot on. How would his tune change if this was an atheist liberal person?
[/quote]
Lena Dunham diddled her sister as a baby, what did he say about that?[/quote]
I thought about this too, and I dont’ know the extent it is comparable. Both seem pretty much, 100% wrong to me.
The biggest mind fuck in all this is, what if you were the parents? How hard (ignore what the Duggars did for sake of argument for a second) would it be to bring your boy to the police station if he came to you and admitted this?
I’d be devastated, but I’d do it. Spoke with my wife and she would too. You have too. My fear is the parents that wouldn’t. [/quote]
Most parents would not involve the police and would be wise not to, unless there were no other option.
The reality of the situation seems to me to be this way. They had a sexually curious 14 yr old, running amok. They dealt with the situation and it stopped happening.
This was 12 years ago. How would any of us like our feet held to the fire for something we did 12 years ago, especially a situation you dealt with and are free of now.
How long should people be punished, especially for things they did as children?
And kudos for the leak, even if it was illegal, it was the right thing to do. [/quote]
Right for who? The victims?? This should leave them in a much better place than they were before, don’t ya think?[/quote]
I don’t think the parents way of dealing with it was appropriate before it was exposed. It’s tough for the victims, your right.
[/quote]
So because their parents didn’t deal with an issue appropriately (sent girls to counseling, disciplined an adolescent teen the first time, took him to the cops, then to counseling, camp, or to labor it out of him (depending on which tabloid you read) the girls should have to be paraded in front of the media for a game of “Guess which one was diddled”.
Not defending what the kid did, however, don’t make the leak something more than what it was. She wasn’t doing what was right. She was making a money/attention grab at some people she didn’t like.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So my wife watched the interview last night, and I made it through a little bit.
One thing I want to mention, that they did last night: fuck this magazine and fuck all these people attacking them and the Boy and taking zero fucking time to think, for an instant, how fucking shitty this is for the victims.
I don’t imagine the victims want it spread around the entire fuckign world that they were abused. And I can imagine some may not even be ready to talk about it with people close to them, let alone the motherfuckign world.
Fuck “InTouch” for this. Fuck them 6 or 7 times. [/quote]
Yeah, you and jpick are right about that. This wasn’t a humanitarian effort. This was headline whoring at the expense of a number of other people’s now very public humiliation.
This was 12 years ago. How would any of us like our feet held to the fire for something we did 12 years ago, especially a situation you dealt with and are free of now.
How long should people be punished, especially for things they did as children?
[/quote]
We’re talking about molesting a younger sibling here, not robbing a liquor store. This isn’t some soft crime here. This has created a life long victim that very well may suffer (some times more than others) until they no longer have life within them.
I would bet most of us in this thread, even at 14/15 knew doing what he did would be wrong, and very wrong at that.
I understand what you’re trying to say here, and I’m trying my best to take into account the question. But the question ignores the victims.
Josh isn’t the story here, unless one is a rabid anti-religious person on a witch hunt. The story is the victims. And the lesson is how to deal with it as parents, if God forbid, your child was capable of doing this.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So my wife watched the interview last night, and I made it through a little bit.
One thing I want to mention, that they did last night: fuck this magazine and fuck all these people attacking them and the Boy and taking zero fucking time to think, for an instant, how fucking shitty this is for the victims.
I don’t imagine the victims want it spread around the entire fuckign world that they were abused. And I can imagine some may not even be ready to talk about it with people close to them, let alone the motherfuckign world.
Fuck “InTouch” for this. Fuck them 6 or 7 times. [/quote]
Yeah, you and jpick are right about that. This wasn’t a humanitarian effort. This was headline whoring at the expense of a number of other people’s now very public humiliation.[/quote]
Yup. So now if they have a hard time dealing with the actual happening, they can now couple that with the rest of the world frothing at the mouth to attack their family, their religion (which they likely turned to for comfort), their way of life, and having to live this publicly.
And kudos for the leak, even if it was illegal, it was the right thing to do. [/quote]
Right for who? The victims?? This should leave them in a much better place than they were before, don’t ya think?[/quote]
I don’t think the parents way of dealing with it was appropriate before it was exposed. It’s tough for the victims, your right.
[/quote]
So because their parents didn’t deal with an issue appropriately (sent girls to counseling, disciplined an adolescent teen the first time, took him to the cops, then to counseling, camp, or to labor it out of him (depending on which tabloid you read) the girls should have to be paraded in front of the media for a game of “Guess which one was diddled”.
Not defending what the kid did, however, don’t make the leak something more than what it was. She wasn’t doing what was right. She was making a money/attention grab at some people she didn’t like.
[/quote]
I don’t like how it’s paraded in front of the media. But when they “took him too the cops” I think everyone hushed it. I’m not good with that, no.
And I’m sure this shit happens all the time. So the more me expose it and make people aware and accountable the better. But yeah, I wish the victims were shielded more.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So the more me expose it and make people aware and accountable the better. But yeah, I wish the victims were shielded more.
[/quote]
The later is impossible if you want the former. That whole “evidence of wrong doing” thing gets in the way.