Mike Huckabee Done After Defending Duggar?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[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]

Coming from a parent who home-schooled his kids for over a decade I can tell you have no idea what you’re talking about. Your ship’s sails are rent and you’re taking on water smack dab in the middle of the Sea of Ignorance. I’d bail harder if I were you.

And I say this because you DID indeed imply that his supposed “sheltering” was a negative. You can’t honestly back away from that.

You further discredit your cause by suggesting a lack of TV contributed to sheltering which helped lead to fondling little girls. Good fucking grief.
[/quote]

You are seriously chasing rabbits on this one. He was “sheltered” as I implied. His contact with a diverse group of people was highly limited. His contact with influences that most of us would use to satisfy the normal male curiosity was limited (porn and main stream media), all of this is basically by definition, being sheltered. Again, not saying that not being exposed to that media is a negative, however, could his lack of having those resources to explore the other sex he was becoming curious about lead to him checking out his sisters (not necessarily sexually)? Absolutely, and to say otherwise is quite a strange analysis.

Could this sheltering have led to him expressing his curiosity about women with his sister’s? Yes

Was it wrong for them to shelter their children from a lot of the worst aspects of the world until they felt like they were ready to handle them with maturity? Absolutely not, and I think it is a far better approach than the opposite.

62

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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]

I sure ain’t excusing the behavior, I am questioning the ‘outrage’. I do not know where you grew up, but I remember distinctly boys as early as elementary school, and definitely in middle school, copping feels on the girls in the lunch line or in class.
This happened more frequently then it ever should have. Back then, it was considered ‘boys being boys’. I never did it, but I witnessed it many times.
Was it wrong? Absolutely. If I were the girl’s fathers I would have killed me some children no problem.
Should it be life ruining? I am not so sure.
If what they said was true, then it was some touching and feeling for short duration’s. I do think the duration and nature of the crime matters in this case. If he were diddling them and truly trying to give them a sexual experience, that’s vastly different than a cheap feel.
Heck I remember friends with sisters who would antagonize each other by grabbing each other, not for a sexual experience, but to get on each other’s nerves. One would grab or punch the sister in the snatch, she’d try to grab his dick of kick him in the balls. Technically that’s molestation too, but they were really just ribbing each other by attacking each others parts.
So what I am saying is, based on the crime, as stated, which was some touching and feeling for brief periods of time, by a kid to another kid, should the guy have his life ruined over that?
I don’t think so. He should have been punished and he was. He was removed from the house.
It was 12 years ago and he was a stupid kid doing stupid shit. Should his life be ruined over it? I just don’t think the punishment fits the crime here. It was a terrible chapter in their lives, but it was dealt with. If it were continuing, or is continuing, sure, burn him alive for all I care.
But to be raked over the coals 12 years later, over something stupid he did and already paid the price for, I am not sure is entirely fair.
Again, I think the nature of the crime makes a big difference, even though it’s nuance.
There is a big difference between a cheap feel and a rape, there is a difference between a feel and a prolonged diddling, there’s a difference if he were diddling them and masturbating at the same time.
I wonder how many of the people criticizing them are or have cheated on their spouse, experimented with same sex stuff while in a relationship, went around to bars taking advantage of drunk chicks, had in appropriate relationships, fucked a friends sister or cousin, or mom. These things are wrong too.
I seriously doubt I would be very far off the mark if a good number of people on this here forum have done some inappropriate sexual shit.
Hell, you don’t have to go very far to find in appropriate shit in GAL. I have seen more than one post directed at some of our female posters, where said female poster was the theme of some dude’s masturbation fantasy. That’s creepy in itself. And if there willing to say that for all the world to see, how inappropriate could they be in person?
Further, like I also said, Lena Dunham wrote about diddling and feeling up her own sister. When questioned, she reacted dismissively and wrote it off to being a sexually curious.
Didn’t see the massive outrage we are seeing with the Duggers.

Why is she not being raked over the coals too? Why is not her show canceled?

63

[quote]pat wrote:

Why is she not being raked over the coals too? Why is not her show canceled?[/quote]

Leftist and Atheists have no universal morals, so they can’t be held to any sort of standard comparable to someone like the Duggars.

As to the rest of your post. I hear what you’re saying, and personal biases are not going to allow me to really comment further.

64

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[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]

Coming from a parent who home-schooled his kids for over a decade I can tell you have no idea what you’re talking about. Your ship’s sails are rent and you’re taking on water smack dab in the middle of the Sea of Ignorance. I’d bail harder if I were you.

And I say this because you DID indeed imply that his supposed “sheltering” was a negative. You can’t honestly back away from that.

You further discredit your cause by suggesting a lack of TV contributed to sheltering which helped lead to fondling little girls. Good fucking grief.
[/quote]

You are seriously chasing rabbits on this one. He was “sheltered” as I implied. His contact with a diverse group of people was highly limited. His contact with influences that most of us would use to satisfy the normal male curiosity was limited (porn and main stream media), all of this is basically by definition, being sheltered. Again, not saying that not being exposed to that media is a negative, however, could his lack of having those resources to explore the other sex he was becoming curious about lead to him checking out his sisters (not necessarily sexually)? Absolutely, and to say otherwise is quite a strange analysis.

Could this sheltering have led to him expressing his curiosity about women with his sister’s? Yes

Was it wrong for them to shelter their children from a lot of the worst aspects of the world until they felt like they were ready to handle them with maturity? Absolutely not, and I think it is a far better approach than the opposite.

[/quote]

You think that if he’d watched more TV or seen more porn (we don’t know that he didn’t) this wouldn’t have happened? You think sexualizing boys at a younger age would prevent this?

66

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I can’t figure him out either.
[/quote]

It could very well be that if he’d known what he was “supposed” to do with a girl, this whole thing could have been far worse.

67

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[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]

Coming from a parent who home-schooled his kids for over a decade I can tell you have no idea what you’re talking about. Your ship’s sails are rent and you’re taking on water smack dab in the middle of the Sea of Ignorance. I’d bail harder if I were you.

And I say this because you DID indeed imply that his supposed “sheltering” was a negative. You can’t honestly back away from that.

You further discredit your cause by suggesting a lack of TV contributed to sheltering which helped lead to fondling little girls. Good fucking grief.
[/quote]

You are seriously chasing rabbits on this one. He was “sheltered” as I implied. His contact with a diverse group of people was highly limited. His contact with influences that most of us would use to satisfy the normal male curiosity was limited (porn and main stream media), all of this is basically by definition, being sheltered. Again, not saying that not being exposed to that media is a negative, however, could his lack of having those resources to explore the other sex he was becoming curious about lead to him checking out his sisters (not necessarily sexually)? Absolutely, and to say otherwise is quite a strange analysis.

Could this sheltering have led to him expressing his curiosity about women with his sister’s? Yes

Was it wrong for them to shelter their children from a lot of the worst aspects of the world until they felt like they were ready to handle them with maturity? Absolutely not, and I think it is a far better approach than the opposite.

[/quote]

You think that if he’d watched more TV or seen more porn (we don’t know that he didn’t) this wouldn’t have happened? You think sexualizing boys at a younger age would prevent this?[/quote]

I can’t figure him out either.
[/quote]

Curiosity, if intense enough, will find an outlet. Not saying that porn should be provided, or that showing him hyper sexualized materials would be the right thing to do. But if he had basically been like most of us when we wondered what a naked woman looked like, we had a computer. Porn is still an unhealthy outlet. His outlet, which was the only one available to him, just had a victim.

You either fall in to one of two camps here:

He was curious, and with the absence of an outlet for that curiosity, used his sisters (which is awful but not a huge marker for a later in life problem)

Or

He chose to mess around with his sisters because he was sexually aroused by them (which basically sets him up as a pedophile)

Which is it? I am not making giant leaps in logic here.

68

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I can’t figure him out either.
[/quote]

It could very well be that if he’d known what he was “supposed” to do with a girl, this whole thing could have been far worse.[/quote]

Well then you think he is a future pedophile if you believe that to be the case. Which is your opinion. I don’t share it, as I believe it was an adolescent curiosity thing that ultimately rectified itself through age, experience, and discipline.

70

Not a fan of the Palins, but theyre spot on with the liberal bias

71

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

…But if he had basically been like most of us when we wondered what a naked woman looked like, we had a computer…

[/quote]

No, “we” didn’t.

With your logic incest between siblings would’ve been much higher before the 1990’s, right?
[/quote]

Na because of you’re weird ass friends, big brothers, whatever, with their dirty jokes and “educational” talks that numbed the curiosity. When the shine is taking off of something then the curiosity is reduced.

Also, that whole “I’ll show you mine, if you show me yours” thing with touching has been around since well before our lifetimes. Only they had other kids to play it with. His only outlet was his sisters. Not all kids are going to have curiosity at that level. But the ones that do, will find an outlet. He found his. (And because he was so sheltered, it was really the only one available to him)

72

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I can’t figure him out either.
[/quote]

It could very well be that if he’d known what he was “supposed” to do with a girl, this whole thing could have been far worse.[/quote]

Well then you think he is a future pedophile if you believe that to be the case. Which is your opinion. I don’t share it, as I believe it was an adolescent curiosity thing that ultimately rectified itself through age, experience, and discipline.[/quote]

Um, no. That’s quite the leap. Having more knowlege and exposure can increase “curiosity”. It’s entirely possible that that sort of exposure could pique their curiosity as much as anything. I’d say exposure can cause numbness to arousal but that it only escalates behavior.

But I’m curious how you know exactly what he was exposed to and what outlets he had? If there were victims outside the family, why do you think he was denied “you show me yours” opportunity?

73

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

He chose to mess around with his sisters because he was sexually aroused by them (which basically sets him up as a pedophile)

[/quote]

I’m not sure you know what pedophilia is. A prepubescent boy attracted to prepubescent girls doesn’t have anything to do with pedophilia. It’s normal.

75

I’ll admit I’m biased for against any piece of shit that wouldn’t put a screeching halt to this the first time they were made aware it was happening.

When I was in law school, I worked at a kind of halfway house overnights for kids who had been convicted of sexually assaulting other kids. The first night the company required you read the files of all four kids in the house. The files had the details, the police reports, the victim’s’ statement–the whole case history. They did this so you didn’t feel sorry for the kids in the house. It profoundly affected me, I can promise you that.

76

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

Curiosity, if intense enough, will find an outlet. Not saying that porn should be provided, or that showing him hyper sexualized materials would be the right thing to do. But if he had basically been like most of us when we wondered what a naked woman looked like, we had a computer. Porn is still an unhealthy outlet. His outlet, which was the only one available to him, just had a victim.

[/quote]

How ever did society avoid mass incest rape anarchy before digital media and public schooling, I wonder?

77

[quote]Cortes wrote:

How ever did society avoid mass incest rape anarchy before digital media and public schooling, I wonder? [/quote]

Maybe it was really widespread and no one bothered to ever talk about it?

79

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

How ever did society avoid mass incest rape anarchy before digital media and public schooling, I wonder? [/quote]

Maybe it was really widespread and no one bothered to ever talk about it?[/quote]

Yeah, that’s probably it. [/quote]

Lol. Good thing think TV and public schooling have finally arrived after thousands of years to save our society.