Baby Meredith is here - Anna Duggar baby watch

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

UMM listen up historical redaction kings.

I have been the brunt of this HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST JOSH IS A PEDO hissy fit and I charge you all with the task of finding a single comment where I said that Josh was targeting his own children. Let me save you some time. You won't find it because I didn't say it.

And really. Is this what the flaming has been about? Nobody better suggest that the sexual assault on 5 different people over a two year period (or more who knows) is evidence that a person may be a pedophile BECAUSE it automatically means he is still on the prowl?

Newsflash: if the butthurt flame gang spent more time educating themselves on what pedophilia is, instead of wasting everyone's time flaming people who said something they didn't agree with, y'all would know that not all pedos have harmed children. But here is the rub: ALL CHILD MOLESTERS HAVE HARMED CHILDREN.

Do you guys realize how stupid it sounds to be screaming out "There is no proof Josh is a pedo!! He is JUST a child molester!!! How DARE you suggest he is a pedo!! He might have a bunch of victims but that don't mean he is a pedo!!!"

Some of you, and you know who you are, are acting like the mean girls at youth group. Shun the sinner! Shun the sinner! God is gonna RAAAAIIIiiin his wrath down on those who do not conform to the inspired word of God as written by the Disciples of Flame!

Well guess what. I belong to a different denomination and I think that Josh's actions indicate that he might be a pedo. Deal with it. I am not recanting. Flame me if you will--I can take it. Just be aware that you look foolish.

Excuse me, but YES this did start because someone claimed that he was a pedophile and is still a pedophile and that he's a danger to his own children. Back on page 28, the conversation shifted from her name meaning when this was posted:

Why are we praising Anna for having a baby? People do it everyday. We should be questioning why Anna isn’t smart enough to protect her four young children from a man who has forcibly touched girls before. Wake up, Anna! Whether your brain is smart enough to believe it, or not, your husband is a pedophile, and was not properly treated for it. He could strike on one of your blessings. Do you care more about living the sheltered lifestyle, and keeping sweet, or protecting your children? What example are you setting for Mack and Meredith? Touching is okay, God will forgive you. That’s infuriating. Anna needs to open her eyes. Hope she does it soon. Also, Anna is programmed to have as many babies as possible. I don’t think Josh admitting to forcibly touching girls will change how she thinks about that. Which is sad.

[Toothfairy]

We don't know what kind of therapy Josh or the kids got. If Jessa and Jill forgave him, then that's their choice. But it's hard to believe they really understood what happened to them. They grew up in fundie land where sexual abuse is normal. They might not realize what Josh or their parents did. Plus going on tv and trying to minimize the abuse, knowing thumpers drink the Kool aid is dangerous. I hope Josh didn't continue his behavior but we don't know if he still molests or only molested his sisters and the fifth victim. The duggars version of therapy is jtth and alert.

For some kids abuse is all they know, it becomes normal to them. As for Anna, did she do a home birth? Don't really care for the name. I hope this chick slows down with the baby making. She's not a celebrity anymore.

[ClaraOswin]

I agree that it probably has a lot to do with their ages at the time she was born. I mean, when I was around that age my favorite name for a girl was Bryleah Shayne and my favorite name for a boy was Shawnathan Rhys. For the last few years (Anna's a year-ish younger than me) my favorite name for a girl has fluctuated between Alexandra Vada and Genevieve Erin, while my favorite name for a boy has consistently been William Patrick (with Zachary Brennan as a close second).

The only time I've ever heard the name Vada was in My Girl. I didn't even know it was a 'real' name.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

The only time I've ever heard the name Vada was in My Girl. I didn't even know it was a 'real' name.

Yep. It's actually a name on my family tree. One of my ancestors had a sister named Vada in 1904. But I fell in love with the name because of that movie, and the movie is very near and dear to my sister and I, which makes it more special. I'd never give the name as a first name, but I think it's pretty harmless and actually rather interesting as a middle name.

[Mama Mia]

UMM listen up historical redaction kings.

I have been the brunt of this HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST JOSH IS A PEDO hissy fit and I charge you all with the task of finding a single comment where I said that Josh was targeting his own children. Let me save you some time. You won't find it because I didn't say it.

And really. Is this what the flaming has been about? Nobody better suggest that the sexual assault on 5 different people over a two year period (or more who knows) is evidence that a person may be a pedophile BECAUSE it automatically means he is still on the prowl?

Newsflash: if the butthurt flame gang spent more time educating themselves on what pedophilia is, instead of wasting everyone's time flaming people who said something they didn't agree with, y'all would know that not all pedos have harmed children. But here is the rub: ALL CHILD MOLESTERS HAVE HARMED CHILDREN.

Do you guys realize how stupid it sounds to be screaming out "There is no proof Josh is a pedo!! He is JUST a child molester!!! How DARE you suggest he is a pedo!! He might have a bunch of victims but that don't mean he is a pedo!!!"

Some of you, and you know who you are, are acting like the mean girls at youth group. Shun the sinner! Shun the sinner! God is gonna RAAAAIIIiiin his wrath down on those who do not conform to the inspired word of God as written by the Disciples of Flame!

Well guess what. I belong to a different denomination and I think that Josh's actions indicate that he might be a pedo. Deal with it. I am not recanting. Flame me if you will--I can take it. Just be aware that you look foolish.

You are really reading an awful lot of persecution into a simple disagreement on the Internet.

What people are arguing with isn't that what Josh did wasn't horrible. It's really just a very, very basic concept that child molestation is the act. Pedophilia may, or may not be, the motivation behind the act. It's also a form of mental illness. And mental illness already carries a lot of stigma, which many people are trying to fight.

Some people are taking issue with the general nature of arm chair diagnosis, because you really can't diagnosis a medical condition - including a mental health related medical condition, based on the extremely limited information we have. You just can't. Lay people can't. Licensed therapists can't. It just isn't possible.

I'm taking issue with the likelihood of it even being a probability, no matter how many times you say it, because - no- he was not post puberty and all the victims were not pre- pubescent which is the primary criteria. He was in puberty age range - and I don't have photos of him at that age - but none of the boys in that family are early developers, so I doubt he was. Three of the five victims were also in puberty agre range. So no, the pedophile label just doesn't apply. If you were only talking about the two youngest girls - that's another thing. If you used the criteria the way you are using it -- half the Jr. High school couples one sees at the mall could be accused of having a " pedophile" and a child victim. But I think that also speaks to the very disturbing culture they live in which doesn't explain or differentiate between individuals of sexual immaturity and maturity. So his norms could have been way off the mark to the rest of society.

I'll give you an example of a different culture I worked with periphally as a social worker. In my area we had a group of migrant workers come up from a fairly culturally isolated indigenous group from southern Mexico. They didn't speak English or Spanish or share many of the cultural norms with either group ( the town I worked in was about 80% Spanish speaking ) . In their group it was perfectly normal for 12 year olds to have sexual relationships with adults, even much, much older adults if they wished. Sometimes this would result in marriages ( not legal in their new society ), sometimes not. It obviously caused a huge culture clash, CPS involvement, police, etc.. as this group integrated into their new home base. Because this simply wasn't acceptable, here. And the young people, and their parents, and their sexual partners, really didn't understand why.

I realize this is not the same situation as The Duggar's. But I think some of these hard core fundamentalists didn't realize the possible issues they might cause by keeping their kids completely unaware of sexual development, sexualizing young children , keeping 5 year old and 15 year olds at the same level as far as decision making and independence. And considering any sort of sexual expression outside of marriage a sin. And, apparently, a fairly equal sin. I'm sure there intent wasn't to set up a perfect situation for sexually impulsive teens to molest their siblings....but that's what they did.

[LovelyLuna]

what part about ‘we don’t internet diagnose’ is hard to understand.

It is ok to say that Josh looks tired.

It is not ok to say he look like he is on psychiatric medications.

It is ok to say that you worry about Josh reoffending.

It is not ok to speculated on who that might be.

It is ok to think that Josh is a sick and twisted human being.

It is not ok to label him with anything like being a pedophile.

Appropriate snark for this thread:

1. The names (come on Marcus Anthony?)

2. Mack being in training for sister mom status

3. the amount of flowers they put on the babies head

4. another female born into a culture in which she is a second class citizen and only valued for first her virginity and then her ability to pop out eleventy babies.

Not appropriate snark:

1. Josh being a pedophile

2. Josh being a pedophile

3. Josh taking prescription drugs

4. Josh being a pedophile

If you REALLY want to talk about how perverse Joshy boy is then there are other threads for that.

seriously. :?

[DeFrauder]

What the fuck, FJ. I just had to skip over half of this thread, because I'd rather not read a bunch of pointless bickering. snip......

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW IF HE MEETS CLINICAL DEFINITION OF PEDOPHILIA FROM THAT POLICE REPORT. AND, WHETHER HE DOES OR NOT, HE DID SOMETHING HARMFUL AND ILLEGAL. DIAGNOSIS =/= TO HIS ILLEGAL ACTIONS.

The only, and I do mean ONLY relevance of whether he is a pedophile, is whether he continues to offend. Yes, we can look at statistical likelihoods, but it is MORE important to look at his OWN pattern of behavior. I am not going to cut and paste the symptoms from the DSM, nor any scholarly articles, nor any WIKI pages. I am not even going to weigh with my educated opinion.

snip........

Some speculation is perfectly valid - do we think Josh is getting treatment? Do we think he might reoffend with his own children? Okay. But making wild generalizations, thinking you can diagnose someone from limited data, and taking all this personally over 30 pages? Ugh. Let it go.

I understand the desire to skip over the bickering, but actually reading through all the bullshit would have revealed that no one is giving a diagnosis.

There are just some jerks that are claiming a diagnosis is being made in an attempt to bolster their own argument.

In fact if me saying that josh's admitted molestation of 4 children and 1 unknown person is evidence that he could be a pedophile is a diagnosis---then all the people that are claiming that other factors mean that he is not a pedophile is also a diagnosis. It is an argument rooted in hypocrisy.

And you are correct. A diagnosis doesn't matter. It is far more important that Josh never offends again. None of us know if he has offended since the 5 or if he really has reformed his ways.

The history we know about is very alarming. When people SPECULATE that he has never stopped offending, or that he could offend again, they are not off base. He assaulted 5 people, most of whom were sleeping. No matter what the reason behind his actions were, he went the extra mile.

[DeFrauder]

Excuse me, but YES this did start because someone claimed that he was a pedophile and is still a pedophile and that he's a danger to his own children. Back on page 28, the conversation shifted from her name meaning when this was posted:

I just checked my ID. It says DeFrauder--not ljohnson2006. Whew. I was worried for a moment that I forgot who I was!

My original comment was 2 down where I simply said something like "actually, there is evidence that Josh is a pedophile" I think that was in response to Nellebelle screaming at ljohnson2006 about "how DARE s/he call Josh a pedophile".

Have we heard from ljohnson2006 since? Regardless, it is clear that I took up his/her cross in this matter and absorbed, happily I might add, several personal attacks on my intellect and character.

Regardless--it was never me that pointed out potential victims for Josh, despite my proclivity to submit to scapegoat status.

And I continue to stand by my words. Sexually abusing 4 people under 12 plus 1 unknown person is 'evidence' that someone may be a pedophile. It is not necessarily ALL the evidence required for a doctor to make a diagnosis and neither is it proof that an abuser will abuse again.

Perhaps people are confused over the subtle differences in definition for the words 'evidence' and 'proof'. One needs evidence to prove something is truth. Before a dr would make a diagnosis, s/he would compile all the evidence and then make a judgement based on this evidence. The DR would feel that s/he has enough 'proof' to make a specific diagnosis.

That police report would be one article of evidence that might eventually support a diagnosis of pedophilia IF any dr ever gets put in the position to treat Josh.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I just checked my ID. It says DeFrauder--not ljohnson2006. Whew. I was worried for a moment that I forgot who I was!

My original comment was 2 down where I simply said something like "actually, there is evidence that Josh is a pedophile" I think that was in response to Nellebelle screaming at ljohnson2006 about "how DARE s/he call Josh a pedophile".

Have we heard from ljohnson2006 since? Regardless, it is clear that I took up his/her cross in this matter and absorbed, happily I might add, several personal attacks on my intellect and character.

Regardless--it was never me that pointed out potential victims for Josh, despite my proclivity to submit to scapegoat status.

And I continue to stand by my words. Sexually abusing 4 people under 12 plus 1 unknown person is 'evidence' that someone may be a pedophile. It is not necessarily ALL the evidence required for a doctor to make a diagnosis and neither is it proof that an abuser will abuse again.

Perhaps people are confused over the subtle differences in definition for the words 'evidence' and 'proof'. One needs evidence to prove something is truth. Before a dr would make a diagnosis, s/he would compile all the evidence and then make a judgement based on this evidence. The DR would feel that s/he has enough 'proof' to make a specific diagnosis.

That police report would be one article of evidence that might eventually support a diagnosis of pedophilia IF any dr ever gets put in the position to treat Josh.

Would you STOP acting like I'm out to get you. First of all, I NEVER ONCE said YOU were the one calling him a pedophile. Second of all, I didn't respond to YOU, I responded to someone else. Third, YOU responded to me saying that I was wrong in my claim of him being labeled and that being what started this whole mess. I proved you wrong using a quote.

Here's the original thread you responded to:

Because it was said that he was going to harm his own children because he's a pedophile. We don't know he's a pedophile, we don't know if he targets children, we don't know if he's still targeting anyone, we don't know a lot of things. Saying he's going to harm his own children based on the fact that he did harm his sisters in the past, especially when saying that his oldest girl is most at risk because of what happened to his youngest victim, is dangerous and uncalled for.

I'm not going to sit here and say that Josh is a victim or any crap like that. He did what he did, and what he did was terrible. But, we have NO evidence to support the idea he's even harming ANYONE, regardless of age, so we shouldn't just state he's a danger to his children as if it's fact.

STOP PRETENDING EVERYONE IS ATTACKING YOU. Grow. Up.

[HarryPotterFan]

Also saying that josh isn't a pedophile isn't a diagnosis that makes everyone a hypocrite. That's the opposite lf a diagnosis. just saying.

[gustava]

:angry-banghead:

[twinmama]

Because it was said that he was going to harm his own children because he's a pedophile. We don't know he's a pedophile, we don't know if he targets children, we don't know if he's still targeting anyone, we don't know a lot of things. Saying he's going to harm his own children based on the fact that he did harm his sisters in the past, especially when saying that his oldest girl is most at risk because of what happened to his youngest victim, is dangerous and uncalled for.

I'm not going to sit here and say that Josh is a victim or any crap like that. He did what he did, and what he did was terrible. But, we have NO evidence to support the idea he's even harming ANYONE, regardless of age, so we shouldn't just state he's a danger to his children as if it's fact.

IMO, Josh is gross. He did something terrible to his sisters and never got professional help. BUT, I have no idea if he is still harming young girls or boys. We have NO evidence at all that this has happened in years and years. I don't know statistics but even if it is more likely that young offenders keep offending, that doesn't mean it's 100% that Josh is hurting his children. Until I see proof or hear legit stories about him harming his kids, I'm going to assume he is not (mainly bc I am no one and have no power or responsibility to save his kids, perhaps CPS should investigate him or the family, but as a no one, I will assume his nasty issues are somehow in his past).

[JenniferJuniper]

Excuse me, but YES this did start because someone claimed that he was a pedophile and is still a pedophile and that he's a danger to his own children. Back on page 28, the conversation shifted from her name meaning when this was posted:

I am curious though. If the poster had said "child molester" instead of "pedophile", would you otherwise object so strongly to the post?

If my 15 year old neighbor molests five girls and the neighborhood finds out about it, most folks are going to call him a pedophile. May not be true. May not be accurate. But that's what happens when you molest kids.

[VelociRapture]

Yep. It's actually a name on my family tree. One of my ancestors had a sister named Vada in 1904. But I fell in love with the name because of that movie, and the movie is very near and dear to my sister and I, which makes it more special. I'd never give the name as a first name, but I think it's pretty harmless and actually rather interesting as a middle name.

That's such a gorgeous name! I'd love to use it one day but I know Fiance would veto it. :lol:

We do have a name picked if we have a daughter - Anna Elizabeth. Anna because it's a form of mine and my mom's middle names, as well as my beloved late Great-Aunt's middle name. Elizabeth is in honor of my maternal Aunt who struggled with depression and lost the battle in the early 90's - it was her middle name. I adored her more than I can express and it's the best way I can think of to honor her.

[DeFrauder]

You are really reading an awful lot of persecution into a simple disagreement on the Internet.

Not really. There has been a lot of name calling going on. The flaming has become quite intense at various times in the thread. I can take flaming, but it is fair to say that some people are intimidated by it and retreat. It is not polite to use personal attacks during a 'simple disagreement on the internet'.

Some people are taking issue with the general nature of arm chair diagnosis, because you really can't diagnosis a medical condition - including a mental health related medical condition, based on the extremely limited information we have. You just can't. Lay people can't. Licensed therapists can't. It just isn't possible.

Sure. Although no one is truly "diagnosing". No one here has the credentials to diagnose. All attempts at diagnosis are a form of speculation. When we see a picture of a broken leg on the internet we can opine "yup, that's broken!" and we may be right or wrong, but it doesnt mean anything. Plus, you realize that all the people insisting that he isn't a pedo based on the same pool of evidence are making a 'diagnosis' as well?

I'm taking issue with the likelihood of it even being a probability, no matter how many times you say it, because - no- he was not post puberty and all the victims were not pre- pubescent which is the primary criteria. He was in puberty age range - and I don't have photos of him at that age - but none of the boys in that family are early developers, so I doubt he was. Three of the five victims were also in puberty agre range. So no, the pedophile label just doesn't apply. If you were only talking about the two youngest girls - that's another thing.

Are you making a diagnosis?

This is exactly the same thing that I have done. I looked at the same pool of available evidence that you did, but I came to a different conclusion. I have no problem with you having a different opinion than me. Can't I get the same respect?

f you used the criteria the way you are using it -- half the Jr. High school couples one sees at the mall could be accused of having a " pedophile" and a child victim. But I think that also speaks to the very disturbing culture they live in which doesn't explain or differentiate between individuals of sexual immaturity and maturity. So his norms could have been way off the mark to the rest of society.

See, I specifically addressed this Jr High School issue. I went on at length about why the guidelines like to have 16 years old as the time to wait until official diagnosis. I will repeat that it has nothing to do with it being impossible to be a pedophile at 14 or 15.

a 13 year old girl and a 15 year old boy would never be considered pedophilia unless there were far stronger forms of evidence to suggest it.

We are not talking about a 14 and 15 year old Josh making out with a 13 year old girl that he met at youth group. We are talking about someone that admits that he snuck into his sister's bedrooms at night and molested them while they were sleeping. Then he molested a 5 year old sister while she was sitting on his lap. He also grabbed another sister in the laundry room. He is a serial offender not half of a star crossed Romeo and Juliet duo. As for whether he had reached puberty yet? Unless he was an extreme outlier, he most definitely had.

I'll give you an example of a different culture I worked with periphally as a social worker. In my area we had a group of migrant workers come up from a fairly culturally isolated indigenous group from southern Mexico. They didn't speak English or Spanish or share many of the cultural norms with either group ( the town I worked in was about 80% Spanish speaking ) . In their group it was perfectly normal for 12 year olds to have sexual relationships with adults, even much, much older adults if they wished. Sometimes this would result in marriages ( not legal in their new society ), sometimes not. It obviously caused a huge culture clash, CPS involvement, police, etc.. as this group integrated into their new home base. Because this simply wasn't acceptable, here. And the young people, and their parents, and their sexual partners, really didn't understand why.

This is an interesting story. Teenagerhood is a new phenomenon, only being a thing since the 20th century and the latter part of the century at that. All through the ages, kids were considered adults when they reached puberty. Usually that is accomplished by 13, but occasionally 12, sometimes it doesn't happen until 14. There are outliers that are younger or older. My Grandmother did not start to menstruate until she was 16. All our ideas about when it is time to get married and when to procreate are socially constructed. Biologically our best eggs are excreted between the ages of 15 and 25 give or take. My guess is that your migrant workers were from a culture where women became women at 12 and frequently started to procreate at this age. It is never pedophilia if both members of a relationship have reached puberty.

I realize this is not the same situation as The Duggar's. But I think some of these hard core fundamentalists didn't realize the possible issues they might cause by keeping their kids completely unaware of sexual development, sexualizing young children , keeping 5 year old and 15 year olds at the same level as far as decision making and independence. And considering any sort of sexual expression outside of marriage a sin. And, apparently, a fairly equal sin. I'm sure there intent wasn't to set up a perfect situation for sexually impulsive teens to molest their siblings....but that's what they did.

I will agree the Gothardite environment is repressive and harmful. I also agree the Duggars are completely clueless about sexual abuse and what it really is. Just like they are clueless about sexuality in general. However, I do not buy the 'repression causes people to abuse others' argument.

A tiny minority of abused and repressed people end up hurting other people. Although I am not saying that you are excusing Josh's actions, I will say that this argument excuses Josh and other people who have done terrible things. There are 19 kids that have the exact same upbringing as Josh. Many of them probably have an even stricter upbringing than Josh as I bet they became more cultish as the years wore on. Yet, we are NOT assuming that all 19 kids are abusing others.

See how pleasant that was? No name calling, no flaming. Just discussion. :D

[DeFrauder]

I am curious though. If the poster had said "child molester" instead of "pedophile", would you otherwise object so strongly to the post?

If my 15 year old neighbor molests five girls and the neighborhood finds out about it, most folks are going to call him a pedophile. May not be true. May not be accurate. But that's what happens when you molest kids.

Yes. It is the term that gets used.

I think the issue is that there is some sort of stigma against the word pedophile. They believe that being a pedophile is a far worse thing than being a child molester.

[HarleyQuinn]

but he didn't get professional help

You know, I'm really curious WHY this particular lie is so enticing? Yes. The first go, he was sent off to do carpentry. Second go, he got talked to by a pedophile police creep. But after the Oprah smack down, and DHS being called in, and the notation of "FAMILY IN NEED OF SERVICES" in the police report, DHS AND/OR CPS WERE CALLED IN, THE FAMILY WAS REQUIRED TO REPORT EVERY SIX MONTHS, AND THE GIRLS WERE IN COUNSELING. (Since it was DHS, I'm going assume it was licensed professional counseling, just like J-B, M'chelle, and the girls said.) That was via Alice in 2007. The girls also said, that after that, Josh was counseled, and had to pay for it himself.

After the time of the police report, Josh was NOT in the house, and that has the finger prints of DHS (SOP).

BUT ***

but he didn't get professional help

Does repeating that, as thousands here do, on a regular basis, make one cootie free? Or get free entry to the state fair? Or many orgasms, or what?

And no, I'm not defending him, or the Duggars, or fundies in general. But jeepers peeps, TRUTH *IS* SOMETHING--and it matters!

/rant

I do not believe for one second he got licensed professional help. Michelle said he didn't in the police report. J. Called it "accredited" in his interview (accredited by clown college for all we know) Jessa was the one that dropped "licensed" like it was a brand new buzz word she learned. So forgive if I do not buy that crock of shit at all.

And Velocirapture, thank you for your very eloquent reply to my initial comment. It was nice to read. :)

[FundieFarmer]

Yes. It is the term that gets used.

I think the issue is that there is some sort of stigma against the word pedophile. They believe that being a pedophile is a far worse thing than being a child molester.

It's not worse, it's just inherently different. Sure it's a term that gets used, but that doesn't make it correct.

And not every single thing in a poster's statement is directed at you. Discerning what is and what isn't will make it easier for you not to feel attacked all the time.

[VelociRapture]

I do not believe for one second he got licensed professional help. Michelle said he didn't in the police report. J. Called it "accredited" in his interview (accredited by clown college for all we know) Jessa was the one that dropped "licensed" like it was a brand new buzz word she learned. So forgive if I do not buy that crock of shit at all.

And Velocirapture, thank you for your very eloquent reply to my initial comment. It was nice to read. :)

You're welcome! You were civil and polite in your post - you seemed more curious than anything. I don't mind playing nice with posters like you! :lol:

[sense and nonsense]

DeFrauder,

I like how you say you are being personally attacked when you are the one calling fellow debaters foolish.

If anything is foolish, it's your inability to understand the tone of others augments. Let me put it simply:

Here on FJ, most of us don't care of Josh meets 3/5 or 4/5 criteria for diagnosis. This is because we have nothing to do with said diagnosis. So stop repeatedly posting about evidence for a diagnosis.

Was that concise enough? Will you stop this nonsense and allow us to get back to discussing the new baby now?

[OkToBeTakei]

DeFrauder,

I like how you say you are being personally attacked when you are the one calling fellow debaters foolish.

If anything is foolish, it's your inability to understand the tone of others augments. Let me put it simply:

Here on FJ, most of us don't care of Josh meets 3/5 or 4/5 criteria for diagnosis. This is because we have nothing to do with said diagnosis. So stop repeatedly posting about evidence for a diagnosis.

Was that concise enough? Will you stop this nonsense and allow us to get back to discussing the new baby now?

I could not give a toss if the idiot feels attacked or whatever it's the Internet, grow the fuck up.

How many more pages of this incessant whining. You want to call Josh a paedophile .... Fine. We get it.

Let's face it you are not in the least 'feeling' attacked or 'flamed' you're more than capable of boring the tits off everybody defending yourself ....

My internet diagnosis of the day is fanny with a dose of the fuckwittery. Not fatal but appears to be contagious recently. We need a ..... Vaccine :lol:

[DeFrauder]

DeFrauder,

I like how you say you are being personally attacked when you are the one calling fellow debaters foolish.

If anything is foolish, it's your inability to understand the tone of others augments. Let me put it simply:

Here on FJ, most of us don't care of Josh meets 3/5 or 4/5 criteria for diagnosis. This is because we have nothing to do with said diagnosis. So stop repeatedly posting about evidence for a diagnosis.

Was that concise enough? Will you stop this nonsense and allow us to get back to discussing the new baby now?

Feel free to join the party, but perhaps you should read the thread before you assume that you know what the debate was about. You do not have it quite right.

But let me summarize the thread:

In this thread I have been called stupid, an idiot, lack reading comprehension, and told to shut the fuck up. That is just what I remember off the top of my head. All because I responded to a post where someone was yelling at another poster and claiming that there was no evidence that Josh was a pedophile.

My response? I said: "actually, there is evidence that Josh is a pedophile". Because, you know, there is.

Someone else refuted what I said by posting a wikipedia article. Then someone cut and paste the Diagnostic manual, then someone posted some more webpages. All this was pretty much in the service of proving me wrong that there would be any evidence at all that Josh is a pedophile.

Here is the field:

Team 1:This is me and anyone who sort of kinda might agree with me. My position is that "there is "evidence" that Josh is a pedophile. Note that is not saying he IS a pedophile, but that there is some evidence that he is one. Its not a diagnosis. Its a statement based on the FACT that Josh sexually abused 5 non consenting people, 4 of which were under 12, with one 1 being 5 years old. Nobody knows anything about victim 5.

Team 2: These are the disciples of flame. They think that the same "evidence" that I point to is evidence that Josh is not a pedophile, but a mere child molester. (I tried to explain that the designation of "child molester" is as much as a diagnoses as "pedophile", but they are having none of that). Their position is that there are VAST differences between what a pedophile is and what a child molester is and how dare I suggest that Josh is a pedophile.

The people who originally started the discussion have long since disappeared. Some poor soul with a post count of 2 dared say something and was flamed out of here.

In general, people did not act nice. They remain butthurt that I had a different point of view. Some called me names, said mean things, and it appears, tried to intimidate me into shutting the fuck up.

So I called them out on their bullshit flaming as a debating tool, but they are buthurt anew over that.

Whah whah Defrauded said things we didn't agree with and now she says we flamed her because we don't have sound arguments against her. She has a persecution complex!

Flame away buddies. Just remember that I did not wreck this thread all by myself.

[LovelyLuna]

I give up. I think I will try the epic flounce. I was reading about it somewhere.

I HATE YOU ALL, BYE. :auto-dirtbike:

[Mama Mia]

Not really. There has been a lot of name calling going on. The flaming has become quite intense at various times in the thread. I can take flaming, but it is fair to say that some people are intimidated by it and retreat. It is not polite to use personal attacks during a 'simple disagreement on the internet'.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh you poor sheltered thing. No. No this has not been intense. Not even close. This is no where near the level of flaming and personal attack that can go on here. Read back on some of the big long threads from prior years. Many of the posters, even on this thread, have in the past, told each other to fuck off both subtly and bluntly dozens of times. This thread is mild. Sorry.

We are not talking about a 14 and 15 year old Josh making out with a 13 year old girl that he met at youth group. We are talking about someone that admits that he snuck into his sister's bedrooms at night and molested them while they were sleeping. Then he molested a 5 year old sister while she was sitting on his lap. He also grabbed another sister in the laundry room. He is a serial offender not half of a star crossed Romeo and Juliet duo. As for whether he had reached puberty yet? Unless he was an extreme outlier, he most definitely had.

Of course no one is saying that he hadn't entered puberty. I think you have a really hard time grasping the difference between three different life stages : prepubertal children, young people who are in the process of going through puberty - average age of 10-14 for girls and 12-16 for boys, and post puberty, sexually mature adults. Unfortunately young people don't come with a stamp on their forehead saying where they are in this process. Here is an article that covers the average ages, etc: http://www.medicinenet.com/puberty/article.htm

A tiny minority of abused and repressed people end up hurting other people. Although I am not saying that you are excusing Josh's actions, I will say that this argument excuses Josh and other people who have done terrible things. There are 19 kids that have the exact same upbringing as Josh. Many of them probably have an even stricter upbringing than Josh as I bet they became more cultish as the years wore on. Yet, we are NOT assuming that all 19 kids are abusing others.

Saying that the Duggar's , at least from everything I've read and seen of the way they present sexuality and child development , have a different social construction of childhood and sexuality and maturity. That was my point in giving that example. Not that repression is a reason or excuse for abuse. But if you have a culture where they present ALL females as a possible sexual temptation to all males AND give zero information about actual sexual development AND treat all sexual curiosity and expression outside of marriage as horribly, equally, sinful AND teach. That " children" have basically the same capacity for self- determination and logic and decision making whether they are 3 or 10 or 17 ---you have a perfect set- up for a kid with poor impulse control, hormones in overdrive and some serious boundary issues to act out sexually in exactly the way he did. Not because he was necessarily attracted to small children. But because he didn't see or know or understand the difference between a small girl child and a teen age girl. Because his society teaches they are the same thing. And, presumably, they don't even have the usual opportunities to get together with same aged peers and compare notes - because there's no notes to compare.

D

[FundieFarmer]

You forgot team 3, which simply disagrees with you without being disrespectful or flaming you.