Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome.
Make a new
And good to see you off hiatus. Hope all is well.
It's giving me a serious case of the creeps.
(Sigh!) So many right-wing Christians, but so few lions.
Never seen the show. No idea what their affiliation is, doubt it's Catholic. But every time I see a reference to that show I think of the above.
Personally anyone who wants 19 kids is a red flag.
And while his behavior cannot be excused, the media reporting on this makes it was even creepier and suggest these things occurred while he was an adult, while in fact, he, too was underage (he was 14-15).
One detail that just makes my stomach hurt is this:
Jim Bob told police in 2006 that when Josh returned home in 2003, Jim Bob, accompanied by some of his church elders, took Josh to Arkansas State Trooper, Jim Hutchens. Jim Bob knew Hutchens personally. Hutchens did not take any official action and instead gave Josh a "very stern talk." As In Touch magazine reports exclusively in this week's issue, Hutchens is now serving 56-years in prison for child pornography. He took no action on the Duggar case.
Makes me fear for Joh Duggar's children, too.
BTW liked your comment on the focus group. Beltway sure is out of touch for sure.
Quiverfull is a movement among some conservative evangelical Protestant couples, chiefly in the United States, but with some adherents in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain and elsewhere. It promotes procreation, and sees children as a blessing from God, eschewing all forms of birth control, including natural family planning and sterilization. Adherents are known as "quiver full", "full quiver", "quiverfull-minded", or simply "QF" Christians. Some refer to the Quiverfull position as Providentialism, while other sources have referred to it as a manifestation of natalism. Currently, several thousand Christians worldwide identify with this movement, although entire Christian sects hold many beliefs correlative to those who self-identify as Quiverfull adherents.
That explains a lot
But that actually brings up another issue: very often abusers (especially young abusers) have been abused themselves. Where does this particular chain start, I wonder, and how far back does it go?
Actually, I don't really wonder. It's more of an idle thought, and a reflection that this is all just so sad. And probably so much bigger for that family than it seems to be now.
jbindc: "And while his behavior cannot be excused, the media reporting on this makes it was even creepier and suggest these things occurred while he was an adult, while in fact, he, too was underage (he was 14-15)."
FWIW, the story I read in the Los Angeles Times said right up front that Josh Duggar was not yet an adult at the time.
From what else I've read, apparently Daddy Duggar failed to report sonny boy's actions to the authorities for over a year, and the statute of limitations thus expired before they could finish their investigation and consider possible charges.
Onward, Christian soldiers.
I have always maintained, that barring an extremely low IQ, or some sort of brain damage, that yes, 14 and 15 year olds know the difference between right and wrong, especially in clear cut instances such as this. I've been mocked for it and received scathing commentary, but now because it's a Duggar it's shocking that nothing was done.
Delicious irony (or hypocrisy - your choice).
There's a whole lot of reasons to be disgusted by this case, that have nothing to do with Josh's lack of a jail sentence.
For that matter, I haven't seen anyone say that he should've been sentenced to prison or tried as an adult (which is what the majority of the people here are against in these types of cases). And excuse me, but not a single person here suggested Tsarnaev didn't deserve prison. And as far as Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin are concerned, I believe the issue is that they were killed. So just stop it with the freaking straw person.
2)I know you're smart can use your brain and extrapolate things like using their age and defining their behaviors and what should be done about them. In many cases, folks around here want to make excuses - except when it deals with people they don't like.
If you don't like the examples I provided, just comb through the hundreds of comments you and others have made here in relation to any juvenile who is in trouble with the law. I provided a link to one post here, and there's a whole section here.
Which no one is arguing against in this case. Not a single person is suggesting that 14 year old Josh had the mental capacity of an adult. So continue your crusade if you want, but I'm not buying it.
And feel free to comb through all of my comments, but you won't find what you're looking for.
We all have a bit of the inconsistency--and, maybe, hypocrisy--in our human selves, don't we? So, that people might almost relish when those who preach intolerance are shown to have a dark, ashen double-life is a fact of life and fiction. That is why Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter" is durable in our society. It is natural, after all, to vent and say "ah ha" when the tables turn. That urge is heightened in the case of those who preach the loudest and most vehemently against what they consider immoral behavior being caught in behaviors universally held to be wrong.
Of course, if I were to look at them at all, I would feel bad about myself for doing so.
Dude's a piece of sh*t, but just inside the 9/11 Memorial they're selling polo shirts for 175 dollars.
Pot meet kettle. And they both ain't got nuthin' on the Wall St. hustle!
So much for sacred ground, eh? Like Chris Rock said, there ain't nuthin' this country won't commercialize. We're a few years away from 9/11 sales at Macy's.
the asst principal called me back and said that she regarded and/or the school regarded the H-r-Not contest as disruptive and therefore suppressible per Tinker.
Agree or doubt? If you agree or doubt, do you wish to indicate if you are a lawyer, law student or have legal training?
I have no strong view . . . it is simply less obviously suppressible than the usual things . . .
I wonder if they should simply have some legal bikini competitions instead . . .
You can use tiny url
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the First Amendment does not exist simply for its own sake. Rather, it is part of a larger whole that is our Constitution, a document which preserves for us always our right to exercise sound judgment in accordance to not only the law itself, but also our own common sense.
I believe that "Hot or Not" is a form of bullying and as such, it should not be considered as protected speech -- especially since we're talking about the victimization of underage kids.
Sources familiar with the situation tell TMZ, the fate of the show is uncertain, but there's now so much heat in the wake of Josh Duggar's molestation confession ... the network had to make the decision.
We're told they absolutely have not made a long-term decision, but it's clearly a bad sign for the show.
And there's this ... a rep for General Mills tells TMZ, they have already blacklisted the show and removed it from their company's current advertising schedule.
Take it in what sense thou wilt. This is TMZ, after all.