Power, Purity, Meekness and God. The Ugly Reality of Rape Culture.

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bells, May 23, 2015.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    The cop, however was required to report.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You have been doing it throughout this thread.

    Dude, the pay is not that much.

    And no, it was never about the income. If it was, I would never have done it and would have gone into family or corporate law instead.

    That isn't why the judge had the police report destroyed. And I have read the police report and it was very well redacted.

    As for the judge, she may have overstepped her authority in ordering the destruction of the report, because Josh was an adult at the time of the police investigation. I do suspect this case is going to get uglier still.

    What are you on about?

    What emerging sexuality was he dealing with that saw him sexually molest little girls?

    And Josh was 14 and 15 years of age when he molested. Hardly a kid. Unless you are trying to say that kids that age normally molest little kids, in which case, please support that assertion.

    Firstly, their name is Duggars. At the very least, get their name right.

    Secondly, I provided a mountain of evidence and links earlier on in this thread about child sexual offenders and how they should be dealt with. All of which directly contradict that one sentence you seem to rely on to defend child sexual molestation.

    Thirdly, the police officer they took him to speak to was a friend of his father's, who has said that they lied to him about how many children and times Josh had molested and had they been truthful, he would have reported him as he was legally required to do so being a mandated reporter.

    What a shame your own posts prove you wrong.

    It is never in the sex offender's interest to be labeled as a sex offender. The reason they are labeled as sex offenders is to make sure they reduce the risk or chance that they might re-offend.

    The reason child sex molesters are labeled as sex offenders is to protect the children they may come into contact with.

    That is why the law exists and is what it is. It is for the protection of the most vulnerable in society.

    What? You thought labeling a child sex offender as a "sex offender" is for the offender's benefit?

    More often then not, reporting your child will help your child access treatment and psychological treatment and help. Your priority should be to ensure the safety of the abused child(ren) and seeking immediate help for the child doing the abusing.

    And seeking treatment for an abusing child is in that child's best interest and the sooner the treatment is sought, the better. The Duggars let it go on for a year, until he then molested his 5 year old sister and others and they realised that they needed to send him away. Instead of sending him for treatment, they sent him to an organisation run by a guy who was recently accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment of dozens of women. The organisation is not a treatment center. It was a religious center. In short, Josh Duggar received no treatment for what he did.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Nope, just your take on the relative nature of abuse in general, which in itself makes a mockery of the subject.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I am 100% certain that I am not the only person who has noticed how you mock the subject and victims. For example:

    I get it, you don't think the sexual molestation of children is a serious issue and to you, you do think it is all a huge joke. You minimised the molestation, then you normalised it.
     
  8. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Doesnt matter. It was an investigation into what happened when he WAS a minor. The laws are applied at the time they occurred.

    A kid. A minor. Unable to vote. Unable to be licensed to drive a car. Unable to join the army. Unable to quit school.

    You dont think Josh's sexual development was a bit delayed by his lack of social contact and rigid family structure?

    firstly: ok spelling nazi. I dont follow the duggarts. dont have cable and wouldnt watch that type of show if I did.
    Secondly, no you provided a bunch of links to their far flung xian teachings.
    thirdly, Since when do YOU put much credibility in a convict? A guy behind bars who will say anything to show hes changed... LOLOLOL I can answer that. When its convenient for your extremism.

    Hypocrite.

    And I quote:
    What a shame your own posts prove you wrong.

    And that is EXACTLY why most people dont report their kids. And EXACTLY why:

    ..."I don't condone this behavior, but I spoke to so many families that did the 'right thing' and the reaction was so excessive and Draconian that it destroyed the lives of their children," said Horowitz, author of the new book "Protecting Our Kids: How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing."

    Horowitz said that juvenile offenders are the most treatable group of sex abusers, but law enforcement is more focused on punishment, including criminal prosecution with possible jail terms and lifetime listing on a sex-offender registry.

    She said Justice Department data shows that one-third of sex offenses involving children also involve underage perpetrators. The most common age, she said, is 14 — the age Josh Duggar was....

    I dont think Josh is a sex offender. I think Josh engaged in mild petting behavior that was impacted by his family lifestyle circumstance. The parents came to the conclusion they needed outside help and sent Josh away (regardless of your opinion of the help they chose). On his return they brought in a family friend with insight into the reality of continued behaviors and what that can lead to.
    And 13 years later Josh has not (to this date) been accused of anything inappropriate. So apparently, he Didnt Need Treatment (as defined by your insistence).
     
  9. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    That you can’t’ or refuse to see the objective intrusive similarity between what Josh actually did and what was done in the video proves my point. You’re as ideologically constrained from objectivity as you claim the Duggars are. Sadly it's your behavior that’s the butt of this joke.

    I never said you were alone in your affliction.
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    How many of those people, do you think, enlist the police in such a manner that requires an officer to break the law?

    Josh's sexual development was a bit shaped by that rigid family structure.

    As I noted when I first checked into this discussion↑: This isn't about how to treat a woman, but which woman to treat that way.

    Here, recall an old culture war plank about how pop music encouraged young women to be loose. We can argue all we want about how to interpret the factors, but there are a couple points here. At the time, this was a manifestation of the same ownership culture; it wasn't that a woman was having sex, but, much as it had been at least since the arrival of The Pill, that a woman could have sex with who she wanted when she wanted. The other point is simply that whatever we might choose to discern in the signs, those were the signs for a reason. It's very nearly impossible to remember why some "romantic" songs↱ actually sounded romantic. ("We will do it once again. We will do everything. We will―we'll break these chains. Down in a dark place, no one knows. We will.")

    That second point is significant in the context that issues of sex and sexuality have always been dear to the ownership culture obsession; this is what it's for.

    Think about the fact that some of the fights we had about pop music are actually part of the same historical and ideological arcs as asking your boss for permission to use birth control, rewriting marriage license and registration laws in order to bureaucratically erase gay marriage, conversion therapy, sexual abuse, Infinite Prevention Advice, women in the workplace, abortion, military enlistment policy, tax law, hospital access, and even prison administration. Oh, right, and don't forget the cottage industry of anti-gay organizations run by closet cases. I mean, really? Whining about Lita Ford↱? Really? (They had no idea whatsoever how to respond to The Great Kat↱.)

    Seriously. Television. Novels. No, really. Do you know why A Wrinkle in Time is so widely protested? Lesbianism and communism. Oh, right. And magic. In other words, the Shakespeare joke in the anti-communist novel in which our heroes strive for the glory of God.

    Lesbianism? Seriously? Who the fuck is thinking about those three old hags getting on one another?

    This is what ownership culture does.

    And in the end, it really shouldn't seem as funny as it does, because far too often this―what we are seeing from the Duggar family―is the outcome.

    Look, we have blaming everyone else. We have recidivism. We have empowering behavior from the family. This is fucking dangerous.

    So, yes, the molester's development was affected by his upbringing. Which, in this case, is part of the problem. Ownership and rape cultures have their hooks in many American families. And that's why so many people are reacting poorly, and saying stupid things like, what was that one? Nothing wrong with sibling molestation?

    Why does there have to be any molestation that isn't wrong? Impropriety is kind of the nature of molestation.

    Hello?

    Look around at what is happening. An entire cultural substructure is exposed and in danger of collapse. And here you are, trying to patch up the damage to make sure we can all get a few more years of molesting our sisters before it all comes apart.

    There's a reason I'm not thanking you for the effort.
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    No law was ever applied. I'd suggest you look up the definition of the Statute of Limitations.

    The report also redacted Josh's name as well.

    He was one year from being allowed to drive a car.

    More importantly, Arkansas can and does transfer juveniles (ie minors) aged 14 and up to the adult criminal justice system for crimes against other persons. So even though he was a minor, he could have been charged and tried as an adult for the crimes of sexual molestation and sexual abuse of children.

    Of course his development was affected by his upbringing. The family obsessed about sex and no sexual touching or any touch that could be construed as sexual touching within the family itself. The whole culture was about girls remaining pure and obedient to the males in their lives and the responsibility for this was placed solely on the girls. The children were educated by lesson plans designed by a sex offender, who places the blame for men offending squarely on the girls.

    In the context of how Josh was brought up, to be in a position of dominance over his sisters, his crimes become even more heinous, because he used that position of authority as the older brother, to abuse and molest his younger sisters, even a much younger sister.

    And this is why the family's sole concern was Josh. The girls were expected to prevent themselves from being molested, the onus was placed on them to not be molested. Hence why all the rules centered around the girl's behaviour, not Josh's behaviour. They only decided to seek outside help when he sexually molested his 5 year old sister, because by then, her age and combined with his recidivism was a clear indication that something was very wrong and he was getting worse.

    1) Now this is just pathological trolling by you.

    2) Those Christian teachings happen to be the education plans employed by the Duggars in homeschooling their children. Hence why they endorse them and tell one and all this is what they are using.

    3) The Duggar's were very happy to consider that officer as an excuse for telling the police about what Josh did. Consider, this is a family who lied to police, refused to allow Josh to be questioned and instead hid him, lied to their Church and community, lied about getting their children treatment and professional counseling (counselors are mandated reporters, and no report was filed).. The Duggar's are hardly trustworthy individuals themselves.

    You can't even understand the context of this discussion, get their name right and you keep getting things wrong and then saying things like "doesn't matter" when you are caught out.

    Firstly, what are you quoting from?

    Secondly, here is what the Justice Department actually states:

    Juveniles account for more than one third (35.6 percent) of those known to police to have committed sex offenses against minors.
    [..]

    The number of youth coming to the attention of police for sex offenses increases sharply at age 12 and plateaus after age 14. Early adolescence is the peak age for offenses against younger children. Offenses against teenagers surge during mid to late adolescence, while offenses against victims under age 12 decline.

    [..]

    Known juvenile offenders who commit sex offenses against minors span a variety of ages. Five percent are younger than 9 years, and 16 percent are younger than 12 years (figure 1). The rate rises sharply around age 12 and plateaus after age 14. As a proportion of the total, 38 percent are between ages 12 and 14, and 46 percent are between ages 15 and 17. The vast majority (93 percent) are male.

    Note the language.

    Pay particular attention to the fact that the Justice Department view them as "juvenile sex offenders", not 'teenagers who made a mistake'. Why? Because what Josh did was not a mistake. It was a sexual offense.

    All the actual literature on the subject disagrees with you. Even what you quoted disagrees with you.

    Josh was very much a sex offender. Hence why their Church recommended that Josh be sent away immediately to a treatment center for juvenile sex offenders when they were made aware of what he did, whereupon they lied and sent him to do some remodeling instead. And the family friend you are talking about is the paedophile currently in prison... The whole culture is dirty and dishonest, which begs the question, why are you defending this culture?

    How would you know if he had?

    His wife certainly would not report him, because it is a patriarchal society where what he says goes and she was trained to submit to his every whim and desires. We know his parents won't ever report him. His female victims won't, for the same reason and who would they report it to? They are home schooled and have little to no access to anyone outside of that cultural subset they exist in.

    So how would you know if he had?


    ______


    Finkelhor, David, Richard Ormrod, and Mark Chaffin. "Juveniles Who Commit Sex Offenses Against Minors." PsycEXTRA Dataset (2009): n. pag. U.S. Department of Justice. Web. <https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227763.pdf>.

    Office Of Juvenile Justice And Delinquency Prevention. Trying Juveniles as Adults: An Analysis of State Transfer Laws and Reporting (n.d.): n. pag. U.S. Department of Justice. Web. <https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/232434.pdf>.
     
  12. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    LOL
    So now the Duggar's forced the cop not to report. No. The reality is the cop knows what happens to kids when you involve the system.
    Shaped and Delayed. Fine.

    But it doesnt appear the duggar parents were training Josh to molest his sisters.
    So you trade family 'ownership' for state 'ownership'... okeydokey. I dont see the states labels as being different than the church labels on (sinners). Eternal Damnation or a lifetime on a sex offender registry for feeling sisters breast/vagina over clothes. Extremism is extremism whether its gov/church sanctioned or not.

    http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/...arning-about-cholesterol-in-food-201502127713

    The professionals Do get it Wrong.. Sometimes they are wrong for decades. On some things as easy to study as cholesterol.

    And you got this one wrong. The kid (josh) told on himself. The family sat him down and told his sisters what he had done while they were sleeping. The second reported event does not indicate a family that has brutalized the wimmenfolk into silence/submission as you imply. Josh was told on. And he was sent away.

    And since then there have been no additional reports (so far). So we have to gather that state sponsored intervention wasnt required in this situation. But for you it isnt about the fondling. Its about the duggar lifestyle.
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    They trained him to believe that women were subservient to him and that he was to be obeyed as a male. That it was up to girls to not be sexually molested or abused. That 'sins of the flesh' is the girl's or woman's fault for tempting the man.

    This is what they are taught.

    Josh is the older brother, in charge of his younger sisters, often made to parent them being the older sibling. When he told on himself, it was because he believed he sinned. Ergo, it was because he didn't want to go to hell. The parents, instead of addressing Josh's behaviour, automatically told the girls, and placed the onus on them to not be molested by making them responsible for not tempting their brother by telling them to lock the bedroom door at night, to not be alone with their brother(s), to not sit in his lap at story time, etc. This was their first reaction. It wasn't Josh's behaviour that was questioned, but that of the girls behaviour and actions.

    Their reaction was to protect Josh and prevent him from eternal damnation for sins of the flesh. Not to treat what was a clear problem. It was only when he went on to molest his very much younger sister as a 15 year old, that it became clear to them that he had a problem and he was immediately sent away to live with a family friend and do some building work. Had they sought treatment for him right from the start, Josh probably would not have molested the others. But they did nothing at first, and instead, placed the onus on the girls to not be molested. They punished him when he then went on to molest the babysitter. And then when he molested his 5 year old sister and then other girls "in that time frame", they then sent him away. He never learned that he was the problem. The girls were taught that it was up to them to prevent their molestation.
     
  14. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Deflection. A Judge said it didnt protect the identities of the minors involved. You provide tabloid yellow journalism to dispute the finding. And you do not dispute this was a minor.

    Yippie!! And any parent wondering if they should contact the authorities on this issue will walk away convinced its in the best interest of the family!

    This whole Fiasco is fodder for those looking for a reason to avoid telling anyone. Nice Job!

    And you're different?? LOL....

    Then Why Did He Stop?? Hes still a fucked up xian following these teachings. Hyperbole.

    You brought up the spelling in an attempt to marginalize me. Typical troll behavior.
    Except that not what you said.
    And I went back to your mountains of evidence ... it wasnt. Your mountains of evidence was on church teachings.

    The Duggars didnt know he was viewing child porn. You do, but still you invoke his words to attempt to make a point against the Duggars. And I quote:

    So I will repeat the QUESTION.

    Since when do YOU put much credibility in a convict? A guy behind bars who will say anything to show hes changed... LOLOLOL I can answer that. When its convenient for your extremism.

    That was a cop they knew and trusted via their car business dealing with him. I would refuse to let my kid talk to the cops (in general) too. For any investigation they were doing.

    Arkansas has exemptions on who can legally call themselves a counselor and not be licensed by the state.

    II. EXEMPTIONS
    Section 2.1
    CLERGY
    (a) Clergy appointed and/or endorsed by their local congregation/church, synagogue, denominational institution or agency to practice pastoral counseling as parts of their responsibilities or duties of their ministry assignments are exempt from licensure requirements. The assignment must be authorized and/or endorsed by their local congregation/church, synagogue, denominational institution or agency.

    http://abec.arkansas.gov/ContinuingEducation/Documents/RulesEffectiveNov7_2011.pdf
     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Reality. What I provided is the truth.

    Without embellishment and inventions.

    I'm sorry, is reality and the truth painful for you to swallow?

    You were crowing that he was a minor and I provided you with information that clearly points that 14 year olds can be tried as adults in some cases. For you to try to twist it to being about something else shows your dishonesty. Just as you were dishonest enough to try to make this about his sexuality earlier.

    If you are going to make extraordinary claims, milkweed, expect to see your ridiculous claims slapped down.

    There is no indication that Josh would have been treated as an adult. That would have required an investigation into his crimes. However, he was allowed to keep molesting children for over the course of a year. And you think this is a better option?

    Had he been reported, he would have received treatment immediately, which would have meant that the other girls he molested would probably have not been molested by him. And you think this is a worse option?

    Why is it that when people have nothing intelligent to say, they resort to "LOL"?

    Because he was sent away.

    Had he been treated right from the get go, his other victims would not have become his victims. His parents failed to intervene after his first offenses and the result is that he went on to molest more children, including a 5 year old girl.

    I brought it up to show you just how little you actually understand about this case and the context in which this abuse occurred. You can't even get their name correctly and even after you are corrected, you still keep doing it, which means it is deliberate and which means it is trolling by you.

    You really haven't been reading this thread from the start, have you? I provided links and explained all of this on page one and two of this thread.

    Had you read those links, you would have found what is recommended..

    He said they lied to him about how many children Josh had molested.

    So who do you believe?

    And I already answered this question.

    Your hypocrisy, however, about how they took him to a "family friend" and praising their actions in doing so, when said family friend was actually the police officer in question, is noted in your defending the protection of child molesters.

    A police officer who lied for them and possibly about them. We will never know if he is being truthful about being lied to.

    The police officer also broke the law in not reporting the abuse as he is legally required to do so.

    Clergy are mandated reporters in Arkansas. So are counselors, and the parents advised they took their daughters to professional accredited counselors.

    The parents then sent Josh to receive Christian-based counseling from a mentor in Little Rock, they said. Michelle also told Kelly that “all of our children received professional counseling, including Josh.” Jim Bob Duggar said the counseling came from “accredited professional counselor.”

    This was all covered in post #28, with links for explanations in case you can't grasp what we are discussing. And you are clearly having issues, if the "LOL's" are any indication.

    So your point would again be null and void.
     
  16. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Its not me being dishonest. It was totally about Josh's emerging sexuality. This whole episode in SciForums has been wrought with people who have an obvious and unrelenting bias against fundy xian beliefs and justify any slanders made with "its all about the children". And its not. Its political and religious intolerance without a care in the world about the impact this has on 18 other people (parents and Josh excluded) to present ill-founded arguments about Justice and the Law. The Duggar's are people who's religion and politics (that I dont agree with) going through a hard process, taking steps that align perfectly well with the standard steps most families take (in regards to discovery of touching behaviors); apparently resulting in the desired outcome (behavior changed) and avoiding a criminal record.

    It is, quite simply a witchhunt.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manda...r_families_as_a_result_of_mandatory_reporting

    They [clergy] were not mandatory reporters in 2006. Hard to say what the mandatory reporting requirements were in 2003 in Arkansas. Fair chance of it being less encompassing. So while you bloviate about 'the law' it appears your not as familiar with it as you think.

    arkansas
    Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-518(b)(1) (LexisNexis through 2006 Reg. Sess.)
    No privilege shall prevent anyone, except between a lawyer and client or between a
    minister, including a ChristianScience practitioner, and any person confessing to or being counseled by the minister, from testifying concerning child maltreatment.

    Clergy can call themselves counselors in Ark. The Duggarts do not name the counselor(s).

    http://centerforchildwelfare.fmhi.usf.edu/kb/cultcomp/clergy mandated reporters.pdf
     
  17. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
  18. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
    1. Person 1 asserts proposition X. They [clergy] were not mandatory reporters in 2006. Hard to say what the mandatory reporting requirements were in 2003 in Arkansas.
    2. Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if that were an argument against X. The pope sets up a tribunal in Italy investigating Bishop negligence
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Are you suggesting that his "emerging" heterosexuality is what made him molest?

    Can you please support this with some sort of evidence? Because this isn't the first time you have commented on his sexuality. What, exactly, does that have to do with anything?

    You can't even bring yourself to write out the term "Christian", you can't get their name correctly.

    Not to mention this isn't the first thread in which you have defended the actions of a child molester. Hence your whining about "this whole episode in Sciforums" routine. Your complaint here is that child molesters are being called out for what they are.

    Yes, poor parents who hid and protected their child molester son and then went on to falsely label other people as child molesters for being LGBT.

    Are you suggesting that protecting and hiding child molesters is legal? Because I can assure you, it is not.

    Any family who harbors and protects a child molester who is actively molesting children is endangering children and breaking the law. Hence why if the Statute of Limitations had not been in place, the parents could have found themselves going to jail for lying to law enforcement and hindering an investigation into the molestation of children, including their own children.

    But it is telling that you once again speak out for child molesters and demonise their victims.

    Had Josh's sisters or the babysitter he molested reported him to the police for his crimes, or had the "accredited counselors" reported him, then we would not be having this discussion and you would likely be crying and whining that yet another child molester had been caught.

    I take it you didn't read it?

    This is about removing victims of child abuse from the home.

    They were mandated reporters in at least 2003. And since this was not a confidential confession from Josh, any exemptions do not apply.


    Not the same. Josh did not go and confess to his priest. And such privilege only exists for "pastoral communications". Had you read what you linked, this would have been clear.

    And once again, the parents advised that they sent their children to "accredited" counselors. Accredited counselors are those who are professional counselor who are licensed. The parents advised they sent their children to an "accredited professional counselor". Do you understand what the word "accredited" means in the context of this discussion? If not, please say so and we can explain it to you.

    Secondly, you need to read the link. Now, I don't know if you just tried to misrepresent that on purpose, or just based on your own stupidity and lack of reading and comprehension:

    The next paragraph in your link states this:

    Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-507(b)(1) & (4)(cc), (c) (LexisNexis through 2007 Ark. ALS Ch. 586 & 703)

    When any individual listed below has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been subjected to child maltreatment or has died as result of child maltreatment or observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances that would reasonably result in child maltreatment, he or she shall immediately notify the child abuse hotline by telephone call, facsimile transmission, or online reporting.

    The following individuals are mandated reporters: Any clergyman, which includes a minister, priest, rabbi, accredited Christian Science practitioner, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed to be so by the person consulting him or her, except to the extent he or she:

    • Has acquired knowledge of suspected maltreatment through communications required to be kept confidential pursuant to the religious discipline of the relevant denomination or faith
    • Received the knowledge of the suspected maltreatment from the offender in the context of a statement of admission No privilege or contract shall prevent anyone from reporting child maltreatment when he or she is a mandated reporter as required by this section.

    So, the question is.. Are you dishonest? Or just of diminished mental capacity? They didn't find out about it in the context of their employ, nor were they required to keep it confidential for religious discipline, nor did Josh confess to them, which might have provided them with some protection about the abuse. I say might, because they are mandated reporters. Secondly, others at the Church knew - the family advised that a note was written about it by someone in their Church community, so it was clearly not kept confidential within that community.

    And oh yeah, they were in place in 2003 at the very least.

    Any other excuses you wish to make? Because thus far, you are failing to provide any legal evidence or support that would allow a child molester to remain in the house and keep molesting.
     
  20. tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    343
    So are people now disputing that Josh Duggar, at 14, was not considered a child? I remember some time back when liberals kept referring to Trayvon Martin, a 5ft 11in 17 year old who bashed a grown man, as a 'child'. Yet said liberals are now chomping at the bit to treat a 14 year old as an adult in our justice system. It's interesting how what liberals consider a 'child' is so nebulous, and changes according to their race and religion. Or maybe if Josh had been carrying Skittles when he committed his alleged crimes, he'd be getting more sympathy from the left.
     
  21. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Nope. I said exactly this:
    You dont think Josh's sexual development was a bit delayed by his lack of social contact and rigid family structure?
    and I said:
    Shaped and Delayed. Fine.
    and I said something like:
    I dont agree that this incident encompasses molestation. At the worst it can be described as light petting. Very light.

    And we hold back school kids who are just not at the same level as the other kids in their age group; its not about intelligence, they are just not developmentally on par with their peers. And most of the time they can keep up being placed in a younger age group. Once in a while they gotta be kept back a 2nd time.

    And that works with behavior too. Josh was held back by his parents. He caught up fast though.

    more grammar/spelling fanaticism?

    I use xmas alot too. Its like using afaik or brb.

    But you knew that... ad hominem. Strawman. Quite average behavior even.

    Probably have. Sometimes I dont agree with whats being defined as a 'crime'. Sometimes I think a juries verdict is wrong too. Sometimes I think cops lie. And I know lawyers lie.

    UPDATE: Amy Webb, spokesperson for the Arkansas Department of Human Services, tells Radar that “parents who home school children in Arkansas are not mandated reporters.”

    oh, I read it alright.

    Consequences/effects of investigations on children and their families as a result of mandatory reporting

    A child may be wrongfully removed. Long, repeated interrogations and physical examinations can leave emotional scars. Even if not removed, there may be ongoing fear, distrust and insecurity. Long term foster care can leave lasting psychological scars and do irreparable damage to the parent/child bond. An accusation of wrongdoing may disrupt a family even if allegations are dismissed.[47] Often threats and an assumption of guilt over innocence lead to feelings of powerlessness, inadequacy, depression, denial of due process and liberties, reputations tarnished and privacy invaded. Consequences can be: long term court supervision, treatment programs, termination of parental rights and incarceration.[46]

    There may be economic harm due to the need to obtain legal representation to defend one’s self and comply with the requirements demanded of them. Often names are listed on CPS Central Registries/databases (different from Sex Abuse Registries) for decades, used for employment and licensing background checks. Frequently an accusation triggers placement of a person’s name on the registry without being charged or convicted of a crime, resulting in a registry with “false-positives” entangled with wrongdoers. There is approximately a 5% recidivism rate.

    I seriously dont trust your opinion on what is required to be confidential by the various denominations in Arkansas.

    Accredited By Who?

    Without that knowledge you cannot make the absurd claim of professional counselor who are licensed. You assume its by the state of arkansas. Their 'accredited' counselor can be accredited by the church of the sub-genius in this context. Seen it all the time as people tried to become licensed in MN and found out their college wasnt accredited by the right org. That piece of paper didnt mean shit for them. But the college they chose didnt lie about it being an 'accredited' degree. And arkansas has EXEMPTIONS for licensure; meaning religions dont need a license to partake in some types of counseling (marriage and family therapy being one).

    We had this fun one in MN:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20110203035125/http://www.bachmanncounseling.com/drbachmann/

    I took the time to look up his employees licensure at the time this was 'big news' (for the few MN online license check at that time). Bachmann was the only one Not Licensed in MN in the areas his degrees may have qualified for. But then, he didnt advertise himself as a licensed anything.


    Yeah? So? whats your point. Are you accusing these unnamed and unknown people of being mandatory reporters too?
     
  22. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Most of the abuse in the Catholic church was homosexual in nature; male on male sex is defined as homosexual not heterosexual. But it is never classified that way. The reality classification means by defending these Priests, the Church was defending gay behavior, way before it was popular. They never get credit for this. Rather, liberal propaganda claims church homophobia which is not based on their actions. It would be good to revisit this, but in the light of technical reality, to show how liberals have no sense. Church goers may had a bad experience with the homosexual priests hurting their kids from which a backlash resulted.

    Liberalism promotes transgender, where if one thinks they are another sex, even though the reality of their biological body does not agree, their mind gets to decide. If the criteria is the mind decides, why not excuse child molestation in terms of trans-age behavior, where a minor thinks there are trapped in an adult body. If this trapped child in the adult body is young enough, then this is minor on minor (I am extrapolating liberal doctrine, not condoning it, to show how absurd this will get, if you assume mind over matter and allows this for any and all).

    How is that different from a male thinking he is female or female she is a male? The older people often dress and try to behave like they are kids again, so why not trans-age? The newest, is claiming one is black or any color, trapped in another skin color body. If we accept that, this means we can no longer have quotas, since this will discriminate agains all known and unknown trans-people, who may look lie they should be the victims of the quota, but whose mind allows them to qualify for its benefits.

    If a child thinks they are an old man or old lady in a child's body, do they qualify for social security and medicare? Say a minor thinks they are older than 21; but the body, says 13. This they have legal adult status? Say you think you are really a dog or cat in a human body, can you pee in public on any fire hydrant? Liberal standards condone anything, with relative morality, yet they always complain as though they have the high moral ground.
     
  23. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    simple problem - someone who is transgender doesn't harm anyone else by being Trans - what you are suggesting does have a direct and apparent victim.
     

Share This Page