Huckabee defends Duggars over Teenage Molestation Accusations

[Revoltingest]

Agreed. There are clear differences in this and a discussion of that would be of interest revolting. Perhaps you start a new thread addressing this?

I was actually thinking of a public discussion, rather than RF.
But you have a good idea there.
I'll have to give it some thought because I feel too ignorant of the topic to even pose good questions right now.

 

[Curious George]

Agreed. There are clear differences in this and a discussion of that would be of interest revolting. Perhaps you start a new thread addressing this?

In case you are wondering age appropriate (not necessarily appropriate) behavior includes sexual exploration that is spontaneous, mutually engaged, and occurs between children not more than one year difference (cognitively). Any instance of force, planning, or larger age difference is a huge red flag. However, depending upon the state I believe that sexual assault also has intent attached. That the dugger boy acted to gratify sexual curiosity , is a sign of a sexual predator while the other (Dunham, I believe) is not. However, teen sexuality is different than child sexuality so one could argue that Dunham had sexual intent as well and therefore marks her as a predator as well. However, Dunham was a one time occasion whereas duggger from what I have read here on rf (haven't actually followed the case) demonstrated signs of an inability to restrain himself, and habitually offending.

Even if we get to sexual predator though, we cannot get to lifetime child molester in either case. Likely both acted on weaker people because they were there and available, not necessarily because they were children and some affinity for children. The question is ought we brand them without fully knowing the details? and how should they be branded? What does creating the ability to do so entail for the rest of society?

 

[Revoltingest]

In case you are wondering age appropriate (not necessarily appropriate) behavior includes sexual exploration that is spontaneous, mutually engaged, and occurs between children not more than one year difference (cognitively). Any instance of force, planning, or larger age difference is a huge red flag. However, depending upon the state I believe that sexual assault also has intent attached. That the dugger boy acted to gratify sexual curiosity , is a sign of a sexual predator while the other (Dunham, I believe) is not. However, teen sexuality is different than child sexuality so one could argue that Dunham had sexual intent as well and therefore marks her as a predator as well. However, Dunham was a one time occasion whereas duggger from what I have read here on rf (haven't actually followed the case) demonstrated signs of an inability to restrain himself, and habitually offending.

Even if we get to sexual predator though, we cannot get to lifetime child molester in either case. Likely both acted on weaker people because they were there and available, not necessarily because they were children and some affinity for children. The question is ought we brand them without fully knowing the details? and how should they be branded? What does creating the ability to do so entail for the rest of society?

I haven't read her book, but accounts of it claim more than one occasion of dubious behavior.
While frequency & circumstances differ between Duggar & Dunham, there is enuf similarity to belong in the same discussion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because we believe in fairness.

What is fair about a time limit? A sexual assault, for many reasons, are not easy to report. And for the sake of those who haven't been attacked, there shouldn't be a limit.

 

[Revoltingest]

What is fair about a time limit? A sexual assault, for many reasons, are not easy to report. And for the sake of those who haven't been attacked, there shouldn't be a limit.

A problem is that the longer the wait, the less ability there is to mount both a defense & a prosecution.
Typically, government imposes a statute of limitations because it balances fairness issues.
(Of course, they make an exception for the IRS....prosecution of tax fraud has no time limits.
Taxpayers aren't entitled to fairness.)

Ever been sued in a dispute from over 10 years prior?
I have.
By then, I've tossed hard copies of checks, & banks have deleted even their electronic records.
Witnesses die, information evaporates, & memories are corrupted over time.
Judges should toss cases which should've been promptly addressed, but they're inconsistent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ever been sued in a dispute from over 10 years prior?
I have.
By then, I've tossed hard copies of checks, & banks have deleted even their electronic records.

Yes, I have.
I did have the receipts, and in combination with the bank saying they received a payment in the amount of "unknown" those years ago, the case was dismissed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I have.
I did have the receipts, and in combination with the bank saying they received a payment in the amount of "unknown" those years ago, the case was dismissed.

I thought you were twentysomething.
Were you sued over something that happened when you were 12?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I thought you were twentysomething.
Were you sued over something that happened when you were 12?

I'm 28, almost 29.
I had a credit card back then that I used for money when I was laid off from work, went into collections, paid it off, and years later I was served papers.
I typed up my response, drawing attention how they had in the papers they received a payment in the amount of unknown all those years ago, and based on that questioning how they could even establish an amount that I owe them to begin with. And then attached a copy of the bank statement showing on that date they received their "unknown" amount, they did receive a payment.

 

[Nietzsche]

I ran across it in the news. (I can't take TV news either....too slow & inefficient.)
What's interesting is disparate coverage of her.
TruthRevolt has an expose', while Huff Po offers her defense.
A big difference is where the perps lie in the political spectrum, & how the media spin the controversy.
Lena Dunham Describes Sexually Abusing Her Little Sister | Truth Revolt
Lena Dunham Slams 'Disgusting' Allegations She Molested Her Little Sister (UPDATE)

Significant differences regarding the age there, though. While it certainly reads pretty damn creepily, it's still not outside the purview of what basically amounts to children playing doctor with each other. Also note that there was no attempt to hide, obstruct or cloud what happened. Both her & her sister thought nothing of it. Josh(and his disgusting f*cking mother & father) however did and are doing everything in their power to keep it quiet or make it go away. He knew it was wrong. His parents knew it was wrong. Josh was far, far older.

He has not paid for his abuse. Nor have his parents. They should. I would go so far as to argue that his parents might actually be most to blame. There is an unsettling vibe given off by the Duggars and their beliefs that seems to relegate women to little more than objects for men & incubators for more spawn.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Significant differences regarding the age there, though. While it certainly reads pretty damn creepily, it's still not outside the purview of what basically amounts to children playing doctor with each other. Also note that there was no attempt to hide, obstruct or cloud what happened. Both her & her sister thought nothing of it. Josh(and his disgusting f*cking mother & father) however did and are doing everything in their power to keep it quiet or make it go away. He knew it was wrong. His parents knew it was wrong. Josh was far, far older.

He has not paid for his abuse. Nor have his parents. They should. I would go so far as to argue that his parents might actually be most to blame. There is an unsettling vibe given off by the Duggars and their beliefs that seems to relegate women to little more than objects for men & incubators for more spawn.

I had check that story out after reading that.
Apparently someone doesn't know that children are very curious about their bodies, and also have curiosities about their own bodies look compared to others.
And revolt truth, their own quote from the book, doesn't even suggest anything sexual or beyond was is normal for a child. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see how far they went to twist that passage.

 

[Curious George]

What is fair about a time limit? A sexual assault, for many reasons, are not easy to report. And for the sake of those who haven't been attacked, there shouldn't be a limit.

Trial is about the defendant not the victim. We have limitations because it is decidedly unfair not to have such. Defenses and evidence that can exonerate one can dissolve. It is in the rights of the defendant to receive due process which includes timely prosecution.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm 28, almost 29.
I had a credit card back then that I used for money when I was laid off from work, went into collections, paid it off, and years later I was served papers.
I typed up my response, drawing attention how they had in the papers they received a payment in the amount of unknown all those years ago, and based on that questioning how they could even establish an amount that I owe them to begin with. And then attached a copy of the bank statement showing on that date they received their "unknown" amount, they did receive a payment.

Congrats on the win, old timer!

 

[Revoltingest]

Significant differences regarding the age there, though. While it certainly reads pretty damn creepily, it's still not outside the purview of what basically amounts to children playing doctor with each other. Also note that there was no attempt to hide, obstruct or cloud what happened. Both her & her sister thought nothing of it. Josh(and his disgusting f*cking mother & father) however did and are doing everything in their power to keep it quiet or make it go away. He knew it was wrong. His parents knew it was wrong. Josh was far, far older.

He has not paid for his abuse. Nor have his parents. They should. I would go so far as to argue that his parents might actually be most to blame. There is an unsettling vibe given off by the Duggars and their beliefs that seems to relegate women to little more than objects for men & incubators for more spawn.

For Dunham & her sister to not think it was wrong does suggest lesser impropriety, but it doesn't eliminate it.
(I'm referring to multiple acts, not just the pebbles incident.)
Nor do the the Duggar family's greater offenses excuse her behavior.

 

[Nietzsche]

For Dunham & her sister to not think it was wrong does suggest lesser impropriety, but it doesn't eliminate it.
(I'm referring to multiple acts, not just the pebbles incident.)
Nor do the the Duggar family's greater offenses excuse her behavior.

I'm not saying what she did was somehow made OK by the Duggars. Merely that there's significant difference between the two, and that the circumstances with the Dunham one are far, fa far more benign(or at least given what we know of both circumstances between the two). Something could come out that makes Dunham's example just as terrible as the Duggar one, but let's compare them directly;

Duggars;

Josh was 14 to 15 years old. That is plenty old enough to know you should not f*cking do that. He did it while they were asleep, to hide. 4 of them(out of 5, FIVE of them)were also his sisters, meaning he abused their trust in him as their big-brother. One of them(his sister's) was too young to even know it was wrong, a further abuse of his position. His mother & father then took steps to cover it up as thoroughly as possible, including somehow convincing his sisters to "forgive" him, because his mother and father are quite clearly worse monsters than Josh could ever think of being. All three of them should be in prison and their children taken from them, period.

Dunham;

Lena was 7(or perhaps a bit younger) and her contact was with her sister. No efforts were made to obfuscate this. We also have nothing that suggest it continued into an age where such actions by Lena would be considered grossly inappropriate or otherwise significantly troubling.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Lena was 7(or perhaps a bit younger) and her contact was with her sister. No efforts were made to obfuscate this. We also have nothing that suggest it continued into an age where such actions by Lena would be considered grossly inappropriate or otherwise significantly troubling.

What we do have is an account of a girl who was curious about her sister's body, and she took a peek. There was nothing sexual about it. The Revolttruth website took quite the twisting leap, even with the passage the showed "proving" the "sick and twisted" "sexual abuse."

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not saying what she did was somehow made OK by the Duggars. Merely that there's significant difference between the two, and that the circumstances with the Dunham one are far, fa far more benign(or at least given what we know of both circumstances between the two). Something could come out that makes Dunham's example just as terrible as the Duggar one, but let's compare them directly;

Duggars;

Josh was 14 to 15 years old. That is plenty old enough to know you should not f*cking do that. He did it while they were asleep, to hide. 4 of them(out of 5, FIVE of them)were also his sisters, meaning he abused their trust in him as their big-brother. One of them(his sister's) was too young to even know it was wrong, a further abuse of his position. His mother & father then took steps to cover it up as thoroughly as possible, including somehow convincing his sisters to "forgive" him, because his mother and father are quite clearly worse monsters than Josh could ever think of being. All three of them should be in prison and their children taken from them, period.

Dunham;

Lena was 7(or perhaps a bit younger) and her contact was with her sister. No efforts were made to obfuscate this. We also have nothing that suggest it continued into an age where such actions by Lena would be considered grossly inappropriate or otherwise significantly troubling.

We agree that there are differences.

 

[gsa]

We agree that there are differences.

And I don't think I ever heard of the Dunham story until the conservative media outlets started parading it out to show a supposed double standard. Which means I don't think that she appeared on MSNBC to defend her actions, or that her parents sent her to some phony rehab/construction job to cleanse the demons from her, or that they further attempted to hide it all from a later department of human services inquiry.

Sorry, sometimes there are double standards, but this is not one of those times.

 

[Revoltingest]

And I don't think I ever heard of the Dunham story until the conservative media outlets started parading it out to show a supposed double standard. Which means I don't think that she appeared on MSNBC to defend her actions, or that her parents sent her to some phony rehab/construction job to cleanse the demons from her, or that they further attempted to hide it all from a later department of human services inquiry.
Sorry, sometimes there are double standards, but this is not one of those times.

Au contraire....response here to Dunham has only heightened the double standard (IMO).
Note that the Duggar controversy only arose here because of the Huckabee connection,
& even then his support for the family was spun as defense. While there is no justification
for what the Duggars did, politics is a motivating factor in both cases.
I'm glad I've no dog in this fight.....Huckabee, Duggars, Dunham...all very icky people.
I don't watch or vote for any of'm.

 

[Nietzsche]

And I don't think I ever heard of the Dunham story until the conservative media outlets started parading it out to show a supposed double standard. Which means I don't think that she appeared on MSNBC to defend her actions, or that her parents sent her to some phony rehab/construction job to cleanse the demons from her, or that they further attempted to hide it all from a later department of human services inquiry.

Sorry, sometimes there are double standards, but this is not one of those times.

I'd actually heard of the Dunham story before this. It was a while back. Before the Duggar thing hit the news anyway. I would argue that Dunham's thing should be looked into, if only because it's still an admission of what is, in the most technical sense of the term, sexual abuse. However, the two cases are not comparable. The Dunham one is, at the absolute worst, a misguided bit of play-time that probably should've just been left to memory, rather than writing about it. However the Duggar case, the best possible scenario is sexual misconduct. And it's more likely flat-out molestation with a side of being a sexual predator.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would argue that Dunham's thing should be looked into, if only because it's still an admission of what is, in the most technical sense of the term, sexual abuse.

How? Kids are naturally curious, and according to her account she was just a curious kid, as you mentioned, basically "playing doctor." Kids do those things, they think nothing of it, to them there is literally nothing sexual going on, and when it happens, oh well. Children are curious devils, and they are especially curious about their body and the bodies of others, why they look different, what is different, what is the same, and that sort of thing isn't exactly something that a billion-endless "whys" can't satisfy.
When kids do that, it is innocent curiosity - it's actually usually parents who make it into a scene, in a similar way as to how they make a big deal out of seeing their small child touching their genitals, even though to the child it is nothing more than exploration and a feel good touch.
What Josh done was abuse. What his parents done should be grounds for them to be deemed unfit parents.