posted
...that I hadn't heard of the creator of an HBO series I didn't watch but did hear about a family with 19 kids who were the stars of their own reality show? Not really, no. One is one of many (creators of HBO shows I haven't watched); the other is a family that numbers near two dozen in two generations with a reality show.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, just a little fact finding seems to be suggesting that Lena was 7 and her sister was 1 when the events in question happened.
Given that you are likening the situation with the Duggars to a 7 year old doing...I'm not even sure what to call it, is it actually molestation that young? 7? Serious question...makes me wonder if your primary sourcing for this comparison was a, you guessed it, report by a Breitbart editor on a website whose first popup ad is a bit of pap propaganda about Obama?
But in any event, at this point Boris? As I have said, I hadn't heard of her, so your continued carping on 'what about her?!' falls utterly flat. But even if it didn't...so she is a feminist activist (I admit I would be curious as to what standards you would choose for that label).
Alright? I'm unfamiliar with any rhetoric of hers that claims a pipeline to God's will for herself and the rest of her fellow hairless apes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Never heard of Lena until now, but yes, I think there's a fairly large difference between a 7 year old and a 15 year old inappropriately touching someone.
I'm trying to avoid going into detail here (as Lena's story is easily Googled and it's a rather disturbing subject), but Lena *didn't* admit to molesting her sister. She mentioned a singular incident where she did something out of curiosity and then told her mom about it. Presumably she didn't know any better, and she wasn't doing any of the "things" you would associate with molestation.
Or to share another story a friend shared with me several years ago, she was in the living room of he house and heard her vacuum cleaner running, and then shortly after that a lot of giggling. She went upstairs and found her 6 and 4 year old sons taking turns putting the hose on their penises. They apparently thought it was hilarious. She disciplined them both and had several stern talks with them about why private parts are private, but I have a hard time believing anyone would suspect it was sexual or predatory in nature. For her it was a funny story she's probably threaten to embarrass them with when they're teenagers.
There's a huge divide between those type of instances and what Josh Duggar did, and trying to conflate them like this (as some media outlets are) is pretty reprehensible.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, no, Dogbreath. You don't actually have a problem with child molestation-it's just that you dislike conservatives, right?
When I 'ask' you that, also just take it as read that I'm also criticizing you for unfair and insulting statements, just to really round out the hypocrisy and self pity in my 'question'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't even LIKE Lena Dunham. I don't like how Roman Polanski got away with raping a child. I'm pretty sure Woody Allen did molest his daughter and get away with it. And don't get me started on Sean Penn and Madonna.
But,the problem is the quiverfull system equals child abuse and abuse of women. Just look at books by the Pearls and Ezzos. They're just how to abuse a child instruction books. And the Pearls have a how to be an abused wife book. And Gothard, he's all about grooming young girls for abuse too!
They should not get away with this. Religion or fame shouldn't be a pass to create these abusive systems. It's even WORSE when they're religions and throw their stones at gay and trans people with all of this stuff going on? I'd like accountability regardless of whether or not someone is religious or famous, please?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: No, no, Dogbreath. You don't actually have a problem with child molestation-it's just that you dislike conservatives, right?
When I 'ask' you that, also just take it as read that I'm also criticizing you for unfair and insulting statements, just to really round out the hypocrisy and self pity in my 'question'.
Gosh, and we wonder why I keep abandoning threads I get involved in. Also, you should read more into it...Because her book states pretty openly that the abuse continued until she was well into her teens.
quote: that I hadn't heard of the creator of an HBO series I didn't watch but did hear about a family with 19 kids who were the stars of their own reality show?
Hey, guess what. I hadn't heard about the duggars until my wife started asking me to watch the show with her. And I hadn't heard of Lena Dunham until the stuff surrounding her came up. So that's not much of an excuse.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it was because you were so busy, Boris.
Have you read her book? I have not, and I'm curious as to what your sources are for what's in her book.
As for it not being a good excuse...so basically you yourself followed almost the same path as I did: you heard about the Duggars because of their reality show, before you heard of Lena Dunham. The only difference is that I went on not hearing of Lena Dunham, until now. So...yes, it's a good 'excuse'?
Also this is by now the second or third time you've ignored my point about how, even if we accept all other things being equal, there is a different between someone claiming divine guidance for their own and (most importantly, other people's) lives, and a secular supposed feminist activist (which I question because frankly I think it's much more likely you're getting that information second hand as well).
Put simply? The Duggars claim divine insight into the proper family and sexual behavior for themselves and for other human beings. Lena Dunham does not. So no matter how uncomfortable it makes you to see conservative figures hoisted on their own petard, given the same offenses, the perpetrator who is also a hypocrite on that same matter is worse.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I thought it was because you were so busy, Boris.
Have you read her book? I have not, and I'm curious as to what your sources are for what's in her book.
As for it not being a good excuse...so basically you yourself followed almost the same path as I did: you heard about the Duggars because of their reality show, before you heard of Lena Dunham. The only difference is that I went on not hearing of Lena Dunham, until now. So...yes, it's a good 'excuse'?
Also this is by now the second or third time you've ignored my point about how, even if we accept all other things being equal, there is a different between someone claiming divine guidance for their own and (most importantly, other people's) lives, and a secular supposed feminist activist (which I question because frankly I think it's much more likely you're getting that information second hand as well).
Put simply? The Duggars claim divine insight into the proper family and sexual behavior for themselves and for other human beings. Lena Dunham does not. So no matter how uncomfortable it makes you to see conservative figures hoisted on their own petard, given the same offenses, the perpetrator who is also a hypocrite on that same matter is worse.
Okay...I'll try to address this whole thing in a calm and non offensive manner so you can understand what I'm getting at.
1. I've been married for 2 months. I was introduced to the Duggars exactly 4 months ago. I hate reality shows. My wife loves them. I love sci-fi and spy shows. My wife hates them. I'm willing to suffer through a few hours of reality TV in order to spend time with my wife.
I was introduced to Lena Dunham when the scandal about her and her sister came to light. That was well over a year ago. So we didn't follow the same path at all.
2. Direct quotes from the relevant portion of Lena's book are pretty easily available if you look. Though, they're probably not available on places you find acceptable. Those silly right wing blogs and such. They do tend to...uhh...I guess totally fabricate direct quotes from easily obtainable media? If you want to go to the book store and go to page 158 to view the first excerpt, you're welcome to. http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/lena-dunham-threatens-sue-truth-revolt-quoting-her has some more quotes. I realize you probably think that's not an authoritative source, but you're welcome to do some actual primary source research on your own to verify the validity of their quote.
Note that she admits to a full decade of sexual coercion and abuse of someone 6 years her junior. Sexual activity between minors is considered harmful and abusive if there is greater than *3* years of difference between ages.
3. As to your argument that there's a difference between someone claiming divine influence for their beliefs and someone claiming secular influence. To claim that there is a difference is logical fallacy. The source of a belief or idea has no bearing on its validity, value, or usefulness.
Furthermore, there is no moral difference between the Duggars advocating their beliefs on sexuality and having a son who sexually abused his sisters and Dunham being an advocate for female victims of sexual abuse while having a long (and documented) history of sexually abusing her sister.
4. I need no more evidence to support my assertion that you don't actually care about the abuse than the fact that you have been *defending* Lena Dunham's continued entertainment career while condemning the Duggars. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse (I've heard that a lot on this forum...Does it not apply in this situation?) The only serious difference between Josh Duggar and Lena Dunham is their beliefs and their gender. Those are *not* logically valid reasons to treat them differently.
You are arguing that it *is* a valid reason to do so, thus improving my case that the real reason you guys care about this is its proximity to a set of ideals you find objectionable. Not the fact that a bunch of girls were abused by their brother.
As for the criticism of Mr and Mrs Duggar, why do you all seem to be ignoring the fact that two parents had to make a pretty difficult choice about how to approach a situation that has no good solutions? The fact that they actually reported it to the police is almost revolutionary in light of the fact that the majority of sibling sexual abuse goes completely unreported. Heck...Lena Dunham's parents knew what was going on and did absolutely nothing to stop it, let alone report it to the police.
I mean, seriously, why is this a conversation about how objectionable the Duggar's beliefs are to you all and how they are totally and absolutely responsible for this (without any actual evidence beyond anecdote to support yourselfs) and not "What can we do to prevent this type of abuse?" Because I can guarantee that there aren't many sex ed programs that discuss sexual abuse between siblings.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay...I'll try to address this whole thing in a calm and non offensive manner so you can understand what I'm getting at.
I appreciate that. Your initial /relurk rubbed me the wrong way, and I overreacted. Apologies.
quote:I was introduced to Lena Dunham when the scandal about her and her sister came to light. That was well over a year ago. So we didn't follow the same path at all.
Well, in my defense your initial timeline wasn't clear. Anyway, your initial point was, "Why aren't you complaining about Lena Dunham too? That's a sign of the double standard!" Which was and is a silly point: I hadn't heard of her because I haven't heard of a *lot* of creators of television shows I don't watch, nor do I remember all of the Hollywood figures involved in some sort of sex scandal story from over a year ago. The Duggars I remembered because they're frigging unusual! I mean statistically speaking. A family of 21 people? With their own reality show? A religious conservative family of 21 with their own reality television show? It's unusual?
Answer me seriously: which sticks in the brain more, Boris?
As for your site, it's interesting you're talking about total fabrications and a Breitbart editor. Such as when their response to her lawyers' request to take down the story was phrased in such a way to suggest that a 28 year old Dunham molested her infant sister. They're sleazy hacks (Sherrod), but that's a different discussion.
quote:Note that she admits to a full decade of sexual coercion and abuse of someone 6 years her junior. Sexual activity between minors is considered harmful and abusive if there is greater than *3* years of difference between ages.
Well, this is a flat out lie, unless you grant that when it started, the *seven* year old was a sexual abuser.
quote:3. As to your argument that there's a difference between someone claiming divine influence for their beliefs and someone claiming secular influence. To claim that there is a difference is logical fallacy. The source of a belief or idea has no bearing on its validity, value, or usefulness.
Furthermore, there is no moral difference between the Duggars advocating their beliefs on sexuality and having a son who sexually abused his sisters and Dunham being an advocate for female victims of sexual abuse while having a long (and documented) history of sexually abusing her sister.
There's a huge difference. One person claims divine authority for their arguments, and the other doesn't. Or are you actually arguing that morality does not come from God? In that case I wholeheartedly agree, though it is a surprise to hear.
quote:4. I need no more evidence to support my assertion that you don't actually care about the abuse than the fact that you have been *defending* Lena Dunham's continued entertainment career while condemning the Duggars. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse (I've heard that a lot on this forum...Does it not apply in this situation?) The only serious difference between Josh Duggar and Lena Dunham is their beliefs and their gender. Those are *not* logically valid reasons to treat them differently.
Where have I defended Lena Dunham's 'continued entertainment career'? I have said multiple times now she is basically a non-entity to me. I also reject your characterization of what went on their. I simply do not grant your premise that a 7 year old touching a 1 year old's genitals is the same thing as what happened with the Duggars. If you wish to support that premise-with something other than tabloid hack job references-I welcome that discussion.
As for the suggestion that a *bunch of girls* (notice the difference there as well? Quantity?) is immaterial, you can simply go to hell on that, Boris. And seriously, the next time you whine about how unfairly and rudely you're treated here, please do remember this instance in which you've repeatedly stated not just suggested that I am indifferent to multiple children being sexually molested.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to your final question, well by all means! Let us have truly comprehensive sex-ed in schools. Frankly the first year of middle school would be fine with me, really, if not even the last year of elementary school.
Gosh, I wonder who it is who prevents that sort of thing from happening in the United States, Boris?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am astonished at the number of my conservative friends that assume I knew who Lena Dunham is. And I am disappointed at the number who, instead of engaging in a discussion about the possible causes of systemic sexual abuse fell back on the, "Look, we found this obscure liberal who did it, too!", conversation ender.
Some differences: Josh Duggar was fourteen. Lena Dunham was seven. (When people claim that the abuse continued, they are talking about bribes for kisses and masturbating while her sister was asleep in the same bed.) Most of the child psychologists interviewed on this have described this as normal exploration rather than sexual abuse.
Still. I am certain that there are liberal abusers out there. The big differences are that, generally, they are not making their fame and fortune by holding themselves up as a moral example and they have not enshrined a moral system that breeds and facilitates sexual abuse. The police officer and family friend that they brought in to "counsel" Josh Duggar is himself serving time for being a pedophile. When they say they reported it to the police, this is what they are talking about. The police officer and family friend did not follow up on the report so there was no action taken at the time, but it still started the clock on the statute of limitations which means that Josh Duggar is not going to face legal consequences. Bill Gothard, the evangelical who is responsible for a good deal of the Duggar's theology is under investigation for sexual abuse and harassment.*
When you draw the line between what is acceptable sexual contact and what is not acceptable sexual contact at "not even kissing before marriage", when all of it - even thinking about sex - is "sin", then there is no difference between kissing your girlfriend and fondling your baby sister. Except that one is easier to keep secret. This was (is) a big factor in the Catholic Church sex abuse crisis as well. Normal sexual and even romantic urges are all forbidden and shameful so end up being expressed in a way that is predatory so it stays hidden.
What makes it even easier to hide and more damaging to the victim is the notion of sexual purity and shame. At the same time that Josh Duggar was abusing his sisters, his parents were likening girls who weren't pure to cups full of spit. Their value lay in their "purity"; how much harder to tell their parents that they have lost that? They are taught to be "modest" to keep from tempting men; how much more likely are they to feel that they are to blame for their brother's sin?
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Gosh, and we wonder why I keep abandoning threads I get involved in.
serious advice: lurk or don't. Pick one. Don't be schroedinger's doofball in threads over and over again, in a superposition of jumping out and making a controversial statement in a controversial tone then nailing yourself on a cross over people matching your tone and your pathological disdain
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Gosh, I wonder who it is who prevents that sort of thing from happening in the United States, Boris?
The answer is conservative republican christians, in case anyone was wondering. Conservative christianity furthers rape culture and it is not an ambiguous point and it is worth dissecting and calling it out exactly for what it is.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "instead of engaging in a discussion about the possible causes of systemic sexual abuse fell back on the,"
This is probably because you are so certain of the truth and validity of the rest of what you posted there, which is basically unsupported by anything objective. It's pure conjecture that you are purporting as fact.
As for the continued abuse, this support organization run by Tori Amos, who happens to share the exact same view as Ms. Dunham, just happens to completely freaking disagree with all the interviewed child psychologists.
And, Rakeesh, since you aren't willing to accept direct quotes from this lady's book because they are on a site you find icky, I'll just go ahead and do all the research work for you. I'll give you some page numbers and direct quotes when I'm done.
"matching your tone and your pathological disdain"
You mean the tone and disdain that I effect to match the tone and disdain that is already there regardless of whether I'm involved? If you want to know why I keep abandoning and disappearing, maybe you should try making arguments somewhere where there is a populace that hasn't already been indoctrinated to your point of view and see how much you enjoy it. Personally, I like a challenge, but I get a little overwhelmed when I have to answer 6 different people without any assistance.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I specifically don't post on places that won't challenge my worldview completely or at least offer an assembled audience opportunity to hear the arguments out. I am stridently against echo chambers.
I enjoy it. I thrive on it. I love it. I seek the challenge. This should also not be an ambiguous point given my behavior.
For starters, if you want some sort of an out in terms of being 'dogpiled' may i sincerely recommend having a dialogue on the point explicitly with Dogbreath and Rakeesh, who will put in a great amount of effort, cross their t's and dot their i's, and be fairly aboveboard in not exceeding any negativity they are not already getting hit with independent of their contribution.
They have excellent points regarding the talking-counterpoint Lena Dunham thing which i am absolutely certainly positive is being trafficked heavily with people invested in the conservative christian version of "modesty" and "purity" and sexual repression as a mode to bring about better lives and morals. I have spoken at length about false equivalence arguments. You can focus on them, or kmbboot's linked article (which is quite good imo) and I can be a safely ignored peanut gallery.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "instead of engaging in a discussion about the possible causes of systemic sexual abuse fell back on the,"
This is probably because you are so certain of the truth and validity of the rest of what you posted there, which is basically unsupported by anything objective. It's pure conjecture that you are purporting as fact.
As for the continued abuse, this support organization run by Tori Amos, who happens to share the exact same view as Ms. Dunham, just happens to completely freaking disagree with all the interviewed child psychologists.
Perhaps you could show me where you think the disagreement is? I read the link and didn't find anything in particular to support what you claim. You might also explain what the heck Tori Amos has to do with anything and what her qualifications are.
As to my "conjecture", what specifically, do you doubt? Which facts are you contesting? That the officer is now in jail? The specifics of Gothard's purity culture doctrine? Give me some specifics. Here. Spend a little time with him. Institute in Basic Life Principles
quote:Originally posted by Boris: [QUOTE] If you want to know why I keep abandoning and disappearing, maybe you should try making arguments somewhere where there is a populace that hasn't already been indoctrinated to your point of view and see how much you enjoy it. Personally, I like a challenge, but I get a little overwhelmed when I have to answer 6 different people without any assistance.
*nods* Yes, no one else in this thread has ever disagreed with anyone else on any subject ever. When you're not here we just sit around high-fiving all the time and patting eachother on the back. It's pretty awesome, actually.
More seriously;
The reason you're seeing so much pushback on this, I think, is because if I understand you correctly, you believe Josh Duggar is being unfairly targeted because of his/his family's religious and political beliefs. And this is at least somewhat true - because his family's faith absolutely *is* a factor due to belonging to a group that is infamous for practices that lead to these sorts of situations and cover them up - but the way you've chosen to express that is pretty lousy.
1) As already mentioned, Lena Dunham's childhood interactions with her sister in no way are in the same league as Josh Duggar's molesting of 5 girls as a teenager. (I'm still unclear as to whether they were all his sisters or not) This sort of equivocation is pretty terrible, which is why I specifically wanted to address this.
2) Even if it was equivalent (which is clearly isn't), it doesn't really make a difference as far as your point is concerned: statistically, there's almost certainly liberal feminist women who have done far, far worse than Josh Duggar. I'm sure there are liberal feminist rapists and, who knows, there might even be a liberal feminist lesbian serial killer. (which also sounds like the title of a great "bad" horror movie, "Attack of the Liberal Feminist Lesbian Serial Killers!") It doesn't make what Josh did less bad, or his religious organization/family's cover up less troubling.
3) If there was a marked trend in feminism where people raised in feminist households, or part of a certain feminist organization, held beliefs and practices that led to a virtual epidemic of child abuse and coverups, the appropriate response would be "holy crap, look at what *crazy feminist organization* is doing, this has to stop!" not "well, since they're doing it too, I guess ATI/the Duggar family's situation isn't so bad."
Ultimately, your argument falls into the same zone as "men can be discriminated against too, so sexism doesn't exist!" or "black man kills cop, where's the outrage!" type arguments - the existence of bad behavior outside of the person or group being criticized doesn't excuse it, especially when a certain person or group (like Josh or ATI) claims to be a moral authority on the subject. It's a ridiculous argument, and therefore worthy of the ridicule you've experienced.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Note here that I don't give a crap about the Duggars being conservative. I think the show should be cancelled. But I think that if we're going to have that be the standard for people who committed sibling sexual abuse and their parents (who tried to cover it up) then we should apply that standard to *all* of them. Not just the ones we don't like.
Just responding to this...
Who is applying a standard to what is a key point you might want to think through a bit more. There might be some differences.
If you want people to be outraged at Dunham and do something about it, you might get more traction by being more specific about what they should do for what particular reasons/benefits.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: *nods* Yes, no one else in this thread has ever disagreed with anyone else on any subject ever. When you're not here we just sit around high-fiving all the time and patting eachother on the back. It's pretty awesome, actually.
While this made me laugh, he actually does have a point. Hatrack does somewhat lack conservative viewpoints these days.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have yet to hear a conservative viewpoint here or on any other social media that doesn't boil down to "Lena Dunham did it."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While it is true that Hatrack certainly has a shortage of red-state Republican archetypes, there are plenty of conservative viewpoints. I myself am pretty conservative compared to most of the posters here.
The fact that I'm now far to the left of the Republican Party has less to do with a change of political opinions on my part (though I will say my opinion on gay rights/marriage equality has changed pretty significantly, as well as a few other minor issues, some of which I'm actually more right wing on), and more to do with the hard turn to the right they took in 2008. That, and the fact they've gone from merely tolerating racism, sexism, and homophobia in their ranks to outright reveling in it - there's a reason why the significant minority of black people who voted Republican 10 years ago has all but vanished, and no, it's not because Obama is black.
That being said, I've voted Republican before and still do for a few candidates in local elections, though mostly now due to their opponents being completely incompetent or crazy rather than any sort of ideological agreement.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
But, I'm sorry, but this quiverfull culture is messed up. It's not the only culture that would rather protect rapist and abusers than allow them to be punished. It's not the only RELIGIOUS culture out there letting people get away with abuse! it's an entire CULTURE of abuse and it needs to be exposed and called out.
People who stand with a family that buries this sort of thing are part of a huge problem that needs to be fixed! It is NOT acceptable!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care about the obvious and predictable outcomes of institutionalize, divinely mandated subservience of women. I'm just happy that a liberal somewhere apparently did something sexual to a kid too, so I can go back to my fundamental indifference towards child molestation.
posted
Well, there's no way we could've possibly known he would mysteriously disappear after taking a few pot shots and then running into some resistance. I mean, it's not like this has ever happened before.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
i am actually kind of disappointed that all that came out of right wing circles i could see was more or less the same thing: a truly terrible equivalence argument about the dunham thing which had no comparison whatsoever to the issue of conservative christianity mandating female subservience and modesty and the resultant misery and sexual abuse that occurs on account of it
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Well, there's no way we could've possibly known he would mysteriously disappear after taking a few pot shots and then running into some resistance. I mean, it's not like this has ever happened before.
He's busy again, I'm sure. And I understand why he wouldn't want to talk here anyway, what with people outright stating he is indifferent to the sexual assault of children for political...wait. Got my pronouns mixed up.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Josh Duggar just made a statement saying that he's become addicted to pornography and has cheated on his wife, though he didn't actually mention the Ashley Madison thing.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel awful reading that. I mean, I hope it's genuine shame and he does some serious soul-searching that leads to making healthy adjustments. But what a torrid affair, and while there's no happy way to find out your SO has cheated on you the way it happened to Mrs. Duggar has to rank pretty far towards the bottom.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose to (sic) our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Does this strike anyone else as a really weird non sequitur? I mean, of all the lessons he might take away from this scenario, why this?Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't call it so much a non-sequitur as the wrong lesson. It sounds too much like "I learned that it sucks to get caught." It just serves to underscore the bit about him being the biggest hypocrite ever.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose to (sic) our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Does this strike anyone else as a really weird non sequitur? I mean, of all the lessons he might take away from this scenario, why this?
Perhaps he thought he really could make these choices and control the end results to a large extent.
I doubt he seriously considered that a hacking group would go after Ashley Madison and just leak everyone's information, when he signed up.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose to (sic) our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Does this strike anyone else as a really weird non sequitur? I mean, of all the lessons he might take away from this scenario, why this?
It seems like he's a classic sociopath: he doesn't feel much about what he did to his wife and family, or even about nonchalantly breaking the rules of his religion - no, he cares about getting caught.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
He's just a product of quiverfull's demented environment. He's learned the only lesson that his religion will teach. All through his life he's been part of a system that makes excuses for the men and demands on the women to accept the actions of those men, whether these women are being told that they were insufficiently modest to keep men from straying, or insufficiently appealing and supportive as a wife to keep them from being unfaithful. His tribe will always make excuses for him and ensure that everyone else obey the will of god to see him forgiven. The only crime in that tribe is to get caught by the eye of the outside world. And that's why he's saying that he's sorry he got caught, because that's all there is to be sorry for in his world. The philandering leaders of their sect are evidence enough of this object lesson.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I doubt he seriously considered that a hacking group would go after Ashley Madison and just leak everyone's information, when he signed up.
Maybe. That would have been kinda silly though. He was still going a year after the Snowden revelations which revealed the US hacking pretty much everyone. Of course those came well after several well publicized Wikileaks drops.
With the juicy juicy schadenfreude, he would have been a great target.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose to (sic) our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Does this strike anyone else as a really weird non sequitur? I mean, of all the lessons he might take away from this scenario, why this?
I think some people think that the appearance of contrition is more believable if some suffering is evinced.
I think it goes along with a view that sin is going against God's will (even if it's arbitrary, as opposed to a more intersubjective morality), and that sins are punished with suffering. "Look, I'm suffering, therefore you should believe that I know I sinned."
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That doctrine, as well as "prosperity doctrine" (i.e, God will make you rich if you follow him), have always struck me as particularly troublesome, especially since Jesus seems to directly refute it. (see Matthew 5, "...he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.") That and, you know, Jesus wasn't particularly rich and the apostles didn't necessarily have easy lives either. (all but one were violently killed at some point or another) It seems to go against some of the very core teachings of Christianity - give all that you have to the poor and follow me/take up thy cross/it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven/consider the lilies of the field/treasures in heaven... - the belief that you're giving up tangible goods and happiness in exchange for something less tangible and immediate but ultimately more rewarding and eternal. And that can be seen through a lot of church history, all the martyrs and the concept of "suffering for Christ"... this whole idea of "obey God so you can be happy and rich" seems to miss the point a little.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or, you know, to miss the point so badly that even laypeople can see how cynical a subversion it is of that particular religion's message. To the point where it becomes difficult though not impossible to credit the good intentions of those who do adhere to such doctrines. Can't put a price on feeling good about yourself, after all...and to be able to silently gloat to most of the planet which is worse off in God's eyes compared to you if you're wealthy. Of course there's stuff about pride in the bible too, but that's really a warning for poor people.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prosperity doctrine has become american Christianity's default state because it helps make churches and televangelism more profitable.
That's really it.
For decades a group of Christians have been evolving Christianity as a for profit system, and it worked, and today it's the type you most typically see.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Further abroad too, evangelism in the Chinese language is rife with this kind of Christianity leads to wealth and a strong nation stuff.
Variants on this go all the way back to at least the Opium Wars and the associated missionaries who pushed this kind of thing.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Prosperity doctrine has become american Christianity's default state because it helps make churches and televangelism more profitable.
That's really it.
For decades a group of Christians have been evolving Christianity as a for profit system, and it worked, and today it's the type you most typically see.
quote:As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose to (sic) our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Does this strike anyone else as a really weird non sequitur? I mean, of all the lessons he might take away from this scenario, why this?
I think some people think that the appearance of contrition is more believable if some suffering is evinced.
I think it goes along with a view that sin is going against God's will (even if it's arbitrary, as opposed to a more intersubjective morality), and that sins are punished with suffering. "Look, I'm suffering, therefore you should believe that I know I sinned."
I think it's more "Look, I'm suffering, therefore you should feel pity for my suffering rather than add to it by confronting me with my wrongdoing. No further consequences necessary, already been punished enough! Time to move on to the forgiving and reconciling part of the program!"
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect dkw's got the closest lock on it. He wants a verbal claim of regret and repentance to be sufficient for him to get to the 'washed clean, it's forgiven' stage of things.
That's perhaps the unique Christian sect means through which he gets to this. The much broader, more general human lens is probably a shade of not really sorry at all except for being caught, thinks it should be nobody else's business, and wanting people to like him again.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
