Josh Duggar was arrested today

[hjffkj]

I'm pretty sure with how things like this work is you can now find it everywhere on the black web without paying.  Once so many people buy it those people start sharing it for free.  So, while it likely cost $10,000 originally I doubt it would be impossible to find a free copy of it sadly.

[prairiewindmomma]

2 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

I think with these latest details his good ole boy currency will plummet and he’ll be safer in jail.  

I am way more cynical. I would be looking for re-election campaign donations. Most district attorneys and many judges are elected—not sure about Arkansas, but I would .02 they both were.

[Katy]

@prairiewindmomma

Did you work with any federal cases?  Is it true that if he doesn't take a plea deal they'll add a bunch more charges (like for the additional 200 deleted images)?

[Katy]

2 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I am way more cynical. I would be looking for re-election campaign donations. Most district attorneys and many judges are elected—not sure about Arkansas, but I would .02 they both were.

https://ballotpedia.org/Arkansas_judicial_elections

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/rpt/2003-R-0231.htm

Yes, state judicial elections every even year.  DA's are elected too, not sure about term length.

Don't federal judges get appointed though?

[Catwoman]

14 minutes ago, Katy said:

Some tabloid said that's exactly why Anna believes he is innocent... he told her it was an employee.  He told the officers his brothers had access to his computer.

Well, of course she believes him! It’s not like he has any history of sexual deviancy or anything!

Oh. Wait. 

Never mind.

 

[EKS]

36 minutes ago, Katy said:

Also once you read anything on linguistics you learn it's not good to correct other people's language.

How can people converse about something if they can't agree on what words mean?

[Corraleno]

I didn't see anything in the report of the hearing that suggested Josh paid for the DD video. The figure of $10K is what the man who originally made the video was charging for livestreams, but that video has been widely available on the dark web for a while and there is at least one guy in prison who ran a hurtcore site who admits he stole the video and put it on his site to get more traffic. So there may not be any kind of payment trail.

But I would also say that that video is absolutely infamous and not something someone would accidentally download because they didn't know what it was. And the investigator said that Josh was explicitly searching for rape videos.

Edited May 7, 2021 by Corraleno

[Katy]

1 minute ago, EKS said:

How can people converse about something if they can't agree on what words mean?

You ask for clarification of the nuance without correcting someone else, especially when someone else has a feeling or perception, not a concrete fact.

[pinball]

I’d like to predict that this is not going to trial

the percentages of federal cases that go to trial is very small

 

[Catwoman]

3 minutes ago, EKS said:

How can people converse about something if they can't agree on what words mean?

But most of us do agree on the definition. We do agree that JimBob was being creepy. We are agreeing on the meaning of the word. 

You seem to be the only one who is arguing otherwise.

I don’t know why it is so important to you to prove that we are wrong.

[pinball]

3 minutes ago, EKS said:

How can people converse about something if they can't agree on what words mean?

That’s the point

language does evolve and usage changes,

but in the last couple decades, differing definitions have been used even more than ever to signify the IN crowd and the OUT crowd. 

if one group doesn’t agree with a definition that has evolved, then that group is OUT and it is used as a signal/excuse to not even bother with discussions anymore

[prairiewindmomma]

I didn’t work federal, but the carrot/stick approach is fairly common. Usually, though, you charge everything you can upfront and then drop in exchange for pleas. You don’t add after the fact unless new evidence comes forward. It hurts working relationships (because police, DA, defense, judges all work together day after day there are some professional courtesy things that come into play).

Honestly, budgets are tight enough everywhere that you don’t bring charges unless you can nail them, and especially not in high profile cases.

So, yeah, you can add up until trial begins, but it’s not the usual in my non-fed experience....

You might ping others here...my work was mostly as a GAL for kids so I don’t know as much about prosecution.

 

 

[Catwoman]

Just now, pinball said:

That’s the point

language does evolve and usage changes,

but in the last couple decades, differing definitions have been used even more than ever to signify the IN crowd and the OUT crowd. 

if one group doesn’t agree with a definition that has evolved, then that group is OUT and it is used as a signal/excuse to not even bother with discussions anymore

Stop being creepy. 😉 

[HeartString]

10 minutes ago, EKS said:

How can people converse about something if they can't agree on what words mean?

People adapt.  If I go back 200 years and say “yo, dadd-o, that’s the bees knees, so hip and happening” I’m getting put in an insane asylum.  Today I would sound old. At a certain place in time it would have been “cool”.  
If I say “we’ll have a gay-old time” people understand what I’m saying based on context.  

Edited May 7, 2021 by HeartString

[Katy]

1 minute ago, pinball said:

if one group doesn’t agree with a definition that has evolved, then that group is OUT and it is used as a signal/excuse to not even bother with discussions anymore

Or maybe it has nothing to do with in or out but more to do with not wanting to interact with someone who is rude and condescending.

[Catwoman]

6 minutes ago, pinball said:

I’d like to predict that this is not going to trial

the percentages of federal cases that go to trial is very small

 

I don’t care whether or not it goes to trial. I just want to see that pervert in prison for a very, very long time!

[Stacia]

3 hours ago, bolt. said:

What's getting lost is that you don't see 'a man that would act that way' as a generally unboundaried sexually demonstrative man who doesn't notice or care about women's reactions or consent. You don't internally predict that 'a man that would act that way' is apt to take other liberties other times with other women's bodies. That's what there is to be afraid of.

Bingo.

The "fear" factor was not that he was doing it right then with his wife. The fear factor is that he has or will do this to others. Especially because he's not reading signals of uncomfortableness or he is, doesn't care, and is doing it anyway.

Either way files him as a creep in my book and creepy in general.

Arguing the semantics is asinine. As Seasider says, you can't control how someone else receives the message that's sent. It's not up to EKS to interpret for everyone else; I am not sure what EKS' intention is other than to hair-split or distract. Which begs the question... why? Why is EKS trying to argue semantics? Derail the conversation? Convince others that JB is not creepy, just someone who made you blush and be embarrassed (insert eyeroll)? What is the purpose?

[Catwoman]

Just now, Katy said:

Or maybe it has nothing to do with in or out but more to do with not wanting to interact with someone who is rude and condescending.

Kai is usually nice, though, so all I can think is that there is something about this that really matters to her and I’m missing what it is. I do think she is being kind of like a dog with a bone in this thread, though. I can’t imagine why she’s getting so caught up in the definition of one word. 

I know she probably doesn’t mean it that way, but it comes across almost as a defense of JimBob Duggar.  He’s inappropriate, not creepy. Except that JimBob is totally creepy, and calling him “inappropriate” seems like a way to minimize and normalize that.

[TravelingChris]

24 minutes ago, Katy said:

https://ballotpedia.org/Arkansas_judicial_elections

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/rpt/2003-R-0231.htm

Yes, state judicial elections every even year.  DA's are elected too, not sure about term length.

Don't federal judges get appointed though?

Yes, Federal judges are appointed.  This one was just appointed a few weeks ago.

[Stacia]

33 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

I think with these latest details his good ole boy currency will plummet and he’ll be safer in jail.  

I wish I could believe this.

I think there are plenty of good ole boys (and girls) who are perfectly ok with turning a blind eye to him and to help his dad/"famous" family.

[Stacia]

6 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Except that JimBob is totally creepy, and calling him “inappropriate” seems like a way to minimize and normalize that.

Yes.

[prairiewindmomma]

Sorry, making lunch here...

Federal appointees are absolutely political. They aren’t elected, they are appointed by the president. But, they rise up through the ranks of prior elected positions, generally. Comstock was given an 8 year appointment.

So, my buddy here who just finished a term as a US attorney here for 4 years, was appointed by a Republican president in 2016 and had previously worked clerking for Republican judges and will probably go work for a think tank for a few years as a lobbyist and then run for office next cycle. He and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but I respect his work.
 

While there are some positions that are apolitical in the law, they are fewer on the federal side. Each party runs their own agenda.

In this case, I think they ran out a Republican judge to wait for a democratic one, and made contributions to Republican campaigns to aid in patient waiting. 

I also note, in a quick Google, that a Jon Comstock ran last fall as the democratic candidate for district 96. He lost, but had previously served as a judge before going on to work for Walmart. I would .02 they are related, and likely come from a political family. Most things work that way.

[OH_Homeschooler]

28 minutes ago, EKS said:

How can people converse about something if they can't agree on what words mean?

Can this maybe become a spinoff thread and move it out of here? PLEASE? 

[maize]

29 minutes ago, EKS said:

How can people converse about something if they can't agree on what words mean?

By having flexible brains that pick up on changing meanings and nuances in words.

It's the difference between conversing with a human and programming a computer. Computers (with the possible exception of some cutting-edge AI stuff) need everything cut-and-dried, with predetermined and unchangeable definitions for every command and term.

People don't. 

When I was young, it was normal in my community to use the word "thong" for summer slip-on footware. Now thong isn't used that way anymore in the same community; flip-flop prevails. Elsewhere slipper is used for the same type of footware. 

I'm human, my brain functions like a human brain not a computer, so I adapt. So does everyone else and we magically avoid mass confusion 😉

[maize]

6 minutes ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

Can this maybe become a spinoff thread and move it out of here? PLEASE? 

It's the least depressing part of the discussion!

[HS Mom in NC]

38 minutes ago, EKS said:

How can people converse about something if they can't agree on what words mean?

People don't have to agree on what words mean to have a conversation from differing points of view, they have to define their own usage of terms for clarity and give examples.  That's how conversations work when there's disagreement on term usage. People here have been doing that with you, but you've decided, for whatever reason, to immediately dismiss it because not all are in agreement with you on how you choose to use the term.  People have pointed out where the fear comes into play using your definition of creepy.  You simply ignored it, missed it, or dismissed it. 

[ktgrok]

 

2 hours ago, Katy said:

I had nightmares last night.

 

Same. 

[pinball]

36 minutes ago, Stacia said:

Bingo.

The "fear" factor was not that he was doing it right then with his wife. The fear factor is that he has or will do this to others. Especially because he's not reading signals of uncomfortableness or he is, doesn't care, and is doing it anyway.

Either way files him as a creep in my book and creepy in general.

Arguing the semantics is asinine. As Seasider says, you can't control how someone else receives the message that's sent. It's not up to EKS to interpret for everyone else; I am not sure what EKS' intention is other than to hair-split or distract. Which begs the question... why? Why is EKS trying to argue semantics? Derail the conversation? Convince others that JB is not creepy, just someone who made you blush and be embarrassed (insert eyeroll)? What is the purpose?

She gave a concrete reason why.

your last paragraph is really mean.

And I think you’re using “begs the question” incorrectly

[Resilient]

I can't even look at this stuff. I had a friend who is on the teams that bust child p8ngfrs. It is a dark, dark world. He told me that he never goes into a case without asking a blessing from his priest and getting a 24/7 prayer support going for him and his team. The work he is doing is good, busting evil out of the world, but by wading into the midst of it. And the word he uses is EVIL. I respect him and I also understand why he is gruff and prickly sometimes. 

[maize]

18 minutes ago, pinball said:

 

And I think you’re using “begs the question” incorrectly

She is using the contemporary vernacular meaning of the phrase, not the classical logic meaning.

Since we are humans and have flexible brains we are capable of understanding a phrase as it is ordinarily used by people in our community, even if that usage differs from an older formalized meaning.

Incorrect is not a valid descriptor here.

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, Stacia said:

Which begs the question... why? Why is EKS trying to argue semantics? Derail the conversation? Convince others that JB is not creepy, just someone who made you blush and be embarrassed (insert eyeroll)? What is the purpose?

Obviously I can't read Kai's mind. I do see her being dog-piled in this thread and she has a right to try to explain and defend herself. 

Others have said that we shouldn't judge another person's reaction to the Putt Putt video. That's true; people can't help how they react. But I see plenty of judgment for EKS NOT finding it creepy, but rather "wildly inappropriate," "cringe-worthy," etc. 

[pinball]

7 minutes ago, maize said:

She is using the contemporary vernacular meaning of the phrase, not the classical logic meaning.

Since we are humans and have flexible brains we are capable of understanding a phrase as it is ordinarily used by people in our community, even if that usage differs from an older formalized meaning.

Incorrect is not a valid descriptor here.

If I cared, I would say something like

blah blah classical eduction board something something expect more from

[maize]

1 minute ago, pinball said:

If I cared, I would say something like

blah blah classical eduction board something something expect more from

Expect more...such as an understanding of how language works?

Classical education can mean many things, but I don't believe any of those requires us to throw natural shifts in linguistic usage out the window. There are reasons we converse in modern English, not Old English or Classical Latin 😉

[Amy in NH]

7 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Obviously I can't read Kai's mind. I do see her being dog-piled in this thread and she has a right to try to explain and defend herself. 

Others have said that we shouldn't judge another person's reaction to the Putt Putt video. That's true; people can't help how they react. But I see plenty of judgment for EKS NOT finding it creepy, but rather "wildly inappropriate," "cringe-worthy," etc. 

Having been a lurker throughout this entire thread, the only dogpile I see is from people defending their use of the word "creepy" when they are being told how they should and shouldn't feel.

And who the heck is "pinball"?  An EKS sock account?  Seems rather a pedantic defender of EKS AND the Duggars.  Why are they both defending the Duggars in this thread?

[Stacia]

31 minutes ago, pinball said:

She gave a concrete reason why.

your last paragraph is really mean.

And I think you’re using “begs the question” incorrectly

My last paragraph is not mean. I am asking why EKS wants to specifically quote people, then tell them their definition is incorrect. For what purpose? And now you are doing it too. For what purpose?

I wasn't aware the you and EKS are the final arbiters of word definitions. And you are being a condescending arbiter of taste on who and who does not properly follow "classical education" rhetoric.

Troll, much?

MercyA, no, people are not dog-piling on EKS.

[AbcdeDooDah]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

My understanding is that the court didn't specify which of the videos he played while they used playing them interspaced with texting and doing other things like leaving reviews as evidence that it was him who was the guilty party (vs his brothers). But this wasn't a free file.  My understanding is that this file costs $10k, and people who download it know exactly what is in it.

ETA:  Meaning he possessed the video for at least 3 days, and after paying that much for it he presumably watched every video in the file.

Wait, what? $10K? I guess I’m naive. God, I hope there’s a money trail.

[hjffkj]

6 minutes ago, pinball said:

If I cared, I would say something like

blah blah classical eduction board something something expect more from

why even participate in a conversation if this is how you are going to behave?  

[hjffkj]

Just now, AbcdeDooDah said:

Wait, what? $10K? I guess I’m naive. God, I hope there’s a money trail.

Josh likely didn't pay for that video.  That is the amount that was charged by the creator when it was originally created.  It has long been released by many others for free.

[Katy]

Katie Joy is doing a livestream... she just said all of the girls in the one really horrible file were rescued (except the girl that died).

[HeartString]

2 minutes ago, maize said:

Expect more...such as an understanding of how language works?

Classical education can mean many things, but I don't believe any of those requires us to throw natural shifts in linguistic usage out the window. There are reasons we converse in modern English, not Old English or Classical Latin 😉

I happen to be procrastinating my Critical Thinking (logic) final right now so I have my text book handy.  It specifically mentions "begging the question" as having an every day meaning and a meaning for logicians.  Everyday use mean "raising a question without offering an argument" according to my textbook authors.

[Moonhawk]

57 minutes ago, Stacia said:

I wish I could believe this.

I think there are plenty of good ole boys (and girls) who are perfectly ok with turning a blind eye to him and to help his dad/"famous" family.

Similar to what @Homeschool Mom in AZ said (in this thread? another thread? have been doing fast lunch break reading) they won't see it as much as turning a blind eye on child abuse, as much as defending their way of life. It's group mentality to absurdity, but it keeps the ranks in line.

To a lot of people (both in and out of the cult) the Duggars have become synonymous with the religion/lifestyle. They were the public face, the vanguard, the best example to point to and say, "It works!" To attack the Duggars is to turn on one's own. It's basically, to them, like saying their way of living is wrong because look at what happens when you follow it. The already-normal circle the wagons instinct is going to be in Warp 10 mode because his last name is Duggar.

So, instead of condemning him and potentially being grouped as child molestors themselves, they'll find any way to defend him. To turn a blind eye is to say, "Well, we're not perfect but this is so rare as to have practically not even happened." 

[Amy in NH]

4 hours ago, EKS said:

Odds are extremely high that there was no one there except for the people involved with filming the show.

Again, I completely agree that it was wildly inappropriate, but calling it creepy crosses the line into safetyism that I'm not willing to cross.

"Inappropriate" in an ATI kind of way?  Is that what this is?  Are you supporting ATI and trying to change other poster's perceptions that the Duggars and their ilk are only "inappropriate" and not downright depraved?

What do you mean by "calling it creepy crosses the line into safetyism that I'm not willing to cross"? 

[AbcdeDooDah]

6 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

Josh likely didn't pay for that video.  That is the amount that was charged by the creator when it was originally created.  It has long been released by many others for free.

I posted before I saw that is is usually free. Probably no trail then. I’m just holding on to hope that there is lots of evidence against him since the evidence this week was just to try and prevent bail. 

I heard something about the Duggars and Anna at odds, like they believe the charges but she doesn’t. Do we know if JB is paying for the attorneys?

[MercyA]

Okay, I watched the Putt Putt video with the sound on this time. Still not seeing creepy. Juvenile, awkward, inappropriate, embarrassing, clueless, and disrespectful, yes. Out of line with espoused lifestyle, yes. I do not see it as an indication of grooming or pedophelia or a sign that he might cross boundaries with other women, as has been suggested. 

I am no fan of Jim Bob. I have a huge, huge problem with him allowing a child molester to not only stay in his home, but have access to other families' children as well. And if he is paying for Josh's defense, I have a problem with that, too. I don't agree with his politics. I don't agree with much of his lifestyle.

I can (and do) say I don't find the video creepy without being a Duggar supporter. 

[hjffkj]

6 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

I posted before I saw that is is usually free. Probably no trail then. I’m just holding on to hope that there is lots of evidence against him since the evidence this week was just to try and prevent bail. 

I heard something about the Duggars and Anna at odds, like they believe the charges but she doesn’t. Do we know if JB is paying for the attorneys?

hmm I wonder.  Haven't read anything about that yet

[pinball]

On 4/30/2021 at 9:35 AM, pinball said:

People can research for themselves but the terms chi1d p0rn and k1dd1e porn are considered to diminish and trivialize the abuse, trauma and crime.

More appropriate terminology is child abuse images and child sexual abuse images.

 

On 4/30/2021 at 10:08 AM, pinball said:

It is possible to have sympathy for the children of an incarcerated person while simultaneously thinking the person is rightly and justly in prison.

dependent children suffer and have a worse quality of life when their caregivers are jailed. It even continues after the person is released, in part (but not only) due to stigma involving having a criminal record and the ability to find a job.

 

On 4/30/2021 at 4:36 PM, pinball said:

I find it an awful statement about our culture that almost everyone who mentioned a way for Anna to make money —-

(except someone who mentioned studying and starting an preschool/daycare. If others mentioned another way, I missed it)

—- thought she should write a book or get on TV or start a YouTube channel.

The LAST thing that family needs is more exposure! And to sell her “story” and “self” for money...how is that healthy? 

She needs a quiet place to raise her kids away from the exploitation of screens and intrusive sharing.

 

On 5/5/2021 at 7:57 PM, pinball said:

Some of the testimony today stated that Josh said other family members had access to the devices

on the one hand...he could have just answered a question that was posed to him (does anyone else have access)

on the other hand, he could be established a trail of doubt

and in my biggest fears...he is NOT the only one who accessed the CSA images from the devices.

he should go home and say goodbye to his kids and then turn himself back in. No one should be responsible for him. He should plead guilty. I know this won’t happen.

 

On 5/5/2021 at 8:11 PM, pinball said:

I didn’t see that specific information 

i hope that is correct and there isn’t a chance he could have been sharing with another adult or god forbid, showing it to a child.

or even another adult knowing josh’s super easy passwords.

to be clear...I believe Josh did what he is accused of doing. I’m just not convinced he was the only one who saw it.

 

On 5/6/2021 at 12:29 PM, pinball said:

Was it ever determined who wrote the letter about Josh abusing his sisters and the friend, that was then placed in a book that was then passed onto someone else?

and who was that someone else?, bc that person was the one who called the police/abuse hotline

 

On 5/6/2021 at 2:15 PM, pinball said:

Check my math but if the parent duggars  were interviewed 12/7/06,

and josh was born 3/3/1988...

wouldnt he have been 18?

is there another interview of him?

 

22 hours ago, pinball said:

Re your middle paragraph...

this is one of the many reasons I don’t believe in the death penalty. 

 

1 hour ago, pinball said:

I’d like to predict that this is not going to trial

the percentages of federal cases that go to trial is very small

 

 

1 hour ago, pinball said:

That’s the point

language does evolve and usage changes,

but in the last couple decades, differing definitions have been used even more than ever to signify the IN crowd and the OUT crowd. 

if one group doesn’t agree with a definition that has evolved, then that group is OUT and it is used as a signal/excuse to not even bother with discussions anymore

 

22 minutes ago, pinball said:

If I cared, I would say something like

blah blah classical eduction board something something expect more from

 

16 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

Having been a lurker throughout this entire thread, the only dogpile I see is from people defending their use of the word "creepy" when they are being told how they should and shouldn't feel.

And who the heck is "pinball"?  An EKS sock account?  Seems rather a pedantic defender of EKS AND the Duggars.  Why are they both defending the Duggars in this thread?

dial it back

read my posts

i didn’t defend josh or the duggars or any one involved in this nightmare.

you can apologize for your false accusations about what I’ve said now

(oh, I had 2 other posts in this thread...I asked someone a question unrelated to the duggars and I linked the mini golf clip)

[maize]

18 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I happen to be procrastinating my Critical Thinking (logic) final right now so I have my text book handy.  It specifically mentions "begging the question" as having an every day meaning and a meaning for logicians.  Everyday use mean "raising a question without offering an argument" according to my textbook authors.

Yes; or just "suggesting a question" in the vernacular usage.

The phrase as used in classical logic originated as a poor translation of a Greek phrase that would more appropriately be translated as "assuming the conclusion."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[Wheres Toto]

I'm astounded that the word "creepy" is getting so much attention.   It never struck me as a particularly formal word.   If that makes senses?  It's almost slang, which I don't think we expect to have very specific, nuanced meanings.     

It's like arguing over the specific standards that must be met before using the word crap.    Can it only mean literal crap?  Or is it okay that it's a metaphoric crap?  Does it have to meet some standard of crappiness before it should be used? 

[Stacia]

21 minutes ago, pinball said:

(oh, I had 2 other posts in this thread...I asked someone a question unrelated to the duggars and I linked the mini golf clip)

You also forgot to mention the one where you called me mean. Just fyi.

[pinball]

42 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

why even participate in a conversation if this is how you are going to behave?  

Scroll down...I quoted nearly all my posts in this thread.

if you can’t handle my ONE post that used blah, blah and something something instead of a complete sentence then I got nothin for ya.