Jump to content

Menu

Josh Duggar was arrested today


Katy
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 😉

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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." 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"? 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

  • Like 11
  • Haha 25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Katy said:

@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)?

Well, in my case my ex turned down a 15 year plea deal and got 90 years.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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

 

2 minutes ago, Stacia said:

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

Oh, this one. Mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa

i am so sorry that I missed the one where I wrote 

“your last paragraph is really mean”

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glancing back over this thread, it’s kind of sad that we (myself included!) are attacking each other over word definitions instead of focusing on Josh Duggar, whom I think we all agree is an evil pervert. (But if anyone doesn’t agree that Josh Duggar is an evil pervert, all bets are off.)

Can we all at least agree that Josh Duggar is creepy? And evil? And a pervert? And that he should be in prison for many, many years? 

I’m really hoping we can agree on that.

  • Like 33
  • Thanks 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2021 at 1:38 PM, pinball said:

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.

I think when a "new'' poster acts like an        that’s the enduring opinion, even if they earlier contributed non        things. If I behave brilliantly at a party but then curse and knock over a vase on my way out the door are people going to remember brilliant or are they going to remember         ?

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Glancing back over this thread, it’s kind of sad that we (myself included!) are attacking each other over word definitions instead of focusing on Josh Duggar, whom I think we all agree is an evil pervert. (But if anyone doesn’t agree that Josh Duggar is an evil pervert, all bets are off.)

Can we all at least agree that Josh Duggar is creepy? And evil? And a pervert? And that he should be in prison for many, many years? 

I’m really hoping we can agree on that.

Personally I'm using the language discussion to distract my brain from too much thinking about torture of toddlers.

So yeah, I agree.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, maize said:

Personally I'm using the language discussion to distract my brain from too much thinking about torture of toddlers.

So yeah, I agree.

Good point. Maybe that’s what all of us are doing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bibiche said:

I think when a "new'' poster acts like an asshat that’s the enduring opinion, even if they earlier contributed non asshat things. If I behave brilliantly at a party but then curse and knock over a vase on my way out the door are people going to remember brilliant or are they going to remember asshat?

It depends how much I liked that vase. 😉 

  • Haha 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either pinball is new to the boards or pinball is reincarnated (as evidenced by a profile created a couple of weeks ago) but either way—I agree that the personal attacks are discouraging and distracting to the larger issue of the horribleness of Duggar watching children be raped and being se#ually excited by that after he abused his sisters....whose sisters’ work on their shared television show is likely paying for his defense and living expenses. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I also can't help thinking about how Josh himself may have been literally beaten as a toddler, and may beat his own toddlers.

I am not one who thinks every single instance of spanking is abusive, but my understanding of the kind of "discipline" tactics espoused by the ATI community definitely ranges into abusive territory. Even into torture territory.

The twisted sexual aspect is, I am afraid, only one side of this story.

Edited by maize
  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They likely all were. They were followers of the Pearls also.

Lest your memory be short, a decade or so ago here on these boards people were supportive of the Pearls and their methods. 2006-2010–I would have said the boards leaned towards the Pearls, Duggars, Vision Forum, Maxwells, and other more extreme evangelical families. 
 

The more moderate culture shift over the last decade is what has precipitated the board departures here....some en masse...in protest. 🤦

  • Like 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bibiche said:

I think when a "new'' poster acts like an asshat that’s the enduring opinion, even if they earlier contributed non asshat things. If I behave brilliantly at a party but then curse and knock over a vase on my way out the door are people going to remember brilliant or are they going to remember asshat?

I'm going to disagree with your use of the term asshat here, as applied to pinball. 😉 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stacia said:

A long thread by Rachael Denhollander (former gymnast, first woman to publicly accuse Larry Nassar of sexual assaut, and now a lawyer). 

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

 

 

I believe this may be the same that Ottakee posted in a spin-off thread? It’s a solid statement from Denhollander, if y’all want to join the conversation in that other thread. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

They likely all were. They were followers of the Pearls also.

Lest your memory be short, a decade or so ago here on these boards people were supportive of the Pearls and their methods. 2006-2010–I would have said the boards leaned towards the Pearls, Duggars, Vision Forum, Maxwells, and other more extreme evangelical families. 
 

The more moderate culture shift over the last decade is what has precipitated the board departures here....some en masse...in protest. 🤦

I didn't hang out here much before about the end of 2010. I can only remember ever seeing negative stuff about the Pearls.

Edited by maize
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

I believe this may be the same that Ottakee posted in a spin-off thread? It’s a solid statement from Denhollander, if y’all want to join the conversation in that other thread. 

I saw that separate post right after I made my post. I updated my post to link to the separate thread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, maize said:

I didn't hang out here much before about the end of 2010. I can only remember ever seeing negative stuff about the Pearls.

You are fortunate, then.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember seeing that clip of JB and M here and I'd like to contribute that I found it immature and juvenile and gross at the time. 

I think it's almost impossible to not now - with subsequent context - view it, retrospectively, as creepy. 

But in general, I agree that definitions of words do matter when conversing - creepy already has a fairly widely agreed definition. It's not being used in a novel way in describing horrible JB.

I don't think there's any need to attack EKS though. Or call her creepy. A slight disagreement re emphasis isn't a defence of child abuse materials or the abusers who view them, nor even of the Duggar's ugly cult. 

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, maize said:

I didn't hang out here much before about the end of 2010. I can only remember ever seeing negative stuff about the Pearls.

I don’t remember anyone being especially positive about the Pearls but I do remember a more conservative Evangelical presence on these boards for sure.  

Young Earth Creationism was debated hotly.  I remember more discussions about wives obeying their husbands.  I remember people defending the Duggars and ATI.  It wasn’t the majority when I started (which would have been around 2011/2012ish) but it was present. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pinball said:

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.

I maintain that at the point where you stoop to saying 'if I cared and blah blah' you are no long willing to engage effectively in a convo and should probably bow out

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hjffkj said:

I maintain that at the point where you stoop to saying 'if I cared and blah blah' you are no long willing to engage effectively in a convo and should probably bow out

 given that it is a statement made ad infinitum on this board in certain situations, most people knew exactly what I meant. So I’d call that effective.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

The meaning of creepy can reasonably be put into the agree to disagree category, dropped and moved on.

I agree. 

I was surprised that it was ever made into an issue. 

Clearly, I will never be hired by the Grammar and Vocabulary Police. 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Catwoman said:

I agree. 

I was surprised that it was ever made into an issue. 

Clearly, I will never be hired by the Grammar and Vocabulary Police. 

You know, when someone's a dog with a bone, and can't seem to let it go, there's usually a non-nefarious reason. We don't all come to discussion with our triggers, conscious or unconscious, perfectly processed. For whatever reason, a word touched a nerve. Cue pile on. Not worth it. There's  less than a hair between creepy and inappropriate, and it didn't need defending. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

1 hour ago, prairiewindmomma said:

They likely all were. They were followers of the Pearls also.

Lest your memory be short, a decade or so ago here on these boards people were supportive of the Pearls and their methods. 2006-2010–I would have said the boards leaned towards the Pearls, Duggars, Vision Forum, Maxwells, and other more extreme evangelical families. 
 

The more moderate culture shift over the last decade is what has precipitated the board departures here....some en masse...in protest. 🤦

I don't remember the Dugger love ever going unchallenged.  The supporters were more vocal back then, but I don't recall them ever being a clear majority of posters.  Usually the arguing got heated enough that the thread was locked.  This may be the longest unlocked Dugger-related thread ever. 

  • Like 9
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

You know, when someone's a dog with a bone, and can't seem to let it go, there's usually a non-nefarious reason. We don't all come to discussion with our triggers, conscious or unconscious, perfectly processed. For whatever reason, a word touched a nerve. Cue pile on. Not worth it. There's  less than a hair between creepy and inappropriate, and it didn't need defending. 

I don’t think the problem was that some of us thought JimBob was creepy and EKS viewed his behavior differently — everyone seemed to be in agreement that JB was inappropriate to one degree or another. The dispute was all about one single word.

I think the problem started when EKS decided that no one was allowed to call JB “creepy” because her definition of the word differed from ours, and she wouldn’t let it go. If she had said it once, I don’t think there would have been a pile on. But she kept arguing about it, so people defended their use of the word. Honestly, I still don’t understand why it was so important to her that we all admit we were wrong. 

As for me, well, anyone can call JimBob Duggar anything they want to call him, but I’m still sticking with creepy. A word like “inappropriate” doesn’t convey the way I feel about him. It’s far too mild and innocuous a word. But if anyone wants to disagree with my terminology, I’m fine with that, and had EKS said she thought JimBob was inappropriate and not argued at the same time that we couldn’t think of him as creepy, I wouldn’t have thought twice about it . 🙂 

 

 

Edited by Catwoman
Sentences should make sense. They just should.
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True.

*sits back in rocker, chews piece of wheat straw, contemplates own grey hair*

Back 10-15 years ago, we squabbled as much as we do now. Remudamom v. Joanne. Runnermom v. Mergath. The battles were long and heated. We even fought over the definitions of words then. (Look up the spanking v. whipping thread when CalmingTea saw a kid get spanked at church.) 

I think what is different about then is just some of the overall balance of opinions. No one comes out volunteering that they paddle their kids with an actual wooden paddle. No one asks CalmingTea, "Was it as bad as you think it sounded?" when she heard a repeated cracking noise in the spanking of a kid in a bathroom. There were always people who stood up and said that ATI or Duggars or Pearls were bad and wrong....but some of those voices that were, "The Pearls are bad but.....spiritual headship/submission of wives/spanking with something other than a hand is ok..." have all but gone away. We don't see as many mothers here with 8+ kids.  We don't see as many who head cover or do skirts/dresses only. We don't see as many who only do YE or the like.  We are much more likely to see someone with 2-4 kids, who has some college experience, and who lives in a suburban experience rather than on a homestead or farm.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, prairiewindmomma said:

True.

*sits back in rocker, chews piece of wheat straw, contemplates own grey hair*

Back 10-15 years ago, we squabbled as much as we do now. Remudamom v. Joanne. Runnermom v. Mergath. The battles were long and heated. We even fought over the definitions of words then. (Look up the spanking v. whipping thread when CalmingTea saw a kid get spanked at church.) 

I think what is different about then is just some of the overall balance of opinions. No one comes out volunteering that they paddle their kids with an actual wooden paddle. No one asks CalmingTea, "Was it as bad as you think it sounded?" when she heard a repeated cracking noise in the spanking of a kid in a bathroom. There were always people who stood up and said that ATI or Duggars or Pearls were bad and wrong....but some of those voices that were, "The Pearls are bad but.....spiritual headship/submission of wives/spanking with something other than a hand is ok..." have all but gone away. We don't see as many mothers here with 8+ kids.  We don't see as many who head cover or do skirts/dresses only. We don't see as many who only do YE or the like.  We are much more likely to see someone with 2-4 kids, who has some college experience, and who lives in a suburban experience rather than on a homestead or farm.

I agree. We also see a lot fewer homeschoolers here than we used to. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, prairiewindmomma said:

True.

*sits back in rocker, chews piece of wheat straw, contemplates own grey hair*

Back 10-15 years ago, we squabbled as much as we do now. Remudamom v. Joanne. Runnermom v. Mergath. The battles were long and heated. We even fought over the definitions of words then. (Look up the spanking v. whipping thread when CalmingTea saw a kid get spanked at church.) 

I think what is different about then is just some of the overall balance of opinions. No one comes out volunteering that they paddle their kids with an actual wooden paddle. No one asks CalmingTea, "Was it as bad as you think it sounded?" when she heard a repeated cracking noise in the spanking of a kid in a bathroom. There were always people who stood up and said that ATI or Duggars or Pearls were bad and wrong....but some of those voices that were, "The Pearls are bad but.....spiritual headship/submission of wives/spanking with something other than a hand is ok..." have all but gone away. We don't see as many mothers here with 8+ kids.  We don't see as many who head cover or do skirts/dresses only. We don't see as many who only do YE or the like.  We are much more likely to see someone with 2-4 kids, who has some college experience, and who lives in a suburban experience rather than on a homestead or farm.

I think that there is a wider variety of homeschoolers nowadays. The demographics have shifted to suburban being a larger percentage. And many people who  are homeschooling for various reasons versus mainly religious reasons. 

I also think that those families do exist, but they've shifted over to other formats, like facebook

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

This hair-splitting focus on word usage s creepy. 

The word usage in this thread that threw me off? The police report calling Jim Bob "James" ... I had to literally reread it to remember that Jim Bob is James. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...