Jump to content

Menu

Josh Duggar was arrested today


Katy
 Share

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Laurie said:

Does he even know anyone without kids/visiting grandkids to stay with?  I worry that they'll park a camper on family property somewhere, let him eat meals with family members and think it's okay because his bedroom will be the camper.   Hopefully the authorities will keep an eye on him (but aren't some of his brothers doing police work in their community?)

I don’t know. The only non-family member I’ve seen talk about what the judge said is Katie Joy from Without a Crystal Ball on YouTube. And even if she was on the court conference call she doesn’t seem to have the firmest grasp on the legal system. For example she said if he was granted bail he wouldn’t be allowed any contact with minors at all… but the the document in the released just said no unsupervised contact.  

He hasn’t lost his parental rights so I imagine if he gets bail he’ll be treated exactly the same as other defendant and given visits, possibly supervised by a family member. OTOH, I saw a comment from a CPS worker from Texas (the state that probably gives children more rights and terminates parental rights faster than any other state) say that in Texas he wouldn’t have even social-worker supervised visits.  I’ve had kids in my home who were returned to SA homes, so clearly CPS handles it very differently in different states. 

Anyway Katie Joy claimed he would have to have a 3rd party person supervise him, which she claimed meant NOT a family member, who had no children and no children who visited, would have to be by his side and responsible for ensuring he complied with the court orders 24/7. 

My thought is because his family owns a bunch of aircraft they’ll argue he’s a flight risk who should not be granted bail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the biggest problems in terms of keeping him incarcerated awaiting trial, is that Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are best buddies with the family, and Mike in particular has very big ties to ATI, very big ties. I do believe they will intervene and use their influence on his behalf unless they suddenly decide that his charges are a bridge too far for them politically, and they pull the fair weather friend routine.

I may post next week a bit more about my experiences with ATI. However, I am currently on vacation, camping with my family and really enjoying myself. Contemplating this isn't relaxing for me. But I didn't want everyone to think I posted and just ran off. We have had this camping trip planned for three months.

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I think one of the biggest problems in terms of keeping him incarcerated awaiting trial, is that Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are best buddies with the family, and Mike in particular has very big ties to ATI, very big ties. I do believe they will intervene and use their influence on his behalf unless they suddenly decide that his charges are a bridge too far for them politically, and they pull the fair weather friend routine.

 

I definitely think they're going to be all, Josh who? They know the feds don't arrest without an extremely strong case. 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filters don't work well, and often block a lot of sites that any reasonable person would consider legitimate to browse in a public location. That's why libraries are often loathe to put them in. We'd all *like* to keep hardcore shocking stuff off the public screens - but we don't want to accidentally - or "accidentally" if the people who designed/bought the filter have an agenda - block access to informative websites about breast cancer, sex ed, lgbtq issues, and so on. And all these things have been blocked with bad filters, often.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I think one of the biggest problems in terms of keeping him incarcerated awaiting trial, is that Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are best buddies with the family, and Mike in particular has very big ties to ATI, very big ties. I do believe they will intervene and use their influence on his behalf unless they suddenly decide that his charges are a bridge too far for them politically, and they pull the fair weather friend routine.

 It does not surprise me at all that the family is close to Huckabee and Cruz. Birds of a feather indeed. It never ceases to amaze me who we idolize and trust in leadership in this country.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, katilac said:

I definitely think they're going to be all, Josh who? They know the feds don't arrest without an extremely strong case. 

One would hope. But, man, we have sure seen Ted Cruz throw himself under the bus lately. The run to Mexico during a crisis and throw his own daughters under the bus comes to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Filters don't work well, and often block a lot of sites that any reasonable person would consider legitimate to browse in a public location. That's why libraries are often loathe to put them in. We'd all *like* to keep hardcore shocking stuff off the public screens - but we don't want to accidentally - or "accidentally" if the people who designed/bought the filter have an agenda - block access to informative websites about breast cancer, sex ed, lgbtq issues, and so on. And all these things have been blocked with bad filters, often.

This was much to my 14 yo's surprise when I borrowed his laptop and searched on "breast cancer."  A sad sad day for me.  And he had been given many of these addresses by his Boy Scout senior patrol leader.  Parenting fail.  We thought we were safe.  And OMG the things I saw that I can never un-see.  Anyone who thinks that internet P*7N is like Playboy online...get your head out of the sand.  

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Resilient, I am fascinated by the idea that your son's boy scout leader gave him nefarious links under the guise of breast cancer URLs. 

(I'm also confused as to what, exactly, your point is supposed to be. You quoted me, but... are you really replying to me? I must be missing the step between "filters often block websites anybody would consider legitimate" and "my son found bad stuff while researching breast cancer, I blame the boy scout leader")

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Resilient, I am fascinated by the idea that your son's boy scout leader gave him nefarious links under the guise of breast cancer URLs. 

(I'm also confused as to what, exactly, your point is supposed to be. You quoted me, but... are you really replying to me? I must be missing the step between "filters often block websites anybody would consider legitimate" and "my son found bad stuff while researching breast cancer, I blame the boy scout leader")

I think she’s saying her son had already been looking at stuff and she came across it when she was searching on his laptop for breast cancer stuff?  But I’m also lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Resilient, I am fascinated by the idea that your son's boy scout leader gave him nefarious links under the guise of breast cancer URLs. 

(I'm also confused as to what, exactly, your point is supposed to be. You quoted me, but... are you really replying to me? I must be missing the step between "filters often block websites anybody would consider legitimate" and "my son found bad stuff while researching breast cancer, I blame the boy scout leader")

I think she is saying she had filters on her son’s computer and thought his computer would be free of p*rn, but when she searched for breast cancer, she found porn “hiding” under that tag, presumably in order to get around filters. 

I’m not clear on why the boy scout leader would disseminate links like this, unless he is himself a...creep.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Quill said:

I think she is saying she had filters on her son’s computer and thought his computer would be free of p*rn, but when she searched for breast cancer, she found porn “hiding” under that tag, presumably in order to get around filters. 

I’m not clear on why the boy scout leader would disseminate links like this, unless he is himself a...creep.

General FYI: A Senior Patrol Leader in Boy Scouts is not an adult. It's usually one of the older teens. Still gross, of course, but I don't think she was suggesting a grown man was slipping the kid porn URLs. 

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

3 hours ago, Quill said:

I think she is saying she had filters on her son’s computer and thought his computer would be free of p*rn, but when she searched for breast cancer, she found porn “hiding” under that tag, presumably in order to get around filters. 

I’m not clear on why the boy scout leader would disseminate links like this, unless he is himself a...creep.

I don't remember what I was looking for that time I got an eyeful - but it had nothing to do with "breast"....  the images popped up on the search page

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

I don't remember what I was looking for that time I got an eyeful - but it had nothing to do with "breast"....  the images popped up on the search page

Internet searches can be disturbing.  Even searching for images of a certain, very popular children’s cartoon led us to some really disturbing images - sketches of the characters, but still, can’t unsee those. Nothing in that search should have led to anything questionable, but there it was, even with a safe search feature on. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the document his attorney filed for tomorrow’s bond hearing, it detailed that Josh knew about the investigation since the raid in 2019, and that he’s been cooperative and volunteered to turn himself in. Further, it states he’s not a danger to anyone because he’s never met in person for any of the children in the images on his computer.  He wants to be released to live in his home with his pregnant wife and six children, though they did provide an alternate- a third party who has no minor children. 
What.a.jerk.

  • Confused 6
  • Sad 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Annie G said:

In the document his attorney filed for tomorrow’s bond hearing, it detailed that Josh knew about the investigation since the raid in 2019, and that he’s been cooperative and volunteered to turn himself in. Further, it states he’s not a danger to anyone because he’s never met in person for any of the children in the images on his computer.  He wants to be released to live in his home with his pregnant wife and six children, though they did provide an alternate- a third party who has no minor children. 
What.a.jerk.

Wow. Just wow.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Annie G said:

In the document his attorney filed for tomorrow’s bond hearing, it detailed that Josh knew about the investigation since the raid in 2019, and that he’s been cooperative and volunteered to turn himself in. Further, it states he’s not a danger to anyone because he’s never met in person for any of the children in the images on his computer.  He wants to be released to live in his home with his pregnant wife and six children, though they did provide an alternate- a third party who has no minor children. 
What.a.jerk.

They better not allow that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Annie G said:

In the document his attorney filed for tomorrow’s bond hearing, it detailed that Josh knew about the investigation since the raid in 2019, and that he’s been cooperative and volunteered to turn himself in. Further, it states he’s not a danger to anyone because he’s never met in person for any of the children in the images on his computer.  He wants to be released to live in his home with his pregnant wife and six children, though they did provide an alternate- a third party who has no minor children. 
What.a.jerk.

Yes, very typical. ....NOT right, but very typical.  He likely thinks he will get off, avoid prison, etc 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

Yes, very typical. ....NOT right, but very typical.  He likely thinks he will get off, avoid prison, etc 

I wondered if he might be allowed to live at home after you mentioned similar details in your experience. 
 

I was surprised that he had been in contact w them (through his attorneys) for the past 19 months. I assumed they did the raid and he didn’t know anything else until the grand jury indictment came back. DS just served on the grand jury in our county and though he couldn’t tell me details, he did say not all the cases were from arrests that had already happened...some folks didn’t know they were in a case before the grand jury. (They heard 45 cases in 3 days!!!)
 

Do federal cases move as quickly as they are scheduled or is it likely to be pushed back? Early July isn’t far off to have a jury trial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Annie G said:

I wondered if he might be allowed to live at home after you mentioned similar details in your experience. 
 

I was surprised that he had been in contact w them (through his attorneys) for the past 19 months. I assumed they did the raid and he didn’t know anything else until the grand jury indictment came back. DS just served on the grand jury in our county and though he couldn’t tell me details, he did say not all the cases were from arrests that had already happened...some folks didn’t know they were in a case before the grand jury. (They heard 45 cases in 3 days!!!)
 

Do federal cases move as quickly as they are scheduled or is it likely to be pushed back? Early July isn’t far off to have a jury trial. 

Well, the arrest here came long after the raid   I am sure that was some contact but he never told me about it.

Here arrest was Feb 28 and trial was set for June but he asked to postpone it.  It went to trial Sept 5.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Spryte said:

Internet searches can be disturbing.  Even searching for images of a certain, very popular children’s cartoon led us to some really disturbing images - sketches of the characters, but still, can’t unsee those. Nothing in that search should have led to anything questionable, but there it was, even with a safe search feature on. 

I wasn't even searching for images.

2 hours ago, Annie G said:

In the document his attorney filed for tomorrow’s bond hearing, it detailed that Josh knew about the investigation since the raid in 2019, and that he’s been cooperative and volunteered to turn himself in. Further, it states he’s not a danger to anyone because he’s never met in person for any of the children in the images on his computer.  He wants to be released to live in his home with his pregnant wife and six children, though they did provide an alternate- a third party who has no minor children. 
What.a.jerk.

so it's ok because he didn't abuse them in person?    He didn't reward those who did abuse them in person by purchasing the photos of the in person's abuse?

lock him up and throw away the key.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

I wasn't even searching for images.

so it's ok because he didn't abuse them in person?    He didn't reward those who did abuse them in person by purchasing the photos of the in person's abuse?

lock him up and throw away the key.

It’s kind of crazy because it says he didn’t personally interact with a single child.  I’m assuming ‘interact’ means something specific in this instance, because he has kids and siblings and nieces and nephews so of course he has ‘interacted’ with children. So yeah, it must be a euphemism for ‘sexually abusing’. Which is a weird thing for his attorney to assert since Josh has admitted to molesting four of his sisters in the past. Sorry, I meant to say he ‘personally interacted’ with them. And sheesh- it’s like the attorney is saying that what Josh might have done is bad, but that he;s not Really the bad guy here.   In any case, I bet he’ll be out tomorrow afternoon and likely able to see his children, though maybe only supervised.

I do not trust someone who enjoys viewing that content to limit himself to viewing. I just don’t. So I agree with you...lock him up and throw away the key. But I think we’re going to be disappointed with the outcome of this case.

  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Annie G said:

It’s kind of crazy because it says he didn’t personally interact with a single child.  I’m assuming ‘interact’ means something specific in this instance, because he has kids and siblings and nieces and nephews so of course he has ‘interacted’ with children. So yeah, it must be a euphemism for ‘sexually abusing’. Which is a weird thing for his attorney to assert since Josh has admitted to molesting four of his sisters in the past. Sorry, I meant to say he ‘personally interacted’ with them. And sheesh- it’s like the attorney is saying that what Josh might have done is bad, but that he;s not Really the bad guy here.   In any case, I bet he’ll be out tomorrow afternoon and likely able to see his children, though maybe only supervised.

I do not trust someone who enjoys viewing that content to limit himself to viewing. I just don’t. So I agree with you...lock him up and throw away the key. But I think we’re going to be disappointed with the outcome of this case.

I think it means in his case, he was just "interacting" with inappropriate pictures of children - not the children themselves.   however, his attention to those pictures would have rewarded those who took the pictures and who interacted with the children in person.  He's not innocent of harm.

I'd like them to throw away the key.  I'd also like anna to be required to get licensed counseling (and hopefully break the cult's brainwashing.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Annie G said:

 

I do not trust someone who enjoys viewing that content to limit himself to viewing. I just don’t. So I agree with you...lock him up and throw away the key. But I think we’re going to be disappointed with the outcome of this case.

I agree with you!    

I saw something disturbing last night.  After reading what Faith Manor wrote, I did a search for Mike Huckabee and ATI.  The very first thing that showed up was the IBLP website's prison ministry!   I guess that organization is everywhere, so even if JD gets more of the same training or whatever it's called in prison at least he won't have access to children.   

 

   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Laurie said:

I agree with you!    

I saw something disturbing last night.  After reading what Faith Manor wrote, I did a search for Mike Huckabee and ATI.  The very first thing that showed up was the IBLP website's prison ministry!   I guess that organization is everywhere, so even if JD gets more of the same training or whatever it's called in prison at least he won't have access to children.   

 

   

Those of us in Seattle/puget sound area tend to despise huckabee (I'm a conservative!).  not just because of the creepy vibe he gives off.

He pardoned/commuted-the-sentence of - many a criminal. (more than the gov's of the states around him combined.) One of those criminals (Maurice Clemmons) came to washington and bragged to his family about how he was going to shoot police officers (apparently, they thought it was just talk).  Which he did, in cold blood.  Four officers as they were sitting in a diner prior to going on duty.  He was fatally shot by his would-be fifth victim  (days? a week?) later.

Edited by gardenmom5
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

I wasn't even searching for images.

so it's ok because he didn't abuse them in person?    He didn't reward those who did abuse them in person by purchasing the photos of the in person's abuse?

lock him up and throw away the key.

This is the crazy thinking that goes on.  I won't go into details here to protect the victims bit it was similar crazy thinking presented on court with my now ex husband.

He was offered a 15 year plea deal and turned it down.   He was convicted and sentenced to 90 years instead.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ottakee said:

This is the crazy thinking that goes on.  I won't go into details here to protect the victims bit it was similar crazy thinking presented on court with my now ex husband.

He was offered a 15 year plea deal and turned it down.   He was convicted and sentenced to 90 years instead.

Sounds like it was better he got the 90 years instead.

 

I'm sorry it upended your and your chidlren's lives.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

did anyone see that Jill's dh has come out, and is publicly slamming JB and M?

 

Sounds like Jill got the winner in the dh dept.

I'm on the fence. I'm glad she is no longer in that cult of personality with her parents, but I am afraid Derrick is all about the money, not the other stuff. He's mad he didn't get paid, more than he seems upset about the other stuff. His wife was one of Josh's victims, but rather than condemning Josh, he's talking about not getting paid, about being bossed around by JB, etc. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

Sounds like it was better he got the 90 years instead.

 

I'm sorry it upended your and your chidlren's lives.

That is was.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

I'm on the fence. I'm glad she is no longer in that cult of personality with her parents, but I am afraid Derrick is all about the money, not the other stuff. He's mad he didn't get paid, more than he seems upset about the other stuff. His wife was one of Josh's victims, but rather than condemning Josh, he's talking about not getting paid, about being bossed around by JB, etc. 

Apparently JimBoob told the kids it was a "ministry" while collecting paychecks on behalf of adult children. They should have been paid. 

He might also be sensitive to Kills trauma that she's in therapy for. Idk, just a thought. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:
1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

I'm on the fence. I'm glad she is no longer in that cult of personality with her parents, but I am afraid Derrick is all about the money, not the other stuff. He's mad he didn't get paid, more than he seems upset about the other stuff. His wife was one of Josh's victims, but rather than condemning Josh, he's talking about not getting paid, about being bossed around by JB, etc. 

Apparently JimBoob told the kids it was a "ministry" while collecting paychecks on behalf of adult children. They should have been paid. 

He might also be sensitive to Kills trauma that she's in therapy for. Idk, just a thought. 

 

Not sure how messed up the quote. I put my comment in italics

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2021 at 9:07 AM, Spryte said:

Internet searches can be disturbing.  Even searching for images of a certain, very popular children’s cartoon led us to some really disturbing images - sketches of the characters, but still, can’t unsee those. Nothing in that search should have led to anything questionable, but there it was, even with a safe search feature on. 

I have a kid who loves fan art and fanfic, and I ended up discussing rule 34 and what specific terms in headers meant early, so that it would be easier to avoid based on a list of search results, BEFORE clicking on links. Because fansites rarely end up filtered out. 

 

I learned this the hard way when I assigned my middle school age music students to research a musician or composer they liked. One of my 6th graders first search hits, on a school computer with filters, was a photo of her chosen singer performing (ahem) offstage. She printed it, and it wasn't until later in the day that her math teacher caught her running a thriving business showing it off for a quarter a look. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

 

I hope the Duggar parents finally see their self-righteous parenting created a monster.

Ascribing his actions to their parenting though is the flip side of their own misguided belief--that parents can control the outcomes of what kind of people their children grow up to become by parenting the "right" way.

We don't control outcomes because children are individuals who grow up to be adults who are individuals.

Did their parenting contribute to the way Josh sees and interacts with the world? Yes.

Did they create him to be who he is? 

Absolutely not. That's not how parenting works, for good or ill.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This whole thing about the kids not getting paid is one reason I just can't watch "reality" TV.  TLC films these shows in states where there aren't laws protecting the children- work hours, pay held in trust.  I don't believe that parents have the right to use their kids like this.  There's also literally no amount of money that would get me to sell my children's privacy like that so I must admit I am pretty critical of parents being willing to do so. 

This board's opinion has changed so much re: the Duggars.  

I grew up in a Catholic family who attended a protestant church for a time when I was a pre-teen.  I had the random opportunity to attend BLP with Bill Gothard himself (at the time, it was emphasized to us how lucky we were that he would be live and not on video!) in 1992 and so I attended, with a friend from the church.  Fortunately, my parents (especially my mom) were not taken in by the nonsense.  I sat there for the whole week (maybe it was Wednesday to Saturday and not a full week?) in pants listening to him talk about how it was wrong for girls to wear pants and that Cabbage Patch dolls are evil. I also got to see him run an absolute staged scam on stage (a man, supposedly possessed by demons, attacked Gothard on stage! But wait, the man's father was in the audience!  But wait, our prayers had healed the man!  And now the man, who was possessed by demons just moments ago was tearfully asking all of us to sing his favorite hymn!) and when I first told this story here, there were still people defending Gothard and his methods, lol.  Because of their association with ATI, I was always REALLY skeptical of the Duggars.  I know good families got caught up in it but they weren't just caught up in it, they were promulgating it.  

Even at age 12, I saw through his staged attack trick and I sat there wondering how many of the people in Mercer Arena were buying it.  After the first day, I mostly went back because we got to eat lunch at the Center House in Seattle Center (12 year old Katie absolutely LOVED the lemonade at The Frankfurter 😛 ), I didn't have to go to school AND I was curious what crazy thing he would say next.  The gave us leatherette books with their teachings in them and the seminar followed the book so my book was full of my comments, rebuttals and doodles.  I wrote the word NO a lot.  

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, maize said:

Ascribing his actions to their parenting though is the flip side of their own misguided belief--that parents can control the outcomes of what kind of people their children grow up to become by parenting the "right" way.

We don't control outcomes because children are individuals who grow up to be adults who are individuals.

Did their parenting contribute to the way Josh sees and interacts with the world? Yes.

Did they create him to be who he is? 

Absolutely not. That's not how parenting works, for good or ill.

That's pretty much what I meant. The hyperfocus on sex and women's bodies had to contribute to the deviancy. 

"Created a monster" is an expression. It in no way indicates he is not responsible for his actions.

Edited by AbcdeDooDah
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Ottakee said:

Yes, very typical. ....NOT right, but very typical.  He likely thinks he will get off, avoid prison, etc 

Well, he is Josh Duggar and never faced a consequence in his life. 

My ex was convinced while he was under investigation that he was going to be cleared. He said his defense attorney read the statements my daughters made and "nothing looked that bad." (You bet your ass I voted against him when he later ran for D.A.) After his arrest I found a journal where he had written about wanting to double his income that year, and wanting to take the family to Disney once the whole thing was over. Instead, he was arrested, lost his job, and went to prison. And none of us ever want to see him again.

These men are truly delusional.  

Edited by OH_Homeschooler
  • Like 6
  • Sad 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

That's pretty much what I meant. The hyperfocus on sex and women's bodies had to contribute to the deviancy. 

Contribute is a far reach from create though.

People who end up as pedophiles come from all sorts of backgrounds. If we look at each one and say "look what his parents created" we are ascribing more power and influence to parents than they actually have.  We are going right along with what ATI and its ilk seem to teach--that parents can control the outcome in their children.

Saying a person's parents "created a monster" puts us basically in the same camp as those who preach that if parents do everything right their kids will turn out the way they want them.

Parents have influence yes, but parents do not and cannot create. 

  • Like 13
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

This whole thing about the kids not getting paid is one reason I just can't watch "reality" TV.  TLC films these shows in states where there aren't laws protecting the children- work hours, pay held in trust.  I don't believe that parents have the right to use their kids like this.  

.....

I totally agree. I will not watch or follow any reality programming that uses minor in an ongoing way.  I have been saying this for years.  And I was slammed for it during the Duggar golden years.  Emotionally healthy parents don't pimp their offspring's childhood for financial gain.  

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, maize said:

Contribute is a far reach from create though.

People who end up as pedophiles come from all sorts of backgrounds. If we look at each one and say "look what his parents created" we are ascribing more power and influence to parents than they actually have.  We are going right along with what ATI and its ilk seem to teach--that parents can control the outcome in their children.

Saying a person's parents "created a monster" puts us basically in the same camp as those who preach that if parents do everything right their kids will turn out the way they want them.

Parents have influence yes, but parents do not and cannot create. 

Ok.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, maize said:

Contribute is a far reach from create though.

People who end up as pedophiles come from all sorts of backgrounds. If we look at each one and say "look what his parents created" we are ascribing more power and influence to parents than they actually have.  We are going right along with what ATI and its ilk seem to teach--that parents can control the outcome in their children.

Saying a person's parents "created a monster" puts us basically in the same camp as those who preach that if parents do everything right their kids will turn out the way they want them.

Parents have influence yes, but parents do not and cannot create. 

Obviously this isn't true, but if parents do everything WRONG - there are going to be consequences. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FuzzyCatz said:

I totally agree. I will not watch or follow any reality programming that uses minor in an ongoing way.  I have been saying this for years.  And I was slammed for it during the Duggar golden years.  Emotionally healthy parents don't pimp their offspring's childhood for financial gain.  

Exactly! 

Right as their show was getting started, I read some article in a magazine like Family Circle or Good Housekeeping that was like "See how this resourceful mom feeds 16 kids!" and my main takeaway was it honestly didn't seem they were really getting quite enough nutrition- the meal plan seemed unrealistically modest to me and there was something about fruit being a treat and not like an everyday treat but a treat treat. I posted something to that effect on another board and got slammed.  I will say that at least for the kids' sakes the show seems to have enhanced their standard of living in a way that meant acquiring food was no longer a hurdle to overcome. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, hippymamato3 said:

Obviously this isn't true, but if parents do everything WRONG - there are going to be consequences. 

There are actually people who grew up with horribly abusive parents and became responsible, kind, thoughtful adults.

Humans behavior is just so complex. We are a mix of our genes and our environment and our own choices in response to our environment, and no single factor has determining control. 

I'm not at all saying I don't think Josh's parents--or anyone's parents--had no impact. 

Only that parents don't have control, in either the direction they desire or any other direction.

Edited by maize
  • Like 7
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...