OT 19 Kids And Counting star Josh Duggar, 33, pleads not guilty to federal child porn charges

[Natebishop3]

I’m not at all against treating people who may be afflicted with mental illness with compassion. I take a more pragmatic approach when it comes to people that pose a real danger to children, though. Whether pedophilia can be treated or not, I don’t know since I haven’t done any research on this topic. But as I said, you act on that fucked up impulses and you have a problem.

I’ll confess something here: Closest I ever came to killing someone was a situation with one of my sis in-law’s ex-bf. If my wife hadn’t been there, that guy would’ve been dead and I’d likely be in prison. It’s one of the few things in life where I have no compromises for.

Treat them or not treat them, I don’t care. But they act on their vile shit and they should be taken out. It’s that simple.

I feel like you and Sly keep going back to the ones that act on it, and I'm not talking about them. I have only agreed with you guys that the people who act on it should be punished severely.

 

[Lanny]

I don't know a lot about Asperger's. I therefore admit I don't know why Asperger's would prevent a person from calling another by the name they prefer, or to insist that gay, lesbian, bi, trans are actually genders when those of us in the community say otherwise.

Couldn't you also admit that you don't know a lot about our community?

I don't know enough about Asperger's nor about the LGBTQ community to say but I'm willing to learn if only you two could agree on something.

 

[Lanny]

I work with people under the ASD umbrella, and it's not about knowing a lot about a community as much as it's about black and white things. (Not race black and white, but it is or it isn't). Something makes sense or it doesn't, nuances, shades of grey, etc, aren't easily perceived by people who are under the "umbrella".

It's never personal, and it's not a slight against someone. It's similar to how LGBTQ will say it's how they're wired, that's how people who are ASD/Aspergers are wired. It doesn't mean they hate someone, or whatever, it just means that it doesn't make sense to how they perceive the world.

It's kind of ironic for you to have RR "admit" he doesn't know a lot about your community, when you know probably less about his.

Help me out, what's the ASD umbrella?

 

[Lanny]

I feel like you and Sly keep going back to the ones that act on it, and I'm not talking about them. I have only agreed with you guys that the people who act on it should be punished severely.

Why would you punish them? Why not prevent them from harming others and then try and treat them until they're fit for release back into society, if ever, unless you're feeding your need for revenge. This punishment idea never has made sense to me.

 

[Minstrel]

Help me out, what's the ASD umbrella?

Autism Spectrum Disorder. Various conditions that were once spoken of as separate conditions, like Asperger's, have been folded into the autism spectrum.

 

[Road Ratt]

Make sure to drop a hit of acid before watching, just to catch up with this YouTuber.

 

[julius]

Help me out, what's the ASD umbrella?

Autism Spectrum disorder, and the "umbrella" just means those who fit under something. so I'm saying "umbrella" to include many different behavior types that ASD presents.

 

[crandc]

Meanwhile, an Arkansas pediatrician reported that after the state banned treatment for transgender youth, four of her patients attempted suicide.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Josh Duggar had '65 child porn images and a video of girls aged 5 to 10 on his computer' when it was seized by Homeland Security agents, court hears

• Josh Duggar, 33, has pleaded not guilty to receiving and possessing child pornography after he was arrested and charged in Arkansas last week
• Duggar appeared via Zoom from the Washington County Jail for a federal detention hearing on Wednesday
• During the detention hearing, a Homeland Security agent testified about the 2019 raid on Duggar's now-closed car dealership where they seized electronics
• The agent testified they found 65 child porn images showing a young girl
• Agents also allegedly found a two-minute video that showed a man performing sex acts on two young girls, aged between 5 and 10 years old

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...5-child-porn-images-computer-court-hears.html

 

[jlprk]

Don't give a fuck what anyone thinks, I'd have no compunction applying some old school Viet Cong's torture techniques on child molesters myself.

How do you know these techniques? Did you look at pictures and drawings?

After all, the legal system says that looking at pictures is the same thing as doing whatever's in the pictures.

 

[jlprk]

It's similar to an alcoholic who gets into a car accident while drunk. They don't need a deterrent, they need to be punished. Acting on a pedophilia addiction you need to go to jail.

You admit it's an addiction, yet you want to shove your weight around with punishment, not caring whether it deters. And you define "act on it" as including anything you want. Now that the legal system monitors what we look at without acting, is the next step to define "act on it" as just thinking without acting?

Why would you punish them? Why not prevent them from harming others and then try and treat them until they're fit for release back into society, if ever, unless you're feeding your need for revenge. This punishment idea never has made sense to me.

Thank you, Lanny. Anyone who thinks like a Christian will believe that prison sentences should be the minimum necessary to change behavior, not the maximum to punish. Deterrence is all that matters. Punishment is for the ego-tripping haters in this thread. I still practice love, my guiding principle.

Edit to add:

...but not organized religion.

 

[Natebishop3]

Deterrence is to lock them in prison so that they don't continue to pose a serious threat to children. Some would call that punishment for their crime. And if severe punishment deters (or serves as an example to scare off) just one would-be child molester from molesting a child, I'm all for that.

I really don't think deterrence works. Since it's so underground, I sometimes wonder how widespread the real problem is.

 

[Natebishop3]

What would you have us do to help eradicate this problem? We obviously can't have child molesters freely walking around in public.

I told you earlier, I think the only way is to make them feel like they can come forward and get treatment before they act on it.

Deterrence and eradication doesn't work. It never has. Not with addiction or mental illness. We have been trying to eradicate and deter the drug problem in America for my entire life. We have spent trillions of dollars. We have made ZERO progress. It doesn't work. Busting pedos and shutting down the rings that trade the child porn is not doing anything to actually stop the problem.

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't agree. I just think we need to crack at them harder. It won't completely solve the problem, as I don't think any serious problem that we're dealing with can be entirely eradicated, but it will help enough where we can live with it.

When has that ever worked?

 

[Minstrel]

The irony about punishment is that the more severe it is, the more extreme behavior you create. To illustrate this, let's take an absurd extreme: suppose jaywalking was punishable by the death penalty. Well, the moment someone is guilty of jaywalking, they no longer have anything to lose, in their mind. There's no longer anything deterring them from robbery, murder, etc...they're already walking dead. Anything they need to do to evade capture is rational and anything they need to do to survive if they do evade capture is rational.

Bringing it back to this subject, let's take someone like Josh Duggar, who doesn't want to go as far as to sexually violate a child, but tries to secretly and quietly get his rocks off with child porn on his computer. If we, as Tyrant suggests, punish that with torture unto death, then the moment he takes even the step to look at child porn, there's nothing deterring him from going even further and molesting or assaulting children. So yes, you may deter some people from even looking at child porn, but you may also push some people into going further because the punishment is the same but the "gratification" (in their minds) is greater.

I don't know what the right solution is here, I've never really put a great deal of thought into this particular subject. But generations and even millennia of criminal justice paradigms (and torture attempts) have come to the conclusion that simply ratcheting up punishments higher and higher don't yield the desired results.

And that's before even getting into the moral question of whether government and society should be in the torture or execution business.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

let's take someone like Josh Duggar, who doesn't want to go as far as to sexually violate a child,

But he has sexually violated a child, he molested his sisters and a babysitter.

 

[Minstrel]

But he has sexually violated a child, he molested his sisters and a babysitter.

Oh okay, I missed that. I thought his case was about images of child abuse. Well, then, forget him as an example.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Oh okay, I missed that. I thought his case was about images of child abuse. Well, then, forget him as an example.

His current legal problems are about images of child abuse. When he was a teen he sexually abused his kid sisters and a babysitter.

 

[Natebishop3]

His current legal problems are about images of child abuse. When he was a teen he sexually abused his kid sisters and a babysitter.

I still don't understand how he dodged that one.

 

[Natebishop3]

Unrelated to the main topic, I knew this dude when I was younger.

https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/2014/12/oregon_city_man_with_sexual_in.html

Six years seems a little light honestly. I mentioned him earlier. Very strange guy when I knew him. Never really talked to anyone. Kinda just followed people around and.... watched. He was home schooled and didn't know how to be around people. There has to be something profoundly wrong with someone to be attracted to babies. Something broken in his mind. That's why I think it's clearly a kind of mental illness. I just don't know if there's really anything that can be done to treat it.

 

[Minstrel]

I also argued for severe punishment for those that actually molested children, not the pedos that are still in the closet.

Well, I was using the case (that I thought applied to this guy) where someone looks at child porn (so, they are acting on it) but not physically harming children. So you can go much more extreme, from looking at pictures to going out and committing the acts.

 

[calvin natt]

“Just looking” at child porn is not victimless though. The person may not be THE person doing the heinous acts. But the people watching it create the industry (if you will), make it so it’s a thing people create and distribute. Just looking At it makes you a customer. The victim has been violated by the viewer.

 

[crandc]

The viewer might be "just looking" but an actual person was raped so the voyeur could watch.

 

[jlprk]

Some percentage of readers of basketball messenger boards will commit a heinous act. Everyone reading this enables those future criminals. Therefore, Sly the ringleader should serve a long, long sentence as far from basketball readers as possible.

They used to say that marijuana is an entrance drug to heroin. So marijuana users got long sentences in many states.

I believe that anyone who has potential to break the law, has broken that law. They have "acted upon it" by thinking of it or looking at pictures. I myself have never had wayward thoughts, so I qualify to enforce the law upon you lowlifes.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Some percentage of readers of basketball messenger boards will commit a heinous act. Everyone reading this enables those future criminals. Therefore, Sly the ringleader should serve a long, long sentence as far from basketball readers as possible.

They used to say that marijuana is an entrance drug to heroin. So marijuana users got long sentences in many states.

I believe that anyone who has potential to break the law, has broken that law. They have "acted upon it" by thinking of it or looking at pictures. I myself have never had wayward thoughts, so I qualify to enforce the law upon you lowlifes.

This is not the same unless the readers are there with the intent of seeing that crime.

 

[jlprk]

This is not the same unless the readers are there with the intent of seeing that crime.

So everyone should go to prison for torturing a black man to death for 9 minutes on top of his lungs, if they watch "on purpose" the video of a policeman doing the same. And if you watch "with intent" a video of cars plowing into other cars, you should be imprisoned for multiple violations of reckless driving. Etc.

The guy who assembled the video of many car wrecks did so to get you to watch. You "enable" him to do it again, when others will enjoy the violent pleasure of watching car wrecks. Some may have their inhibitions loosened into trying it themselves. So you the viewer go to jail, says the evil legal system.

 

[Phatguysrule]

So everyone should go to prison for torturing a black man to death for 9 minutes on top of his lungs, if they watch "on purpose" the video of a policeman doing the same. And if you watch "with intent" a video of cars plowing into other cars, you should be imprisoned for multiple violations of reckless driving. Etc.

The guy who assembled the video of many car wrecks did so to get you to watch. You "enable" him to do it again, when others will enjoy the violent pleasure of watching car wrecks. Some may have their inhibitions loosened into trying it themselves. So you the viewer go to jail, says the evil legal system.

As terrible as it is, killing adults and wrecking cars is not as bad as raping kids.

Not even in the same conversation, IMO.

But aside from that, those acts weren't committed for the benefit of, and in association with those websites. Or yes, the viewers would be complicit.

The viewers didn't enable the police officer to kill anybody.

 

[jlprk]

As terrible as it is, killing adults and wrecking cars is not as bad as raping kids.

Not even in the same conversation, IMO.

So you think that the rules of logic should bend to reach the desired conclusion. The law should use different rules of logic for one activity than for another.

If you take a logic class, you will find that there is only path in logic. The rules are consistent, not dependent upon a desired outcome.

 

[Phatguysrule]

So you think that the rules of logic should bend to reach the desired conclusion. The law should use different rules of logic for one activity than for another.

If you take a logic class, you will find that there is only path in logic. The rules are consistent, not dependent upon a desired outcome.

Not at all. It was just something that occurred to me while I was responding.

 

[jlprk]

But aside from that, those acts weren't committed for the benefit of, and in association with those websites. Or yes, the viewers would be complicit.

The viewers didn't enable the police officer to kill anybody.

As I understand the law, that part is not required to have broken the law. You break the law watching the video, whether or not the video was made for others to watch.