Whereas if it were written by a staffer, and Duggar only approved it, it’s not reprehensible?
You appear to be saying that judgements like “this is lying hypocritical cant” do not apply to statements made for personal benefit.
2 Likes
You seem to be a very uncharitable person, smut_clyde.
Clearly, the connection from the statement to Mr. Duggar is stronger if he wrote it himself, rather than relying on staff people to make it up for him. That is the way in which it’s more or less reprehensible: As an utterance of Mr. Duggar. If he merely could be expected to support it, or was unaware of it, then Mr. Duggar is somewhat less reprehensible in connection to it.
I am not saying that statements about hypocrisy to not apply to statements made for personal benefit. Nor does the quoted text support that interpretation. There are different kinds of hypocrisy, thought. You can just lie for advantage. Or you can be the kind of screwed-up person who doesn’t realize that he is making the kind of contradiction that is here being made.
Finally, you seem as resistant to nuance as Mr. Duggar. I hope you learn to read better, or at least more charitably, in the future.
uncharitable? The man is a liar and a hypocrite and an enabler of child molestation. He does not get charity.
13 Likes
He either said he wants capital punishment for incest or was fine with that being part of his platform. Either way, his position (and I’ll tone it down to groping your sister while she’s sleeping is a crime) is at odds with what he did. That’s a hypocrite plain and simple.
More interesting to me is that he advocates capital punishment for anything at all. It’s been awhile - I think I’ve opened a phone book more recently than The Bible - but nothing says “Jesus” less than capital punishment to me. I know scholars may disagree.
7 Likes
The Principle of Charity applies to the reading and interpretation of remarks. As it applies here, I am referring to smut_clyde’s interpretation of my remarks. Not to the interpretation of Mr. Duggar’s remarks.
Quench the torches and hang the pitchforks back up in the barn.
1 Like
You also seem incapable of understanding that my remarks point to the really stupid “Ha-ha look at the hypocrite” mode of group-think, and not to Mr. Duggar’s character. I think he’s probably a lout, and his son is probably still a creep. What I’m saying is that there are more interesting things than the characters of these two. For example, and it’s the example to which I’ve plainly pointed to: How do we address people whose modality of thinking is cruel because it is 1) Simplistic, 2) Actually a matter of in-group identification, and 3) Not actually connected to human experience, even though its language appears otherwise on the surface.
These are not difficult ideas. By all means, though, if the hypocrisy of twisted reality show breeders interests you, continue to focus on that and resist any and all consideration of any issues raised that do not relate directly to HYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITE!!!ONE!!ELEVENTY!!!
Allegations like that aren’t included in news coverage as victims of this sexual assault are usually given anonymity. This applies doubly-so where they’re underaged. To speculate on the identity of the girls - remember, they’re the victims - or even mention any familial relation to the perp is to remove that anonymity, and (in the UK, at least), could be an offence under Child Protection laws and/or constitute contempt of court, as reporting restrictions are automatic for the protection of the victims.
Also, it’s kind of a dick move since we’re talking about abused kids here, who’ve done nothing to deserve being used as a stick to publicly beat a hypocritical rapist scumbag.
1 Like
I am seldom accused of that particular character trait. Particularly not about people who are advocating state murder (except for their own family).
The trouble with labeling someone’s rhetoric-for-political-gain as “a positional statement” and an “identification of tribal affiliation” rather than as a statement of intention which might be judged by the criteria of consistency and likely fulfilment, is that the same could be said about so much else that we do and say. Commenting on a blog? I’m just identifying my tribal affiliation, you shouldn’t judge my personality by it.
4 Likes
You have it wrong. He turned his son over to a child molestor (former cop?) to give “moral advice” and avoid turning him into the police.
1 Like
Hey, that misogynist idiot Todd Akin cost the Republicans three Senate seats, by opening his mouth and encouraging other misogynist idiots to do the same. Voters do have a way to shut that kind of thing down, even though they don’t use it anywhere near often enough.
4 Likes
What self-respecting Republican proposes that Big Government intervene in what is inherently a issue that proper values-based parenting would solve?
2 Likes
Nonsense. He’s one of Dr Bob’s double-highs. He’ll do fine.
Seriously, I don’t understand why systemic molestation that occurred by a member of the Family Research Council needs to be further swept under the rug to do this.
Why are you minimizing the actions of one of the larger regressive social conservative lobbying forces for one of the largest and most influential countries in the world?
You could start your own thread and stop crapping on this one, for starters.
I don’t know why you’re going so far out of your way to pretend that one can not point out the horrors of hypocrisy while simultaneously “attempting to reach” someone who is reachable. Can you not be so imaginative?
A statement filled with smarts and nuance, mknorman. You are totally going out of your way to reach people and not appearing a dense pile of polarizing nuggets.
3 Likes
Nobody is asking you to be charitable about Mr. Duggar, you idiot. Learn to read.
As several people have now made this mistake, perhaps you should clarify what you meant, rather than insulting people
6 Likes
I appreciate your efforts to think and write carefully about this situation.
Folks, here’s what @mknorman asked:
It’s a really interesting question.
4 Likes
I submit that a charitable reading of your original comment would in turn require me to be more charitable and more understanding towards Jim-Bob.
1 Like
What I have said is written in plain English in my original post. I used careful and measured language. My hope was that we were not already lost to the throws of group-think. I was foolish to think so. Instead of me rewriting everything, I would encourage you to go back and read it.
smut_clyde is an idiot because he has been told twice that “uncharitable” refers to his interpretation of my remarks, and not his interpretation of Mr. Duggar’s character. smut_clyde’s thinking is so polarized that he can’t even see it. That, good sir, is idiocy. I have been more than patient with him. I have done more than my duty to him. He has accused me of sympathizing with a admitted child molester and his protector. I find that to be a much greater insult than “idiot.” If smut_clyde doesn’t like it, s/he can fuck off at this point, frankly.
I maintain that what is more interesting is how we try to change minds, rather than how cleverly we can point out the hypocrisy of obvious hypocrites. I maintain that what is more interesting is that the ostensibly enlightened and liberal good folk in this thread are as incapable of subtlety of thought as the person–I’m afraid I must be clear and say that I am now referring to Mr. Duggar–whom they are ridiculing. Jesus. Snap the fuck out of it. We can have everyone’s little gosh-he’s-a-hypocrite thread and the more nuanced discussion about the larger issue at the same time. Trust me, the Internet will not break.
The funny thing here is that my remarks about group-think and better ways to address the content and modality of statements is being undermined by exactly the kind of herd instinct in question!
You are incorrect.
I am in love with you!
