and remember to be decent to everyoneall of the time.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
But who am I to argue with a confession?
$10 says he'll be running for a GOP office pretty soon on a "family values" platform.
Josh Duggart needs therapy, not construction or some sort of Christian pennnance, he needs therapy to work out his personality disorder he has developed. Obviously, he never really has come to terms with the molestation of his sisters and others..
Maybe now that the world is watching, Josh Duggar will finally get some real, legitimate therapy. With real legitimate licensed practitioners. He needs it. They all do.
One, the hypocrisy of those who want to see WHO was on this website and what they were doing (none of our business).
Two, this statement:
"But whether someone was on Ashley Madison because she actually wanted to cheat or someone else was on the site because he merely got off on thinking about cheating,..."
That's very intriguing. Someone signing up for a cheating site for titillation, never intending to follow thru? I could see where that could be a very good version of safe sex but I have to wonder how many of AM's users were that for that reason.
Uh, no, Dan. Unless you're talking about an actual Satan who can turn people into little demons, one can never literally demonize. I realize that the word "literally" has been turned into its opposite by devilspawn and their unthinking ilk, but please don't encourage them.
Not a grammar Nazi -- the Nazis actually had state power
What if said politician is single? What if they're in an open relationship? What they've publicly expressed support for people having affairs or simply said "it's nobody else's business"? What if they didn't even contact any other accounts - fake (mostly, from what I understand) or otherwise? You're not a hypocrite if your actions are consistent your professed moral standards; that's the point Dan is making, and which clearly has flown completely over your head.
Or should we have someone in-the-know take a gander to see if YOU have an AM account yourself?
I don't care what goes on between consenting adults. If one of the members of Congress is cheating on his wife/her husband, I don't care, as long as s/he doesn't play the family values card. It's why I cared less about Bill Clinton cheating on his wife than Newt Gingrich cheating on his wife (not to mention, Clinton is still married to his first wife, while Gingrich is on number 3, I believe).
And I can't be too sorry for Anna Duggar; she married Josh knowing full well he'd abused his sisters. Did she not think he would cheat on her?
Oh, and how nice that he worries most about what Jesus thinks rather than apologizing for harming his sisters and his wife, who would be pressured to forgive him.
Consider it outing them for being hypocrites.
I am disappointed when you write "So far I feel bad for everyone who has been outed by the Ashley Madison hackers—everyone except Josh Duggar, the former head of FRC Action, the "political arm" of the antigay hate group Family Research Council."
I am now apologist for Duggar, however justifying a hack of people's private data because one monumental hypocrite gets caught, is like justifying the bulk collection of metadata by the NSA in the hope it will catch one single terrorist. Both are wrong and I am surprised you couldn't see the similarity.
"...the hurt, pain and disgrace my sin has caused..." Passive voice.
Also: "I have been the biggest hypocrite ever"? Still trying to weasel yourself an award for first prize for *something here, Josh? I hear your sin did all the work, dude.
"...the hurt, pain and disgrace my sin has caused..." Passive voice. NOPE. Both sentences still active voice.
Both sentences are in active voice with a subject, transitive verb, and direct objects.
Passive voice examples: The hurt, pain, and disgrace *were* caused by me. The hurt, pain, and disgrace were caused by my sin.
What he did here was simply try to not own up by saying "I" did this, but said it was "my sin" that did it. But it was still active voice.
the person [I] that this hurt pain and disgrace has been caused by
my sin that this hurt pain and disgrace has been caused by
The media is being weirdly reticent about this part of the story, but it's worth repeating: whatever you think of their motives and justifications, the hackers' factual claims about Ashley Madison's business practices are completely borne out by the data. The whole thing was a scam from beginning to end, and there is no reason to believe that more than a fractional percentage of their users actually had any sort of affair other than with AM's accounts receivable department.
So outing this particular asshole, as satisfying as it is, isn't worth putting their lives at risk just so you can feel better. Besides, he's already known as a child molester...he's already finished having any real political influence.
And I'll be even more shocked here on SLOG once I get an internet connection and don't have to post from my phone.
Unfortunately, Duggar's followers are not going to change their minds at this revelation - they're not going to realize his *stance* was wrong. They are just going to file him away in their rolodex of poor misguided souls and continue believing everything he encouraged them to believe. I don't think revealing hypocrisy is useful for anything but schadenfreude, which may feel good temporarily but is ultimately empty. When Gore was speaking for saving the planet a few years ago and people revealed the energy usage of his home, it didn't make his point any less valid. We are all hypocrites - I advise people against procrastination despite often practicing it myself. Or advise people to communicate with their partner when upset - while often clamming up in a huff myself. What is hypocrisy other than the very human inability to take one's own advice? I disagree with Duggar completely, but I'm sure he believes everything he preaches just as fervently, even though he is incapable of sticking to it. I disagree and will fight against his hateful stances, while leaving his private life out of it.
For every hypocrite revealed, how many regular people's lives are ruined by the witch hunt?
The passive voice is formed this way = "to be" (conjugated) + past participle + (often) a complement introduced by "by"
"the hurt, pain and disgrace my sin has caused"
"the hurt, pain and disgrace that have been caused by my sin"
"the hurt, pain and disgrace that were caused by my sin"
"the hurt, pain and disgrace that could have been caused by my sin"
The active voice means that the subject of the verb is the one doing the action, the passive voice is when the subject of the verb is the one to which the action is being done ("action" being used here in its widest possible application).
You can also sometimes skip the auxiliary "to be", as in "a complement introduced by 'by'", an elliptical form of "a complement that is introduced by 'by'".
I don't buy it, Dan. And I'm surprised that you do.
Dan on Cheating: "Cheating is permissible when it amounts to the least worst option, i.e., it is allowed for someone who has made a monogamous commitment and isn't getting any at home (sick or disabled spouse, or withholding-without-cause spouse) and divorce isn't an option (sick or disabled spouse, or withholding-without-cause-spouse-who-can't-be-divorced-for-some-karma-imperiling-reason-or-other) and the sex on the side makes it possible for the cheater to stay married and stay sane. (An exception can be made for a married person with a kink that his or her spouse can't/won't accommodate, so long as the kink can be taken care of safely and discreetly.)" (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag…)
Dan on Shaming: Do you all remember when he was talking about Larry Craig and said "Outing someone, as I wrote when I helped out one asshole and declined to participate in the outing of another, is a brutal tactic and should be reserved for brutes." Dan pretty much has been not to engage in public shaming unless that target has used the source of that shame in the past to harm others. (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…)
You can disagree. But don't pretend that this is somehow "For the first time ever, I absolutely disagree with Dan Savage." @28. This is absolutely consistent with Dan's moral framework that has been established here for quite a while.
But more relevant to the AM stuff, his espoused belief system - hardcore fundamentalist Christianity - wasn't what he actually believed. He actually believed something very different. Your actions, not your words, indicate whether you live your values.
He pretended to have a certain belief system because it gave him access to power and powerful people. It gave him status. He had photo after photo taken with presidential candidates. He was on a popular TV show. By denigrating and treating gay people as second class citizens, he gained more power and prestige, all the while believing something very different than what he claimed publicly.
There's nothing to feel sorry for. He lied so he could achieve very specific ends. The ends he achieved caused others hurt and heartache and despair who didn't deserve it. Feel no sympathy for him. Feel nothing but enmity. It's what he deserves.
(Sorry if this shows up a bunch of times I am having trouble posting)
Occurs to me that the ultimate justification for outing Duggar that Dan would more likely give is that it makes the world a better place. Sorry, still not buying it. I do not want people going around thinking they can do whatever they want to their enemies, so long as they personally believe that they are making the world a better place.
Agreed, but only if the information is public. If Duggar was going around telling people not to wear baseball hats, then by all means point out that he wears a baseball hat himself. However, if Duggar is telling you what to do in your bedroom, just tell him it is none of his damn business. Private information is still private, and exposing it is still cruelty.
I can agree to a point with Mr Savage's foundation that sometimes cheating is the least worst option. He seems to overrate the minus quantity of divorce, with the result that, like a chess-playing computer programmed to, say, overvalue the advantage of having two bishops against bishop and knight or two knights, the mechanism operates smoothly but leads to an inferiour position. A bigger quibble is that, however sincere Mr Savage's professed strictures against cheating in general may be, his having announced the blueprint to obtaining a pass under circumstances XYZ basically reduces them to lip service. Who among us couldn't dress up circumstances UVW to look enough like XYZ to get the pass? (Perhaps the saving grace here is that LWs often mistake the circumstances and present UVW thinking they're presenting XYZ.) This is illustrated by how Mr Savage advises, say, siblings of cheaters to adopt a least-possible-bad-behaviour view that basically amounts to believing Linnet Doyle's account of the Death on the Nile love triangle.
I'd actually find it interesting to see how Mr Savage's point of view would work if he were running his own version of AM in which he would personally review all applicants and only admit those who received his own personal pass.
If you want to create an account on Ashley Madison or any other site you want to use to flirt with others and cheat on your wife, you don't use your REAL email address. You create a new, fake one on Google, Yahoo, or a million other places.
In Josh Dugger's case, they confirmed it was him by tracing the credit card billing address back to addresses he was connected to, and you can't fake that. But I'm under the impression that it wouldn't have been found at all except for searching by email address -- an email address that was obviously not a secret, private one.
Also, Dugger has blamed his infidelity on his porn addiction. Which is so fucking stupid. AM is a site for cheaters, not for those looking for porn. Porn doesn't cause infidelity. If anything, it might provide a release valve that might stop a guy from cheating once he's rubbed one out.
Religion makes the brain shrink, apparently.
@21: I think Dan meant literally literally. It's not unheard of for these people to think that
homosexuality is caused by demon possession and try to do weird exorcism shit on them.
And all these people acting like the concept of exposing hypocrisy is so hard to grasp- puh-lease! It ain't that difficult. If you base your whole life and career on trying to deny people rights based on saving "family values" while making a mockery of said values you deserve to be called out.
Fiscal conservative can preach all day about the evils of welfare and no one should give a shit about their sex lives but if it turns out that they themselves are getting farm subsidies or whatever then they should be called out on that.
This is not your everyday Joe that seems to endorse monogamy but cheats on his wife. Not that that's right either but I think Dan is talking about people who actively try to deny rights to others, to encourage laws against gay marriage, who make money specifically by holding themselves up as paragons of family values, etc. If you go back and read his posts he says this pretty much only applies to public figures, professional moralists who try to force their views on others while not following themselves.
I'm not sure about where the line on getting the info is drawn. I think he has been in favor of say male escorts outing fundie closet cases. I don't think he would have endorsed the hack ahead of time but I'm not sure.
Personally I think the "two wrongs don't make a right" approach is simplistic. There are different levels of wrong and trying to make it hard for one same-sex partner to be at the other's death bed (or whatever) trumps saying that hypocrite sucked my dick last weekend. That said I think the AM hack has caused too much collateral damage to pass that test.
Also, if it makes you feel any better I doubt many people are willing to go trawling through millions of names to find random neighbors or co-workers so odds are good no one will ever see it.
Personally I think his line cuts too close to condoning the hack with your actions while denying it with your mouth, but so as we're on the same page...
Hope you come through this okay.