Doug Phillips is a Tool & Vision Forum is Dead - Part 7

[DomWackTroll]

I think it's a family surname as in surname used as a middle name. Her maiden name was not Beall. My younger son has my mother's maiden name as his middle name...that kind of thing.

So, do we know what her maiden surname was?

[ILoveJellybeans]

I just cant pronounce Beall as Belle. It just doesn't happen in my head. Nomatter how often I try and correct myself, when reading, I just keep on saying her name as be all.

Beall looks terrible in that interview, like she has aged 10 years. Doug still looks smug. He has a very punchable face.

[ladyamylynn]

So, do we know what her maiden surname was?

Dewey.

[danvillebelle]

So, do we know what her maiden surname was?

From a quick check on Pipl, looks like Dewey.

[Hane]

Good God Almighty.

I have blocked that suppurating pustule yclept Occidental Meadows (which are no doubt full of dung), but could not help noticing his accusing Lourdes of a "lack of willpower." Oh, fuck you, you reprehensible dick-wanker.

May such an abomination never befall your daughters. You'd probably just demand to know why they didn't just ask the guy to stop.

Get the fuck out of here, asshole.

[dawbs]

Used-up chewing gum. A cup that everyone has spit in. A rose with no petals. Once he touched her, she became an impure woman according to fundamentalist Christian standards. Here's what would happen if she told:

She would be accused of lying.

She would be accused of trying to bring down a man of God.

She would be accused of rebellion against her family, her church, and God.

She would lose all her friends, with no opportunity to find new ones, as her world was so small.

Her marriage prospects would be ruined. Because she was trained to believe that her entire worth lay in marriage and childbearing, this would mean she was a failure as a woman.

Her family would be shamed and ostracized.

Her brother's future would be ruined. Who would marry into a family that produced such a rebellious, ungodly daughter?

Even women in "the world" are socialized to speak less than men, to take up less space, to believe that what men want is more important than what they want. This is basic Women's Studies 101. How much more do women in fundamentalism believe that? It's what they're explicitly taught from birth. How is a woman raised this way expected to rise above this level of pressure?

Westchamps won't give this any credence, because FEMINISMZ. But if he truly wants to understand, that's where he'll need to look.

I do understand the gut level "I/she/whomever should have done X" BT, DT.

What I don't understand is how, in the wake of tins like Elizabeth Smart's discussion of how she felt, etc, that people *really* don't get that the human psyche is more complicated than "I should tell an adult and say 'no'."

Pretending that victims of sexual abuse/spiritual abuse/etc should have reacted differently seems like it's the land of the intentionally obtuse.

“I remember in school one time, I had a teacher who was talking about abstinence,†Smart told the panel. “And she said, ‘Imagine you’re a stick of gum. When you engage in sex, that’s like getting chewed. And if you do that lots of times, you’re going to become an old piece of gum, and who is going to want you after that?’ Well, that’s terrible. No one should ever say that. But for me, I thought, ‘I’m that chewed-up piece of gum.’ Nobody re-chews a piece of gum. You throw it away. And that’s how easy it is to feel you no longer have worth. Your life no longer has value.â€

If Elizabeth Smart, an intelligent, articulate young woman whose attack fits the 'popular narrative' of rape (stranger abduction, all that jazz) can't see her way out because she's 'chewed up gum', then how hard is it to imagine that a more patriarchal, less black and white (not a stranger) situation, one that deals w/ the power differential of employee/employer, pastor/church-goer that followed years of grooming would not leave the young woman in question finding an easy way out?

And if you don't speak up time #1, it becomes that much harder time #2, #3, #4, because she'd be going into the situation with the knowledge that DPiaT could say "oh, well, I thought she liked it because she didn't get upset before when we....(which announces to the world that the woman's character is besmirched)" or use some plausible deniability condescension ("I must have brushed against her and being a hysterical young lady, she interpreted that as something else, I'm so sorry for the misunderstanding, I'll make sure it doesn't happen again"), etc.

Speaking out is hard. Very hard.

If I work under the assumption, for the sake of argument that there's a mitigating story from Doug Phillips' side that makes the report be 25% less awful (I'm not saying there is, FWIW), it's still something I can understand a young woman being paralyzed by and finding herself deeper and deeper in a shit filled hole, trying to claw her way out--until it's at that awful end point.

[ThisOlGirl]

I still prefer the previous poster who was going with Baal....

I'm going with Dough and Baal for a while at least.

Doughball. The fundie Brangelina.

[Jasmar]

But see, it was your fault, Peas n carrots, because you were out there, working in the world. If you had just stayed home, under the protection of your husband/father/eldest son/church elder, it never would have happened /sarcasm

Seriously, this is how the warped thinking of fundiestan works. If your behavior falls outside of their strictly defined rules, then anything bad that happens to you is your fault. Incredibly, though, when something bad happens to a fundie, somehow it becomes "god's will." In the interview with the San Antonio TV station, Beall said something along the lines of, well god must have meant for this to happen because it has brought our family so much closer together. :wtf:

God isn't blessing you if greater family closeness is the outcome here; God will bless you cutting out the evil, not papier-mâchéing over it.

[Tesseract]

Doughball. The fundie Brangelina.

:lol:

[westchamps]

Westchamp, I'm not being snarky asking you this, so hear me out: knowing what you know now, if Doug had asked you to allow your daughter to work for him would you have done so? If your daughter had come back and told you she had been treated by Doug in a similar way he treated Ms. Torres-Manteufel, would you think your daughter was lying and looking for money? Would you not sue Doug for everything he has?

1) Knowing what I know now? Of course I wouldn't. But that supposes I would have allowed her to work for him in the first place, and I wouldn't, not because it's Doug, but because, among other things, all of my older children help us in our family business.

2) My children do not lie and make up fanciful stories (okay, the little ones do sometimes, as all little ones do), so if one of my older daughters came home and gave me a story like that, yes, I would believe her and I would immediately investigate.

3) No, I would not sue Doug for everything he has. I ask again - how does $ help heal emotional scars? If he did something criminal, I would definitely be looking into bringing criminal charges.

[westchamps]

:angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: I think you might mean Gloria Allred.

Also, if you are going to argue against something so strongly, it might behoove you to become educated on the subject. Otherwise you look like a fool :)

Yep, just looked up a picture and you're right, I did mean her. So sorry to mix up my feminist Gloria's. What penance must I perform to bring balance to the world once again?

[twin2]

Yep, just looked up a picture and you're right, I did mean her. So sorry to mix up my feminist Gloria's. What penance must I perform to bring balance to the world once again?

Extract your head from your ass.

[formergothardite]

Therapy isn't cheap, so in that way money can help pay for the therapy that can help heal the emotional scars.

[westchamps]

Swearing is not what most bible literalists think it is, as most bible literalists don't study theology in depth. "Thou shalt not swear" is not "You son of a bitch." If that was the case, then Jesus would not have told someone that he was the son of the devil. Common sense here...A son of a female dog is mild compared to a son of the devil. Calling someone a viper in the time of the bible was considered what we would call today swearing/cussing. Jesus cussed.

I just love reading all these pretzel-twisting defenses of why it's okay for Christians to use foul/coarse language. By people who say it's okay and they don't give a darn what I think about it, but yet, strangely, feel the need to continue arguing ways to justify it. :? And keep asking me to drop the subject. Yet they continue to keep it alive with more strange defenses of why the Bible doesn't actually mean what it says.

[westchamps]

FTR, we aren't "all" planning to do anything to you. Some people are wishing for certain things to happen or taking certain actions (putting you on ignore). We are a bunch of INDIVIDUAL members here and each person handles their account as they see fit.

It's pretty hard to get banned here, sometimes that is a double edged sword :wink-kitty:

Someone's sarcasm meter seems to be broken.

[westchamps]

I really don't get the reasoning of someone coming in here and trying to defend patriarchy/homeschooling (patriarchal style). The ideology that keeps kids out of public schools (because evolution and sexual predators) and isolated from the real world is exactly what kept this young available to a sexual predator and unable to get help/out sooner.

Old enough to enlist in the military and kill people or be killed, but not old enough to take responsibility for letting someone know if she was being sexually harrassed against her will? For 5 years? On a regular basis?

[CloakNDagger]

Yep, just looked up a picture and you're right, I did mean her. So sorry to mix up my feminist Gloria's. What penance must I perform to bring balance to the world once again?

Leave the League of Shadows and realize that Harvey Dent is a real good metaphor for this situation.

[formergothardite]

I just love reading all these pretzel-twisting defenses of why it's okay for Christians to use foul/coarse language. By people who say it's okay and they don't give a darn what I think about it, but yet, strangely, feel the need to continue arguing ways to justify it. :? And keep asking me to drop the subject. Yet they continue to keep it alive with more strange defenses of why the Bible doesn't actually mean what it says.

According to how I was raised, darn is a curse word. It is just another way of saying damn. It is a tame curse word, but a curse word none the less.

[hoipolloi]

Ah, the whited sepulchre returns!

westchamps: hope you're going to address the excellent points raised in this comment: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21372&start=800#p721706

Don't worry, it's safe for a fine "Christian" like you to read because there is no "coarse language."

[thoughtful]

Ah, the whited sepulchre returns!

westchamps: hope you're going to address the excellent points raised in this comment: http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic. ... 00#p721706

Don't worry, it's safe for a fine "Christian" like you to read because there is no "coarse language."

Are we in for a flowery-prose-off? :lol:

A duel, knave! A duel, I do declare it -- sesquipedalia at 20 paces!

[geeklove]

1) Knowing what I know now? Of course I wouldn't. But that supposes I would have allowed her to work for him in the first place, and I wouldn't, not because it's Doug, but because, among other things, all of my older children help us in our family business.

2) My children do not lie and make up fanciful stories (okay, the little ones do sometimes, as all little ones do), so if one of my older daughters came home and gave me a story like that, yes, I would believe her and I would immediately investigate.

3) No, I would not sue Doug for everything he has. I ask again - how does $ help heal emotional scars? If he did something criminal, I would definitely be looking into bringing criminal charges.

Pure speculation on my part but a civil case could be preferred because the burden of proof is less. We know there is no physical evidence i.e rape kit, semen stained dress, etc. Furthermore, for many victims of a crime they want some sort punishment; barring a criminal conviction a civil judgement is better than no conviction. I recall the Goldman family said something to that effect about their civil case against OJ Simpson.

I hope you realize that your situation isn't the same as the Torres family. The Torres family was in an extremely vulnerable position; I gather from your posts that you have a more comfortable existence and a secure standing in society.

[formergothardite]

Old enough to enlist in the military and kill people or be killed, but not old enough to take responsibility for letting someone know if she was being sexually harrassed against her will? For 5 years? On a regular basis?

Ahh, but she would have never done any of that because of her upbringing, would have she? When I was old enough to join the military and kill people I was so sheltered I did not even know what sex was. If my religious leader had done something like what Doug is accused of doing to her I would have been so ashamed, confused, and humiliated that I would have kept it to myself. And then when he did it again I would have just blamed myself for it all and kept quite more. Part of it is my personality, a lot of it is being raised in an environment that does not empower women.

[danvillebelle]

Old enough to enlist in the military and kill people or be killed, but not old enough to take responsibility for letting someone know if she was being sexually harrassed against her will? For 5 years? On a regular basis?

You know, for an alleged intellectual, your lack of knowledge about basic psychology when it comes to sexual and emotional abuse and cult situations is rather astounding. IOW, you have no idea what you're talking about, and every time you say "why didn't she just speak up?", it makes you look more and more like an uncaring asshole.

[westchamps]

Hold the phone!

I had to go look up this verse since I'm not a walking encyclopedia of proof texts (no offense meant Artejo) and this is what it says (my bolding of course):

So you gave us that whole, long list of proof texts yesterday, some of which had a somewhat nebulous connection to swearing and said those should be taken as they were written as CLEAR that the bible said swearing for Christians = no no bad and how DARE Christians on this forum be using such coarse language, but now you want to say that using the word fool is ok when presented with this verse that says you will be in danger of HELL FIRE for saying fool?

What the actual fuck, dude?

You can't have it both ways.

Suggest you do a little deeper study on that particular scripture to see if perhaps there is some context necessary to fully understand/interpret that scripture. My guess is yes. Otherwise, Jesus himself would be condemned to hell fire, as He said in Luke 24:25, "He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken!"

[thoughtful]

Suggest you do a little deeper study on that particular scripture to see if perhaps there is some context necessary to fully understand/interpret that scripture. My guess is yes.

Context? A need to interpret? You heard it here first, folks.