Kaci Lynn is here - Whitney and Zach's 2nd baby

[CorruptionInc.]

On 11/11/2016 at 6:08 AM, imokit said:

Pants and no head band!

The headband could be hiding under the hood, but we'll never know...

[Carm_88]

11 hours ago, CorruptionInc. said:

The headband could be hiding under the hood, but we'll never know...

I actually thought the same thing lol. But we will hope that there's not a massive flowered headband under that hood! 

[RosyDaisy]

This is an opinion that no doubt varies from person to person but I see that your cut off is young children. I'm curious as to the age or circumstances that have lead you to your definition.

This was a response referring to to Zach and Whitney's children. Obviously, nobody deserves to live a house of evil. By that I am referring to abusive homes.

[actuallyjessica]

This was a response referring to to Zach and Whitney's children. Obviously, nobody deserves to live a house of evil. By that I am referring to abusive homes.

I know that you were talking about Zach and Whitney's kids. I've seen a few different people here come to different conclusions on when and why the "kids" become accountable, and well, I was just curious as to when and why you decided lack of accountability stopped once they were no longer considered young children.

[VelociRapture]

4 hours ago, actuallyjessica said:

I know that you were talking about Zach and Whitney's kids. I've seen a few different people here come to different conclusions on when and why the "kids" become accountable, and well, I was just curious as to when and why you decided lack of accountability stopped once they were no longer considered young children.

Personally, I used to give the adult Duggar/Bates offspring a "grace period" - usually until they hit around 26 or 28. I figured that gave them more than ample time to be exposed to the world and various ideas.

After the latest election though, I'm done with that and I'm done with feeling sympathy for them too - at least those who admit they voted to subject the rest of us to Trump (like Hipster Jesus and Zachney Bates.) Yeah, it's childish and immature in many ways... but I'm personally tired of giving these people passes for shitty beliefs or behaviors. They don't give two shits about the LGBTQ+ community (which my brother is a member of) or my right to make health decisions best for me and my family. So I'm no longer giving two shits about their happiness or wellbeing. And I'm not giving them a grace period to grow a concious now either. 

(Everyone is free to feel differently though. These are just my personal thoughts about it. )

[Palimpsest]

1 hour ago, VelociRapture said:

Personally, I used to give the adult Duggar/Bates offspring a "grace period" - usually until they hit around 26 or 28. I figured that gave them more than ample time to be exposed to the world and various ideas.

After the latest election though, I'm done with that and I'm done with feeling sympathy for them too - at least those who admit they voted to subject the rest of us to Trump (like Hipster Jesus and Zachney Bates.) 

I think the majority of us on FJ give an extended grace period when it comes to adult behavior to the kidults still living at home.  It is based on an understanding that their development and ability to think critically is stunted by their upbringing and (all too frequent) lack of a decent education.  

However, once they are running for political office (see Zach, John David, and young Austin Forsyth), financially independent (see Lawson and Nathan), and especially when they are married and setting up their own Patriarchal little households (all the other young marrieds), damn straight they can be held accountable for their beliefs, behavior, and political views.

I even hold kidults like Jana Duggar and Sarah Maxwell accountable for the way they vote.  There is no reason they have to follow Daddy's orders when they are in the privacy of the voting booth.

[Justmurrayed]

2 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

Personally, I used to give the adult Duggar/Bates offspring a "grace period" - usually until they hit around 26 or 28. I figured that gave them more than ample time to be exposed to the world and various ideas.

After the latest election though, I'm done with that and I'm done with feeling sympathy for them too - at least those who admit they voted to subject the rest of us to Trump (like Hipster Jesus and Zachney Bates.) Yeah, it's childish and immature in many ways... but I'm personally tired of giving these people passes for shitty beliefs or behaviors. They don't give two shits about the LGBTQ+ community (which my brother is a member of) or my right to make health decisions best for me and my family. So I'm no longer giving two shits about their happiness or wellbeing. And I'm not giving them a grace period to grow a concious now either. 

(Everyone is free to feel differently though. These are just my personal thoughts about it. )

For me, I'll give them a grace period. I know what it's like to get those vines of what you grew up believing and what is right and truthful can be difficult, and I'll admit I use myself as my barometer. If you're unmarried and living at home I'll give you until you're 23 or 24 because you're probably living and breathing the religion. If you're willing to get married and indoctrinate a second generation, that goes out the window if you haven't even thought about your beliefs and how wrong they are before indictrinating another generation, you get no sympathy from me. You are cut off at the age of marriage. Or whatever comes first. Hopefully that makes sense, I really need some coffee. 

[actuallyjessica]

Thanks for your answers.

I even hold kidults like Jana Duggar and Sarah Maxwell accountable for the way they vote.  There is no reason they have to follow Daddy's orders when they are in the privacy of the voting booth.

Has it been proven who she voted for? I don't follow the election threads.

[VelociRapture]

35 minutes ago, Justmurrayed said:

For me, I'll give them a grace period. I know what it's like to get those vines of what you grew up believing and what is right and truthful can be difficult, and I'll admit I use myself as my barometer. If you're unmarried and living at home I'll give you until you're 23 or 24 because you're probably living and breathing the religion. If you're willing to get married and indoctrinate a second generation, that goes out the window if you haven't even thought about your beliefs and how wrong they are before indictrinating another generation, you get no sympathy from me. You are cut off at the age of marriage. Or whatever comes first. Hopefully that makes sense, I really need some coffee. 

Don't worry. You made perfect sense. Rather impressive without any coffee to be honest. I've only had Decaf since January, so you'd think my body would have adjusted by now. But no. I still feel like I make next to no sense at times. 

8 minutes ago, actuallyjessica said:

Thanks for your answers.
 

Has it been proven who she voted for? I don't follow the election threads.

I don't think it's been proven for sure. The Duggars had an election night party to watch the returns come in though and Elijah Kaneshiro specifically mentioned hoping Trump would win:

That doesn't necessarily mean that Jana or another Duggar voted for Trump - but I think it's likely they did. Because abortion and because the Moldy Orange picked Hank Hill's dad for his VP.

And just a side note: but that looks like a super fun party! Hope they didn't get too crazy and break out the grape juice or something!  

[Palimpsest]

7 minutes ago, actuallyjessica said:

Thanks for your answers.
 

Has it been proven who she voted for? I don't follow the election threads.

That should have read "I would even hold kidults like ..."

She who?  Jana or Sarah?  I have no idea who they voted for unless they say so publicly.  The Maxwells were stumping for Cruz but then went silent on politics when Cruz withdrew.  I'm not sure whether Pence would have off-set Trump enough for the Maxwells to vote for him

My guess is that most of the Duggars voted for Trump for the same reasons @VelociRapture gave.

As a total aside, it's frightening but individual's voting histories are available for purchase by campaigns in some states.

[HereticHick]

1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

 

As a total aside, it's frightening but individual's voting histories are available for purchase by campaigns in some states.

 We have secret ballots in the United States.  Your party REGISTRATION (if your state requires registration by party) and when and where you have voted is public information.  HOW you voted is not.

[Palimpsest]

26 minutes ago, HereticHick said:

 We have secret ballots in the United States.  Your party REGISTRATION (if your state requires registration by party) and when and where you have voted is public information.  HOW you voted is not.

Yes.  Your party registration not who you voted for - and whether or not you voted.

But then there is this:    http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/07/16/voting-is-your-ballot-really-secret/

And Georgia is in deep shit because of a "clerical error."  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/georgia-sent-out-cds-of-data-from-6-million-voters-containing-ssns-birth-dates/

[church_of_dog]

28 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Yes.  Your party registration not who you voted for - and whether or not you voted.

But then there is this:    http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/07/16/voting-is-your-ballot-really-secret/

And Georgia is in deep shit because of a "clerical error."  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/georgia-sent-out-cds-of-data-from-6-million-voters-containing-ssns-birth-dates/

Re the first link above:  I am in a precinct where nobody uses the touchscreen machine, everyone prefers paper ballots.  And yet we are required by law to offer the touchscreen option.  If only one voter used the touchscreen machine, it would be possible to know how that person voted, because our sign-in process would identify the touchscreen voter (not to the public, though -- but in addition that person would have been seen using the machine by whoever else was there at the moment).  One way we try to reduce this risk is by having one or two of the pollworkers wait to submit their own ballot until the very end of the day when we're sure no one else will be coming in to vote.  This is so that if during the day only one person had used the touchscreen, a pollworker or two would also vote using the touchscreen, to make it impossible to know how that first individual voted.  Anyway, it's pretty moot in my location -- I've been a pollworker for around 5 years and so far not a single voter has used the touchscreen.  One woman almost did this election but changed her mind and went for the paper ballot instead.

Re the second link, that is very scary!  Reinforces my neo-Luddite tendencies...

ETA a comment on the whole pants-wearing thing.  I think it's pretty clear that restrictive beliefs are not wholly correlated with restrictive clothing rules such as "no pants for females".  But because the fundies themselves use "skirts only" as such a touchstone for their "look-at-us-we're-so-modest" mantra, it's really hard not to perceive it as a noteworthy step in the right direction when someone who was subject to those rules takes a step away from them.  I totally get that we have no way of knowing whether it is a harbinger of questioning/changing beliefs in each individual's case, and I agree that we should not assume it is, but I also understand why it's so hard to simply ignore it.

[imokit]

On the subject of secret voting in the US.  Is it really secret within families - there were pictures of both THE TRUMP and a Son of TRUMP in voting booths next to their wives looking over the top of the barriers at their wives.  Those wives couldn't have secretly voted HIllary if they wanted to.

Likewise we've seen JB take his kids with him to vote, he's discussed how important it is for them to see democracy and voting.  It wouldn't be hard for him to expect the older ones to take littles in with them.

Yes any one of them could demand a secret ballot and kick up a fuss, but they won't it would make waves and isn't what they've been trained to do.

My convoluted point is that even if one of them wanted to vote against the family line, they probably couldn't because they probably don't have access to a secret ballot due to practical/family reasons.

[Bethella]

1 hour ago, imokit said:

On the subject of secret voting in the US.  Is it really secret within families - there were pictures of both THE TRUMP and a Son of TRUMP in voting booths next to their wives looking over the top of the barriers at their wives.  Those wives couldn't have secretly voted HIllary if they wanted to.

Likewise we've seen JB take his kids with him to vote, he's discussed how important it is for them to see democracy and voting.  It wouldn't be hard for him to expect the older ones to take littles in with them.

Yes any one of them could demand a secret ballot and kick up a fuss, but they won't it would make waves and isn't what they've been trained to do.

My convoluted point is that even if one of them wanted to vote against the family line, they probably couldn't because they probably don't have access to a secret ballot due to practical/family reasons.

I don't know about other states but here in Michigan if you show your ballot to another adult (like Trump looking over the barrier at his wife's ballot), it spoils/voids the ballot and the voter would have to get another ballot to vote. You are allowed to have children under 18 in the booth with you but I don't think it would be hard to have the kids "wait here, I'll only be a minute" 

[imokit]

6 hours ago, Bethella said:

I don't know about other states but here in Michigan if you show your ballot to another adult (like Trump looking over the barrier at his wife's ballot), it spoils/voids the ballot and the voter would have to get another ballot to vote. You are allowed to have children under 18 in the booth with you but I don't think it would be hard to have the kids "wait here, I'll only be a minute" 

In the Duggar house? Those siblings have been trained to tattle and absolutely would tell if they were banned from the booth.

[ophelia]

19 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

Personally, I used to give the adult Duggar/Bates offspring a "grace period" - usually until they hit around 26 or 28. I figured that gave them more than ample time to be exposed to the world and various ideas.

After the latest election though, I'm done with that and I'm done with feeling sympathy for them too - at least those who admit they voted to subject the rest of us to Trump (like Hipster Jesus and Zachney Bates.) Yeah, it's childish and immature in many ways... but I'm personally tired of giving these people passes for shitty beliefs or behaviors. They don't give two shits about the LGBTQ+ community (which my brother is a member of) or my right to make health decisions best for me and my family. So I'm no longer giving two shits about their happiness or wellbeing. And I'm not giving them a grace period to grow a concious now either. 

(Everyone is free to feel differently though. These are just my personal thoughts about it. )

I totally feel you!!!

I used to give family members a grace period when it comes to political views, but that is over. I have an uncle who openly supports Trump and we are living in Germany. He makes me sick and I just don't want to deal with this crap anymore. There is no right to bullshit IMHO. Especially when it comes to bullshit that is hateful, contemptuos, racist, homophobic, mysogynistic, islamophob or whatsoever. Thinking like this hurts people, it even kills them!

[VelociRapture]

5 hours ago, imokit said:

In the Duggar house? Those siblings have been trained to tattle and absolutely would tell if they were banned from the booth.

It would depend on how fast the line moves when the Duggars go vote. If the line moves quickly then there may be ample booths available for the adults to use at the same time - meaning any littles they have with them would go into the booths too. If it moves slowly then that may not happen because they'd have to wait turns, meaning an adult would be free to watch them. That's assuming that they bring the littles with them though. They probably do, but I'm not sure.

Additionally, barrier heights can vary depending on polling location. Trump's location had barriers much lower than where I voted. So there's no way for an adult to look over at my ballot while I vote.

And personally, I doubt any of the  Duggars voting would vote against the preferred family candidate. These are people who only have one or two issues they care about and aren't critical thinkers. So if a candidate takes the "right" stance on abortion they are very likely to vote for that person regardless of the candidate's other positions or their personal life.

[Fascinated]

I wonder if any of the kidults ever researched the candidates on the quiet. I doubt it but I suppose it is possible.  I imagine it would be similar to Jill R who was deliriously happy with the result because her brother-in-law told her how Trump stopped to aid a stranded motorist that one time.  It really would be fascinating to know if they had any knowledge beyond what their parents (well, JB) spouted.

[Bethella]

9 hours ago, imokit said:

In the Duggar house? Those siblings have been trained to tattle and absolutely would tell if they were banned from the booth.

If it were a kid of similar age I might agree, for example if Jed and Jer went with Joy, then I can see them tattling on each other but if Jana has the lost girls with her when she votes they're going to accept what she says/does because she's an authority figure to them.

[Thorns]

A picture of the entire family _in bed_ on their IG. Zach obvs don't wear a pajama shirt. I feel defrauded. 

[princessmahina]

On 11/26/2016 at 5:08 AM, Thorns said:

A picture of the entire family _in bed_ on their IG. Zach obvs don't wear a pajama shirt. I feel defrauded. 

Oh dang. I'm really surprised Whitney posted a photo like that. But I guess male shoulders aren't as defrauding as female ones?

[Audrey2]

Okay, I've behaved myself for as long as I can stand it.

 

I wish someone would borrow Kelly Bates and Whitney and take them to see Thunder from Down Under or the Chippendales. Then, they can see how defrauding men can be. 

[Carm_88]

2 hours ago, Audrey2 said:

Okay, I've behaved myself for as long as I can stand it.

 

I wish someone would borrow Kelly Bates and Whitney and take them to see Thunder from Down Under or the Chippendales. Then, they can see how defrauding men can be. 

I'd love to see their expressions. I think they'd pass out. 

[Melissa1977]

14 hours ago, princessmahina said:

Oh dang. I'm really surprised Whitney posted a photo like that. But I guess male shoulders aren't as defrauding as female ones?

Whit is not that extreme. She was posting a tender image of a co-sleeping family. As far as it means those kids are not Ezzo-trained, good for them.