If he could have only been allowed to jerk off……


Sisters Jill, Jessa open up about Josh Duggar’s abuse

Two of Josh Duggar’s sex-abuse victims, sisters Jill Dillard and Jessa Seewald, told their stories in the second part of an exclusive interview with Fox News. VPC


Two of Josh Duggar’s sex-abuse victims — sisters Jill Dillard, 24, and Jessa Seewald, 22 — told their stories in the second part of an exclusive interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox’s The Kelly File.

The interview, which was previously recorded, aired Friday night on Fox.

Seewald defends her 27-year-old brother, who inappropriately touched four of his sisters and a family friend during his teen years.

“I do want to speak up in his defense against people who are calling him a child molester or pedophile or a rapist, some people are saying,” Seewald told Kelly. “I’m like, ‘That is so overboard and a lie really.’ I mean, people get mad at me for saying that, but I can say this because I was one of the victims.”

USA TODAY does not usually name victims, but in this case, they have named themselves.

Dillard, who was 12 at the time of the molestation, said, “I was shocked. And I’m sad because this is my older brother who I love a lot. I was angry at first. I was like, ‘How could that happen?’ ”

Seewald said she was 9 or 10 years old during the situation. “In Josh’s case, he was a young boy in puberty and a little too curious about girls. And that got him into some trouble,” she said.

The women said that their parents put up safeguards in the home, including not allowing the boys to babysit, locking doors at night, not playing hide-and-seek or being alone with each other.

Both sisters said that they were unaware of Duggar’s actions until their parents sat them down individually. “It wasn’t like we were keeping a secret,” Dillard said.

Seewald got teary-eyed when she spoke about the InTouch article that came out last month. “I was in tears. I couldn’t believe what was going on.” She said she called her husband. “How do they have a right to do this? We’re victims, they can’t do this to us.” They both told Kelly that they felt victimized again by having the story appear in a tabloid years after it had happened.

The InTouch story, which included pictures of 2006 police documents it was based on, reported in May that Duggar was investigated for multiple sex offenses, including forcible fondling of breasts and genitals, against five underage girls. Some of the alleged offenses investigated were felonies.

In his statement, Duggar said he confessed to his parents and they “took several steps” to address the situation. He also apologized to the victims.

“We spoke with the authorities where I confessed my wrongdoing, and my parents arranged for me and those affected by my actions to receive counseling,” he said. “I understood that if I continued down this wrong road that I would end up ruining my life.”

Duggar was never charged with a crime, and the statute of limitations has now expired.

InTouch reported that his father took Duggar to an Arkansas state trooper who was a personal friend, who took no action other than a “very stern talk.” That officer is now serving a 56-year term in prison for child pornography, the magazine reported, and no case was ever brought against Duggar.

During the first interview, which aired Wednesday, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, the Christian conservative reality-TV stars of 19 Kids and Counting, talked about how son Josh approached them and told them that he had “improperly touched” some of their daughters. Josh was a teen at the time.

“We were shocked, we were devastated,” Michelle Duggar told Kelly in the first interview. “As parents, we felt we’re failures. We tried to raise our kids to do what’s right — to know what’s right. And yet one of our children made really bad choices.” The pair were interviewed at their home in Tontitown, Ark.

The Duggars said that in 2002 and 2003, when he was 14 and 15, Josh had groped the girls while they slept (the girls slept in the same room), and that he did this more than once even after his first confession to his parents.

They got him out of the house and sent him to a non-professional Christian-based counseling program in Little Rock, Ark. Jim Bob Duggar said it was “the best decision” they made, because Josh became “closer to God” as a result. “It was a turning point in his life,” he said.

The TLC network has pulled the show’s reruns from its schedule but has not decided whether to cancel the series entirely. Meanwhile, advertisers, including General Mills, Payless Shoes and Choice Hotels, have cut ties with the family of the popular show.

In the aftermath of the first interview, folks have come out for and against the family.

On Twitter, viewers slammed the Duggars for defending their actions as parents. They also took shots at Kelly for how she conducted the interview.

Montel Williams tweeted, “What the hell is the point of interviewing ANYONE if you aren’t asking questions that matter? Not asking #Duggars tough questions=stupid.”

Piers Morgan agreed.

Sarah Palin posted a diatribe on her Facebook page on Thursday, defending the Duggar family and attacking Girls star Lena Dunham.

“Hey Lena, why not laugh off everyone’s sexual ‘experiments’ as you haughtily enjoy rewards for your own perversion? You pedophile you,” Palin wrote. She was referring to when Dunham came under fire for a passage in her memoir, Not That Kind of Girl, where the actress said at age 7 she would bribe her little sister with candy for kisses and to see her genitals.

-I actually believe that this kid suffered from complete oppression and suppression of natural behavior and urges arising from puberty and was shamed by his parents into never showing his budding sexual urges. Hell, this kid could get into hot water just for beating off! How do you develop healthy sexual urges when a bunch of fools raise you to believe that a monstrous mythological being will damn you to rot and burn forever for having the natural urge to flog your dick?



Nick Bostrom: What would happen if machines surpassed human intellect?
Bostrom: By 2050 we may have a 50/50 chance of achieving human-level A.I.
He says We want an A.I. that is safe and ethical, but it could get beyond our control
Bostrom: Superintelligent machines could present major existential risks to humans
Editor’s note: Nick Bostrom is professor and director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University. He is the author of “Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies” (OUP). The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
(CNN) — Machines have surpassed humans in physical strength, speed and stamina. What would happen if machines surpassed human intellect as well? The question is not just hypothetical; we need to start taking this possibility seriously.
Most people might scoff at the prospect of machines outsmarting humanity. After all, even though today’s artificial intelligence can beat humans within narrow domains (such as chess or trivia games), machine brains are still extremely rudimentary in general intelligence.
Machines currently lack the flexible learning and reasoning ability that enables an average human to master any of thousands of different occupations, as well as all the tasks of daily life. In particular, while computers are useful accessories to scientists, they are very, very far from doing the interesting parts of the research themselves.

Nick Bostrom
But this could change. We know that evolutionary processes can produce human-level general intelligence, because they have already done so at least once in Earth’s history. How quickly engineers achieve a similar feat is still an open question.
By 2050 we may, according to a recent survey of leading artificial intelligence researchers, have a 50/50 chance of achieving human-level machine intelligence (defined here as “one that can carry out most human professions at least as well as a typical human”).
Even a cursory glance at technological development reveals multiple paths that could lead to human-level machine intelligence in this century. One likely path would be to continue studying the general properties of the human brain to decipher the computational structures it uses to generate intelligent behavior. Another path would be the more mathematical “top-down” approach. And if somehow all the other approaches don’t work, scientists might simply brute-force the evolutionary process on computers.
Google buys into artificial intelligence Recycling with artificial intelligence Could robots take over Earth?
Regardless of when and how we get there, the consequences of reaching human-level machine intelligence are profound, because human-level machine intelligence is not the final destination. Machine intelligence would reach a recursive tipping point after which the design and improvement of such intelligence would no longer be in human hands.
The next stop from human level intelligence, just a short distance farther along the tracks, is machine superintelligence. The train might not even decelerate at Humanville Station: It is likely instead to swoosh right past.
This brings us to what I think may well be the most important task of our time. If there will eventually be an “intelligence explosion,” how exactly can we set up the initial conditions so as to achieve an outcome that is survivable and beneficial to existing persons?
In “Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies,” I focus on the dynamics of an intelligence explosion; what will happen if and when we gain the ability to create machine superintelligence? This topic is largely ignored and poorly funded. But we must keep at it: How could we engineer a controlled detonation that would protect human values from being overwritten by the arbitrary values of a misbegotten artificial superintelligence?
The picture that emerges from this work is fascinating and disconcerting. It looks like there are major existential risks associated with the creation of entities of greater-than-human intelligence. A superintelligence wouldn’t even need to start with a physical embodiment to be catastrophically dangerous. Major engineering projects and financial transactions on Earth are mediated by digital communication networks that would be at the mercy of an artificial superintelligence.

Placing an online order for an innocent-looking set of advanced blueprints or fooling its creators into thinking it is benign could be an initial step, followed by the possibility of permanently altering the global biosphere to pursue its preferences.
The control problem—how to engineer a superintelligence to be safe and human-friendly—appears to be very difficult. It should be solvable in principle, but in practice it may not be solved in time for when the solution is needed. The difficulty is compounded by the need to get it right on the first try. An unfriendly superintelligence would not permit a mulligan. Remember HAL from “2001: A Space Odyssey”? Let’s try to avoid that.
If we could solve the technical problem of constructing a motivation system that we can load with some terminal goal of our choosing, a further question remains: Which goal would we give the superintelligent A.I.? Much would hinge on that choice. In some scenarios, the first superintelligence becomes extremely powerful and shapes the entire future according to its preferences.
We want an A.I. that is safe, beneficial and ethical, but we don’t know exactly what that entails. Some may think we have already arrived upon full moral enlightenment, but is is far more likely that we still have blind spots. Our predecessors certainly had plenty — in the practice of slavery and human sacrifice, or the condoning of manifold forms of brutality and oppression that would outrage the modern conscience. It would be a grave mistake to think we have reached our moral apogee, and thus lock our present-day ethics into such powerful machines.
In this sense, we have philosophy with a deadline. Our wisdom must precede our technology, and that which we value in life must be carefully articulated—or rather, it must be pointed to with the right mathematics—if it is to be the seed from which our intelligent creations grow.

-This actually does need to be addressed due to human greed and laziness. People will sign off on this if it saves them money and if it makes life easier. Let me tell you, I love my smart phone but am very aware that ‘The Man’ knows my every move because of it and because of my computer. I have just given up the protest because the computer makes my life easier. 

Tell me, what the fuck do you people actually think that a sentient machine will do to an inferior being that it considers irrelevant? Read up on the process of logical thought taken to extremely literal standards and you have a machine that would not give a second thought to our extinction! 

Prof. Dawkins on The Ten Commandments


This brilliant man does so well destroying these irrelevant ‘commandments.’

Oh my mortal soul!


I must confess that I am probably not a moral person and it’s probably because I’m an atheist. For instance,  I have used my cell phone while driving, yes, yes I have, even though I know that it is wrong and can cause an accident, but that’s actually not all. I have flogged it with my left hand while using my right hand to access the internet for porn and driving with my knees. Wait. Thats not all, I purposely tore off one of those ‘Do not remove under penalty of law’ tags from several of my pillows at home. I’ve also looked at EVERY attractive woman who has EVER walked by me with lust in my heart, mind, soul and my weiner whom I refer to as Anthony. I have also made jokes about the hadicapped and the completely stupid and have actually pissed on sleeping bums. I am a reprobate without excuse for my actions.

While on my way to work today I leaned out of my car window and yelled “Move it or lose it you old dildo!” to a sweet little old lady who was going a bit too slow on the freeway. Now did I have to do this? Did I also have to add insult to injury by giving her and the rest of the nuns she was with the finger? No I didn’t, but I felt entitled to do so by a lack of conscience and a moral deficit! Why I’ll bet with a little ol’ tyme religion that I’d be back on track in no tyme! You don’t see Jesus out pissing in an allyway or breaking windows with a slingshot,( which, by the way, I have done also ). You don’t see God letting children die of horrible diseases or letting natural disasters kill thousands……oh, yeah..He does? He does. Scratch that then.

The point is that you need a book and the fear of a lake of eternal fire to be an upstanding person and if you don’t believe in these things, just fake it to be safe! You wouldn’t want the ark to sail without you right?! Just imagine what it would be like to be standing all alone at the great cosmic bus stop like Kirk Cameron in Left Behind. You’d never eat the bread ‘o’ life with Jesus and all of the other holy fuckers up there, you’d be cursed to walk the Earth in Chuck Taylors and skinny jeans while wearing a funny hat and listening to music that has no fucking guitar riffs! Now thats what I call Hell! Some call it Northeast Portland, Oregon!

I go now to seek out Tom Cruise and find out just exactly what my Thetan level is and how I can rid myself of those bastards. Maybe we will go couch jumping or something with John Travolta and the gang of Hollyweird schizos and shit! All I know is that I GOTTA find me a fucking god! The void is just too great and sensability just ain’t enough to quench the desire to follow like an idiot and glaze my eyes over with the love of the holy spook! I will now look for a blind asshole to follow and when the shit that he makes up gets too fucking insane, I will know that I have hit the motherlode! Peace and prosperity to all of my bretheren in..well, whatever shit I choose to follow aimlessly! 

Footprints in the sand……

One night I dreamed I was walking along the beach with the Lord.
             Many scenes from my life flashed across the sky.
                  In each scene I noticed footprints in the sand.
                       Sometimes there were two sets of footprints,
                           other times there were one set of footprints.
                                  This bothered me because I noticed
                                that during the low periods of my life,
                             when I was suffering from
                         anguish, sorrow or defeat,
                     I could see only one set of footprints.
          So I said to the Lord,
      “You promised me Lord,
         that if I followed you,
             you would walk with me always.
                   But I have noticed that during
                          the most trying periods of my life
                                 there have only been one
                                       set of footprints in the sand.
                                           Why, when I needed you most,
                                          you have not been there for me?”
                                 The Lord replied,
                          “Because I’m not real dumbfuck!’
                   you got yourself outta those jams all by yourself,
          you just thought it was me because you are a deluded asshole.”