“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I’m just a cave-coach. I was born in the Roaring Twenties, long before this thing you call ‘anal rape’ was invented, and became frozen in time until today. Your world frightens and confuses me!”
And… so he decided to just do nothing. I guess he just didn’t think how that might be perceived?
But now I’m really confused. I suppose if he kept following up on the investigation and kept defending Sandusky, he had a legitimate fear of being perceived as a rape enabler. But if he kept following up, wanting to know where the investigation was, why Sandusky was still allowed on campus, why he was still intimately (urk) involved with a charity that worked with the cohort of his victims, demanding answers… Paterno was afraid of being perceived as REALLY wanting to stop an alleged child molester? That was something he feared? “Oh that Paterno, he hates child rape too much! We, the public, wish he would lighten up on old Sandusky”?
The more I read about this, the more I despise Sandusky, Paterno and McQuery(sp?).
Those poor kids.
And I thought it was bad being towel-snapped by the seniors when I was in b-team football!
Based on his actions over the years of actively trying to circumvent school discipline when his players get arrested (I think it was ESPN that did a story on it a few years ago, I remember reading something back then), his current statements don’t ring true. He meddled in things he had no right to meddle in, so he wasn’t opposed to meddling.
To me, it feels like an excuse.
I hate this thread. This thread should have wrapped up 20 pages ago. It should have been the rare thread where everyone is mostly on the same page.
But no. Here we are, 20 extra pages later, and this thread is still popping up with updates on my list. And I have SA and his little enabler Fotheringay-Phipps to thank for it. You bored assholes.
If it’s true that he actively tried to circumvent etc., then you have a point. (I don’t know.)
Even so, there is still a difference in that JP’s point was that he didn’t know anything about dealing with sex abuse issues and was therefore more cautious in doing so. Routine run-of-the-mill discipline problems were likely something that he had extensive experience with, and felt himself on firmer ground in voicing his opinion.
If you ask me, that description might be more accurately applied to the guy who keeps checking out a thread that he/she claims should have been wrapped up 20 pages ago.
Feel free to unsubscribe. In fact, I would suggest in the future that you only read threads that are completely free of opinions that you disagree with. You don’t need that sort of cognitive dissonance. Sit back and have a beer.
Don’t bother, MOIDALIZE. I’ve tried it with more than a few beers, and it doesn’t make our beloved Fungusy-Felch any less of an oily little toad. It just makes more of him.
The problem is that too many dopers are overly optimistic. They keep thinking that if they repeatedly introduce logic into the thread, it might somehow stick. Not gonna happen. To all of you who keep trying to reason with SA and his little dog: Go try to teach your cat to do the dishes. If you don’t have a cat, see if you can train your hamster to do your taxes. You will eventually discover that these endeavors (just like trying to get SA to understand logic and/or morals) are all are pointless exercises in futility.
And yet … people keep posting to this thread, while they don’t try the proffered alternatives.
But of course, this thread was never about trying to reason with anyone. What it’s about is feeling the cheap grace of moral superiority - so hard to come by in a meaningful manner - by looking down on child molestors and enablers, and faux toughness in being part of a group administering a virtual smackdown to the nonconformist. So on it goes.
But the problem was that his opinion was that the department designated to deal with student criminal activity should not do their jobs if the students were football players. Just because they are on the football team doesn’t mean they should have a separate set of rules from the rest of the students, but that was his opinion.
Which significantly lessens any statements he makes about trying to follow the rules in other cases - sometimes he wants to follow the rules and sometimes he doesn’t - I don’t think he’s telling the entire story about his decisions.
I don’t see how you’ve addressed my point.
Again, the JP position (assuming the allegations of interference are true) would be that he was an expert on dealing with “student criminal activity”, based on his years of experience, while he was not at all expert in dealing with child sex abuse. Therefore, he would feel that WRT “student criminal activity”, the standard process should not apply and these matters should be left for him, the expert, while WRT child sex abuse, the matters should not be left to him the non-expert, and the standard processes should therefore apply.
I don’t see any inconsistency at all.
[This is in addition to the fact that the “student criminal activity” was dealing with people currently under his leadership while the Sandusky allegations concerned someone who was three years removed from his employ, though he retained facility access as a retired PSU employee. This doesn’t mean that JP could ignore the whole thing, but means it can’t be directly compared to player misdeeds in terms of JP’s active involvement.]
You realize that whether he “thought” he was an expert on student criminal activity is irrelevant, right (there was a department and a set of rules concerning this stuff)? The only way it is consistent is if Paterno gets to do whatever he “thinks” is right, but I assume you aren’t going to argue that, right?
Situation A:
He attempted, on multiple occasions, to prevent the department specifically tasked with handling these issues from doing their job.
Situation B:
He made sure the department specifically tasked with handling these issues did their job and he got out of the way.
No, I’m not.
What you’re saying amounts to - at most - disagreeing with Paterno about his (alleged) interference with the “student criminal activity” issues. Even if you’re right, it does not make Paterno’s attitude inconsistent. He thinks - contra you - that he has a valid basis for mixing in WRT those issues, but makes a valid distinction between issues WRT he is knowledgable and issues WRT he is not.
The distinction is a very valid distinction, and there’s no inconsistency. Again, all your saying - at best - is that he should have followed procedures even if he was knowledgable and that he was wrong for not doing this. Right or wrong, that doesn’t make Paterno’s position inconsistent, and does not shed any light on his “true” rationale for backing off in the sex abuse case.
I am also opposed to child molestation.
I would like to state for the record that my cat Boris is actually excellent at doing the dishes. In fact, he would like nothing better than to personally lick clean each and every plate or serving utensil I ever use. I have considered employing him as a prewash before the dishwasher, since he will not leave a trace of food anywhere. That is all. Please excuse the hijack.
IOW he said he was too fucking dumb to know to contact the police when he knows of a (OK, suspected) crime. :rolleyes: And you’re too fucking dumb to be incredulous at the claim.
Not for an adult who speaks English, it’s not. IOW he said he was also too fucking dumb to know a man or boy can take it up the butt, or that the boy might not be willing. :rolleyes: And you’re too fucking dumb to be incredulous at *that *claim, either.
I don’t know which part of your fucking dumbness is worse, your ignorance or your credulousness or your excuse-making for failure to act upon learning of a horrible crime.
Then he should have called the police – they definitely have “expertise” in this area. :rolleyes:
Okay, let’s say that Starving Artist is right, and Paterno is a great man? Then his (Paterno’s) defense is basically that he’s a fucking dumbass.
No, I’m judging his current claim based on his previous actions.
And it’s a little hard to take him at face value given his interference previously.
It’s inconsistent from the perspective of following the rules.
It’s consistent with respect to doing whatever he thinks is appropriate based on his own internal motivations. And that is exactly the problem.
No, you’re not allowed to call him a doddering old fool either (though there can scarcely be a third possibility as between some combination of passive enabler and doddering fool). I think the game is to make up a (completely fabricated by SA) world in which no one born before 1960 could be expected to have a history of knowing about the possibility and prevalence of adult rape of children AND FURTHERMORE that when credibly made aware of such possibility later in life, it is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE TO EXPECT THEM TO BE ABLE TO ADJUST THEIR (SPECULATED) BELIEFS and act responsibly accordingly. They’re just never going to be able to apply the (again, fictitious) “new rules against just-discovered sodomy” AND FURTHERMORE IT IS UNFAIRLY PUNITIVE TO CRITICIZE OR CENSURE THEM WHEN THEY PROVE GROSSLY UNWILLING TO COMPLY WITH CONTEMPORARY MORAL AND PRACTICAL STANDARDS. Remember, this guy’s position was not only that Paterno had not done anything morally suspect but that he fully deserved to keep his job (presumably, with his supposed, and invincible, unalterable, “pre child rape awareness” mindset, given that mindsets can’t change).
Yes, it’s that crazy. And it goes on –
That inability to grasp the horrible inappropriateness of ALL FORMS OF naked showering with boys doesn’t make him doddering, doesn’t make him amoral – it makes him a great man who (fictitiously) grew up in a world in which (fictitiously) no one could ponder anal rape of a child, and sexual fondling is much less serious than rape anyhow, AND he is a-okay to go on unhindered as coach, with those attitudes and not-compliant-with-contemporary-moral (fictitious) archaic attitude toward the possibility of child sex abuse. He’s grandfathered in, you see. It’s like a life pass to apply blinders (while still keeping positions of high responsibility) based on a (fictitious) innate inability of humans to learn anything from the scads of child sex abuse cases going back decades (oh, and splashed all over the Nancy Grace tabloid media he so despises, while simultaneously maintaining that despite this alleged oversaturated media pedophile hysteria, Paterno would have no knowledge that pedophilia was a possibility).
F-P – FTR there is scant evidence that Paterno intervened in the various criminal probes of football players because he felt that (unlike with sex crimes) he had some unique insight (as good as or better than the cops and school disciplinary authorities) in “student criminal activity.” Instead/to the contrary:
http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/2011/11/28/paterno-history/
He also repeatedly resisted disciplinary measures and adjudicative procedures, making such arguments as “Mr. Paterno angrily responded that his players couldn’t be expected to cooperate with the school’s disciplinary process because, in this case, they would have to testify against each other, making it hard to play football together, these people say.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204443404577052073672561402.html
No, he’s not that great a guy, never was, and his record showed that when he truly cared about the outcome of a criminal investigation, he knew damn well how to figure out how to make it move forward (or not move forward) to get a “proper” (from his perspective) result. Nor, to close the loop, can we imagine that his prior trampling over disciplinary and criminal investigations of his players had chastened or humbled him – as the WSJ makes clear, he basically won every one of those battles, and Vicky Triponey – the lone whistleblower – was more or less run out of town on a rail in frustration at JP’s ability to make unilateral decisions about whether investigations and discipline would go forward). No timid head-scratching, gosh-darn-it’s-not-for-me-to-figure-out-if-anything-bad-went-down grandpa when it was his starting lineup on the line, as opposed to just naked little kids.
I’ve addressed all these points, and I don’t see where you’re adding anything. I’ll going to let this rest at this point.
Actually your own link says (emphasis added):
And again, my point is not that he was right for interfering with the standard disciplinary process, but that his rationale was, in the words of his accuser, that “he knows best how to discipline his players”, and that this rationale would not apply to dealing with ex-coaches being accused of sex abuse.
I’ve stayed away from this angle in this thread, mostly because I don’t know a whole lot about Paterno. Again, my point here is about what his rationale was, not whether it was justified.
That said, if I had to bet, I would say that he probably was/is a “great guy”. That based on the apparently uniform testimony of people who know him far better than me or you or anyone else posting in this thread, and on such objective evidence as is available. Again quoting from your link:
That’s objective evidence which suggests that JP was not a guy who sacrificed everything in the name of winning football games (at least relative to other people in his position), and I would guess claims to the contrary by people posting to this thread are just the worthless assessments of people who decided what they want to believe and make up everything else to fit around that. IOW, par for the course for this thread.
But again, that has not been the basis for my position in this thread, and this is something you might want to take up with SA et al.