Nothing definitive, of course, because definitive negative proofs are pretty scarce, but Alexander Hamilton said, while discussing language for the constitution, “The words ‘due process’ have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice.” Link. And of course you know that the phrase entered popular discourse in the 5th amendment as “due process of law”.
I would like an answer to this. I think you’ve been thoroughly beaten on many of these points, so you’ve resorted to your typical “well I’m going to go wash my hair / do the laundry / watch television with my family while you bloodthirsty loons continue to besmirch the good name of Paterno with nothing better to do” line.
You have argued that morality is subjective. Your exact words were “a matter of opinion”, which is the very definition of relativism, and yet you claim that you are not actually saying anything of the sort. You still claim that Paterno thought he was doing the right thing at the time, therefore he did nothing wrong. You have argued that it wasn’t even physically possible for Sandusky to be raping a boy, despite the fact that multiple accusers have come forth to say that yes, they were raped by Sandusky.
You have also gon to great lengths to minimize what McQueary testified to during the grand jury hearing, pretending it was just the sounds he heard and that couldn’t have been sex. You’ve glossed over the testimony of reporting to Paterno “something of a sexual nature with a 10 year old boy”. These are inextricable facts, you don’t get to accept one and deny the other.
Paterno himself said that he wish he’d done more. Whether it be because he got fired for his lapse of judgment, because the university is now synonymous with enabling child rapists, or because he feels bad about all those kids he let down, he agrees that it was a lapse of judgment. You still, however, do not.
You’re claiming over and over again that Paterno didn’t know it was that serious, didn’t hear the word rape, didn’t understand rape, that McQueary didn’t tell him exactly what was seen…however Paterno took it seriously enough to conduct himself in a way which satisfied his legal reporting requirements for the report of sexual contact with a child. So how can he simultaneously not have thought McQueary was telling the truth, or didn’t receive enough information to believe it was sexual in nature, but also believe it substantially enough to follow the legal protocol for the reporting of a suspected sex crime?
It would stand to reason that if he were the recipient of information that did not appear to claim sexual contact with a child, he would not conduct himself as though he had received information that appeared to claim sexual contact with a child. Your contention is not supported by his actions in that regard.
Well, I’m convinced. What a relief! Thank you, Inspector Starving Artist, for your ceaseless hours of original research, crime scene recreations, re-interviews (or at least reinterpretations), and so on. Paterno’s a hero again! Let’s have a celebratory parade! And as a side note, it sounds like Sandusky is innocent after all. Let’s have a “All is forgiven… no wait, there’s nothing to forgive, Jerry” parade, too!
And I’ve conducted my own research – not as exhaustive as Starving’s, of course, but diligent, I swear! – on other applications of the “[slippery adjective] but not necessarily damaging” construction that unequivocally exonerated ol’ Jerry and Joe. And guess what? It turns out that liberalism is “more likely something overly permissive but not necessarily damaging”! Hooray! More parades! (No need to thank me, Mr. Artist, for exorcising the cause of all your mental anguish for the last four decades – it’s the least I could do after you conclusively demonstrated the innocence of Sandusky and Paterno.)
Your turn, friends! What other misconceptions can you correct, now that you’re armed with the fact-based “[slippery adjective] but not necessarily damaging” weapon? Have at it! If it’s powerful enough to devastatingly explain away McQueary’s observation that he saw something “of a sexual nature,” it can explain away anything. Go ahead, give it a try!
Right, and the exact physics of what happened in that shower are important because that’s the act that Paterno had a chance to stop. Oh, wait - no he didn’t - the things he could have stopped were the rapes that happened later. You know, the ones that occurred because no one witht he knowledge of naked man on little boy action in the shower did anything to prevent it from occurring again.
Guy: Some old dude was in the shower naked with a 10 year, and it seemd like they were up to some seriously skeevy shit.
SA: Was he anally raping him?
Guy: I don’t know, maybe.
SA: Well, I don’t think the mechanics of that really work. He probably wasn’t raping him.
Guy: So, do you think we have a moral responsibility to prevent that old guy from getting naked and "horsing around’ with more little boys in our shower?
SA: No.
yeah, dude - you might want to see if you can get a refund on your moral compass.
I was going to type up an actual reasoned response to this but my brain won’t let me and is instead insisting that I post the following:
GROSS GROSS GROSS GROSS GROSS GROSS GROSS.
GROSS.
Seriously, dude. SERIOUSLY. GROSS. MY GOD.
Man, he is batshit crazy.
Jesus. Can you genuinely not see how creepy and gross and weird you sound? Seriously. Step back a minute. Stop being stubborn and read your own posts as if someone else wrote them. The fetishistic, sweaty attention to detail? The creepily authoritiative pronouncements on what is and is not possible with regard to anal rape? The offhand mentions of things like “playing hide the soap,” as if that is something that people do?
Look. Political opinions, opinions on Joe Paterno, whatever - when an overwhelming number of people tell you that you are coming across not just as wrong, but as actively creepy, are you really incapable of imagining that some of the fault might lie in you - if not in what you actually think, than in the way you’re choosing to express it?
And, by the way, you’re wrong on points. The idea that a very tall man cannot have penetrative sex from behind while standing with a much shorter person is… counterfactual. I am certain that there are a fair number of people with anecdotal evidence proving this, but none of them want to say it in your presence because you talk like a fucking sexual predator.
Are you asking us to perform a science experiment to see if it’s possible for a man to anally rape a boy in the shower?
It’s not what you think officer. You see, I post on this message board…
Starving will continue to come up with alternative scenarios, and continue to accuse everyone else of “not relying on the facts”. I’m out.
It’s so freaking creepy that in order to continue pretending that Paterno was 100% infalliable - rather admitting that he made a horrible mistake in judgment - SA is reduced to trying to minimize - or worse, justify - Sandusky’s crimes.
Oh, I’ll go there. Not in detail, because that’s my business, but I’m in my fifties and was single & sexually active in the 70s, 80s & much of the 90s. I have experience. I have lots of experience. I have lots of varied experience.
SA, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
He’s getting an awful lot of mileage out of that one post. That is some quality trolling right there. I am inspired.
Heck, I’m gonna go start me a thread about fingerbanging housepets.* I bet I could get loads of responses with minimal effort.
*No I am not.
I had a gerbil on each finger man!
Maybe he has a micropenis
Where the FUCK are you getting the bolded part from? I don’t think the look on the boy’s face has been part of any testimony that I’m aware of. How do you know the victim had “no distress or discomfort apparent”? When people tell you that you sound like a pervert, this kind of stuff is why.
This has got to be the most jaw-droppingly awesome statement from SA since he asked, in all apparent seriousness, whether Hillary Clinton would be a socialist dictator if elected President.
Bravo, sir. There will never be another like you (which, truth be told, is frankly a bit of a relief).
And yet it doesn’t affect your typing. Interesting.
Creepy, but not at all surprising.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the reason Starving Artist yearns for the pre-sexual revolution era is that it was so much easier to sexually assault people when you could just shame them into believing it was all their fault.
Well, we can’t be sure it was anal rape, because
If the AD couldn’t hear it happening in his office, then it probably didn’t happen.