“Jerry is also happy he can now have visitation with long-time friends…”
Coincidence?
Man, this is just this side of Argument Clinic logic. This is not something anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would say. This is someone who is just playing games.
I mean, “[n]othing in it specifically addresses adults and minors showering together.” And nothing in it specifically addresses adults and kids being naked together behind the barn, or in the toolshed, or in the spare bedroom, or in the woods, or…you get the idea.
Good Lord, are you guys really still debating SA?
And if so, why?
OK, we won’t, but the stuff he types seems to be quite a bit more credible than what you do.
[Keyboard owe]. Soda, etc.[/ko]
You just did - so ask yourself why. I find it beyond belief myself. How long will you go on?
Well, the heat death of the universe should put a stop to it.
Wow..link FAIL. I even initially tested that.
Cartman. (audio still NSFW)
We’re just trying to get the thread to 69 pages so we can all titter about it.
The problem is that you clearly haven’t read the part of the thread that gave birth to this issue. Some posters were claiming that it was illegal for adults and minors to be in a shower together. I said that wasn’t true and listed a few ways they might legitimately be showering together. Huerta then posted that statute, claiming it clearly prohibits adults and minors from showering together, and that simply isn’t the case. The statute could be used to prosecute someone misbehaving sexually with a child under a number of circumstances that might include showering together, but it clearly does’t prohibit adult/child showering per se.
Uh SA, the reason they are saying showering naked is illegal with an unrelated child…is because it is. Circumstances are a normal part of law. Look at it like a continuum, depending on where you are on the plane makes a lot of difference. If you are having passionate and consensual sex with your partner all is good, but if the same act is done without consent and with threat, it is rape. If you are traveling 75 mph on the Tollway, you are a model citizen, when in the school zone, you are criminal. You are being intentionally obtuse and continue to demonstrate that you are a fucking idiot.
A proper analogy to the two issues you cited would be to say “Driving seventy miles an hour is always against the law, period”, or “Sex is always against the law, period”.
There are specific laws prohibiting rape, specifically setting forth what actions define it and varying levels of offense. There are also specific laws about speeding in school zones, what defines it, and setting forth varying levels of offense.
In contrast, the statute Huerta cited says nothing whatsoever about the offense of intergenerational showering, how it is defined, or varying degrees of offense.
In other words, I don’t think I’m the idiot in this exchange. 
Well SA, I did say obtuse, and you again chose to demonstrate. The point you continue to ignore is something is legal…until it is not. Sex, speed, consumption, physical contact, you name it. We as a society chose to define when it is not. You are trying to pretend we as a society don’t know when the line is crossed. And that just because there “could” be legal examples of the same actions being legal, that we should never pursue the suspected. You forget our legal system is based on us being able to tell the difference. You are so hung up on the possibility of this continuum being misread, that you want to throw away common sense. None of the parties involved are to be commended. JoePa was a typical person with power. He wielded it without much worry about law. You want to ignore the many reports of his using his power to change the results of his players brush with the powers that be. You really want to ignore life in general. No one ever said it was illegal to fly planes into buildings either, but damn if it didn’t get thought and executed. You want to defend that using your SA logic of convenience.
You moron, it explicitly says “exposes genitals in a way likely to offend affront or alarm another person.” McQueary testified that he was “shocked” and “distraught,” to see a gross old man touching a naked boy from behind, so it is indisputably criminal within the express terms of the statute. And of course “varying degrees of offense” are specified in the statute (to prove the axiom that you cannot say one word without lying) – indecent exposure to someone under 16 bears enhanced penalties.
Other than that, your Boy Lawyer outing went about as well as all of the others.
By the way people – “intergenerational showering.” The latest fucking retard shit puked up by this disgusting moron.
Nonsense. I never said any such thing. What I’m saying is thay because it “could” be legal, one may not state categorically that it is illegal, which is what some posters were trying to claim regarding adult/minor showering.
To analogize with the adult/minor shower scenario, what my opponents are saying would be the equivalent here of claiming that flying airplanes is illegal, and furthermore everyone should know it and report it whenever they receive a report someone has done it. Certainly one can break laws when showering with minors or when flying airplanes, but that doesn’t mean that being in a shower with a minor or flying an airplane are crimes of their own.
If you’ll recall, the subject arose in the first place because people were claiming the law was broken simply because Sandusky was in the shower with a child, and that Paterno either knew it or should have known it, and therefore he had no excuse for reporting it to the police.
Now, typically, you are attempting to move the goalposts by stretching your vaguely worded statute to proclaim that McQueary was the real victim. Have I got that right? (And if so, it should probably be noted that McQueary has testified that he did not see Sandusky’s genitals while Sandusky and the boy were in contact.)
Nonsense. (I seem to be saying that a lot here lately.)
There are lots of instances where people of varying generations may legitimately be showering together. You’re certainly old enough to know that by now.
If you’ll recall, the general point of most posters and for most of this thread is the following:
It was a serious enough accusation that it warranted investigation by the police.
Paterno should have called or at the very least verified the police were called.
The two points repeated for the last 60 pages.
I simply don’t agree. All Paterno was likely to have known of at the time is that Sandusky apparently hugged a kid in the shower once and for all he knew that’s all there was to it and McQueary had misread what he saw. And I imagine he felt Curley and Schultz would take appropriate action if their findings warranted it. Plus, as Paterno himself said, he didn’t want to appear to be percieved as trying to influence the investigation one way or the other.
Nope, wrong again. You are indeed the idiot. 
FWIW, I just read through the assault and homicide statutes, and they mention nothing whatsoever about the offense of taking a scalpel and making an incision from your sternum to your pubis. So clearly that is NOT illegal or they would have mentioned it in the statutes.
There was something in there about assault with a deadly weapon, but clearly my taking a knife and incising you from sternum to pubis does not qualify because surgeons do this all the time.
And if I should happen to incise you from sternum to pubis and others are aware of it, they are under no obligation to contact the police since it’s obvious to anyone who is NOT an idiot that nothing illegal has occurred. If you don’t believe me, quote the statute that says it’s illegal.
**I realize trying to rationalize with SA is futile, but I like watching the monkey dance 