It's time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program.

[iiandyiiii]

@Starving_Artist

Note that McQueary’s testimony was that Sandusky (6’3") was standing (not squatting, crouching, legs not bent, etc.) behind a boy of 10-12 years of age (approx. 4’ - 5’4" in height) who was bent at the waist with his hands on the wall.

Your legs can be bent while standing. Do you really, honestly think “standing” means that your knees must be locked?

@Starving_Artist

It simply is not possible for a man of Jerry Sandusky’s height to simply stand behind a boy a foot or more shorter than he is and commit such an offense. It defies all logic.

No it doesn’t. He could be bending his knees (and still standing, of course).

[iiandyiiii]

Oh, and B.

[Ludovic]

@Nancarrow

Sandusky Apologist

Did you come up with that? That’s some funny crap right there!

[The_Dord]

@ladyfoxfyre

B. Fuck.
There was even a poster in that thread who graphically described being the victim of what Starving Artist alleges is physically impossible. SA’s response was that there “were substantial enough physical differences between the Sandusky case to mean that your experience isn’t comparable”. Oh, and sorry you got raped as a child.

That kind of shit is irehensible! :mad:

[RedFury]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Do I HAVE to read a 97 page thread or can you summarize it for us?

Is Starving Artist making a case for child molestation or something?

You don’t have to do anything – up to and including not opening this thread.

But would it kill you to read say…ten one line posts? To get to this one, this one and this one. And then you’d have your answer. Though Jack’s succinct response to you works just as well.

---

I’ll try to update Silophant’s running tally after The Debate. Of course, anyone else is welcome to do it as well.

[El_Kabong]

“There are valid, still unanswered questions about the way in which then-Attorney General Tom Corbett conducted the investigation that led to the conviction of child rapist Jerry Sandusky,” Briggs said. “I called up this discharge petition to force action on the issue because Governor Corbett continues to use recrimination of his own to dodge and disparage those who question why it took three years to bring charges against a man he and his investigators knew in the early stages to be a child predator.”

I fail to see how any of the above has any effect whatsoever except to suggest that Penn State’s willful blindness to Sandusky’s actions may have extneded to the Attorney General’s office.

NoLittlePlans, you’ll need to explain much more clearly how you think this supports your-- I mean Starving Artist’s position.

BTW, could you answer my question from a few days ago: why did you say you’d only read a couple pages of the thread when you had been posting since page 70 or so?

[Simple_Linctus]

@Starving_Artist

Note that McQueary’s testimony was that Sandusky (6’3") was standing (not squatting, crouching, legs not bent, etc.) behind a boy of 10-12 years of age (approx. 4’ - 5’4" in height) who was bent at the waist with his hands on the wall.

Is there really any question that the pubic area of a 6’3" man and the anus of a 4’ to 5’4" boy are on, as I put it in the other thread “significantly different horizontal planes than might find themselves in congruence from merely standing one in front of the other?”

It simply is not possible for a man of Jerry Sandusky’s height to simply stand behind a boy a foot or more shorter than he is and commit such an offense. It defies all logic.

Now, the reason for the paper towel tube experiment (which I didn’t really expect anyone to attempt to perform…for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that paper towel tubes are sharp at the corners and not really all that wide) was to try to get the people in that thread to think critically about what McQueary said he saw.

Prior to that time any mere hint that people needed to look more closely at what he was saying and compare it with what an objective examination would reveal was met with squicked out revulsion and an accusation that only a pervert would even try to think of whether the mechanics added up or not (in other words, they were determined to believe the worst, right or wrong, and any effort to figure out which was a sure sign of pedophilic perversion. It was a page right of the “toss the witch in the pond and if she floats the devil’s holding her up” playbook.

So the paper towel tube was a last resort intended to get people to look at things they were refusing to look at up to that time, with the objective being to show that McQueary’s testimony fell short of being a realistic depiction of what a person could logically conclude was rape. The jury needless to say, agreed, as they acquitted Jerry Sandusky of rape in the incident McQueary saw, although they did find him guilty of other sexual offenses in regard to that same incident.

There are two options here. I hope it’s the first.

Option 1: You are, or were, blinded by logic and instead of reasoning yourself from propositions, you reasoned yourself into a position. In that, there is not much shame. Indeed the overwhelming majority of moral positions taken by anyone the reasoning mind basically does its thing well after other parts of the mind have decided where to stand. Of course that doesn’t explain everything - many others would have thought like that but changed otherwise. However, perhaps for some reason you were so focussed on proving others wrong here, and now you’re committed to that. It’s not implausible, especially given that you are the silly kind of conservative, which by nature means your positioins are not logically based

Option 2: You’re a disgusting sick fuck, and tbh that is where my gut says you are. And I say that as one of the members of this board most likely to defend various types of so-called child molestation. Well there’s child molestation and then there’s child molestation, and buggering young boys is never, ever, acceptable. If you are not defending your ideas for the reason given in option 1, you have a pathology. I will never call you a kiddy fiddler for no reason but I will certainly suggest a perversion there when there is this ample evidence. I have seen, and even after all I have drunk today I will not clarify how close, but I have seen the way adult interaction with genuine pre pubsecents such as shown with sandusky works. Yes, there is hysteria about this subject. But when it comes to pre pubescents if anything the damage is not expressed enough. You are a fucking freak. I hate you, there is something wrong with you. You mockingly said in that other thread that someone’s kid could beat you up, but I give you a genuine challenge, you can come over here and I will fuck you up, you are a shit.

Aggghghghghghgh I just noticed I completely lost my chain of thought and all logical argumentation.

THAT IS WHAT YOU DO TO PEOPLE YOU SCUM

TWAT

[Simple_Linctus]

ignore all that it won’t let me delete it, I am a bit emotional at the moment. I won’t post in this any more.

[El_Kabong]

NM

[Meyer6]

D. I started reading the thread in question, but I got both bored and grossed out and quit at some point. Never posted in it. I thought SA’s argument was asinine to start with, but when another poster came in and said he had been raped by an adult man in exactly the manner which SA claims is impossible when he was a child, I thought that must be the end of that line of reasoning. But nope, SA kept right on plowing ahead with “everyone should rest assured this never happened because…science!”. I can’t imagine how anyone normal could, in good conscience, continue in that way.

@Starving_Artist

So the paper towel tube was […] to show that McQueary’s testimony fell short of being a realistic depiction of what a person could logically conclude was rape. The jury needless to say, agreed, as they acquitted Jerry Sandusky of rape in the incident McQueary saw, although they did find him guilty of other sexual offenses in regard to that same incident.

I haven’t been following the case, but it doesn’t sound to me like the jury agreed. It sounds like they said that evidence was inconclusive without a victim. Can you provide a cite of the judgement that shows that the physical impossibility of raping young boys was a significant factor (or indeed any kind of factor) in their conclusion?

[JohnT]

B

(Is my answer)

[Drain_Bead]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, then we’ve established Paterno was guilty, then. SA is just arguing over exactly what he was guilty of.

I’m oddly proud of myself for being the one to do it.

[Enola_Gay]

@ladyfoxfyre

B. Fuck.
There was even a poster in that thread who graphically described being the victim of what Starving Artist alleges is physically impossible. SA’s response was that there “were substantial enough physical differences between the Sandusky case to mean that your experience isn’t comparable”. Oh, and sorry you got raped as a child.

Oh if only that was all he said to the man who was raped as a child. He then went on to insult him and question the reliability of his memory.

@Starving Artist

Further, any insult you perceived is of your own creation - I was merely relating how eyewitness accounts can vary from reality, a phenomenon any police officer - even Loach, perhaps, if you were to ask him outside my presence - would readily verify.

The disgusting manner in which he treated a victim of child rape coupled with his bragging about how large his penis is :rolleyes: , all the while spouting off about his obsession with the mechanics of butt fucking little boys are only a small part of what has made many posters here believe he is a creepy old pedophile who is hopefully posting while wearing an ankle bracelet.

[Hamlet]

@NoLittlePlans

Very few people have the foresight to know the correct answer is actually “A.”

In the almost 6 months since you’ve registered on this board, you have posted every single one of your posts (all 16 of them) about Sandusky and Paterno. You really need to get out more.

[Bartman]

B

I generally enjoy a good lunatic. But SA has more than gone around the bend, he’s gone beyond the pale. He is one of the few individuals who I truly fear may one day hurt themselves or someone else. And his state of delusion, both regarding his argument and his theoretical supporters is awe-inspiring.

[SmartAleq]

Oh gods, D, D, a thousand times D
throws up about six feet of intestine

[Lamia]

You can put me down as a D.

[Miller]

[Moderating]
I’ve merged RedFury’s pseudo-poll with this thread, as I don’t see any point in maintaining two separate threads on the same interminable subject.
[/Moderating]

[Enola_Gay]

JMO, but I think the pitting of Joe Paterno/Penn State should be separate from the pitting of Starving Artist. Too many people have opened the original thread and vowed never to click it again, due to the repulsive and graphic nature in which Starving Artist posts his sickening fantasies about fucking paper towel tubes and little boys…

He deserves his very own pit thread, where posters who don’t have the stomach for reading his nauseating posts, can feel safe to open the thread.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, if I may presume to tally the votes thus far, starting from RedFury’s #4849 and adding my own vote (B):

A-I have participated in the thread and I AGREE with Starving Artist’s arguments.
2, presuming the votes of Starving Artist and NoLittlePlans

B-I have participated in the thread and I DISAGREE with Starving Artist’s arguments.
27

C-I have NOT participated in the thread and I AGREE with Starving Artist’s arguments.
0

D-I have NOT participated in the thread and I DISAGREE with Starving Artist’s arguments.
13

I tried to include only clear or very strongly implied votes. I invite anyone who wants to to do their own count. Ambiguous posts, such as #4862, #4890, #4898, #4899 were not counted, though I note that none of them implied agreement with Starving Artist.

So it’s… 40 to 2?
What was this supposed to prove, again?