As it happens this comports exactly with reality, as I demonstrated by quoting Pennsylvania law on mandated reporters in this very thread. You can look it up.
Sure, grown men and boys shower together, and skooch up real close to each other, too! Totally normal, like how a guy goes into the men’s room to pee, and he naturally moves in right next to anybody in there, and then peers over to check out the other guy’s junk, maybe make a comment. Happens all the time! Totally normal!
[alfred e. neuman] What? Me bother? [/alfred e. neuman]
Here’s something else that pisses me off about Starving “Who Are Going To Believe, Me Or That Child’s Gaping Asshole” Artist … and that’s this:
Right … never believe a kid when he says he’s being molested; that would be unfair to the adult molesting him. You do realize, don’t you, that one of the reasons kids don’t tell when they’re being molested is because they think no one will believe them.
That is the type of idiotic rhetoric that sees child molesters go unpunished left and fucking right.
SA, keep thinking that the true travesty and tragedy in this whole episode is that Joe Pat got knocked off his pedestal… not, you know, the fact that this guy Sandusky abused kids for years and years when there were people in the know that could have stopped it. Afer all, Joe Pat’s name will be in the gutter forever, but those kids just had to go through a few minutes (or hours or weeks or years) of unpleasantness. Poor, poor Joe Pat.
Well, of course Starving Artist isn’t gong to admit he’s wrong at this late date, not after investing more effort in this thread than many people put into their marriages.
What does one thing have to do with another? Just because the suffering of those kids is a worse travesty than JP’s name being sullied doesn’t mean that JP’s name being sullied is not also a travesty.
The title of this thread is “It’s time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program”, and this is the appropriate place to discuss whether in fact it’s time to pit JP. It’s not like JP’s reputation is being dragged into a thread that was otherwise focused on the plight of the victims.
Maybe you should attack the OP for focusing on JP instead of the kids. But situation being what it is, your argument is misplaced.
I was asking if YOU were the victim or the perpetrator. So, you know, if we should feel sympathy or merely scorn.
So, tell us your story, what happened?
'luc, if you have a more probable inference to draw from **SA/NLP’s **behavior here, let’s have it)
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that child molesters sometimes go unpunished because kids think no one will believe them, and adults sometimes get their lives ruined and perhaps sent to prison because kids falsely accuse them of molestation, whether as the result of manipulation by a vindictive mother, or due to an overly zealous investigator to whom the child responds as it thinks it is supposed to, or simply because the child is devious and doesn’t like the adult and has found out that it can get the adult in a lot of trouble by claiming abuse.
Both happen, and both are travesties. But one can hardly take the position, as you seem to be trying to, that a child must always be believed when they claim abuse but disbelieved when they deny it. And especially not when, as in this case, the victim denies abuse in the one instance but speaks freely of it happening in others - a fact you conveniently keep ignoring.
I will admit I did not follow the trial of Jerry Sandusky real closely. However in light of SA’s allegations I decided to do a bit of research. I read Sandusky’s Wiki page. After reading it I have a few questions
- Are we discussing the same case as SA?
- Is there another Penn State, another Joe Paterno, and another Jerry Sandusky that I am unaware of?
If SA’sanswers to the above questions are: - Yes and 2. No then my final question is:
SA what color is the sky on your planet?
The post you quoted wasn’t in answer to you, Dumas. 
And my story is that I’ve always happily been neither. Perhaps that’s why I can contend with this subject with something approaching an open and rational mind.
Hardly a “travesty.” His name is rightfully sullied because of his own [in]actions, falsehoods and ass-covering.
Not sure I’d call kids being diddled for years by a middle-aged doofus a travesty either. Maybe you’re looking for the word “tragedy”? There’s no shortage of that to go around.
Which do you think happens more often … an adult molests a kid and the kid doesn’t tell anyone, or a kid feels like *getting *an adult so he makes up charges that he’s been molested? Because if you don’t realize the ratio we’re talking about probably somewhere in the 1000 to 1 range (probably higher), then you’re more fully around the bend than I suspected.
If a child says he’s being molested, you give him the benefit of the doubt. You don’t waive it away screeching McMartin! McMartin! and hope everything comes out fine.
Jesus H. you’re thick.
You’ve seized on the most extreme example. Most kids falsely accusing adults of molestation are being manipulated by adults.
I think it’s probably more common for kids to not tell about true abuse than to make up fake abuse, but not nearly by the ratio that you give.
FWIW, in this particular case, I think the cumulative evidence against Sandusky is overwhelming, but that does not preclude the possibility that some specific allegations against him are false. I base this on two things:
[ol]
[li]Some of the victims have testified based on “recovered memories”[/li][li]It’s well known that any victims of Sandusky are likely to get enormous payouts.[/li][/ol]
What do you think the ratio is of people who get murdered vs. those who don’t? By your logic we ought to ignore murder because most people don’t get murdered.
Still, I agree with you…up to a point. The child’s allegations should be investigated, and with the same type of open mind and diligence that an adult’s allegations of rape or any other crime would be afforded. But we should never assume that in all cases the child is telling the truth, nor should we automatically assume if someone else makes the allegation the child is lying if he denies it. Otherwise we’re back to tossing accused witches into a lake and proclaiming them innocent if they drown and propped up by the devil if they float, whereupon they’re burned at the stake.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t propositions should never be adopted when it comes to determining someone’s fate, no matter what ratio may be in effect.
I’m sure if his anus was the right height, then you’re be able to grasp that low-hanging fruit and prove he wasn’t culpable
As per usual, your analogy sucks.
The equivalent analogy would have been: “How many people get killed by a murderer v how many people only claim to have been killed by a murder to *get *them.”
I’m guessing you’ll run across a ‘divide by zero’ error in that case.
Then what accounts for your intense fascination with the subject of little boys’ butts?
If the only way you can get anybody to agree with you is to create a sock, then such a confidence is unsupported, you realize.
I had a feeling you’d quibble over that, but rather than spend time proactively trying to head it off I decided to wait and see if maybe it’d fly over your head like so much else does.
The thrust of your argument seemed to be that because something wrong (adult wrongfully accused of sexual abuse by child) occurred so seldom, it was therefore perfectly okay to proceed full steam ahead and ruin the lives of whoever gets accused accordingly. In other words, it happens so rarely that when it does the consequences don’t matter.
Looked at in that context the analogy is spot on.
I suppose it’s escaped your attention that nobody pays any to you.