This is one the most laughable parts of your argument (though there are many). You’re saying we’re supposed to believe Paterno, an educated man, and a veteran of the US Armed Forces, was unaware that some people rape children? How stupid do you think Paterno was?
Paterno did not report to the police that Sandusky may have been sexually abusing children, despite having knowledge that any reasonable person would take to mean that Sandusky might be sexually abusing children. Whatever his legal responsibilities, Paterno had a moral responsibility to notify the police, and he failed his moral responsibilities. Paterno had the knowledge that could have prevented more abuse, and he chose not to take action and follow up to make sure there was no more abuse.
Actually one of the several ways in which this resembles a lynch mob is the persistent ignorance of the most basic facts of the case which typifies so many of the anti-JP crowd, and the fact that this disregard for the facts in no way diminishes their righteous indignation and sanctimony.
For example, you’ve built something here out of the supposed fact that the “incident McQueary witnessed took place in March of 2002”, while “the details of the sexual abuse by Catholic priests within the Boston Archdiocese had broken in January and February of that year”. Had you been paying even a slight amount of attention to the case you have long since become aware that the incident McQueary witness actually took place in February of 2001, before (you claim) the details of the BA broke.
Now as it happens, I am skeptical of the claim that JP was unaware of the concept of homosexual sex and pedophilia, so I’m not arguing that point. But to the extent that it’s a valid point, it can’t be refuted by bogus facts, as you’ve done. And the fact that you obviously have no clue as to some of the most elementary facts of this case but are yet able to construct a basis for your condemnations based on your ignorance, suggests that you’re motivated by emotion and not reason.
And the same goes for most of the posters to this thread. E.g. many or most of the posters to this thread - and Rick is just the most recent example that comes to mind - have had difficulty in distinguishing the 1998 incident from the 2001 incident. And the same goes for any number of other crucial facts.
I was going to correct that too, good catch. Agree with you that the idea an intelligent adult in the US at this time was ignorant of child rape is ridiculous.
So the facts are:
Paterno was told that Sandusky was naked in a shower with a boy.
Paterno did not do enough to find out if that boy was OK.
Paterno’s lack of action is a moral failure that will forever tarnish his reputation.
I’d add: Paterno did not do enough to keep Jerry Sandusky away from young boys.
Paterno did not do enough to keep Jerry Sandusky away from young boys in the Penn State showers.
Actually, almost everyone would… these are principles that all but maybe five people in the world would agree with. If it weren’t for one or two people here choosing to ignore these, there’d be no purpose for this thread.
Or it would’ve fizzled out after post 17 or so:
Paterno himself, when he was in his final days and so weak he could hardly talk, managed to squeak out that he’d never heard of “a man…and a boy…”, and he then seemed either to lose his train of thought, or too much breath to be able to continue.
And simply being Catholic doesn’t mean every Catholic in the country instantly knew all the gory details about homosexual anal child rape as soon as the scandal broke. Who were they to learn it from? I certainly don’t recall mention of anal sex or anything more than “sexual abuse” in the news. Was it being shouted from each pulpit? I doubt that most of the country’s Catholics today know that sexual child abuse can involve anal sex between grown men and young boys much smaller than themselves.
Hell, McQueary himself quailed at the idea of presenting Paterno with the image of man/boy anal sex because he had so much respect for Paterno and knew how shocking and repulsive he’d have found the idea.
I, myself, if you’ll recall in the early stages of the thread, expressed the belief that it would be highly unlikely for a large grown man to engage in anal sex with most young children the size of the boy in question due to the amount of pain it would cause the kids. And I’d been a member of this hard-on photo posting, semen-frying, every-variation-of-porno watching message board for nine years at that time. It’s a pretty well known fact that even most grown porn actresses dislike anal sex and find it painful, and most resisted it for years until finally it became pretty much de rigueur as it apparently is today. So my thinking was that if grown women accustomed to sex in most of its otherwise deviant forms find anal sex painful and disgusting, the effect of both would be magnified many times over to a small child.
So no, it itsn’t a given at all that Joe Paterno knew of anal sex between men and small boys, and it isn’t a given that he suspected Sandusky of it when he heard McQueary’s description of what he’d allegedly seen.
I don’t think I’ll bother. I have enough on my plate without getting sidetracked into a debate over what constitutes deviancy in porn. Just regard it as my thinking at the time and take it from there.
100 pages later and this one is still going? I’m impressed! Any jokes about Sandusky and CP (Cedar Point) pop up yet? Only one I got is Notre Dame cancelling their usual rollercoaster outing — 8 priests and 32 schoolboys in a Sandusky motel just seemed too risky.
I was aware that there had been confusion over the date given by McQueary and took the one given in the grand jury presentment. I apologize.
However, that hardly lets Paterno off the hook. Now we have a case of him concealing the actions of a pedophile, and just a year later seeing the massive harm that had occurred because the Boston Archdiocese had done the same thing. There was still time to report Sandusky in February of 2002. The media did not report “all the gory details about homosexual anal child rape” (Starving Artist’s words), and there’s no reason that Paterno would have needed all the gory details about Sandusky before reporting him.
And what about the other two points in my recent post? What’s the evidence, or motive, for this massive anti-Paterno crowd to exist before he Sandusky scandal broke? And the repercussions suffered by Paterno are quite trivial compared to an actual lynching.
Actually you’re wrong about this too. There was no confusion over the date given by McQueary. McQueary said 2002. He turned out to be wrong about it.
But in any event, if you were aware of the fact that there was confusion then you should certainly have looked it up and confirmed the correct facts before building your castles in the air, instead of wasting your time researching the fact that JP was a Catholic.
I don’t think much of this argument and think you’re just trying to save face. But I’m not going to argue about it, because it doesn’t relate to my point. Which is, again, that you posted in blatant disregard for the facts, which is consistent with a lynch mob mentality.
I’m not aware of any anti-Paterno crowd before the scandal broke and am not claiming there was one. It’s an anti-child abuse lynch mob, which is out to get anyone somehow connected in these horrific crimes, and JP fits the category. (He bore the main brunt - as regards the public reaction - because he was the most famous and probably also because he had a reputation for moral rectitude.)
When you can’t attack the argument, attack the person making the argument. Have you ever thought of going into politics?
I hope that sort of suggestion isn’t out of line in the Pit.
It’s not much of a lynch mob without a lynching. Paterno lost his job and a few lines in the record book. (Personally, I think that Sandusky bore the brunt of the punishment, what with being sent to prison for the rest of his life and all.)
Since Paterno’s death, the only thing to be gained from continuing this discussion is to convince others not to sweep allegations of pedophilia under the rug. And all anyone thinks Paterno should have done is report the allegation so it could be investigated and (depending on the facts uncovered) tried in court.
I think you’re somewhat misinformed on what lynch mobs really did.
The term “lynch mob” is a figure of speech that refers to a lynch mob mentality. I’m sure you know that. The tactic of attempting to apply literal meaning to a figure of speech is an old one and is never effective at much beyond making its practitioner look desperate and foolish.
Just because your knowledge of human sexuality is, as this post makes clear, laughably deficient and filled with falsehoods, doesn’t mean that most adults’ knowledge is. Most adults are well aware of the possibility of adults raping children (unfortunately), and most adults are well aware that many adults enjoy anal sex (not that this is relevant to the thread; I just thought your views on anal sex were the funniest thing I had read all week). It’s just not believable that Joe Paterno didn’t know about these kinds of things… anyone who’s spent much time in a men’s locker room, or served in the military (and Joe Pat has done both, obviously), or even just been in the company of 15-25 year old men has heard more about these things then they could ever possibly want to know.
Your second sentence is an example of your first, though I doubt if you intended that - or even realized it.
But you’re wrong in my case. In this case the person making an argument is the argument. You denied that there was any lynch mob and it was ironic that you exhibited characteristics of this in that very post, and I pointed this out. From that point on it’s all about you - can’t get away from that.
I think you’re confusing two separate points that you made, which is a bit odd because you earlier described them correctly as “two points” indicating that you appreciated that they were distinct.
I’ve already addressed the points you raise here, in noting that it’s true but trivial in context. The part you quoted and responded to was addressing a different point (specifically “What’s the evidence, or motive, for this massive anti-Paterno crowd to exist before he Sandusky scandal broke?”).
Yes, and the figurative “lynch mob” goes after someone they’re predisposed to hate, ignores or circumvents any attempts to find additional facts, and extracts a severe punishment. No one has shown that those three things apply to Paterno.
Then you might want to inform Mike McQueary of that as he was obviously of the same mind about Joe Paterno as I, and he had many years of personal acquaintance to inform his belief in the matter. You’re making the solipsistic mistake of assuming everyone shares your obviously deep knowledge of all things related to human interaction with bodily orifices and not every does, especially not those who grew up in the days of Shirley Temple and the Hays code. Hell, even when I was in high school in the sixties most guys found the idea of anal sex repulsive. It wasn’t until advocacy for teh gay became all the rage that attempts began to bring it to the mainstream, whereupon it’s since become de regueur in porn as well. But neither was commonplace in the world Joe Paterno grew up in and I doubt they commonplace in his realm as an adult as well. If anyone ever subscibed to an Ozzie & Harriet lifestyle in modern day America my guess would be Joe Paterno was one who did. So try to keep in mind that not everyone shares your vast experience with poop chutes, and they still might well be able to maintain that blessed ignorance even if you’re right and the majority of the rest of country has become as similarly versed as you.