Nope, you’re way wrong on this- especially the man/man part (another howler!). All men in history have lived in the real world, and in the real world homosexuality has always existed, in every society. In the real world, child sexual abuse has always existed, in every society. And most adults have known about these things, certainly for the last hundred years or so.
No idea what this has to do with anything I’ve said. You’re claiming (with certainty!) that Joe Paterno, an intelligent man, was ignorant of these sexual matters. I think this is patently ridiculous.
Ahh yes, those halcyon times from the dawn of prehistory right up until us nasty hippies invented sodomy, and used the internet to infect people with it. Along with all the other things we dreamed up to deliberately destroy society. That was 1968, wasn’t it?
Too bad you didn’t think of paper towel tubes back then! You might have saved civilization!
No, I said in this country’s history, although I did misspell it as “countries,” although my use of the word “the” which proceeded it should have informed you I wasn’t talking about all the countries that ever existed. Besides which I’m not all that convinced homosexuality let alone its various practices were all that widely known in most of the world’s countries for most of the world’s history. But be that as it may, I was talking about the U.S.
You can think anything you want. But intelligent people are ignorant of much. Paterno’s intelligence is in no way indicative of what he should have known about man/boy anal sex.
That is a laughably ludicrous distinction to try to claim. I actually snickered when I read this. It’s like describing a goggle-eyed hick who is stunned to find out that cars can be driven and not just parked on one’s lawn as ornaments.
I have no idea how often (or even if) Paterno attended services, but can we assume he heard the news every now and then? Watched TV? Picked up a newspaper? He would have to pretty determinedly ignorant to be unaware of the Church scandals that were (and still are) commonplace. I’m not Catholic, or even Christian, and I was aware of them in the early 2000s, and beforehand.
I didn’t say “fully versed”, I said “aware”. That you have to resort to false-dichotomy to respond to my position betrays the weakness of your own.
Anyway, I’m prepared to accept that Paterno was a flawed human being, as all human beings are. Your position requires that he be, at best, some kinda of utter naif.
I think Paterno is in for some blame and should have done more (since he did not actually turn it over to the administration and rely on them, as he claimed, but continued to have some involvement in managing the response).
But I don’t think he’s nearly as culpable as most posters to this thread think.
But that’s beyond the scope of the comment that you quoted. I could think Paterno was worse than Sandusky and it would not elevate many of the attacks on him in this thread to being rational and evidence-based, or many of the attacks on SA to being intellectually honest.
Do the words hugging, squeezing, kissing, groping, copping a feel, mean anything to you? Or in your opinion should a person’s mind immediately morph into a cock and slip instantly into some child’s ass merely upon hearing the words “child abuse”? :rolleyes:
I watched a lot of t.v. and read a lot of newspapers in this country circa - 2000 a.d., and for the life of me I can’t recall a single story that talked about a priest fucking a kid in the ass. But hey, maybe my memory’s faulty. Lots of old stuff has been saved to the internet these days. How about a cite of some t.v. news program or newspaper ol’ Joe likely would have read that outlined the subject?
I’m glad to see you’ve learned something from my many rebuttals. I’m flattered. However I think you’ve misapplied the lesson. IMO a person would have to be fairly well versed in man/boy anal abuse to automatically assume it when he hears the words “child abuse” in relation to a church scandal or to envision it after hearing what McQueary allegedly saw.
Again it requires no such thing, for the very good reasons I’ve already stated.
Again, you’re trying to put a false dichotomy in place. Was Paterno so clueless that “groping” and “copping a feel” on a child was harmless in his view (hearkening back to some mythically innocent 1950s in which Paterno, you imply, was hopelessly mired), but anal intercourse was utterly unfathomable? It’s your contention that the concept is so completely alien to Paterno that does the man, and your argument, no service.
But you were aware that sexual abuse was occurring, right? It didn’t, I hope, have to be spelled out for you that something very very wrong was happening, and had been happening for some time, and being enabled to happen by the silence and complicity of church officials. By your interpretation, Paterno was unable to connect the dot.
Absolutely no argument from me there.
Reports of sexual abuse within the Church? There are lots of them. Are you looking specifically for ones containing the phrase “ass-fucking”? If so, you’re disingenuously and determinedly missing the point.
You’re not in a position to claim that you can manage (let alone have managed) to condescend me. If anything, you’ve adapted to me, or at least you’re trying to, in light of the extra lengths you have to go to to form a response.
Why does the abuse have to specifically be anal? I’ve said before in this thread that you’re trying to misuse specificity, i.e. someone is accused of murder. He is asked if he killed the victim on June 14th. He responds quite clearly and confidently: “I didn’t kill him on June 14th” - because he knows that though he shot the victim six times at 11:59 p.m., he actually died at one minute after midnight on the 15th. Every time the question is raised after that, he remains careful to say "“I didn’t kill him on June 14th”, never dropping the technically accurate but misleading qualifier, and refusing to answer any question that would force him to respond otherwise if it means incriminating himself or lying.
Did Paterno have good reason to suspect abuse, anal or otherwise? Can you answer the question without the qualifier, or will your answer be a perpetual “it wasn’t anal abuse” ?
No, it doesn’t require Paterno to have been an utter naif - that’s merely the most generous interpretation.
My apologies that was a typo, I meant ‘all he should’ not all he could.
He did not do enough, this is a fact because other kids were molested. He had an opportunity to stop Sandusky and didn’t take it, why I do not know but by not doing enough other kids were molested. Do you understand what we are saying? We don’t care that he did the bare minimum because by doing a bit more, a bit more we expect from people in protecting the weak, he could have stopped Sandusky in 2001.
Many of your previous posts appeared unemotional but the emotions seem to be breaking through in your last few.
IMO, SA is primarily attacked due to his ridiculously extreme statements.
A couple examples:
1 - The act was, and I quote “nigh on impossible”
2 - Paterno shouldn’t have called the cops because the cops wouldn’t even have investigated because the victim was not known
If SA had left it at something like:
“My opinion is that Paterno had high morals and I think there is a very low chance that he knowingly covered something up”, then I think he would have been fine, because nowhere in that statement is there an attempt to claim accurate knowledge that is simply not available to him (e.g. impossibility of the act, whether the cops would investigate or not, etc.)
It seems that you’re misunderstanding my use of the term. I’m not saying my opponents are lying about me because I’m WINNING, I’m saying I’m WINNING because my opponents are lying about me. Or at least that’s one of the ways I’m using it.
I’ve actually been using WINNING in a couple of ways in this thread. The one in the post you responded to refers to my having taken the position that if people have to lie about or misconstrue what I’ve said in order to try to win their argument, they have therefore lost the argument by virtue of their not having a substantive rebuttal to what I’ve actually said. Therefore I’ve WON the point and can be said to be WINNING the argument.
The other way I use the term is to proclaim victory over having been right about every major point I’ve argued since the early stages of the thread, i.e.: no evidence Paterno knowingly covered up Sandusky’s rape of children to benefit his football program; no evidence that he even knew Sandusky was raping children; that the incident McQueary happened upon can not reliably be construed as anal rape, as argued by me prior to and by virtue of the paper towel tube test and afterward, and as found by the Sandusky trial jury; etc., etc., etc. I came in for a hell of a lot of abuse and some major league insults, especially in the early part of the thread for having the sheer temerity to make such suggestions, and therefore having been proven right about them I gleefully trumpet “WINNING” (or perhaps “I’ve WON” in light of the Sandusky jury’s ruling on the alleged shower rape) whenever I feel it necessary in order to remind my opponents when they start up again with their erroneous assertions just who’s been right about things in this thread and who’s been wrong, and that I have in every substantive point of fact won the thread by disproving the many false allegations it had been based on from the very beginning.
I realize that my tactics in this thread may very well appear silly and over the top to intelligent and reasonable posters such as yourself, but these people asked for it with the idiotic hysterics and ridiculous over the top and unreasoned insults they blasted me with throughout most of the thread, and now that events have transpired to vindicate me (as I knew they would, btw) I’m gonna rub their noses in it for as long as they want to keep coming back for more and I’ll just have to take the hit if intelligent, reasonable people like you find it, and perhaps me, distasteful.
Pretty poor examples, actually. The first is actually nigh on impossible, and the second was part of a speculative scenario I posted much earlier in the thread when I had much less information and which I haven’t revisited or asserted since.
One of my first posts in this thread was to remind people of Joe Paterno’s excellent reputation for integrity and calmly and reasonably suggest that they wait for evidence before condemning him as a pedophile enabler; a pedophile himself; an evil, sadistic asshole fully knowledgeable of and uncaring about the pain and suffering ten year’s worth of children experienced because of him, etc., etc., etc., and I was promptly set upon and called a throwback to the fifties when child abuse was overlooked and nobody cared about it, and called a pedophile and pedophile enabler and so on and so on and so on. All because I merely suggested the lynch mob take a break and wait for evidence before going ballistic.
So you’re wrong there too. Your post is a trifecta or wrongitude.
What I understand is that that doesn’t make any sense. He might possibly done everything in his power short of murdering Sandusky and Sandusky could still have abused some kids somewhere at sometime, or it’s possible he could have done nothing for some other reason Sandusky never touched another kid. In short, it does not follow that because Paterno did not stop Sandusky, other kids were molested.
He did not do the bare minimum. How many times do I have to say that? Have you been reading my posts at all or just skimming them long enough to see that I’m still on Paterno’s side, whereupon you come in here saying the same old things all over again?
Look, to stop something it’s usually reasonable to assume you have foreknowledge or at least a reasonable suspicion of its likely occurrence, right? Well, here’s the thing: Paterno didn’t know - nor, I’m fairly certain did he even suspect - that Jerry Sandusky would one day be subjecting children to oral and anal rape. All he knew was that on one occasion two years before a mother complained about Sandusky’s behavior with her child in one of the school’s showers, it was investigated by several agencies including State College police, and no charges were ever filed. Then he was given a vague description by McQueary of Sandusky doing “something sexual” with a child, something that McQueary described as being “some form of intercourse.”
Now to any reasonable person that is a vague description that falls far short of being descriptive of anal rape, especially when you consider that Dr. Dranov, the senior McQueary’s friend, says McQueary related the story much differently to him and McQueary’s father the night of the incident. He stated that McQueary kept stressing the sounds he’d heard and having seen the boy emerge from the shower only to be pulled back inside by Sandusky, and Dranov was adamant that whenever they tried to drill down to find out more of what McQueary saw, McQueary kept returning in a very upset fashion to the sounds he’d heard.
So it’s entirely possible that Paterno had heard about this as well, with the result being that he had come to feel Sandusky was occasionally engaging in some sort of hinky behavior with kids in the school shower while at the same time never imagining oral or anal rape would some day ensue, or that the behavior Sandusky was engaging in was particularly harmful to the boys in question.
But to get back to your assertion that he should have done more, let me try to illustrate my point about how a person can’t very well be considered responsible for not stopping consequences he had no reasonable expectation would occur:
Let’s say you’re Joe Paterno and you’re driving down a street one night and you see a guy breaking into a car in the parking lot of one of the college’s dorms, so you call the campus security number and report it according to standard policy established by the school at the behest of State College police so as to forestall their receiving multiple reports of the same crime. Now you’ve done what you’re supposed to do and reported the crime in the proper way and you continued on to your home.
Now let’s say that it’s a game night and all the campus cops are busy directing traffic and dealing with drunken students and fistfights and what have you and for whatever reason somebody drops the ball and no one ever shows up to investigate the car that got broken into. Only problem was, once the guy got in there he found a girl’s purse with her ID and photo and address and keys and wound up going to her dorm room and raping and killing her.
Upon hearing of this would your or anyone’s natural reaction be to go, “SCREEEEECH!!! THIS IS ALL JOE PATERNO’S FAULT!!! THAT ASSHOLE! HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO STOP THAT GUY AND HE DIDN’T DO IT AND NOW THAT POOR GIRL IS DEAD!!! HE HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW THAT MAN WAS BREAKING THE LAW AND UP TO NO GOOD! HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN!!! WAHAHAHAHA…”
Of course you wouldn’t. You would know instinctively that there was no reasonable way he could have extrapolated from an automobile break-in that a rape and murder would ensue from that relatively minor crime.
Similarly, Joe Paterno, and Curley and Schultz and Spanier, had no way of know that ten years of oral and anal child rape would ensue from the relatively minor hinky behavior Sandusky had been displaying in the school’s showers on the two occasions they were aware of.
So in short, they simply didn’t know, and had no reasonable way of knowing based on what they had at the time, that the terrible crimes Sandusky would go on to commit would ever happen. And therefore no reasonable expectation exists that they could have or should have stopped them.
Can sexual abuse of children occur even without anal rape? I mean, you mention anal rape so often (four times in your most recent post) that I’d like to establish if you believe it is a crucial element or not.