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

[RedFury]

@NoLittlePlans

@JayBilas debating this very subject on twitter right now: https://twitter.com/JayBilas/with_replies

Is that like “breaking news” that any of us should give a shit about? I mean another ex-jock defending his brethren? I’ve got the vapors.

Meanwhile I’ll stick with ‘old’ news: Joe Paterno Was a Dictator: Penn State Deserved Its Punishment

…But misplaced priorities at Penn State metastasized into something else entirely, a hideous tumor of shame and scandal. Paterno and top administrators willfully ignored the innumerable warnings and evidence of a sexual animal in their midst, aiding and abetting in his rape of little boys as they hemmed and hawed and wrote endless and empty emails to each other as if that was somehow taking action.

The End.
Yeah right!

[Kimstu]

@Starving_Artist

Most men during most of the countries history were quite likely blessedly unaware and unthinking of such things as man/boy butt-fuckage. Or man/man butt-fuckage for that matter.

:dubious: Even if that was true of most American men in, say, the 18th or 19th century (which I’d like to see a cite for), it probably wasn’t true in the late 20th and early 21st century. So your suggestion that Paterno around 2000 would have been “blessedly unaware” of the existence of homosexual anal sex sounds highly implausible.

After all, considering that the major Hollywood movie Deliverance, in which male/male butt-fuckage is a critical plot point, came out in 1972 to great notoriety and acclaim and has been widely regarded as an important film classic ever since, it’s hard to argue realistically that most men simply wouldn’t have understood what it referred to.

@Starving Artist

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?

Unless you’re contending that Paterno would have been too naive to understand that the phrase “anal sex” means “fucking in the ass”, then I don’t see how he (or you, for that matter) could have avoided being aware of the phenomenon if he was reading the news in and around the 1990’s. Even a brief Google News search for that period brings up dozens of such news stories, several of them in Pennsylvania papers.

@Starving Artist

[…] 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 […]

Nope, you’re still misrepresenting the jury findings there. The jury did not find that the shower incident “can not reliably be construed as anal rape”; they merely found that the available evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was anal rape.

There’s nothing at all implausible about the possibility that it indeed was anal rape. You’re failing to understand that because you keep confusing “unproven” with “unlikely”.

[RaftPeople]

@Starving_Artist

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.

Recall in the 1998 incident that a team of psychiatrists all agreed (it’s in the police report) that Sandusky’s behavior most likely represented grooming behavior of a pedophile.

It’s entirely possible Paterno didn’t see the police report and it’s entirely possible that one or all of Curley, Schultz, Spanier did read the report (not sure which of those three was working there during that time).

That analysis was countered by the other counselor at the time, but when the second incident occurred, assuming one of them had read the report, it should have triggered an appropriate response at that point.

[Kimstu]

@Starving Artist

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.

Breaking into a parked car, as illegal and morally reprehensible as it is, really isn’t in the same league ethics-wise as kiddie-fiddling.

Also, it’s not as though the Sandusky situation was a fleeting glimpse of a stranger, as in the hypothetical you’re describing: Paterno knew that Sandusky was still around and still having access to kids. You’re trying to trivialize the situation by making up an allegedly analogous situation that’s actually much more trivial than the real-life events.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I just checked. Two months ago to the day I posted this:

I notice you are very specific in using the words “rape” or “raping”. My question is: is there any evidence that Joe Paterno ever knew about or covered up the fact that Jerry Sandusky was sexually assaulting kids?

A simple question, never to be answered.

And it wasn’t, so I can have no reasonable expectation of it being answered now. Starving Artist’s obvious strategy is to keep saying “rape”, “rape”, “rape”, as a gotcha point, where anyone who says something along the lines of “Paterno did know (or have reason to suspect) Sandusky was raping kids” can be countered with “ah-ha! According to the victim himself, no rape occured that night, AND Sandusky wasn’t convicted of rape. Therefore your entire argument is faulty. WINNING!”

Of course, if Starving instead references “sexual assault” and someone says “Paterno did know (or have reason to suspect) Sandusky was sexually assaulting kids”, that leaves Starving nowhere to go.

[iiandyiiii]

@iiandyiiii

I hope you aren’t in a position of authority. If you had reason to believe there was a possibility (not a certainty) that a child in the facility you worked might have been sexually abused, I would hope you would do more than Joe did. But based on what you’ve posted so far, I’m inclined to believe that you’d pass it up the chain and wipe your hands of it.

I learned the concepts of responsibility and accountability in my service in the Navy- and it was most strongly demonstrated in the aftermath of a collision on the submarine I served on. Late one night we hit a freighter (or more accurately they hit us). One officer on duty as the Navigation Supervisor (responsible for navigating the ship around fixed hazards like shallow spots and undersea mountains) knew that the submarine might be dangerously close to the freighter, but he said nothing, because he thought his only duty was to keep the ship safe from fixed nav hazards. He was properly (and strongly) disciplined for this- he could have kept the ship safe if he had spoken up (even though he wasn’t certain- he just didn’t want to speak up). Even though he wasn’t responsible for the collision, he was accountable- because he had the knowledge, even if not certain, to prevent it.

That officer (a friend of mine) should have spoken up. Luckily, no one died. And obviously, no one was abused. If only Joe Paterno had had such a lesson in his life…

Reposted to demonstrate the concepts of responsibility and accountability.

[iiandyiiii]

@Starving_Artist

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.

(bolding mine)

Sure, naked men showering with (and touching) unrelated naked boys is just minor, hinky behavior. Nothing to see here…

Fotheringay-Phillips- feel free to point out the utter ridiculousness of many of SA’s statements, instead of defending him to fulfill your knee-jerk urge to defend the minority position in every single argument.

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.

Wrong, false, wrong, false.

[Bambro]

@NoLittlePlans

Interesting…

RT If Michigan football assistant Al Borges tells head coach Brady Hoke he witnessed former coach Gary Moeller raping a young boy in locker room, UMich compliance website directs witness to notify UM Campus Police about suspicion of child sexual abuse: http://compliance.umich.edu/people/safety.html#contactshttp://compliance.umich.edu/people/safety.html #B1G #Wolverines

#youfuckingidiot #quitthatshit

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@RaftPeople

Many of your previous posts appeared unemotional but the emotions seem to be breaking through in your last few.

I’m not sure what this is in reference to.

Regarding the specific part you quoted, it is my considered opinion that many or most posters to this thread are not capable of looking at the issue with much more nuance than this guy and that this accounts for much of the misrepresentation of SA’s positions.

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

I agree with you about both of these examples.

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.)

I disagree about this, and other posters who went with this approach earlier in the thread (ISTR jtgain and brickbacon in particular) were also attacked pretty severely.

But beyond that, the post that you responded to was not about why SA is being attacked, but about why his positions were being distorted so frequently. If his positions - on the whole - were so ridiculously extreme then this should not be necessary.

@RaftPeople

Recall in the 1998 incident that a team of psychiatrists all agreed (it’s in the police report) that Sandusky’s behavior most likely represented grooming behavior of a pedophile.

IMO this is a serious misrepresentation.

1. It was not a “team of psychiatrists”. It was one psychologist reporting on her discussions with her colleagues.
2. More significantly, there’s a huge difference between “the incidents meet all our definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile’s pattern …” (Freeh Report version) and “most likely represented grooming behavior of a pedophile” (your claim).

@Starving_Artist

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.

OK. But I disagree with this too.

@iiandyiiii

Fotheringay-Phillips- feel free to point out the utter ridiculousness of many of SA’s statements, instead of defending him to fulfill your knee-jerk urge to defend the minority position in every single argument.

I think you’re on to something but you may have it backwards. I generally defend the minority position but that’s just because I choose to post on issues in which I’m in the minority.

In this example, I disagree with any number of things SA has said in this thread, and I’ve noted this a few times (the idea that JP was unaware of the concept of homosexual sex being the most recent that I recall) but I have no interest in joining up with 874 other people who are saying the same thing, for the most part much more vociferously. What interests me is the positions and points that no one else is taking up.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I don’t recall anyone claiming Paterno was from Mars. Why not run with that?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Because I don’t happen to think it’s true.

Is that good enough?

[Starving_Artist]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

In this example, I disagree with any number of things SA has said in this thread, and I’ve noted this a few times (the idea that JP was unaware of the concept of homosexual sex being the most recent that I recall.

For clarity’s sake it should be noted that what I’ve said is that JP was most likely unaware of the concept of homosexual man/boy anal sex. I’m sure he knew of the existence of homosexuality.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

OK.

For clarity’s sake it should be noted that I disagree with the idea that JP was unaware of the concept of homosexual man/boy anal sex.

[Starving_Artist]

Fair enough.

[Starving_Artist]

Although I would follow that up by noting that in his final days Paterno managed to squeak out to a reporter or interviewer the following: “I never heard of a man…and a boy…” whereupon he faded away and seemed unable to complete the sentence, either because he was too weak or had run out of breath.

This would seem in accordance with my view that he was unaware of the concept of man/boy anal sex.

Also we have Mike McQueary’s statements that he didn’t inform Paterno of his suspicions of anal rape out of respect for him. This strongly suggests that even this assistant coach, with years of up close and personal contact with Paterno, felt that to broach such an indelicate subject with Paterno was something that one just did not do, which would also be in keeping with the way someone would be treated if they were likely unfamiliar with such a practice and would probably find the prospect of it so repulsive and so ridiculous that they’d reject it out of hand.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Starving_Artist

JP was most likely unaware of the concept of homosexual man/boy anal sex.

He was a *classics *major at Brown.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Starving_Artist

Although I would follow that up by noting that in his final days Paterno managed to squeak out to a reporter or interviewer the following: “I never heard of a man…and a boy…” whereupon he faded away and seemed unable to complete the sentence, either because he was too weak or had run out of breath.

This would seem in accordance with my view that he was unaware of the concept of man/boy anal sex.

Also in accordance with my view that he was very sick and weak at the time and probably addled with painkillers, and there was probably some misunderstanding or communication failure along the way.

Also we have Mike McQueary’s statements that he didn’t inform Paterno of his suspicions of anal rape out of respect for him. This strongly suggests that even this assistant coach, with years of up close and personal contact with Paterno, felt that to broach such an indelicate subject with Paterno was something that one just did not do, which would also be in keeping with the way someone would be treated if they were likely unfamiliar with such a practice and would probably find the prospect of it so repulsive and so ridiculous that they’d reject it out of hand.

It’s the type of thing that an assistant doesn’t typically bring up with a revered head coach. That doesn’t mean it’s not the type of thing that Paterno wouldn’t discuss with other people, or hadn’t discussed or read about over the course of his long life, and in his younger years when he was not a revered elder statesman.

[iiandyiiii]

@Starving_Artist

Although I would follow that up by noting that in his final days Paterno managed to squeak out to a reporter or interviewer the following: “I never heard of a man…and a boy…” whereupon he faded away and seemed unable to complete the sentence, either because he was too weak or had run out of breath.

This would seem in accordance with my view that he was unaware of the concept of man/boy anal sex.

Or that he was lying or was misunderstood, which seems far more likely than an educated, intelligent, adult man who had served in the military and spent decades in and around young men in locker rooms not being aware of the sexual abuse of children (note that based on McQueary’s report it didn’t have to be any particular kind of abuse- but based on what McQueary told him there was clearly enough information for a rational person to suspect, at the very least, the possibility of abuse).

[Starving_Artist]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Also in accordance with my view that he was very sick and weak at the time and probably addled with painkillers, and there was probably some misunderstanding or communication failure along the way.

Your mileage obviously varies, but I don’t know what there’d be about painkillers or weakness that would lead him to inadvertently or erroneously make what would otherwise seem to be a very appropriate on-target and context-specific statement like that.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Heck, Starving, in your addled final days (well, your more addled final days) it wouldn’t surprise me to find out you gasped something like “straight…dope… guys…[wheeze] …right…”