I’d be happy to give your argument serious analysis, if I could figure out what it was beyond… I don’t know… suggesting a presumption of innocence is a good thing? Robb’s already trying to tease out specifics and failing, so why duplicate his effort?
I’m not inclined to view every adult with an interest in children as automatically suspect, i.e. wondering why a man would want to be an elementary-school teacher as though this was unnatural, somehow. Heck, a few weeks back I gave a presentation to two groups of kids about the history and meaning of Remembrance Day, and I even passed around army-issue clothing and equipment to those that were interested. Could someone accuse me of trying to “groom” a kid for later sexual interaction? Sure, if they were a moron.
Possibly you’re not familiar with people who work with troubled kids as mentors.
But I’ve personally known kids who were troubled and at-risk and were headed to unpleasant futures and whose lives were turned around by mentors of this sort (though in the cases I’m thinking of the mentors were actually relatives, so it’s a bit different, but not everyone has relatives who can step in as these kids did). And the way they did it was similar to grooming, absent the sexual angle. These kids had difficult family lives and they were looking for an adult figure in their lives who they could look up to and trust and who would give them some affection that they were lacking elsewhere. (Ironically, that’s exactly what makes kids of this sort such easy prey for pedophiles.) And they got it from good people who had their interests at heart and it made all the difference.
You’re wrong about this. It doesn’t take an expert when the adult is sticking his hand down kids’ pants, as Bryan observes. Other situations are far more ambiguous.
If you can’t figure out what the argument was, you could always ask. Or you could ignore the post. Frankly I’ve learned to ignore most of your posts.
I mean, I appreciate that you have this witty teenager persona that you like to adopt. And that’s fine, and no doubt some people appreciate this. But where it becomes a problem is if you confuse the discussion that other people are having.
In this case, the whole idea is that grooming is not the same as sex abuse. It’s creating a relationship that enables sex abuse. Your post conflated the two, so I responded.
That’s great and I’m glad to know that you’re not a pedophile. But that’s not the same thing as a mentoring relationship with troubled kids, which is what is being discussed here.
If you want to maintain your position that “it doesn’t take an expert to identify a pedophile etc.”, you might want to address the fact that in the very case we happen to be discussing, the case was investigated by the police and DPW - IOW by people with a lot more expertise than you have - and they concluded incorrectly that there was no evidence that Sandusky was a pedophile.
So we should not jump to the conclusion that someone who wants to mentor kids also wants to abuse them. Gotcha.
I mean… duh. If you had a different point in mind, you’re obviously not expressing it clearly enough. Try harder, you’ll get there.
The specific relevance to Sandusky and Penn State is not established, though. We have reports (even beyond McQueary’s account) of suspicious behaviour on Sandusky’s part, and nobody at Penn State had the legal discretion to decide to handle the matter “in house.”
If Paterno was still alive, I could picture him on trial with Curley and Schultz, or possibly as a witness against them (i.e. he’d testify that he informed them, just barely satisfying his own legal obligations), but no matter.
But if people with the interest in and aptitude for following the discussion and appreciating the context have some difficulty, I’ll try to clarify further.
Well, you and the Time Cube guy have a lot in common, then.
Well, I see Robb’s made at least three attempts, so if you can write a post that he finds satisfactory, I’ll be happy to let it go.
Meantime, mocking you is more interesting than debating you, and you provide adequate starting material, especially with that “subtract the sexual elements” bit. Sure, subtract the sexual elements and pedophilia is just mentoring. And subtract the killing elements and murder is just agreeing to disagree.
F-P, I’m concerned that your final point means that no one can identify a pedophile. Sandusky benefited from many people protecting an organization. A few organizations provide that level of protection.
No great shame in that. For you, mocking everyone and everything is more interesting than debating them, and evidenced by about 99.9% of your posts.
As above, I think it’s mostly a teenage smart-alec-in-back-of-the-room persona, but I also seriously doubt whether you understand the things you are mocking, for the most part.
I suspect that it’s probably very difficult, absent evidence of actual abuse (or similar, e.g. child porn) and based solely on ancillary characteristics like “grooming”.
That’s probably also true of every other sort of psychological profile, BTW.
Once again, it would appear that you’re confusing the 1998 incident (which we’re discussing here) and the 2001 incident. The 1998 incident was investigated by the police and the State DPW.
Well, speaking as someone with some formal education in statistics, for you to make such a claim with confidence, i.e. “Bryan Ekers mocks 99.9% of the time, plus or minus .1% 19 times out of 20”, you’d need a good sample size. So…
Population (the total number of Bryan Ekers posts) = 40325
Confidence level: 95%
Confidence interval: 0.1
Sample size needed… 38700? Wow. I’m flattered you’ve read that much of my work. Thing is, to prove the statement wrong, I’d just have to show significantly more than 0.1% of my posts have been nonmocking. Let’s say .3%, or 120 of them. I think that could be arranged.
Now, a more generalized comment, i.e. “Bryan Ekers mocks about half the time”, with a looser confidence interval, i.e. 45-55% is close enough:
Population (the total number of Bryan Ekers posts) = 40325
Confidence level: 95%
Confidence interval: 5
Sample size needed… 381, much more reasonable and not stalkerish at all.
See? That’s college-level mockery, right there.
I seriously doubt the quality of your assessment. Sure, I’ve been caught out a few times here and there, educated as it were, but I see nothing in this thread that comes close. I’ll put my faith in Robb. If it’s Robb’s will that you have made a valid point, I’ll trust the awful grace of Robb.
No, I’m not confusing any incident. Pedophiles are a sort of conman, and they need people to buy what they are saying. You are looking at discrete events; I’m looking at the bigger picture. Sandusky needed a facade that Paterno and Penn State gave to him. Sandusky looked for boys who had no one looking out for them. Sometimes, his target had someone looking out for him. Sandusky’s involvement with Penn State gave him a cover of respectability. I see Sandusky as Paterno’s version of Frankenstein’s monster. Sandusky couldn’t have existed without Paterno and his football program. Like that monster, Sandusky eventually destroyed his creator.
But I’m saying that in the 1998 incident Sandusky did not benefit from many people protecting an organization and was investigated by the police and the DPW. And despite that, he was effectively cleared of pedophilia charges.
This proves that, absent smoking gun evidence, pedophilia is not as blatant and clear cut and easy to determine as you’ve asserted.
I’m not sure this is a response, perhaps more a point of clarification. But unless I’m recalling it incorrectly (and please disabuse me if that is the case) the primary police officer involved in the 1998 incident, who was present for interviews with Sandusky, the boy, and the boy’s mom including one in which at least some participants recall Sandusky admitting wrongdoing and asking for forgiveness, said he believed something unacceptable was going on. And the State Attorney whose decision not to pursue the matter dumbfounded the cop, that State Attorney, turned up missing shortly thereafter. And that ended the matter.
If my memory is correct, this puts a rather different light on “effectively cleared of pedophilia charges”. And leaves open to question the idea that a State Attorney, a political (or at least politically aware) position, might have leaned in the direction of protecting, or at least not delving too deeply into, a matter that would bring embarrassment to a popular organization like PSU.
I say that the boy’s mother was on the right track, but that people investigating didn’t stop to think. Please understand that I’m not limiting myself to saying only that the organization’s reputation protected Sandusky. The boy’s mother must have wondered, but the people she turned to for help already knew the answers. Certainly, the later event showed the extent the organization was prepared to protect Sandusky.
Sandusky is a special case (I hope). Most pedophiles don’t get such high profile positions. (Wow, have I already forgotten about Jimmy Savile?) some pedophiles are lucky enough to find themselves in organizations that protect them.
Anyway, I hope Santa brings us everything on Vinyl Turnip’s list - this topic is depressing.
Bryan, I hope you have a very merry Tuesday and a Happy New Year.
It kinda makes me wonder how many active pedophiles there are right now in various schools, religious orders, insular communities and social organizations who are being knowingly (or at least willful-blindingly) protected by someone who thinks it’s for the good of the institution. I bet it’s a lot, and thus covering it up carries fairly good odds that either the abuse won’t be discovered by someone willing to make it public, or if it is it’ll be years and years later, to take place on someone’s else’s “watch.”
Heck, I suggested before that Paterno and Penn could’v just been playing the odds. Sandusky might’ve politely died circa 2005, or gotten arrested for doing something unassociated with Penn and sent away for a few years… the more time passed, the more it looked like staying silent worked.
He was cleared of charges while at the same time a group of psychologists agreed that the incidents met the criteria of a “likely” pedophile.
Note the use of the word “likely”, quoted from the report.
Note that a “group” of psychologist all agreed.
Saying he as cleared of charges and ignoring this competing analysis is not a balanced representations of the data. It’s technically accurate while painting a vastly different picture by eliminating the opposing data.
I find an awful lot of support for my memory. Regarding police listening to a confrontation with the child’s mother, here’s one from CBS News, another from the PA Patriot News, and the New York Times. Regarding the police officer Ronald Schreffler believing there was sufficient evidence to charge Sandusky, this from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Regarding the disappearance of District Attorney Ray Gricar (sorry, not State Attorney as I remembered) after refusing to prosecute, this from HuffPo (yes, I know, HuffPo) and this from New York Times.
I made no claim regarding the sufficiency of evidence or lack thereof to sustain a prosecution in 1998. I simply stated that there seemed to be ample reason to believe that Sandusky was not subjected to the same standards of evidence that would have applied to any old poor schlub, say a janitor at Penn State, against whom similar allegations might have been made.
And further, these circumstances do not support your contention that Sandusky was “effectively cleared of pedophilia charges”. Unless you mean it in a rather restrictive, pedantic sense – the *effect *was that he wasn’t prosecuted for pedophilia, and from a distance, and by squinting, I can see that as being sort of like (but not really the same as) being cleared.
ETA: Thanks, RaftPeople, the psych evaluation is just further support.