To be fair, IIRC the “scum” was about me saying his excuses for Paterno sounded exactly like excuses a pedo would use, and you cutting to the chase/yanking his chain by conluding that he was using them to excuse his own conduct, which none of us really know, except that it sounds really creepy for people to embrace terms like “nonsexual fondling” or “sexual conduct with a child, not necessarily criminal.” A person who tosses around such jargon, even if he’s never touched a child inappropriately (statistically, odds are that people who use such odd rationalizations probably have, but let’s imagine a world in which he didn’t) is a creepy weirdo and deserves it if they get called names (the name calling is not the basis of your argument but rather the justified result of it).
I have noticed this is one of SA’s repeated concerns…makes me wonder why. Protest too much?
Could be that, could be he’s never met a mischaracterization of the actual facts/issues under debate that he didn’t immediately fall in love with (see “reflexively,” “ruining,” “merest of suspicion”) vs. the only facts that are true and operative in this post/discussion.
-
I didn’t say “What if it was just tickling?”
-
Of course there are forms of fondling that are not criminal in nature. To wit, from Merriam-Webster Online (note that this is from the “Learner’s” section of the website):
*fon·dle Listen to audio/ˈfɑ:ndl̟/ verb
fon·dles; fon·dled; fon·dling
[+ obj] 1 : to touch or handle (something) in a gentle way
fondle a coin She fondled [=caressed] the dog’s ear.
2 : to touch (someone) in a sexual way
She claims that her boss tried to fondle her at the office Christmas party.*
Adults touch children in gentle ways all the time. They also touch children in ways that are intended to encourage them, reassure them, motivate them, sympathize with them, etc. It would behoove you (and Jack Batty for that matter) to learn the proper meaning of words if you’re going to use them to try to set traps for people.
- Certainly sexual contact with a child should be reported to the police. This is different than saying that merely supposed sexual contact with a child should be reported to the police, as my post to Rubystreak among others clearly explains.
Etc., etc., etc.
Ah, and here we have a perfect example of the Nancy Grace/witchhunt/lynch mob mentality. What better evidence of pedophilia exists than concern with fairness and justice? Why, the mere mention of the words point to SA’s guilt, because clearly if he wasn’t guilty he wouldn’t need to worry about such things as being fair and just.
:rolleyes:
Starving Artist, you’re doing it again. This was NOT “supposed sexual contact”. This was a grown man, naked, with a little boy, also naked, pushed up against the wall of a deserted locker room. This was NOT horseplay. This was NOT “teaching hygiene”. There is no way this can be seen as other than sexual.
As I have said before, if proper procedure had been followed the child could have been identified. If the child said it was just “horseplay”, then ok. THIS LITTLE BOY WAS NOT GIVEN THAT CHANCE.
Have we ruled out the Heimlich Maneuver?
The key issue that you and Huerta can’t seem to wrap your heads around is that…
PATERNO WASN’T TOLD ANYTHING ABOUT ALL THAT!!!
So he didn’t know anything about any of that stuff! How many times does this have to be said?
No one has ever used, spoken, heard, or understand “fondle” to mean your meaning 1 in the context of a report of “fondling” as to a naked man doing something to a naked child, especially when coupled immediately with the phrase “sexual contact.” The disingenuous part is when you imply that Paterno could morally not take further action because he could assume it was just “nonsexual fondling,” relying on a definition that everyone knows has no relevance here.
You are most definitely scum, miss elizabeth. I won’t bother digging up the quotes as I have to go Christmas shopping, but in this very thread you accused Jerry Sandusky of being a pedophile! How dare you make such an irresponsible accusation and potentially ruin this good man’s life when you have NO evidence.. Allegations of child sex abuse ruin people’s lives and ruin their families’ lives…including those of their children. The rules of evidence dictate that if you can’t produce a photograph (time and date stamped) of Jerry Sundusky’s penis penetrating a 10 year old boy’s anus, then your accusations are nothing but ad hominem insults, the last refuge of a man without an arguement. As Starving Artist has so convincingly proved, the obvious explanation for this so called eye-witness’s account, is that Jerry was simply giving the boy a naked bear hug and lessons in showering. I guess in these times of Nancy Grace induced pedophilia hysteria, no good deed goes unpunished. Being the age he is and having come from the era he came from, he was more or less in the dark that some loon might jump to erroneous conclusions about such innocent behavior.
I hope you’ve learned a lesson here and the next time you see Uncle SA wrestling naked with your 10 year old nephew you don’t go running off to the cops all willy-nilly and ruining someone’s life just at the merest hint of something that MIGHT seem suspicious to your sick mind. What is fair and just is what should win out, and reflexively ruining people’s lives on the merest of suspicion is neither fair nor just.
This thread is one long Heimlich maneuver.
None, since McQueary just confirmed under oath that it is not true.
Which is entirely consistent with Paterno’s (possibly more limited, possibly more self serving) sworn statement that McQ. told him of “sexual conduct.”
It’s sad when The Onion makes more sense than Starving Artist.
Hell, forget Paterno, I’d say McQueary dropped the ball as well – he was the eye witness. Starving Artist seems to be excusing EVERYONE in the chain. Jesus wept.
It seems that Starving Artist is the only one who understands who the real victim is in this case.
No, I didn’t say he “could” assume it was nonsexual fondling, I said he might have legitimately questioned whether it was sexual fondling in the first place. Most people who observe sexual fondling can describe what they saw in exact detail. The fact the McQueary’s statement was so vague as to the specific nature of the fondling is what made the idea questionable from Paterno’s perspective. Do you think anyone would be convicted in court on such scant evidence?
Prosecutor: Tell us again what you saw that night in the locker room, Mr. McQueary?
McQueary: Well, uh, I saw coach Sandusky with what appeared to be a ten year old boy and he was fondling the boy in a sexual manner.
Prosecutor: Can you tell us what you mean by “fondling”?
McQueary: Well, it was sexual.
Prosecutor: And how did you know it was sexual?
McQueary: Because it was fondling.
Prosecutor: Very well. Your honor, I rest my case.
:rolleyes:
Did you even read the grand jury testimony? Because it is available, and it HAS been linked.
You’ve been asked before where you are getting this idea from. You might stop to consider why you are unable to answer. What we know for sure is that Paterno says he was told of something of a sexual nature between an adult and child in the locker room shower at night, and McQueary agrees with him, adding that he told Paterno of “severe” sexual acts. However, the testimony we have does not give us a full account of what was said, so your statement here is ridiculous.
That doesn’t mean McQueary didn’t go into more details. I doubt he simply said “I saw Sandusky doing severe sexual acts to a child.” And even if he had, Paterno could have asked for clarification if he thought what was described as sexual acts with a child might be innocent. I believe Paterno had a moral responsibility to do more, including seeking clarification if he was confused.
Paterno was confronted with an account of sexual abuse of a child by a witness he trusted enough to continue to work with for years afterward. He failed the moral test. He didn’t call the police. Even more, he allowed Sandusky to continue using Penn State to find his child victims: he got his victims at camps held at Penn State. He was seen bringing kids to Penn State practices after Paterno was told what happened, and Paterno never followed up. It was a very uncomfortable situation, we all realize that. If it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be a moral test. It would be a moral cakewalk.
I think that if has legitimately questioned, he might not be in the mess that he is in.
OK, I’ll bite. What would you do if you found out a close friend was using YOU and your treasured sports team as a way of grooming boys for sex abuse?
Can we assume that Paterno believed McQueary that inappropriate behavior was witnessed? Can we also assume that Paterno didn’t confront Sandusky in any way, or prevent future such behavior? I’m not sure on what planet that is OK.
I urge you to look up statistics on unreported sex abuse v. wrongful accusations of sex abuse. The fact is, far more children are abused who never get justice than men are wrongfully accused. The problem with what you are saying is that I have never once heard you acknowledge that CHILD SEX ABUSE ruins people’s lives. It thrives in cultures where people are more concerned about the reputation of the adult than in the safety of the children, and frankly that is exactly how you are coming off.
Of course you don’t run off willy-nilly. You calmly go to the phone and dial when someone you trust, a person who was not prone to hysteria, a person who is quite familiar with what is normal in a football locker room, comes to you very upset by inappropriate behavior between an adult and a child. That is not willy-nilly. In fact, it would have saved a lot of people a lot of suffering.
Well, that’s just really unfair of you. I have been nothing BUT fair to you in this conversation, so I wish you wouldn’t make statements like this. But, honestly? This wasn’t a situation where any victim accused anyone. This is an EYE WITNESS, one who has ZERO reason to make shit up and EVERY reason to interpret the situation in the least inflammatory way STILL claims to see sex abuse. So again, your comparison is null and void.
BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE. So your general statements about this are also irrelevant. Paterno had no reason to doubt McQueary’s assessment of the situation. McQueary was one of them.
Ahem. NO U.
Don’t put words in my mouth. This is the second time, and it’s dishonest debating. This was not the merest hint. This was a reliable witness saying he saw sex abuse. You should ALWAYS CALL THE POLICE in that situation.
-
How often do you really think that happens? Truly? Do you think it’s fun for children to have to say that someone molested them and go through all the craziness of that? I guarantee you there are a vanishingly small number of incidents of children wrongfully alleging sex abuse.
-
No children were involved in reporting this incident. McQueary reported it. So there was ZERO chance that this was a wrongful accusation.
-
There WAS sex abuse in this situation… so the police should have been called, obviously.
-
Merely calling the police does not lead to an arrest. It leads to an investigation. That would have been fully warranted in this situation.
Guess what? What’s fair and just DID NOT HAPPEN. And it DID NOT HAPPEN in part because of Joe Paterno.
I’m a working mom, so I am pretty busy. I hope you’re well too-- despite the fact that you are a total loon, I remain fond of your crazy ass 
Lemme bottom line this, Starving Artist: it really seems like you are much more concerned about someone wrongfully accusing Sandusky than in investigating and exposing child sex abuse. That is morally wrong, and I hope you realize it.
If McQ. had not immediately in the next breath say “sexual contact” (to foolishly take you up on your fundamentally dishonest pretense that anyone could reasonably question whether “fondling” of a naked boy by a naked man was the sexual variety of “fondling” vs. the nonsexual usage of “fondling” (which no one in fact uses, and your dishonest ass knows that full well)). And then McQ. went on (he testified) to tell Paterno he saw “extreme” sexual contact and “a form of intercourse.”
NO ONE here – including you – believes that there is the REMOTEST IRL chance that Paterno heard “fondling” AND a bunch of stuff about “extreme” “sexual contact” and then thought, most likely probability is that McQ. was trying to tell me all he really saw was the “non-sexual” meaning of “fondling” (that is totally obsolete and that no one would in a million years use to refer to naked people), and that the stuff about “sexual” was really just confusion by McQ.
You’re wasting everyone’s time here. You’d be better served jerking off (hopefully not to thoughts of fondling boys in the shower, but only in the non-sexual way, or course).