Can you direct me to the railway station?
Regards,
Shodan
Analogy fail. Thanks for playing.
Ahem, it should be noted that in the Paterno thread Huerta88 asked me if the word “fondling” ever had a non-sexual meaning. That was it. He said nothing about Jerry Sansusky, naked boys or showers. I said there was and posted a dictionary definition which showed other applications of the word that indeed had no sexual meaning.
I also suggested to Huerta88 that if he were to attempt to entrap people with word meanings in the future he would be well served to familiarize himself with them first. This embarrassed him, and so he’s retreated into a naked-in-the-shower scenario which he did not pose in his original question to me, and he’s been beating that drum ever since.
Everyone’s seen how silly he’s being though and they’ve largely ignored his protestations, so he’s brought the issue here in an attempt to attain validation for a defense that fell flat in the original thread.
Virtually everyone in the Paterno thread is siding with Huerta (and sanity), and not you. I invite anyone who hasn’t already perused that trainwreck to go look if they doubt this, but be prepared to be horrified when you realize what Starving Artist is defending, and how he’s chosen to do that.
I’d prefer it if you were to describe what I’m actually doing, which is to defend due process, and opposing lynch mob mentality.
Anyone with an ounce of sense would not have thought anyone, in a thread about Sandusky and reported fondling in a naked man boy shower, had any interest in a usage of the word that had nothing to do with showers or naked men and boys. Your unhelpful introduction of a usage that you now claim was taken out of context was a hijack at best.
But it’s worse than that, because in that thread, which is not about hypotheticals or generalities or eighteenth century usages of fondling to mean non-sexual touching, but about the specific “context” of a naked man touching a naked boy in a shower, you have aggressively continued to insist that “fondling” and “sexual contact” were two very distinct things, a contention the results of this poll confirm is ridiculous. You have done so for the purposes of pretending that McQueary was “vague” or “unsure” or “confused” about what he saw because he said it was either one of two very different (you pretend) things – “fondling” or “sexual contact.”
You have done so for the separate purpose of pretending that McQueary’s separate sworn testimony that he was clear he saw “some sort of intercourse” or “subjected to anal intercourse” is obviated or contradicted by Paterno’s use of the word “fondling.” You have affirmatively testified (how you think you can do this because you are not a witness, I can’t begin to fathom) that a rape was physically impossible in the circumstances and that, further, there was a very real possibility that “fondling” merely described, or was heard by Paterno as describing, a “naked hug” or “wrestling” or (to quote the archaic dictionary alternate usage that only you out of 175+ voters has found plausible here) “affectionate non-sexual caressing.”
You have been utterly made a fool of by the results of this poll. Please slink away and don’t pollute my IMHO any more. God knows you’ve got plenty of landscape to befoul further in the Pit thread.
In my state, for purposes of the Sexual Imposition statute, sexal CONTACT is defined as follows:
(B) “Sexual contact” means any touching of an erogenous zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, or, if the person is a female, a breast, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person.
NOW, to ascertain exactly what was done, specific details need to be described.
Pul-eeeze, this “poll” is disingenuous and clearly biased in the set up. Don’t use the results of this farce to support your viewpoint.
I invited you elsewhere to identify which part of the setup is “biased.” You declined, I assume because you have nothing, but I’m open minded, I’ll listen. Which part of my hypothetical departs in any substantial way from the fact pattern in the Sandusky case.
Note that if I did a hypothetical based on substantially-skewed or altered facts, that would not make this a “disingenuous” poll. It would make it a poll that was much less persuasive if I tried to use it in a different debate where the facts were much different. I might be challenged in that separate debate as disingenuous for citing a poll about apples as probative in a debate about oranges. It would not invalidate the validity or accuracy of my poll about apples as it related to apples.
This poll is what it is as to the fact pattern I provided in this poll. If someone wants to attack its relevance or minimize its probative value when I cite it elsewhere, have at it. Elsewhere. You have not done so in the Pit thread, effectively or at all, and the fact is, there is nothing in my fact pattern or my proposed answers that distorts either the facts or the multiple positions that SA (mainly) and other posters in the Pit thread have considered or advocated for.
ETA facts are not “biased” or “disingenuous,” and don’t tell me what to use the results of my poll for. It’s my poll, don’t crap on it (sounds like something one of Sandusky’s victims wishes he could have said).
Deja vu.
Same engineers driving the same locomotives = the same train wreck.
I didn’t vote because to me it doesn’t necessarily involve the genitals, but is definitely sexual.
So, if someone said they had sex, you’d wonder if they meant gender or the latin word for six?
“Fondling” can mean all kinds of things, but *in the context presented *it is definitely sexual molestation.