And then there’s:
-We’ll completely ignore that Sandusky has been indicted by a grand jury for 50 counts of the same crime over a 15-year period, because, you know, innocent until proven guilty. Of fifty counts. Involving at least 11 victims.
Yes, but it would be physically impossible for any grown man to have 15 years worth of boy butt sex without their legs and thighs hurting. Go ahead and try! I already know it’s impossible.
Why is this a political topic, anyway? Was Paterno a Republican or something?
It’s a political topic because to SA there is no such thing as a non-political topic. He sees it as the “usual suspects” doing their “usual bloodthirsty outrage” at his guy. So he sees this as an extension of fighting the good fight against the crazy liberals.
Nevermind the fact that it’s really just him defending his position at this point, and that child rape is obviously not a political topic.
It’s political because only liberals would disagree with SA on this issue.
And here is our problem. Nobody should be feeling joy or relief that a kid was merely sexually molested without technically being raped. He went through a horrific experience and SA is “overjoyed” at the thought that he merely had to endure unwanted naked touching and possibly a little frottage.
I had to google “frottage”.
I am not a democrat or a republican. Can I say that Starving Artist is an idiot?
I miss December. Do you remember December? He was a far right idiot but he wouldn’t have defended this.
Most people do.
Tell ya what, you line up a hundred 10-year-old boys and ask them which would be more horrific, being hugged by a naked man in the shower or having his penis repeatedly shoved up their butt. You take $100 for every boy that picks hugging and I’ll take $1 for every one that picks buttsecks, and I’d bet that at the end I’ll have $100 more than you will.
This doesn’t mean - as many of you in these threads are dishonestly trying to pretend - that I’m saying man/boy naked hugging is innocent or okay, but to try to draw a physical or emotional equivance between the two is too stupid for words.
As far as the politics go, I wasn’t the one who raised them to begin with. In the other thread I was accused early on of supporting Paterno because of his Republican politics and my alleged love of authority. And then there’s the way that most of my opponents have hysterically gone off the rails, which in my experience is typical of the way liberals usually respond to the outrage du jour.
And you’ll have a hundred 10 year old boys talking about sex with men. Win-win, right?
P.S. - Notice that to Estilicon it seems to be a political issue to. The default assumption throughout this argument has been that I’m taking the stance I am due to politics rather than what it actually is, which is an adherence to facts rather than unthinkingly and emotionally jumping to the worst possible assumptions.
Well, StarvingArtist’s proposed wager doesn’t really address the key issue, does it? Did Paterno have a moral duty to report to police something that was, at the very least and under the most generous of interpretations, “naked hugging”?
Further, did Paterno have the moral duty to distance himself and his university from Sandusky so as not to (further) facilitate Sandusky’s “hugging” activities (again, this is the most generous possible interpretation).
I can certainly buy that Paterno (and his supervisors) kept quiet, hoped it would all go away, etc. That their reputations are now in tatters is the bare-minimum they deserve for their complicity and willful blindness.
If it matters, I have no particular feelings pro or con about college football.
Nope, sorry but you’re still wrong, and for two reasons: 1) Paterno wasn’t told that it was naked hugging. What he was told was ambiguous enough due to the fact that McQueary couldn’t seem to identify just what it was that he did see so as to leave room for the possibility that he had misinterpreted a more innocent explanation; and 2) you cannot say with certainty that naked hugging was the least innocent possibility for what was going on. McQueary testified that the famous “rhythmic slapping sounds” he heard only consisted of two or maybe three slaps and that Sandusky was not in fact hugging the boy but was holding him at the waist with both hands. For all we know the kid could have slipped and Sandusky caught him just as the kid put his hands against the wall to steady himself, at which point McQueary looked around the corner and saw what he mistook for anal sex.
SOMETHING OF A SEXUAL NATURE WITH A TEN YEAR OLD BOY IN THE LOCKER ROOM SHOWER.
This is ambiguous how?
Ah, fuck it. You’re a pedophile apologist, and your intellectual dishonesty is disgusting.
The details of which could have been straightened out and resolved BY AN INVESTIGATION.
Why are we doing this in two threads now?
I’m beginning to wonder if SA is Jerry Sandusky.
Before I’ll accept your assessment that I am wrong, can I get a sense of what exactly you believe McQueary told Paterno?
That is going to have to be where we disagree and I reiterate my request for what exactly you think McQueary claimed to have seen. It’s too generous to Sandusky, especially in light of of what we later learned about him, details that Paterno was in a position to know about, as there is evidence McQueary’s visit was not the first and only time he’d heard about Sandusky’s activities.
You have gone around the fucking bend.
I anxiously look forward to the next chapter of The Wayward Orphan, full of straining hamstrings and boys in dilemma. Chrissakes.
IIRC, McQueary told Paterno he had seen Sandusky “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature” with the boy. Now, anytime I’ve been witness to or experienced fondling or something of a sexual nature, I knew and could describe exactly what it was. In my opinion McQueary’s ambiguity may well have left room for doubt in Paterno’s mind that perhaps what McQueary saw had a more innocent explanation.
This is probably the most ill-conceived question in the history of the Dope, but, what the fuck kind of innocent explanation is there for “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature with a boy?”
And if you say, “showering lessons,” so help me I’ll stamp my little feet.