Which is, indirectly, how we ended up with two threads in which he is arguing his “case” in defence of Paterno by posting some rather vile descriptions of sex with minors.
His posts were frustrating all thread, but it’s the more recent ones that feel like they are nearly rape-fantasy child porn and that, to me, has crossed the line. It’s so profoundly disturbing.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t trying to junior mod. I have been mostly away for a bit and didn’t know if that changed.
Well, no thanks. Dude gets more than enough attention as it is.
Sorry to waste your time with this apparent non-issue. Feel free to close the thread.
Oh, no worries. I was sighing over my seeming inability to ever manage to complete a post without typos or bad coding.
Let’s put it this way: Cesario didn’t go into that much detail.
Well, that and Cesario didn’t attempt to mask his desires in hypotheticals.
Detail is not a banable offense. While people can certainly be squicked out by the sheer effort SA has put into crafting his apologia, it doesn’t seem to violate any rules. Cesario was continually trying to find a way to advocate for pedophilia, SA is just trying to find a way to defend a Republican.
Incorrect. We do not even know that Sandusky was/is a Republican, and SA is fabricating (disgusting) factual technical “defenses” for why Sandusky might/must have been gay-showering with a little boy, but without actual anal rape, so it’s more than okay.
Gotta agree. I see a lot of people being tweaked by his ideas, but can someone quote the post or posts that violate the rules and which rule is being violated? All I’ve seen is that he’s posting icky stuff in the Pit. Can’t say that I’m even shocked, SHOCKED that someone is doing that.
Correct. The apologia was for Paterno, a well known Republican, and only indirectly involved Sandusky because that was the only way to defense Paterno.
Hey, I resemble that remark!
I agree that no mod action is needed here but my guess is that some are claiming he’s breaking the Don’t Be A Jerk rule. You gotta admit he’s rubbing on it pretty feverishly.
How so? All I’ve done is to explain, in detached, dispassionate detail after hints and allusions were ignored or handwaved away how it would have been almost impossible for Sandusky to have been raping that boy while in the position that McQueary saw. Contrary to the hysterical over-reaction that ensued, there was nothing about it that could be described as “child porn fantasies” or “child rape fantasies” or “loving descriptions of child abuse”. I merely pointed out the physics involved given the relative height differences of the people involved, and my comments pertained only to Jerry Sandusky himself other than for necessary references to the boy’s height.
I do not believe that in this particular instance what Mike McQueary saw was actually rape. Am I not supposed to be allowed to explain why? Are we as a society always to take claims of child abuse at face value because to examine the facts is too icky? And for that matter, why is it icky and disgusting for me to go into detail about how the rape didn’t occur but apparently fine to mention details alleging the anal rape did occur?
[WARNING: GRAPHIC DETAILS FOLLOW]
The pro-rape posters in that thread had made detailed mention of the position of the bodies (often exaggerated, as it turns out, either through erroneous conclusion-jumping or an effort to make things sound even worse than they already did), and there was benign speculation on several occasions as to whether McQueary had observed penile entry or observed copulatory movement with penile insertion visible? Why is all that less heinous or disgusting than anything I’ve said, or any less a “loving description of child rape”, which is how my comments of a less graphic nature have been characterized?
Someone upthread wondered how politics play in this situation, and in my opinion the points I’ve made have been hysterically lied about and disgustingly mischaracterized because I’m perceived as a holdover from the days when people blew off child abuse and/or tried to keep it hidden, and are not an accurate reflection of what I’ve actually said - particularly in light of what the offenderatti were discussing prior to my posts.
And your calculations are in error.
Is this opinion still based on the abbreviated version of McQuery’s account, consisting solely of “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature”, the version where Paterno asked absolutely no follow-up questions whatsoever?
As an incidental note, I find it personally odd to not simply admit that Paterno, at a minimum, had the flaw of willful blindness. That’s certainly better than making up comical excuses for Sandusky just to maintain the illusion of Paterno’s innocence.
This is not the place to argue about what Paterno should have done or whether my assessment is accurate. The OP is in regard to the posts I’ve maderegarding the feasability of whether or not Sandusky could have been committing anal rape in the scenario described by Mike McQueary.
I didn’t see anything wrong with SA’s posts, other than him acting detached, which isn’t really jerkish though I can see how it rubs people the wrong way given the sensitivity of the subject matter in the modern day.
Then again, I like SA. I usually disagree with him completely, but I like him when I see him post.
Oh, it’s fairly obvious what Paterno should have done and that your assessment is not accurate. I don’t even see how claims otherwise could rise to the level of argument, mired as they are in the magical land of wishful thinking.
Ah, but are you still relying on the premise that McQuery’s entire description was “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature”? In any case, vaguely described or otherwise, it is certainly possible for tall men to sodomize petite persons (of either gender). It’s been done for untold thousands of years. Your “argument” is akin to urban legends of scientists who have concluded with mathematical certainty that it is impossible for bumblebees to fly.
I’ll just say again that since I’ve gotten feedback from the administration in this issue, I’d appreciate it if this thread was closed.
No, I’ve been going by how McQueary described to the grand jury what he saw.
Jragon, thanks.
Missed the edit window -
Also, far the detachment goes, I felt it was necessary to try to remove that particular child from the analysis of what Sandusky could or could not have done under the circumstances…