StrangeSox

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:27 PM) You asked where the logical flaw in your conclusion was; unfortunately all your premises were inaccurate. This nonsensical technical bulls*** that you and Balta always bring to the table is far more deserving of a smug emoticon than me telling Steve to take a logics class. My point was that you shouldn't be such a dick to others about "take a logics class" and then fail a basic example. You want to go through the premises one by one, I'm game. Sure I can, if Paterno reports this to the police, I can safely assume he's going to jail, where he won't have access to children and PSU. All of those people failing are necessary conditions. People are focusing on Paterno because some people are still defending him sitting in child fondling allegations for almost a decade, but everyone in this thread has expressed the opinion that PSU needs to "clean house" and I've personally said that Paterno is near the back of the line here.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:25 PM) So just because people use Facebook to talk about sports instead of using a sports forum, they are morons? Do you not have a Facebook, or do you only thing others are morons for using it, but no, not you? I think facebook comment threads, like news article threads or youtube threads, are the dumbest of the dumb for internet discussions. That doesn't make facebook or news articles or youtube or anyone who uses those things dumb.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:21 PM) I guess I am a fool then. Because I don't believe it. I'm sorry, but powerful men that run Universities have cell phones and email accounts. They are very important people that communicate with a vast array of subordinates and carry out complex endgames. Presidents don't have emails. Powerful as in "holds influence," not that he runs the entire show. Do you deny that Paterno was one of the most influential people in State College, and that people would do what he asked of them?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:14 PM) I wasn't making a big deal out of it, just saying that I don't think you can say definitely that he was notified that Sandusky had raped a kid. At the minimum, he was informed of fondling. I don't think "oh, he only knew it was fondling, not rape!" is a good defense.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:11 PM) Your whole proof was incorrect, sorry. You can't make speculative guesses and completely inaccurate statements in your premises, and then expect the conclusion to follow...it sort of destroys the entire point of the proof. A false premise doesn't mean a statement is illogical, just incorrect. If a then b; a; therefore b is logically correct even if I'm wrong in saying "a" /pedantic correction Why is that stupid? What if the statement is changed to "one of the"? It's certainly a lot closer to reality than "he's jsut a football coach!"

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:07 PM) In the Grand Jury file, it says Paterno testified that he was told about "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy" by a "very upset" McQueary. I don't think he needs to be specifically informed of anal sex to know that a sexual assault was being reported. Yeah, saying that Paterno knew it was "rape" implies that he was told graphic details of exactly what happened, and I've tried to avoid stating that in the past because he doesn't claim he was informed of that. I don't know the legal definition of rape, maybe it requires certain acts and fondling doesn't count.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:04 PM) I'm not buying the third premise either. And the conclusion, that because Paterno didn't do everything in his power to prevent it to happen, that it therefore follows that it happened, does not work either. Joe Paterno's inaction is a necessary condition for Sandusky to continue diddiling kids for close to a decade. If he acts, if he presses for an investigation (not even "everything in his power!"), Sandusky is stopped. I don't know how you can contest that Paterno did not hold a huge amount of power in State College, and that if he had pressed for an investigation, it'd be done. Pointing out incorrect premises is not the same as pointing out logical flaws, btw. Take a class in logics

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 03:54 PM) Your first premise is not accurate, if you're going to consider what Paterno testified to... He denied being informed of any rape. :whyyou:

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 03:56 PM) If someone was shouting "look! this woman accusing Cain of SH filed for bankruptcy in 1998....GOLD DIGGER!" then i'd agree with you. But as i've explained numerous times, look at the whole picture. IMO she's full of s*** and looking to cash in on the opportunity here. That's essentially what the campaign letter does. "She's not a successful person like Cain, why would you believe her?!" We also have no indication that she's being paid to have her name and history dragged through the mud.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 03:35 PM) You should take a logics class Steve...honestly... P: Joe Paterno was informed by McQueary that Sandusky was raping a young boy in the PSU locker rooms. P: Joe Paterno presented this information to his AD. P: Joe Paterno is one of the most powerful men in State College and could get whatever he wanted. P: No serious investigation of the allegations was ever conducted. Sandusky retained access to children and PSU. C: Joe Paterno did not press to have a serious investigation conducted even though he was informed of his actions, enabling Sandusky to continue molesting children. Where's the logical flaw there?

You're ignoring the entire reality of victim shaming. That she filed bankruptcy at some point in her life is completely irrelevant. It doesn't even truly speak to her character. It doesn't lower her credibility. It simply is an attempt to tarnish her character; it's literally an ad hominem. You can assume that the person is innocent. You can legitimately question motives if there is a good reason to question motives. That is completely different from ripping apart someone's life in order to diminish their claims. The problem isn't that maybe something is dishonest or misleading and she's really a good person; the problem is that bad people can be abused too and deserve no less protection under the law. That Daily Mail article you posted earlier is disgusting and a perfect example of the problem.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 01:53 PM) How else do you even know about the story, Balta? Were you there now? My entire knowledge of this story comes from this thread, the GJ report and maybe 5 minutes total of B&B this week.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 01:55 PM) I don't have to rationalize anything...I'm sitting here incredulous that Balta has already condemned and convicted Paterno of everything but child molestation himself, which, btw, Milk is now hoping happens. No. he. hasn't. You are completely misinterpreting what is being said.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 01:54 PM) uummm......?? So I can't say I think it's wrong for people on Facebook to be making these kinds of statements? Ok, I guess I just won't have opinions anymore while you're around? ? You can, and you're right. But your original post didn't make it clear at all that you were talking about what people were saying outside of this thread.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 01:47 PM) What I'm saying is the fact that some are actually speculating about it is evidence that the media coverage is influencing peoples' imaginations to run wild about what Paterno might have done, regardless of what the actual known facts are as of this time. I'm pretty sure is was a hypothetical to illustrate a point, not serious speculation of what happened. You've blown it completely out of proportion to rationalize your position.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 01:24 PM) Is that a bad thing? Yes. Unequivocally. It's a pure protection/veneration of power.

Facebook arguments/comments are on the same level as news article comment sections. They are where brains go to die.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 01:41 PM) He doesn't seem to think so... Sure he does. His point was that there's nothing to report on the "PSU forced a DA to drop an investigation" story because it is pure speculation, the same as a report claiming Paterno personally stopped it would be. What isn't speculative is the condemnation of Paterno's inaction regarding the 2002 incident.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 01:39 PM) And I am pointing out that this kind of speculation is stemming from the media coverage. Earth to you both. I think you should go re-read that series of posts. You're taking what he said the wrong way, completely.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 01:39 PM) And yet everyone's imaginations are running wild, like Balta's, about Paterno calling the DA and Paterno hatching this plan with the President of the University to cover everything up... He was illustrating a point with a potential scenario, not claiming that it happened.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 01:33 PM) Oh you are being absolutely ridiculous now. See, this is my whole f***ing point. Now Paterno is the one calling the DA and asking him not to investigate the molestation of a child... Balta is pointing out that this is pure speculation, not saying that it is what happened.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 01:27 PM) BS. This has been going on for 4 days now. If you honestly believe PSU forced the DA and the local police to drop a clear confession of molestation, and then allow a predator to continue to rape children, in order to protect their football program, Paterno better not be the center of discussion unless there is evidence that he had something to do with it. There's no evidence that that actually happened. Running with that story would be pure speculation and completely irresponsible.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 01:23 PM) Paterno is getting the lion's share of the publicity here. Which has all been negative, in case you haven't noticed. He's famous. No one else involved is. What, exactly, is there to report that's positive?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 01:21 PM) Do you honestly read what you're typing? You're placing the majority of the blame on an elderly man, who by all accounts, has led an exemplary life and been an exemplary person, instead of the school administrators, the President of the University, the molester himself, the local law enforcement, and the District Attorney. No one is doing that. Please stop lying about what others are saying. In the immediate reaction to a scandal, the most well-known names will get the most attention. This isn't surprising or unique or even wrong.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 01:17 PM) Meanwhile, a 70 year old football coach failed to act repeatedly in response to credible allegations of child rape happening in his facilities, and the fact that the media is being hard on him 10 years later is your biggest concern.