iamshack

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:16 PM) Its a breakdown of the entire system, from Paterno to the president at PSU, the DA and whatever authorities were notified. Schultz wasnt enough as all he did was oversee the budget of the police. This is probably why as more rocks are overturned, there will be more information that condemns PSU as well as the LOCAL legal system. The FBI will figure this out, guarantee it. Certainly won't disagree with any of this.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:05 PM) There's a difference. The police are told a 50 something man was in the football showers with a boy. Showering. Old man grew up in an era where that was customary. He admits his mistake, mom doesn't press charges, what's next? Nothing. Paterno is told that this man is having sex with an 8 year old in the showers. He let's the President know, and they both apparently cover it up and do not seek any sort of justice or do anything to alert the proper authorities in the case of such an incredibly terrible crime. Comparing both situations is impossible. Yeah, sounds like this was just an old man showering with a kid in the area.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:05 PM) Uh oh, holier than thou pops back up. It funny how only he can think independently, the rest of us are sheep. Well us and Brent Bielema Apparently McQueary is done at PSU, should be announced tomorrow. Hate to break it to you Rock, but it's been implied that I am much worse than a sheep for disagreeing with you all. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:08 PM) No, this is bulls***. You have claimed several times that we can't "know" what was said, what people thought happened, etc. Now you're saying emphatically that the police knew there was more to this story than a shower and bear hug? No, I have claimed we can't know what Paterno did behind the scenes at PSU. You're getting me confused with other posters. The Police heard him confess, and wish he was dead. At the very least, don't you think this is probably cause to follow this guy around a bit? Instead, you're putting this duty of enforcement on Paterno instead of the organization which is publicly funded to enforce the law.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:01 PM) Oh, and shove your condescension up your ass. There's been plenty of condescending bulls*** going around, Milk.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 05:40 PM) I was pretty sure the one that went and told his mom was the one were he had a boner, ill have to look again. It really doesn't matter how aroused Sandusky was. What matters is he inappropriately touched the kid, and he admitted to doing so. And then he says he wishes he could die for it. Well, if that doesn't reflect how wrong the situation was, and how wrong he knew it was, then I don't know what does. It was pretty clear to the police what was going on here.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 05:47 PM) There's so many that it all got kind of mashed up. Either way, I can fairly easily see why the police wouldn't go further with that incident. Yes, it's very weird and when taken with everything else he's been found to have done since, it's clear that he would have continued on to molest that child if the mother allowed him access after that initial encounter. You're dealing with a guy with no priors, highly respected, started a foundation that would suggest the exact opposite of a pedophile, and openly admitted that he made a mistake that he feels so bad about that he wished himself dead. In that situation, I'd maybe want to keep an eye on that guy for a little while, but I doubt I'd run him in. Ugh. To give the police a pass here, but to condemn Paterno...I just can't understand this. One has the sole duty to prevent this sort of thing, the other is a football coach. They both made the same error. Yet they were in drastically different positions to act. Thus the difference in culpability.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 05:28 PM) You didn't even have your facts straight. Yes I did, Steve. The police heard him admit that he showered with a young boy, lathered him up, and bear-hugged him. He then apologized and said he knew he was wrong and that he wished he was dead. The police heard him say all this. Not sure what facts I had wrong unless you are arguing with my characterization of this behavior as molestation.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:24 PM) Wasnt that the kid who he bear hugged with a boner? Yes. I'm sorry, I consider that molesting. I guess I use that term a bit loosely in this thread then.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:21 PM) This is where you admit you are wrong. I'm not sure where I am wrong, Steve.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:19 PM) Which is significantly different from Sandusky fondling or raping a boy, especially when coupled with past accusations of impropriety coming from a very influential man who was also a close friend. He said he deserved to die for it. I don't think there was much confusion as to what was going on... The point is the police heard Sandusky admit it. They did simply "hear about it."

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:07 PM) You need to check your facts. You've been arguing without knowing the facts. Sandusky didn't admit anything and apologized for "showering" with the kid in 1998. Did the police not eavesdrop on Sandusky confessing to showering with the boy?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:52 PM) Well, your facts are wrong. The police "heard" about the 1998 incident, and were told Sandusky simply showered with a boy. The stakes were raised when first-hand witness knowledge tells someone that a 57 year old man is raping an 8-year old in a shower. You hear this. You report this. Had the proper authorities been alerted, in this instance, Sandusky is in prison immediately, and Joe Paterno is a hero. Steve, it is my understanding that the police heard Sandusky tell the mother of a young boy that he did indeed molest him, and was sorry for it. They did not hear "about" it. They heard it come directly out of his mouth.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:50 PM) Paterno is an influential and famous man. "Investigate this case or I'm calling SI" means this case gets investigated and doesn't get stonewalled by PSU, if we assume that's what happened. And yeah, again, for the 11.4 trillionth time, Paterno's one guy in a long list of fail. When was the DA been notified of 2002 incident? I just can't believe you find it more fascinating to try to convince a few of us as to Paterno's guilt rather than discuss the failure of the local police and the DA to prosecute Sandusky. Honestly, I am not even going to argue about Paterno anymore. The police and the DA's actions are just infinitely more fascinating to me.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:47 PM) I can say with certainty that had Paterno gone to the police, he would not be the ire of so many right now. But he didn't, so you are hanging on that it wouldn't matter. I disagree, but do know that at the point of him filing a police report on record would satisfy many's threshold for conviction and compassion in the face of evil. Well most of the people passing judgment on Paterno in this thread are doing so with the belief that he could have stopped the victims molested after 2002 from having their lives ruined by Sandusky. And yet, it doesn't appear that the local police or DA were too interested in preventing it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:40 PM) I have, and you've claimed that Paterno did not hold significant influence as PSU because he doesn't use email or facebook. If Paterno holds influence and he wants this investigated, then it will be investigated. Paterno holds influence, but he didn't want it investigated. I'm also intentionally leaving out the possibility that PSU blocked the 1998 investigation because that is speculation right now, but it is a possibility. No, my argument is that Paterno is an elderly old man who can hardly remember the name of his quarterback let alone arrange some campus-wide coverup, or go chasing Sandusky around a campus of 44,000 students. He reported the incident and the University failed him. At one point, in the 70's and 80's, maybe into part of the 90's, Paterno probably got a lot of things done on campus. By the time these events were occurring, he was an elderly figurehead and certainly not the one calling all the shots at the University. Get this through your head...44,000 students. That is bigger than many towns in America. And you think Paterno is calling all the shots. I don't deny that he was still very influential...but give me a break...we've all seen how elderly people who have had the times pass them by get treated. I am sure most of the time people just rolled their eyes at Paterno and laughed.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:35 PM) Therein lies the crux of the argument. I absolutely think action taken by Paterno could have ended all of the molesting at PSU. First of all, please don't insert your own commentary into my posts when replying to them in this thread. It's all fun and games in the less serious threads, but please don't do it in this one. Secondly, I'm not sure how you absolutely think anything in this mess. Reportedly, everyone in the entire administration, including the President of the University didn't do jack s*** about this guy being on campus, and around children while he was on campus. So how suddenly we can be absolutely sure Paterno asking that he be removed, when it was already pretty evident that Paterno wanted absolutely nothing to do with the guy already, would have accomplished much of anything in this cesspool of incompetence, I'm just not understanding.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:31 PM) 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. It's not being a dick. Steve put a logical proof to me. Not the other way around. Just like when I try to make a scientific point to Balta and he pulls out his Geology textbook on me. Why don't you finally answer how you know for sure that Paterno reporting anything to the police is going to result in Sandusky going to jail when the police heard Sandusky admit to molesting a child and the DA did not prosecute him? Would you please answer this? I've asked you several times now.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:29 PM) Gotta love the "he's old so he's too senile to do anything to help innocent children being raped, despite being the absolute face of PSU" argument. Right, because that is the argument I am making there. It's obvious that I am in the minority here, which I could give a s*** about, but you guys could at least be fair about it and actually reply to the s*** I post in context.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:25 PM) 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? And you say that I am deflecting. Do you deny that the police were aware of Sandusky's actions themselves, right from his own mouth, and did not prosecute him, and yet you expect me to believe Paterno is the one that should have done more? This is ridiculous. The end result of Joe doing what he was morally obligated to do actually occurred - the police were aware of Sandusky's actions. And yet he still continued his predatory activity. So what would it have mattered had Joe brought it to their attention? Now they would have known doubly as much?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:19 PM) 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!" 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. The point is that this is not a "but for" argument. You cannot say "But for" Joe Paterno's inaction, Sandusky would have been unable to rape children. You cannot say "But for" Joe Paterno failing to report this to the police, Sandusky would no longer been able to carry on his predatory activities. That is simply not accurate. There are so many people that were in far greater positions to do something about this than Joe Paterno, and yet didn't, and yet you want to say if Paterno had done more, it would not have happened. That's just incredibly far from believable.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:14 PM) I know there's no empirical formula to prove that, but you'd simply have to be a fool to disagree that Paterno was the most powerful man on that campus and that, should he have pushed for an investigation, it would have happened. 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. They are not Joe Paterno. SI

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:08 PM) 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 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. "Joe Paterno was the most powerful man on campus and could have anything done that he wanted." I'm sorry, this is just stupid. And your conclusion is the dumbest part of the entire proof. ..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. We've already established that the police and the DA were aware of what Sandusky was doing, and yet, he was not arrested. How Paterno was going to force them to arrest Sandusky, by telling them he heard Sandusky had molested a child, even though they had already heard it directly out of Sandusky's mouth, is just beyond me. Why don't you just address that point?

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. 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.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 04:31 PM) Truth: JoePa knew Sandusky was a diddler in 2002. Can you deny this? Truth: Sandusky kept diddling for 9 years. Those are both true, and implicate JoePa in being a bad person who didn't do more than the minimum and did nothing for these children. You should take a logics class Steve...honestly...