Penn State horror story

[Milkman delivers]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/10/p...1_lnk2%7C111562

 

Well, this case just took a turn from Bad to Terrible to Really Terrible to There Is No Word In Any f***ing Language for How Bad This Is.

 

That was mentioned earlier today, Q.

[RockRaines]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/10/p...1_lnk2%7C111562

 

Well, this case just took a turn from Bad to Terrible to Really Terrible to There Is No Word In Any f***ing Language for How Bad This Is.

Still just rumors at this point.

[StrangeSox]

Your first premise is not accurate, if you're going to consider what Paterno testified to... He denied being informed of any rape.

:whyyou:

[Quin]

That was mentioned earlier today, Q.

 

I didn't see it because I didn't want to go through 30 pages of SS2k5, shack, and Balta going at it.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Your first premise is not accurate, if you're going to consider what Paterno testified to... He denied being informed of any rape.

 

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.

[StrangeSox]

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

[StrangeSox]

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.

[iamshack]

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?

 

Edited November 10, 2011 by iamshack

[Milkman delivers]

I didn't see it because I didn't want to go through 30 pages of SS2k5, shack, and Balta going at it.

 

Hey, don't sell me short! I was involved.

[Milkman delivers]

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.

 

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.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

 

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.

[clyons]

Still just rumors at this point.

 

I refuse to believe them. The pimping rumors have got to be so much internet wildfire.

[StrangeSox]

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

 

"Joe Paterno was the most powerful man on campus and could have anything done that he wanted." I'm sorry, this is just stupid.

 

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!"

[Milkman delivers]

I refuse to believe them. The pimping rumors have got to be so much internet wildfire.

 

I can't imagine them being solely the creation of the internet if the writer of the original story about Sandusky has said that he's heard them. I mean, I doubt he'd be so dumb.

[Milkman delivers]

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

 

I f***ing love that smug smiley.

[Steve9347]

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

Thank you for being a better arguer and less emotional than I would be had I replied. I personally felt it looked fine and dandy, and feel quite strongly that JoePa had a moral obligation he didn't uphold.

[iamshack]

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.

 

As for being out of touch ... Joe relentlessly pleads guilty. He will tell you (and tell you and tell you) he doesn't have a cellphone, and he doesn't have a computer, and he doesn't know anything about all the social networking. ("What's that thing called, Facemask?" he asks.)

 

He says, "My secretary, Sandi—administrative aide now, that's what they are now, administrative aides—my administrative aide gets a call from the president's office five or six years ago: 'Sandi, the president would like Joe to start answering some of his e-mail.' So Sandi says, 'Well, uh, I'll talk to him about it.'

 

"So Sandi comes in here and says, 'You know how to get on e-mail?' I said, 'What the heck is e-mail?' I didn't have the slightest idea. I don't need that. If I want some advice, I'll call."

 

SI

[Steve9347]

Hey, don't sell me short! I was involved.

The NCAA season is not over.

[StrangeSox]

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.

[Milkman delivers]

The NCAA season is not over.

 

Sorry, I wanted to keep it up.

 

Is this a bad time for a "that's what she said" joke?

[StrangeSox]

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?

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Why on Earth are you bringing morons on Facebook into this. Next time are you going to post comments posted on the ESPN website?

 

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?

[Steve9347]

Sorry, I wanted to keep it up.

 

Is this a bad time for a "that's what she said" joke?

Damn those dark Soxtalk ovelords!

[iamshack]

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.

[StrangeSox]

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.