Penn State horror story

[Soxbadger]

Thats like saying if you hear that your grandson is in the hospital you go and visit him, where as if you heard that another persons grandson was in the hospital you didnt.

 

Anyone is obviously going to take more interest in something that directly impacts their family, regardless of whether its a crime, injury, lottery winning, etc. Thats just human nature, but in no way suggests that he has to treat everyone the same way hed treat his own family.

 

I really cant imagine thats the standard we are holding people to these days.

[Milkman delivers]

The high standard of ensuring the police are called when a former employee and friend of yours is seen butt raping a child on the premises of your institution.

 

How could we ask so much of anyone?

[Soxbadger]

Once again, that is your belief of the facts without reading a single transcript (correct me if im wrong, but from what I can tell youve only read the charging papers).

 

The simple fact is that at this time there is no evidence that Paterno broke any law or any PSU rule. People are inserting their own morality into this and acting like its cannon. We generally do not punish people for having different moral beliefs.

 

I understand you have strong feelings about this, but its generally better to look at things objectively.

[Milkman delivers]

Once again, that is your belief of the facts without reading a single transcript (correct me if im wrong, but from what I can tell youve only read the charging papers).

 

The simple fact is that at this time there is no evidence that Paterno broke any law or any PSU rule. People are inserting their own morality into this and acting like its cannon. We generally do not punish people for having different moral beliefs.

 

I understand you have strong feelings about this, but its generally better to look at things objectively.

 

For the 8 trillionth time, nobody is saying that. Nobody has said that. Nobody besides you will continue to say that. We're saying that he failed morally, which you might argue to no avail is entirely subjective. And lucky, the world agrees that he failed morally and he's now out of a job.

[Soxbadger]

Its funny that you entirely skip the: "We generally dont punish people for having different moral beliefs."

 

I assume based on this thread (since your contention is morals arent subjective) youd have no problem with someone being fired for not being kosher, because thats against someones moral beliefs. Or maybe anyone who doesnt where a burka should be fired, because they are offending someones moral beliefs.

 

I think what you really mean, is that you are okay with people being judged morally as long as those are the morals you agree with.

 

I dont think you can argue morals are objective, they are basically the definition of subjective.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Kyyle23]

Its funny that you entirely skip the: "We generally dont punish people for having different moral beliefs."

 

I assume based on this thread (since your contention is morals arent subjective) youd have no problem with someone being fired for not being kosher, because thats against someones moral beliefs. Or maybe anyone who doesnt where a burka should be fired, because they are offending someones moral beliefs.

 

I think what you really mean, is that you are okay with people being judged morally as long as those are the morals you agree with.

 

I dont think you can argue morals are objective, they are basically the definition of subjective.

 

Hawk ; Stretch! Stretch! Get on back there! And caught by the catcher near the dugout. inning over

[Soxbadger]

Ah classic, when you cant defend a position, just make smarmy comments.

 

Sex before marriage, morally wrong, FIRE THEM.

 

At least according to Milkman. Because as he said, morals arent subjective, they are objective. So either something is morally okay or it isnt, there is absolutely no gray area.

 

Thats the position your defending Kyle. Notice that in over 46 pages, Ive never had to resort to similar tactics, because my position is sound.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Soxbadger

[clyons]

Journey.

 

Firing or not firing McQueary wont reduce their liability to the victims at all. Its completely irrelevant to whether or not an abuse occurred years ago and what the damages are.

 

If they dont care about being sued for wrongful termination, the are idiots. They should care about everything.

 

Small, small potatoes.

 

In the grand scheme, how much money could possibly be left on a low level wide receiver coach's contract? How much litigation exposure could there be from this extremely unsympathethic potential plaintiff, who's so popular he's already getting death threats? How can he possibly prove whistlebower retaliation if all involved eventually suffer the same equal fate (termination), regardless of whistlebower status?

 

Yes, they should "care." Should they care equally or be held hostage by a potential McQ lawsuit? No, not if the trustees have an ounce of brains between them. Perhaps that's debatable, though.

Edited November 11, 2011 by PlaySumFnJurny

[StrangeSox]

Ah classic, when you cant defend a position, just make smarmy comments.

 

Sex before marriage, morally wrong, FIRE THEM.

 

At least according to Milkman. Because as he said, morals arent subjective, they are objective. So either something is morally okay or it isnt, there is absolutely no gray area.

 

Thats the position your defending Kyle. Notice that in over 46 pages, Ive never had to resort to similar tactics, because my position is sound.

 

 

l.o.l.

 

You've had to resort to completely misrepresenting what anyone else is saying, so I don't know if "look what he's reduced to" is what you want to hang your hat on.

Edited November 11, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Kyyle23]

Ah classic, when you cant defend a position, just make smarmy comments.

 

Sex before marriage, morally wrong, FIRE THEM.

 

At least according to Milkman. Because as he said, morals arent subjective, they are objective. So either something is morally okay or it isnt, there is absolutely no gray area.

 

Thats the position your defending Kyle. Notice that in over 46 pages, Ive never had to resort to similar tactics, because my position is sound.

 

Right, because it isnt smarmy to say that im not jewish therefore i disagree with being kosher or Im not muslim so I disagree with the islamic faith is anywhere close to someone not reporting a sexual predator. Milkman isnt generalizing all morality, he is talking about a specific instance here where a large portion of the human population would look at it and say "you know what, thats really f***ed up that THEY(Not he, not just paterno) did not say anything"

 

 

It is funny how you go through this thread and look at your comments, and you dont like us drawing conclusions from grand jury testimony, but you have no problems making up outlandish scenarios for your own conclusions

[Milkman delivers]

Badger, if you don't think it's morally wrong to not call the cops after being informed of a child being raped, I think you are a piece of s*** human being. And if that's how you think, please say so. I'd gladly take a suspension in order to clarify exactly what I'd think of you in that case.

[southsider2k5]

This thread really needs to die until their is actual news to report.

[Milkman delivers]

l.o.l.

 

You've had to resort to completely misrepresenting what anyone else is saying, so I don't know if "look what he's reduced to" is what you want to hang your hat on.

 

Right, because it isnt smarmy to say that im not jewish therefore i disagree with being kosher or Im not muslim so I disagree with the islamic faith is anywhere close to someone not reporting a sexual predator. Milkman isnt generalizing all morality, he is talking about a specific instance here where a large portion of the human population would look at it and say "you know what, thats really f***ed up that THEY(Not he, not just paterno) did not say anything"

 

 

It is funny how you go through this thread and look at your comments, and you dont like us drawing conclusions from grand jury testimony, but you have no problems making up outlandish scenarios for your own conclusions

 

If you guys go back and read the post where I commented on Soxbadger's "arguing" style, you'll see that he's doing exactly the same thing again in this thread.

 

Your bias is your undying need to take the opposing side of any argument, while never, ever admitting to being wrong. You're very good at it, too, don't get me we wrong. When given evidence against your argument, you alter your stance ever so slightly and attack either small aspects of the opposing theory or create arguments that aren't being made by anyone. And then you just argue and argue until nobody gives a s*** anymore and just drops it because of the futility of it.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Milkman delivers

[Soxbadger]

SS2K,

 

I agree completely. To bad most people dont care about the facts.

 

Kyle,

 

Where have I made outlandish scenarios?

 

Milkman stated:

 

We're saying that he failed morally, which you might argue to no avail is entirely subjective

 

Morals are entirely subjective.

 

I showed several examples of why morals have to be subjective. Your not Jewish, therefore kosher doesnt apply to you. If your a mormon its not morally wrong to have several wives, if you are another faith it might be.

 

The idea that people can believe that morals are not subjective is one of the most ludicrous arguments that I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

 

Milkman,

 

Doing what exactly?

 

Correctly pointing out that you have yet to read the transcript. Correctly pointing out that you are relying on a document that is entirely hearsay and is not even allowed into evidence because it is so unreliable

 

I apologize that I am not drinking the kool aid, I just prefer to wait for the facts.

 

Call me old fashioned.

 

(edit)

 

How can I take the opposing side on every argument? Ive agreed and disagreed on different topics with about 90% of the people in this thread. I dont always agree with the majority, I guess thats bad.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Soxbadger

[clyons]

McQ has been placed on "indefinite leave"

 

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/11/penn-...se-allegations/

 

 

Expect almost all coaches and admins associated with the program to be gone soon, probably right after the bowl game at the very latest.

[Milkman delivers]

SS2K,

 

I agree completely. To bad most people dont care about the facts.

 

Kyle,

 

Where have I made outlandish scenarios?

 

Milkman stated:

 

 

 

Morals are entirely subjective.

 

I showed several examples of why morals have to be subjective. Your not Jewish, therefore kosher doesnt apply to you. If your a mormon its not morally wrong to have several wives, if you are another faith it might be.

 

The idea that people can believe that morals are not subjective is one of the most ludicrous arguments that I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

 

Milkman,

 

Doing what exactly?

 

Correctly pointing out that you have yet to read the transcript. Correctly pointing out that you are relying on a document that is entirely hearsay and is not even allowed into evidence because it is so unreliable

 

I apologize that I am not drinking the kool aid, I just prefer to wait for the facts.

 

Call me old fashioned.

 

I was referring to that particular instance. I don't think you'll find a culture on Earth that would say Paterno and the others didn't fail morally in not contacting the police. But again, you're just proving my description of your arguing style to be true. You've taken what I said, and completely changed the argument to make it look like something entirely different. It went from me saying that everyone can agree that he failed morally in this particular instance to you portraying me as saying that all morals are the same for everyone everywhere.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Milkman delivers

[Milkman delivers]

(edit)

 

How can I take the opposing side on every argument? Ive agreed and disagreed on different topics with about 90% of the people in this thread. I dont always agree with the majority, I guess thats bad.

 

You take up any argument where the vast majority agree one something, and argue against it. I think that's clear to anyone on this site who's seen you post more than a couple of times.

[RockRaines]

This thread really needs to die until their is actual news to report.

Paterno had Sandusky recruiting for him this entire time including this year. Obviously he disassociated himself from him in 1999 right? Well except for visiting prospective kids.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45246746

Edited November 11, 2011 by RockRaines

[whitesoxfan101]

people are social animals. there is no way this little secret stayed between Paterno, McQueary, Spanier, Curley, Schultz and McQueary's dad.

 

hell, when Sandusky was barred from bringing the second mile kids to campus, someone within the organization had to ask why.

 

Even though you want this whole process to play out SB, and you want to not believe in this audatious conspiracy theory, there is no doubt here that there was a large coordinated coverup.

 

now, the question remains, Why? Why is hiding a sexual predator so much better than delivering him to the police or FBI? It goes way past "Paterno was his friend and didnt want to believe it", because multiple other people who werent close friends with Sandusky also covered it up.

 

I think one thing that is clear here is that a large coverup happened. I'm not sure how anybody could think it didn't. Why? My guess is because they thought they could get away with it. And for a long time, they did. They figured it was better to keep the pristine name of Penn State than to admit their legendary defensive coordinator destroyed kids lives by raping them. Even if they had admitted it RIGHT AWAY, the name of Penn State would've still taken a hit. So they covered it up, and made Penn State more important than children's welfare. But, as we're seeing once again, covering things up only makes them worse. Honestly, why else would they cover this up?

[Soxbadger]

I dont really agree with that statement. I have my own beliefs, some times I agree with the majority, sometimes I dont. It also depends on who the majority is. Just because the majority on this board doesnt agree with me, doesnt mean that my opinion isnt in agreement with the majority of people I work with, or the majority of my friends, or the majority of the world.

 

The reason you probably believe that is because in certain threads (the ones where Im against the majority), I am considerably more vocal because there arent as many people agreeing with me.

 

In a thread where I agree with everyone, I may not even post, because there is really no reason to say "I agree".

 

Its a pretty big generalization.

[Milkman delivers]

Paterno had Sandusky recruiting for him this entire time including this year. Obviously he disassociated himself from him in 1999 right? Well except for visiting prospective kids.

 

Where did you get that from?

[iamshack]

Badger, if you don't think it's morally wrong to not call the cops after being informed of a child being raped, I think you are a piece of s*** human being. And if that's how you think, please say so. I'd gladly take a suspension in order to clarify exactly what I'd think of you in that case.

Yeah, you've pretty much made this clear.

 

And yet you are the one making light of the actions taken by Sandusky against the children, using slang that might be mildly appropriate when discussing your latest conquest with your buddies near the water cooler, but certainly not in regards to the acts done by a sick pervert to children.

 

You've now gone from making moral judgments about everyone involved in the case, to those of us here offering commentary in opposition of your own.

 

I know things have gotten a bit emotional in this thread, but seriously, accept the fact that not everyone agrees with you, nor will you convince them to agree with you. And when they don't, it's not acceptable to label them as a "piece of s*** human being."

Edited November 11, 2011 by iamshack

[RockRaines]

Where did you get that from?

edited with link.

 

The defense of Paterno being disconnected from this is crumbling.

[Milkman delivers]

Its a pretty big generalization.

 

It's also a pretty big generalization to assume people are being swayed massively by the media's portrayal, nobody else about facts, etc.

[Balta1701]

edited with link.

 

The defense of Paterno being disconnected from this is crumbling.

Yeah, so he kept Sandusky making official visits with high school kids through 2011.

 

Yeah.