Brasso wrote:
this explanation from an alum makes a lot of sense to meBadhugs wrote:
Why are we holding Paterno to a "moral" standard but not doing the same with the BOT?
While they legally had the ability to fire him amid the scandal, wouldn't the moral approach require waiting for the full truth to be uncovered and basing their decision on the facts once revealed? Relying on public opinion, as portrayed by the media, allowed the BOT to save face while in the spotlight. Again...totally legal. But questionably moral.
It also brings into question why Paterno's actions were seen as immoral in the first place. Imagine if he threw a fit the second McQueery mentioned something. Imagine a giant press conference, an instant vilification of Sandusky. There on every TV, in every paper and magazine, Paterno is blasting the horrors of what Sandusky has done. Then imagine the court finds out Sandusky was entirely innocent, and Paterno is being sued for slander and defamation. Would Paterno's actions have been so moral then?? Yet this is exactly what people wanted him to do.
"Sandusky isn't innocent!" you say. True enough. But we are only able to say this because we read the grand jury report and multiple victim testimonies. Paterno didn't have that luxury...yet people expected him to somehow come to the same conclusion. Had he been able to determine all this without any investigations, without victim reports, or any police help, he'd been better off staying in law than coaching. We might remember him as the best lawyer of all time - solving cases before they were even reported.
Paterno, for all his qualities, is not judge and jury, nor is he an all-knowing diety. It's absurd to expect him to have known beforehand what we only know now in hindsight.
What is your Spaghetti Policy Here?
What A Long Strange Trip It's Been
What A Long Strange Trip It's Been
If one of your co-workers came up to you and said that he saw another one of your co-workers fucking kids in the airport bathroom, would you go to the police or would you tell him that it was his problem to deal with as the witness?Chardee MacDennis wrote:
if someone told you he saw a co-worker molesting a kid and you told your boss...would you allow that person around your kids? if you saw that person at a company picnic around a bunch of kids would you just ignore it? would you let him be around a school your kid was at?Jay wrote:
He didn't witness anything. An assistant coach did and passed on the info to Paterno, who in turn passed it up to the school president.west-phoenix-az wrote:
Seriously Jay. He had the "ultimate responsibility" once he witnessed it, not the school. While they should have also reported it to the police, him passing it along to them, for them to do nothing, wasn't enough on his part. Very far from it.
no...you sure as fuck would not and dont even say you would.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
solid argumentChardee MacDennis wrote:
Brasso wrote:
this explanation from an alum makes a lot of sense to meBadhugs wrote:
Why are we holding Paterno to a "moral" standard but not doing the same with the BOT?
While they legally had the ability to fire him amid the scandal, wouldn't the moral approach require waiting for the full truth to be uncovered and basing their decision on the facts once revealed? Relying on public opinion, as portrayed by the media, allowed the BOT to save face while in the spotlight. Again...totally legal. But questionably moral.
It also brings into question why Paterno's actions were seen as immoral in the first place. Imagine if he threw a fit the second McQueery mentioned something. Imagine a giant press conference, an instant vilification of Sandusky. There on every TV, in every paper and magazine, Paterno is blasting the horrors of what Sandusky has done. Then imagine the court finds out Sandusky was entirely innocent, and Paterno is being sued for slander and defamation. Would Paterno's actions have been so moral then?? Yet this is exactly what people wanted him to do.
"Sandusky isn't innocent!" you say. True enough. But we are only able to say this because we read the grand jury report and multiple victim testimonies. Paterno didn't have that luxury...yet people expected him to somehow come to the same conclusion. Had he been able to determine all this without any investigations, without victim reports, or any police help, he'd been better off staying in law than coaching. We might remember him as the best lawyer of all time - solving cases before they were even reported.
Paterno, for all his qualities, is not judge and jury, nor is he an all-knowing diety. It's absurd to expect him to have known beforehand what we only know now in hindsight.
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
Sandusky stopped being a coach in 1999. He was found in the locker room with a kid in 2002. He was not on Joe Paternos staff at that point, he was a visiting coach working with a foundation.13urnzz wrote:
an assistant reported another assistant. that's correct, as far as it goes.Jay wrote:
He didn't witness anything. An assistant coach did and passed on the info to Paterno, who in turn passed it up to the school president.west-phoenix-az wrote:
Seriously Jay. He had the "ultimate responsibility" once he witnessed it, not the school. While they should have also reported it to the police, him passing it along to them, for them to do nothing, wasn't enough on his part. Very far from it.
the head coach tells the AD, that's correct as far as it goes.
what you*re obtusely missing is - the legacy of Penn State, belongs to the head coach. the head coach was more worried about winning games with a pedo defensive coordinator than the welfare of some defenseless boys. if his defensive coordinator turns out to be a butt-raping psychopath, how does that reflect on his ability to choose his staff?
ok, so paterno was no mind reader. what he was, was in a position to stop sandusky's actions once for all, within the Penn State football program.
he didn't, because sandusky's worth as a defensive coordinator outweighed his heinous actions as a person. and that is what paterno cared about most.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's actually a very well written and logical opinion piece.Chardee MacDennis wrote:
Brasso wrote:
this explanation from an alum makes a lot of sense to meBadhugs wrote:
Why are we holding Paterno to a "moral" standard but not doing the same with the BOT?
While they legally had the ability to fire him amid the scandal, wouldn't the moral approach require waiting for the full truth to be uncovered and basing their decision on the facts once revealed? Relying on public opinion, as portrayed by the media, allowed the BOT to save face while in the spotlight. Again...totally legal. But questionably moral.
It also brings into question why Paterno's actions were seen as immoral in the first place. Imagine if he threw a fit the second McQueery mentioned something. Imagine a giant press conference, an instant vilification of Sandusky. There on every TV, in every paper and magazine, Paterno is blasting the horrors of what Sandusky has done. Then imagine the court finds out Sandusky was entirely innocent, and Paterno is being sued for slander and defamation. Would Paterno's actions have been so moral then?? Yet this is exactly what people wanted him to do.
"Sandusky isn't innocent!" you say. True enough. But we are only able to say this because we read the grand jury report and multiple victim testimonies. Paterno didn't have that luxury...yet people expected him to somehow come to the same conclusion. Had he been able to determine all this without any investigations, without victim reports, or any police help, he'd been better off staying in law than coaching. We might remember him as the best lawyer of all time - solving cases before they were even reported.
Paterno, for all his qualities, is not judge and jury, nor is he an all-knowing diety. It's absurd to expect him to have known beforehand what we only know now in hindsight.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
likewise with your central PA delusional alum hickBrasso wrote:
solid argumentChardee MacDennis wrote:
Brasso wrote:
this explanation from an alum makes a lot of sense to me
What is your Spaghetti Policy Here?
What A Long Strange Trip It's Been
What A Long Strange Trip It's Been
i'm from connecticut but feel free to keep using the same wrong stereotypeChardee MacDennis wrote:
likewise with your central PA delusional alum hickBrasso wrote:
solid argumentChardee MacDennis wrote:
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
Jay wrote:
It's actually a very well written and logical opinion piece.
What is your Spaghetti Policy Here?
What A Long Strange Trip It's Been
What A Long Strange Trip It's Been
Brasso and most other Penn state students are internalizing Joe Paterno. Attacking Joe Pa is like attacking them.
It's sort of like how people stood out in front of the court house when Michael Jackson was on trial for fondling kids.
It's sort of like how people stood out in front of the court house when Michael Jackson was on trial for fondling kids.
except no one even remembers MJ for being convicted touching kids, yet joepa is burned at the stake as if he did the act himself...sorry i think logically.
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
except no one even remembers MJ for being convicted touching kids
did you write that article?Brasso wrote:
i'm from connecticut but feel free to keep using the same wrong stereotypeChardee MacDennis wrote:
likewise with your central PA delusional alum hickBrasso wrote:
solid argument
What is your Spaghetti Policy Here?
What A Long Strange Trip It's Been
What A Long Strange Trip It's Been
what article? the quote by Badhugs? it wasn't an article, just a post from reddit, and no i didn't write it
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
No he's actually right, no one ever remembers MJ has ever been convicted of molesting kids. Thet's because MJ has never been convicted of molesting kids.
But everyone knows when ever he was around he smelt of little boys booty holes. An endearing legacy thats here to stay. Not to mention shit like this didn't help is child raping molesting ass:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/musi … arges.html
But everyone knows when ever he was around he smelt of little boys booty holes. An endearing legacy thats here to stay. Not to mention shit like this didn't help is child raping molesting ass:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/musi … arges.html
Last edited by m3thod (2012-01-26 10:01:46)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
err, sorry, meant to say accused
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
Chardee MacDennis wrote:
Jay wrote:
It's actually a very well written and logical opinion piece.
Roc18 wrote:
Chardee MacDennis wrote:
Jay wrote:
It's actually a very well written and logical opinion piece.
What is your Spaghetti Policy Here?
What A Long Strange Trip It's Been
What A Long Strange Trip It's Been
I don't think JoePa would like this thread if he was alive.
He should have gone straight to the Police having seen a crime in progress, not written a memo and forgotten about it, then been chummy with the perpetrator.-Whiteroom- wrote:
thats one hell of a cop out on his part jay.
He wasn't in the military, 'pushing it up the chain of command' is not a defence.
Its expected that paedophiles will cover up their own actions and the actions of other paedophiles.yet joepa is burned at the stake as if he did the act himself...sorry i think logically
Its not expected that a normal man will sit idly while a paedophile abuses children.
Hence he's been burned at the stake. Good.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-01-27 00:36:45)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dilbert_X wrote:
He should have gone straight to the Police having seen a crime in progress, not written a memo and forgotten about it, then been chummy with the perpetrator.-Whiteroom- wrote:
thats one hell of a cop out on his part jay.
He wasn't in the military, 'pushing it up the chain of command' is not a defence.Its expected that paedophiles will cover up their own actions and the actions of other paedophiles.yet joepa is burned at the stake as if he did the act himself...sorry i think logically
Its not expected that a normal man will sit idly while a paedophile abuses children.
Hence he's been burned at the stake. Good.
What is your Spaghetti Policy Here?
What A Long Strange Trip It's Been
What A Long Strange Trip It's Been