Jerry Sandusky Trial

[columbia]

I figured I would spare you difficult reading by linking to Wikipedia. You have a very simple view of the universe and I feared using anything more complicated would lose you.

Sure. Unlike you, I can actually discern enables of evil.

[MWB]

I believe that study is about intervening when the actual event occurs, not knowing about an event later. Not sure how that would change the data, but I bet it would. The former means directly confronting someone; the latter does not.

People have an incredible ability to wash their hands of things they didn't witness while claiming they'd always do the right thing.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That study you cited said more than a third "help." certainly not a good number, but more than none. I'm quite certain that number would go up if it didn't involve direct confrontation. It would go up even more if you didn't have a personal relationship with the one doing the harm.

[Rocco]

I figured I would spare you difficult reading by linking to Wikipedia. You have a very simple view of the universe and I feared using anything more complicated would lose you.

Sure. Unlike you, I can actually discern enables of evil.

But I can spell enablers. So who's got the high ground now?

[columbia]

The people who would shy away from direct confrontation are cowards.

[columbia]

I figured I would spare you difficult reading by linking to Wikipedia. You have a very simple view of the universe and I feared using anything more complicated would lose you.

Sure. Unlike you, I can actually discern enables of evil.

But I can spell enablers. So who's got the high ground now?

That couldn't have possibly been a typo...
Feel free to continue to defend the enablers of child molesters.

[Rocco]

I believe that study is about intervening when the actual event occurs, not knowing about an event later. Not sure how that would change the data, but I bet it would. The former means directly confronting someone; the latter does not.

People have an incredible ability to wash their hands of things they didn't witness while claiming they'd always do the right thing.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That study you cited said more than a third "help." certainly not a good number, but more than none. I'm quite certain that number would go up if it didn't involve direct confrontation. It would go up even more if you didn't have a personal relationship with the one doing the harm.

I doubt it matters if there is direct confrontation or not. One would think people would want to help someone who they knew were in immediate harm but there are numerous studies and incidents that show this is not the case, yet everyone will always claim they will do the right thing. ESPN screamed about how Paterno should have done more, but it turns out when they were in a similar scenario with Bernie Fine they chose not to turn over evidence they had to the police.

[columbia]

Therefore JoePa should be given a free pass.
That makes sense.

[Rocco]

I figured I would spare you difficult reading by linking to Wikipedia. You have a very simple view of the universe and I feared using anything more complicated would lose you.

Sure. Unlike you, I can actually discern enables of evil.

But I can spell enablers. So who's got the high ground now?

That couldn't have possibly been a typo...
Feel free to continue to defend the enablers of child molesters.

Where exactly have I defended him? He didn't do enough. That's not disputed. I'm choosing not to resort to histrionics and ranting by taking tangents like Paterno's will and using it to launch arguments that aren't connected to anything.

[Rocco]

Therefore JoePa should be given a free pass.
That makes sense.

No one's saying that. Just saying that he did exactly what most people would have done, boastful claims of heroism aside.

[shafnutz05]

Therefore JoePa should be given a free pass.
That makes sense.

YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON IN THIS THREAD THAT IS SAYING THAT.

[columbia]

Therefore JoePa should be given a free pass.
That makes sense.

YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON IN THIS THREAD THAT IS SAYING THAT.

Or I am one of the few that realizes that he should be condemned as much as everyone else, who allowed the raping of children to continue.

[ulf]

womp womp. didn't we have this argument before, leading the thread to getting deleted?

[shafnutz05]

womp womp. didn't we have this argument before, leading the thread to getting deleted?

At this point, I request it. The first four or five pages were a good discussion with people posting updates from the Jerry Sandusky trial.

[columbia]

womp womp. didn't we have this argument before, leading the thread to getting deleted?

Nothing less than a full condemnation of every enabler is acceptable.

[shafnutz05]

womp womp. didn't we have this argument before, leading the thread to getting deleted?

Nothing less than a full condemnation of every enabler is acceptable.

Ok great, we know. This thread was intended to discuss the trial. The trial.

[Pavel Bure]

Therefore JoePa should be given a free pass.
That makes sense.

YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON IN THIS THREAD THAT IS SAYING THAT.

Or I am one of the few that realizes that he should be condemned as much as everyone else, who allowed the raping of children to continue.

I got crucified for that stance columbia. Still the guy is dead at this point not much else to say. I'm wondering what the limitations of the civil suits will be. Can Joe Pa's wife/family be sued because of something he didn't do? I expect Sandusky and everyone involved in this to be mired in civil court battles for years to come. But yeah Joe Pa shouldn't be excused but it's not worth pointing out what he let happen. It really stirs up too many emotions for a message board.

[columbia]

Well, you were right Pavel.

[shafnutz05]

Yep. You and Pavel were the only ones that thought Joe Paterno should be criticized and called out for his lack of action during this whole mess. Congratulations.

[columbia]

I'll stop when people stop defending his virtue; you know, those scholarships really make up for utter moral failure.

[Rocco]

I'll stop when people stop defending his virtue; you know, those scholarships really make up for utter moral failure.

You're the one that brought up the scholarships in the first place in this thread.

[Rylan]

I needed the lulz. Thanks.

[columbia]

I'll stop when people stop defending his virtue; you know, those scholarships really make up for utter moral failure.

You're the one that brought up the scholarships in the first place in this thread.

Nope. see mac5155, whom I quoted earlier from this thread.

[shafnutz05]

I'll stop when people stop defending his virtue; you know, those scholarships really make up for utter moral failure.

I don't want to get drawn into this argument again, but I look at someone's whole body of work. I believe he did a ton of good in his lifetime, but later in his life, failed horribly when he could have done the right thing. I look at his legacy by taking EVERYTHING he did, good and bad, over the last sixty years. I think he was a good man that really crapped the bed morally and in terms of leadership with the Sandusky case. Why is that so hard to understand?

If you think his legacy should be 100% about the Sandusky case, and all of the good he did over many decades should be completely erased due to that, then more power to you. That's just not the way I think.

[Rocco]

I'll stop when people stop defending his virtue; you know, those scholarships really make up for utter moral failure.

You're the one that brought up the scholarships in the first place in this thread.

Nope. see mac5155, whom I quoted earlier from this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=58980&start=100#p2131433

Had no idea you were quoting from a post 3 days ago based on that. Either way, you're the one rolling the ball bearings on this for reasons not completely known.

[columbia]

@shad Agree to disagree, then.