Except this isn't an issue of people simply looking the other way when they had irrefutable proof, it's that there seems to be a dispute around whether certain parties did enough. It's not like McQuary saw the rape and simply turned his back and pretended it didn't happen. He told his dad and then the next day told Paterno. So people think he didn't do enough and should've called the cops. Fine, that's reasonable. But how do you actually legislate for something like that? Do you have some sort of sliding scale where if you only see what potentially might be a crime you're only required to tell your boss, but if you see what you definitely think is a crime you call the cops? And how does law enforcement proceed in an investigation regarding what someone "should've done"? It's all well and good to puff out your chest and proclaim your righteous moral outrage and demand everyone involved get the book thrown at them, but it's a lot harder when you have to actually try to put that kind of reactionary policy into practice - unless you don't care about justice and really only care about vengeance.
This might sound crazy... ...how about we force them to work for the grossly understaffed agencies designed to work with children who've been sexually assaulted? Maybe they'll, um, you know...learn something.
Are you suggesting that we should conscript people who have demonstrated a proclivity to look the other way at sexual abuse into positions where the key requirement is compassion for the victim? Do you want them learning their lesson if the cost is additional suffering of sexually abused children? If I were a different kind of poster, I might be inclined to smugly remind everyone that this doctrinaire attitude is why I rarely post anymore, despite the frequent PMs I receive asking me to do so. At least the kid who posted about horse sodomy and sepsis was (unsuccessfully) trying to be funny.
It's almost as if Mcquery did personally witness a heinous crime taking place, then did effectively nothing about it. As for Paterno, it's more grey on what he should be legally compelled to do. But morally, yeah it's easy to get on the high horse when all he had to do was simply contact the police. I'm not seeing any moral ambiguities here.
Fuck that noise. A quote the acting PSU President from the article you linked to: So he can't function correctly when he sees a 10 year old getting raped, and he can't function correctly when 18-20 year olds are mad at him? When exactly can this ginger function correctly?
There are plenty of things that need doing at a sexual assault crisis center that wouldn't put those who've been assaulted in jeopardy in any way, and most are woefully understaffed. I haven't and I wouldn't suggest putting the pedophile in that position, I'm suggesting (knowing that we don't live in a world where this could or would ever happen) that someone like Paterno or McQueary could learn a lot by seeing the consequences of their inaction first hand. And that was an impressive way to smugly describe how not smug you are, by the way.
Jesus Christ this might be the most pretentious post in TiB history. Someone's been watching too much Frasier.
Am I the only one that got the reference? Or did everyone get it and I'm the only one that found it funny?
I thought it was touching that all those people showed up to the Penn State game to show support for the abuse victims. Nevermind the fact that I wanted to scream at them "YOU'RE A BUNCH OF FUCKING TOOLS. YOU WANT TO 'SHOW SUPPORT' - HERE'S AN IDEA, DON'T SHOW UP AT ALL.' Now, we don't know if there was abuse (the courts will figure that one out), but what we do know (based on the sworn testimony of two coaches) is that there was an allegation of sexual abuse, and they didn't report it to the Pennsylvania Department of Health Services within 48 hours pursuant to the law. Now, why oh why wouldn't they? Could it be that football (and college sports) generate too much cash? Maybe I'm just a cynic. But to those 'fans' showing support for 'victims': You want to do something for potential victims? Stop going to the games, stop watching on TV. In short, take the impetus away (cash) for these assholes to not even notify authorities that a ten year old may have been raped on your campus. In short, take your moment of silence and shove it up your misguided ass. After all, isn't it silence that got them into that mess in the first place?
I was wondering what Ballsack might say about this whole mess. I thought it'd be something along the lines of, "Psh, all that bear hugging and foreplay, what a faggot. Try adding some toys, then we'll talk." Instead he decided to pawn other people's jokes off as his own. Posted at 10:10AM PST: Retweeted by Nils Parker at 9:45AM PST: It's understandable. I'm sure he didn't expect anyone else on the idiot board to be following some random like Nils Parker. It's not like TiB has its roots in a website Nils was a major part of or anything.
Easy now RusselMilkBoy. Lots of people use jokes they hear elsewhere. There are a lot bigger things to be offended about in this thread...
I keep wondering what time would be appropriate in this thread to post some light hearted shots of huge fake breast. We are rapidly approaching that moment.
If by "appropriate" you mean "doingthingstointentionallygetthethreadlockedbecausethecarthatisthisthreadcrashedintheditchlongago," then yes.
We're having a pretentiousness fight, and it's neck-and-neck between JProctor and JRussellMicklesson! This is so exciting. Don't focus on the fact that young boys being were brutally raped and a decades-long, multi-level coverup occurred. Instead, pick on a poster who bugged you five years ago. Stay classy, internet.
I'm a little confused as to what exactly is the basis of this argument. It's like saying the public doesn't care about amateur pilots because passenger plane crashes create national headlines while ultralight mishaps barely make page 3B of The Bumfuck Picayune. The outrage over the subject of this thread is based on the scale (and the ensuing cover-up) as much as the acts themselves. I sincerely doubt that this scandal would be any less prominent had the victims been young girls instead of young boys. It seems like the real issue at hand is the fact that a child predator was more or less given carte blanche to do as he pleased while his superiors and the local police looked the other way just because he was involved in a popular sports program. I mean, let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be; it doesn't take a dissertation on Freudian implications to explain the public outcry here. I'm sure that men everywhere could empathize with the victims (just as any group, women included, can do so with a fellow member) but I don't think it's fair to assume that's the driving factor behind their reaction to this case, nor does it mean they lack empathy for injustices against anyone with which they identify less. While I understand and share your outrage of abuses against women your argument just seems to compare apples to oranges. It would be much more convincing if there existed a systematic public bias in reacting to individual and similar cases of sexual abuse of young boys vis-à-vis young girls (which there is not, as far as I've ever seen) or if one was routinely ignored or accepted as a matter of course while the other was stigmatized (and I don't think child predators of any strain are winning any popularity contests with society). As it is, you just seem to be complaining about the coverage afforded this story while offering up an out-of-place PSA on awareness of (presumably adult) rape victims. I don't think any normally-developed person needs your help to feel outraged over that subject. I know I don't. But Penn State is the subject at hand, and people are pissed and want heads to roll, just as they will when the next case involving women regrettably yet inevitably appears. There's enough concern to go around and the two aren't mutually exclusive. This just seems like a gross generalization to me. I don't think I could describe any reaction I've seen from a male regarding sexual abuse towards a little girl as "watered-down" any more than I could if the genders were reversed. And as far as after they've grown up, I don't have to remind you of the reaction on the Message Board That Shall Not Be Named over the guy who woke up to an unsolicited blowjob and called rape (for the sake of conciseness, we'll call it "uproarious laughter"). Is it the same? Of course not. But you're talking about the type of person who laughs at jokes not directed at them and regularly displays a lack of empathy for the victim in any act in which they aren't involved. Gender has little to do with that; it's just self-centered thinking in general. It's not representative of the typical rational human being and it doesn't write off the reaction to the Penn State story, which is atrocious in its own right, regardless if the victims are male or female.
I didn't say it wasn't happening to little girls. I'm sure it does. I said that were the victims in the Penn State case were little girls rather than little boys, the public reaction would be much the same, as it would if a similar story surfaced with little girls as the victims. I'm still not sure where your argument is coming from here. Are you pissed because some story similar to this involving girls didn't get press coverage? Which one are you talking about? Or do you think it's wrong that people are talking more about Penn State than they are about various individual cases of sexual abuse against women? Isn't it obvious why that's the case?