![]() |
Crowbob, probably some sense of personal loyalty to Sandusky, long time friend ,partner at work and apparently a neighbor.
And the desire to keep his program untainted. May have had the delusional thought that with his influence the whole thing could just be kept under wraps. And look at how long he was correct. |
"We know he could have made different choices - he admitted that. We don't think he is God or always perfect or saintly."
Is Joe even Catholic? |
Maybe he is, and was just doing what he learned at church.
|
Quote:
Joe Paterno AKA Joseph Vincent Paterno Born: 21-Dec-1926 Birthplace: Brooklyn, NY Gender: Male Religion: Roman Catholic Race or Ethnicity: White Sexual orientation: Straight Occupation: Football Nationality: United States Executive summary: Coach at Penn State |
Uh oh.
Maybe he was, tevake, maybe he was. |
Quote:
|
Because I'm not sure if you're just trying to "play devil's advocate," conducting a "social experiment," or some other thing.
|
Quote:
|
Yes, McLovin. I am serious, I am playing Devil's advocate, conducting a social experiment and yes, some other thing.
It seems to me Joe would have gone directly to the police pecisely to protect Penn State and his legacy. It seems to me a person, such as what Joe is portrayed to have been, would put the welfare of children above the welfare of a close personal pervert friend and the reputation of Penn State and his own legacy. It further seems to me that a person, such as what Joe Paterno is portrayed to have been, would put the welfare of young troubled boys entrusted to the care of a close personal pervert friend wha was using the Penn State facilities for over a decade over the reputation of Penn State and his own legacy. It seems to me a person, such as what Joe Paterno is portrayed to have been, would put the welfare of numerous, innocent, troubled young boys entrusted to the care of a close personal pervert friend using the Penn State facilities for over a decade to ensnare more innocent young troubled boys ahead of the reputation of Penn State and his own legacy. Or, Joe Paterno is not what he is alleged to have been. Not even close. |
Well, these were your specific questions:
The obvious question is why would Joe Paterno risk everything by not bringing the cops into this whole hideous turn of events? What possible benefit could Joe Paterno have by keeping this mess under the protective wraps of the Penn State organization which has worshipped him for decades? Let's break it down. You are the $1 million/yr coach of a high profile, big business college football team. The entire school is basically named after you ("The House that Joe Built"). You need to keep recruiting to keep on top. Now you find out that your long time assistant coach has been taking showers with 10 year old boys in the locker rooms of The House That Joe Built. (Undisputed fact that he knew, and Sandusky admitted to). After knowing that, 2 more years pass and you find out that that same coach has just anally raped a 10 year old boy in those showers. Now, think hard, is this information: 1. Good for The House that Joe Built? or 2. Bad for The House that Joe Built? Now, would you rather: 1. No one ever find out about it, and the story just goes away? or 2. Everyone find out about it, it becomes national news, your blue chip recruits go away, you get implicated in it big time (b/c at the time he found out about the anal raping, he already knew Sandusky had been doing improper things with kids in the showers, b/c Sandusky admitted to it 2 years prior). Does that help paint a picture of why Paterno would prefer that this whole thing be kept under wraps? Can you see it now? |
it is always possible that in the crush of running a football team, he thought that doing the legal minimum (reporting it to a (de jure) higher up) was enough
that does not explain the delay also, I don't know exactly what he was told anyway, it is a moral stain on his reputation and he is gone |
We do know that he knew that Sandusky had engaged in admitted inappropriate conduct with very young boys in the showers of The House that Joe Built.
We also know that 2 years later, he was told, at a minimum, that Sandusky had again engaged in "disturbing" conduct of "a sexual nature" with a 10 year old in those same showers. That is all undisputed. Nothing more needs to known about what he was told and what knowledge he had. That is more than enough. (Although I would bet that he was told all the details by McQueary (because that's just common sense and human nature) that is just the icing on this disgusting cake.) |
That is more than enough ethically, morally - not legally. He fulfilled his legal duty under Penn. law (maybe PSU has some enhancement, but nothing was said to me about anything like this when I was on their faculty).
|
No, it does not, McLovin.
Your reiteration does explain why someone of questionable moral fibre would prefer the whole thing go away. It does explain why someone of questionable moral fibre would put his entire identity and the entire identity of Penn State for years to come ahead of the rapes of innocent children. But why would "Joe Pa" do such a thing? Is Joe Paterno so morally bankrupt that he would cast a blind eye rather than put an immediate end to such a nightmare? Or did Joe Paterno have something he wanted to preserve something that he cherished more than even the lives of those innocent children? Was it friendship? Was it career? Was it money? Was it legacy? Was it honor? All these things are now gone. Joseph Vincent Paterno apparently believed the gamble that it would all go away was worth the risk to save something great. What one thing does Joe Paterno still have? What one thing does Joe Paterno apparently believe is more valuable to Joseph Vincent Paterno than even the prevention of pain and humility, loss of a sacred trust, and a lifetime of shame these young boys now must bear? Is Joseph Vincent Paterno a man of questionable moral fibre? Or is he worse? |
I would bet that McQueary didn't go into great detail just out of the embarrassment of describing it to a man he'd looked up to as a father figure since he was a child.
|
Quote:
In your later posts (149 and 154) you ask different questions. Of course I couldn't answer questions that have not been posed yet. But, as to 149 and 154, the answer is quite simple: Paterno wasn't the "pillar of responsibility" or "pillar of morality" that everyone thought. |
Quote:
Facts not established by statements here? So this is CNN now or something I guess. Mr Paterno, as an educator, almost certainly had a legal responsibility to call the police himself when he had knowledge that his former "heir apparent," someone who left the university years earlier due to similar acts, was in the showers with a little boy. If Mr Paterno were in fact some sort of pillar of morality, he would not be talking about how he wished he had handled things differently way back when. He would have done the right thing. I have no doubt he had a great positive impact on many young men. I also am of the opinion that the negative impact on the victims and their families far outweighs any good he may have done in his 40 years as a football coach. Maybe Pennsylvania will go bankrupt before California because of this You certainly give every appearance of being a moral relativist. If this is something that bothers you, don't come here and complain about it, do something about it. |
Quote:
F...that. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website