Unsure about the Sandusky ruling

Post Reply New Topic

But you are arguing AGAINST the court, AKA sticking up for what you think is right, AKA him touching young people up.

Here are the facts. Six testifying victims none of whose testimony was discredited by Sandusky's defense. It doesn't get much stronger than that. Did you think all six were lying? If they were, then the defense lawyer should have revealed contradiction in their testimony. That did not happen.

If movies or t.v. records of Sandusky buggering these lads were taken, would you argue that the images were faked?

What sort of testimony would you consider conclusive (if any)?

ruveyn

Most people just tend not to notice that but take it for granted as common behaviour and move on. There is no need to focus on it.



Well, there's that and the fact he did it a whole lot and specifically on that group of people.



You don't have a case. The people present in that courtroom (prosecution or defence) has the case. What you have is the same as us, a viewpoint and opinion on a topic. Also there's not much to understand about the case, but it's whether we and the law find it appropriate or not. And obviously, a lot of people and the law disapprove.



Correction. You are arguing that you think the prosecution is wrong as well as the judge, and jury. To say the court is wrong would also make the defence wrong.



I was quite happy not being part of this discussion, but after certain posts of yours I felt inclined to pop back in and propose an alternate theory as to why you might be so supportive of what is an impossible case for Mr. Sandusky to win without millions and millions of US Dollars.

You have been trying to label me as a pedophile, you dick. You don't realize that this is offensive? You aren't that stupid. You had vicious and inflammatory intent, here. You were trying to label me as a pedophile not because you actually felt any concern about this, but you were laying it out as deliberate flame bait. You knew that you were being incredibly offensive.

Which college football team do you support?

I never labelled you as a pedophile, you thought of that yourself. I just thought you were a bit sick for agreeing with what this man does.

Your own words, not mine, you called yourself a pedophile, not me.

Well, I realize, Ruveyn, that it is a bit of a stretch to give Sandusky the benefit of the doubt. However, only one victim actually gave a compelling testimony, and it is actually quite possible that he was doing this for attention.


Look, I realize that my case is a longshot, but I feel that I have created a fairly compelling argument for giving the case a second look.

"I suggest you see someone for your issue with children," you said. You would have to find a really dumb mod to portray this as anything but low-class flame-bait. I feel that I have had more than sufficient provocation to justify informing you that you are a useless as*hole.

No, I meant that you seem to have a genuine issue with children with those kind of thoughts. I did not say you were a pedophile. You knew exactly what I meant, the only one who's baiting is you, and no-one is falling for it.

While Morphin might be baiting.... retaliating with cussword insults, condescending and aggressive language to everyone on the board that strongly disagrees with you will not get you much sympathy I'm afraid.

Ruveyn, another point I would like to address is the possibility that the one who gave the more compelling testimony, victim #6, might have actually developed feelings for Jerry Sandusky. If this had happened and Sandusky had spurned his efforts to try to go to the next level with him, he may very well have had the reaction of any rejected lover. I think that this is an avenue of speculation that deserves investigation. His emotions of anger toward Sandusky would have been genuine enough, but he would have also had the motivation to tell a vicious lie in order to destroy him.

And that goes back to my remarks on why it's inappropriate to handle older children in the way that you would handle a very young child. There is a possibility that they could react sexually to touching that wouldn't have fazed them at a younger age, and this could lead to confusion in signals.

Let's put it this way, if the people he was touching were teenage girls this case would have been closed already. Forget confusion, orientation for a moment and looking at the basics - a middle aged man with a position of trust over minors and late teens engaging in inappropriate touching of said people he mentors. However "ill advised", in the Western world he would at the very least normally be put on the sex offenders register for that.

I'm not saying MightyMorphin handled it in perhaps the best possible way, but please be reasonable and reflect on what it is you've been saying. You really did come across as a pedophile. Maybe MightyMorphin isn't exactly innocent either, but it is true that you put your ideas out there for discussion. You can be offended all you want, but keep in mind that they're your ideas that under attack, not you personally. It's bad manners to complain about how someone's counterpoint offends you just to silence them when, for all you know, your ideas equally offended someone else. I'm sorry to say this, but calling people names just for disagreeing with you is not a very good response, not to mention is against forum rules.

"Now I know why this is so important to you," JanuaryMan said. It was a flame and a crass one at that. You'd have to find a really stupid moderator to portray it as anything else.

It wasn't a "counterpoint." It was a flame. Saying, "I hope you can get help for your problem with children" is not particularly subtle. You would have to find a moderator who suffers from severe mental retardation to convince him that it wasn't a way of saying, "you are a sicko and a child-raper."

Oh, so why am I not cussing out Ruveyn and Kraichgauer right now? If I am just reacting to people "disagreeing with my ideas," I ought to be flaming both of them as well. I don't even like Ruveyn. I hate his guts. However, when he responds here with anything resembling intelligence, I respond to him in kind. I've been more than reasonable, here.

Why is that even relevant? Just because you're nice to one person, doesn't make it OK for you to be nasty to others.

You really upset me calling me stupid, I get enough of it offline in real life. Think before you speak.

Sorry but you are doing it again, already. You are saying you are not flaming him and in the same couple of sentences you undermine his intelligence, condescend him and flame him. Way to go! Anyways, I'd rather this topic not get locked so I will say this...

You are in a political forum. As such when you so passionately defend a certain position on a topic, others would expect you to do so with some sensibilty, rationale. Sure you can defend something simply on the merit that it feels "right" to you providing it doesn't discriminate against a group of people but at the same time when you do that you are expected not to browbeat everyone else that chooses to strongly pick at that view. If you aren't up to it then go away. The rules make it clear your behaviour is out of line (and maybe some of ours) and that the forum is full of strong opinions.