Unsure about the Sandusky ruling

Post Reply New Topic

So because my idea of a serious discussion threatens your idea of a serious discussion, it is therefore not a serious discussion? Do you not see how that proves my point on Emotional Reasoning?

I don't blame his wife for defending him, btw. She is only doing what she feels she must, and someone could make the most heinous of errors in their life but someone will still love them.

I also agree that he has the right to defend his innocence, as do you to protest it. I never said otherwise, and no one else has said otherwise. Look through the thread again. What we are saying though is the evidence is insurmountable and can't be ignored.

About ignore. Ignoring what you don't like doesn't make it not there. In a discussion about politics and the political nature of things, it is telling when a person has to ignore an argument they don't like, in order to put forward the one they do. I don't like your argument but it exists, and so I accept that and challenge it reasonably well. I at least ask that you show the maturity to do the same. You after all are the one that put this out there and made it open to discussion. That was not my bidding, it was yours. The mods haven't removed any posts here so for the most part it can't be all that bad.

I'm willing to listen to your points, but bear in mind Emotional Reasoning can only go so far in a discussion without repeating itself. Facts are absolute, and I prefer to work with those.

Perhaps Mrs. Sandusky is only standing by her man. Or perhaps there's something more to the story. One of Sandusky's victims had said while he was being raped in the basement of the house, he screamed his lungs out hoping and praying for Mrs. Sandusky to hear. If she in fact had heard the screams but did nothing, she was at the very least an enabler, at worst, a participant.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The reason that I have "an attitude" about this is that I ( and i think most people) have a gut feeling about it too.

But the gut feeling I have is the exact opposite of that of the op.

He thinks that sandusky was the victim of a lynch mob.

The rest of us assume the opposite: that he was PROTECTED for years by a mob of sychophants who were all in emotional denial, and in group corporate culture denial, that their beloved coach would do nasty stuff like this. So my sense is that he is guilty of even more raping and moloesting than we even know about. What he got convicted for may be just the tip of the iceberg.

So the op is not only going against the official verdict, he is also going against everyone elses 'gut feeling' that things were worse rather than better than they seem.

But if the op wants to be a citizen reporter and go out and crusade about it its fine with me. Go for it. I dont have any dog in this fight-but why the op has a dog in it baffles me.

As the participants in this thread are unable to debate in a civilised manner the thread has been locked.

If I see more flaming between members it will result in suspensions. You have all been warned and know what to expect.