How could American culture grow so corrupt as to value a game over protecting children?

DSGamer wrote:

Do we need to go through years of a trial and the subsequent appeals process to know that the football program was off the rails?

It is just something people like to say when they lack a salient logic. And for me they add on "you are not much of a lawyer if..."

I then ask if they know what due process means, and they either shut up or are wrong.

Hey now, it's not like conflating football with legal rights reflects the problem at all...

DSGamer wrote:

Do we need to go through years of a trial and the subsequent appeals process to know that the football program was off the rails?

Screw the trials, just burn them at the stake.

KingGorilla wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Do we need to go through years of a trial and the subsequent appeals process to know that the football program was off the rails?

It is just something people like to say when they lack a salient logic. And for me they add on "you are not much of a lawyer if..."

I then ask if they know what due process means, and they either shut up or are wrong.

I think it means that there is a legal process that assesses guilt and punishment. Malor and DS think it gets in the way of true justice.

Jayhawker wrote:

I think it means that there is a legal process that assesses guilt and punishment. Malor and DS think it gets in the way of true justice.

I didn't take their statements like that at all. Of course individuals charged with crimes get the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. But trials and appeals aren't required for someone to rightly state that something was rotten in Penn State when it came to its football program and, most importantly, the culture that surrounded and enabled it. That can be corrupt (and dangerous) without being illegal.

Due process was served, and the abusers won. The program was preserved. So now all the other colleges know that hiding child abuse is a better idea than admitting it, because they know they won't lose their programs. If they successfully hide it, they win big. If they don't, well, it won't hurt the corporation that badly.

Jail time? Not important, because of the money involved. These corporations, and that's what these universities are, corporations, are in it only for themselves, and if some of their employees end up in jail, that's perfectly okay from the corporation's standpoint.

Everything's good, as long as those sweet, sweet millions just keep rolling in.

I've been saying from the beginning, and I was right, that a large number of people in that program knew exactly what was going on, and chose not to report it. The only reasonable reaction to that is the total dismantling of the program. No more college football at Penn State for at least long enough for a while graduating class to pass through, preferably longer.

If you argue otherwise, I believe you are prioritizing your own enjoyment of the sport over the good of children.

If it's not clear, and from the way some of you mischaracterize my arguments constantly, I assume it must not be: what I think merits the nuke-from-orbit response is not the abuse, but the active coverup by so many people in the program. It's the coverup that's the issue here. The abuse was Sandusky's fault, but hiding the abuse took the whole football program.

Malor wrote:

If you argue otherwise, I believe you are prioritizing your own enjoyment of the sport over the good of children.

Yes, if I disagree with you, I am pretty much a monster.

How about if we allow NCAA division football to continue, then we are prioritizing our own enjoyment of the sport over the good of children? Heck, basketball brings in dollars that corrupts, so let's cut that to.

Because the same forces that drove Penn state to cover this up exist everywhere.

Or, we could charge the actual people who committed crimes. We could punish them.

But I suppose if that is not enough blood, we should punish more people without due process, right?

To be honest, I thought Penn State got off lightly. But I really wasn't interested in what people thought should happen before all of the facts come out. Even if they can proudly thump their chest in celebration of being right.

Malor wrote:

If it's not clear, and from the way some of you mischaracterize my arguments constantly, I assume it must not be: what I think merits the nuke-from-orbit response is not the abuse, but the active coverup by so many people in the program. It's the coverup that's the issue here. The abuse was Sandusky's fault, but hiding the abuse took the whole football program.

Do you think people who cannot be proven to have committed a crime should be punished? Maybe a drone strike?

People other than Sandusky have been charged. Paterno certainly would have been charged, and was fired from his job before he died.

So who else should pay?

Jayhawker wrote:

Yes, if I disagree with you, I am pretty much a monster.

Jayhawker wrote:

Do you think people who cannot be proven to have committed a crime should be punished? Maybe a drone strike?

In back to back posts. Hilarious.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Yes, if I disagree with you, I am pretty much a monster.

Jayhawker wrote:

Do you think people who cannot be proven to have committed a crime should be punished? Maybe a drone strike?

In back to back posts. Hilarious.

There is a slight difference. I don't actually think he believes either thing.

On the other hand, he absolutely believes that I am prioritizing my enjoyment at the expense of children.

But yeah, totally hilarious.

Malor wrote:

If you argue otherwise, I believe you are prioritizing your own enjoyment of the sport over the good of children.

I do not watch football. I don't really know a thing about it. Despite that, I think your crusade against Penn State is a little out there, sir. I fail to see the point in nuking it from orbit as opposed to tackling the elements of it that are most pernicious.

From what I've seen, the football lovers defending Penn State's program look just like the Catholics defending their organization's many abuses. They like the organization or the sport, and they don't want it to go away, so they rationalize excuses for why what happened isn't that bad, and why innocent people shouldn't be punished, and so on. They "focus on the good things". Let's look forward, put all that nastiness behind us, and get back to enjoying our prayers and/or football.

As far as I'm concerned, that's just aiding and abetting the corruption. It means that, ultimately, the Penn State leadership made the right decision. And it means that other colleges, in the future, will look at how this played out, and realize that it would be much better to cover something like this up, perhaps dismissing the coach in question. If they admit the abuse, they take a big hit, and lose a bunch of money. If they hide it, and succeed, they get away with it, and the millions keep flowing in. If they fail at hiding it, they're punished, but not much more than they would have been for admitting it. So of course they're going to hide it; it's the rational choice.

The consequences for a coverup might be severe for the employees, but employees that don't follow the wishes of the corporation tend not to stay employed. Given the choice between giving up one's career and turning in an abuser, probably most people would choose silence.

So, kids will keep getting abused. This will keep happening, because going public will be more painful than hushing it up, and maybe firing the adult in question.

I don't have any special bee in my bonnet about abuse. But I have a big, big one about corruption. And I think "let's just play football" is part of the corruption.

Malor wrote:

From what I've seen, the football lovers defending Penn State's program look just like the Catholics defending their organization's many abuses. They like the organization or the sport, and they don't want it to go away, so they rationalize excuses for why what happened isn't that bad, and why innocent people shouldn't be punished, and so on. They "focus on the good things". Let's look forward, put all that nastiness behind us, and get back to enjoying our prayers and/or football.

I don't think anyone arguing with you is represented by that ad hominem attack.

This is a strawman argument. "People hesitant to completely and permanently dismantle the football program are essentially pedophiles, or at least accessories to such crimes."

That's bullsh*t and not arguing in good faith. Honestly, I don't know why I come into P&C anymore. The fiat statements made around here are getting so nonsensical that I'm not even sure if this is the same site I joined four years ago. If you want to argue, argue your main point. Stop smearing people who disagree with you.

Back to the topic: the question is "Does nuking the program have an overall net positive effect?"

I contend that is the case of whether or not deterrence is an effective policy against crime. I would argue no. Crime still occurs in situations where other guilty parties have been punished severely. The only difference is that the new guilty parties go to greater lengths to cover up their deeds.

Go ahead, call me an accessory to pedophilia. Call me a mindless drone of the culture of football. I dare you.

Honestly, if you're accusing GWJers of supporting child abuse and pedophilia you should just stop talking. It's absurd and you're really not contributing anything to the discussion. I can't believe it's been allowed to go on for this long.

I think the only way to truly respond to the problem here is to permanently dismantle football. All of it. If we didn't have an NFL, then the NCAA wouldn't be as important for generating fame for the schools. And if we didn't have an NCAA, then we wouldn't have colleges scouting youth football programs. And then we wouldn't have authority figures in colleges with access to children they could molest.

Unless... sh*t, we need to make sure that children can't pursue higher education before they are of adult age, too. What happens when a youth science instructor decides to molest some Young Scientist participants?

At least then we couldn't have adults in positions of authority to molest those kids, 'cause they won't have access to them.

...aw sh*t, wait, I just realized... what about adults teaching children? We know that teachers have molested kids, and schools have tried to cover it up to protect their image! Dammit, ok, dismantle the entire education system too, or else we're supporting child molesters.

...You know, f*ck it, just nuke the entire human race, we don't deserve to exist.

Jayhawker wrote:

But yeah, totally hilarious.

Eh, I don't think any of you quite get why.

Farscry wrote:

...You know, f*ck it, just nuke the entire human race, we don't deserve to exist.

That's what I am beginning to think.

I'm confused. At this point this is my understanding.

A) If you think Penn State should be focusing as much energy as possible on making sure they don't repeat protecting a pedophile then logically you want to nuke everything risky.

Or....

B) If you don't think the football team should be shut down then you're on the side of the pedophiles and basically an accomplice.

Good God, folks. We can do better than this, no?

DSGamer wrote:

Good God, folks. We can do better than this, no?

Well, yeah, since I think they should just punish the people responsible and let the innocent people go freely.

Well for me DS, it is just patently disgusting that we have this national shroud of secrecy among clergy, the scouts, sports that creates the environments that allow these molestation.

The conflagration of parents who wish to create an air of denial for their child who is the victim of a terrible crime, the institutions willing and able to pay for silence, and a system that indoctrinates its members to look the other way when something this abhorrent takes place is just galling. You then have the innumerable numbers of people springing to the defense of the institution, justifying, rationalizing. If our kids cannot be safe at church, on camping trips, or playing football then what the hell is there but despair?

This crops up in our various topics on women and feminism. But the country, and much of the western world has a really messed up attitude when it comes to the subject of sexual assault. And this goes beyond the fact that a crime can really happen to anyone at any time, with adjusted probability. The disgusting thing is that for the really rotten stuff like abuse of children, of spouses you can get away with it for generations because of what I said above.

We do not go into what if easily. But what if in the next 10 years 100% of these crimes were reported to the police. What is the picture of the 10 years after? What if that first parent said no to the pay off, and went to the police?

What you say is true, KG. But in this case:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/sp...

Spanier, 64; Schultz, 63; and Curley, 58, now all face numerous charges, including perjury, obstruction of justice, endangering the welfare of children and criminal conspiracy. Schultz and Curley, who reported to Spanier, were already scheduled to stand trial in January on charges of perjury and failing to report child sexual abuse.
The charges filed Thursday retrace many of the same issues raised in a report released in July by Louis J. Freeh, a former director of the F.B.I. who conducted a seven-month investigation commissioned by Penn State. Freeh concluded that university leaders had disregarded the welfare of Sandusky’s victims, and his report quoted from Spanier’s e-mail in 2001 and included notes Schultz took in 1998 that the attorney general’s office also cited.

The new charges come nearly a year after Pennsylvania authorities arrested Sandusky. Sandusky was convicted on 45 counts of child sexual abuse, and in October, Sandusky, 68, was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison.

If there is evidence that more know, they should face charges, too. They are finding and charging the conspirators quicker and more efficiently than all of those other cases.

ZaneRockfist wrote:
Farscry wrote:

...You know, f*ck it, just nuke the entire human race, we don't deserve to exist.

That's what I am beginning to think.

Yeah, I wasn't entirely sarcastic with that final line.

That's all well and good, but the context the title of this thread isn't asking about criminal charges--it's questioning the culture that lead at least four to commit unspeakable criminal acts. That culture doesn't get addressed in any way, shape, or form by prosecuting those four, and this is the rather nuanced point Malor's been raising. The bad guys are put away or dead, everyone pats themselves on the back, justice served, but the thing the bad guys did their badness to protect continues hardly missing a step. You can say you don't give a sh*t, but I can't help but look at this thread, some 30 pages of recriminations, justifications, feigned virtue, hypocrisy, hurt butts, bile and bullsh*t and say if you don't think it's a problem at all, you're wrong.

Clearly and sadly, DS, we can't do better than this.

Yeah, it's really nuanced.

It's like like the school hasn't been fined and punished at all. It's like they haven't skipped a beat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/sp...

The N.C.A.A. announced significant penalties against Penn State and its football program Monday, including a $60 million fine and a four-year postseason ban, in the wake of the child sexual abuse scandal involving the former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.
The punishment also included the loss of 10 scholarships per year for the next four years, with a limit of 65 total scholarship players on the roster, as opposed to the typical 85, for four years beginning with the 2014 season. The university must also vacate all its victories from 1998 to 2011, meaning that Joe Paterno is no longer the major-college career leader in football coaching wins. The university was also placed on probation for five years.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen a two year suspension prior to the penalties levied. But the notion that Penn State got off scott free is a fiction.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

That's all well and good, but the context the title of this thread isn't asking about criminal charges--it's questioning the culture that lead at least four to commit unspeakable criminal acts. That culture doesn't get addressed in any way, shape, or form by prosecuting those four, and this is the rather nuanced point Malor's been raising. The bad guys are put away or dead, everyone pats themselves on the back, justice served, but the thing the bad guys did their badness to protect continues hardly missing a step. You can say you don't give a sh*t, but I can't help but look at this thread, some 30 pages of recriminations, justifications, feigned virtue, hypocrisy, hurt butts, bile and bullsh*t and say if you don't think it's a problem at all, you're wrong.

Clearly and sadly, DS, we can't do better than this.

Whither the nuance? Perhaps that's the claim you are trying to make, but I haven't seen it argued particularly eloquently thus far.

Edit: No, nevermind again. This has clearly become some bizarre axe grinding some of us stumbled into, so, meh.

No, you are not allowed to make a snide comment and extract yourself from the thread. I want to hear your point and how you would address this problem:

If there is a cultural problem inherent to certain institutions such as football programs, what is the better solution: destroy the program and find some way to fix it? I see in Malor's response the following:

1. Destroying the program is the only solution
2. There are no justifications for keeping it around
3. Those who try to justify keeping the program, for whatever reason, are morally reprehensible

Is my assessment wrong, or have I been completely misrepresenting his argument?

Grubber788 wrote:

No, you are not allowed to make a snide comment and extract yourself from the thread.

Why the f*ck not? The only thing you reacted to in my post was his name, anyone who views the matter even close to the way he does is a fascist, and only one side's insults are fair, seems to me at this point there isn't much discussion about football to be had anymore at this point. He hasn't gotten a very fair shake in this thread, but I don't much feel like discussing Malor.