Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 25, 2011, 11:55:15 AM
-
http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/45434677#45434720
2 more kids come forward including a relative of sanduskys
and guess who was attorney general when he skated a few years back? current governor and pennstate alum corbett. and he chose not to share the info with penn state
http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/45434677#45422086
-
We'll discus the political implications of this development, but if this starts to go the way of the previous thread, it will go down the memory hole most ricky-tic.
-
pa have term limits? i saw a video of him trying to explain not notifying the college of the investigation details. he reminded me of a friend who got caught in the act on the couch with the teenage babysitter by his wife. and was equally effective. i almost felt sorry for him. the ripples of harm keep emanating outward from this
-
Sheriff Joe wouldn't have let this happen. He'd make Sandusky wear pink undies and sleep in a tent...in PA...in Winter.
Chris
-
as annoyed as i was with corbett my read of his press conference was that he genuine in his regret and deeply troubled by what happened. i didn't envy him a bit. he was wise to face the music it will hurt less in the long run
-
Sheriff Joe wouldn't have let this happen. He'd make Sandusky wear pink undies and sleep in a tent...in PA...in Winter.
Chris
Zing! Very good!
-
at least arapios gay sex scandal involved consenting adults only one of whom was part of "the inner circle"
-
1. Where the heck does one have to be, personally, to anally rape kids you started a charity to help?
2. Where the heck does a society have to be, culturally, to soft-step this and not come down on the perpetrator like a ton of bricks when it is first discovered?
3. How long do we pretend that cultural changes over the last few decades did not contribute to #2?
-
at least arapios gay sex scandal involved consenting adults only one of whom was part of "the inner circle"
4. When CSD is making points mitigating Arpaio's misdeeds does anyone else look outside the window for signs of the 'Pockylypse?
-
Sigh. Moreso than Sandusky, some of us here are worried that the Second Mile may be another Boystown ring. The Boystown ring was centered around Lawrence King in Nebraska, with ties to the GOP and various other groups. King was nailed on financial fraud, but no one wanted to look into his child exploitation and blackmail ring. Second Mile is folding up and transferring its assets. It will be trivial to follow the existing assets, but it is possible that if there is a ring, that they might write off the old assets and start a new feeder system.
Boystown was more or less successfully covered up. If there is a ring in PA, it will not be.
Corbett is a hack. I've known him for quite some time. I did roll my eyes when he tried to put my father in jail during a blatantly partisan investigation on House Democrats. He completely ignored the same exact behavior on behalf of House Republicans. The amount of resources that got thrown at Bonusgate... heh. One trooper for Sandusky, dozens for Bonusgate. I honestly doubt he was personally involved, but I have suspicions of members of his staff. If it looks like any members of the GOP is involved, Linda Kelly (who assumed the AG slot from Corbett) will stonewall as much as possible.
Unfortunately, we're not sure how corrupted the Judiciary is. The two judges that were sending hundreds of kids to hell camps may be isolated, may not be. As far as anyone knows, there is no significant organized corruption in the PA state judiciary. Just the standard low level unorganized corruption of favors, backscratching, good ol' boy networks, et al.
If both the AG and Judiciary are turned, yea, it'll be an interesting day. PSP, NG and most of the sheriffs (except Philly) are clear. If Corbett can't be traced on paper to anything, he'll toss anyone to the wolves to save his own neck. He's as loyal of a Republican as I am.
Sheriff Joe wouldn't have let this happen. He'd make Sandusky wear pink undies and sleep in a tent...in PA...in Winter.
Chris
Zing! Very good!
Sheriff Joe is an inefficient and corrupt politician. I guessed that he was a hack from glancing at the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's insurance. Last I heard, they were at a $5m deductible from the number of lawsuits they've lost. I learned in detail of just how incompetent Sheriff Arpaio is from a first hand source that I do deeply trust. A friend of mine spent a weekend in Sheriff Arpaio's "tent city" on driving under the influence charges. Dude had two beers, and in the opinion of the deputy, was incapable of safely operating a vehicle. He did the standard plea bargain thing and thankfully had a good lawyer.
Essentially, the tent city is a media ploy and little else. It is less secure and less "hard time" than conventional jails. On a nightly basis, "footballs" of drugs are thrown over the fence. Anyone who catches the football gets a finder's fee. Apparently it is so common it has been systematized on percentages and conduct. The staff is incompetent and unmotivated. The pink thing doesn't bother the inmates because everyone is wearing the same thing and it's not a personal choice. My friend was quite curious, as this was his first run-in with the law. The other prisoners confirmed that doing time in the tent city was basically the easiest place to spend time. His analogy was it was pretty much a boring summer camp run by incompetent people, from the top down.
Sheriff Arpaio is not a good sheriff. He plays political games to primarily appease his ego and impress the old citizens around Maricopa County that buy his "tough on crime" persona who continue to re-elect him despite his poor law enforcement abilities, the lack of discipline of his employees and the extremely high cost of maintaining the department.
1. Where the heck does one have to be, personally, to anally rape kids you started a charity to help?
2. Where the heck does a society have to be, culturally, to soft-step this and not come down on the perpetrator like a ton of bricks when it is first discovered?
3. How long do we pretend that cultural changes over the last few decades did not contribute to #2?
4. When CSD is making points mitigating Arpaio's misdeeds does anyone else look outside the window for signs of the 'Pockylypse?
1. Power rush moreso than anything else. It's less about the sex, as it is about the rush of having complete control over another person and the ability to do whatever one wishes to another human being. The more defenseless and vulnerable the victim, the stronger the rush. In this case, he did not start the charity to help the kids, but to provide cover.
2. Sigh. Politics in action. Penn State unfortunately does have a very large source of unofficial power. Their alumni pool is friggin huge. There is a lot of money involved as well. And people value a game more than defenseless kids.
3. Uh. It's been that way for quite some time. The details change, but the people don't. This sort of thing has been occurring for as long as humanity has organized into large groups. Never underestimate what people will do to have power over other people. Many people will sell anything, up to and including their soul, in order to have power over other people.
4. No kidding. And I am less than pleased it is happening in my backyard. I like Pennsylvania. I like that it is quiet, and stays out of the news. I do not like scum setting up shop in this state... They'll learn that other places are more tolerant of such things. Not here.
-
1. Where the heck does one have to be, personally, to anally rape kids you started a charity to help?
2. Where the heck does a society have to be, culturally, to soft-step this and not come down on the perpetrator like a ton of bricks when it is first discovered?
When it was "first discovered" only a handful of inner-circle people were aware of it. "Society" is not to blame.
-
Tiberius of Rome and infants/toddlers. ... google.
Caligua was worse. This kind of stuff has always been a plague
-
Tiberius of Rome and infants/toddlers. ... google.
Caligua was worse. This kind of stuff has always been a plague
I think a lot of the allegations WRT Tiberius don't pass the smell test due to being simply impossible biologically. Yes I've read the Lives of the Twelve Caesars.
-
Comparisons to Rome's Empire are perinent in a way that undemines their use in this thread as dismissing my question #3:
The roman republic had much stronger civic morals than the later roman empire and what was toleated during the empire would have gotten one executed during the republic
-
Comparisons to Rome's Empire are perinent in a way that undemines their use in this thread as dismissing my question #3:
The roman republic had much stronger civic morals than the later roman empire and what was toleated during the empire would have gotten one executed during the republic
The roman empire had far superior civic morals to the late Republic. Part of why the Republic fell in the first place. People started being disgusted at the behavior of the Senators.
As for the overall collapse of morality, XKCD had it:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fidiocracy.png&hash=56e241fcf6367b87b70612c77382e6c1d9c52f18)
-
that cartoon doesn't have electrolytes
-
gets worse/better
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/penn-state-scandal-jerry-sandusky-victim-mother_n_1108979.html
"He didn't come out and say anything directly about Jerry at first. He started telling me that he was upset about his school and his grades and that he felt everyone hated him. At first I thought he was just saying what any child says when they're stressed out or in trouble. I reassured him that no one in the school hated him. That's when he told me that they did, because he was always getting pulled out of class."
Victim One then explained to his mother that he was being taken out of school several times a week, sometimes daily. When she pressed him, he explained that Sandusky wanted him to leave the school with him.
She said she immediately knew something was wrong.
"I didn't know about that," she said, shaking her head slowly at the recollection. "I was never aware that he [Sandusky] did that."
According to both Victim One and his mother, it was the assistant principal and varsity football coach Steve Turchetta who authorized and granted Sandusky this access, despite a lack of parental permission or notification.
Turchetta defended his actions, according to the grand jury indictment, saying that it wasn't unusual to "call a Second Mile student out of activity period at the end of the day, at Sandusky's request, to see him."
With her son being taken off school property on a frequent basis without her permission, and his expressed concern about Sandusky being a "sex weirdo," Mother One said she contacted the school.
"I didn't know how to start the conversation with the high school counselor because I didn't know how to come out and say, 'I think Jerry Sandusky is doing something to my kid,'" she explained. "I finally said to the counselor, 'You're a mother. I'm a mother. I have a gut feeling that something isn't right.'"
Mother One explained that her son was clearly troubled by Sandusky and wanted the school to talk with him. She also informed the high school principal, Karen Probst, that she didn't appreciate the school allowing Sandusky to take her son anywhere, and demanded that the school help to stop the visits.
But according to Mother One, the school acted as if there was nothing to be concerned about.
"The principal just waved it off, saying, 'You know, it's Jerry. He's around the school a lot and talks a lot with Second Mile kids. He has a heart of gold.' I was furious. They were defending this guy."
Mother One said she stopped arguing when she realized the principal wasn't willing to admit to any wrongdoing. She then asked that a counselor speak to her son, to see if he'd open up. The school agreed.
A few hours later, her phone rang. It was Probst, who she said asked her to drive to the school immediately.
Mother One already knew where this was going.
Reaching the counselor's office, she saw her son sitting in a chair and crying uncontrollably. He was, she recalled, in "an absolute meltdown."
Then, she said, the principal entered the room.
"The principal said that my son thought something inappropriate might have happened with Jerry. And of course, I instantly lost it."
As her son spoke between sobs, Mother One's worst fears were confirmed. Victim One said he was terrified, and that he thought things would only get worse.
Mother One had heard all she needed to. "Then we're going to call the police," she recalled saying. She looked at the counselor and principal, expecting them to nod, or to agree. Instead, she claims, they told her to think about it, and asked her how it would affect her family.
"I repeated the line three times. I said let's call the police. Right now. Let's do it. And they continued to stare at me."
As his mother described it, her son rocked in his chair and shook his head, looking as if he was about to have a nervous breakdown. Still sobbing, he shouted: "See! They don't believe me!"
Mother One said the counselor and the principal, both women and both employees of the public school system, didn't respond. They didn't offer condolences of any sort, she said.
"I remember saying, 'I'm not playing. This isn't funny. I mean seriously, look how upset he is! Something happened.'"
Mother One said the principal stood her ground.
"Jerry has a heart of gold, he's been around all these kids and you really should just go home and think about what this is going to do to your son and your family if you do that," Mother One recalled the principal saying.
"At that point, I had had enough. I told him that we were leaving. He grabbed his backpack and we just left the women sitting there."
As she drove home, trying to maintain her composure in front of her son, she said she called a close friend who worked with the state's Children's Youth Services program. The friend agreed to meet them at their home, and then took them to the Services center.
That's where she met Dr. Mike Gillum, a licensed psychologist with a private practice in Williamsport, Pa., who has also worked with the state on child abuse cases. He's worked closely with Victim One and Mother One ever since that first meeting.
According to Mother One, Gillum called the principal at the high school to inform her that Sandusky was now the subject of an abuse investigation and therefore could not be allowed near the school or Victim One.
As the full story emerged, Victim One revealed that for nearly two years he was subjected to various sexual acts by Sandusky. Some had even occurred at the middle school and high school, where Sandusky had been given complete access to him by school officials.
On Nov. 7, Pennsylvania State Attorney General Linda Kelly praised Central Mountain High School for "doing the right thing" in the Sandusky matter. The indictment states that the school immediately called the police when it was informed of the abuse.
-
"IT'S ALL BECAUSE OF YOUR SON"
Neither Turchetta nor Probst (nor any school official, for that matter) have explained why Sandusky was given the authority to pull Victim One out of class and take him off school grounds without permission from his mother. Calls placed to the offices of Central Mountain High School have gone unanswered.
And although Sandusky has been barred from the school, Mother One said other problems remained, which also convinced her to pull her son from the school. She said that once her son disclosed the abuse, fellow students and even school administrators remained skeptical -- and often incredulous -- about his claims.
One evening, while Mother One was shopping, she said the grandmother of one of the varsity football players approached her in a rage and, according to Mother One, proceeded to publicly berate her.
"She said, 'Thanks a lot! What are you doing getting involved for your son? Your son doesn't even play football anymore.' I remember saying, 'What are you talking about?'"
According to Mother One, the woman responded, "Oh, your son had to go and accuse Jerry [Sandusky] of abusing him and now he's not allowed to help the football team and he's not allowed around the school."
Aside from Child Youth Services, the police, Gillum, a few school administrators and immediate family members, she said she'd told no one else what had happened to Victim One.
Shocked, she asked the grandmother how she found out. Mother One recalls the woman responding that Turchetta brought it up at his weekly football parent meeting, presumably with family members of the football team.
According to Mother One, the woman added, "Coach Turchetta said these charges are never going to stick and he'll walk away."
"She never asked me if the charges were true. She just finished up with, 'Thanks a lot. Now our football team is going to lose and it's all because of your son.'"
Mother One said that Turchetta found ways to target her son as punishment for getting Sandusky removed from school grounds.
Although Turchetta didn't coach her son directly, his role as assistant principal and his involvement in the sports department gave him influence over other sports programs within the school. Mother One claims her son developed a close bond with a 28-year-old volunteer coach, which Turchetta abruptly ended.
One day, she recalled, her son told her that Turchetta was in his face, yelling at him: "With what you've done already, no 28-year-old man needs to be around you."
"I think he was accusing my son of having some kind of relationship with him," she said. "That's how my son took it, too."
Mother One said it was Turchetta's hostility, coupled with fears for her son's safety, that led her to remove her son from the school last week.
Since the Sandusky scandal broke, many have speculated over Victim One's identity; his mother says some in their community have figured out who he is, and have threatened the boy for being gay (which, she says, he is not).
A few days prior to removing her son from the school, Mother One said she learned some students had been threatening her son. She said she called principal Probst immediately.
"I heard that some kids were going to do some gang beating on my son," she said she told Probst. "I want to make sure you are aware of that and that Mike Gillum was going to talk to the county to see if we could get some police up there, to take whatever measure's to keep him safe."
Mother One said the principal responded by saying: "Okay, we're going to have a meeting and we'll get back to you."
Mother One said she persisted.
"I tried to tell her that the school needed to educate these kids about what my son has been through," she said. "I suggested them having a student assembly where they could talk about abuse so they could understand what has happened."
When the principal called back, she was more concerned about a BB gun found in the back of her son's vehicle more than a month earlier, according to Mother One.
"There was nothing about her meeting, nothing about my son's safety. No response to the threat that some kids were going to hurt my son," Mother One said. "Instead she brought up the BB gun they apparently found over a month ago. She said that he left the school distraught and had a BB gun. And I thought, 'What are you getting at now?' What's that BB gun have to do with this? That BB gun is rusty and probably 100 years old. It's been sitting in his car forever."
Bewildered by the school's inaction, she removed her son from the school.
Gillum believes that the school's actions are at odds with some of the statements about how it handled Victim One's complaints.
"Given the disparity between the actions taken when the initial symptoms were observed and the mother requested intervention to determine whether or not he was being victimized by this man, and then for the school officials to resist pursuing law enforcement or children and youth services, then later down the road to have officials claim that they were suspicious of Jerry Sandusky, or concerned about him, is obviously not congruent," he said.
Mother One said she is also troubled by what she believes are inconsistencies with the school officials' testimonies in the grand jury report. She points out that Turchetta claims he became suspicious of Sandusky's behavior and actions around certain students.
"If he suspected something was going on then why didn't he report it?" she asked.
-
Football is money.
Money is power.
Power corrupts.
-
I'm not exactly surprised. Football is... a very big thing. Especially in rural schools. It's a combination of "not wanting it to be true", and messed up priorities. Lot of "minor" things get overlooked things.
-
Football is... a very big thing. Especially in rural schools.
Especially in Pennsylvania.
-
the principle is a mandated reporter
the coach might not be
-
The roman empire had far superior civic morals to the late Republic. Part of why the Republic fell in the first place. People started being disgusted at the behavior of the Senators.
As for the overall collapse of morality, XKCD had it:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fidiocracy.png&hash=56e241fcf6367b87b70612c77382e6c1d9c52f18)
MB:
If you buy that comic, I question your judgment, as it sacrifices veracity on the altar of the author's political prejudices. That is as bad a habit for libertines as it is for marxists.
The very arguments you make in other threads (that morality has changed in favor of your predilections over the last few decades) undermine your argument in this thread and the point the damnfool author tried to make in the comic.
To elucidate:
Civic virtue and commonly acceptable behavior does change over time and those changes have material effect on both civil society and the individuals in that society. Some times those changes trend toward dissipation and other times those changes trend toward civic and personal rectitude. The only thing they don;t do is remain static.
Whichever direction one personally considers "better" (dissipation vs rectitude), there are consequences, both good and ill, that one must own.
"The only thing that would keep me from winning the election is to be caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
----Huey Long
Not any more, Huey. It will help you get elected in some states.
In the case of Sandusky, actions that would have (at an earlier time) brought complete ruin down on a far more powerful man than he resulted in acceptance of his behavior at a very small personal cost (to Sandusky). Part of the cost of tolerance of buggery in the general case is tolerance of buggery in the particular case where it ought, rather, receive calumny.
The Sandusky case is of a part with the scandal of the Roman Catholic homosexual pedophile priests. They and their superiors were/are products of seminaries where homosexuality became rampant and tolerated as homosexuality becmae tolerated in the culture...and that toleration carried over into their work as priests, bishops, and cardinals.
It may be a wonderful thing that homosexuals engaged in homosexuality who arrange to be seen by law enforcement mid-buggery no longer can be prosecuted for that buggery. Those who think so can bask in their victory at the SCOTUS, but also need to own the unintended consequences of their victory.
-
Only if you believe consensual homosexuality is somehow equivalent to child rape.
I doubt these people would have acted differently if Sandusky were dealing with girls.
-
>In the case of Sandusky, actions that would have (at an earlier time) brought complete ruin down on a far more powerful man than he resulted in acceptance of his behavior at a very small personal cost (to Sandusky). Part of the cost of tolerance of buggery in the general case is tolerance of buggery in the particular case where it ought, rather, receive calumny.<
First off, homosexuality =/= pedophilia. Two different animals.
Secondly, it's not a case of "this is happening more today", as it is "this is getting reported more today". Back in the "good ol' days", this would have been completely swept under the rug...
>The Sandusky case is of a part with the scandal of the Roman Catholic homosexual pedophile priests. They and their superiors were/are products of seminaries where homosexuality became rampant and tolerated as homosexuality becmae tolerated in the culture...and that toleration carried over into their work as priests, bishops, and cardinals.<
Again, see above regarding homosexuality. And, if you REALLY want to bring up the Catholic Church scandal, I would suggest you read Preacherman's blog posts about it...
>It may be a wonderful thing that homosexuals engaged in homosexuality who arrange to be seen by law enforcement mid-buggery no longer can be prosecuted for that buggery. Those who think so can bask in their victory at the SCOTUS, but also need to own the unintended consequences of their victory.<
Those who rape children, as Rev already pointed out, do so out of a sense of dominance over another. It really isn't a sexual thing, sex being a way of exerting their total control over their victim. It's not a case of Bruce finding little Johnny so handsome and attractive that he just can't help himself.
As for the "why aren't they going after this guy even moreso?", I have two words for you: "Roman Polanski"
-
I think Sandusky is attracted to little boys, a reporter asked him point blank & it was obvious the answer was yes because it took him a few minutes to say no. ( if you hear the tape you know what I mean )
Sandusky raped little boys because he was sexually attracted to them.
-
That still doesn't equate to "homosexual". All of the gays I know find the concept of sex with a minor repugnant
-
That still doesn't equate to "homosexual". All of the gays I know find the concept of sex with a minor repugnant
I don't think gunsmith is claiming that. I think he's responding to the "rape is not about sex" assertions.
-
3. How long do we pretend that cultural changes over the last few decades did not contribute to #2?
One thing that has changed for the better is, present case notwithstanding, that this kind of stuff gets reported more often. In the past, sexual abuse allegations would have been brushed under the rug or the victim would have been branded a liar. Just listen to the stories about people that were victimized 30+ years ago. Most either didn't report it because of a fear of retaliation or did report it and no one believed them.
Not that I would ever want to be a victim of sexual abuse, but if I would much rather be a victim now than I would have 30 or 40 years ago.
-
I don't think gunsmith is claiming that. I think he's responding to the "rape is not about sex" assertions.
Kind of, I'm wary of the current politically correct thought on the subject.
In some cases I agree that rape is about power and control, like prison punishment rape or like that case in Afghanistan where there was a gang rape punishment of a girl for her family doing something "wrong". I think in other cases that rape is lust gone crazy, still a horrible crime of course.
-
Assuming the reports are true, yes, Sandusky is a homosexual.
Not your typical homosexual but a pederast homosexual.
Pederasts violate someones rights when they exercise their predilections. They deserve swift and unequivocal punishment.
-
Assuming the reports are true, yes, Sandusky is a homosexual.
Not your typical homosexual but a pederast homosexual.
Pederasts violate someones rights when they exercise their predilections. They deserve swift and unequivocal punishment.
I think the word you're looking for is 'pedophile' but yes.
The point is, increased freedom for regular homosexuals has little bearing on this incident.
-
I think the word you're looking for is 'pedophile' but yes.
The point is, increased freedom for regular homosexuals has little bearing on this incident.
No, pederast is the word I meant to use.
If anything, "homosexual" was somewhat redundant.
-
Folks, no need to parrot politically correct/expedient/convenient bromides here. I have little power to effect cultural reality either way. The least we can do is be honest about that reality in the face of mutual powerlessness to change society from behind our keyboards.
Boiled down to its essentials, my thesis for the general case is that increased tolerance for homosexuality will result in more minor male children (AKA, "boys") being raped by homosexual male men. The specific case is that this may have been a factor contributing to the years-long delay exposing Sandusky and, consequently, allowing him to rape more boys.
The former, general case, is pretty standard fare, economics & social science wise on other topics, but is not trumpeted for political reasons by most. The latter is speculation based on the former.
Perhaps an example of another sensitive topic might provide illumination? So, let us talk guns.
Here is a thesis analogous to that above:
Increased tolerance(1) for firearms will result in more innocent people being killed by violent criminals with firearms.
But, "No!" we can hear adherents to the Sainted John Lott hollering. "More guns = less crime."
Maybe. Maybe not. If am to to discount Michael Bellesiles's negative thesis WRT American gun ownership & crime due to inability to provide the raw data, I (to be both consistent & honest) must also discount John Lott's positive thesis WRT American gun ownership to inability to look at the raw data. Both had "hard drive failures" of some sort, preventing others from looking at their raw data.
We can compare per capita violent homicides with firearms against those of similar countries with strict(er) gun control (less tolerance for firearms) and control for race/income/etc. Guess what? We (the USA, with greater tolerance for firearms) have more violent deaths with firearms, no matter how you slice the data(2) and (3).
Despite this, there is still relatively strong tolerance for firearms in the USA. Put simply, many folks value their reasons for tolerating firearms more than the lives of those violently killed with them.
What reasons?
* Tradition
* Liberty
* Bulwark against tyranny
* Personal protection against criminals
* Perhaps because the availability of firearms reduces murders with other weapons.
* Etc.
One, some, or all of these or other reasons weigh more than the lives of people murdered with firearms for America.
But, this talk about "America" is the usual dilution of responsibility of the individual in the group. Let us bring it closer to home and own our slice of individual responsibility for these deaths.
"I am willing to see some number of innocent people murdered with a firearm for the sake of tradition."
"I am willing to see some number of innocent people murdered with a firearm for the sake of liberty."
"I am willing to see some number of innocent people murdered with a firearm for the sake of republican government."
"I am willing to see some number of innocent people murdered with a firearm for the sake of that 1/10000 chance that I might be attacked by a criminal."
You get the idea.
In this world, all things come at a cost. All actions will have consequences. Folks in Washington can pretend this is not so, but I'd hope we here are adults enough to realize this.
To the extent that you are in favor of tolerance toward firearms, how would you finish this sentence:
"I am willing to see some number of innocent people murdered with a firearm for the sake of..."
If you've been paying attention, you can see the shape of this shinola sandwich to come.
Homosexuality, with Lawrence v Texas, has been decriminalized. Homosexuality, at least in the dominant America culture, is more & more tolerated.
Increased tolerance for homosexuality will result in more minor male children (AKA, "boys") being raped by homosexual male men.
Previous American intolerance for homosexuality did not eliminate it any more than it eliminated handguns in, say, the UK. But, that intolerance did reduce the number of people willing to pay the increased costs (money, status, etc.) of homosexual practices.
Even if we believe the absurd notion that male homosexuality and the rape of boys is wholly unrelated, the incidence of boys being raped by practicing homosexual men would likewise be reduced, given that only some small percentage, X, of practicing male homosexuals engage in pederasty. Are twice as many men, in this more tolerant America, willing to engage in homosexuality than in earlier years? Make that roughly 2X the number of raped boys.
Whether America is willing to admit it or not, America is willing, for some reason(s), to tolerate some number of boys being raped (who otherwise would not be raped) for the sake of tolerance of homosexuality.
What reasons?
* Liberty
* Sexual satisfaction
* Emotional satisfaction
* Etc.
But, again, this talk about "America" is the usual dilution of responsibility of the individual in the group. Let us bring it closer to home and own our slice of individual responsibility for these rapes.
"I am willing to see some number of innocent boys raped by homosexual men for the sake of liberty."
"I am willing to see some number of innocent boys raped by homosexual men for the sake of sexual satisfaction."
"I am willing to see some number of innocent boys raped by homosexual men for the sake of emotional satisfaction."
You get the idea.
In this world, all things come at a cost. All actions will have consequences. Folks in Washington can pretend this is not so, but I'd hope we here are adults enough to realize this.
To the extent that you are in favor of tolerance toward homosexuality, how would you finish this sentence:
"I am willing to see some number of innocent boys raped by homosexual men for the sake of..."
(1) "Tolerance" in both cases meaning decriminalization, ease of access, lessening of social opprobrium, etc. and an overall lowering of the cost/price.
(2) Violent deaths by other means and/or other violent crimes are not suppressed by a low tolerance for firearms.
(3) This is despite the illegal traffic of firearms in theses countries. Yes, firearms are theoretically available for purchase anywhere on the globe, but gov't restriction and/or lack of tolerance drives local prices so high that the practical availability is significantly reduced. There are also this strange breed of folk who refrain from illegal acts just because they are illegal.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi156.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft33%2FAJ_Dual%2Fpopcorn1.gif&hash=a3d59b2e088cbe4001c9329ba65027db2f04f8a7)
-
Using your logic, heterosexuality leads to men raping little girls. You just hate the gays that much, huh?
-
sandusky has a wife and kids at best hes bi. same with fines.
-
Using your logic, heterosexuality leads to men raping little girls. You just hate the gays that much, huh?
I don't see that he hates gays, just that he likes writing. :lol: >:D [popcorn]
-
>Increased tolerance for homosexuality will result in more minor male children (AKA, "boys") being raped by homosexual male men.<
Heh, heh, heh...
In actuality, there have always been boys being sexually assaulted by men. However, in days past, most victims wouldn't come forward out of fear of being labeled homosexual themselves. So, in fact, the increased tolerance of homosexuality has led to better treatment for the victims and more certain prosecution of the perpetrators...
-
The one good thing with this debacle is that now, out of fear, others are coming clean.
I believe Syracuse just fired their b-ball coach.
Seems that investigation has been going nowhere, and now they are scared shiiteless.
I will bet that there will be more instances slinking into the news.....
-
You're probably correct. I'd be willing to place money on the fact that there are more victims...
-
What is it about college sports and homos? Must be all that showering together and butt slapping. Yeah, male bonding, rigggghhhhhtttt.
Chris
-
We can compare per capita violent homicides with firearms against those of similar countries with strict(er) gun control (less tolerance for firearms) and control for race/income/etc. Guess what? We (the USA, with greater tolerance for firearms) have more violent deaths with firearms, no matter how you slice the data(2) and (3).
You are playing a shell-game here. How many people "die by firearm" is entirely irrelevant to the guns vs. crime debate because we don't care whether murders are "by firearm" or not. Nor should we care - an overall higher murder rate where the victims are all stabbed or strangled is worse than a lower murder rate when the victims are shot.
(3) This is despite the illegal traffic of firearms in theses countries. Yes, firearms are theoretically available for purchase anywhere on the globe, but gov't restriction and/or lack of tolerance drives local prices so high that the practical availability is significantly reduced. There are also this strange breed of folk who refrain from illegal acts just because they are illegal.
AHAHAHA.
Ha. Ha.
Seriously?
I can get an assault rifle *cheaper* here than you can get an AR15 at the gun store. See if you can figure out how.
As a matter of fact, the reason humans support gun rights is because we do not believe our neighbors are somehow evil tards whose likelihood of murdering us depends on the presence of a firearm. It is because we trust and respect our fellow man that we are willing to trust them with arms.
There is no proof, of course, that more (or less) people rape children today than 20 years ago.
Logically, though, I don't see how rape of little boys is worse than rape of little girls. Both are equally heinous.
-
Using your logic, heterosexuality leads to men raping little girls. You just hate the gays that much, huh?
Sorry to make you feel uncomfortable discussing grown-up topics.
But, in your inchoate and clumsy lashing out you did manage to hit on (quite by accident) a valid point. That being, unbridled heterosexuality also has consequences, some of which are quite ugly to contemplate. That might be why most every culture since the dawn of history has enacted some system to restrain and/or channel heterosexuality.
Thanks for the assist, however unintended and left-handed it may have been.
I don't see that he hates gays, just that he likes writing. :lol: >:D [popcorn]
By Jamis's logic, I also hate guns. He's zero for two in one post, explicitly and implicitly.
What I like is analysis and being able to think about the unspoken assumptions that folks like to shrug off or not think about.
In actuality, there have always been boys being sexually assaulted by men.
That is a given, but is not the point. Like price signals in economics, the action is at the margins.
-
You are playing a shell-game here. How many people "die by firearm" is entirely irrelevant to the guns vs. crime debate because we don't care whether murders are "by firearm" or not. Nor should we care - an overall higher murder rate where the victims are all stabbed or strangled is worse than a lower murder rate when the victims are shot.
No shell game, just being relentlessly consistent...and I do address non-firearm-related criminality in a footnote. You are inserting values judgements into a quantitative question with your "Nor should we care."
Care to address the argument rather than grouse about the terms?
AHAHAHA.
Ha. Ha.
Seriously?
I can get an assault rifle *cheaper* here than you can get an AR15 at the gun store. See if you can figure out how.
As a matter of fact, the reason humans support gun rights is because we do not believe our neighbors are somehow evil tards whose likelihood of murdering us depends on the presence of a firearm. It is because we trust and respect our fellow man that we are willing to trust them with arms.
There is no proof, of course, that more (or less) people rape children today than 20 years ago.
Logically, though, I don't see how rape of little boys is worse than rape of little girls. Both are equally heinous.
MB, you are not going to win on this one, the economics are too easy. Yes, outlawed objects can, at times, be obtained more cheaply than they might be sold on an open market. This is, however, the exception. Were it otherwise, most liquor in the USA would still be produced/distributed by criminal gangs instead of by corporations and retail liquor stores.
Neither liquor nor firearms have some magic power that exempts them from economic forces.
-
There's a very simple reason firearms are available cheaply in a gun control regime: there is less demand for them. The only people who still purchase firearms are criminals, and criminals buy stolen guns.
Care to address the argument rather than grouse about the terms?
Not when the terms are deliberately misleading.
As a matter of time, there is no evidence that increased gun ownership is related in any way to increases in the overall rate of violence and murder.
In the same way, there's no evidence that increased liberty in consensual relationships relates in some way in increases in the overall rate of rape.
Rape is not merely yet another sexual perversion that you somehow arrive at through an increase in the deviancy of your sexual behavior, in the same way as murder is not just a product of you owning more and more firearms.
Just as there's a vast chasm between shooting IDPA matches and holding up liquor stores, there's a vast chasm betrween rape and swing parties.
-
Funny that you don't address the other side of my post, roo-ster. Any reason why?
-
All this back and forth about homo and hetro and what not is reall irrelevant.
The solution to Sandusky's and his like is simple and can be summed up in 6 words.
Trial
Conviction
Tall tree
Short rope
-
All this back and forth about homo and hetro and what not is reall irrelevant.
The solution to Sandusky's and his like is simple and can be summed up in 6 words.
Trial
Conviction
Tall tree
Short rope
You might want to add Live National News Coverage.
This will inform the rest of the scum that death is imminent.
-
I've been a proponent of live public execution for long time.
Loughner is a good example of those eligible, Nidal Malik Hasan is another. Absolutely no question of guilt.
Roll 'em out on a big flat bed trailer during 1/2 time at the Stuper bowl and swing from the gallows.
-
Rooster, I haven't seen any actual data to support your hypothesis. Just your opinion based on your well known dislike of gays (or "bents" as you like to call them...heh heh, good one rooster).
How about I present some data for you: http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/sites/default/files/31_tab01.pdf
Source: http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/322
Note that the data for 1999-2009 indicates an overall decreasing trend for both males and females.
This supports that assertation: http://www.stopitnow.org/csa_fact_prevalence_decline
Even more support for the idea that child sexual abuse is declining: http://www.d2l.org/site/c.4dICIJOkGcISE/b.6250781/k.5D51/Is_Child_Sexual_Abuse_Getting_Worse.htm
This document attempts to explain the decrease: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/199298.pdf
Unfortunately, it's difficult to find stats specific to boys, but the first PDF I linked to does break it down by sex. Those numbers correlate to an overall decrease in CSA as put forth in the other links.
The question is why is there a decrease? As was stated earlier in this thread, it's probably due to the fact that it's harder to hide nowadays. Decades ago, you could shame a child into silence, call them a liar, or simply move on. If you were a known child raper in one town, moving a couple hundred miles away could buy you some anonymity. That isn't so today. Between the linked data systems, improved communications, and increased awareness, a child rapist isn't as able to disappear. Who doesn't know about Sandusky now? It may have taken some time, but his crimes are public knowledge now. What would have happened 50 years ago? I'm sure you're probably saying they would have strung him up to the nearest tree, but I suspect not only would that not have happened, but even if the crime were locally known, the news probably wouldn't have traveled far from the region. News didn't have the reach decades ago it has now.
I would also put forth that the entire reason for your rant, that increased homosexuality increases boy rape, has made it more likely a child will come forward because there is less stigma of homosexuality. Even communication between children has increased. Kids use the Internet to connect and communicate. They get support from groups and websites. They learn that there is no shame in being the victim. More light is shined upon the attacker. Granted, this is my opinion, but it is no less based on fact than yours. :)
Chris
-
I've been a proponent of live public execution for long time.
Loughner is a good example of those eligible, Nidal Malik Hasan is another. Absolutely no question of guilt.
Roll 'em out on a big flat bed trailer during 1/2 time at the Stuper bowl and swing from the gallows.
It works quite well in Saudi Arabia!
-
Rooster, your arguements are long on wind and short on facts. Where's the beef, man?
-
Rooster, your arguements are long on wind and short on facts. Where's the beef, man?
Between the buns?
-
Between the buns?
:facepalm: That was BAAAAAD.
-
Funny that you don't address the other side of my post, roo-ster. Any reason why?
Perhaps because you have addressed 0% of my post and my answering 50% of your post was a gimme on my part?
OK, just to demonstrate I will address someone's posts rather than assume ill motives or roll around in non-sequitur land...
I assume you mean this bit:
However, in days past, most victims wouldn't come forward out of fear of being labeled homosexual themselves. So, in fact, the increased tolerance of homosexuality has led to better treatment for the victims and more certain prosecution of the perpetrators...
Sorry, but that bit lies in the realm of unreality. Most children have not yet gone to college and been indoctrinated into the myth of the sainted homosexual (see "numinous negro" for the model).
Go to any public school playground and listen a bit. We have one across the street from us that I walk by on occasion. They are not Zones of Sensitivity toward homosexuality. "Fag," "queer," and suchlike are still commonly used. Walk by a public school playground with a large illegal alien contingent and they are even less worried by PC concerns and use terms like "maricon," "manflor," and others with even greater frequency. (Also, I hear wide use of spanglish terms derision that are jarring on the ear.)
The point being, most kids still haven't got the pro-homosexualist memo and most victims of pederasts will still fear being labeled. Also, we have let in a large group of kids who are even less sensitive to the issue and most certainly will label.
So, yeah, nice thought, but I don't buy it.
-
Rooster, your arguements are long on wind and short on facts. Where's the beef, man?
Address the post and/or logic. All I have seen from you is the assumption of ill motive.
After several examples, I begin to suspect you have not the capacity to address it honestly.
If you are scared to address the logic of "In this world, all things come at a cost" in the primary context of this thread, perhaps try to address it in the context of firearms. Or do you believe that there is no price to be paid or deleterious consequences for actions & beliefs...as long as they are those you hold dear?
At the least, I thought you might ask me the same question I asked you & other participants.
-
Rooster, I haven't seen any actual data to support your hypothesis. Just your opinion based on your well known dislike of gays (or "bents" as you like to call them...heh heh, good one rooster).
Yeah, I stopped reading after your assumption of ill motive. It gets tiring.
So, I assume you believe that actions and beliefs can be taken/held with no deleterious consequences?
-
Yeah, I stopped reading after your assumption of ill motive. It gets tiring.
Of course you stopped. I did something you didn't, I presented actual numbers, data. You've presented nothing but opinion and vitriol.
So, I assume you believe that actions and beliefs can be taken/held with no deleterious consequences?
How about you connect the two with facts, verifiable statistics. What you "believe" is true isn't and you can't prove it. You sound like a liberal who "believes" guns cause violence.
If you are serious about protecting children and not persecuting "bents", then you might be just as concerned about other factors of life that result in child abuse (sexual, physical, and mental). One thing I picked up in less than an hour's worth or research online was the myriad ways a child can be damaged. A gay man buggering boys is very low on the list.
Chris
-
>Sorry, but that bit lies in the realm of unreality. Most children have not yet gone to college and been indoctrinated into the myth of the sainted homosexual (see "numinous negro" for the model). <
Wow... didn't realize I was just talking about their peers.
Wasn't that long ago, it was believed that a boy raped by a man would "become gay". Wasn't just other kids that believed that, but a huge portion of society...
Now, I'm not sure what you do that gives you contact with abused kids, so you can form an educated opinion. Me, all I have is anecdotal evidence: the kids I and my brothers and sisters work with. And what I've seen (and heard from some of my brothers of days past) supports my belief that the acceptance of homosexuality by our culture has resulted in more young male victims being willing to come forward now. Your proof of the opposite, if you please?
-
Of course you stopped. I did something you didn't, I presented actual numbers, data. You've presented nothing but opinion and vitriol.
Again, assumption of ill motive. Vitriol? Might want to look it up. I can reasonably say that it does not mean, "opinion, idea, or logic contrary to mine." The only poster I have even been the least bit short with was Jamis, after his assumption of ill motive.
How about you connect the two with facts, verifiable statistics. What you "believe" is true isn't and you can't prove it. You sound like a liberal who "believes" guns cause violence.
"Ideas Have Consequences" is a very conservative thesis. Matter of fact, somebody wrote a book with that very title, once:
In what has become a classic work, Richard M. Weaver unsparingly diagnoses the ills of our age and offers a realistic remedy. He asserts that the world is intelligible, and that man is free. The catastrophes of our age are the product not of necessity but of unintelligent choice. A cure, he submits, is possible. It lies in the right use of man's reason, in the renewed acceptance of an absolute reality, and in the recognition that ideas—like actions—have consequences.
The idea of "something for nothing" is the liberal idea you are looking for. And maybe endorse? Not sure about the latter, since you have never addressed the logic of the thesis.
If you are serious about protecting children and not persecuting "bents", then you might be just as concerned about other factors of life that result in child abuse (sexual, physical, and mental). One thing I picked up in less than an hour's worth or research online was the myriad ways a child can be damaged. A gay man buggering boys is very low on the list.
When we have a post about child safety seats I might very well address the trade offs involved with mandating them. They ain't free, either. And when there is a post about drunks beating their kids, ditto. But, this thread/topic has a particular focus which is not the price of tea in China, Senor Non-Sequitur.
-
>Sorry, but that bit lies in the realm of unreality. Most children have not yet gone to college and been indoctrinated into the myth of the sainted homosexual (see "numinous negro" for the model). <
Wow... didn't realize I was just talking about their peers.
Wasn't that long ago, it was believed that a boy raped by a man would "become gay". Wasn't just other kids that believed that, but a huge portion of society...
Now, I'm not sure what you do that gives you contact with abused kids, so you can form an educated opinion. Me, all I have is anecdotal evidence: the kids I and my brothers and sisters work with. And what I've seen (and heard from some of my brothers of days past) supports my belief that the acceptance of homosexuality by our culture has resulted in more young male victims being willing to come forward now. Your proof of the opposite, if you please?
Sure.
After you address my thesis (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=32404.msg645204#msg645204) in length, detail, and directness similar to the manner I have addressed your tangential topics. Or be the first person to answer the question I posed and maybe even toss it back into my face.
-
Sure.
After you address my thesis (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=32404.msg645204#msg645204) in length, detail, and directness similar to the manner I have addressed your tangential topics. Or be the first person to answer the question I posed and maybe even toss it back into my face.
Your thesis is that homosexuality (the act of two consenting adults of the same sex doing things to each other) = more male rape of little boys.
Most of us are asserting that you're full of crap.
What need is there to address your long winded tirade in depth?
-
Ok, I'll bite. Is actually already been done.
A core statement of your thesis: "Increased tolerance for homosexuality will result in more minor male children (AKA, "boys") being raped by homosexual male men."
Which is simply not the case. Period, full stop.
We do have more victims coming forward, but many of them are also coming forward as adults, and referring to assaults that happened when they were children (things such as the Catholic church's issue).
We are more likely to hear about the crime soon enough to actually prosecute today, but it's not happening at an increased rate.
>Even if we believe the absurd notion that male homosexuality and the rape of boys is wholly unrelated, the incidence of boys being raped by practicing homosexual men would likewise be reduced, given that only some small percentage, X, of practicing male homosexuals engage in pederasty. Are twice as many men, in this more tolerant America, willing to engage in homosexuality than in earlier years? Make that roughly 2X the number of raped boys.<
Unfortunately for your thesis, it isn't a straight-forward correlation. Things in life rarely are.
What you suggest, that with twice as many men willing to engage in homosexual behavior=twice as many boys being sexually abused doesn't take into account the issue of the person being a pederast. You're too hung up on their sexual orientation.
Such deviants are, generally speaking, VERY willing to take the risk of offending, and have been for years. Simply doubling the number of men willing to act on homosexual urges has no effect on the number of men willing to act on pederast urges, as the two don't correlate.
Or, to put it easier: every "boy lover" pederast is homosexual, but not every homosexual is a pederast...
-
Your thesis is that homosexuality (the act of two consenting adults of the same sex doing things to each other) = more male rape of little boys.
Most of us are asserting that you're full of crap.
What need is there to address your long winded tirade in depth?
Sorry, you have mis-stated the thesis (to your advantage).
I heard it was "Be Kind To Serial Assumers Of Ill Intent Week," so I'll help.
OK, here we go:
The title of the post:
All Things Come at a Cost in This World, No Exceptions
Hey, part of this used italics and even uses the word "thesis" in it:
Boiled down to its essentials, my thesis for the general case is that increased tolerance for homosexuality will result in more minor male children (AKA, "boys") being raped by homosexual male men. The specific case is that this may have been a factor contributing to the years-long delay exposing Sandusky and, consequently, allowing him to rape more boys.
I then go on to use the analogy of firearms for those unable/unwilling to address the thesis more inline with the OP. Again, it even had italics:
Increased tolerance(1) for firearms will result in more innocent people being killed by violent criminals with firearms.
[I probably don't have to tell you to ignore most the content & logic between theses, you seem to be doing that just fine already.]
Again, in italics:
In this world, all things come at a cost.
Then, an italics-free question:
To the extent that you are in favor of tolerance toward firearms, how would you finish this sentence:
"I am willing to see some number of innocent people murdered with a firearm for the sake of..."
(I did provide several handy & common answers, so it was more pick-n-pray than fill-in-the-blank.)
Repeat for the more topical question.
-
Boiled down to its essentials, my thesis for the general case is that increased tolerance for homosexuality will result in more minor male children (AKA, "boys") being raped by homosexual male men.
Which was shot down by the actual data provided in my post showing a decrease in incidence of male child sexual assault specifically and overall child sexual assault generally over the past decade. You can't claim increased tolerance leads to an increase in male child sexual assault when there is a downward trend over a decade.
Where is your data supporting your specific claims?
Chris
-
All Things Come at a Cost in This World, No Exceptions
Were this even true, it still does not follow that they come at the specific cost that you, roo_ster, claim they do.
For example, child sexual abuse is on the decline.
-
Ok, I'll bite. Is actually already been done.
A core statement of your thesis: "Increased tolerance for homosexuality will result in more minor male children (AKA, "boys") being raped by homosexual male men."
Which is simply not the case. Period, full stop.
We do have more victims coming forward, but many of them are also coming forward as adults, and referring to assaults that happened when they were children (things such as the Catholic church's issue).
We are more likely to hear about the crime soon enough to actually prosecute today, but it's not happening at an increased rate.
>Even if we believe the absurd notion that male homosexuality and the rape of boys is wholly unrelated, the incidence of boys being raped by practicing homosexual men would likewise be reduced, given that only some small percentage, X, of practicing male homosexuals engage in pederasty. Are twice as many men, in this more tolerant America, willing to engage in homosexuality than in earlier years? Make that roughly 2X the number of raped boys.<
Unfortunately for your thesis, it isn't a straight-forward correlation. Things in life rarely are.
What you suggest, that with twice as many men willing to engage in homosexual behavior=twice as many boys being sexually abused doesn't take into account the issue of the person being a pederast. You're too hung up on their sexual orientation.
Such deviants are, generally speaking, VERY willing to take the risk of offending, and have been for years. Simply doubling the number of men willing to act on homosexual urges has no effect on the number of men willing to act on pederast urges, as the two don't correlate.
Or, to put it easier: every "boy lover" pederast is homosexual, but not every homosexual is a pederast...
Wow, someone addressed the topic. Knock me over with a feather.
Your ultimate point...
Or, to put it easier: every "boy lover" pederast is homosexual, but not every homosexual is a pederast...
...is unassailable. No argument.
As for the rest, let us first assume that every point made, base stolen, and quantity, uh, quantified is capital-T truth and my thesis invalid.
Given that ^^^, does increased toleration of male homosexuality have no deleterious consequences whatsoever? Is this particular idea somehow different from almost every other idea in that it is all upside? If so, how is it different? If not, what are some of the downside consequences?
For instance:
I love economic liberty. Economic liberty is great, better than ice cream in my opinion. I want to increase economic liberty and free us all from the fetters of gov't interference in the economy, right now. Since I love it and economic liberty makes me feel warm & fuzzy & morally superior, it has no downside, right?
Wrong. Just one downside of implementing economic liberty right spanking now would be a real decline in material well-being of folks who have become dependent on economically un-free policies (like wealth transfer payments, diversity quotas, etc.) and can not transition in a timely manner. If I am honest to myself and to others, I ought to own it, "I am willing to see some number of people become materially poorer for the sake of economic liberty." FTR, I am.
-
does increased toleration of male homosexuality have no deleterious consequences whatsoever?
If one looks hard enough or lowers the threshold for "deleterious consequences" enough, you could at some point find negatives to fit your thesis. Does that make increased toleration "bad". No, it doesn't.
Frankly, if you replaced "male homosexuality" with "handicapped" or "black" or any descriptor you can think of, you could eventually find a negative consequence of the increased tolerance. For example, increased tolerance of handicapped people means businesses have to design facilities usable by people with handicaps. That costs them money, costs which are passed along to the rest of us. Increased tolerance of black people means we have to tolerate gangsta rap and higher crime in inner city areas. See? Cast a wide enough net and you'll find some negative result.
The point is, everything likely has a negative effect on *someone*. Does that mean it's a net negative? No.
And, FTR, I'm not negatively affected by increased tolerance of male homosexuals. Their existence does not diminish mine.
Chris
-
Given that ^^^, does increased toleration of male homosexuality have no deleterious consequences whatsoever? Is this particular idea somehow different from almost every other idea in that it is all upside? If so, how is it different? If not, what are some of the downside consequences?
There's plenty of ideas that have no visible universally agreed-upon downsides.
Take the free speech tradition. Sure it means people like Fred Phelps get to speak out and not be arrested, but that's not so much a downside as a direct point of free speech - I don't want to be a member of a society that arrests people for their religious and political views. To other people that would be a downside and many people want to carve out an exception for Phelps.
Or the gun rights tradition. As a matter of fact, no, there's no visible proof that more guns = more murder, and the only 'cost' is that it makes some bedwetters feel oh-so-offended at the knowledge someone has a firearm in the same office/school/campus as them.
-
Can we get back to something relevant ... like lynching Sandusky and that other coach from Whatever U?
-
i'll pull on that rope
-
None of that lynching stuff now. Gotta have a real trial and conviction first THEN we can draw and quarter the offenders and send their various bits to the four corners of the realm, head on a pike and all that.
-
None of that lynching stuff now. Gotta have a real trial and conviction first THEN we can draw and quarter the offenders and send their various bits to the four corners of the realm, head on a pike and all that.
Years ago, I would have suggested putting them in a room with the parents, who would kill them.
Seems in these latest instances that the parents were ignoring the issue, just like everyone else.
-
That's because nobody wants to be the one who rats out the coach.
Yet another reason to hate professional sports (and collegiate sports ARE professional)
-
Sandusky got away with it because of power and money, not out of homosexual tolerance.
If it was about tolerance of Homosexuals, then this guy would have gotten away with it, no?
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=32464.0
Can we get back to something relevant ... like lynching Sandusky and that other coach from Whatever U?
Dibbs on smacking the horse....
-
^^^^ Totally agree with JJ's statement. I wonder what will come of the disappearance of the prosecutor?
-
I wonder what will come of the disappearance of the prosecutor?
Ignored, and filed under missing persons. If his corpse is found, which it won't, suicide.
-
What if the missing DA... got a ride? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3S24ofEQj4&feature=player_embedded) =|