PDA

View Full Version : Penn State deserves the death penalty


Kimon
05-05-2016, 07:48 PM
Joe Paterno knew about Sandusky in 1976.

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/05/court_filing_says_joe_paterno.html

Ivhon
05-05-2016, 09:14 PM
At this point, the death penalty just punishes innocent people

Kimon
05-05-2016, 09:22 PM
At this point, the death penalty just punishes innocent people

In terms of the current players, who have nothing to do with the wrong-doing, yes. But they can transfer and play somewhere else.

It is, however, very difficult to feel sympathetic to the university or its fans, when they still defend and lionize Joe Paterno. Or when they have continued to fight back against both their criminal and civil liability, and against the sanctions previously handed down from the ncaa - here, inexplicably, with success. Or that after Bill O'Brien fled to the nfl, that they replaced him with another man (James Franklin) with a very checkered-past of liability in covering up sexual assaults while at the helm at Vanderbilt.

If there was ever another program that deserved the SMU treatment, it is clearly Penn State. All SMU did was pay players. Hell, half of the SEC does that. Ole Miss doesn't even bother to be coy about it. Penn State worships a man who harbored and enabled a child predator.

Kimon
05-06-2016, 11:32 PM
This one is from 1971. Again, with direct obstruction by Joe Paterno.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/06/us/jerry-sandusky-victims-paterno-penn-state/index.html?sr=twCNN050616jerry-sandusky-victims-paterno-penn-state0957PMStoryGalPhoto&linkId=24234146

Sandusky is in jail. Paterno has escaped justice (because he's dead - otherwise he'd be rotting in jail). Penn State is just as culpable in this as Paterno. They shouldn't be allowed to escape justice.

Davian93
05-07-2016, 09:16 PM
They should find a way to bring JoePa back from the dead...just so they can kill him again.

PSU fans are still in total denial of course.

Kimon
05-08-2016, 06:03 PM
On open letter from the president of Penn State...

http://news.psu.edu/story/409338/2016/05/08/president/president-shares-letter-university-community-regarding-recent

Dear Friends:

Over the past few days, allegations have surfaced from individuals who claim to be Sandusky victims and from unidentified individuals about the alleged knowledge of former University employees. None of these allegations about the supposed knowledge of University employees has been substantiated in a court of law or in any other process to test their veracity.

I want you to know I am appalled by the rumor, innuendo and rush to judgment that have accompanied the media stories surrounding these allegations. All too often in our society, people are convicted in the court of public opinion, only to find a different outcome when all the facts are presented.

In contrast, over the last two days we have worked to be diligent in reanalyzing the record of reports and depositions to ensure that our reactions and comments are both responsible and trustworthy.

First, the allegations related to Penn State are simply not established fact. The two allegations related to knowledge by Coach Paterno are unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence other than a claim by an alleged victim. They date from the 1970s. Coach Paterno is not alive to refute them. His family has denied them.

Second, we cannot find any evidence, related to a settlement or otherwise, that an alleged early assault was communicated to Coach Paterno. This raises considerable credibility issues as to this press report. Others cite assistant coaches that were witnesses or had knowledge – stating it as fact in headlines and text – even in the face of a denial and clear failure to corroborate from the individuals allegedly involved. Other stories are clearly incredulous, and should be difficult for any reasonable person to believe. We should not be rendering judgments about the actions of Coach Paterno or any other former employees of Penn State based on incomplete, sensationalized media accounts.

I can think of few crimes as heinous as the sexual assault of a child. We are, as individuals and as an institution, appalled by Sandusky’s actions, and unified in our commitment to prevention, treatment and education. I encourage you to visit this link for information on Penn State’s commitment.

Unfortunately, we can’t control the 24/7 news cycle, and the tendency of some individuals in social media and the blogosphere to rush to judgment. But I have had enough of the continued trial of the institution in various media. We have all had enough. And while Penn State cannot always comment on allegations that emanate from legal proceedings, I thought it was important to let you know my reaction to the media frenzy that has ensued over the past few days. I am appalled.

Sincerely,

Eric Barron
President

Davian93
05-08-2016, 08:03 PM
What a joke.

Ozymandias
05-09-2016, 03:24 PM
On open letter from the president of Penn State...


The problem with this is that it comes off as defending a sex offender. We know Sandusky, and by extension Paterno, was guilty; it's perfectly within the limits of logic to believe this new accuser. And even if not, this is an inappropriate reaction by President Barron. The balance of our sympathy must always be overwhelmingly with victims, actual and potential.

It would be one thing if this was the first were hearing of anything. But it boggles the mind that Mr. Barron can so strenuously defend the legacy of proven sex offenders. His university was complicit in the most horrifying crime possible to commit; the sooner they accept responsibility and try to honestly atone, the better for everyone involved. They're already irredeemably guilty; fighting new allegations doesn't help anything or anyone.

Nazbaque
05-09-2016, 04:35 PM
Ozy, how many most horrifying crimes are there? I thought you put genocide on top of that list.

Kimon
05-09-2016, 06:06 PM
The problem with this is that it comes off as defending a sex offender. We know Sandusky, and by extension Paterno, was guilty; it's perfectly within the limits of logic to believe this new accuser. And even if not, this is an inappropriate reaction by President Barron. The balance of our sympathy must always be overwhelmingly with victims, actual and potential.

This, as it happens, is apparently part of their original settlement payments, so they have already essentially conceded the basic veracity of the crimes...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/05/09/penn-state-payments-cover-sandusky-accusations-from-as-far-back-as-1971/

This fight, and the source of his "appalled" reaction, is thus purely over the further injury to the sacred memory of Joe Paterno. If they would simply give up on apotheosizing him, and instead give him a much needed damnatio memoriae, this would be far less of a story. At present, their stance has the feel of both admitting that they were victims of Sandusky, and simulaneously arguing that regardless of being Sandusky's victims, that their claim that JoePa was complicit was an even more appalling crime than what Sandusky had done to them.

Davian93
05-09-2016, 09:45 PM
Happy Valley should be razed to the ground and then they should salt the earth.

Delenda Est Penn Publica!


Note: My latin is a bit rusty...been 18 years since I've used it.

Kimon
05-09-2016, 11:10 PM
Happy Valley should be razed to the ground and then they should salt the earth.

Delenda Est Penn Publica!


Note: My latin is a bit rusty...been 18 years since I've used it.

It works, though I would have placed the subject before the gerundive of obligation. "Penn Publica" also looks suspiciously like Google Translate. I'd go with "Paternus damnandus est", though your version is obviously a nice play on Cato's famous sententia.

Davian93
05-09-2016, 11:20 PM
fun story, I remembered that publica/publicae was the word for State/country, etc so I ran it through Google Translate to see if I could get the right conjugation.

Like I said...been a long time for Latin.

Kimon
05-09-2016, 11:41 PM
fun story, I remembered that publica/publicae was the word for State/country, etc so I ran it through Google Translate to see if I could get the right conjugation.

Like I said...been a long time for Latin.

Res publica means state. Publica by itself really just means public. So you technically said "Penn Public must be destroyed". Though urging that the "Pennsylvania Res Publica delenda est" might perhaps have confused Jove and resulted in his numen being called down on the entire state of Pennsylvania.

Davian93
05-09-2016, 11:42 PM
Res publica means state. Publica by itself really just means public. So you technically said "Penn Public must be destroyed". Though urging that the "Pennsylvania Res Publica delenda est" might perhaps have confused Jove and resulted in his numen being called down on the entire state of Pennsylvania.

Oh yeah...totally forgot it was res publica.

GonzoTheGreat
05-10-2016, 04:20 AM
Res publica means state. Publica by itself really just means public. So you technically said "Penn Public must be destroyed". Though urging that the "Pennsylvania Res Publica delenda est" might perhaps have confused Jove and resulted in his numen being called down on the entire state of Pennsylvania.
As Rumsfeld said: "stuff happens, we don't do body counts."

yks 6nnetu hing
05-10-2016, 04:32 AM
As Rumsfeld said: "stuff happens, we don't do body counts."

I know one better, by Stalin: "One death is a tragedy. A million - statistics"



(he also said "No person - no problem")

GonzoTheGreat
05-10-2016, 06:02 AM
I know one better, by Stalin: "One death is a tragedy. A million - statistics"



(he also said "No person - no problem")Stalin was the more competent* statesman of the two, no doubt about that. But I'm not sure that conservative Americans would prefer him as an authority over one of their own.

* Note that I did not say "admirable". Though he might possibly win even that competition in this case.

yks 6nnetu hing
05-10-2016, 06:50 AM
Stalin was the more competent* statesman of the two, no doubt about that. But I'm not sure that conservative Americans would prefer him as an authority over one of their own.

* Note that I did not say "admirable". Though he might possibly win even that competition in this case.

it all depends on how you measure these things and what your survey group is like.

to quote another Soviet leader ( I think it was Brezhnev but I'm not 100% sure): "Politicians are the same everywhere. They promise to build a bridge even if there's no river"

GonzoTheGreat
05-10-2016, 06:59 AM
it all depends on how you measure these things and what your survey group is like.

to quote another Soviet leader ( I think it was Brezhnev but I'm not 100% sure): "Politicians are the same everywhere. They promise to build a bridge even if there's no river"
But Stalin held on to power until after he died; Rumsfeld didn't. Stalin still has admirers, Rumsfeld doesn't.

I'm not saying Stalin was good. I am just saying that Rumsfeld was even more of a failure. Which, come to think of it, may not even be an altogether bad thing, in this particular competition.

Edited to add:
Whether one chooses to emulate Stalin or Rumsfeld in dealing with Pennsylvania State doesn't seem to matter all that much, so this is a mostly theoretical side discussion anyway.

Ozymandias
05-10-2016, 04:14 PM
Ozy, how many most horrifying crimes are there? I thought you put genocide on top of that list.

Sorry, I assumed people here would be using their brains.

One person can't commit genocide (unless the group in question is vanishingly small by demographic standards).

But, for those of us a little less with the program than others, I will amend.

Crimes against children are second to crimes against entire population groups, which, SHOCKINGLY, include children.

Nazbaque
05-10-2016, 04:23 PM
Sorry, I assumed people here would be using their brains.

Why would you assume that? You never use yours.

yks 6nnetu hing
05-11-2016, 02:07 AM
guys, ad hominem much?

Nazbaque
05-11-2016, 03:36 AM
guys, ad hominem much?

Not exactly. I may have ridiculed him, but it's a conclusion based on his arguments not an attempt to counter them. As usual I'm not disagreeing with his general opinion, but the minor details. In this particular case his use of a superlative where he doesn't truly mean it. That's an emotional dramatisation which shows that once again he is focused on the surface of things rather than the subtleties.

If you touch a hot stove you immediately draw your hand away. It's a reflex reaction to the pain felt through your sense of touch. There are many ways in which we reflexively react to our physical senses and it happens everyday which is all well and good. But we also have mental senses or at least one mental sense through which we have the sensations we call emotions. Fear and delight are the mental equivalents of the pain and pleasure our bodies feel.

And now we come to the point because just as with your hand and the hot stove, people sometimes react to their emotions without involving their brains, which is what Ozy does all too much. Most of what we see from him is his angry or fearful reactions and the justifications he offers for those emotions. We don't see actual contemplation from him and as that requires the ability to rise above one's emotional reactions, I assume we don't see it because he doesn't have that ability. Of course I could be wrong absense of evidence not being evidence of absense, but since my personal opinion is that having and not using is worse than not having in this particular case, I feel I've been generous with him.

yks 6nnetu hing
05-11-2016, 07:55 AM
Not exactly. I may have ridiculed him, but it's a conclusion based on his arguments not an attempt to counter them. As usual I'm not disagreeing with his general opinion, but the minor details. In this particular case his use of a superlative where he doesn't truly mean it. That's an emotional dramatisation which shows that once again he is focused on the surface of things rather than the subtleties.

If you touch a hot stove you immediately draw your hand away. It's a reflex reaction to the pain felt through your sense of touch. There are many ways in which we reflexively react to our physical senses and it happens everyday which is all well and good. But we also have mental senses or at least one mental sense through which we have the sensations we call emotions. Fear and delight are the mental equivalents of the pain and pleasure our bodies feel.

And now we come to the point because just as with your hand and the hot stove, people sometimes react to their emotions without involving their brains, which is what Ozy does all too much. Most of what we see from him is his angry or fearful reactions and the justifications he offers for those emotions. We don't see actual contemplation from him and as that requires the ability to rise above one's emotional reactions, I assume we don't see it because he doesn't have that ability. Of course I could be wrong absense of evidence not being evidence of absense, but since my personal opinion is that having and not using is worse than not having in this particular case, I feel I've been generous with him.

How do I put it so that you understand... it's like a pot and a sieve. The one is useful for one thing, the other is useful for something else; it does not however mean that one is by definition better than the other. And neither of them is much use when you need to chop wood.

you're like a sieve that wants all the pots in the world to be sieves. But why? Just because it's "logical"? I mean, one can drain macaroni fine without a sieve. Sure, it's perhaps not the most *efficient* way of going about the activity but the end result is still satisfactory. So what if some (read: most) people approach moral and ethical dilemmas, such as serious crimes against other humans/humanity, from an emotional point of view rather than the etherally logical.




dammit, now I'm hungry.



also, you have previously admitted to using the "it's only logical" approach just to get a rise out of people. So I don't really know why I've bothered to answer in the first place. Particularly since 1) it's not my fight and 2) I don't actually agree with Ozy on this point.


*wanders off in search of a sandwich*

Nazbaque
05-11-2016, 12:24 PM
How do I put it so that you understand... it's like a pot and a sieve. The one is useful for one thing, the other is useful for something else; it does not however mean that one is by definition better than the other. And neither of them is much use when you need to chop wood.

you're like a sieve that wants all the pots in the world to be sieves. But why? Just because it's "logical"? I mean, one can drain macaroni fine without a sieve. Sure, it's perhaps not the most *efficient* way of going about the activity but the end result is still satisfactory. So what if some (read: most) people approach moral and ethical dilemmas, such as serious crimes against other humans/humanity, from an emotional point of view rather than the etherally logical.
That sieve and pot thing... I think I understand what you are getting at, but in many ways it's not a fitting metaphor. It's not that Ozy is a pot, but that he is only clean on the outside and the inside needs a thorough cleaning before it can be useful. He's a pot and I'm a sieve, but there is the common ground of hygine which all utensils need to be satisfactory in or they just won't be useful.

Right is not the opposite of wrong, but it's absence. This is something emotionally undisciplined people always get wrong. It's not that the emotions are there, but that people aren't responsible with them. If utensils never get dirty from use they are pointless, but they need to be cleaned afterwards.

My problem isn't that other people aren't sieves, but that I'm not a scrubbing brush.

also, you have previously admitted to using the "it's only logical" approach just to get a rise out of people. So I don't really know why I've bothered to answer in the first place. Particularly since 1) it's not my fight and 2) I don't actually agree with Ozy on this point.

Some people won't take a shower until you point out that they smell. It's why I use that approach and also why you keep calling me out. Maybe you're the scrubbing brush and while very useful for the cause of hygine, cleaning sieves is a bit tricky.

GonzoTheGreat
05-11-2016, 01:14 PM
Right is not the opposite of wrong, but it's absence.Kill them all, then justice will be finally done?

I'm not entirely convinced by that theory, though I admit that it has a certain simplistic charm. It's not wholly original, but then, it is deucedly hard to be original in this branch of philosophy.
Sometimes right is the opposite of wrong, often it is something different entirely.

And, to keep things really complicated: pure logic can not come up with a moral system more complicated yet still consistent than the one I suggested in my opening paragraph. So either you do resort to killing all intelligent beings, or you're gonna have to use emotion to worry about morality and ethics. That's one of the things that emotions evolved to do, after all. Applying intelligence to it is a far more recent approach, and not always one that helps much. It is in general a good idea to try to come up with a consistent morality, which does require intelligence to work it out, but expecting this to be fool proof is lunacy.

Edited to add:
I don't really see how applying a sieve and a pot to macaroni makes a sandwich, but I'm sure a really good cook could figure that one out. Probably wouldn't be very logical, though.

Nazbaque
05-11-2016, 01:44 PM
Kill them all, then justice will be finally done?
Exactly what I mean Gonzo. You aren't supposed to use a wrong to make things right.
I'm not entirely convinced by that theory, though I admit that it has a certain simplistic charm. It's not wholly original, but then, it is deucedly hard to be original in this branch of philosophy.
Sometimes right is the opposite of wrong, often it is something different entirely.
Give me an example of a right being the opposite of a wrong and I will show you how it either isn't wrong or the other not right or the two not being opposite.
And, to keep things really complicated: pure logic can not come up with a moral system more complicated yet still consistent than the one I suggested in my opening paragraph. So either you do resort to killing all intelligent beings, or you're gonna have to use emotion to worry about morality and ethics. That's one of the things that emotions evolved to do, after all. Applying intelligence to it is a far more recent approach, and not always one that helps much. It is in general a good idea to try to come up with a consistent morality, which does require intelligence to work it out, but expecting this to be fool proof is lunacy.

Edited to add:
I don't really see how applying a sieve and a pot to macaroni makes a sandwich, but I'm sure a really good cook could figure that one out. Probably wouldn't be very logical, though.

Your concept of pure logic is lacking. Logic is capable of this, but humans aren't capable of being that logical. There are instincts, emotions and thoughts. A lot of people mistake instincts for emotions and emotions for thoughts.

Lunacy? How many times do I need to tell people that I'm insane?

Ozymandias
05-11-2016, 03:22 PM
Not exactly. I may have ridiculed him, but it's a conclusion based on his arguments not an attempt to counter them. As usual I'm not disagreeing with his general opinion, but the minor details. In this particular case his use of a superlative where he doesn't truly mean it. That's an emotional dramatisation which shows that once again he is focused on the surface of things rather than the subtleties.

If you touch a hot stove you immediately draw your hand away. It's a reflex reaction to the pain felt through your sense of touch. There are many ways in which we reflexively react to our physical senses and it happens everyday which is all well and good. But we also have mental senses or at least one mental sense through which we have the sensations we call emotions. Fear and delight are the mental equivalents of the pain and pleasure our bodies feel.

And now we come to the point because just as with your hand and the hot stove, people sometimes react to their emotions without involving their brains, which is what Ozy does all too much. Most of what we see from him is his angry or fearful reactions and the justifications he offers for those emotions. We don't see actual contemplation from him and as that requires the ability to rise above one's emotional reactions, I assume we don't see it because he doesn't have that ability. Of course I could be wrong absense of evidence not being evidence of absense, but since my personal opinion is that having and not using is worse than not having in this particular case, I feel I've been generous with him.

If I have a justification for an emotion, doesn't that by definition mean I've involved my brain? The justification requires thought.

You don't agree with my justifications, which is a world away from the idea that my justifications haven't been thought through. To tie it back to an older disagreement; you see no difference between genocide and mass murder. To me, that requires an almost willful blindness to the complexities of motivation and intent. It's long been established, both legally and morally, that intent is important in assessing both good deeds and bad. I believe (along with the international community at large, I'll note) that the intent to wipe out a mass group of people on the basis of a shared group belief or culture is worse than the desire to wipe out a mass group of people selected at random.

But to the point at hand, there are a couple of gradations of meaning here that anyone not looking to (and forgive my language) be a dick should have intuitively grasped. First and perhaps most importantly, there is a difference between a crime a person can commit and a crime against humanity. This should be obvious with even a moment's thought. Saddam Hussein, for all that he was a genocidal maniac, needed the complicity of tens of thousands of people to make a go of it. Ditto Hitler, or any other genocide throughout history. We assign blame to them, rightly, because they gave the orders. Molesting children put under your authority is a far more personal and intimate crime. It isn't an enormous stretch to say that most social constructs are in place, at their root justification, to assist in the rearing of children. It is also a crime that an individual can commit.

Second, and more to the point of what constitutes reasoned debate - saying that the abuse of children is the most horrifying crime one can commit, having previously said something similar in regards to genocide, is hardly the most egregious crime of contradiction ever uttered. I don't have a list of all possible crimes on my desk to reference when I discuss the many disgusting things humans do to one another. If you want to play "Gotcha!" then by all means do so. I don't think anyone else is sitting around scratching their heads in confusion over where exactly I think the sexual abuse of children relates to the extirpation of ethnic or social groups. The two crimes operate on a different scale, and I'm quite certain that if someone looked back on every statement you've ever uttered, Naz, they'd find two that contain overlapping or slightly contradictory opinions.

I have, on many occasions, offered the background "contemplation" for why I believe or think many of the things I do. And to repeat the initial point, you just don't agree. That doesn't invalidate the point.

And moreover, to be a dick in my turn, I'll point out the inherent ridiculousness of criticizing someone for posting about a topic they're "emotional" about. We're all of us taking time out of our otherwise (hopefully) fulfilling lives to discuss various fictional and non-fictional topics with others; the fact that we invest the time and effort into it demands that there be an emotional element to it, otherwise why would we be here?

When I say something you find "overly emotional" or an example of me having a hot take, such as (and I'll use an inflammatory one here to help you out) my fear of religious fascism, you assume that the "fear" part of it must be dominant, because you don't agree with the logic behind it. But just because you've thrown out the logical basis of my argument doesn't mean it isn't there, and it doesn't even mean its wrong. A year ago, a transgender person living in Raleigh might have done the exact same as you in assuming some fear of mine is invalid, and now that person is being actively discriminated against on thinly-veiled religious grounds.

Sometimes emotions aren't a bad thing in an argument. Reacting with uncontrolled terror and anger because some religious nitwit wants to teach Intelligent Design in schools might seem like an overreaction far exceeding the extent of the action, but the mindset behind inculcating children with a fairy tale at a young age on the public dime is a very, very short step from discriminating against where people who identify as transgender can use the bathroom, a real case of active discrimination. The excessive zeal in diligently resisting the former is just the front line to preventing ever getting to the latter.

... Or, you know, I guess you can just chalk the preceding paragraphs up to me getting all over-emotional about your refusal to acknowledge my shitty, under-thought-out points which I make in the most mentally disturbed state of mind possible, and throw the whole thing out. It's essentially the argument you've made about everything else, without, you know... contemplating where my point of view might come from?

Nazbaque
05-11-2016, 04:43 PM
Would anything less than being a dick motivate such answers from you? Why would you bother proving me wrong if you weren't angry with me?

Ozy, Ozy, Ozy. The thing about me is that I care more about people than I do about their opinions. It's true that we disagree on a number of things, but it's never been enough for me to just leave it at that. You are always so guarded when you post. I get your opinion and I get the emotions attached to it, but that's just the surface. Well in order to get a better look I must prod you and challenge you where simple invitations fail.

So now that you have shown me that you are capable of controlling yourself, why don't you take a moment with me and consider the irony of tropes. Why is it that in all the forms of dramatic fiction a religious person is so often portrayed as humble and the scientist as arrogant? Isn't it clear that it's the other way arround?

Kimon
05-11-2016, 06:25 PM
Why is it that in all the forms of dramatic fiction a religious person is so often portrayed as humble and the scientist as arrogant? Isn't it clear that it's the other way arround?

Have you seen Agora?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186830/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Nazbaque
05-12-2016, 01:19 AM
No I haven't. Is it an example of doing it the right way?

Kimon
05-12-2016, 07:59 AM
No I haven't. Is it an example of doing it the right way?

It's a good movie, and it came to mind, as it is clearly a movie where the scientist/philospher, Hypatia (Rachel Weisz), is the humble martyr, and the Christian religious leaders are brutal, oppressive, arrogant assholes. The film took some liberties with the material of her scientific endeavors, but we know she was a mathematician and philosopher, and her martyrdom at the hands of the monstrous Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril, is a true story. They, indeed left out some of the more horrific elements of her torture at the hands of Cyril and his Christian mob, namely the fact that, before they killed her, they used oysters to remove her skin. Cyril, of course, was sainted by the Church for ridding Alexandria of the last vestiges of the old ways. This was in 415 CE.

GonzoTheGreat
05-12-2016, 08:44 AM
They, indeed left out some of the more horrific elements of her torture at the hands of Cyril and his Christian mob, namely the fact that, before they killed her, they used oysters to remove her skin.Would feeding her oysters (in a, possibly failed) seduction attempt count as the opposite, and if so, would that be good?

Cyril, of course, was sainted by the Church for ridding Alexandria of the last vestiges of the old ways.Well, he did act in a very Christian manner, I have to admit. So it calling him a saint, an example to all Christians, does make a lot of sense.

The fact that heathens such as you and me do not approve of thisis down to our lack of Christian morals.

Nazbaque
05-12-2016, 10:30 AM
It's a good movie, and it came to mind, as it is clearly a movie where the scientist/philospher, Hypatia (Rachel Weisz), is the humble martyr, and the Christian religious leaders are brutal, oppressive, arrogant assholes. The film took some liberties with the material of her scientific endeavors, but we know she was a mathematician and philosopher, and her martyrdom at the hands of the monstrous Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril, is a true story. They, indeed left out some of the more horrific elements of her torture at the hands of Cyril and his Christian mob, namely the fact that, before they killed her, they used oysters to remove her skin. Cyril, of course, was sainted by the Church for ridding Alexandria of the last vestiges of the old ways. This was in 415 CE.

Something of an extreme case, but I was leading towards the point that all religion firmly believes that the god or gods or other supernatural beings are interested in humans. This is the hight of arrogance especially for Christians who insist their god created the entire universe. Thus I see egoistic arrogance as a fundamental part of religion. Scientists on the other hand have to accept that the reality makes the rules and even their most ingenious creations are discoveries rather than inventions and so their path is a humble one by necessity. Yet the trope holds on. Why is that?

GonzoTheGreat
05-12-2016, 11:11 AM
Scientists should be honest. Theists have no such requirement. Guess which are better at PR?

Kimon
05-12-2016, 12:27 PM
Something of an extreme case, but I was leading towards the point that all religion firmly believes that the god or gods or other supernatural beings are interested in humans. This is the hight of arrogance especially for Christians who insist their god created the entire universe. Thus I see egoistic arrogance as a fundamental part of religion. Scientists on the other hand have to accept that the reality makes the rules and even their most ingenious creations are discoveries rather than inventions and so their path is a humble one by necessity. Yet the trope holds on. Why is that?

Because there is little point in worshipping/creating a god (or gods) that has no interest in you, nor whom you need not fear or from whom you may seek various rewards. Moreover, as religion is often used as a means of controlling the rest of the populace, one's gods (or god) aren't particularly useful in promoting that endeavor if you aren't first selling the people on the idea that this divinity is interested in what they're doing. Such a detached god is simply lacking in utility, and hence worshipping, or even believing in him/her would be pointless.

Nazbaque
05-12-2016, 01:16 PM
Because there is little point in worshipping/creating a god (or gods) that has no interest in you, nor whom you need not fear or from whom you may seek various rewards. Moreover, as religion is often used as a means of controlling the rest of the populace, one's gods (or god) aren't particularly useful in promoting that endeavor if you aren't first selling the people on the idea that this divinity is interested in what they're doing. Such a detached god is simply lacking in utility, and hence worshipping, or even believing in him/her would be pointless.

I meant the trope. Why is that so strong?

Kimon
05-12-2016, 03:55 PM
I meant the trope. Why is that so strong?

I'm not sure that it is. What movies, or shows do you have in mind? Certainly it is more common for films and tv shows to portray Christianity in a positive light than in a negative. But then most films are designed with a simple goal - making money. Most of the audience, at least in America, is religious. So Hollywood, the source of most movies, understandably wishes to tailor movies, if not directly for that audience, at least movies that will not offend, and drive away that audience. That doesn't mean that they oft make religious movies, just not often irreverent ones. European or Asian films tend to be written for a less religious audience, so perhaps you will note this more of Hollywood films than of British, French, etc.
A film that is critical of Christianity is likely to be pretty niche audience here, so aren't particularly common, but, on the other hand, many films have no particular religious bent, and even those that do, don't oft seem to possess an overt hostility and contempt for scientists and philosophers. Are you sure you're not just thinking more of Republican politicians and news outlets than of movies? Republican-oriented media is much more typical of this trope than is Hollywood. I'm just not sure what movies you're having in mind with this.

Nazbaque
05-13-2016, 12:23 AM
Oh it's not the whole TV series or the whole movie or the whole book. The small supportive characters are the key and they turn up everywhere when you keep your eyes open.

Kimon
07-12-2016, 11:32 AM
More of McQueary's deposition has been unsealed, and it directly implicates not just Joe, but also a few of his former lieutenants...

https://twitter.com/PancakeCatapult/status/752851543007735808

Schiano is currently at OSU, and Bradley at UCLA, both as DCs. Will be interesting to see if both of their new employers circle the wagons, like PSU has done, or if they choose to excise the rot. Schiano, as McQueary says he actually saw (and did nothing) one of the rapes in medias res, will be very difficult to defend. Bradley apparently was just told, and then deferred to JoePa. Still anyone who worked for JoePa has got to be a very difficult hire. Which begs the question, did Larry Johnson know anything? OSU would be in serious trouble if both Johnson and Schiano are too wound up in this mire to hold onto.

Oh, and just a reminder of JoePa's priorities...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/07/12/joe-paterno-knew-of-jerry-sandusky-abuse-in-1976-per-testimony-in-newly-unsealed-records/

A man testified in court in 2014 that Penn State football coach Joe Paterno ignored his complaints of a sexual assault committed by assistant coach Jerry Sandusky in 1976 when the man was a 14-year-old boy, according to new court documents unsealed Tuesday in a Philadelphia court.

The victim, who was identified in court records as John Doe 150, said that while he was attending a football camp at Penn State, Sandusky touched him as he showered. Sandusky’s finger penetrated the boy’s rectum, Doe testified in court in 2014, and the victim asked to speak with Paterno about it. Doe testified that he specifically told Paterno that Sandusky had sexually assaulted him, and Paterno ignored it.

“Is it accurate that Coach Paterno quickly said to you, ‘I don’t want to hear about any of that kind of stuff, I have a football season to worry about?'” the man’s lawyer asked him in 2014.

“Specifically. Yes … I was shocked, disappointed, offended. I was insulted… I said, is that all you’re going to do? You’re not going to do anything else?”

Paterno, the man testified, just walked away.

Davian93
07-12-2016, 12:40 PM
So wait, winning a college football game isn't more important than kiddie rape?

Have they put his statue back up yet? Everyone at PSU should know exactly who their true idol is.

GonzoTheGreat
09-03-2016, 04:56 AM
Have they put his statue back up yet?
They are working on it (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/01/penn-state-announces-plans-to-honor-joe-paterno-at-sept-17-football-game/), apparently.

Kimon
09-03-2016, 10:07 AM
They are working on it (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/01/penn-state-announces-plans-to-honor-joe-paterno-at-sept-17-football-game/), apparently.

If ever there was a second program deserving of the SMU treatment...

Rand al'Fain
09-03-2016, 08:36 PM
If ever there was a second program deserving of the SMU treatment...

North Carolina sure took their own shot at it.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/us/unc-report-academic-fraud/

Kimon
09-03-2016, 11:28 PM
North Carolina sure took their own shot at it.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/us/unc-report-academic-fraud/

UNC creating fake classes to maintain eligibility should have been more an issue for their academic accreditation, which obviously would have been far more serious than anything that the ncaa could (and should, since in the end the ncaa did nothing) have done to them. Unfortunately, much as the ncaa has demonstrated itself to be often toothless (at least when dealing with sec and acc teams), so too has the seemingly equally corrupt Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACS), who somehow determined that a university knowingly creating fraudulent courses was not a big deal.

https://www.carolinajournal.com/news-article/unc-chapel-hill-accreditation-restored/

We have seen a few recent examples that were more similar to SMU - USC (Reggie Bush), Auburn (Cam Newton - why Auburn didn't get hammered when USC did is much of the cause for conspiratorial assumptions about corruption in the ncaa, and feelings that they are essentially just shills for the sec), and Ole Miss (Tunsil at least, and probably Treadwell and others). None of this kind of stuff is really all that surprising - all the sec, and at least Clemson from the acc have long been known to employ the bagmen, just most not as obvious about it as Ole Miss. Illicit payments of this sort is mostly just an inevitable consequence of the ncaa's unwillingness to just allow these "student"-athletes to gain any of the profits from what is clearly a quite profitable business (at least for some schools). Teams like Ole Miss still should be hammered when they are caught red-handed cheating, if only to attempt to maintain some modicum of compliance, or at least an understanding that if schools are going to cheat, that they will at least have the decency to not be so blatantly obvious about it.

But what Penn State did was far worse than any of those schools. SMU and those others were just paying players. PSU was obstructing justice and acting essentially as accessories and facilitators for a sexual predator of children. If you want to compare any recent football scandal to PSU, I'd point instead to Baylor.

Kimon
01-27-2017, 06:45 PM
This is somewhat tangential, but the scope of the rape cover-up by Ken Starr and Art Briles at Baylor continues to grow...

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18569197/latest-lawsuit-filed-baylor-university-alleges-culture-which-drugs-alcohol-sex-were-encouraged

The plaintiff's attorney, John Clune of Boulder, Colorado, said his firm's investigation uncovered at least 52 acts of rape, including five gang rapes, by no less than 31 Baylor football players from 2011-14. That is a significantly larger number of alleged rapes than what was revealed in Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton's investigation into how Baylor responded to allegations of sexual assault, the findings of which were released in May.

Davian93
01-27-2017, 07:34 PM
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose and sometimes some girls (or little boys) get raped. Its a warrior culture and you wouldn't understand.

Go Team!

GonzoTheGreat
01-28-2017, 03:40 AM
Well, Ken Starr does seem to have learned. In the '90s, he considered a blow job such a serious matter that it led to an (impotent) impeachment of a US president. But nowadays he doesn't consider rape to be a big deal at all.
I'm not quite sure that is what he should have learned, but that he did learn can't be denied.

Southpaw2012
01-29-2017, 12:51 AM
Well, Ken Starr does seem to have learned. In the '90s, he considered a blow job such a serious matter that it led to an (impotent) impeachment of a US president. But nowadays he doesn't consider rape to be a big deal at all.
I'm not quite sure that is what he should have learned, but that he did learn can't be denied.

.... the blow job under the desk wasn't the problem....

Kimon
01-29-2017, 01:39 AM
.... the blow job under the desk wasn't the problem....

It was a political hit job. It was, moreover, consensual. In contrast, what Ken was helping Briles cover up at Baylor for the sake of winning football games clearly was not. Nor was what Denny Hastert did to all those high school boys on his wrestling teams.

GonzoTheGreat
01-29-2017, 04:59 AM
.... the blow job under the desk wasn't the problem....
I know. Republican hypocrisy was the problem. That was my point. I thank you for highlighting it like this.

Kimon
02-02-2017, 10:24 PM
More is coming out about the Baylor situation...

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18609288/art-briles-baylor-bears-assistants-buried-player-misbehavior-documents-say

Have to think that Briles, various assistants, maybe half the Athletic Department, will be facing civil and maybe criminal liability here. The University too. Starr's name isn't mentioned as frequently here (but he did personally sign off according to this report on overlooking multiple plagiarism infractions contrary to the wishes of his Provosts so as to maintain eligibility for at least one of the football players, Elliott, who was also mentioned in the rape allegations - so he, Starr, may at least escape criminal and civil liability himself), nor directly with the worst rape allegations, but the Waco Police is. Repeatedly. Briles complicity is quite explicit.

Ozymandias
02-03-2017, 02:19 PM
It was a political hit job. It was, moreover, consensual. In contrast, what Ken was helping Briles cover up at Baylor for the sake of winning football games clearly was not. Nor was what Denny Hastert did to all those high school boys on his wrestling teams.

Pretty sure the "lying under oath" was the issue.

And I'm not entirely certain you can apply black and white labels about consent when the players in the drama are the President of the United States and an intern. Which doesn't even touch the moral quandary of whether we think a married POTUS should be conducting an illicit affair in the Oval Office.

As many people complained (rightly) about President Trump, when you become President (or, really, any elective national figure) you lose the ability to defend your actions as being part of your private life. The Presidency is a symbol; just like Donald Trump's ignorance, and his glorification of his history of sexual assault is wrong, it is also unconscionable that Clinton was abusing (or at least using) his office to get laid.

Kimon
02-03-2017, 04:42 PM
Pretty sure the "lying under oath" was the issue.


No it wasn't. It was that he was a dem, and they were republicans. Even the lie was largely semantic in nature, but that ignores the larger issue - the republicans would never have made it an issue if he was one of their own. This wasn't a Nixon situation. Sure it was a cover-up, but unlike with Nixon, it was not a crime that was being covered up, just an embarrassing situation. This was clearly consenting. She was also an adult. Her young age made it slightly worse, but if anything the thing that really hurt him in terms of perception was that she wasn't attractive. We lionize JFK and RFK for much the same activity, but their bimbos were prettier (and, in at least one case, the same bimbo). This was just about politics.

And I'm not entirely certain you can apply black and white labels about consent when the players in the drama are the President of the United States and an intern. Which doesn't even touch the moral quandary of whether we think a married POTUS should be conducting an illicit affair in the Oval Office.

It should matter to his wife. But why should it matter to us? If we're not going to care about FDR and JFK, why should we care about Bill? The only thing that should matter here is whether it was consensual. And there is nothing to indicate that it wasn't.

Don't see how any reasonable person could in any way equate Bill's situation to what happened at either PSU or Baylor. If you want to find a similar example to Bill's in the coaching world you certainly can - Bobby Petrino comes to mind immediately...

GonzoTheGreat
02-04-2017, 05:02 AM
Don't see how any reasonable person could in any way equate Bill's situation to what happened at either PSU or Baylor.
Ken Starr agreed with you. He considered the blow job case to be sufficiently horrible to warrant impeaching a president, but wasn't bothered by a couple of raping jocks at all.
Note: it may be that Kimon didn't quite mean that with "not in any way equating". But it is how the Republicans interpret the situations, and they're the law in the USA right now.

Davian93
02-10-2017, 12:03 PM
Ken Starr agreed with you. He considered the blow job case to be sufficiently horrible to warrant impeaching a president, but wasn't bothered by a couple of raping jocks at all.
Note: it may be that Kimon didn't quite mean that with "not in any way equating". But it is how the Republicans interpret the situations, and they're the law in the USA right now.

Speaking of Ken Starr, he's reportedly been offered a job in Trump's Administration. I guess his efforts at Baylor did not go unnoticed after all.

Kimon
02-10-2017, 12:26 PM
Speaking of Ken Starr, he's reportedly been offered a job in Trump's Administration. I guess his efforts at Baylor did not go unnoticed after all.

How sad is it that I'm not even surprised.

http://deadspin.com/report-disgraced-former-baylor-president-ken-starr-fro-1792200058

Davian93
02-10-2017, 12:29 PM
How sad is it that I'm not even surprised.

http://deadspin.com/report-disgraced-former-baylor-president-ken-starr-fro-1792200058

We're literally at the point where there is nothing negative or derogatory that could be said of Trump or his administration that would surprise me.

Davian93
02-15-2017, 09:06 AM
A couple days old at this point but sad to see that Jeffrey Sandusky is also a child rapist.

What a messed up family.

Ozymandias
02-15-2017, 05:11 PM
It should matter to his wife. But why should it matter to us? If we're not going to care about FDR and JFK, why should we care about Bill? The only thing that should matter here is whether it was consensual. And there is nothing to indicate that it wasn't.

Aside from the fact that it's the fucking President of the United States and an intern? With that kind of power dichotomy in the workplace, there is ALWAYS a question of consent. I've done enough of the No Zone kind of sexual harassment in my time (and now run my own business, and see it from the other side) to know that kind of relationship is highly inappropriate and potentially illegal, depending on the rules in place. I don't see how any reasonable person can think that the President carrying out an extramarital and, importantly, secret affair isn't highly inappropriate and a matter of public concern. How many spy stories involve the same exact scenario where someone gets entrapped by a honeypot and then blackmailed? Not that this is a Robert Ludlum novel, but if you can't see the potential danger in this situation, and therefore the public interest, then you need to remove the biased glasses you're wearing.

Don't see how any reasonable person could in any way equate Bill's situation to what happened at either PSU or Baylor. If you want to find a similar example to Bill's in the coaching world you certainly can - Bobby Petrino comes to mind immediately...

Wasn't trying to.

I just think Bill Clinton gets lionized by the left for no apparent reason. He was a serial adulterer, it seems, a complete sleazeball, and to my mind accomplished very little of positive note in his terms.

People went nuts when Donald Trump was revealed to have walked into the dressing room of the Miss America pageant. Which is creepy, no doubt, but at least he has a compelling reason to do so (he owned the event). Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had lived in the twitter era? It would be a constant news cycle of scandal.

And, of course, he did lie under oath. Even if it was "semantic", the intent was to mislead. When both the style and intent are both mendacious, I feel pretty safe in condemning the accused as an unrepentant liar. Whether it was a political hit job is, to my mind, completely immaterial. You want your reputation to stay burnished? Tell the truth.

Kimon
02-15-2017, 06:26 PM
I don't see how any reasonable person can think that the President carrying out an extramarital and, importantly, secret affair isn't highly inappropriate and a matter of public concern.

I do not care if the president, or any politician, cheats on their spouse. It is not my concern. It is not my business. So long as they are both consenting adults, it simply does not matter to me. I don't think any less of FDR because he carried on an affair throughout his presidency. Nor about JFK. The only thing about the Monica situation that bothers me, is Bill's initial mishandling of the scandal when it had come to light. Not that it had happened. I don't care at all about that.

People went nuts when Donald Trump was revealed to have walked into the dressing room of the Miss America pageant. Which is creepy, no doubt, but at least he has a compelling reason to do so (he owned the event).

It was their age. This wasn't about the Miss America pageant, it was the Miss Teen USA pageant.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-miss-teen-usa_us_57fe2cd3e4b0d505a46b1725

These were children.

I see these as two distinctly different types of situations. Is Bill sleazy? Yes. Is he brilliant? Yes. A gifted politician? Yes. If I could answer yes on those last two points with Trump, moreover, if I agreed with him on anything that he was doing in terms of policy, I likely would be far less bothered by him. Trump is sleazy. If he was only sleazy I'd be far less bothered by him being president. It's his incompetence and his awful policies that are the real problem. His personality certainly adds an extra layer of disgust, but he would still be a disaster as president even if he seemed moral. Take for example Pence. I'd be no more happy with him as president than with Trump.

You may well consider, as hinted above, that this is unreasonable of me. So be it. Either way, I'm not sure why we are having this discussion at all on a topic about rape cover-ups at universities. The Monica situation was a cover-up, but it was not a rape cover-up.

Kimon
02-15-2017, 06:51 PM
More on topic, the situation at MSU (Michigan State), still unfolding, is disturbingly reminiscent of what happened at PSU.

The main scandal, which may well take down their entire athletic department eventually, as well as mire them in civil and criminal litigation, was concerning a famous staff member that they long sought to insulate and protect against recrimination and condemnation, Nasser, the gymnastics doctor whose activities went on for decades, both at MSU, and with the national and international gymnastics, as well as with various other women's teams at MSU.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/12/msu_athletic_trainers_told_in.html

A former Michigan State University softball player says she told multiple MSU athletic trainers as early as 2000 that Dr. Larry Nassar was penetrating her vagina during medical treatments, according to the woman's attorneys.

Tiffany Thomas Lopez has joined a lawsuit with 15 other alleged victims of Nassar, then a MSU faculty member and physician at the university's sports clinic, according to a press release issued today by attorney John Manly, a partner in Manly, Stewart & Finaldi in Los Angeles.

The allegations are the latest in a burgeoning scandal involving Nassar, 53, a former USA Gymnastics doctor indicted this week on federal child-pornography charges.

He also has been charged by the Michigan Attorney General's office with sexually abusing a young girl in his Holt home, and there is an ongoing investigation into complaints by 50 or so other victims, according to MSU police.

Lopez reported the treatment "to no less than three Michigan State University trainers as early as 2000," the press release says.

"The supervisor dismissed her complaint and indicated Dr. Nassar did this to many female athletes from a variety of sports and told Lopez she fortunate to receive the best medical care possible from a world-renowned doctor," the press release said.

Lopez also was told his "inter-vaginal adjustments" were legitimate medical treatments, according to the press release.

"Tiffany's complaint directly contradicts statements by Michigan State University that they fired Dr. Nassar in 2015 immediately upon hearing student concerns about his abusive and harassing conduct," Manly said in the press release.

"Her complaints were ignored, she was shamed and Dr. Nassar allegedly continued to molest girls and women for another 15 years at MSU and as a team doctor for USA Gymnastics," Manly said.

The situation with Nasser has been in the news for quite a while, but recently, something has also happened, the circumstances of which are still unclear (though suspected to be the cover up of a gang rape), with the MSU football team.

http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2017/02/michigan_state_football_staffe.html#incart_most-read_news_article

Blackwell's suspension comes as a criminal investigation into three Michigan State football players is ongoing. Michigan State announced last week that a member of the football staff also had been suspended pending the completion of that investigation.

Ozymandias
02-16-2017, 10:51 AM
I do not care if the president, or any politician, cheats on their spouse. It is not my concern. It is not my business. So long as they are both consenting adults, it simply does not matter to me.

It's a national security risk, first off, since it's a potential object of blackmail.

Second, as I said, in some workplaces, consent isn't enough between a subordinate and a boss. There needs to be disclosure as well, or it is still considered harassment. Relationships between superiors and subordinates in the workplace are very fraught and consent in such a situation is a gray area for sure.

And if the President is conducting an illicit affair, it means he or she is lying to the American public, which is certainly a concern. I don't necessarily think a candidate's personal life is a great reason to vote for or against them, but with Clinton it seemed almost pathological, and moreover, once elected the conduct of the President reflects on the entire country. I think it's absolutely the concern of the public that the POTUS conducts himself or herself with dignity and honesty.


It was their age. This wasn't about the Miss America pageant, it was the Miss Teen USA pageant.

Well there seems to be a bit of dispute about whether he actually walked in. And even if he did? Yeah, it's creepy and inappropriate, but he does own the pageant and I'm sure there are dozens of reasons he might want to be walking around backstage. I don't mean to defend a sexual predator, but this seems to me to be a very minor issue in the litany of complaints about President Trump, and it pales in comparison to the sex foibles of Mr. Clinton.

I see these as two distinctly different types of situations. Is Bill sleazy? Yes. Is he brilliant? Yes. A gifted politician? Yes.


He's charismatic. I don't know that that means brilliant. Certainly I'd say Mr. Trump is brilliant. Moreso than Bill Clinton, for sure. And while it's been a god-awful month, the man has four years to prove himself in the political arena. He was elected despite having no support from the GOP, so you have to give him a fair bit of credit for that.

If I could answer yes on those last two points with Trump, moreover, if I agreed with him on anything that he was doing in terms of policy, I likely would be far less bothered by him.

His policy positions have nothing to do with his abilities. He's a disgusting human being. He's also the most brilliant marketing and public relations genius of his era.

Trump is sleazy. If he was only sleazy I'd be far less bothered by him being president.

So is Bill Clinton! Just because he was President in an era that didn't have the internet doesn't make him less sleazy. He also has crafted an image for himself which doesn't necessarily reflect reality, just like JFK and his New Frontiersmen did after he died.


It's his incompetence and his awful policies that are the real problem. His personality certainly adds an extra layer of disgust, but he would still be a disaster as president even if he seemed moral. Take for example Pence. I'd be no more happy with him as president than with Trump.

That's fine, and I'm not defending Trump. I'm merely pointing out that we've had men of obvious moral failing in office before, in the recent past in fact, and people seem pretty eager to whitewash over it. One can make a strong argument that Bill Clinton used the power of his office to sleep with women, and when caught, lied about it under oath. That is worse than anything Donald Trump has done to date.

Kimon
02-16-2017, 04:30 PM
He's charismatic. I don't know that that means brilliant. Certainly I'd say Mr. Trump is brilliant. Moreso than Bill Clinton, for sure.

You and I seem to have vastly different opinions on brilliance.

Davian93
02-16-2017, 05:11 PM
You and I seem to have vastly different opinions on brilliance.

One was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford...the other barely got through Wharton with Daddy paying off his professors and the school to make it happen. Both are equal.

One worked his way up from nothing...the other had it handed to him on a golden platter and literally did nothing positive from a financial standpoint his entire life.

Both are equal.

GonzoTheGreat
02-17-2017, 03:50 AM
...the other had it handed to him on a golden platter and literally did nothing positive from a financial standpoint his entire life.
That's brilliant, innit? I wish I had had the foresight to be born from wealthy parents.

Davian93
02-17-2017, 09:22 AM
That's brilliant, innit? I wish I had had the foresight to be born from wealthy parents.

Yup, he earned his money the old-fashioned way...by being born into it.

I wonder if his father's dementia is also something he'll inherit shortly...

Weird Harold
02-17-2017, 11:02 AM
Yup, he earned his money the old-fashioned way...by being born into it.

He's also proven the adage that the best way to being worth a million dollars is to start with ten million.

How many times has he declared bankruptcy, anyway?

Terez
02-17-2017, 02:31 PM
How many times has he declared bankruptcy, anyway?
Not enough.

Davian93
02-17-2017, 09:39 PM
He's also proven the adage that the best way to being worth a million dollars is to start with ten million.

How many times has he declared bankruptcy, anyway?

3 or 4 times I believe...all corporate, never personal though. He's been "smart enough" to never risk his own personal money in any of his BS idiotic business ventures.

Those bankruptcies were the reason he stopped doing any major real estate deals and simply started licensing his name out as no reputable bankers would lend him money anymore. Its also why he started doing business in Russia and why he's so far in hock to Putin & Co.

Weird Harold
02-18-2017, 02:05 AM
3 or 4 times I believe...all corporate, never personal though. He's been "smart enough" to never risk his own personal money in any of his BS idiotic business ventures.

Those bankruptcies were the reason he stopped doing any major real estate deals and simply started licensing his name out as no reputable bankers would lend him money anymore. Its also why he started doing business in Russia and why he's so far in hock to Putin & Co.

So (about half of ) the American voters thought it would be a good idea to give him control of the taxpayer's money? Makes sense to me.

:rolleyes:

GonzoTheGreat
02-18-2017, 04:32 AM
If the USA declares bankruptcy, what happens next?
Addendum to that question: who precisely is entitled to file for bankruptcy on behalf of the USA?

Terez
02-18-2017, 05:54 AM
If the USA declares bankruptcy, what happens next?
Addendum to that question: who precisely is entitled to file for bankruptcy on behalf of the USA?
Congress. They try every time they have to raise the debt limit.

Davian93
02-18-2017, 09:46 PM
Congress. They try every time they have to raise the debt limit.

Next time is April when we run out of money again...it should be interesting to see what happens then.

If we default...it could really screw up my vacation to the UK in May as it'd destroy the value of the dollar.

Good thing I prepaid for the rooms, train tickets and whatever else I could already I guess.


Oh, and it'd be really bad for the economy too or something.

Kimon
02-22-2017, 11:15 PM
The Nasser/MSU case just continues to grow more horrifying.

http://deadspin.com/police-81-have-accused-doctor-to-olympic-gymnasts-of-s-1792652315

Today, the state of Michigan filed a slew of criminal charges spread across two counties against disgraced former gymnastics coach Larry Nassar, saying he sexually abused nine gymnasts when they came to him for treatment. In the affidavits for the charges, investigators outline how multiple gymnasts said Nassar would penetrate their vaginas with his fingers for extended periods of time under the guise of giving them medical treatment, like a massage. One victim told authorities the assaults started when she was 10 years old; another said she was assaulted by Nassar “more times than she could count,” according to one affidavit. A third victim said in a second affidavit that she believed that Nassar “twisted treatment into having parents watch their children get molested.”

Between the two affidavits released today, police and state prosecutors say they have heard from 81 people who say they were victims of Nassar. The charges filed today—including 22 counts of criminal sexual conduct in Ingham and Eaton counties—are based on what happened with nine victims. In the Ingham cases, the affidavit says that all the victims were sexually abused by Nassar “while he treated them at either the MSU Sports medicine clinic office or after-hours at his home in Holt, Michigan.” In the Eaton cases, the affidavit says the victims were abused by Nassar while they were gymnasts at Twistars Gymnastics Club in Dimondale, Mich. These are the first criminal charges directly related to Nassar’s role as a doctor, according to the Lansing State Journal.

The allegations, as described by law enforcement, are consistent: Nassar, the accusers say, did not ask for consent, did not tell the victims what he was about to do, and did not wear gloves. In some cases a parent was present, but according to the affidavits, Nassar would position them so the parents couldn’t see what was happening, or used a sheet to cover up that part of a gymnast’s body. One victim said that every time her mother stood up to see what Nassar was doing, he would stop.

The article is disturbingly graphic.

Of the nine alleged victims, six were assaulted in Ingham County. The first victim, called Victim A, said Nassar began assaulting her when she was 10; Nassar was supposed to readjust her ribs when, while pressing on her back, he pulled up her leotard and touched her vagina, putting his bare hand and fingers “between the flaps” of her vagina, according to the affidavit. The victim told investigators she felt “grossed out.” He assaulted her again, at age 11, at Michigan State. While giving her a foot massage, he put his fingers in her vagina and “was touching really hard on her clitoris,” according to the affidavit. The victim said Nassar was “really sweaty and into it.” Beforehand, Nassar told the girl’s father that the massage would “take time” and asked a Michigan State student to leave the room.

The rest of the article goes through a similarly graphic litany of charges, all with girls of similar age, perhaps unsurprising considering the fact that these girls were gymnasts. How could any parent or MSU staff have ever have believed that this was legitimate therapy, let alone not have been extremely suspicious at the fact that he didn't have a nurse present for these therapy sessions?

He's probably lucky that Michigan doesn't have the death penalty.

Ozymandias
03-02-2017, 03:32 PM
One was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford...the other barely got through Wharton with Daddy paying off his professors and the school to make it happen. Both are equal.

One worked his way up from nothing...the other had it handed to him on a golden platter and literally did nothing positive from a financial standpoint his entire life.


His wealth and his success aren't necessarily tied together. He's a failed real estate developer, more or less, and I'll argue that til I'm blue in the face. But a ton of his net worth is from The Apprentice, and that's all him.

There are thousands of insanely wealthy families in this country, and only a tiny fraction of them have scions who have parlayed that into fame and fortune the way Trump has. He sold a name and a lifestyle and, in a lot of ways, an entire era (not that 80s yuppie culture is a great model to follow, but he certainly managed to distill it to its core). Again, don't have to like it, but it's impressive nonetheless. And despite being a total failure in many of his major real estate deals, he still managed to sell the public on the idea that he was a huge success.

Whatever else you think of Trump, he's very good at what he does. Snake oil salesmen may be the lowest dregs of humanity, but it still takes skill and talent to be one.

Davian93
03-02-2017, 05:09 PM
His wealth and his success aren't necessarily tied together. He's a failed real estate developer, more or less, and I'll argue that til I'm blue in the face. But a ton of his net worth is from The Apprentice, and that's all him.

There are thousands of insanely wealthy families in this country, and only a tiny fraction of them have scions who have parlayed that into fame and fortune the way Trump has. He sold a name and a lifestyle and, in a lot of ways, an entire era (not that 80s yuppie culture is a great model to follow, but he certainly managed to distill it to its core). Again, don't have to like it, but it's impressive nonetheless. And despite being a total failure in many of his major real estate deals, he still managed to sell the public on the idea that he was a huge success.

Whatever else you think of Trump, he's very good at what he does. Snake oil salesmen may be the lowest dregs of humanity, but it still takes skill and talent to be one.

He'd make one hell of a used car salesman...up there with Bill Paxton's (RIP) character in True Lies.

http://canvas.grolsch.com/sites/default/files/news/images/true_lies.gif

Kimon
05-17-2017, 01:33 PM
New allegations have come out in the Baylor case.

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/courts_and_trials/baylor-hit-with-th-title-ix-lawsuit-plaintiff-alleges-gang/article_1b391c59-1722-5532-9c3b-058b07850249.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share

According to the suit, the football team had a system of hazing freshman recruits by having them bring freshman females to parties to be drugged and gang raped, “or in the words of the football players, ‘trains’ would be run on the girls.”

Considered a bonding experience by the players, according to the suit, the rapes were also photographed and videotaped, and the plaintiff confirmed that at least one 21-second videotape of two Baylor students being gang raped by football players had circulated.


The suit alleges the players then harassed the plaintiff and her family through text messages after creating fake phone numbers. She was also still required to attend classes with two of the players, according to the suit.

In Baylor counseling sessions, Doe was not presented with Title IX-related reporting options but with statistics about how few women report sexual assaults, "in an apparent effort to dissuade" (Doe from taking action), the suit states.

Later, football players allegedly burglarized her apartment, stealing money and a necklace while throwing clothes and belongings around the room. Doe reported the burglary to Waco police, according to the suit, and no charges were filed based on an understanding the players would return her belongings.

One of the players allegedly involved in the burglary also previously sent Doe harassing text messages.

"The football player told Plaintiff that he never came on to her because she was 'easy' and 'like coach said we (Baylor football players) don't want easy," the suit said.

In a further act of harassment, the suit alleges, the players tried to justify the burglary by spreading rumors that Doe had stolen their dog.

According to the suit, earlier in the year, Doe took a player's dog to the vet and paid for urgent treatment after the dog was injured in a dog fight organized by football players.

Doe held a meeting with an unfazed Briles, according to the suit, and later recounted the details of the gang rape and burglary to her volleyball coach.


As cited in the regents' legal filing in February, when Briles learned of the names of the players involved, he said, "Those are some bad dudes ... why was she around those guys?"

McCaw, athletics director at the time, also did not report the incident to police or Baylor's judicial affairs office, which was responsible for investigating such incidents.

Bethany McCraw, still a Baylor employee, has been widely criticized for mishandling such investigations when she led Baylor's judicial affairs office.

During a May 2013 athletics department mission trip to Africa, a football player told Doe he heard that up to eight football players had gang raped her the previous year, according to the suit. She then decided to withdraw from the university.

Doe told Baylor's football chaplain about the gang rape after the mission trip, including the names of the players involved, according to the suit. She later learned that he, too, never reported the incident outside of the athletics department.


If PSU football didn't get the death penalty for Sandusky, then perhaps Baylor still won't for this, but if ever there was just cause, this is so much worse than anything that SMU ever did. Either way, a lot of people should be going to jail. Not just the players.

Kimon
07-20-2017, 08:35 PM
So most of the coaches who covered up for rapists (Dantonio, Kelly, and Franklin - Briles at least sort of faced justice, and JoePa is dead), are still safely employed, but, of course it is just Hugh Freeze that has been forced to resign. And, I mean, he did run one of the more obvious pay-for-play scandals, not that anyone, certainly not the NCAA, really seems to care about that though. So what did he end up actually getting "fired" for?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/sec/2017/07/20/ole-miss-coach-hugh-freeze-called-number-tied-escort-service/498056001/

On July 13 — one day after Nutt filed a federal lawsuit against Ole Miss alleging that the school violated the terms of its severance agreement — Nutt’s attorney, Thomas Mars, sent an e-mail to Lee Tyner, the school’s general counsel, referencing a “phone call Coach Freeze made that would be highly embarrassing for all of you and extremely difficult to explain.”

Paying players? No big deal. Cover for rapists? So long as you don't get caught. Call a hooker...

Kimon
09-09-2017, 11:28 AM
This seems like one of those times when the dead horse hasn't been beaten anywhere near enough...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/09/us/penn-state-paterno-sandusky-police-report/index.html

McQueary, a one-time Penn State football assistant who became the star witness in the case against Sandusky, told state police in 2011 that he'd visited Paterno on a Saturday morning 10 years earlier to tell him that the previous evening he had witnessed "an extreme sexual act occurring between Sandusky and a young boy" in a football locker room shower, according to the report by Pennsylvania police.
"Paterno, upon hearing the news, sat back in his chair with a dejected look on his face," the report states, adding that McQueary "said Paterno's eyes appeared to well up with tears."
"Then he made the comment to McQueary this was the second complaint of this nature he had received about Sandusky," the report states, citing McQueary's recollection.
Paterno and McQueary had "no discussion of the previous complaint at that time or any other time," the report states.
The police report also notes, again according to McQueary, that Paterno told the young assistant that his wife, Sue Paterno, once had told the head coach that Sandusky's wife, Dottie Sandusky, "told her Jerry doesn't like girls."

McQueary obviously shares some of the blame here, as he obviously should have rushed into that shower and stopped Sandusky. Or at least reported the rape to the police right then in 2001 (instead of 2011) instead of to Cardinal Paterno. But maybe instead of just crying and then sweeping it under the rug, Joe should have actually tried turning his old buddy, Jerry, in to the police, and protected kids from Jerry instead of keep letting Sandusky use Penn State facilities to groom and then rape them.

Still annoys me that the bastard died and thus escaped justice, but hopefully this will at least open up his estate to more financial liability for his culpability. Oh, and good job Penn State hiring another rape enabling sack of shit in James Franklin.

ShadowbaneX
09-09-2017, 12:05 PM
Still annoys me that the bastard died and thus escaped justice, but hopefully this will at least open up his estate to more financial liability for his culpability. Oh, and good job Penn State hiring another rape enabling sack of shit in James Franklin.

Winning brings all kind of forgiveness in this life. One of the worst things about being an atheist is that you don't get the satisfaction that these types get justice in the next.

Davian93
09-11-2017, 09:50 AM
This is why they should have plowed under the stadium and salted the earth where it stood...after stringing them all up in the public square as a warning to others.

Kimon
10-21-2017, 07:12 PM
Meanwhile, in some alternate reality wherein the NCAA isn't a corrupt abomination...

https://sports.theonion.com/ncaa-suspends-penn-state-another-3-years-after-remember-1819737231

INDIANAPOLIS—Saying the decision would become effective immediately, The NCAA announced Saturday that it was suspending the Penn State football team another three years after remembering everything they did. “Holy shit, you know what, you guys are definitely getting suspended again for all that shit,” said NCAA President Mark Emmert, revealing that after the entire NCAA board suddenly recalled that high-level people throughout Penn State deliberately protected a child rapist for decades, the program would be banned from playing games until 2020. “I can’t believe we didn’t give you motherfuckers a lifetime ban to begin with. What the hell were we thinking? That’s some seriously fucked-up shit that nobody should ever get away with.” Emmert then added that there would be “no fucking way” the NCAA would hear any appeals from Penn state.

ShadowbaneX
10-21-2017, 10:21 PM
Meanwhile, in some alternate reality wherein the NCAA isn't a corrupt abomination...

https://sports.theonion.com/ncaa-suspends-penn-state-another-3-years-after-remember-1819737231

I mean, haven't they suffered enough? I mean, sure the victims have had to suffer with this for their entire lives, but...actually, yeah, I can't even finish this sarcastic reply.

GonzoTheGreat
10-22-2017, 04:07 AM
You should have asked: WWJD?

Matthew|5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Matthew|5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew|5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
Matthew|5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Matthew|5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Matthew|5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Matthew|5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

The NCAA obviously wants to promote Christianity. Do you blame them for that?