Quote:
Originally Posted by PennBF
It is interesting as to why some feel the need to insult, call names and use that as a defense against supporting those who point out the fact that Joe Paterno was in fact complicit in the abuse of a child. It may be because they have no facts and must rely on calling names and insulting the ones who feel that children should be protected! They should examine themselves in order to be better equipped to disucss issues and avoid the pit falls of name calling.
They should try to better understand the underpinnings of their behavior so they can grow and be a better person. When I read something from a person who uses that approach I am sad as it is clear the person does not think enough of themseleves to try to improve.
I have not and will not call names or use insults to try to shut down discussion as that would make me no better than the one who does.  |
Since you're referring to the self-righteous comment, is that any worse than you indicating that those who disagree should "better understand the underpinnings of their behavior so they can grow and be a better person."? Does disagreement with your position make someone a lesser person?
Remember: The most persistent criticism of grand juries is that jurors are not a representative sampling of the community, and are not qualified for jury service, in that they do not possess a satisfactory ability to ask pertinent questions, or sufficient understanding of local government and the concept of due process. Unlike potential jurors in regular trials, grand jurors are not screened for bias or other improper factors. They are rarely read any instruction on the law, as this is not a requirement; their job is only to judge on what the prosecutor produced. The prosecutor drafts the charges and decides which witnesses to call. The prosecutor is not obliged to present evidence in favor of those being investigated. Grand jury witnesses have no right to have a lawyer or family in the room, and can be charged with holding the court in contempt (punishable with incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury) if they refuse to appear before the jury and all evidence is presented by a prosecutor in a cloak of secrecy, as the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding.
It appears the major portion of the invective posted on several online boards is directed toward Paterno, and less toward the perpetrator and/or the graduate assistant who witnessed the event and failed to do anything to stop/rescue the youth. Paterno may be involved in this up to his eyeballs, but everything I have read about this man from people who played for him indicates that integrity was a major point with him. It is noteworthy that Penn State is one of only 4 Division 1 schools that has never had an NCAA violation. I think if his sole driving force was to win at all costs and maximize revenue for the school, that there would be issues that resulted in sanctions from the NCAA.
It is entirely possible to disagree with those who portray Paterno as complicit or an enabler and still find the actions of Sandusky reprehensible.