WildCard Posted October 9, 2019 Author Report Posted October 9, 2019 8 minutes ago, Sabel79 said: I mean, they rioted when Paterno was gored for very obviously covering everything up for as long as he could... They 'rioted' because they're a bunch of 18-21 year old kids looking for an excuse to make noise and break stuff
TrueBlueGED Posted October 9, 2019 Report Posted October 9, 2019 1 hour ago, ubkev said: I'll see your Ohio State and I'll raise you Penn State. When the entire buckeye fanbase explains away child rape then you might have something. If given the opportunity, they will. 53 minutes ago, WildCard said: The crimes of a few don't condemn the whole Except in the case of Penn State, the whole refused to condemn the few. That's the problem. 1
TrueBlueGED Posted October 9, 2019 Report Posted October 9, 2019 55 minutes ago, shrader said: But hey, if we get rid of them, that sort of thing will never happen ever again in the history of mankind. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Serious sanctions to encourage systematic reform that makes such occurrences less likely in the future shouldn't be given the ol' eye roll just because it's not fool-proof prevention. 1
WildCard Posted October 9, 2019 Author Report Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, TrueBlueGED said: If given the opportunity, they will. Except in the case of Penn State, the whole refused to condemn the few. That's the problem. I'm not going to assign that blame to all based on who is the most vocal in their lack of doing so; there are those that stand against what happened there
That Aud Smell Posted October 9, 2019 Report Posted October 9, 2019 12 minutes ago, WildCard said: I'm not going to assign that blame to all based on who is the most vocal in their lack of doing so; there are those that stand against what happened there there are those who stand against child rape, the enabling of child rape, and the covering up of child rape? well. bully for them. 1
WildCard Posted October 9, 2019 Author Report Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, That Aud Smell said: there are those who stand against child rape, the enabling of child rape, and the covering up of child rape? well. bully for them. For someone who is usually pretty eloquent this is a bad post Edited October 9, 2019 by WildCard
Sabel79 Posted October 9, 2019 Report Posted October 9, 2019 39 minutes ago, WildCard said: I'm not going to assign that blame to all based on who is the most vocal in their lack of doing so; there are those that stand against what happened there It is very true they no single raindrop comprehends its responsibility for the flood... but anyway.
Neo Posted October 9, 2019 Report Posted October 9, 2019 2 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said: Except in the case of Penn State, the whole refused to condemn the few. That's the problem. Without weighing in on the tragedy (for brevity; my view is uncontroversial), I want to acknowledge this effective use of language and structure to make the point.
That Aud Smell Posted October 10, 2019 Report Posted October 10, 2019 17 hours ago, WildCard said: For someone who is usually pretty eloquent this is a bad post eloquence wasn't really the point there. nor was it needed.
WildCard Posted October 10, 2019 Author Report Posted October 10, 2019 Just now, That Aud Smell said: eloquence wasn't really the point there. nor was it needed. Then the point is bad regardless. It's quite clear I'm not giving a cookie for having normal morals against atrocities and yet that's what you simplified it down to
That Aud Smell Posted October 10, 2019 Report Posted October 10, 2019 1 minute ago, WildCard said: Then the point is bad regardless. It's quite clear I'm not giving a cookie for having normal morals against atrocities and yet that's what you simplified it down to Quite to the contrary. You said that 18 hours ago, WildCard said: there are those that stand against what happened there which necessarily implies there are those who do not stand against it. It came off as "very fine people on both sides of the issue," if you will. Probably not what was intended. But it's what was conveyed.
shrader Posted October 10, 2019 Report Posted October 10, 2019 1 minute ago, That Aud Smell said: Quite to the contrary. You said that which necessarily implies there are those who do not stand against it. It came off as "very fine people on both sides of the issue," if you will. Probably not what was intended. But it's what was conveyed. It might convey that if you completely ignore the post it was in response to, saying that all things Penn State should have been eliminated. Because that's a perfectly reasonable response to the scandal. 1
WildCard Posted October 10, 2019 Author Report Posted October 10, 2019 Just now, That Aud Smell said: Quite to the contrary. You said that which necessarily implies there are those who do not stand against it. It came off as "very fine people on both sides of the issue," if you will. Probably not what was intended. But it's what was conveyed. No it doesn't. Regardless of the fact that you took a snippet of a much larger conversation, the implication you perceived does not at all exist in isolation of that statement; saying that there are those that stand against something does not at all imply that there are 'very fine people on BOTH sides of an issue", in fact it doesn't imply anything other than the simple fact that there are people that exist, live, and go to Penn State that stand against what happened there and should not be lumped in with everyone that did/does not. You are the one that put the idea of the quality of those people on both sides into that statement, if anything my statement shows to illustrate that those that do not are, as you put it, not very fine people
That Aud Smell Posted October 10, 2019 Report Posted October 10, 2019 25 minutes ago, shrader said: It might convey that if you completely ignore the post it was in response to, saying that all things Penn State should have been eliminated. Because that's a perfectly reasonable response to the scandal. i'm not endorsing posts that call for the "salted ground" and such. i was simply responding to a defence of the institution that said there are "those" (some?) who stand against what Sandusky did (obvi) and, moreover, what Paterno et al. did not do. as in: there are apparently "those" there who do not stand against some or all of that? how. 23 minutes ago, WildCard said: No it doesn't. Regardless of the fact that you took a snippet of a much larger conversation, the implication you perceived does not at all exist in isolation of that statement; saying that there are those that stand against something does not at all imply that there are 'very fine people on BOTH sides of an issue", in fact it doesn't imply anything other than the simple fact that there are people that exist, live, and go to Penn State that stand against what happened there and should not be lumped in with everyone that did/does not. You are the one that put the idea of the quality of those people on both sides into that statement, if anything my statement shows to illustrate that those that do not are, as you put it, not very fine people i was being a bit rhetorical and flourishy with the "very fine people" comparison. i was borrowing another odd dichotomous paradigm in order to make a point. and, again, my point remains, as indicated above in response to @shrader. your statement necessarily implied that some at/of PSU stand against all that awfulness, and ... some don't. which struck (strikes) me as enormously strange. if i were a PSU alum/backer, it would disturb me to no end that there is some identifiable portion of the community that didn't stand against all of that.
WildCard Posted October 10, 2019 Author Report Posted October 10, 2019 1 minute ago, That Aud Smell said: i'm not endorsing posts that call for the "salted ground" and such. i was simply responding to a defence of the institution that said there are "those" (some?) who stand against what Sandusky did (obvi) and, moreover, what Paterno et al. did not do. as in: there are apparently "those" there who do not stand against some or all of that? how. i was being a bit rhetorical and flourishy with the "very fine people" comparison. i was borrowing another odd dichotomous paradigm in order to make a point. and, again, my point remains, as indicated above in response to @shrader. your statement necessarily implied that some at/of PSU stand against all that awfulness, and ... some don't. which struck (strikes) me as enormously strange. if i were a PSU alum/backer, it would disturb me to no end that there is some identifiable portion of the community that didn't stand against all of that. Your point is a lot different in this point than it was in the last. Saying my post implies there are those on both sides of the fence is fine because it does, saying it implies the quality of those on the wrong side of it is woefully wrong. As for the bold, well that's all fine, and I'm sure there are those PSU people that are disturbed by that, and they should be, and that is rather the point of my original post that you quoted anyways. To you it seems that this is a rather trivial thing and that they shouldn't be rewarded for such. To be clear I'm not celebrating their stance as it's a pretty easy position to have and one that they should have, I'm simply not lumping them in with the rest of those that don't have it, and claiming Penn State and everyone associated with it are responsible/endorsers/perpetrators of those crimes.
shrader Posted October 10, 2019 Report Posted October 10, 2019 1 minute ago, That Aud Smell said: @shrader your statement necessarily implied that some at/of PSU stand against all that awfulness, and ... some don't. which struck (strikes) me as enormously strange. if i were a PSU alum/backer, it would disturb me to no end that there is some identifiable portion of the community that didn't stand against all of that. Odd, it won't let me remove the tag from the above quote. But anyway... Sadly, welcome to planet earth. If you show me a place where these people don't exist, I'll show you green skies. Now let's see who will chime in with some crazy weather system that would cause green skies.
WildCard Posted October 10, 2019 Author Report Posted October 10, 2019 I mean, how do you not love this guy
Randall Flagg Posted October 10, 2019 Report Posted October 10, 2019 ^Beane is in concussion protocol per Schefter 2
shrader Posted October 10, 2019 Report Posted October 10, 2019 33 minutes ago, WildCard said: I mean, how do you not love this guy There we have it, scientific proof that Allen is a Sobotka fan. No one is going to be able to convince me that the Sabres game him a jersey with his own name on it. Nope, they wouldn't do that.
That Aud Smell Posted October 10, 2019 Report Posted October 10, 2019 1 hour ago, WildCard said: Your point is a lot different in this point than it was in the last. Saying my post implies there are those on both sides of the fence is fine because it does, saying it implies the quality of those on the wrong side of it is woefully wrong. That implication was there, and it was a mistake on my part. Like I said, I was just reaching for another odd dichotomy.
That Aud Smell Posted October 10, 2019 Report Posted October 10, 2019 1 hour ago, WildCard said: To be clear I'm not celebrating their stance as it's a pretty easy position to have and one that they should have, I'm simply not lumping them in with the rest of those that don't have it, and claiming Penn State and everyone associated with it are responsible/endorsers/perpetrators of those crimes. there's the rub, though. if, in the aftermath, there's a significant portion of the PSU community that defends, say, paterno to the hilt on his mishandling of the ongoing abuse, then that'd present those who abhor everything about the despicable circumstances (including paterno's blind eye) with a very tricky situation relative to their own ongoing devotion, support, etc. innit? it would for me. (my thoughts turn to the roman catholic church and its abuse scandal. i'll refrain.) 1
Randall Flagg Posted October 10, 2019 Report Posted October 10, 2019 2 hours ago, WildCard said: Then the point is bad regardless. It's quite clear I'm not giving a cookie for having normal morals against atrocities and yet that's what you simplified it down to This reminds me of a poster in my building that baffles me every day. It's some leader from some student organization whose purpose and doings are largely a bunch of buzzwords - you know what I mean, every college has a million of those groups. "Leader Ambassador of the Student Board of Advisory of Associations" blah blah And he's standing there, caught mid-laugh by the camera, and the quote is "I PLEDGE to NEVER commit or condone sexual assault." I do a slow clap every time I see it. Wao, so brave, thank you truly for your service to society, way to go out on a limb and sacrifice for the greater good 1
Weave Posted October 10, 2019 Report Posted October 10, 2019 1 hour ago, shrader said: Now let's see who will chime in with some crazy weather system that would cause green skies. Tornado
That Aud Smell Posted October 10, 2019 Report Posted October 10, 2019 36 minutes ago, Weave said: Tornado Right. Didn't that happen in Wizard of Oz?! Or is that just the witch who's green.
Recommended Posts