Penn State/State Pen [split]

[Conor Dary]

The problem with that theory is a hell of lot of people watch porn sometime in their lives and never, or even think of it, become a child molester. While I suspect most, if not all, child molesters watch porn.

This is a classical fraudulent connection, similar to most heroin users first smoked dope, therefore anyone who tries pot is going to od on heroin, which from what I know, ain't true.

[lonewolf]

The bottom line is, whatever the reason for their behavior, some people need to be taken out of circulation. No amnesty, no forgiveness, no explanation, no excuses.

[SQUACKEE]

The problem with that theory is a hell of lot of people watch porn sometime in their lives and never, or even think of it, become a child molester. While I suspect most, if not all, child molesters watch porn.

This is a classical fraudulent connection, similar to most heroin users first smoked dope, therefore anyone who tries pot is going to od on heroin, which from what I know, ain't true.

The old gateway bullshit. I stopped drinking water because all Crackheads have drank water,therefore water is a gateway to crack.

I personally know a 100 people who have smoked pot and none of them have even tried smack.

[kuha]

gh's point above is entirely relevant here, and almost certainly true. This sort of dysfunction is very far from simply a matter of slippy-slope "bad choices." It must result from some combination of nature & nurture; opportunity & inherent inclination. Brain chemistry (for lack of a better term) has got to be extremely important to all this. I do not believe that psychopaths and sociopaths get that way because of some "bad choices."

[Cooter Brown]

I do not believe that psychopaths and sociopaths get that way because of some "bad choices."

There was a kid in my grade named Alonzo Edwards. I remember a distinct moment in 3rd grade where I thought that kid was the scariest person I'd ever met. In 8th grade, he raped and murdered another student's mom. His twin sister was perfectly normal. Nothing to suggest there was something in his environment or previous bad choices that turned him down the wrong path. That dude was born evil.

[odelltrclan]

I do not believe that psychopaths and sociopaths get that way because of some "bad choices."

There was a kid in my grade named Alonzo Edwards. I remember a distinct moment in 3rd grade where I thought that kid was the scariest person I'd ever met. In 8th grade, he raped and murdered another student's mom. His twin sister was perfectly normal. Nothing to suggest there was something in his environment or previous bad choices that turned him down the wrong path. That dude was born evil.

LOL,

Yeah, and I remember a kid from elementary school, whose name I won't mention, who was close to the same. The kind you'd expect to be a the criminal psycho, etc. Only thing is, he turned out to be a model citizen, successful businessman, spiritual advisor, ran for public office, just all around model citizen. He did make good choices when he was on a very bad path. Sorry, I just don't buy the "born evil" stigma. People become who they want to be, they aren't simply destined to become who they "are".

[kuha]

People become who they want to be, they aren't simply destined to become who they "are".

And that's the issue in a nutshell: you've spelled out the terms very nicely. You hold an extreme view of human free will, self-understanding, and rational self-control. I think it's safe to say that few others genuinely hold such an extreme view; I certainly do not.

The corollary to the story you (rightly, perhaps) ridicule above is precisely the "gateway" fallacy that others have demolished. Most seemingly "bad" 10 year olds don't turn out to be murderers at 20; just as very few watchers of porn become rapists. In both cases, then, something ELSE has to be at work that's at least partially independent of exterior stimuli.

[SQUACKEE]

Read this until it sinks in-

There was a kid in my grade named Alonzo Edwards. I remember a distinct moment in 3rd grade where I thought that kid was the scariest person I'd ever met. In 8th grade, he raped and murdered another student's mom. His twin sister was perfectly normal. Nothing to suggest there was something in his environment or previous bad choices that turned him down the wrong path. That dude was born evil.

[odelltrclan]

Read this until it sinks in-

There was a kid in my grade named Alonzo Edwards. I remember a distinct moment in 3rd grade where I thought that kid was the scariest person I'd ever met. In 8th grade, he raped and murdered another student's mom. His twin sister was perfectly normal. Nothing to suggest there was something in his environment or previous bad choices that turned him down the wrong path. That dude was born evil.

As if highlighting and bolding make your opinion "right". Don't go have yourself a heart attack! We need some more predictions for the OT and Olympics first.

Don't act as though your experience here was some form of experiment with "test subjects" and Alonzo and his sister were supposed to follow exactly the same path. There is no doubt that some people could be born with a propensity for a certain direction. I believe physical deficiencies (i.e. genetic abnormalities) potentially cause problems, just FAR less than most. To suggest that nurture or "environment" has no impact is in my opinion ludicrous. To suggest that people have no ability to exercise free will to follow a direction their heart, or soul, if you will, wants to take them, or that is severely restricted is beyond ludicrous.

[Conor Dary]

It is only a novel, but this discussion has reminded me of Jim Thompson's The Killer Inside Me. A scary book of a respectable looking fellow, he is a deputy sheriff, Lou Ford, who is in reality a murderous psychopath, who can't control himself. And the novel is from his viewpoint.

[kuha]

To suggest that nurture or "environment" has no impact is in my opinion ludicrous. To suggest that people have no ability to exercise free will to follow a direction their heart, or soul, if you will, wants to take them, or that is severely restricted is beyond ludicrous.

Yes, please continue jousting with your straw men. NO ONE is suggesting that environment has "no" impact. And no one is suggesting that people have "no ability" to blah blah blah. You're not arguing in any serious way by shooting down these useless caricatures of the actual arguments at hand.

[kuha]

It is only a novel, but this discussion has reminded me of Jim Thompson's The Killer Inside Me. A scary book of a respectable looking fellow, he is a deputy sheriff, Lou Ford, who is in reality a murderous psychopath, who can't control himself. And the novel is from his viewpoint.

Not a "good" literary work, but a totally brilliant and unforgettable one. I read all the Thompson books about 20 years ago and the psychic wounds are still raw. Astonishing stuff.

[Pego]

To suggest that nurture or "environment" has no impact is in my opinion ludicrous.

Nobody is suggesting that the nurture (environment) has no impact. What some of us are saying is that the environment does not create psychopaths (murderers, rapists...). Studies on identical twins raised in radically different milieu showed them to be quite similar in their personalities (obviously level of education, sophistication and such would be different). I am not aware of an instance where one would become a saint and the other one a murderer.

[odelltrclan]

To suggest that nurture or "environment" has no impact is in my opinion ludicrous. To suggest that people have no ability to exercise free will to follow a direction their heart, or soul, if you will, wants to take them, or that is severely restricted is beyond ludicrous.

Yes, please continue jousting with your straw men. NO ONE is suggesting that environment has "no" impact. And no one is suggesting that people have "no ability" to blah blah blah. You're not arguing in any serious way by shooting down these useless caricatures of the actual arguments at hand.

Actually Kuha, I would suggest quite the contrary. When you illustrate the extremes I think it helps people understand the conceptual framework of the argument better, and thus be able to see where they fit in.

[j-a-m]

NO ONE is suggesting that environment has "no" impact.

Unfortunately some posters have suggested just that, saying nonsense like "screwed from birth" or "born evil".

[kuha]

NO ONE is suggesting that environment has "no" impact.

Unfortunately some posters have suggested just that, saying nonsense like "screwed from birth" or "born evil".

But that may well be true. It's simply that none of this can be predicted at the age of 2 or 5 or 10. But when one is faced with a real-world example of a truly bad character, the question remains: what combination of forces created this? And it seems clear that in some cases, the root issue, the causal issue, can probably be traced all the way back and is relatively independent of environment.

[kuha]

To suggest that nurture or "environment" has no impact is in my opinion ludicrous. To suggest that people have no ability to exercise free will to follow a direction their heart, or soul, if you will, wants to take them, or that is severely restricted is beyond ludicrous.

Yes, please continue jousting with your straw men. NO ONE is suggesting that environment has "no" impact. And no one is suggesting that people have "no ability" to blah blah blah. You're not arguing in any serious way by shooting down these useless caricatures of the actual arguments at hand.

Actually Kuha, I would suggest quite the contrary. When you illustrate the extremes I think it helps people understand the conceptual framework of the argument better, and thus be able to see where they fit in.

You are quite right in the idea that these artificial extremes serve to define the basic conceptual territory. But if the "real" answers are to be found in some nuanced space between the artificial extremes, then that's where serious work needs to be done.Thus, pretending that a nuanced position is, in fact, some generic extreme, is simply to dodge the issue.

[odelltrclan]

You are quite right in the idea that these artificial extremes serve to define the basic conceptual territory. But if the "real" answers are to be found in some nuanced space between the artificial extremes, then that's where serious work needs to be done.Thus, pretending that a nuanced position is, in fact, some generic extreme, is simply to dodge the issue.

I am certainly not dodging any issue. I think it is pretty clear where I stand on the matter, based upon the entire body of the discussion. It is fairly clear where others do as well.

[lonewolf]

We have plowed this "nature vs. nurture" field numerous times as ignomous/controversial events occur. It would seem both shape a person's life but we don't know. The perp may not know. Bad things happen spontaneously or deliberately. Neither can be excused or justified by the criminals background.
In the end, it doesn't matter..heinous crimes merit maximum punishment regardless of the
"reason" behind the culprit's actions.

[kuha]

You are quite right in the idea that these artificial extremes serve to define the basic conceptual territory. But if the "real" answers are to be found in some nuanced space between the artificial extremes, then that's where serious work needs to be done.Thus, pretending that a nuanced position is, in fact, some generic extreme, is simply to dodge the issue.

I am certainly not dodging any issue. I think it is pretty clear where I stand on the matter, based upon the entire body of the discussion. It is fairly clear where others do as well.

Fair enough; you've stated your position pretty clearly. What I was criticizing was an avoidance of the actual substance of the counter argument.

However, you've already stated: "There is no doubt that some people could be born with a propensity for a certain direction." So, we're already quite some distance from ANY absolute either/or positions: it's all about relative balances and propensities, etc.

[Dutra5]

one fundamental problem i have with all aberrant behavior is the nagging thought that indeed some people are just "wired differently"; if so, how does one fairly treat these people who are victims of their own genetics? Sorry, I have trouble believing in "choice" in these things, even with child molestation. At the bottom end, it's your body (not your mind) telling you what to do, if that makes sense.

And no, I'm not suggesting any kind of "amnesty" on these grounds. As an inquisitive science-based person, I'm just fascinated by the fact that we (make that THEY!) can be screwed from birth.

I could write an extroadinarily long post on this very issue as my wife and I are the parents of a son who, from a fairly early age (I'm talking 3 or 4 years old) it was apparent he struggled with some issues. He's been through medical and psychiatric workups without strict definition of what the issue might be. He has some elements of Aspergers and ADD (not ADHD) and even autism. Socially he struggles yet...in certain respects he can function. He has difficulty discerning what's acceptable and what isn't and seems to have little empathy for anyone including his parents and siblings. He's been in and out of trouble (currently in) since he was 12 years old. He's not a mass murderer however he's clearly been handed a bad lot from the start.

We have two other children who are both perfectly "normal". All raised in the same household and with birthdates within 3 years of each other.

[SQUACKEE]

Anyone who doesn't believe we come into this world with a lot of who we are, explain this

Mozart writing classical music at the age of 5 or the fact that Einstein was way more smarter then your friend Chuck. Or that Reese Hoffa and Bernard Lagat have vastly different P.R.'s in the mile and Shot Putt. Or the guy who can remember everyday of his life. "What day was June 15 1976? "A Sunday."

Therefore a tendency towards, lets say unacceptable behavior, could also be acquired in the womb?

[Athleticsimaging]

Anyone who doesn't believe we come into this world with a lot of who we are, explain this

Mozart writing classical music at the age of 5.......

Mozart was subject to intensive,ongoing instruction in all aspects of music by his father, a talented musician. Most music scholars would say that Mozart did not produce anything truly enduring until more than a decade later. In no way was he purely a genetic freak.

This is not to say that some people are not completely gifted, or fucked up, from birth but apart from those at the extremes of the statistical distribution, most problems arise from the environment to which people are subjected.

[SQUACKEE]

Anyone who doesn't believe we come into this world with a lot of who we are, explain this

Mozart writing classical music at the age of 5.......

Mozart was subject to intensive,ongoing instruction in all aspects of music by his father, a talented musician. Most music scholars would say that Mozart did not produce anything truly enduring until more than a decade later. In no way was he purely a genetic freak.

This is not to say that some people are not completely gifted, or fucked up, from birth but apart from those at the extremes of the statistical distribution, most problems arise from the environment to which people are subjected.

I know his daddy was coaching him, but I still think the kid had talent.

[gh]

Scott Ostler in the SF Chronicle last weekend:

<<... The Penn State horror story has taken a twist for the sicker.

And Joe Paterno's legacy is now more clearly defined.

E-mails have been uncovered by NBC. Three scared sheep - Penn State's president, vice president and athletic director - were going to alert the real authorities to the possible misdeeds of Jerry Sandusky, until the athletic director spoke with Paterno and persuaded the other two Sheep not to be so rash....>>

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/U ... 676698.php

[SQUACKEE]

Scott Ostler in the SF Chronicle last weekend:

<<... The Penn State horror story has taken a twist for the sicker.

And Joe Paterno's legacy is now more clearly defined.

E-mails have been uncovered by NBC. Three scared sheep - Penn State's president, vice president and athletic director - were going to alert the real authorities to the possible misdeeds of Jerry Sandusky, until the athletic director spoke with Paterno and persuaded the other two Sheep not to be so rash....>>

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/U ... 676698.php

The smoking gun, if you will. They are soooo screwed.

[slowjo]

How on earth anyone could know or even worse see young boys being abused and not do something immediately is beyond me.

I can barely keep quiet when I see very subtle forms of poor parenting in public.

Disgusting!

I await futher charges.

[SQUACKEE]

How on earth anyone could know or even worse see young boys being abused and not do something immediately is beyond me.

I can barely keep quiet when I see very subtle forms of poor parenting in public.

Disgusting!

I await futher charges.

The tried to keep it quite as to not hurt Penn State football and it begs the question, what else would they push under the rug? Murder?

[Jackaloupe]

Murder? Now, now, this DisCussin' has (properly) gone into every little nuance, but why resort to speculative hyperbole when there's so much ongoing substance?

BTW, To beg the question is NOT to prompt one (a dumb usage propagated by Cable TV), but a rhetorical repetition of the initial premise w/o advancing the argument/discussion; or to base an argument on an unfounded premise. Now that's what you're verging on, which prompts my own question. Haven't we had enough of going over the same ground, viz. how nasty Sandusky's reprehensible acts were? Since all seem agreed on that--if not their genetic vs. environment basis--why not stick to the facts of the ever-deepening case against Penn State, as GH has just done.

[SQUACKEE]

Murder? Now, now, this DisCussin' has (properly) gone into every little nuance, but why resort to speculative hyperbole when there's so much ongoing substance?

BTW, To beg the question is NOT to prompt one (a dumb usage propagated by Cable TV), but a rhetorical repetition of the initial premise w/o advancing the argument/discussion; or to base an argument on an unfounded premise. Now that's what you're verging on, which prompts my own question. Haven't we had enough of going over the same ground, viz. how nasty Sandusky's reprehensible acts were? Since all seem agreed on that--if not their genetic vs. environment basis--why not stick to the facts of the ever-deepening case against Penn State, as GH has just done.

They willingly ignored the rape of a child, so I just wondered if that was their limit. A logical question.

[lonewolf]

Is anyone surprised by these belated revelations?

[Master Po]

I guess I am somehow at once both surprised and not surprised. At some point in all of this I asked myself, rhetorically, "How could this be any worse?" Well, these surprising-and-not-surprising revelations somehow makes this even worse, at least for me. I knew already that supposedly responsible adults had turned away from knowledge of the abuse of children, but there's something in this news about the deliberateness of their turning away -- these people consulted with each other, thought about their options, considered what they really valued, and proceeded to turn away. Seeing those actions in this news makes me more ill in thinking about this than I was before.

Being a very flawed person who has mostly fallen short of his ideals, I am wary of directing moral condemnation at others when I have never been in their situation, but --- as so many others have attested to in this thread -- these actions and failures to act are heinous. I hope these others are brought to some form of accounting for their actions and punished for what seem to me to be actions that make them accessories to child abuse.

[SQUACKEE]

I guess I am somehow at once both surprised and not surprised. At some point in all of this I asked myself, rhetorically, "How could this be any worse?" Well, these surprising-and-not-surprising revelations somehow makes this even worse, at least for me. I knew already that supposedly responsible adults had turned away from knowledge of the abuse of children, but there's something in this news about the deliberateness of their turning away -- these people consulted with each other, thought about their options, considered what they really valued, and proceeded to turn away. Seeing those actions in this news makes me more ill in thinking about this than I was before.

Being a very flawed person who has mostly fallen short of his ideals, I am wary of directing moral condemnation at others when I have never been in their situation, but --- as so many others have attested to in this thread -- these actions and failures to act are heinous. I hope these others are brought to some form of accounting for their actions and punished for what seem to me to be actions that make them accessories to child abuse.

Well said and I don't think there is anything else to say right now. We will wait to see the next chapter.

[26mi235]

Free report coming in:

Penn State leaders including former President Graham Spanier and late football coach Joe Paterno covered up Jerry Sandusky's child sexual abuse for years to save the reputation of the school and its multimillon-dollar football program, former FBI director Louis Freeh said on Thursday.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-crime-sanduskybre86b05d-20120711,0,5217577.story

The most damaging evidence came from the discovery of "critical" emails exchanged in 1998 and 2001.

Among the emails was a series in which top school officials discussed reporting the allegations about Sandusky to authorities, even going so far as to propose a plan. After speaking with Paterno, however, "they changed the plan and decided not to make a report" to police or child protective services.

"Their failure to protect the February 9, 2001 child victim, or make attempts to identify him, created a dangerous situation for other unknown, unsuspecting young boys who were lured to the Penn State campus and football games by Sandusky and victimized repeatedly by him," Freeh said.

[Conor Dary]

"The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized," Freeh said.

"In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity," he added.

"Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley never demonstrated, through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky's victims until after Sandusky's arrest," Freeh said.

"Even though they all knew about the 1998 incident, the best they could muster to protect Sandusky's victims was to ask Sandusky not to bring his 'guests' into the Penn State facilities," Freeh said.

What a cesspool Penn State has sunk into.