Skip to comments.Survivors of sexual abuse appalled by Penn State unrest
Posted on 11/11/2011 6:47:52 PM PST by Hoodat
How does a survivor of sexual abuse respond to students rioting at Penn State?
"You're not getting it. You just don't get it," said Dave Lorenz who was abused by a priest as a teen.
"It's just stupid youthfulness."
Earlier this week, legendary head football coach Joe Paterno was removed in the midst of a scandal involving sexual abuse allegations against a former defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky.
Watching footage of Penn State students rioting in the streets Wednesday night, Lorenzo shuddered, then hung his head.
What bothered Lorenz is that students "rallied around (Paterno's) house, cheering him up."
"The kids up there just don't understand what this does," he said.
"Stop thinking of the adult and start thinking of what happens to a child that goes through this. You love the adult, you may not know the kid. Start thinking of the kid and the horror they go through, because it's hell."
Kayla Garriott, a 22-year-old college student who was sexually abused as a child, said the open support for Paterno was disrespectful to survivors.
"That's the first thing people look at -- that their football team is without their head coach that's been there so many years. Nobody looks at the eight children."
The rioters are "never going to be in those children's shoes. It's not about football. It's about eight children who are never going to get back their lives back. They're going to live with this the rest of their lives. They might not get over that."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Or is it that you like a good lynching?
The crimes against these children were perpetrated by a single abuser. There is also someone who saw this first hand and did not call the police. The old guy is probably senile and can be fooled by anyone.
I don't watch football, don't know anything about Penn State, but do recognize a media lynching when I see one.
The cover up needs to be vetted in a court of law.
Homosexuals want pederasty. John Maynard Keynes was a homosexual who had orgies and they brought boys to them—all the homosexuals passed them around. Man/boy “love” is as old as the Ancient Greeks and they glorified the behavior....it was the grooming of the boys into the behavior of homosexuality.
The “moral” aspect discussed by Plato....was “is it moral for the young lovers when they grow up to dump their “old” “lover” for much younger one.
Another thing: Homosexual acts are not “love”. The acts are lust and narcissism—never “love”.
Pederasty is a part of homosexuality. To glorify homosexuality is to glorify child abuse.
Their sick idea that if they “love” someone, they have to stick body parts into some obscene place is bizarre and Satanic. I love my kids more than anything and I certainly don’t have to do sick things to them to “show” love. Homosexuals are mentally ill and have been abused as children.
By your own standards, that's an extremely illogical and intellectually inconsistent statement since Sandusky hasn't yet been tried in a court of law. No "abuser" has been convicted of any "abuse." Right now Sandusky hasn't been found guilty of anything. He's out on bail, by the way, so you're free to call him up to watch your kids this weekend. Why wouldn't you? After all, he hasn't been vetted by a court of law.
If you wouldn't be willing to do that, is it possible you may have formed an opinion of him based on the information available? If that's the case, I've done no more than the same thing in the case of McQueary and Paterno...except that the information I have available as the basis of my judgment came from each of their own respective admissions and testimony!
You need to read the thread I was just on. It will sicken you.
There are 4 FReepers -- NRG1973, Hellbender; TomB, and Two_Sheds -- who are VIGOROUSLY defending McQueary for doing nothing while he watched a 10-year-old boy get raped in front of his eyes.
Sadly, I don't know how to link you to that thread, but if you go straight to my posting history, you'll go straight there.
It's shocking to think that we have those who defend the worst sorts of moral cowards here on FR.
I keep wondering why and who gave Sandusky the emeritus position and thus the keys to the kingdom (ie locker room at Latch). Was it Spanier and the trustees? I wouldn't think JoePa could do something like that.
The story as I understand it:
Sandusky has been observed by a witnesss (MCQueary) sexually abusing a child.
Sandusky is the "abuser", McQueary is johnny-come-lately to reporting same and did nothing to protect the child.
The old guy Paterno was given a report after the fact by McQ and reported to higher ups. Higher ups in the University did NOTHING. All blame Paterno?
Why not let this unravel as to those who were not the abusers, yet perhaps the enablers? Testimony via Grand jury from what I understand from this, fingers Sandusky as the abuser.
So why are you against a full hearing in a court of law and INSTEAD seeking to string every person you view as part of this up in the nearest tree?
The Grand Jury report shows that after reporting the information to Curly and Schultz (head of the University Police), Paterno was left out of all subsequent meetings between Curly, Schultz, McQuery, and Spanier. Schultz never passed the information along to his University Police. So in reality, Paterno did inform the University Police when he initially talked to Curly and Schultz. I think he has suffered more than enough. All the decision makers, and the witness were meeting and charting the course of action without Paterno's involvement.
Again, you need to liberally sprinkly the word "alleged" in there if you are to remain intellectually consistent. And you're only reinforcing my point. If McQueery's own testimony is accurate, he failed to intervene and allowed the abuse to continue while he slunked off to call his daddy. Now, I doubt in the strictest sense, he had a legal obligation to intervene, but if you can argue that a grown adult male, fully physically capable of doing so does not have a moral obligation to intervene we needn't continue this conversation because we're on two different planets. That is my contention. McQueary, by his very own testimony, did not intervene. I would argue he had a moral obligation to do so, and by his own words he did not. At least that night, he enabled Sandusky to wrap things up with that child. McQueary enabled the continued abuse of that boy.
"The old guy Paterno was given a report after the fact by McQ and reported to higher ups. Higher ups in the University did NOTHING. All blame Paterno?"
Paterno blamed Paterno!! After his cancelled press conference earlier in the week, Paterno addressed the matter and said he should have done more. That is a very, very direct implication he did not do enough, nor did he do everything within his power. There's really no other way to take it, and again, this is Paterno's very own admission. "Why not let this unravel as to those who were not the abusers, yet perhaps the enablers? Testimony via Grand jury from what I understand from this, fingers Sandusky as the abuser...So why are you against a full hearing in a court of law and INSTEAD seeking to string every person you view as part of this up in the nearest tree?"
It's going to unravel whether I let it or not. And what have I said or even implied that suggests I'm not entirely desirous of seeing this played out in a legal forum? But, above and beyond the criminal charges and trials, I can think of few recent situations in our society that call out for strong moral condemnation, even if not all the players are guilty of having violated the elements of strict criminal charges. Again, I will direct you to my earlier contention that what is legal and what is moral are not always the same things. There are wide ranges of behaviors that are completely legal, but can and should be judged as immoral or unethical. I think in this case, there's going to be plenty of both (illegal and immoral) behavior to go around.
Nice to see you are able to have a mature conversation about this without personal attacks there Joe! I am hardly a liberal in that I do believe in our rights to a trial by jury and not media. Sorry to see you don’t, I thought you were a conservative, sad to see you are just like the lib mad dogs in the media.
So it's ok for you to pass moral value judgments on other people, but I'm not allowed to? That's a double standard worthy of any liberal. You're making an evaluation of me based on things I've said. I've simply done the same based on things McQueary and Paterno said.
Paterno could have redeemed a large part of his tattered reputation by telling the rioters to go home and be quiet, but his ego prevented him to do the right thing.
I just caught the exchange above.
This homo-rape and cover up is revealing a lot about people. Really a lot. Shows me the need to stock up on more ammo.
Yeah, and the first paragraph of any future biography will note his cover-ups of child rape. What a legacy.
Yeah...I’ve been amazed at some of the JoPologists and McScuses that have been surfacing.
/b>Very well said.
Maybe you should back away from that tree and put away your rope and horse, until such time as those guilty are found guilty by a jury of their peers. But then again... it seems you find our justice system just too liberal for your MORALITY?
ROTFLMAO...there's that double standard again. You condem me for "attacking fellow freepers", and in the very next sentence...attack me! You do know there is medication for bipolar disorder, don't you?
As for my belief in the Constitution, what percentage of you life have you spent under oath to defend it with your life? Care to match it against mine? Happy Veteran’s Day :-)
That’s not the whole statement. The first part of that was “With the benefit of hindsight.”
As in, knowing now what kind of monster Sandusky is, he wishes he had done more. He had no idea at the time.