I didn't see Ass-spray's allegation of a secret meeting but consider this. If there really was a secret cohort meeting and what they discussed never left the room, how the hell could Ass-spray claim there was some breach of moral duty? He didn't know what they discussed, right? Maybe he wants to believe they talked about Sandusky but following his own logic he doesn't know that. Like many here, I've come to the conclusion he's a paid astroturfer. The question is, who is paying him?
Five Years & Our "Leadership".
- Thread starter moofafoo
- Start date
I don't need evidence. The result speak for itself. You apologists need evidence.
Obviously you aren't bright enough to understand that simple fact.
It is also very obvious that MM was the biggest abdicator of moral responsibility.
I dont think that I have a reading problem. I would really like to know what specifically you think is immoral. Is that too hard to explain? I did not think that was too tough of a question
It's just that anyone with the reading comprehension of a first grader already knows what
I considered immoral. Since you can't understand what a first grader could,
you have a reading problem. If I were you, I would consider abandoning this thread. You are
just making a fool of yourself.
You are acting like a typical troll. When you have no answer you simply resort to name calling and other sophomoric retorts. If you can't explain your position, then maybe it is you who should consider abandoning the discussion.
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
I realize those were rhetorical questions but they were the questions that seem fly by those who bought Louis freeh's theory.
if people knew (actually knew), then law and morality would bring them to the same conclusion. Dr D already spoke. His testimony and basically all other testimony cut against Freeh's conspiracy theory. People didn't know, so they followed the law and whatever guidance they were given.
The morality argument in this case Is the fallback position when folks aren't satisfied by the outcome after applying the law. And there just isn't enough proof that these guys, or at least the ones who spoke, actually knew.
Last edited by a moderator:
What name did I call you that you find offensive? More proof of your reading problem.
The name calling is your referring to me as having the reading intellect of a first-grader. My reading comprehension is quite good. Your ability to answer a question is quite poor.
It is a very simple question. What, in your mind, do you find to be immoral with Paterno's actions? It's not a trick question. The fact that you cannot or will not answer it, I believe, demonstrates that you have been backed in to a corner with no chance of defending your position. Hence you will stall and stammer to try and deceive and deflect.
Osprey.... I would recommend the book, "Everything is Obvious, Once You Know the Answer". It is a treatise on the subject of how 'common sense' fails us; In my opinion, it argues there is no such thing. One of the subjects in the book is the difference between Knowing and knowing, and Believing and believing. It illustrates these subjects well, and takes some slow reading and pondering to fully understand the subject matter of the book. I'll leave it to you to consider and explore.
Speaking of "Everything is Obvious, Once You Know the Answer".:
Thinking that there is ANY point in "debating" a Circle-Jerker like Osprey is "wrong".
Similar threads
