I guess at the same time that strawman arguments became prevalent, or perhaps around the time you stopped beating your wife.

we have the facts, and they are indisputable.

is it still a strawman if it's true?

the topic at hand is child rape, and what the punishment should be for the institution that enabled it for over a decade. I reposted that statement because I want to make it crystal clear what we're "debating" here. what we're arguing for, and what you're arguing against.

We're not talking about punishing the people who did the rape, or the people who covered up the rape. Beyond the fact that Spanier is weirdly not in jail, that's taken care of.

I'm not really comfortable looking at the rest of PSU, the players, the students, ect and making them rapists too. As I said- any person close to the coverup, close to defending Paterno- needs to be gone as a condition of whatever punishment happens. Beyond that it's more complicated than just yelling that rape is bad.

i mean we still haven't established what level of sexual conduct amounts to child rape

I'm very sympathetic.
* They should add on 2 years of eligibility for these student athletes from other sports to transfer, and make Penn State pay for those 2 years.
* All coaching staffs from other sports @ PSU should be given 52 weeks severance [payable by PSU], and automatically be eligible for 99 weeks unemployment. And food stamps.
[payable by the commonwealth of PA]

I don't get this. The punishment is for the coverup, not for having the rapist. The schools need to be MUCH worse off by covering it up than coming clean. DP is the only way this happens. This is why you get retards that run for the trustees that run on the platform of restoring JoePa as Coach Emeritus and winning.

i want to write an angry letter to my state rep and state senators, asking what they are going to ask penn state to do in order to continue receiving its 500 million dollars a year from the state.

my expectation is between nothing and 0.

really? they "need to be gone"? no ****ing ****. and if we go anywhere beyond that puerile conclusion, it's complicated. I'm beginning to understand why you think I'm "yelling rape." I guess I overlooked the powerful statement made by getting rid of anyone close to the group that decided to enable... nevermind. you clearly don't get it, so I'll stop trying to explain.

just so we're clear though, now your argument is that giving the death penalty to the football program that instituted the coverup is a collective punishment to the institution that enabled the football program, and that's why it shouldn't happen?

Ask yourself "What are we accomplishing by punishing those people not even indirectly involved in the cover-up? What would be the purpose of that action?.

Then go back and read my posts. There's a pretty key point you're missing.

Dids- Can you explain how you feel about the punishment doled out to USC then?

A brief synopsis of the case if you're not familiar

A wannabe sports agent paid for a house for Reggie Bush's family to live in after he was already on campus. Coaches *probably* knew about it (Todd McNair was proved to have talked to said agent, the contents of the conversation are not confirmed). By the time USC was punished reggie was in the nfl, the coach was fired, and pete carroll had moved on to the nfl as well.

Because if you are against punitive penalties for institutions that lack control I assume you are against the usc penalties as well.

Fwiw, I think it serves as a good deterrent and I believe usc should have been punished and that PSU deserves the DP.

anyone who is against PSU's punishment because it'll "hurt other people" should adopt the stance that they are against all punishments from the NCAA, or it's just intellectually dishonest.

if you start arguing, "well im just saying they don't need to do a 2 year ban that'll hurt employees blah blah" now you are doing a balancing test of the weight of punishment vs. the crime, and that's prob not where you want to go.

I don't think this is analogous to USC's situation at all. That's specifical about compliance with NCAA rules directly related to maintaining a fair competition. One of the reasons I'm not sure the DP is appropriate for PSU is that to me, this is not a football issue.

Also obviously there's an intent that USC's penalties are not just punitive, but a deterrent.

Mostly though- I never said I was against punitive penalties. It's not necessarily what I would do in this case, but the point I was trying to get five4 to realize is that I said "if you're doing it specifically because it's punitive, I can't argue with that, but if it's for another reason I don't believe that the collateral damage to the functional innocents is worth whatever you think you're getting out of it".

I agree that this is why it's not analogous to the other examples being brought up ITT. But if you get past the threshold issue of whether the NCAA can punish general bad behavior unrelated to any underlying NCAA rule, then I think the death penalty is warranted. I think Karak said it should be all or nothing. I agree with that.

Very much disagree with this.