The fact that an aging Paterno wasn’t really able to comprehend the whole matter will not convince some of his lack of blame. Some people will insist that he should have been able to understand such despicable behavior, and they will never accept that some among us come from an era where such repulsive activities were utterly inconceivable.
The premise is right, that a man of that era simply has no understanding of today's culture of homosexuality and so on. That, however, is an indictment and not a defense of Paterno.
Similar thoughts.
The press have been relentless in their condemnation and pursuit of Paterno. They are something much less than relentless in examining the NAMBLA-like aspects of this case. Sandusky’s crimes have been described as everything from molestation to rape to a ‘sex scandal’ (ugh) but the PC code of the press means that the most glaring aspect of the case has been ignored (at worst) or simply recounted in matter-of-fact terms (at best).
Nonsense. None of this is new. You really think they didn’t know about pederasty and pedophilia before now?
Paterno didn’t act upon knowledge that he should have acted upon. Little kids continued to be abused. I feel bad for him, but he made his own decisions.
Your premise is the one that’s wrong if you think that Paterno had no understanding of todays homosexual culture. First off he was a Roman catholic and I’m certain that he had heard about the pedophile priest scandal and all its nasty details. Secondly, to say this man was an educator, supposedly a very intelligent man, and had and never heard of such a thing is plain BS.
My father and father in law were well aware of what child molesters were all about and they were from the same era.