nelsonmuntz
Point Center
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 44,903
- Reaction Score
- 35,162
The argument is that Penn State is so lacking morally, why bother punishing them?
The argument is that Penn State is so lacking morally, why bother punishing them?
Why do you have to use a fallacy to try and make your point?
It seems pretty universal that people want some sort of corrective action againts PSU. But there are alot of different ways to do that, but just because someone doesn't endorse the same technique as you, doesn't mean that they are trying to cover for the guilty.
WingU did not want corrective action. He was clear about that.
That's not how I read WingU's comments. I read them saying that he doesn't believe the penalties he mentioned will have an effect, not that there shouldn't be penalties.WingU did not want corrective action. He was clear about that.
Neither do you. You don't want corrective action either. You want punishment. There's a difference. Not that there's anything wrong with punishment. I think UNC too should be punished much harder. I'm assuming they've already taken corrective action.
By not punishing Penn State, you would be punishing all the schools that didn't break the rules. Football is a zero sum game. I know you are slow on the uptake, but there has to be a loser for every winner in football. By letting Penn State get away with cheating, everyone who didn't cheat gets punished because Penn State had an advantage as a result of their cheating. This is basic logic, not rocket science.
It gets tiring to explain the most basic aspects of critical reasoning to you. You are so obtuse most of the time that I assume you are kidding, but you seem serious.
You keep dragging other people and issues into this. UNC has nothing to do with the fact that Penn State concealed the activities of a serial child rapist for almost 2 decades, so let's ignore UNC for the time being. Agreed?
If you don't punish this cover-up, then why should any athletic program in the future ever come forward with any violation? By your argument, there is no time machine through which we can go back and change history, so why punish Penn State at all? Haven't they suffered enough? (sarcasm intended)
My God, you're boiling this down to gaining an advantage for football?
Uh, no. We're talking about the NCAA's power to punish here. You have to look at how the NCAA operates. Only a tiny mind like yours would interpret that as dragging others into it.
As for the rest, never said any of it. In fact, I've said the exact opposite in this very thread. You continue to twist words into saying the exact opposite of what posters are saying.
What is wrong with you?
Upstater,
This thread is a discussion of whether Penn State should get the death penalty. The discussion is about football.
Every single one of your posts in this thread and more generally on this topic is a deflection of Penn State's responsibility or an attack on anyone that thinks Penn State should be severely punished.
Upstater,
rather than attack me, or any other poster, just state, like I did, what you think should happen. It's that simple. If you don't, I will assume that you are advocating light punishments for Penn State, which would be a fair assumption.
Who cares if other teams will benefit if PSU is punished? That should be the least of anyone's concerns.
Let me twist your words the way you twist everyone else's: You don't give a damn about children, you just want PSU to lose recruits to UConn.
This argument is the maturity level of rubber/glue. More deflection. Take a stand or stop wasting our time.
This argument is the maturity level of rubber/glue. More deflection. Take a stand or stop wasting our time.
Is it really a good time building straw men and winning arguments against them all the time? Does that make you feel smart?
Have you given any thought to the notion that if everyone accuses you of twisting words that it may actually be true?
It's funny that someone that agrees with me as much as you do still wants to argue with me all the time simply because I am a Democrat.