Reply #109: A very serious misunderstanding.

[caseymoz]

Maybe I should restate it just for you: "If we could replace every perp who's not cowardly enough with someone who's too cowardly to be a perp . . ." clear enough now? I'm trying to regain my patience, here.

The article claimed the guy who saw it and did nothing, McQueary, the coward, was "as high in culpability as the perpetration of the crime itself." That's what I was disputing. Yes, the do-nothing witness was bad, but, no, not nearly as bad as the perp. Since the article never referred to the child molester as the coward, and since I also didn't say that, whether you call a child molester a coward is irrelevant.

However, since you've made the point, a cowardly enough pedophile would be too scared to commit any act against a child whatsoever. No matter how he felt. If he's not afraid of the child, he would at least be too terrified of being caught by the adults. He'd never turn into a child molester. In other words, he'd do nothing, just as the witness McQueary.

Abducting kids is wicked but does not seem cowardly to me. Having sex, with anybody, in semi-public location doesn't scream chicken to me, either. It may be called (depending on how you describe your emotions) disgusting, obscene and with children, vile and reprobate. Cowardly is not the first thing that comes to my mind about it. I've got to indulge in the indirect deduction that you do, the kind of thing we grab at when disgust compels us to insult somebody and calling him a child molester is merely a statement of fact. I understand the drive to insult child molesters as much as possible, but when it begins to interfere with the ability to think clearly, draw the line.

This Sandusky was not a coward, even after he was seen, even after he was caught, he did not stop, and he came up with elaborate schemes to commit his evil. Whatever other terrible thing he is, that is not a coward.