What is wrong with Penn state students???

[smilesonly]

i find their mass gatherings and support for joe pa ignorant, shocking, shallow and immature.:confused:

 

am i the only one?:confused:

[ThatCyndiGirl]

No, you are not the only one. To me it says that tradition, legacy and sports are more important than honour, morals, ethics and treating people with kindness, justice, and fairness. :glare:

[Moxie]

They are young and football is their god.

 

Edited to add: It isn't just Penn. DH went to Notre Dame. I could totally see the undergrads doing the same thing there.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Moxie

[Joker]

I think most of them are going to feel rather embarrassed. They'll probably think themselves complete idiots the day they have a child of their own. There's not really any excuse but I think they're just young and stupid.

[Jen500]

They are young and football is their god.

 

I think the school should can their whole football program.

[Liz CA]

And...it's just hard to see someone you admired "fall" like this. I never heard of the man until now but apparently he was a legend among college football coaches. These young men looked up to him and now are probably at a loss where their hero went. The whole situation is damaging on so many levels down to the depraved, most evil level.

[Murphy101]

I'd like to see at least as much outrage as over the priest scandals, tyvm.

 

Maybe sue the school to the point it has to close up. Or at least shut down their athletic dept.:glare:

[Crissy]

I think they're more concerned with being present at a historical moment than with the victims of this atrocity.

I hope they quickly realize their mistake.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

:iagree: with all the posts. I think the admittance age for collage should be higher, with special circumstances allowed. Then you'll get people who just might have some sense (generally, I know there are some good young people out there.)

 

For the record, I'm 25.

[Marylou]

Umm . . . we have a whole generation growing up on Two & Half Men type shows/movies (BTW, doesn't the 1/2 mean there's a child present :glare:), and immoral jokes/scandals/illicit sex are just another thing to either laugh about or shrug off.

 

I'm not surprised at the rioting at all. Sad, yes. Surprised? Not at all.

[Crissy]

These students are doing the right thing. My hope is that by tomorrow night the word will travel and the number of students will be significant.

[leeannpal]

Umm . . . we have a whole generation growing up on Two & Half Men type shows/movies (BTW, doesn't the 1/2 mean there's a child present :glare:), and immoral jokes/scandals/illicit sex are just another thing to either laugh about or shrug off.

 

I'm not surprised at the rioting at all. Sad, yes. Surprised? Not at all.

:iagree:I am a huge college football fan and have known of the legacy of Joe Pa since childhood. But this is so much bigger than football or a legacy. I think the poster who said that, one day, these students will be embarrassed at their behavior is dead on.

[elegantlion]

These students are doing the right thing. My hope is that by tomorrow night the word will travel and the number of students will be significant.

 

:iagree:

 

I hope some of those involved in the stupidity will go home, look in the mirror and realize it could have been them. Or go home and look at their little brothers and realize it could have been them. Or at least go home and have their mommas talk some sense into their dense heads.

[mommaduck]

i find their mass gatherings and support for joe pa ignorant, shocking, shallow and immature.:confused:

 

am i the only one?:confused:

I was coming on to post the same :banghead:

[Lisbeth]

I don't understand rabid fan behavior. To me this is some crazier extension. I just don't understand! Child molestation overlooked to keep a football program going - what?! Sick!!

[FO4UR]

Not surprised. Sickened. Saddened. Enraged....but not surprised.

 

 

A similar thing happened in my high school music dept. Nevermind that kids were being abused b/c we need to win.:glare:

 

This goes beyond sports=god. This is herd mentality at it's finest.

[Crissy]

Child molestation overlooked to keep a football program going - what?! Sick!!

 

I believe these men, had they found themselves together in some other profession, would have made the same choices. I don't think it's about sports. As I said in another thread, it's about misplaced loyalty and self-preservation.

[jennynd]

They are young and football is their god.

 

Edited to add: It isn't just Penn. DH went to Notre Dame. I could totally see the undergrads doing the same thing there.

 

Both hubby and I went Notre Dame. No, I don't see kids in ND do that.

They will get dismissed from the university before they get back to their dorm.

[redsquirrel]

These kids are living in a world of 10% unemployment, dwindling natural resources and no job prospects when they get out.

 

This is what gets them up off their butts? Really? Some old football coach?

 

If that were my kid I would be so ashamed.

[OrganicAnn]

I heard an interview with 3 kids from Penn State on the radio. They were expressing the same shock. One kid said "I hope everyone realizes that there are 44,000 students at Penn State and it was 2,000 who did this. The other 42,000 were appalled."

[Kathleen in VA]

Umm . . . we have a whole generation growing up on Two & Half Men type shows/movies (BTW, doesn't the 1/2 mean there's a child present :glare:), and immoral jokes/scandals/illicit sex are just another thing to either laugh about or shrug off.

 

I'm not surprised at the rioting at all. Sad, yes. Surprised? Not at all.

 

:iagree: Sad, but not at all surprised. This is the natural outcome of individuals who have been taught from infancy that they are nothing but animals, evolved from lower life forms. The logical conclusion of that teaching is that there is no such thing as good or evil - only what is useful, pragmatic and what is not. They probably wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, Sandusky was just expressing his animal instincts.

 

When a society believes that they are just a bit more evolved than apes, good is defined simply as what serves self or perhaps the greater good (as defined by the majority); evil is whatever impedes either of those. There is no longer any objective standard for right and wrong - each man does what is right in his own eyes. The surprising thing to me is that so many who claim to believe that humans are evolved from pond scum care at all - that they consider any of these men to be behaving badly. Why? What do they base that thinking on? That they hurt someone else? No doubt, Sandusky believed he was doing these boys a favor.

 

There is a serious disconnect here. Either there is a standard for morality - an objective, absolute authoritative standard that we can all rely on and live by, or there isn't. If there isn't, then who is any of us to judge another's behavior? What do we base that judgment on?

 

Of course, I believe the Bible is that authoritative standard. It condemns this behavior as wicked. But those who reject the Bible and say they believe that man is just a little further along the evolutionary spectrum than other animals betray their true belief that man is accountable to an absolute standard of right and wrong. Yet, they do not explain what evolutionary adaptation is responsible for this standard. Indeed, they cannot.

[FiveOaksAcademy]

:iagree: Sad, but not at all surprised. This is the natural outcome of individuals who have been taught from infancy that they are nothing but animals, evolved from lower life forms. The logical conclusion of that teaching is that there is no such thing as good or evil - only what is useful, pragmatic and what is not. They probably wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, Sandusky was just expressing his animal instincts.

 

When a society believes that they are just a bit more evolved than apes, good is defined simply as what serves self or perhaps the greater good (as defined by the majority); evil is whatever impedes either of those. There is no longer any objective standard for right and wrong - each man does what is right in his own eyes. The surprising thing to me is that so many who claim to believe that humans are evolved from pond scum care at all - that they consider any of these men to be behaving badly. Why? What do they base that thinking on? That they hurt someone else? No doubt, Sandusky believed he was doing these boys a favor.

 

There is a serious disconnect here. Either there is a standard for morality - an objective, absolute authoritative standard that we can all rely on and live by, or there isn't. If there isn't, then who is any of us to judge another's behavior? What do we base that judgment on?

 

Of course, I believe the Bible is that authoritative standard. It condemns this behavior as wicked. But those who reject the Bible and say they believe that man is just a little further along the evolutionary spectrum than other animals betray their true belief that man is accountable to an absolute standard of right and wrong. Yet, they do not explain what evolutionary adaptation is responsible for this standard. Indeed, they cannot.

 

 

:iagree: Thank you for that. That was beautifully stated.

[mommaduck]

I heard an interview with 3 kids from Penn State on the radio. They were expressing the same shock. One kid said "I hope everyone realizes that there are 44,000 students at Penn State and it was 2,000 who did this. The other 42,000 were appalled."

It will take the other 42k getting louder than the 2k for people to realise. The media will always focus on the ridiculous :glare:

 

I don't believe in evolution, but, at the same time, I would not blame the 2k's behaviour on it. There are plenty of ppl here that are just as appalled and believe in evolution.

[redsquirrel]

:iagree: Sad, but not at all surprised. This is the natural outcome of individuals who have been taught from infancy that they are nothing but animals, evolved from lower life forms. The logical conclusion of that teaching is that there is no such thing as good or evil - only what is useful, pragmatic and what is not. They probably wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, Sandusky was just expressing his animal instincts.

 

When a society believes that they are just a bit more evolved than apes, good is defined simply as what serves self or perhaps the greater good (as defined by the majority); evil is whatever impedes either of those. There is no longer any objective standard for right and wrong - each man does what is right in his own eyes. The surprising thing to me is that so many who claim to believe that humans are evolved from pond scum care at all - that they consider any of these men to be behaving badly. Why? What do they base that thinking on? That they hurt someone else? No doubt, Sandusky believed he was doing these boys a favor.

 

There is a serious disconnect here. Either there is a standard for morality - an objective, absolute authoritative standard that we can all rely on and live by, or there isn't. If there isn't, then who is any of us to judge another's behavior? What do we base that judgment on?

 

Of course, I believe the Bible is that authoritative standard. It condemns this behavior as wicked. But those who reject the Bible and say they believe that man is just a little further along the evolutionary spectrum than other animals betray their true belief that man is accountable to an absolute standard of right and wrong. Yet, they do not explain what evolutionary adaptation is responsible for this standard. Indeed, they cannot.

 

:lol:

 

 

That is the best laugh I have had all day. And after what those students did, I really needed one.

[justamouse]

I think most of them are going to feel rather embarrassed. They'll probably think themselves complete idiots the day they have a child of their own. There's not really any excuse but I think they're just young and stupid.

:iagree:

[Marylou]

:lol:

 

 

That is the best laugh I have had all day. And after what those students did, I really needed one.

 

 

Well, when you're done chuckling, maybe you can enlighten us on how you make decisions about right and wrong :bigear:.

[justamouse]

:iagree: Sad, but not at all surprised. This is the natural outcome of individuals who have been taught from infancy that they are nothing but animals, evolved from lower life forms. The logical conclusion of that teaching is that there is no such thing as good or evil - only what is useful, pragmatic and what is not. They probably wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, Sandusky was just expressing his animal instincts.

 

When a society believes that they are just a bit more evolved than apes, good is defined simply as what serves self or perhaps the greater good (as defined by the majority); evil is whatever impedes either of those. There is no longer any objective standard for right and wrong - each man does what is right in his own eyes. The surprising thing to me is that so many who claim to believe that humans are evolved from pond scum care at all - that they consider any of these men to be behaving badly. Why? What do they base that thinking on? That they hurt someone else? No doubt, Sandusky believed he was doing these boys a favor.

 

There is a serious disconnect here. Either there is a standard for morality - an objective, absolute authoritative standard that we can all rely on and live by, or there isn't. If there isn't, then who is any of us to judge another's behavior? What do we base that judgment on?

 

Of course, I believe the Bible is that authoritative standard. It condemns this behavior as wicked. But those who reject the Bible and say they believe that man is just a little further along the evolutionary spectrum than other animals betray their true belief that man is accountable to an absolute standard of right and wrong. Yet, they do not explain what evolutionary adaptation is responsible for this standard. Indeed, they cannot.

 

Umm there's no either or.

 

I believe in evolution and am totally appalled, and disgusted at the way they're acting.

 

I bet there are a lot of atheists who are disgusted at the way they're acting.

[FiveOaksAcademy]

:lol:

 

 

That is the best laugh I have had all day. And after what those students did, I really needed one.

 

:glare: :huh: Mature.

Edited November 11, 2011 by FiveOaksAcademy

[justamouse]

What an immature response to an intelligent and well-spoken post.

 

It was insulting, is what it was.

 

She's saying that only creationist Christians have any morality.

[FiveOaksAcademy]

.

[Caitilin]

It was insulting, is what it was.

 

She's saying that only creationist Christians have any morality.

 

:iagree: I was shocked to read it, TBH.

[Kathleen in VA]

Umm there's no either or.

 

I believe in evolution and am totally appalled, and disgusted at the way they're acting.

 

I bet there are a lot of atheists who are disgusted at the way they're acting.

 

This I do not doubt. I never said that evolutionists and atheists are not appalled. What I said is that they have no moral basis for being appalled. If we are just animals, then there is no objective authoritative standard for right and wrong. I am saying there is a disconnect between the beliefs of evolutionists and atheists and their judgmental attitudes towards those who are simply (according to the logic of evolutionism) acting on their instincts. Why are you appalled? That is the question.

 

ETA: Perhaps a better way to put it is to just say that evolutionists and atheists who are appalled betray that they do indeed have a moral standard. Why they do is the question. I think it is because on a deeper level they know man is not merely an animal, that there is a higher law above man's - God's law. They simply do not want to admit it.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Kathleen in VA

[twoforjoy]

:iagree: Sad, but not at all surprised. This is the natural outcome of individuals who have been taught from infancy that they are nothing but animals, evolved from lower life forms. The logical conclusion of that teaching is that there is no such thing as good or evil - only what is useful, pragmatic and what is not. They probably wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, Sandusky was just expressing his animal instincts.

 

When a society believes that they are just a bit more evolved than apes, good is defined simply as what serves self or perhaps the greater good (as defined by the majority); evil is whatever impedes either of those. There is no longer any objective standard for right and wrong - each man does what is right in his own eyes. The surprising thing to me is that so many who claim to believe that humans are evolved from pond scum care at all - that they consider any of these men to be behaving badly. Why? What do they base that thinking on? That they hurt someone else? No doubt, Sandusky believed he was doing these boys a favor.

 

There is a serious disconnect here. Either there is a standard for morality - an objective, absolute authoritative standard that we can all rely on and live by, or there isn't. If there isn't, then who is any of us to judge another's behavior? What do we base that judgment on?

 

Of course, I believe the Bible is that authoritative standard. It condemns this behavior as wicked. But those who reject the Bible and say they believe that man is just a little further along the evolutionary spectrum than other animals betray their true belief that man is accountable to an absolute standard of right and wrong. Yet, they do not explain what evolutionary adaptation is responsible for this standard. Indeed, they cannot.

 

This is beyond offensive and insulting, to both young people and non-Christians.

 

How do you explain all the good Bible-believing Christians standing behind Herman Cain after four women have come forth to say that he forced advances, some physical, on them? I guess it's just their belief in evolution, huh?

 

This is about the fact that some individuals will ALWAYS put loyalty to the team--whether it be a sports team, a political party, a religious institution, or whatever--first. And, there's been such a quick judgment about this that it's not surprising that some students at the school would not immediately join in. It has NOTHING to do with age, with evolution, or with religious belief/atheism. I think it's incredibly sad and kind of scary that you think it does.

[LibraryLover]

This I do not doubt. I never said that evolutionists and atheists are not appalled. What I said is that they have no moral basis for being appalled. If we are just animals, then there is no objective authoritative standard for right and wrong. I am saying there is a disconnect between the beliefs of evolutionists and atheists and their judgmental attitudes towards those who are simply (according to the logic of evolutionism) acting on their instincts. Why are you appalled? That is the question.

 

I know you must be kidding, given the child brides of a certain LDS sect.

[mommaduck]

This I do not doubt. I never said that evolutionists and atheists are not appalled. What I said is that they have no moral basis for being appalled. If we are just animals, then there is no objective authoritative standard for right and wrong. I am saying there is a disconnect between the beliefs of evolutionists and atheists and their judgmental attitudes towards those who are simply (according to the logic of evolutionism) acting on their instincts. Why are you appalled? That is the question.

Unfortunately, this is what YE leaders taught us, but it is not true for all of those that believe in evolution. The YE/Ev is not the end all/be all of morality...if so, then we are making that our "god".

[brehon]

It was insulting, is what it was.

 

She's saying that only creationist Christians have any morality.

 

:iagree: I was shocked to read it, TBH.

 

I've sat here actually speechless that someone would think and say this. Wasn't sure quite how to put what I was thinking into coherent words.

[LidiyaDawn]

 

ETA: Perhaps a better way to put it is to just say that evolutionists and atheists who are appalled betray that they do indeed have a moral standard. Why they do is the question. I think it is because on a deeper level they know man is not merely an animal, that there is a higher law above man's - God's law. They simply do not want to admit it.

 

…now the atheists are just in denial? :001_huh:

[Kathleen in VA]

This is beyond offensive and insulting, to both young people and non-Christians.

 

How do you explain all the good Bible-believing Christians standing behind Herman Cain after four women have come forth to say that he forced advances, some physical, on them? I guess it's just their belief in evolution, huh?

 

This is about the fact that some individuals will ALWAYS put loyalty to the team--whether it be a sports team, a political party, a religious institution, or whatever--first. And, there's been such a quick judgment about this that it's not surprising that some students at the school would not immediately join in. It has NOTHING to do with age, with evolution, or with religious belief/atheism. I think it's incredibly sad and kind of scary that you think it does.

 

I cannot speak for "all the good Bible-believing Christians' to whom you refer. I do not know any of them. I do know that many Christians claim to also believe in evolution. It's called theistic evolution and it is a false teaching. That's really an apple and oranges comparison anyway. One could make the argument that these woman are just out to ruin Cain politically. Were there eye witnesses to their claims? I have not been reading about it because I wouldn't have voted for him anyway. If there are eyewitnesses then those Bible-believing Christians are wrong. I just don't know enough about that situation to really speak on it.

 

Again, I never said atheists and evolutionists have no moral code. I believe they do. But the idea of man evolving from lower life forms does not support a moral code. I am proposing that atheists and evolutionists are betraying their true belief in a higher authority.

[Kathleen in VA]

…now the atheists are just in denial? :001_huh:

 

If not, then why do you believe this behavior is appalling? What do you base that sense of right and wrong on?

[Kathleen in VA]

I know you must be kidding, given the child brides of a certain LDS sect.

 

Not getting your point. Care to elaborate?

[mommaduck]

If not, then why do you believe this behavior is appalling? What do you base that sense of right and wrong on?

Really??? You want to get into each and every person's belief system, here and now? Not seeing where this is appropriate for this thread :confused:

[Kathleen in VA]

:iagree: I was shocked to read it, TBH.

I did not say that only Christians have any morality. Go back and read it again.

[Joanne]

This I do not doubt. I never said that evolutionists and atheists are not appalled. What I said is that they have no moral basis for being appalled. If we are just animals, then there is no objective authoritative standard for right and wrong. I am saying there is a disconnect between the beliefs of evolutionists and atheists and their judgmental attitudes towards those who are simply (according to the logic of evolutionism) acting on their instincts. Why are you appalled? That is the question.

 

ETA: Perhaps a better way to put it is to just say that evolutionists and atheists who are appalled betray that they do indeed have a moral standard. Why they do is the question. I think it is because on a deeper level they know man is not merely an animal, that there is a higher law above man's - God's law. They simply do not want to admit it.

 

:confused: No moral basis? Plenty of non Christians have a personal (or corporate other-than-Christian) moral code.

 

The "just animals" line isn't accurate, either, even for most people who believe in evolution.

[GWOB]

This I do not doubt. I never said that evolutionists and atheists are not appalled. What I said is that they have no moral basis for being appalled. If we are just animals, then there is no objective authoritative standard for right and wrong. I am saying there is a disconnect between the beliefs of evolutionists and atheists and their judgmental attitudes towards those who are simply (according to the logic of evolutionism) acting on their instincts. Why are you appalled? That is the question.

 

ETA: Perhaps a better way to put it is to just say that evolutionists and atheists who are appalled betray that they do indeed have a moral standard. Why they do is the question. I think it is because on a deeper level they know man is not merely an animal, that there is a higher law above man's - God's law. They simply do not want to admit it.

 

Hmmm. I am a Christian who believes in evolution. My moral basis comes from.....wait for it.......

 

God and the Bible and Jesus and stuff like that.

 

 

I hardly think a thread about the horrors of covering up the rape of children (and the loons protecting a man who aided in such a coverup) is the proper place to debate YE/EV. There is another thread for that.

[regentrude]

Again, I never said atheists and evolutionists have no moral code. I believe they do. But the idea of man evolving from lower life forms does not support a moral code. I am proposing that atheists and evolutionists are betraying their true belief in a higher authority.

 

No, they do not require a higher authority to have morals. Man, as a being with reason (which developed through evolution), can choose to overcome his animal instincts and govern himself according to moral principles which originate from his thinking.

Kant's Categorical Imperativ ("Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law") for example can be the basis for a very strict moral code, originating from man's reasoning, requiring no higher being.

[Kathleen in VA]

Really??? You want to get into each and every person's belief system, here and now? Not seeing where this is appropriate for this thread :confused:

 

Well, not really. OP asked what's wrong with the Penn State students. That was my take on it. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me. This is a public forum and that was my answer to the OP's question. If anyone cares to chime in, feel free. Isn't that what a forum is all about? Hearing what others have to say. Good grief.

[Marylou]

Really??? You want to get into each and every person's belief system, here and now? Not seeing where this is appropriate for this thread :confused:

 

Isn't she just giving her opinion of "What is wrong with Penn State students?"

[justamouse]

This I do not doubt. I never said that evolutionists and atheists are not appalled. What I said is that they have no moral basis for being appalled. If we are just animals, then there is no objective authoritative standard for right and wrong. I am saying there is a disconnect between the beliefs of evolutionists and atheists and their judgmental attitudes towards those who are simply (according to the logic of evolutionism) acting on their instincts. Why are you appalled? That is the question.

 

ETA: Perhaps a better way to put it is to just say that evolutionists and atheists who are appalled betray that they do indeed have a moral standard. Why they do is the question. I think it is because on a deeper level they know man is not merely an animal, that there is a higher law above man's - God's law. They simply do not want to admit it.

 

Well, as I understand your mindset from your previous posts, I can totally see how you believe that.

 

But I don't see atheists (or anyone) as evil, having no morals, or without God.

 

Because when you DO see people like that, you are limiting God. You are saying that God can only be within good people, creationist believers, when, God saw the whole world and saw that it was good. Every person on this earth has the capacity to choose right from wrong, and to give and receive love. That, in and of itself, is God within them. Now, whether that person sees it as God within them is another matter, but that still doesn't limit who God is.

 

Sorry, I'll pick the big God over the little one, every day.

[brehon]

This I do not doubt. I never said that evolutionists and atheists are not appalled. What I said is that they have no moral basis for being appalled. If we are just animals, then there is no objective authoritative standard for right and wrong. I am saying there is a disconnect between the beliefs of evolutionists and atheists and their judgmental attitudes towards those who are simply (according to the logic of evolutionism) acting on their instincts. Why are you appalled? That is the question.

 

ETA: Perhaps a better way to put it is to just say that evolutionists and atheists who are appalled betray that they do indeed have a moral standard. Why they do is the question. I think it is because on a deeper level they know man is not merely an animal, that there is a higher law above man's - God's law. They simply do not want to admit it.

 

 

Why do you think "evolutionists and atheists" don't have moral standards? Why do you think morality is limited to a specific religious interpretation of a book whose various meanings and interpretations have been debated for centuries (and continues to be debated by very educated, pious, religious people today)? Why does morality depend on believing in God? And, especially, how do you account for the *many* Christians who have no difficulty reconciling the scientific theory of evolution and their religious beliefs? I think you've overreached and done a grave disservice to many, many people.

[Kathleen in VA]

No, they do not require a higher authority to have morals. Man, as a being with reason (which developed through evolution), can choose to overcome his animal instincts and govern himself according to moral principles which originate from his thinking.

Kant's Categorical Imperativ ("Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law") for example can be the basis for a very strict moral code, originating from man's reasoning, requiring no higher being.

 

What moral principles? If each individual has his own moral principles how can we judge them? Aren't we each allowed to decide for ourselves what is moral then? Isn't that what these guys did? Kant's ideas may not be my idea. If I follow Kant's ideas, then he becomes "god" - the determiner of good and evil. I'm still not seeing it. Sorry.