Troubling Allegations Against Former Sheriff in Pinal County, AZ (Church mbr)

[MustardSeed]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not dispassionate.

I would like to submit this is an example of why I suggested earlier that there will be no joining in discussion with you and other board members due to the fact that you appear to approach discussions from a lawyer‘s point of view, as though you are defending the law. 
Others come here because this is social media with an emphasis on social.  We are looking to connect. Like it or not we are all lonely human beings who need more connection and this is one way to get it.
It’s frustrating when you do not allow emotion in these conversations to have any merit.  
These are emotional topics, and in my opinion, there is room for emotions **when we are not in a courtroom determining the fate of an accused person.
I recognize that you come to the table to discuss gospel issues and to engage in discussion that allows you to defend facts and legal limits.  
I think that there is room for that. You make a lot of solid points.  
Please consider leaving room for the human side and emotional needs people like I have. I appreciate Nehors emotion around this topic because I feel seen and protected. That feels really good. And since there’s a part of me that is lonely and comes to social media to scratch a connection itch, his words meet a certain social need for me, especially coming from a man.

And maybe if I was unfairly accused of rape someday I would hope that you would be on my legal team as well.

I think there’s room for all of us here.

 

Edited yesterday at 05:31 PM by MustardSeed

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

Not dispassionate.

I would like to submit this is an example of why I suggested earlier that there will be no joining in discussion with you and other board members due to the fact that you appear to approach discussions from a lawyer‘s point of view, as though you are defending the law. 

I am speaking of the legal aspects of this topic, yes.  And yes, my legal training affects my perspective and approach to topics such as this.

I think there are times when we need to temper emotional responses and instead lead with dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis.  I think we can have discussions, even when we differ in our approaches.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Others come here because this is social media with an emphasis on social.  We are looking to connect. Like it or not we are all lonely human beings who need more connection and this is one way to get it.

Sure.  Others come here for more than social connection.  For my part, I tend to participate in topics that interest me, and those topics are often difficult or complex or involve legal aspects.  I'm not here for "social" reasons, except as this board tends to involve perspectives associated with the Church.  I'm also not here to talk into an Echo Chamber.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s frustrating when you do not allow emotion in these conversations to have any merit.

Emotions have their place.  We are emotional creatures, after all.

On this topic, however, emotions need to be tempered and subdued and partially set aside in favor of, again, dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis.  The allegations are serious, so facts should matter more than emotions.  I think we need to focus more on determining what happened and less on our emotional responses to information which has been curated by social media and news media.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

These are emotional topics, and in my opinion, there is room for emotions **when we are not in a courtroom determining the fate of an accused person.

Sure.  But in a subordinated and secondary way.  That is where emotions should be placed.  The primary focus should be dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis of what happened.

Yesterday I had a nice talk with my wife about our neighbor, who a few days earlier had come over to our house to give some input on a painting project.  She brought her little girl with her.  We have known this girl from birth.  She and her parents often sit near us in Sacrament Meeting, and she often comes to our pew and sits with us.  She knows us by name and likes us.  She's a fun and charming little person.  Yesterday my wife and I commented on her, and how we hope to someday have grandchildren whom we can enjoy.  

As to that topic, I see no need for "dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis."  Emotion and social interaction are the order of the day.  But that topic is quite dissimilar to the topic under discussion in this thread.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I recognize that you come to the table to discuss gospel issues and to engage in discussion that allows you to defend facts and legal limits.  

I think the legal aspects of some topics can be important.

I also think that facts about difficult or controversial issues are as important, and in some ways considerably more important, than our emotions about those issues.  Some discussions of sexual assault can fall into that category.

Here, I think some folks are letting emotions and mobocratic outrage displace reasoned discourse.  I think that's a bad idea.  I can say that and also utterly condemn any form of sexual assault/abuse.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I think that there is room for that. You make a lot of solid points.

Thanks.  I would hope that I could make these points without being accused of defending rape.  But those accusations have been made, several times over.  And they have been made because of emotions and mobocratic rage, and to squelch reasoned and dispassionate analysis.  I think that is a bad idea.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Please consider leaving room for the human side and emotional needs people like I have.

Happy to.  I deplore any form of sexual misconduct, both objectively and emotionally and philosophically and religiously.  I have said nothing to suggest any other stance, but folks like Nehor have publicly accused me of defending rape, and I think he does so in order to silence reasoned discourse in favor of raw emotional responses and mobocratic rage.  I think that is a bad idea.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I appreciate Nehors emotion around this topic because I feel seen and protected.  That feels really good. And since there’s a part of me that is lonely and comes to social media to scratch a connection itch, his words meet a certain social need for me, especially coming from a man.

I think Nehor's comments here are mostly counterproductive and ugly, are borne of raw emotion and mobocratic rage, and are generally devoid of reasoned, evidence-based analysis, and are are intended to squelch and silence such analysis so as to perpetuate that mobocratic rage.  I also find him mostly a performative provocateur, and less as a person with whom reasoned discourse is generally possible.  I have had numerous discussions with Analytics that have been substantive, even though we strongly disagree about most topics brought here.  Same goes for quite a few participants on this board.  But I don't think I have ever, over the space of many years and hundreds of interactions, had a reasoned conversation with Nehor.  He's more or less endlessly emotional and performative and provocative.  He likes to stir the pot, but he adds nothing to it.  And that's disappointing, as I sense he is an intelligent person who could have some substantive things to contribute here.

I feel pretty passionate about some things.  Elective abortion, for example, is one of the more pernicious sins of our generation.  And yet I don't go around screaming at pro-abortion folks, or endorsing or inciting violence toward abortion providers.  I see the need for reasoned discourse on that topic.  Persuasion should be a top priority.  Heart and minds.  Not to leave legal perspectives and issues neglected, mind you.

Same goes for sexual assault.  I have a friend who was sexually assaulted while she was a college student.  The prosecutor elected to drop the charges, even though there was pretty good forensic evidence.  This happened some years ago.  My friend has had some real challenges arising from this experience, and it has adversely affected both her and her marriage (now over), her children, her extended family, and more.  Even now I am frustrated and angry that she was assaulted, and that she received no justice.   

So yes, emotions matter.  So too does reasoned, evidence-based discussion.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

And maybe if I was unfairly accused of rape someday I would hope that you would be on my legal team as well.

It's a serious topic.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I think there’s room for all of us here.

I agree.  I haven't told anyone to stop talking.  I am, instead, suggesting that we set aside, or at least subdue, emotionalisms and mobocratic rage and seek to have some reasoned, dispassionate, evidence based discussion.

You are, of course, free to disregard that request.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 23 hours ago by smac97

[Vanguard]

44 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I would like to submit this is an example of why I suggested earlier that there will be no joining in discussion with you and other board members due to the fact that you appear to approach discussions from a lawyer‘s point of view, as though you are defending the law. 
Others come here because this is social media with an emphasis on social.  We are looking to connect. Like it or not we are all lonely human beings who need more connection and this is one way to get it.
It’s frustrating when you do not allow emotion in these conversations to have any merit.  
These are emotional topics, and in my opinion, there is room for emotions **when we are not in a courtroom determining the fate of an accused person.
I recognize that you come to the table to discuss gospel issues and to engage in discussion that allows you to defend facts and legal limits.  
I think that there is room for that. You make a lot of solid points.  
Please consider leaving room for the human side and emotional needs people like I have. I appreciate Nehors emotion around this topic because I feel seen and protected. That feels really good. And since there’s a part of me that is lonely and comes to social media to scratch a connection itch, his words meet a certain social need for me, especially coming from a man.

And maybe if I was unfairly accused of rape someday I would hope that you would be on my legal team as well.

I think there’s room for all of us here.

 

I disagree. When allowing for 'emotion in these conversations' to dip too far into largely unsubstantiated accusations (and criminal at that!) against another party, it is no longer simply about sharing one's feelings. And it certainly is not empathy. I remind my men's' groups continually that empathy does not mean agreement (though some times it does) with the details about what got the person to such an emotional state. I can emotionally connect with another's pain without the need to cast aspersions on another for contributing to said pain. As you've indicated regards to Nehor, I too can appreciate another's emotions around any given topic that I agree with, that is, until at some point in the future said emotion is aimed against me.  

[Calm]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

What if she signs the "consent form" or whatever, and thereafter withdraws her consent prior to the initiation of sexual contact?  How does the form "remove the rape aspect" in that circumstance?

Of course if she removes her consent later (during, not after the fact), it makes it rape.

 I don’t view such a “contract” about what are emotional relationships the same as a business contract where someone contracts to provide resources or services for money and then one is obligated in most cases to pay for them.  This would be more like a medical form you sign attesting you understand what the doctor has told you about the procedure and agree to it.  This doesn’t prevent you from changing your mind at the last minute requiring them to stop or suing them for malpractice if they act in a way not consistent with the explanation.

“Waiver” might be a more precise term than “contract”.  Feel free to supply one you see as most precise.  The idea being anyone agreeing to group sex under influence in my mind must be first proven to be of sound mind at the time of making the decision as well as fully informed about and comprehending what will likely happen and what consequences will be.  This should be the minimum standard.  Otherwise it turns into someone taking advantage of someone else, including someone who might be in a self destructive mood.  It won’t prevent all cases of taking advantage of someone, but hopefully would limit them to far fewer if this was SOP….which it likely never will be.

I get some people like to experiment and cross typical social boundaries.  Therefore I can imagine there are some (very foolish imo) women out there who do want to truly engage in group sex under the influence.  If anyone, male or female, decides to do this, it should be under very controlled circumstances imo.  For example, there should be a dedicated sober companion to ensure no one goes outside the boundaries intentionally or unintentionally in order to get them all home safely, just as it’s wise for friends who plan on getting stinking drunk to have one not drinking to ensure no one harms themselves more than just getting stinking drunk will on its own.

Any variation from those agreed upon boundaries opens someone up to the accusation of rape, imo, whether or not they themselves were incompetent at the time, especially if someone else changes their mind and wants to stop.  Even if it’s just pushing someone away because they can’t verbalize.  

I would assume any intelligent being would include in their requirements no sex once someone becomes so drugged they are unsble to verbalize or move, not only for the safety of the individual saying no, but for the safety of others participating so as to avoid turning into a rapist because they aren’t aware of the other’s changed mind.  

Would the above be legally enforceable?  Unlikely in our culture that typically ignores or dismisses consequences when it comes to anything to do with sex in favor of poorly, incompletely, and inconsistently applied principles like freedom of choice or personal responsibility.  Or family values.

”Or what if she was coerced into signing the form?”

Why am I even having to answer this?  Since when does coercion make anything legal or morally binding?

”Or what if she was too blotto to give consent, even written and signed?”

Or this since it invalidates the condition I included?  Why would I find acceptable something I specifically rejected to begin with?

”Also, why is it that "group sex under the influence" is only "extreme" for women?”

Have I ever said it is only extreme for women or are you choosing to infer that?   I only said I couldn’t judge the level of emotional damage for men.  Since I specified both physical and emotional, is it that hard to get I was including potential extreme physical consequences for all involved, man as well as women? And am very open to it being very extreme for men as well, I just don’t have anything to work with and don’t think it’s wise to extrapolate from female POVs.
 

“ Is this "consent form" thing something that Jane Doe should have signed as well?  If not, why not?”

I don’t think you put much effort into reading my comment when you ask me if a woman should have signed a group sex consent form that I am insisting all participants sign.  Even though you are assuming I am only talking about women when it comes to it being extreme….which is wrong, but logically implies a woman is the one who needs to sign the form to show she gives consent to engage in sex understanding the possibilities that can occur during such activities…which would of course include her initiating and acting on another participant, male or female.

Or do you imagine I think women are passive in sex and never initiate it or do anything sexual to the men?

And yes, if she engaged in oral sex without the consent of the guy, it is rape in my view.

Edited 16 hours ago by Calm

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

I disagree. When allowing for 'emotion in these conversations' to dip too far into largely unsubstantiated accusations (and criminal at that!) against another party, it is no longer simply about sharing one's feelings. And it certainly is not empathy. I remind my men's' groups continually that empathy does not mean agreement (though some times it does) with the details about what got the person to such an emotional state. I can emotionally connect with another's pain without the need to cast aspersions on another for contributing to said pain. As you've indicated regards to Nehor, I too can appreciate another's emotions around any given topic that I agree with, that is, until at some point in the future said emotion is aimed against me.  

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am speaking of the legal aspects of this topic, yes.  And yes, my legal training affects my perspective and approach to topics such as this.

I think there are times when we need to temper emotional responses and instead lead with dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis.  I think we can have discussions, even when we differ in our approaches.

Sure.  Others come here for more than social connection.  For my part, I tend to participate in topics that interest me, and those topics are often difficult or complex or involve legal aspects.  I'm not here for "social" reasons, except as this board tends to involve perspectives associated with the Church.  I'm also not here to talk into an Echo Chamber.

Emotions have their place.  We are emotional creatures, after all.

On this topic, however, emotions need to be tempered and subdued and partially set aside in favor of, again, dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis.  The allegations are serious, so facts should matter more than emotions.  I think we need to focus more on determining what happened and less on our emotional responses to information which has been curated by social media and news media.

Sure.  But in a subordinated and secondary way.  That is where emotions should be placed.  The primary focus should be dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis of what happened.

Yesterday I had a nice talk with my wife about our neighbor, who a few days earlier had come over to our house to give some input on a painting project.  She brought her little girl with her.  We have known this girl from birth.  She and her parents often sit near us in Sacrament Meeting, and she often comes to our pew and sits with us.  She knows us by name and likes us.  She's a fun and charming little person.  Yesterday my wife and I commented on her, and how we hope to someday have grandchildren whom we can enjoy.  

As to that topic, I see no need for "dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis."  Emotion and social interaction are the order of the day.  But that topic is quite dissimilar to the topic under discussion in this thread.

I think the legal aspects of some topics can be important.

I also think that facts about difficult or controversial issues are as important, and in some ways considerably more important, than our emotions about those issues.  Some discussions of sexual assault can fall into that category.

Here, I think some folks are letting emotions and mobocratic outrage displace reasoned discourse.  I think that's a bad idea.  I can say that and also utterly condemn any form of sexual assault/abuse.

Thanks.  I would hope that I could make these points without being accused of defending rape.  But those accusations have been made, several times over.  And they have been made because of emotions and mobocratic rage, and to squelch reasoned and dispassionate analysis.  I think that is a bad idea.

Happy to.  I deplore any form of sexual misconduct, both objectively and emotionally and philosophically and religiously.  I have said nothing to suggest any other stance, but folks like Nehor have publicly accused me of defending rape, and I think he does so in order to silence reasoned discourse in favor of raw emotional responses and mobocratic rage.  I think that is a bad idea.

I think Nehor's comments here are mostly counterproductive and ugly, are borne of raw emotion and mobocratic rage, and are generally devoid of reasoned, evidence-based analysis, and are are intended to squelch and silence such analysis so as to perpetuate that mobocratic rage.  I also find him mostly a performative provocateur, and less as a person with whom reasoned discourse is generally possible.  I have had numerous discussions with Analytics that have been substantive, even though we strongly disagree about most topics brought here.  Same goes for quite a few participants on this board.  But I don't think I have ever, over the space of many years and hundreds of interactions, had a reasoned conversation with Nehor.  He's more or less endlessly emotional and performative and provocative.  He likes to stir the pot, but he adds nothing to it.  And that's disappointing, as I senses is is an intelligent person who could have some substantive things to contribute here.

I feel pretty passionate about some things.  Elective abortion, for example, is one of the more pernicious sins of our generation.  And yet I don't go around screaming at pro-abortion folks, or endorsing or inciting violence toward abortion providers.  I see the need for reasoned discourse on that topic.  Persuasion should be a top priority.  Heart and minds.  Not to leave legal perspectives and issues neglected, mind you.

Same goes for sexual assault.  I have a friend who was sexually assaulted while she was a college student.  The prosecutor elected to drop the charges, even though there was pretty good forensic evidence.  This happened some years ago.  My friend has had some real challenges arising from this experience, and it has adversely affected both her and her marriage (now over), her children, her extended family, and more.  Even now I am frustrated and angry that she was assaulted, and that she received no justice.   

So yes, emotions matter.  So too does reasoned, evidence-based discussion.

It's a serious topic.

I agree.  I haven't told anyone to stop talking.  I am, instead, suggesting that we set aside, or at least subdue, emotionalisms and mobocratic rage and seek to have some reasoned, dispassionate, evidence based discussion.

You are, of course, free to disregard that request.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

I disagree. When allowing for 'emotion in these conversations' to dip too far into largely unsubstantiated accusations (and criminal at that!) against another party, it is no longer simply about sharing one's feelings. And it certainly is not empathy. I remind my men's' groups continually that empathy does not mean agreement (though some times it does) with the details about what got the person to such an emotional state. I can emotionally connect with another's pain without the need to cast aspersions on another for contributing to said pain. As you've indicated regards to Nehor, I too can appreciate another's emotions around any given topic that I agree with, that is, until at some point in the future said emotion is aimed against me.  

Fair enough

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Sure.  Others come here for more than social connection.  For my part, I tend to participate in topics that interest me, and those topics are often difficult or complex or involve legal aspects.  I'm not here for "social" reasons,

I think we all are doing all of this for social reasons. (Opinion)  Another topic for another day in another place on this “social media” site.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

For my part, I tend to participate in topics that interest me, and those topics are often difficult or complex or involve legal aspects.  I'm not here for "social" reasons, except as this board tends to involve perspectives associated with the Church.

How is it not social when it matters to you to get others’ input on these aspects?  Communication is a social act.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

As you've indicated regards to Nehor, I too can appreciate another's emotions around any given topic that I agree with, that is, until at some point in the future said emotion is aimed against me.  

This seems to be the crux of the issue. Many males struggle with the topic because their primary focus is “what if I get falsely accused of rape, how would I want people to behave towards me?”

Women do the same only the worry is “what if I’m raped…”

There is a 2-10% that one of the men posting here will be accused of rape. There is a 24% chance one of the women on this forum will be raped. (And statistically chances are very high some of us posting here already have been).

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

Sure.  Others come here for more than social connection.  For my part, I tend to participate in topics that interest me, and those topics are often difficult or complex or involve legal aspects.  I'm not here for "social" reasons, except as this board tends to involve perspectives associated with the Church.  I'm also not here to talk into an Echo Chamber.

I think we all are doing all of this for social reasons. (Opinion)  Another topic for another day in another place on this “social media” site.  

I spend time with my family and friends for social reasons.  I attend Church mostly to receive the Sacrament and worship, but also for social reasons.

I am not here for social reasons.  I generally don't chitchat.  I view this discussion board almost entirely for its utility to facilitate discussions.  Substantive ones, about the Church mostly and also "church-adjacent" topics such as this one.  I come here to listen to other Latter-day Saints, but also to listen to critics and opponents of the Church.  I want to hear from people who do not agree with me,  as it helps me broaden my horizons, re-assess and/or validate my perspective, learn new things, and so on.

I don't come here for enjoyment.  Folks like Nehor and SeekingUnderstanding regularly go to great lengths to make discussions as inflammatory and denigrating and ugly as possible.  Their near-constant stream of personal attacks don't carry any particular weight, as I find them to be fundamentally unserious and intended to silence and shame, but these guys surely have made participating in this board as unpleasant as possible.  I stay because, notwithstanding all the unfortunate stuff folks like those two constantly inject into discussions, I find the discussions to sometimes be worthwhile and informative and interesting.  Not enjoyable, but worthwhile.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tony uk]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Women do the same only the worry is “what if I’m raped…”

In my previous job, security. It was mainly an all male environment. Over time women were being employed in the specific role where I worked. As a result of the number of males already in the role it fell on the male security staff, initially, to train the new female guard. The new female member was placed with an experienced male member of staff who was deemed sensible and reliable. As one of the male members of staff tasked with training the new female staff. Looking back, I realised any were a two way matter. Also, I realised, the female had the greater concern over anything with the potential to happen, assault or rape. Especially as the job involved working night shifts, and at times being in darl secluded areas for some time

However, I must have been doing something right. As on a number of occasions, a couple of female members of staff asked to work alongside me.

After reading through this topic, and considering my workplace environment. I have realised, that at general level. There is a genuine concern for a male to be wrongly accused. There is a greater concern for the female regards to rape and assault.

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This seems to be the crux of the issue. Many males struggle with the topic because their primary focus is “what if I get falsely accused of rape, how would I want people to behave towards me?”

Women do the same only the worry is “what if I’m raped…”

There is a 2-10% that one of the men posting here will be accused of rape. There is a 24% chance one of the women on this forum will be raped. (And statistically chances are very high some of us posting here already have been).

 

I'm not sure If I'm understanding you or if you're not understanding me? I'm not talking about rape. I'm talking about people using the "I need to safe space to emote" as a pretense to accuse others of actions the people themselves don't know were committed. Again, true empathy toward someone does not require character aspersions against someone else. The minute an individual transitions from simply emoting to conclusory comments about the guilt of someone else, the conversation must turn to a more dispassionate exchange of ideas about the allegations to see if they stand up on their own. The position "Hey, I just need to safely express my feelings" is legitimate but it cannot walk hand in hand with "Hey, therefore the accused party is as guilty as sin and you are at best an enabler for not agreeing with me". 

Edited 21 hours ago by Vanguard

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I'm not sure If I'm understanding you or if you're not understanding me? I'm not talking about rape. I'm talking about people using the "I need to safe space to emote" as a pretense to accuse others of actions the people themselves don't know were committed. Again, true empathy toward someone does not require character aspersions against someone else. The minute an individual transitions from simply emoting to conclusory comments about the guilt of someone else, the conversation must turn to a more dispassionate exchange of ideas about the allegations to see if they stand up on their own. The position "Hey, I just need to safely express my feelings" is legitimate but it cannot walk hand in hand with "Hey, therefore the accused party is as guilty as sin and you are at best an enabler for not agreeing with me". 

That could be part of the disconnect because we’re specifically talking about rape in this thread. Mustardseed was specifically talking about being able to emote as it concerns the topic of her (as a woman) and rape.

[Vanguard]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That could be part of the disconnect because we’re specifically talking about rape in this thread. Mustardseed was specifically talking about being able to emote as it concerns the topic of her (as a woman) and rape.

I believe my point still stands. Again, emoting and providing empathy is one thing. Wanting to emote and receive empathy (I totally get this) while throughout this thread other posters (and perhaps MustardSeed?) suggest a miscarriage of justice if these young men are not found guilty is something else. We cannot walk and chew gum in this case.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

I disagree. When allowing for 'emotion in these conversations' to dip too far into largely unsubstantiated accusations (and criminal at that!) against another party, it is no longer simply about sharing one's feelings.

A sampling of Nehor's and SeekingUnderstanding's various accusations against me:

• SeekingUnderstanding: "Well here you are defending the rapists, so <shrug>."
• SeekingUnderstaanding: "That text thread is rape culture. And you are here both defending it and denying rape culture in the same breath."
• SeekingUnderstanding: "{Y}ou are part of the rape culture problem."
• SeekingUnderstanding: "Yet you defend the text thread, and the men accused."
• SeekingUnderstanding: "You claim rape culture doesn't exist, and you condone it with the same breath when you defend the text thread."
• SeekingUnderstanding (referring to a comment of mine) : "This is just the latest version of 'what was she wearing' so you can cast aspersions on those you look down on. 'She was out drinking showing bad morals. What can you expect? She was basically asking to be raped.'"
• SeekingUnderstanding: "People having casual sex has absolutely zero to do with rape, rape culture, and the people that excuse it. "
• SeekingUnderstanding: "Men should be terrified about having any type of non-consensual sex. It seems that you disagree."
• SeekingUnderstanding: "I can't read this as anything but 'defending the rapists' and 'defending... rape culture.'"
• Nehor (referring to me) : "Proceeds to defend rapists."
• Nehor: "Your attempt to make those who planned this rapefest as somehow morally equivalent to the victim is disgusting and misogynistic."
• Nehor: "A nice warning from all the rapists and rapist supporters that women should not try to hold men accountable for their crimes. We sure do love our misogyny don’t we? And some people say rape culture isn’t real. What clowns they must be."
• Nehor: "The misogynists act to intimidate, silence, harm, or kill the victim. IT BAD. IT RAPE CULTURE. Please stop carrying water for them."
• Nehor: "You seem to be trying to define the concept of rape out of existence."
• Nehor (referring to me) : "Rape apologists are what fuel this kind of conduct."

And I expect this to continue.  

This is unserious stuff, and should not be a part of a serious discussion about a difficult topic.  We agree that sexual assault is a terrible and evil thing (though as you can see, Nehor and SU are working very hard to impute terrible sentiments onto me about it, despite my own statements condemning it).  I hope Nehor and SU and others can set aside their performative emotionalisms and accusations and mobocratic rage and instead pursue a dispassionate, clinical, reasoned assessment of what actually happened.  

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

And it certainly is not empathy. I remind my men's' groups continually that empathy does not mean agreement (though some times it does) with the details about what got the person to such an emotional state.

That's a solid point.  I think Party A's calls for Party B to show "empathy" are sometimes - whether accidentally or intentionally - an attempt by Party A demand "agreement" from Party B, and/or to punish or silence or shame Party B if such agreement is not forthcoming.

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

I can emotionally connect with another's pain without the need to cast aspersions on another for contributing to said pain. As you've indicated regards to Nehor, I too can appreciate another's emotions around any given topic that I agree with, that is, until at some point in the future said emotion is aimed against me.  

Nehor and SU are frequent flyers in terms of personal attacks and insults, and that saturation has heavily diluted whatever anemic potency online accusations from someone hiding behind a pseudonym may have had initially.  I only critique their various ugly comments insofar as they are impeding dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis.  Still, they can say what they like.  Free Speech is a wonderful thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

For my part, I tend to participate in topics that interest me, and those topics are often difficult or complex or involve legal aspects.  I'm not here for "social" reasons, except as this board tends to involve perspectives associated with the Church.

How is it not social when it matters to you to get others’ input on these aspects?  Communication is a social act.  

By "social" I thought it was understood that we are referring to coming here to "socialize," that is, "to spend time with other people for pleasure" (emphasis added).  Participating on this board is not pleasurable.  It is not enjoyable.  It is, however, interesting and worthwhile.  So is going to the Harold B. Lee Law Library, but I don't go there to socialize either.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 19 hours ago by smac97

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A sampling of Nehor's and SeekingUnderstanding's various accusations against me:

• SeekingUnderstanding: "Well here you are defending the rapists, so <shrug>."
• SeekingUnderstaanding: "That text thread is rape culture. And you are here both defending it and denying rape culture in the same breath."
• SeekingUnderstanding: "{Y}ou are part of the rape culture problem."
• SeekingUnderstanding: "Yet you defend the text thread, and the men accused."
• SeekingUnderstanding: "You claim rape culture doesn't exist, and you condone it with the same breath when you defend the text thread."
• SeekingUnderstanding (referring to a comment of mine) : "This is just the latest version of 'what was she wearing' so you can cast aspersions on those you look down on. 'She was out drinking showing bad morals. What can you expect? She was basically asking to be raped.'"
• SeekingUnderstanding: "People having casual sex has absolutely zero to do with rape, rape culture, and the people that excuse it. "
• SeekingUnderstanding: "Men should be terrified about having any type of non-consensual sex. It seems that you disagree."
• SeekingUnderstanding: "I can't read this as anything but 'defending the rapists' and 'defending... rape culture.'"
• Nehor (referring to me) : "Proceeds to defend rapists."
• Nehor: "Your attempt to make those who planned this rapefest as somehow morally equivalent to the victim is disgusting and misogynistic."
• Nehor: "A nice warning from all the rapists and rapist supporters that women should not try to hold men accountable for their crimes. We sure do love our misogyny don’t we? And some people say rape culture isn’t real. What clowns they must be."
• Nehor: "The misogynists act to intimidate, silence, harm, or kill the victim. IT BAD. IT RAPE CULTURE. Please stop carrying water for them."
• Nehor: "You seem to be trying to define the concept of rape out of existence."
• Nehor (referring to me) : "Rape apologists are what fuel this kind of conduct."

And I expect this to continue. 

Truly Smac is the real victim of all the raping. All the poor dear does is jump in and defend rapists or suggest that the victim is somehow equally culpable and people think he is somehow defending rapists…..because he is.

There, you can add that one to the list. Consider it a freebie.

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is unserious stuff, and should not be a part of a serious discussion about a difficult topic.  We agree that sexual assault is a terrible and evil thing (though as you can see, Nehor and SU are working very hard to impute terrible sentiments onto me about it, despite my own statements condemning it).  I hope Nehor and SU and others can set aside their performative emotionalisms and accusations and mobocratic rage and instead pursue a dispassionate, clinical, reasoned assessment of what actually happened.

Actual rapists will repeatedly condemn rape in general. This is a well known thing in dealing with perpetrators of sexual abuse or rape. You can get them to agree on what constitutes the crime and point out they did it and then they deny it and say that what they did somehow doesn’t count.

You are spending a lot of time giving the rapists every benefit of every possible doubt even if that doubt is spurious or ridiculous. Then you want to dissect everything about the victim and impute to her all manner of decisions and actions with the idea that she consented to things she did not consent to because she rationalized it away at first.

There was rape. This isn’t hard.

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nehor and SU are frequent flyers in terms of personal attacks and insults, and that saturation has heavily diluted whatever anemic potency online accusations from someone hiding behind a pseudonym may have had initially.  I only critique their various ugly comments insofar as they are impeding dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis.

LMAO, truly you have a dizzying lack of self awareness.

You can have that one as another freebie for your list. I am being generous today.

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  Still, they can say what they like.  Free Speech is a wonderful thing.

Enjoy it while it lasts I guess.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Truly Smac is the real victim of all the raping.

Again, I think sexual assault is a serious topic, and ought to be treated as such.

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

This is unserious stuff, and should not be a part of a serious discussion about a difficult topic.  We agree that sexual assault is a terrible and evil thing (though as you can see, Nehor and SU are working very hard to impute terrible sentiments onto me about it, despite my own statements condemning it).  I hope Nehor and SU and others can set aside their performative emotionalisms and accusations and mobocratic rage and instead pursue a dispassionate, clinical, reasoned assessment of what actually happened.

Actual rapists will repeatedly condemn rape in general.

So do people who find rape abhorrent.

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are spending a lot of time giving the rapists every benefit of every possible doubt even if that doubt is spurious or ridiculous.

I am proposing that we set aside inflammatory and emotionally-charged rhetoric, and that we examine the evidence dispassionately and clinically, and with decorum and sobriety.

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Then you want to dissect everything about the victim

You are begging the question.  She is certainly entitled to present her version of the events to law enforcement.  She did that in 2024, and that statement, sworn to and voluntary, is quite difficult to reconcile with the allegations in the recently-filed complaint.

I want to "dissect" the evidence.  All of it.  It just so happens that most of the evidence has come from Jane Doe, in the form of her 2024 statement and her 2026 lawsuit.  We also have excerpts from text messages subsequent to the night in question.  The cumulative effect of these allegations is quite mixed.  Her civil suit presents allegations, but they are contradicted by her 2024 statement.  The transcripts of her interviews with law enforcement were apparently not sent to the prosecutor, so that may be very pertinent.

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

and impute to her all manner of decisions and actions with the idea that she consented to things she did not consent to because she rationalized it away at first.

Her 2024 statement is her own.  I did not "impute" it onto her.

Her text messages are her own.  I did not "impute" them onto her.

The texts from the frat men are repulsive, but they are fairly ambiguous.  They are not good evidence of culpable behavior and certainly not sufficient.

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There was rape. This isn’t hard.

Perhaps.  If so, those culpable should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

But whether there was culpable conduct requires an examination of the evidence.  You aren't doing that, and you are castigating me for doing it.

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Nehor and SU are frequent flyers in terms of personal attacks and insults, and that saturation has heavily diluted whatever anemic potency online accusations from someone hiding behind a pseudonym may have had initially.  I only critique their various ugly comments insofar as they are impeding dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis.

LMAO, truly you have a dizzying lack of self awareness.

You can have that one as another freebie for your list. I am being generous today.

Again, I would like to set aside the vitriol and rage and seek a dispassionate, clinical, evidence-based analysis.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I think we all are doing all of this for social reasons. (Opinion)  Another topic for another day in another place on this “social media” site.  

Education is a social activity.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I believe my point still stands. Again, emoting and providing empathy is one thing. Wanting to emote and receive empathy (I totally get this) while throughout this thread other posters (and perhaps MustardSeed?) suggest a miscarriage of justice if these young men are not found guilty is something else. We cannot walk and chew gum in this case.  

I'll let mustardseed speak for herself but I think you are misunderstanding what she is seeking here.  

[MustardSeed]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'll let mustardseed speak for herself but I think you are misunderstanding what she is seeking here.  

Thank you -

————-

I don’t care about the case so much as I care about the fact that men took advantage, AGAIN, of an opportunity to ***get off.  ***
I’m glad people are angry about it.  It makes me feel comforted in a way.  

Im not personally comforted at all by anyone who defends the men by suggesting that the men are potential victims of the woman. 

I recognize there are those who are unbothered by the absence of comfort.  That’s fine too.  But I’m here to point it out- this is a social media site, we are social beings interacting here and having a relationship, and I want you to know the impact you have on our relationship.  I am not one to just be quiet about my thoughts.  Take it or leave it, as I will with yours. 

Edited 5 hours ago by MustardSeed