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

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Tony uk said:

I think, maybe it is a matter, that a woman may have to be on the defensive, until she can lower her guard when feeling a bit more comfortable, or confident.

It is really strange that you and Seeking and Mustard Seed think this given there is obviously only one plain and ordinary meaning this phrase can mean for anyone.  

[Tony uk]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is really strange that you and Seeking and Mustard Seed think this given there is obviously only one plain and ordinary meaning this phrase can mean for anyone

As for myself, a male, I am naturally cautious when meeting people, as to what 'They are about' so to speak. I suppose it is a matter of trust. This could be, in a way, for a number of general reasons. As for a woman, I just feel, and I may presume wrong on this, there maybe more inappropriate interactions towards her. Or, the possibility of threat towards her.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tony uk said:

I may presume wrong on this

As far as reported, I agree.  At least the more severe stuff.  There is the possibility that men feel awkward about reporting such.  Men aren’t in our culture supposed to respond to similar threatening or humiliating situations by being passive, fleeing, or even fawning.  If it was happening as much as for women, there would be a lot more violence if it was a “real man” response (as in deck anyone who physically or sexually harasses you).

https://www.eeoc.gov/data/sexual-harassment-our-nations-workplaces

When it comes to the less severe*** types of harassment, looks like men get it online worse than women.  Need to find if it happens that way face to face.  Can’t remember.  And it may have changed due to more public discussion about sexual harassment and assault.

I wonder if researchers controlled for places men hang out.  Men might chose to visit sites that engage in these behaviors more, in part because they don’t see threat as much as women.  Given the type of harassment behaviours they typically encounter (likely to cause more embarrassment than fear), this would be reasonable.

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/01/13/the-state-of-online-harassment/

“Note: More severe behaviors include being physically threatened, stalked, sexually harassed or harassed for a sustained period of time. Less severe behaviors include being called an offensive name or having someone trying to purposefully embarrass them.”

As far as non sexual harassment at work,  men will receive such mostly from men while women luck out by getting it from both men and women (gee, I wonder why that is…actually no, I don’t, not in the least).

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240212/dq240212a-eng.htm

The link might not show this as don’t have time to check like I thought I would.  Hopefully later.

Edited October 24 by Calm

[bluebell]

On 10/23/2026 at 1:22 PM, smac97 said:

I don't see the nexus.  I can abhor abject prejudice, such as "all men are potential rapists," and also want to see justice done for victims of sexual assault.  There is no tension between these sentiments.  They complement each other.

I have a wife, daughters, mother, mother-in-law, sisters and sisters-in-law, lots nieces, aunts, female cousins, and many female friends and neighbors and acquaintances.  I have had several personal experiences in working with victims of sexual assault, both as an attorney and as a bishop.  I am deeply invested in the welfare all of all women and girls, and I am grateful to live in a country that takes allegations of sexual assault seriously. 

I strongly support any and all efforts to prosecute sex crimes to the fullest extent of the law.  We do that by . . . following the law, which has 250+ years of backdrop in terms of developing statutes, case law, evidentiary and procedural rules, and so on that are calculated to facilitate addressing allegations of this sort.  The system is not perfect, but it's one of the best ones available.

Of the system's various imperfections, human foibles are a biggie.  Letting emotionalisms run roughshod over evidentiary analysis and due process is a bad thing.  Rushing to judgment without due regard for the application of the law is a bad thing.  Abject prejudice, including horrible presuppositions such as "All black men are potential rapists," is a bad thing.  Ignoring or refusing to address substantial evidentiary issues is a bad thing.  Using prejudice to disregard and/or invert the presumption of innocence is a bad thing.

"Passion" in terms of encouraging abstention from mobocratic rage and rushing to judgment, and encouraging fair-minded evaluation of the evidence, and maintaining the presumption of innocence, and so on.  Yes, I'll own that.

The "all men are potential rapists" thing has been years in the offing.  I just find it unfortunately in play in here. 

Thanks,

-Smac

You do have a dog in the fight and you are passionate and have intense feelings about the topic.  I don't understand why you can say that you hate and are disgusted by something and then also believe that you are dispassionate, unbiased, and completely rational about it as you've been doing all this time.  That is the tension I'm referring to.  You claim that I and others are letting emotionalism run roughshod while you are not.  But emotionalism just means someone has intense feelings about something.  When you said that you abhor the 'all men are potential rapists' theme you are providing an example of your emotionalism. Again, more tension that you either can't see for some reason or won't see. 

Either way no one is buying the 'when I do it it's ok but when you do it it's not' argument.  You are not unbiased or dispassionate enough on this topic to make those kinds of judgments.

[smac97]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

You do have a dog in the fight

To "have a dog in the fight" means to have a personal stake, vested interest, or direct involvement in the outcome of a situation, argument, or competition.

I have no personal stake, vested interest, or direct involvement in the Cornell matter.  If the accusations are substantively true, those found guilty should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  If the accusations are substantively embellished or fabricated, there should be serious repercussions for that.  I don't know the accuser or the accused, nor have any connection with any of them.

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

and you are passionate and have intense feelings about the topic. 

I abhor prejudice, and I see that in the "all men are potential rapists" sentiment so frequently advanced and defended by your and others, and which sentiment is being made manifest in this matter.

I am opposed to mobocratic rage, rushing to judgment, and the inversion or disregard of the presumption of innocence, and I am in favor of the rule of law, due process, and dispassionate evaluation of evidence.  Are you?

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't understand why you can say that you hate and are disgusted by something and then also believe that you are dispassionate, unbiased, and completely rational about it as you've been doing all this time.  That is the tension I'm referring to. 

I am striving for dispassionate analysis.  I do not think most of the participants in this discussion are, at least those who are inverting the presumption of innocence, are rushing to judgment, etc.

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

You claim that I and others are letting emotionalism run roughshod while you are not. 

Yes.  "All men are potential rapists" is not rational.  It is, instead, abject prejudice.  It is borne of emotion, not reason.

The presumption of innocence matters, or should matter.  Fair-minded and dispassionate evaluation of evidence should matter.  You and yours are running roughshod over these things.

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

But emotionalism just means someone has intense feelings about something. 

I think assessing the evidence can hew toward dispassionate and fair-minded analysis, and it can also hew toward anger and rage and prejudice.  The latter are emotionalisms.

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

When you said that you abhor the 'all men are potential rapists' theme you are providing an example of your emotionalism.

I abhor prejudice because it is irrational and immoral.  That is a reasoned assessment, not an emotional one.

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

Either way no one is buying the 'when I do it it's ok but when you do it it's not' argument.  You are not unbiased or dispassionate enough on this topic to make those kinds of judgments.

I think we need to abstain from prejudice, from inverting or ignoring the presumption of evidence, from rushing to judgment, and from assessing the evidence based on rage and anger.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25 by smac97

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Yes, please tell me what I think, feel, and believe because I can’t know that for myself.  

I intend to respond to what you say, as I infer it is reflective of what you think.  So when you say "All men are potential rapists," I infer that you think that all men are potential rapists.

You:

Quote

Sexual harassment otoh is most likely to occur in public places, which suggests to me that since harassment is a warning sign for assault it is quite reasonable, decent, and rational to use the paradigm of 'all men are potential rapists'*** actively while in public places as well as in secluded ones.
...
***shorthand for not viewing any man as so safe there is no need to pay attention ever to any warning signs as well as to prepare oneself in any encounter for the possibility of assault because the likelihood of a woman encountering a predator quite frequently in their lifetime, even up to several times a day if around large numbers of men is statistically significant.  I saw one estimate that if one includes child predators in the engaging in nonconsensual forcible sex at least one time in their life predator category, placed it at 10% of the male population.  Didn’t show the stats though.  OTOH, studies of college men have between 4 to 16% admitting to committing rape, 2/3s being repeat rapists.  Hard to tell if college men are more likely to assault women than noncollege or the reverse since education and better economic status tends to be protective, but alcohol use is a major factor in assaults and college kids are more like to binge drink and drive under the influence.

And on and on and on.

"All {black} men are potential rapists."  I think black men would feel denigrated by that.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Of course I must think the same as you as that’s the only reasonable interpretation. (I am not insulted here, just trying to make a point that gets paid attention to.)

”I take these words according to their plain and ordinary meaning.”

Because language is only allowed to have one “plain and ordinary” meaning for everyone and of course everyone will always agree on it.  Why do we even bother to have dictionaries?  

Judges and juries are regularly called upon to read the words/language in a statute or whatnot and interpret it by its plain and ordinary meaning.  This is a "rule of construction" ("construction" meaning interpretation, "to construe").  See here:

Quote

The plain meaning rule is an approach to legal proceedings that relies on the usual and ordinary meaning of a law's text. This rule is the starting point for courts and legal experts attempting to determine legislative intent. Textualists favor the plain meaning rule.^[1]

Complexities

Legal scholar David A. Strauss has noted that the plain meaning rule works in many cases where an individual can look at the law and ascertain a clear meaning. His examples include a speed limit sign, a basic will and building codes. Strauss explained the following complications related to the plain meaning rule in his February 2014 article in the Notre Dame Law Review titled "Why Plain Meaning":^[2]

• Plain meaning refers to the plain legal meaning of a rule rather than meaning in other settings
• The rule might be used in cases of varying complexity where a plain meaning interpretation might lead to inconsistent results
• Laws are created with varying levels of support from local, state and federal legislators, which can lead to laws based on compromise rather than sound legal principles

 

The very fact that you feel compelled to add an asterisked paragraph-long explanation of what this claim means is intended to guide others on construing/interpreting it.

As it is, there is no ambiguity in "all men are potential rapists." 

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Reminds me of how in some people’s view scripture can have only one “plain and ordinary meaning” and everyone would obviously interpret it that way…except they don’t.  

You: "I am not denigrating all men or harboring prejudicial views by describing them as potential rapists."

There are certainly circumstances in which a scripture or phrase can be ambiguous, or can be interpreted in ways other than their "plain and ordinary meaning."

There are also circumstances in which a statement can be read per its "plain and ordinary meaning."  A speed limit sign that says "25 MPH" is a good example.  It does not require, say, a paragraph-long explanation.

Similarly, "all men are potential rapists" is a pretty straightforward statement.  You can, of course, add a paragraph-long explanation and expect others to intuit and/or credit it.  But then, so can someone saying "All gays are potential pedophiles" or "All Muslims are potential terrorists."

"All black men are potential rapists" is facially prejudiced and abhorrent.  A person can come along and offer a paragraph-long explanation about how it should not be read using the "plain and ordinary meanings" of the words, and should instead be construed in some sort "hey, I'm not denigrating black men by calling all of them 'potential rapists'" sort of way.  I suspect many of these folks would not be persuaded by this stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25 by smac97

[smac97]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A Jewish survivor of the October 7th attack, survives kidnapping and abuse, lives with PTSD every time she sees a Muslim in public and says that in her lived experience "all muslims are potential terrorists"

Do you agree that "all Muslims are potential terrorists?"

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A native of the West Bank area is continually harassed by masked Jewish settlers, beaten and threatened with violence while just trying to live their lives says that in her lived experience "all settlers are potential terrorists".

Do you agree that all Jewish settlers "are potential terrorists?"

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A woman, that time after time is harrassed, threatened, assaulted by men both strangers and friends says that in her lived experience, "all men are potential rapists".

Do you agree that "all men are potential rapists?"

I ask this rhetorically, as I think you do agree with this statement.  I still ask it and hope you will answer because I think you also do not think that "all Muslims are potential terrorists" or "all gays are potential pedophiles."  Some Muslims are terrorists, and some gay men are pedophiles, but I don't think you feel this validates the foregoing categorical statements or removes them from the ambit of prejudice.

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For me, I recognize that I don't worry when I run alone five days a week.

Nor do I.  That might change, though, if I was running through a crime-ridden neighborhood at 2:00 a.m.

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You don't listen and don't care,

I do listen and disagree.  I disagree with the sentiment that "all men are potential rapists" for the same reasons I disagree with "all gays are potential pedophiles" and "all black men are potential rapists" and "all Muslims are potential terrorists."  Do you agree or disagree with these sentiments?

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

so you don't care to hear that woman aren't saying every man has a latent rapist waiting to escape in the right situation.

Do you think it is fair to say "Every gay man has a latent pedophile waiting to escape in the right situation, ergo there is nothing wrong with saying that 'all gay men are potential pedophiles?'"  Or would you find, as I do, that characterization to be prejudiced and abhorrent?

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Rather, they are explaining their lived, shared, traumatic experience that every experience with a man alone is like being alone with a potential rapist. That they have to take precautions, have thoughts, and worries every single time a man approaches. And for good reason. 

In your view, if a woman has a "lived, shared, traumatic experience" caused by a black man, would she be justified in publicly declaring that "all black men are potential rapists?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25 by smac97

[smac97]

17 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

"All men are potential rapists."  I take these words according to their plain and ordinary meaning.

"All {black} men are potential rapists."  Same thing.

"All {Muslims} are potential {terrorists}."  Same thing.

It’s interesting how you interpret things this way.

It's interesting that "all men are potential rapists" is, in the minds of some, distinguishable from "all gay men are potential pedophiles," "all Muslims are potential terrorists," "all black men are potential rapists," and so on.

17 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I think you are assuming that “ all men are potential rapists” means that every single man including you has a budding rapist within.

"All men are potential rapists" is not ambiguous.

17 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Try to listen to this statement(”all men”) again with a different point of view: situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody.

I have to wonder why, if you mean "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody," you don't just say that.

I have some surmises about why.

17 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

IMPORTANT: this statement is not a description of a specific man. It is not a description of you.

Yes it is.  "All men are potential rapists" refers to all men.  I am a man.  Ipso facto, it is a description of me.

17 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

What it is, is a description of the state of mind of a woman that she must carry around every day, as situations that require awareness can pop up at any time. We do not have the luxury of retiring our conscientiousness.  

It’s not about you. It’s about the state of mind of women’s vigilance. 

"All men are potential rapists" is not a statement about men?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

dup

Edited October 25 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I do listen...

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

so you don't care to hear that woman aren't saying every man has a latent rapist waiting to escape in the right situation.

Do you think it is fair to say "Every gay man has a latent pedophile waiting to escape in the right situation, ergo there is nothing wrong with saying that 'all gay men are potential pedophiles?'"

you can't make this stuff up.

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have to wonder why, if you mean "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody," you don't just say that.

That is in fact what I said, as you are quoting me, and you can either say “ok now I understand what you’ve been trying to say” or you can dig in with your pride so as not to have to say “ gosh now that makes sense. I misunderstood you.”  
 

At any rate now, you know my position. Take it or leave it.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

To "have a dog in the fight" means to have a personal stake, vested interest, or direct involvement in the outcome of a situation, argument, or competition.

I have no personal stake, vested interest, or direct involvement in the Cornell matter.  If the accusations are substantively true, those found guilty should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  If the accusations are substantively embellished or fabricated, there should be serious repercussions for that.  I don't know the accuser or the accused, nor have any connection with any of them.

I abhor prejudice, and I see that in the "all men are potential rapists" sentiment so frequently advanced and defended by your and others, and which sentiment is being made manifest in this matter.

I am opposed to mobocratic rage, rushing to judgment, and the inversion or disregard of the presumption of innocence, and I am in favor of the rule of law, due process, and dispassionate evaluation of evidence.  Are you?

I am striving for dispassionate analysis.  I do not think most of the participants in this discussion are, at least those who are inverting the presumption of innocence, are rushing to judgment, etc.

Yes.  "All men are potential rapists" is not rational.  It is, instead, abject prejudice.  It is borne of emotion, not reason.

The presumption of innocence matters, or should matter.  Fair-minded and dispassionate evaluation of evidence should matter.  You and yours are running roughshod over these things.

I think assessing the evidence can hew toward dispassionate and fair-minded analysis, and it can also hew toward anger and rage and prejudice.  The latter are emotionalisms.

I abhor prejudice because it is irrational and immoral.  That is a reasoned assessment, not an emotional one.

I think we need to abstain from prejudice, from inverting or ignoring the presumption of evidence, from rushing to judgment, and from assessing the evidence based on rage and anger.

Thanks,

-Smac

A reasoned assessment can also be an emotional assessment.  In my opinion, your biggest weakness (among your many wonderful strengths) is your faulty understanding of emotion in social discussions.  Anyone who can divorce emotion from discussions of  sexual assault accusations and rape culture in the US isn't human, or at the very least isn't a human that is at all useful.

(To be clear, I am not accusing you of that.  I reiterate what many others have been saying as well:  You have not divorced emotion from this discussion, and thank goodness)

Edited October 25 by bluebell

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's interesting that "all men are potential rapists" is, in the minds of some, distinguishable from "all gay men are potential pedophiles," "all Muslims are potential terrorists," "all black men are potential rapists," and so on.

"All men are potential rapists" is not ambiguous.

I have to wonder why, if you mean "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody," you don't just say that.

I have some surmises about why.

Yes it is.  "All men are potential rapists" refers to all men.  I am a man.  Ipso facto, it is a description of me.

"All men are potential rapists" is not a statement about men?

Thanks,

-Smac

Mustard is asking for understanding not agreement (and certainly not a counter-argument, as we see here).  Are you interested in understanding what she is saying or are you only interested in countering what she is saying?  I think if you could honestly answer that question it would be very helpful.

[Calm]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

And on and on and on.

 

And if you ignore what else I wrote, taking my stuff out of context, I can see why you might interpret that quote that way.  But got to wonder why you make that choice to focus on just what you apparently prefer to argue against rather than my actual position.

And I will repeat it here….

What my position boils down to it is because the good and bad guys often look the same superficially it takes time and engagement to figure out who are the good guys (the majority) and who are the ones capable of harassment, violence, and rape…some women don’t find out until years after being married to what they believed was a nice guy.***  So it’s best to prepare yourself to deal with the bad ones emotionally, physically, and financially and that also means being alert with most men because even if the majority of men are decent people, the cost of being assaulted is so high, preparation is important.  

Most of us are not going to be in a major car accident, a house fire, or natural disaster destroy our home, or have health issues such that we no longer can work during our nonsenior years, but we still are counseled—including at church—to prepare for those.  It’s part of provident living.  Simple risk assessment and preparation.  

Inherent in the above framing of good guys vs bad is that there are good men.  Therefore in no way can I view every man as inherently capable of rape.  It’s not logical or objective to insist on that meaning.

***I don’t expect women to wait for years to decide their male companion is a good man.  That would be too emotionally taxing and restrictive.  However, it is wise to have independent financial means if possible (and agree on this before merging other wealth, it could be a red flag if he refuses), enough to allow oneself freedom to leave if necessary.  This is good not only in cases of domestic violence, but death or other cases where mixed assets or assets under a husband’s name might get frozen and a woman can’t get access to it.

All this applies to men as well, since women can be the violent one in a relationship, die unexpectedly or have financial issues that impact their spouse.  It’s just wise planning for the future.

Edited October 26 by Calm

[Calm]

On 10/25/2026 at 3:50 AM, smac97 said:

Judges and juries are regularly called upon to read the words/language in a statute or whatnot and interpret it by its plain and ordinary meaning.  This is a "rule of construction" ("construction" meaning interpretation, "to construe").  See here:

Quote

Casual conversation is not a court or legal laws….and people should be allowed to speak for themselves if they are present and willing to clarify their meaning….which I have, over and over.  

One hopes legal language is precise, but given how interpretation of laws varies over time, I think even here “plain and ordinary” changes based on context.

Edited October 26 by Calm

[Calm]

Do the men who see men as playing the role of protecting women register what they have often been protecting women from over the centuries?  Which is other men.

Especially these days.  It’s not too common in the here and now a man is called on to protect a woman from bears.

We are begging them to help protect us from the bad guys though.  In an intelligent way that we can easily recognize for it is.

For example….

https://www.sace.ca/learn/bystander-intervention/

Edited October 26 by Calm

[Calm]

On 10/25/2026 at 4:43 AM, smac97 said:

It's interesting that "all men are potential rapists" is, in the minds of some, distinguishable from "all gay men are potential pedophiles," "all Muslims are potential terrorists," "all black men are potential rapists," and so on.

Objectively speaking….and I use objectively here because I am basing this on accepted/credible stats.  And not extrapolating beyond them (except perhaps in the conclusion of something ignores stats, it is irrational/illogical and therefore likely prejudicial….that is likely subjective even if it seems objective to me; at least it’s rational).

Being “Black” is not the qualifying identifier of being a potential rapist here.  Looking at a Black man and looking at a white man will not allow you to ignore the white guy as inherently safe, etc. while you still need to be cautious around the Black man.

A gay man is attracted to adult males just as a straight man is attracted to adult females.  Pedophiles are attracted to children.  It’s more likely that a straight man (attracted to adult women) will also be attracted to children than gay men (attracted to adult males).  It is true a man will be more likely to be attracted to boys than a woman.  They are also likely to be more attracted to girls than women are.

In the US, the most numerous terrorists historically speaking have been Christian, so focusing on only Muslims would indicate likely religious bigotry.

I believe this distinction and what’s below have been mentioned before on the thread, so I wonder why you continue to act as if this is some relevant argument.

Then there is the whole historical baggage of Black men getting too commonly blamed and punished for simply looking at white women, etc. where it was much more likely given it was whites who were typically the owners that it was white men raping black women.  That adds a lot of context lacking in the general use of men as potential rapists.

Is there there some too common historical injustice for men in general being systematically punished for false accusations of rape in similar ways I am not aware of?  I am aware of the low rates of convictions and even low terms of punishment when someone was accused.  Often in many cultures, punishment for men was to marry their victims.  Which seems oddly inverted to me.

In terms of violent crime, one is most likely to be assaulted by one’s own race.  Therefore to focus one’s caution primarily on another race is irrational, which means there’s a good chance it is prejudicial.

To focus on gay men only when rates of pedophilia are at least the same, if not higher, among straight men is irrational, which means there’s a good chance it is prejudicial.

To focus on Muslims as terrorists when in the US the terrorist is much more likely to be Christian is irrational, which means there’s a good chance it’s pure bigotry.

Edited October 27 by Calm

[Vanguard]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

A reasoned assessment can also be an emotional assessment.  In my opinion, your biggest weakness (among your many wonderful strengths) is your faulty understanding of emotion in social discussions.  Anyone who can divorce emotion from discussions of  sexual assault accusations and rape culture in the US isn't human, or at the very least isn't a human that is at all useful.

(To be clear, I am not accusing you of that.  I reiterate what many others have been saying as well:  You have not divorced emotion from this discussion, and thank goodness)

I don't divorce my emotion about women being mistreated and my reasoned assessment about the case at hand. I object, however, to anyone's emotional assessment being conclusory about guilt because I am also emotional about folks having the right to an impartial judgement. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

 I object, however, to anyone's emotional assessment being conclusory about guilt because I am also emotional about folks having the right to an impartial judgement. 

In court or in everyday life?

Edited October 26 by Calm

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I don't divorce my emotion about women being mistreated and my reasoned assessment about the case at hand. I object, however, to anyone's emotional assessment being conclusory about guilt because I am also emotional about folks having the right to an impartial judgement. 

Fair enough.   

Are you implying that other posters here are basing their conclusions solely on emotion and not on reasoned assessment or are you just clarifying your own perspective?  (Just wanting to make sure that I understand)

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

In court or in everyday life?

I'm not sure I understand?

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Fair enough.   

Are you implying that other posters here are basing their conclusions solely on emotion and not on reasoned assessment or are you just clarifying your own perspective?  (Just wanting to make sure that I understand)

No, I'm not implying this. Are some of the conclusions based too much on emotions? Yes. 

[bluebell]

Just now, Vanguard said:

Are some of the conclusions based too much on emotions? Yes. 

This is interesting to me.  How can you tell that some of the conclusions are based on too much emotion (and what conclusions have you seen being made)?  Sincere questions and not trying to argue and it's not a set up.  I'm asking because I haven't really seen many conclusions on the Cornell case (though I've missed a lot of posts so they could be out there) but I have seen opinions on what people believe to be most likely considering the evidence that is now public.  Are we looking at the same posts and reading them completely differently or are we seeing different posts so coming up with different perspectives on what is happening in the thread?

In your view what is the difference between 'mostly likely considering the evidence' and 'conclusions based on too much emotion'?

 

[Calm]

20 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I'm not sure I understand?

The guilt thing.  Should we be impartial in every day life?

Say you hear a parent of your kid’s friend was arrested, but released for child molestation and you hear it’s because of not sufficient evidence to prosecute.  Would you be okay with your kid still playing at their friend’s house or make the judgment to never allow that parent to be around your child without your supervision?

This is not a gotcha attempt, I am using a situation that has major potential consequences (and an unfortunately common one in terms of having to make these kinds of decisions, often with little to no info) in order for the process of your reasoning to be clearer to me.

Edited October 26 by Calm

[ttribe]

19 hours ago, Vanguard said:

No, I'm not implying this. Are some of the conclusions based too much on emotions? Yes. 

Are you a mind reader? Cool! What am I thinking, right now?