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

[webbles]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is not my phrase.  It is yours:

Mistype on my part.  I meant to quote your phrase.  Just replace my phrase with yours and the argument is still the same.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In the U.S.?  In 2026?  Yes, there are situations where a woman can feel reasonably safe.

Ok, name them.  Because women on this forum, this thread, and else where have basically said that in pretty much any situation with a man, they need to be aware.

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If the position is that women should maintain baseline awareness of male strength and of the disproportionate commission of sexual assault, that can be stated directly. The slogan adds the further claim that every man should be treated as a potential rapist because no situation is free of risk. That further claim is what remains unsupported.

So, why is "all men are potentially rapists" not stating directly that "women should maintain baselines awareness of male strength and of the disproportionate commission of sexual assault".  Is the only reason because you believe that there are situations that are free of risk?  Because that is what I feel is where the difference lies.  You think that there are situations where a woman doesn't need to be on guard.  And yet lots of women say the exact opposite.  You are asserting a statement but it doesn't seem to be an actual fact.

[webbles]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do not accept this.

"A {black} man is stronger than a woman," therefore "he is dangerous to women."

Do you accept that?

"A man is stronger than a woman" therefore "he is potentially dangerous to women".  Yes, I accept that.  But toss "Black" in there to identify just Black men, and no.  Because it isn't the color that is the danger.  It is the gender.  We have 2 genders (I think you agree with that).  One gender is generally stronger, bigger, etc than the other.  It makes perfect sense to act on that behavior.  It is practically built into our genetic code.  To try and compare this to skin color makes no sense because they aren't in the same realm.

[smac97]

Just now, webbles said:

Mistype on my part.  I meant to quote your phrase.  Just replace my phrase with yours and the argument is still the same.

It is not the same.  it is entirely different.  Again:

Quote

Quote

So the phrase should really be "sexual assault is disproportionately committed by men, so all situations warrant extra caution". 

Except I don't believe that.  I would be concerned about any woman going through day-to-day living in the U.S. under the apprehensive cloud of viewing half of humanity, always and everywhere, as "potential rapists" and conforming her behavior to be congruent with that assumption.  That would not be good for her emotional and mental health.

 

Just now, webbles said:

Quote

Quote

because you seem to think there are situations where a woman should use extra caution and a situation where she doesn't need extra caution and so doesn't need to worry about sexual assault. 

In the U.S.?  In 2026?  Yes, there are situations where a woman can feel reasonably safe.

Ok, name them.  Because women on this forum, this thread, and else where have basically said that in pretty much any situation with a man, they need to be aware.

My wife is currently sitting in a library in Salt Lake County.  I just spoke with her by phone.  She is writing.  She is not viewing all the men around her as "potential rapists" and taking "extra caution" in reliance on that assumption.  She is writing.  She is not worrying about sexual assault.

My daughters are currently at a movie with their brothers.  I suspect they are enjoying the move.  I think they are not looking around the theater and thinking "Wow, lots of potential rapists here.  I need to use 'extra caution' in case one of them wants to sexually assault me."

That some women want to go through life with this ugly prejudice, and its attendant stresses and alienations and divisions, is pretty sad.  It's quite unnecessary.  There is no need to view half of humanity as "potential rapists."  There is no need to "behav{e} as if all men everywhere are potential rapists.

Just now, webbles said:

Quote

If the position is that women should maintain baseline awareness of male strength and of the disproportionate commission of sexual assault, that can be stated directly. The slogan adds the further claim that every man should be treated as a potential rapist because no situation is free of risk. That further claim is what remains unsupported.

So, why is "all men are potentially rapists" not stating directly that "women should maintain baselines awareness of male strength and of the disproportionate commission of sexual assault".  Is the only reason because you believe that there are situations that are free of risk?  Because that is what I feel is where the difference lies.  You think that there are situations where a woman doesn't need to be on guard.  And yet lots of women say the exact opposite.  You are asserting a statement but it doesn't seem to be an actual fact.

“All men are potential rapists” does not simply restate “maintain baseline awareness of male strength and disproportionate risk.” It converts a statistical and situational fact into a standing character judgment about every individual man on the planet. The first is a claim about patterns and average differences; the second is a claim that the proper default posture toward any given man is that he may rape you.

The difference is not merely whether any situation is completely free of risk. No environment is free of all possible harm. The difference is whether risk is treated as continuous and cue-dependent, or as a fixed property of an entire sex that must be managed in every interaction. Baseline awareness already exists: people notice proximity, behavior, isolation, and other signals. The slogan goes beyond that by insisting the relevant signal is membership in the group itself.

Many women describe heightened caution in various settings. That is consistent with acknowledging real base-rate differences and personal experience. It does not establish that the accurate or necessary formulation of that caution is a categorical statement that all men are potential rapists. The latter remains an additional claim, one that treats an average capacity and an average offense rate as grounds for a permanent presumption applied to every man. That step is what the slogan adds, and it is the step that remains contested.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, webbles said:

Quote

I do not accept this.

"A {black} man is stronger than a woman," therefore "he is dangerous to women."

Do you accept that?

"A man is stronger than a woman" therefore "he is potentially dangerous to women".  Yes, I accept that. But toss "Black" in there to identify just Black men, and no. 

Sorry, but that's untenable.  You say "yes" to the idea that all men are "potentially dangerous to women," and ipso facto you have conceded that all black men - a subset of all men - are necessarily "potentially dangerous to women."

It's your reasoning.

Just now, webbles said:

Because it isn't the color that is the danger.  It is the gender. 

Please explain how you can affirm that "all men are potential rapists" and then disaffirm that "all black men are potential rapists."  The former necessarily includes the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is not the same.  it is entirely different.  Again:

I said replace my phrase with yours in my argument.  You didn't seem to do that.  I get you don't like my phrase but the only reason your phrase is different from my phrase is because you think women can have places they don't need to be aware.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My wife is currently sitting in a library in Salt Lake County.  I just spoke with her by phone.  She is writing.  She is not viewing all the men around her as "potential rapists" and taking "extra caution" in reliance on that assumption.  She is writing.  She is not worrying about sexual assault.

So, if a man decided to sit right next to her, she wouldn't start to worry?  Or if a man stood behind her?  Those men are minding their own business and not doing anything.  Just being close to her.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My daughters are currently at a movie with their brothers.  I suspect they are enjoying the move.  I think they are not looking around the theater and thinking "Wow, lots of potential rapists here.  I need to use 'extra caution' in case one of them wants to sexually assault me."

If a boy next to your daughters, who she doesn't know, moved their hands that brushed their thighs or head or some part of the body, would your daughters think nothing of it?  The boy is completely innocent and not doing anything.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That some women want to go through life with this ugly prejudice, and its attendant stresses and alienations and divisions, is pretty sad.  It's quite unnecessary.  There is no need to view half of humanity as "potential rapists."  There is no need to "behav{e} as if all men everywhere are potential rapists.

I don't know why you see it as ugly prejudice.  I find it intelligent behavior.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

“All men are potential rapists” does not simply restate “maintain baseline awareness of male strength and disproportionate risk.” It converts a statistical and situational fact into a standing character judgment about every individual man on the planet. The first is a claim about patterns and average differences; the second is a claim that the proper default posture toward any given man is that he may rape you.

It doesn't make a standing character judgement.  When I hear the phrase "all men are potential rapist", it doesn't tell me that I'm a rapist.  It tells me that if someone doesn't know me, they should treat me as a potential danger.  Because they don't know what I will do.  I know that I will not be raping them, but they don't.  So they should act accordingly.

[webbles]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sorry, but that's untenable.  You say "yes" to the idea that all men are "potentially dangerous to women," and ipso facto you have conceded that all black men - a subset of all men - are necessarily "potentially dangerous to women."

It's your reasoning.

Please explain how you can affirm that "all men are potential rapists" and then disaffirm that "all black men are potential rapists."  The former necessarily includes the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Fine, "all white, black, brown, red, green, purple, yellow, pink, etc men are potentially dangerous to women".  I agree with that statement.  I disagree with "all black men are dangerous to women" because it is singling out black men.  Black men are just as dangerous as white men.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That some women want to go through life with this ugly prejudice, and its attendant stresses and alienations and divisions, is pretty sad.  It's quite unnecessary.  There is no need to view half of humanity as "potential rapists."  There is no need to "behav{e} men as if all men everywhere are potential rapists.

What could be reasons why it has become necessary for these women to view their world that way?  Can you think of any situation where it might be helpful for some women?

 If you are drawing a blank, perhaps consider how different women react to different situations?  Can you imagine a mental process in a woman where this is the most effective, healthiest (both in terms of safety and emotional cost) protection with the least cost for her?   If you still are  drawing a blank, have you ever heard of decision paralysis? (This  is only one possibility, there are others).

This is with the interpretation that one can’t tell who is the rapist and who is not without significant experience.  If you insist on using the interpretation “every man is a latent rapist”, no need to respond.  
 

You can’t get from  A to B if you refuse to start at A.

Edited yesterday at 03:23 AM by Calm

[MustardSeed]

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My wife is currently sitting in a library in Salt Lake County.  I just spoke with her by phone.  She is writing.  She is not viewing all the men around her as "potential rapists" and taking "extra caution" in reliance on that assumption.  She is writing.  She is not worrying about sexual assault.

My daughters are currently at a movie with their brothers.  I suspect they are enjoying the move.  I think they are not looking around the theater and thinking "Wow, lots of potential rapist

Nvmd

Edited yesterday at 04:10 AM by MustardSeed

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm fairly provision in English.  I read and write for a living.

Being good at debate does not inherently mean one is good at comprehension of human psychology and how thought gets expressed and recieved.   Being able to say with precision what you mean also does not inherently lead to precision in interpreting others who use words differently than you do.  It probably helps, but it’s not enough.  I suspect being a therapist helps much more, but that’s no guarantee either. I had a relative who was a therapist, even taught how to do it at university.  Was shocked at how clueless he was about his own family dynamics.  He seemed to choose to just ignore what he could not understand.  His dad died before he was born and his mom had to struggle and it showed.  It seemed to me he learned how to express love from a textbook.  And was not able to go deeper.  A sweet, gentle, caring man, but his kids have hangups and he had no idea and often complicated things.

You are also in a field that rewards you for making the other guy look as less credible rather than attempting to find the best, the most accurate, or most charitable interpretation.  It is not necessary for your success…nor your survival most likely.

It is not instinctive for women either.  My sister got her doctorate in English literature.  Taught various English classes at university for more than a decade.  Most beautiful and talented writer I know.

Lot of hiccups in her life because she didn’t understand others even while getting the highest scholarships and a great transcript, especially for her analysis of literature.  Generous, wonderful woman, but shocked at times by others getting offended by something she said or missing the point.  She has gotten much better, especially the last ten years.  I don’t think she is as defensive or critical of others and that has probably made a difference.  

Edited yesterday at 05:18 AM by Calm

[blackstrap]

" All people are sinners " , hence , keep your head on a swivel !

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

I'm fairly provision in English.  I read and write for a living.

Being good at debate does not inherently mean one is good at comprehension of human psychology and how thought gets expressed and recieved.  

First, I gotta love that I said "I'm fairly provision in English" (now edited to correct).  I think that was an autocorrect thing, though I find quite a few spelling errors in what I post here, I think because I am writing fast and not really checking much.

Anyway, I am pretty good at reading English.  And I think you are conflating disagreement with misapprehension.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 18 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

That some women want to go through life with this ugly prejudice, and its attendant stresses and alienations and divisions, is pretty sad.  It's quite unnecessary.  There is no need to view half of humanity as "potential rapists."  There is no need to "behav{e} men as if all men everywhere are potential rapists.

What could be reasons why it has become necessary for these women to view their world that way?  

I reject the premise.  There is nothing "necessary" about adopting the abjectly prejudiced worldview that "all men are potential rapists," or else behaving as if all men are potential rapists.

This is a choice, not a necessity.

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Can you think of any situation where it might be helpful for some women?

"Helpful" to view all men everywhere as "potential rapists?"  No.

And even if there is something that can be construed as "helpful," then I think Sowell's three questions come into play:

Question No. 1: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work" (and is, in some sense, subjectively "helpful"), my question is: Compared to what?

Question No. 2: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work" (and is, in some sense, subjectively "helpful"), my question is: At what cost?

Question No. 3: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work" (and is, in some sense, subjectively "helpful"), my question is: What evidence do you have?

Can you think of any situation where it might be helpful for some women to think of all Black men as potential rapists?

12 hours ago, Calm said:

If you are drawing a blank, perhaps consider how different women react to different situations?  Can you imagine a mental process in a woman where this is the most effective, healthiest (both in terms of safety and emotional cost) protection with the least cost for her?   If you still are  drawing a blank, have you ever heard of decision paralysis? (This  is only one possibility, there are others).

This is with the interpretation that one can’t tell who is the rapist and who is not without significant experience.  If you insist on using the interpretation “every man is a latent rapist”, no need to respond.  

You can’t get from  A to B if you refuse to start at A.

Where "A" is predicated on patent prejudice, yes, I refuse to start there.

That some women have rationalized (for themselves, anyway) that prejudice based on "the ends justify the means"-style reasoning, or some other reasoning, does not rehabilitate the perspective.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 18 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

12 hours ago, webbles said:

Quote

My wife is currently sitting in a library in Salt Lake County.  I just spoke with her by phone.  She is writing.  She is not viewing all the men around her as "potential rapists" and taking "extra caution" in reliance on that assumption.  She is writing.  She is not worrying about sexual assault.

So, if a man decided to sit right next to her, she wouldn't start to worry? 

She might.  Situational awareness and particularized circumstances are entirely appropriate.

What she didn't do, though, is sit in the library while thinking that all men in her vicinity and throughout the world are all "potential rapists."

12 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't know why you see it as ugly prejudice.  I find it intelligent behavior.

That you refuse to acknowledge that your position is that "all black men are potential rapists" is a rather good illustration.  Affirming that statement would obviously be "ugly prejudice."  That ugly prejudice remains when you speak of "all Muslim men" or "all gay men" or "all men."

12 hours ago, webbles said:

Quote

“All men are potential rapists” does not simply restate “maintain baseline awareness of male strength and disproportionate risk.” It converts a statistical and situational fact into a standing character judgment about every individual man on the planet. The first is a claim about patterns and average differences; the second is a claim that the proper default posture toward any given man is that he may rape you.

It doesn't make a standing character judgement. 

It is nothing but a standing character judgment.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

There’s no way we aren’t being punked by someone who will argue every minute issue even after being handed clarification on a silver platter. 
it’s a game, folks.  
 

 

 

[smac97]

12 hours ago, webbles said:

Quote

"A {black} man is stronger than a woman," therefore "he is dangerous to women."

Do you accept that?

"A man is stronger than a woman" therefore "he is potentially dangerous to women".  Yes, I accept that. 

That was not my question.

12 hours ago, webbles said:

But toss "Black" in there to identify just Black men, and no. 

I figured.  You and everyone else is fine with saying "all men are potential rapists," but you are not willing to admit the logical corollary that every subset of that category, such as all black men, are also "potential rapists."  I think you won't admit this because you see, correctly, the phrase "all black men are potential rapists" as abjectly prejudiced.

I am glad you are not prejudiced based on skin color.  I hope in time you can set aside prejudice based on sex.  "All men are potential rapists" is a per se sex-based prejudiced statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

"All men are potential rapists."

I understand those five words.  I'm fairly proficient in English.  I read and write for a living.

Again, there are five words in play.  I understand what they mean when put together in a sentence.

Question No. 1: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work," my question is: Compared to what?

Question No. 2: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work," my question is: At what cost?

Question No. 3: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work," my question is: What evidence do you have?

Thanks,

-Smac

You're good at english but not great at interpersonal communication.  I didn't say anything in that post where you claim I let my mask slip (  ) that I haven't been saying since the beginning of discussions on this topic.  You just think I did because you are so invested in finding ways to discount my perspective that you happily narrowed a complex and nuanced discussion between us on the subject that has been going on for probably over a year and spans dozens if not hundreds of posts down to five words.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, webbles said:

When I hear the phrase "all men are potential rapist", it doesn't tell me that I'm a rapist.  It tells me that if someone doesn't know me, they should treat me as a potential danger. 

Here's someone who can brag about their English skills.  5 stars for this post.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

"All men are potential rapists."

I understand those five words.  I'm fairly proficient in English.  I read and write for a living.

Again, there are five words in play.  I understand what they mean when put together in a sentence.

Question No. 1: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work," my question is: Compared to what?

Question No. 2: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work," my question is: At what cost?

Question No. 3: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work," my question is: What evidence do you have?

You're good at english but not great at interpersonal communication. 

I think my comments are generally pretty lucid.

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn't say anything in that post where you claim I let my mask slip (  ) that I haven't been saying since the beginning of discussions on this topic. 

Okay.

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You just think I did because you are so invested in finding ways to discount my perspective

I disagree with your perspective that "all men are potential rapists."  I find that to be a horrible, prejudiced, unchristian idea that should be set aside by any and all professing Latter-day Saints.

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

that you happily narrowed a complex and nuanced discussion between us on the subject that has been going on for probably over a year and spans dozens if not hundreds of posts down to five words.

If we had a complex and nuanced discussion that involved six words, "all black men are potential rapists," I would focus on that phrase and condemn it for its horribleness.

Would you?

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

Just now, smac97 said:

disagree with your perspective that "all men are potential rapists."  I find that to be a horrible, prejudiced, unchristian idea that should be set aside by any and all professing Latter-day Saints.

We have clarified five bazillion times that this statement indicates a woman’s defensive self protective position given precarious situations and does not identify a latant desire within every man. 
But go off. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

I disagree with your perspective that "all men are potential rapists."  I find that to be a horrible, prejudiced, unchristian idea that should be set aside by any and all professing Latter-day Saints.

We have clarified five bazillion times

In a pretextual and ad hoc effort, yes.  

The five-word statement "all men are potential rapists" is, on its face, prejudiced.  Hence the need to "clarify" and add paragraph-long rationalizations and equivocations and circumlocutions to avoid this patent reality.

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

that this statement indicates a woman’s defensive self protective position given precarious situations

If that is what you mean, you could say that.

That you and others instead resort to the patently prejudiced statement "all men are potential rapists" to purportedly convey this other idea is, in my view, indicative of something else going on.

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

and does not identify a latant desire within every man.

"All men are potential rapists" is patently accusatory.

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

But go off. 

I will continue to speak against patent prejudice.  "All Muslims are potential terrorists."  "All gay men are potential pedophiles."  "All women are potential prostitutes."  "All black men are potential rapists."  I denounce all of these categorical denigrations because they are per se prejudiced.  I likewise denounce "All men are potential rapists" as per se prejudiced.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

Just now, smac97 said:

In a pretextual and ad hoc effort, yes.  

The five-word statement "all men are potential rapists" is, on its face, prejudiced.  Hence the need to "clarify" and add paragraph-long rationalizations and equivocations and circumlocutions to avoid this patent reality.

If that is what you mean, you could say that.

That you and others instead resort to the patently prejudiced statement "all men are potential rapists" to purportedly convey this other idea is, in my view, indicative of something else going on.

"All men are potential rapists" is patently accusatory.

I will continue to speak against patent prejudice.  "All Muslims are potential terrorists."  "All gay men are potential pedophiles."  "All women are potential prostitutes."  "All black men are potential rapists."  I denounce all of these categorical denigrations because they are per se prejudiced.  I likewise denounce "All men are potential rapists" as per se prejudiced.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m so curious about you Smac.   

 

 

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m so curious about you Smac.   

I'd rather discuss the topic, and my reasoning and assessment of the topic.

The selective refusal to apply the same logic to the racial subset ("all black men are potential rapists") reveals the inconsistency of the position staked out by folks like you. If the justification for “all men are potential rapists” is average strength plus disproportionate offending rates, that justification necessarily applies to black men (who are, obviously, men, and hence all "potential rapists"). If the objection to “all black men are potential rapists” is that it is an over-broad, prejudicial character claim that ignores individual variation, that same objection applies to the claim about men.

The fact that one version is socially licensed/acceptable and the other is not does not change the structure of the generalization. It only changes the consequences of stating it.

The two statements are not equivalent in social reception, which I think is why folks like you are comfortable affirming the "all men" slogan but not the "all black men" slogan.  The former apparently is, to you and your circle, socially acceptable, but the latter is not.  The two statements nevertheless remain logically equivalent as categorical group accusations. Affirming the broader claim while treating the narrower one as obviously prejudiced is an inconsistent application of the same standard.  And I think that inconsistency is deliberate and ad hoc and unjustified.  Those advancing the "all men are potential rapists" do not want to admit the logical equivalence of "all black men are potential rapists" because the latter is prejudiced and socially unacceptable, whereas the former is prejudiced but socially acceptable (in some quarters, anyway).  The inconsistency reflects the avoidance of the adverse "consequences of stating" the categorical accusation.  Nevertheless, if a person thinks that "all men are potential rapists" she must also affirm that she thinks that "all black men are potential rapists."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 17 hours ago by smac97

[MustardSeed]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'd rather discuss the topic, and my reasoning and assessment of the topic.

The selective refusal to apply the same logic to the racial subset ("all black men are potential rapists") reveals the inconsistency. If the justification for “all men are potential rapists” is average strength plus disproportionate offending rates, that justification still applies to black men (who are men). If the objection to “all black men are potential rapists” is that it is an over-broad, prejudicial character claim that ignores individual variation, that same objection applies to the claim about men. The fact that one version is socially licensed and the other is not does not change the structure of the generalization. It only changes the consequences of stating it.

The two statements are not equivalent in social reception, which I think is why folks like you are comfortable affirming the "all men" slogan but not the "all black men" slogan.  The former apparently is, to you and your circle, socially acceptable, but the latter is not.  The two statements nevertheless remain logically equivalent as categorical group accusations. Affirming the broader claim while treating the narrower one as obviously prejudiced is an inconsistent application of the same standard.  And I think that inconsistency is deliberate and ad hoc and unjustified.  Those advancing the "all men are potential rapists" do not want to admit the logical equivalence of "all black men are potential rapists" because the latter is prejudiced and socially unacceptable, whereas the former is prejudiced but socially acceptable (in some quarters, anyway).  The inconsistency reflects the avoidance of the adverse "consequences of stating" what is clearly a prejudiced statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

You don’t have to engage with me.  It doesn’t change my curiosity. Like it or not, this is a social media site. You and I have a relationship. 
If you’re gonna dive into your career, I’m gonna dive into mine. 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

You don’t have to engage with me.  It doesn’t change my curiosity.

That's the nice thing about this board.  We can all ignore each other or limit interactions to suit our preferences.

Here, I decline to entertain your curiosity about me individually.  If you want to ask me about my views on the sheriff in Arizona, or the Cornell matter, or the "all men are potential rapists" slogan, I will likely respond.  Beyond that, no thanks.

15 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Like it or not, this is a social media site.

I acknowledge that.  

15 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

You and I have a relationship. 

Perhaps, but only in a nominal, de minimis sense. 

In any event, I would prefer to discuss the topic, and my assessment of the topic.

15 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

If you’re gonna dive into your career, I’m gonna dive into mine. 

I decline to cooperate.  I am not the topic.  This thread started with "troubling allegations" against a sheriff in Arizona (who apparently is a member of the Church).  Bluebell subsequently brought up the Cornell topic, which in turn has morphed into a revisiting of the "all men are potential rapists" slogan/mindset.  I started the thread, so I'm okay with these forays.  But turning this thread into a critique or examination of me personally is not appropriate.  Please discuss the topics, none of which is me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 16 hours ago by smac97

[MustardSeed]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's the nice thing about this board.  We can all ignore each other or limit interactions to suit our preferenced.

In a nominal, de minimis sense, I suppose so.  In any event, I would prefer to discuss the topic, and my assessment of the topic.

I decline to cooperate.  I am not the topic.  This thread started with "troubling allegations" against a sheriff in Arizona (who apparently is a member of the Church).  Bluebell subsequently brought up the Cornell topic, which in turn has morphed into a revisiting of the "all men are potential rapists" slogan/mindset.  I started the thread, so I'm okay with these forays.  But turning this thread into a critique of me as a person is not appropriate.  Please discuss the topics, none of which is me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok.  Self awareness / relating isn’t for everyone. 

Edited 16 hours ago by MustardSeed