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

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

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

Self-awareness is "the conscious ability to recognize and reflect on your own thoughts, feelings, behaviors, values, and how you impact the world around you."

I do that a lot.  I am just not inclined to have you personalize this thread by making me a topic in it.

So please, stop trying to do that.

As for "relating" (presumably meaning to build social and emotional bonds with people), I do that a lot as well.  I just don't want to do that here.

You may be conflating "not relating" with "not agreeing."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 19 hours ago by smac97

[MustardSeed]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Self-awareness is "the conscious ability to recognize and reflect on your own thoughts, feelings, behaviors, values, and how you impact the world around you."

I do that a lot.  I am just not inclined to have you personalize this thread by making me a topic in it.

So please, stop trying to do that.

As for "relating" (presumably meaning to build social and emotional bonds with people), I do that a lot as well.  I just don't want to do that here.

You may be conflating "not relating" with "not agreeing."

Thanks,

-Smac

Uncle

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And I think you are conflating disagreement with misapprehension.

 

No, I am not.  It is not unusual for the person who consistently misunderstands something  to not realize it…if they did, they would more likely have corrected the misunderstanding.

I would even assume it was my misunderstanding instead of yours as that is my default mode, I find that more useful….except multiple people have mentioned it.

Edited 19 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Here is your bias and looks like inability to be empathetic with women in this situation.  I am not asking you to accept it is necessary, but accept they view it as necessary. 
 

Since it’s a nonstarter, I will leave it at that.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

You and everyone else is fine with saying "all men are potential rapists,"

How is this not a red flag for you to cause you to stop and think “maybe I am misunderstanding something here’?

Edited 19 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

think my comments are generally pretty lucid.

For someone talking to themselves, yes, quite lucid.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

he 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.

Because the logic doesn’t apply, lol.  As has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people.

I am going to continue to refuse to deal with the mathematical equation 1+1 =2,000,313,527 no matter how many times someone claims I am refusing to deal with basic math logic.  

Edited 18 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do that a lot. 

Doing it and doing it well are not the same thing.  

You also may be very good in self reflection in other areas.  What is shown here is not much self reflection, but deflection since you are not listening, but mining.  

Edited 19 hours ago by Calm

[webbles]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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."

So, you concede that in a fairly innocuous place (the library), she would raise her guard just because a man sits next to her?  Would she do the same if it was a woman?  I'd posit no.  I don't see how that is "situational awareness and particularized circumstances".  That seems to just be normal day to day stuff.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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."

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

I admit the logical corollary (I don't know why you think I'm not admitting it).  Every subset of man (black men, white men, etc) is also potential rapists.  But when you make a sentence that singles out the subset of men, that is where the prejudice comes from.  The skin color of a man doesn't make him any more dangerous than another.  If the statement was "all black men are rapists", that is a prejudiced and pointless statement.  Because most rapists are generally those who you know and probably the same skin color as you.  If the statement was "all men of the same race as you are rapists", I think I might accept that since I think the statistics bear that out.

And yes, it is per se sex-based prejudiced statements.  That doesn't make it an ugly statement.  Just like how Pence used a sex-based discrimination to exclude all women from his personal space unless his wife was there.  For some, it sounded like sex-based prejudice but you seem to see it as a good thing.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I do that a lot. 

Doing it and doing it well are not the same thing.  

Doing it publicly and on display is not my thing.  

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

You also may be very good in self reflection in other areas.  What is shown here is not much self reflection, but deflection since you are not listening, but mining.  

I am listening.  I read and respond to virtually every post directed at me.

What I am doing is disagreeing.  I think you are conflating not listening with not agreeing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.

Because the logic doesn’t apply, lol.  As has been pointed out to you multiple times.

I think it does apply.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

You and everyone else is fine with saying "all men are potential rapists,"

How is this not a red flag for you to cause you to stop and think “maybe I am misunderstanding something here’?

Because I am not misunderstanding.  I am disagreeing.

You have affirmed the proposition that "All men are potential rapists."  You have presented a paragraph-long exposition on what those five words mean, and that idiosyncratic explanation is supposed to supersede the ordinary and plain language of those five words.  I am not going along with that.

If Mustard's formulation is in view (that by "all men are potential rapists" she means that "this statement indicates a woman’s defensive self protective position given precarious situations"), then she and you and Bluebell could just say that.  But you don't.  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.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.

Here is your bias and looks like inability to be empathetic with women in this situation.  

I can empathize and still disagree.  

I have a friend who never married, despite fairly extensive efforts to find someone.  He has some fairly caustic things to say about "women" as a category.  While I empathize (that is, I understand) his frustration and circumstance, I still disagree with his denigrating all women everywhere, as I find that to be not healthy or helpful or valid.

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not asking you to accept it is necessary, but accept they view it as necessary. 

And I reject that it is necessary.

You conflate empathy with agreement.  I don't.

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since it’s a nonstarter, I will leave it at that.  

Grand.  Back to the topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

And I think you are conflating disagreement with misapprehension.

No, I am not.  

Insofar as you are presuming to tell me what is between my ears ("Being good at debate does not inherently mean one is good at comprehension of human psychology and how thought gets expressed and recieved"), yes, you are wrong.  I am the world's leading authority on what I think.  Your lack of insight as to what I know or do not know about "human psychology" is vast.

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is not unusual for the person who consistently misunderstands something  to not realize it…if they did, they would more likely have corrected the misunderstanding.

It is also not unusual for someone to attempt to defend a poor argument by resorting to ad hominem, tone policing, Red Herring, and other logical fallacies.

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would even assume it was my misunderstanding instead of yours as that is my default mode, I find that more useful….except multiple people have mentioned it.

Multiple people who are aligned with your point of view about "all men" being "potential rapists," and disagree with me about it.  

Argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is an informal logical fallacy that claims an idea, belief, or value is true or good simply because a majority or a large number of people believe in it.

Sure would be nice to talk about the topic instead of me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, webbles said:

u.  If the statement was "all men of the same race as you are rapists"

It is focuses on the wrong thing in a different way though….if you change the last part to something that reflects that is true for that individual…otherwise it seems to target the race of the “you” individual.  I tried a few phrasings, but not creative today.  None of them avoided implying something they shouldn’t have.  

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Insofar as you are presuming to tell me what is between my ears

You are right…I need to focus on what you say.  Maybe you are listening and maybe you understand, but neither are being conveyed by what you wrote.  If you are listening and you do understand, that is rather strange though.  What would your intention to intentionally misrepresent so many in the thread?

I can’t tell what you know about human psychology, I can see how you apply what knowledge you have though.

Though what I wrote that you quoted was not an individual, but a global observation.  I know many, many people and probably myself who have been told they are good at writing, even rewarded for it, called insightful, etc, and who are clueless with some of their interactions with others and being able predict how people will react to them.  I based this in them telling me, not assumptions.  You cannot infer from someone’s writing that they have high comprehension when it comes to how others think of things, though typically this isn’t global…some they get, others they don’t when it dipped below the superficial.  

Edited 18 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Uncle

Grand.  Back to the topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Insofar as you are presuming to tell me what is between my ears

You are right…I need to focus on what you say.  

Better yet, focus on what I say about the topic, and then comment about the topic rather than about me.

That sure would be nice.

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe you are listening and maybe you understand, but neither are being conveyed by what you wrote.  If you are listening and you do understand, that is rather strange though.  What would your intention to intentionally misrepresent so many in the thread?

I find this to be mostly a Red Herring.  I understand what is being said, I just disagree with a lot of it, and I reject some of it outright.  I think you and others have been resorting to a combination of Ad Hominem and Red Herring fallacies to distract attention away from the topic and toward me as a person.

Sure would be nice to get back to the topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 18 hours ago by smac97

[Tony uk]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

3 hours 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

Hi Smac

 I am trying not to be contradictory or argumentative. Would you consider that people who are drunk, to be safe to drive a motor vehicle, or not.

I ask this with a good intention, nothing more.

[MustardSeed]

Returning to topic: 

I find walking out to a parking lot alone in the dark to 100% of the time puts me on high alert because of my experiences with men.  So whenever I see a man walking towards me in that situation, I suspect that I am in danger.

I never feel this way when a woman is walking towards me.

Every man is suspect to me in that scenario.  it’s sad because I know not all men are actually threatening, but in that scenario, I have to assume that any man is threatening.  
so in my mind, I’m assuming that any man approaching me in a dark parking lot is potentially very dangerous to me and so I have to quickly get in my car and lock the door and prepared to scream and kick and fight as necessary.

There are zero exceptions to this, unless that man is my husband, my father my brothers or my sons.

Why is this? My experiences with other humans who happen to have all been men.

Unfortunate isn’t it?

 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Multiple people who are aligned with your point of view about "all men" being "potential rapists," and disagree with me about it.  

 

Some of who typically agree with you, iirc.

Maybe you might consider that what we are aligned on is not what you insist we are aligned on.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Tony uk said:

I am trying not to be contradictory or argumentative. Would you consider that people who are drunk, to be safe to drive a motor vehicle, or not.

Yes.  People who A) are drunk and B) driving a motor vehicle are more likely to be unsafe while driving in that condition.

In contrast, "All women are terrible drivers" is not something with which I would agree.

1 minute ago, Tony uk said:

I ask this with a good intention, nothing more.

Sounds good.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

Some of who typically agree with you, iirc.

Maybe you might consider that what we are aligned on is not what you insist we are aligned on.

Maybe we could return to discussing the topic instead of me personally.

That sure would be nice.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours 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 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

A person who understood what is being said, would be incapable of making this argument. This is not a disagreement, but you fundamentally not understanding the argument put forward. How in the world could you possibly believe that " the objection to “all black men are potential rapists” is that it is an over-broad, prejudicial character claim that ignores individual variation". You are not listening. You are not understanding. It appears willful and belligerent at this point. 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is also not unusual for someone to attempt to defend a poor argument by resorting to ad hominem, tone policing, Red Herring, and other logical fallacies.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Good point.  

Quote

don't even think you guys are trying.  I've been watching a mob-rage-induced rush to judgment all the way.

Quote

 

 

I think there are aspects of reactions that are problematic: the rush to judgment, the mobocratic rage, the inversion of the presumption of innocence, the vitriolic responses to suggestions that we dispassionately and fairly review the evidence, and so on.

Quote

All the more reason to set aside emotionalisms and reflexive mobocratic outrage

Quote

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.  

There are quite a few more….

If you are now saying you see this as inappropriate, I look forward to the absence of such in your posts. I will try and refrain from doing more than just pointing out when you are arguing with strawmen….because like you I know best what I think and how I define things and if someone chooses to ignore half of what I and others say in their response, I just might mention that.  

Edited 18 hours ago by Calm