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

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Others on this thread, however, do.

But you don’t understand what that means to them, only how you interpret it, even after it’s been explained to you (it includes also seeing you as a potential good guy, it’s a position more of neutrality, more withholding judgment than accusation).

[manol]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think there are better ways to protect women from violence than by preemptively declaring all men as "potential" or "possible" rapists.

In that case, I hope you won't mind responding to the question I asked you twice in my previous post:

Can you propose an alternative precautionary view that would be just as protective of women and girls and not be offensive to men with your viewpoint?

It's not a trick question.  There is no hidden "gotcha".   This is an opportunity for "err{ing} on the side of caution... [which] aligns with common sense safety measures and situational awareness, which [you] have repeatedly and strongly endorsed”, and to do so using wording that you choose and are comfortable with. 

Edited June 25 by manol

[Calm]

On 6/22/2026 at 4:30 PM, MustardSeed said:

I once heard it said that biologically, when we come across a stranger, our brain is assessing two things. Is this person dangerous, and also is it a potential sexual partner. We’re talking on a very basic cellular level here, of course.  
 

Personal history, headline news, other people’s experiences are all going to shape that meter for each of us. 

And adding information that leads us to not jump to conclusions, but to take more time to assess both makes sense to me.  And given that assessment reaction is on the instinctual level, it needs to be a strong piece of data to push us into spending more time assessing imo, especially when so much of our culture pushes us to go with impulse and emotion rather than discipline and reason.

[Calm]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

  I still do not see why "the starting point" needs to include something as patently prejudiced and ugly and and demoralizing and alienating as public declarations that "all men are potential rapists."

It does need to be about you because it’s you who are choosing to interpret a factual observation about the unknown internal state of people into something that is ugly and prejudicial instead of taking into account how it can also be used without all the emotion you are attaching to it.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, manol said:

Can you propose an alternative precautionary view that would be just as protective of women and girls and not be offensive to men with your viewpoint?

That is as effective in getting them to reconsider natural and programmed impulses to be passive and accepting before it’s wise to be.

Edited June 25 by Calm

[manol]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is as effective in getting them to reconsider natural and programmed impulses to be passive and accepting before it’s wise to be.

Thank you!

Here is the updated version of my question to @smac97:

"Can you propose an alternative precautionary view that would be just as protective of women and girls, and just as effective in getting them to reconsider natural and programmed impulses to be passive and accepting before it is wise to be, and not be offensive to men with your viewpoint?"

 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

But you don’t understand what that means to them, only how you interpret it, even after it’s been explained to you (it includes also seeing you as a potential good guy, it’s a position more of neutrality, more withholding judgment than accusation).

"All men are potential rapists" is a "plain language" sort of thing.  It's not ambiguous or vague or nuanced. 

As Amulek noted: 

Quote

The argument that "men shouldn't be upset if it helps" depends on whether the phrase actually helps. My inclination would be to characterize it more along the lines of Elder Packer's comment about how "some things that are true are not very useful."

Right now, I'm not convinced of its usefulness in terms of a rhetorical strategy. If you want to communicate that "women cannot reliably know which men are dangerous," then why not just say that? 

Because, even if that's the intended meaning, the phrase "all men are potential rapists" is often heard as a generalization about men's character, and when people feel unfairly characterized they tend to become defensive rather than receptive (as we've seen in this very thread).

A message can draw attention to a problem while also alienating people who might otherwise support the cause. I think it's reasonable to ask whether there are ways to communicate the same concern that generate more understanding and less resentment.

So, while I absolutely support efforts to reduce violence against women, I don't think this particular phrase does much to advance that goal.

It is interesting to me that the targets of this ugly sentiment are being derided for even mildly and respectfully voicing concerns and reservations about it, are having their masculinity questioned if they choose to voice their thoughts (see Manol's various posts), and are even being told what to think about it and how they "should" respond to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

All men are potential rapists" is a "plain language" sort of thing.  It's not ambiguous or vague or nuanced. 

Yep.  So why are you and others adding so much nuance to it?

Honestly, this reads to me like I am encouraging using a defensive driving course that points out other drivers might be dangerous, so it is wise to be prepared and being told that is going to make me and other women afraid of driving and hating cars and drivers in general rather than better drivers who are quicker to spot a car moving the wrong way and better prepared to react to it.

[Calm]

Quote

If you want to communicate that "women cannot reliably know which men are dangerous," then why not just say that? 

And how many times do I need to repeat why…

Do you not believe there is strong programming, both biological and cultural for women to be passive and submissive to men?

Do you not believe women have been telling their daughters for eons to be cautious around men?

Do you not see how the first could negate the second if it’s not taught in a way that really gets imprinted?

Edited June 25 by Calm

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, manol said:

Thank you!

Here is the updated version of my question to @smac97:

"Can you propose an alternative precautionary view that would be just as protective of women and girls, and just as effective in getting them to reconsider natural and programmed impulses to be passive and accepting before it is wise to be, and not be offensive to men with your viewpoint?"

I have previously voiced some thoughts here, here, here, here, here, and so on.  You have not interacted with much or any of this, and have instead resorted to unfortunate personalized digs.  That's a bummer, as I think such comments impede discussion.

From the first link:

Quote

Quote

As all men should proactively and seriously consider what they can do to change our culture to one that is safer for women and children…

I think men can do the following:

1. Abstain from engaging in misconduct toward women and children.

2. Support the passage and enforcement of laws against mistreatment of women and children.

3. Condemn any ideology or rhetoric that justifies or excuses mistreatment of women and children.

4. Act to report - or, where possible, stop - known instances of mistreatment of women and children and protect them from harm .

5. Encourage others to not only abstain from mistreating women and children, but to affirmatively treat them with kindness and respect.

6. Subscribe to schools of thought and moral frameworks which facilitate the foregoing measures.

7. Encourage "situational awareness."

8. Model good behavior (i.e., I seek to treat my wife with kindness and respect, and abstain from any mistreatment or demeaning conduct, and hope that my daughters view that as the healthy and appropriate way for men to treat women).

These are the measures that immediately come to mind.  However, none of these is predicated on me being male (except, I suppose, for the last one).  {EDIT: And none of these is predicated on characterizing all men everywhere as "potential rapists."}  Women can also do these things.

And none of these involve blanket characterizations of all men as "potential rapists."

Terrorism is a serious issue that should involve much discussion and action, but we don't need broad slanders like "All Muslims are potential/possible terrorists" to be part of such efforts.

Teachers engaging in sexual misconduct with minor students is a serious issue that should involve much discussion and action, but we don't need broad slanders like "All women are potential/possible sexual predators" to be part of such efforts.

Online scamming is a serious issue, but we don't need need broad slanders like "All Indians and Nigerians are potential/possible scammers."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Edited June 25 by smac97

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

we don't need broad slanders like "All Muslims are potential/possible terrorists" to be part of such efforts.

If we were already programmed to see Muslims as safe and we should just go along with anything they do without questioning, that would be different.  It’s a slander because of all the stuff that’s already attached to it, especially by those who promote such comments.

While there is a small segment of women who openly and strongly misanthropic, the vast majority of women are quite pro men as a starting point.  This idea is often discussed in the context of behaviors during dating and other interactions that are seen as positive as well, so the surrounding context is quite different than what is typically being discussed when comments about Muslims being terrorists gets thrown out.

Edited June 25 by Calm

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yep.  So why are you and others adding so much nuance to it?

I'm not.  The "nuance" seems to be coming from those who feel that the statement needs explanation/clarification about what it really/actually is "intended" to mean.  I am just reading it according to its plain language.

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Honestly, this reads to me like I am encouraging using a defensive driving course that points out other drivers might be dangerous, so it is wise to be prepared and being told that is going to make me and other women afraid of driving and hating cars and drivers in general rather than better drivers who are quicker to spot a car moving the wrong way and better prepared to react to it.

I see the defensive driving analogy, and I agree that it’s wise to be situationally aware and prepared for danger. No one should be reckless. The difference I’m struggling with is this:

In defensive driving, we say “some drivers can be dangerous” or “be prepared because anyone could make a mistake.” We don’t say “all drivers are potential reckless killers” as a default mindset. The latter is, in my view, different — it casts every single driver (or every single man) in a presumptively negative light before any evidence about that individual person appears.

When the statement is “all men are potential rapists,” it seems to move beyond prudent caution into a broad characterization of an entire group as inherently risky. That’s the part that feels like it crosses into prejudice (pre-judging) rather than just wise preparedness. I don’t think pointing that out means I’m saying women shouldn’t be cautious or prepared — I’m saying the framing matters because it shapes how we view and treat millions of individual men who have done nothing wrong, and because the framing is divisive, alienating, risks stoking undue anxiety and hypervigilance, etc.

I previously posted this on June 1:

Quote

We both want a world with far less violence against women, children, and men. That’s not in dispute.

We should never ignore predatory or improper behavior by men. At the same time, we shouldn’t act as if bad actors don’t exist. We have plenty of laws against such behavior, and we should enforce them vigorously. But since criminals don’t always obey the law, an ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure. As Mr. Miyagi said, “Best defense: no be there.” I’m fully supportive of laws that enable women to carry effective self-defense tools.

When I asked for examples of “dumping it on women,” I was trying to understand the specific pattern you’re seeing. The curfew example is a fair one. No one should pretend that restricting women’s freedom is ideal. At the same time, I think we need to be careful about labeling any discussion of practical precautions as victim-blaming or “restricting women.”

Personal safety isn’t a zero-sum sort of thing. Advising women (or anyone) to be extra aware at night, avoid walking alone in high-risk areas, or have a plan isn’t saying “it’s your fault if something happens.” It’s the same common-sense risk mitigation we apply in other contexts — lock your car, don’t leave your drink unattended, wear a seatbelt, be cautious with strangers online. These aren’t moral judgments on victims; they’re acknowledgments that the world isn’t perfectly safe and that individuals have some agency in reducing their exposure.

Perpetrators bear full moral responsibility for their crimes. Full stop. But culture change and personal safety aren’t mutually exclusive. We can — and should — do both: hold men accountable when they commit violence, teach boys respect and self-control from a young age, and encourage everyone to exercise reasonable situational awareness. Most women I know already do some version of this, not because society dumped it on them, but because it’s prudent.

The idea that we shouldn’t discuss women’s precautions at all until men perfectly fix the culture feels unrealistic to me. Bad actors have existed in every generation. I’d rather we encourage a multi-vector approach: society pass and enforce laws, individual men men take responsibility for their own behavior and treating women with dignity, and everyone using wisdom and caution in a fallen world.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

If you want to communicate that "women cannot reliably know which men are dangerous," then why not just say that? 

And how many times do I need to repeat why…

Do you not believe there is strong programming, both biological and cultural for women to be passive and submissive to men?

Do you not believe women have been telling their daughters for eons to be cautious around men?

Do you not see how the first could negate the second if it’s not taught in a way that really gets imprinted?

Thank you for your response, though I don't feel it is very responsive to my inquiry.  It has more of a non sequitur feeling to it.

I’m not trying to dismiss the very real concerns about safety or the history of cautionary advice passed down to daughters. Those warnings exist for good reason.

What I’m questioning is the specific framing of “all men are potential rapists.” I completely agree that women (and men) should be wise, discerning, and cautious — especially in certain situations. But I don’t see how saying “all men are potential rapists” is necessary to communicate that message. It seems to go beyond prudent caution into a blanket characterization of every man as inherently dangerous until proven otherwise.

I do believe biology and culture influence behavior. I also believe women have valid reasons for caution in many contexts. At the same time, I worry that broad statements like this can unintentionally reinforce fear and suspicion toward all men (including good ones) rather than encouraging wise, situational discernment.

I’m not asking you to stop repeating your point — I’m asking why this particular strong wording is the best or only way to imprint the message of caution. Couldn’t we say something like “some men are dangerous and women can’t always tell which ones they are” without assigning potential guilt to every single man by default?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Doctor Steuss]

When I first encountered the “yes, all men” statement online, about 16 years ago (I think[?]), I admittedly made it all about me, rather than the people who have been conditioned through real-life experiences to have to live with that level of anxiety and threat assessment.  Rather than trying to understand the world that most women experience, I felt the compulsion to push back, because if I wasn’t that type of person, and my dad isn’t, and my brothers aren’t, and so on… then obviously it isn’t “all men.”  Now, I try to do my best in situations where I’m a “stranger” to lessen potential anxiety.  I know I’m not a threat, but I also recognize that others don’t know that.  Sometimes there's a level of hurt, when I find out someone thought I was mean, or racist, or violent, or a douchebag because of my appearance, but I also know what I look like to a lot of people and that there wasn't intentional malice in their subconscious real-time threat assessment of me.

While I know that I’m not a predator, I also know that I am physically intimidating, and  that men and women generally view me as potentially threatening if they don’t know me.  I make modest adjustments to my behavior, when possible to help with that.

I think one thing that may help in this conversation is simply remembering that women are people.  They aren’t some mysterious “other,” or monolith.  From that starting point, one need only put yourself into another person’s shoes.  Not into a woman’s shoes… just another human being’s shoes.

Some self-reporting data from college attending men indicates that as high as 60% of men have engaged in sexual harassment, coercion, intimidation, and assault.  Those same self-reporting studies have found as many as 16% of men have committed legally-defined rape.  The few behavioral studies generally put it at around 25% of men who have committed some form of sexual assault.  Those are the high-end numbers (other self-reporting studies have found lower numbers), but the fact that this is self-reported data (at least with the first two -- the other is a bit more complicated) I think speaks volumes.  Also, most of this is college aged men.  Men that haven’t even lived a quarter of their lives, already self-reporting that high of a rate.

If you’re in a room with 10 men, there’s a likelihood (at least from the available research) that at least 2 of them have sexually assaulted a woman.  Potentially half of the men in that room have used coercion, intimidation, or refused to accept that “no” is a complete sentence, at some point in their lives.  That’s difficult to fathom, unless you’ve been one of the people who have experienced it first-hand.

I’m not sure what empathetic thought experiment can work best for every person.  I know a lot of men have difficulty putting themselves into a frame of mind where the potential of being a victim of rape is tangible in any meaningful way.  It can be just too much of a foreign concept.  Perhaps thinking of it as, if half of men had a tendency to just punch other dudes in the special-no-no-place, would it have absolutely no impact on how you viewed the world?  Say you were fortunate and had never been punched, but you had multiple friends who had… wouldn’t that change your worldview in some way?  Would you in no way start assuming that ever man you encountered had that potential, and you had to wait and see if they didn’t (all the while, anxiously waiting for that statistical roll of the dice)?

Anecdotally (and trigger warning), an ex of mine was once raped by a family friend.  She had known him for 30 years.  Their families regularly did things together, and the kids all referred to each other as cousins, and their relationships matched that familial label.  For 30 years she had shared life experiences with this “cousin.”  For 30 years he had hung out with her friends (I met him multiple times, and he always seemed like a great guy).  For 30 years their families spent important moments together.  Then, one day, she woke up with a knife to her throat, and he proceeded to rape her.  Another friend of mine was serially raped by her two brothers for almost a decade.  Her mom and others just assumed she was “slow” because she never spoke.  The brothers both went on missions, and were seen as regular up-standing LDS boys (one is now dead, and the other is serving two consecutive prison sentences for rape).  There aren’t always warning signs.  There isn’t some blinking light of “I’m potentially going to rape you.”  To the women who have experienced it, particularly from someone who had always been “safe” -- to those women, it is potentially “all men.”

So, is it mildly inconvenient for me to alter how I conduct myself in public and private?  Meh, not really.  Maybe at first, trying to remember to do the little things, but now it’s second nature.  Asking a woman that I’m on a date with, if it’s ok that I just put my arm around them, or asking at the end of a date if it’s ok if I kiss them on the cheek or if just a fist-bump would be more comfortable (providing the alternative yourself can always be helpful) -- it just becomes second nature.  Being aware of my surroundings and how others perceive me is far less tedious than the hyper-awareness a lot of women have to bear.  Gradually too, treating women like fully self-actualized individual people tends to make them see you the same way.  Creates great opportunities for friendships, and to be the person they feel comfortable telling their traumas to.  Of course, I know that we’re all built different.  Some women can’t have male friends, because if there’s any level of attraction, there’s too much of an urge to jump bones.  Similarly there are men that can’t too.  Because (*drum roll*), just like men, women are people.

Not sure if this adds anything of value, or if it's just everyone circling their respective wagons at this point, but hopefully it wasn't just a waste of bandwidth (and needlessly abusing the keyboard with my sausage fingers).

Edited June 25 by Doctor Steuss

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  The "nuance" seems to be coming from those who feel that the statement needs explanation/clarification about what it really/actually is "intended" to mean.  I am just reading it according to its plain language.

Not really.  I am only including additional info because you and others have insisted it means something else than it does.

Quote

It has more of a non sequitur feeling to it.

Because you are ignoring the real life experience of women being told for eons to ignore or suppress their negative and natural responses towards men, uncomfortable warnings in favour of being kind, accepting, even flattering rather than cautious and neutral.  Even being cautious has been framed as be sure to be courteous and smiling so as not to trigger anger or rejection.

We also have biological programming in that regard to overcome as awareness of greater strength can too often lead to submissiveness rather than distancing.  We are even more likely to trust than men even when it’s been shown that’s not wise.**

It’s easier to overcome that programming if we start at a distance.

We (girls) were taught in my youth all the situational awareness stuff you have mentioned with pretty much the way you have described it.  Every school district I was in and college I have encountered taught it.  And yet date rape was not uncommon.  

Engaging strong emotion can be effective way to change behaviour.

**https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103114001437

Quote

We show that women trust more than men following a violation.

Women are less likely than men to lose trust in others following transgressions.

Women are more likely than men to regain trust after repeated transgressions.

Women's greater relational investment underlies these gender differences.

 

Edited June 25 by Calm

[Calm]

Since you are comfortable with using AI for information, here’s an AI summary about why too many women choose politeness over personal safety even these days….

Quote

• Gender socialization: Researchers have long noted that girls are often socialized toward agreeableness, accommodation, and relationship maintenance more strongly than boys. This can create tension between politeness norms and self-protective behavior.
• “Niceness” or “feminine norm” socialization: Studies on gender roles find that women frequently face stronger social expectations to be pleasant, non-confrontational, and emotionally accommodating, which can make boundary-setting more difficult in some situations.
• Self-silencing: A concept in psychology describing the tendency to suppress one’s own needs, discomfort, or objections to preserve relationships or avoid conflict. Research has found this pattern more commonly encouraged in women than in men.
• Assertiveness and boundary-setting research: Many sexual assault prevention and bystander-intervention programs explicitly discuss how social pressure to avoid appearing rude can interfere with responding to uncomfortable or potentially unsafe situations.
• The “gift of fear” principle: Popularized by security expert Gavin de Becker, the idea is that people—especially women—are often encouraged to override intuitive discomfort for the sake of social harmony, and that this can sometimes reduce personal safety.

And you appear to be insisting politeness and consideration of men’s feelings is still the better way to go.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not really.  I am only including additional info because you and others have insisted it means something else than it does.

Respectfully, no.  I am saying "All men are potential rapists" is not nuanced or ambiguous.  It is direct and plain.

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

It has more of a non sequitur feeling to it.

Because you are ignoring the real life experience of women being told for eons to ignore or suppress their negative and natural responses towards men, uncomfortable warnings in favour of being kind, accepting, even flattering rather than cautious and neutral.  

Perhaps we should conclude our discussion.  I am not ignoring this.  I reject the notion that it is reasonable to point to "the real life experience of women" as a justification for a categorial and prejudiced denigration of all men everywhere.

You think I am not listening you you, and I think you are not listening to me.

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Even being cautious has been framed as be sure to be courteous and smiling so as not to trigger anger or rejection.

I have said nothing about this.

And again, the topic is not about whether women should be "courteous and smiling," but whether the framing of "all men" as "potential rapists" is a fair and reasoned and healthy and appropriate and effective thing to do relative to furthering women's safety, or whether it is ugly, unchristian, demoralizing, alienating, unnecessary, unhealthy, and injurious to both men and women and their overall interactions.

Again, from Amulek: "If you want to communicate that 'women cannot reliably know which men are dangerous,' then why not just say that?"  Why continue to defend a statement that foments resentment and alienation?

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

We also have biological programming in that regard to overcome as awareness of greater strength can too often lead to submissiveness rather than distancing.  It’s easier to overcome that programming if we start at a distance.

And "start{ing} at a distance" necessarily includes declarations to the world that all men everywhere are "potential rapists"?

That sure seems like a non sequitur to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

Since you are comfortable with using AI for information, here’s an AI summary about why too many women choose politeness over personal safety even these days….

And you appear to be insisting politeness and consideration of men’s feelings is still the better way to go.

Are you directing this at me?  Where have I "insisted" this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

From that starting point, one need only put yourself into another person’s shoes.  Not into a woman’s shoes… just another human being’s shoes.

But this doesn’t mean assuming women will react the same way as you will in such a situation.  For example, in a situation where a man will no longer trust another, it’s more likely a woman will.  Therefore there typically needs to be more reasons or stronger ones for a woman to step back and reconsider and recognize untrustworthiness.

Men need to make the effort to recognize the variety and strengths of the influences women have on them that push them to be accepting of unsafe situations.

Edited June 25 by Calm

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am saying "All men are potential rapists" is not nuanced or ambiguous.  It is direct and plain.

Since you aren’t open to considering a different interpretation than the emotional one you have put in it, there is no point to me repeating my plain and direct and logical interpretation.

Edited June 25 by Calm

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I am saying "All men are potential rapists" is not nuanced or ambiguous.  It is direct and plain.

Since you aren’t open to considering a different interpretation than the emotional one you have put in it,

Well, no.  I had in mind the "Plain Language" doctrine from my training as an attorney.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

A central goal of courts in statutory interpretation is effectuating the intent of the Legislature.  See, e.g., L.G. v. State (In re A.T.), 2015 UT 41, ¶ 16, 353 P.3d 131 ("With any question of statutory interpretation, our primary goal is to effectuate the intent of the Legislature.").  To ascertain that intent, a court looks "first to the text of the statute within its context," beginning with the plain language of the provision at issue in a "broader effort to ascertain the intent of the Legislature disclosed by the language of the act as a whole, the act's operation, and its purpose." State v. Rasabout, 2015 UT 72, ¶ 10, 356 P.3d 1258.

The problem is, which legislative intent? Of one congressperson? Or lobbyist? And at which point in the legislative process? And why should the voice of one be allowed to rule the democratic will of the assembly as reflected in the words of the statute? Thus, the text of the statute itself is the preeminent source of legislative intent.

However, "where the language of the statute is clear, that language controls and cannot be overridden by a presumed statutory purpose."  VCS, Inc. v. Utah Cmty. Bank, 2012 UT 89, ¶ 23, 293 P.3d 290.  The purpose of a statute plays a role in statutory interpretation only where "the language of a statute is ambiguous."  See id. at ¶ 22, citing Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. Salt Lake Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 2012 UT 4, ¶ 21, 270 P.3d 441.  

See, I think "All men are potential rapists" is clear and unambiguous.  I also see you and others tacitly acknowledging this by trying to impute into it some sort of nuance about what it really means or the message/meaning it is intended to express.  Indeed, this effort seems far more steeped in emotion than in a straightforward clinical assessment of the statement. 

I acknowledge that the statement, being as it is facially ugly and provocative and patently prejudiced, can give rise to a response that has an emotional component.  However, that does not negate or override the predominant clinical evaluation.

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

there is no point to me repeating my plain and direct and logical interpretation.

"All men are potential rapists" is "plain and direct."  Extensive commentary intended to supply nuance and "interpretation" about how men "should" perceive this sentiment signals a departure from plain and ordinary language.

Some women declare "all men are potential rapists."  That statement is clear and unambiguous in terms of how some women view "all men."  I accept it as such.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Extensive commentary intended to supply nuance and "interpretation" about how men "should" perceive this sentiment signals a departure from plain and ordinary language.

I agree.  That you put on it additional meanings, that it is “facially ugly and provocative and patently prejudiced” about how women and men should  is inappropriate, imo. 

Edited June 25 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thank you for sharing your perspective.  I see "potential" as the component making the statement inherently premature.

If I said that "Bluebell is a potential puppy torturer" or "James is a potential child molester," without a scintilla of evidence that you or James have engaged in any such behavior or have any predilection / inclination toward torturing puppies or molesting children, then I think it would be "premature" and prejudiced to characterize you and James in this way.

Same goes if I said "Bluebell is a possible puppy torturer" or "James is a possible child molester."

These statements are technically true, but they remain prejudiced.

I think there are better ways to protect puppies than to preemptively declare Bluebell a "potential" or "possible" puppy torturer.

I think there are better ways to protect children from harm than by preemptively declaring all men as "potential" or "possible" child molesters.

I think there are better ways to protect women from violence than by preemptively declaring all men as "potential" or "possible" rapists.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am a potential puppy torturer. I would never ever torture a puppy, but you don’t know that.

I would sincerely hope that you would vet me and take every percussion before you gave me full access to your puppy.

 

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See, I think "All men are potential rapists" is clear and unambiguous.  I also see you and others tacitly acknowledging this by trying to impute into it some sort of nuance about what it really means or the message/meaning it is intended to express.  Indeed, this effort seems far more steeped in emotion than in a straightforward clinical assessment of the statement. 

Oh please. This isn’t a clinical assessment. “All men are potential rapists” is a factually correct statement from a clinical objective perspective where you only care about the facts.

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I acknowledge that the statement, being as it is facially ugly and provocative and patently prejudiced, can give rise to a response that has an emotional component.  However, that does not negate or override the predominant clinical evaluation.

So based on this you have decided to tone police how women think while trying to increase their own safety?

And that is not a clinical evaluation. At all. It is your emotional response to someone possibly thinking you might be a danger to them that has you trying to police this. You aren’t a dispassionate observer. You are upset about it.

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"All men are potential rapists" is "plain and direct."  Extensive commentary intended to supply nuance and "interpretation" about how men "should" perceive this sentiment signals a departure from plain and ordinary language.

Men “should” work to create an environment where such sentiments are unnecessary. And women’s thought processes about how they protect themselves is far more important than how men “should” take this is silly.

Women have been thinking this way since basically forever. You only just noticed it. Women typically don’t share these kinds of things with men because they usually react the way you are right now. That is why you didn’t hear about it until now.

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Some women declare "all men are potential rapists."  That statement is clear and unambiguous in terms of how some women view "all men."  I accept it as such.

And again, it is factually correct. The offense you are taking is what you are putting into those words. You aren’t accepting the “clear and ambiguous” statement. You are accepting the hurt and victimization you feel as somehow “clear and ambiguous” because you don’t like how women choose to frame their own safety because it hurts your feelings. You aren’t being dispassionate. You are prioritizing your own emotional reaction over any other impact the statement might have. This is what people mean when they talk about “fragility”.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Quote

Extensive commentary intended to supply nuance and "interpretation" about how men "should" perceive this sentiment signals a departure from plain and ordinary language.

I agree.  That you put on it additional meanings, that it is “being as it is facially ugly and provocative and patently prejudiced” about how women and men should  is inappropriate, imo. 

In legal parlance, judges are asked to make "Findings of Fact" and "Conclusions of Law."

Here, the "findings of fact" are that some women openly profess and declare that, in their opinion, ,"all men are potential rapists."  Several participants on this thread and others have repeatedly affirmed and ratified and endorsed this statement.  Nobody disputes what the statement is.

Judges also make "conclusions of law," which is to determine whether the established "facts" amount to a legal claim or defense.  Here, the "conclusion" I have presented is that the statement "all men are potential rapists" is "facially ugly and provocative and patently prejudiced."  Is it your position that characterizing all men everywhere as "potential rapists" and/or "possible rapists" is not "ugly"?  That is it not "provocative"?  That it is not "prejudiced"?

Thanks,

-Smac