- Well, okay, after posting that, I looked again and *impunhas above post total was 5426 on the refreshed thread… so, I don’t know what’s what with that. Hmmmm…
I don’t know when you looked at my post count, but it’ll be 5427 after this post (I say that at 10:56 PM EST), unless old threads get pruned (which would surprise me a bit, since the oldest thread in which I participated would have its last post around June 6 or so of last year).
When a thread is deleted, the posts are gone from the server. As such, if I had two posts in a “what’s your favorite baseball team?” thread and my post count with those posts was 5429, it would go down to 5427.
-
-
- (sing along with me) One of these things is not like the other ones:
Dept of Energy
United States Postal Service
Dept of Health & Human Services
Central Intelligence Agency
Boy Scouts of America…
?
- (sing along with me) One of these things is not like the other ones:
-
- All but one of these groups has its leaders and/or members appointed or approved by government officials. To say that any involvment with government qualifies as being a “government agency” is absurd, as any group could be included if they have had any involvement with the government at all.
~ - I never watched the post count thing, but since my last post my own has gone up a couple again…? -I tend to ignore them all anyway, for the reason I said before. - MC
No one ever said that the BSA was a government agency. Stop making up arguments to disprove just because they’re easy.
::sees MC’s post::
::watches strawmen rise out of the ground and be burned::
As waterj2 said, nobody was arguing that the BSA is a government organization.
And there are other things that makes the USPS and dept. of energy (to use two of your examples) different from the BSA, such as:
The former two don’t care if you’re an open atheist. Or, as far as I know, if you’re openly gay.
(sigh,)
-
-
- That’s funny, that’s what it looked like to me.
-
- The boy scouts does not require its members or leaders to be government employees, and government employees are not expressly entitled to choose its members or leaders, or manage its operation. It encourages political involvement as part of good citizenship, but doesn’t directly support or endorse any particular political party, and (as I recall) requires nor encourages affiliation with any particular political party. What other standards would you include? Do any government benefits count? If a group gets a bulk mailing rate or holds non-profit status, does that make them a government organization? - MC
I agree!
It should not be taking this long to show you you’re wrong. We had one thread go to six pages and almost a seventh. This one’s at a half page already. To summarize:
-
Homosexuals are LESS likely than heterosexuals (note that LESS is the OPPOSITE of MORE) to molest children, which runs contrary to your assertation in the original MPSIMS thread.
-
Drug use is an action. Homosexuality is the desire for someone of the same sex. It does not necessarily involve acting on said desires. As such, while drug use can make you sick and even kill you (ODing, etc), purely BEING homosexual cannot, other than being killed specifically because you’re gay. Viz. . . . oh, hell. Too many people to fucking count. If you want a list, read matt_mcl’s webpage.
It also looks to you like being gay makes one inherently prone to molesting children.
Things are not always as they seem. You would do well to remember this.
The BSA, as pldennison showed, get lots of free stuff from the government. As do other groups who, while certainly not being strictly governmental, are neither that nor strictly social.
Did you find a sale on straw men or are you really this damn obtuse? Being a non-profit organization does not ipso facto make said organization governmental, nor does receiving a bulk mailing rate. Viz. The American Red Cross.
-
-
- You are again reducing a comple situation to a simple one, and it don’t work that way: what the initial comment was meant to illustrate was that if a parent sued the BSA after their son had been molested by a known gay boy scout leader, it could be argued that since gays are attracted to males, they are a higher-than-average risk for committing acts of molestation with young boys than heterosexuals would have been.
See?
Hetero man = likes females,
Homo man = likes males.
To insist that “this is so ridiculous that nobody would ever believe it or any judge allow it” is to ignore how easy it can be to shop for a venue and stack a jury, and that a lady sued McDonald’s for spilling hot coffee on herself. The cofee wasn’t defective, the cup wasn’t defective and the McDonald’s employee didn’t cause it, but that didn’t matter.
Again—>“This isn’t about truth and justice, it’s about lawyers and juries.”
~
-I swear I’m gonna make that my sig line until everybody in the Peanut Gallery understands it. - MC
- You are again reducing a comple situation to a simple one, and it don’t work that way: what the initial comment was meant to illustrate was that if a parent sued the BSA after their son had been molested by a known gay boy scout leader, it could be argued that since gays are attracted to males, they are a higher-than-average risk for committing acts of molestation with young boys than heterosexuals would have been.
-
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MC *
**
I’ll bet all takers $500 that MC can’t tell me what actually happened in the McDonald’s coffee case, off the cuff, without looking it up. And I’ll also bet that whatever he does tell me is egregiously incorrect.
You have never answered the two primary objections that I have to this line of reasoning, but I’ll reiterate them:
- The Boy Scouts of America states that the reason they do not allow homosexuals to be Scout leaders is because homosexuals are not good role models, and has nothing to do with protecting children.
- Every other youth organization that is not run by a church allows homosexuals to be adult leaders.
Also, you seem to have very little understanding of what is required to win a lawsuit. The possibility of a jury finding that the Boy Scouts acted negligently by allowing homosexuals to be Scout leaders is incredibly small.
So you admit that the idea of homosexuals being more likely to be child molestors is one of ignorance? What is it we’re on this board to fight again?
And what does any of that have to do with refusing to let your own child have a gay scoutmaster?
Dr. J
Incorrect. Here’s the way it works:
I see a spade.
I call it a spade.
Simple, no? Yet highly effective to be able to recognize something and react accordingly.
It could be argued that the moon is made of green cheese. It could be argued that nobody can prove the existence of anyone but themself. Any number of things can be argued. Some of them are just bullshit.
This is the case here.
And you seem to agree with the notion that being gay puts one at risk for being a child molestor. Here’s your chance:
Do you believe that being homosexual means having a propensity toward being a pedophile?
Nope. For example, **pldennison is a heterosexual man (sorry to use you again as an example, phil, but you’re here and you can defend yourself against this nutjob as well as anyone else on the board). He is, in fact, married to a woman. He is not, in fact, attracted to prepubescent girls in a sexual way. A pedophile would be. Go back and read Dr. Marshall’s letter to RickJay in the previous thread and you’ll see why it is that heterosexual men who are pedophiles prefer boys.
And that you brought this example into the previous thread and you got your ass handed to you shows how well you read.
And were the BSA to get sued, you can bet they’d find every study they could to show that A) it wasn’t their fault, and B) that (listen carefully) heterosexual men are more likely than homosexual men to be pedophiles. Got that straight?
The Straight Dope, for what it’s worth (and obviously not much to you) is all about truth and justice and fighting ignorance. Good to see which side of the fight you’re on.
I tell ya . . . we’ve got the brains, but they’re winning on sheer numbers.
Bugger. Everything after “pldennison” should be plaintext. I didn’t think all of my argument was so important as to bold it:)
But hey, if it gets MC’s thinking cap on his head instead of up his ass, all the better.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, esteemed colleagues, your honor – I’d like to present as exhibit A, RickJay’s post* from the previous thread in which he included the letter from Dr. William Marshall in which it is conclusively stated,
The defense rests. Your witness.
*This is the right page of the thread but I can’t quite figure out how to link to a specific post, so deal with it.
You know, MC, if you’re that afraid of the BSA getting sued, you should be against all sorts of things.
How about camping? If a boy scout troop goes camping, and a scout gets mauled by a bear, then there’s a marginal chance that the BSA might get sued. So camping’s out.
And meetings. Man, if a scout got, say, electrocuted at a meeting, you might be able to convince the jury that the Scouts aren’t discriminating enough in choosing their meeting places, and sue the BSA. So, no more meetings.
Uniforms! What if, by some horrible chance, a Scout was hauled into heavy machinery by his neckerchief! He’d never have been wearing one if it wasn’t for the BSA’s insistence on them; the BSA could possibly, by some bizarre stretch of the imagination, be at fault. No more uniforms.
If you tried to run an organization along these lines, your amazing “never do anything that might conceivably get you sued, no matter how unlikely it would be to get a judgement against you” philosophy, you wouldn’t be running an organization at all. You’d be a simpering paranoid, on a regimen of heavy medication and therapy at the local mental health facility.
So, unless you can come up with another argument, start shoving the whole “This isn’t about truth and justice, it’s about lawyers and juries.” up your ass, if there’s enough room up there, what with your head and all.