You didn’t sound like you were scoffing, never fear. I know you’re a serious bodybuilder, which is why I went and provided you with more specific stats. Make no mistake: I’m a fat chick. I know that. I’m just nowhere near as fat or disabled as even_sven was claiming anyone with a BMI in the 40 range MUST be.
What resources does it take to require that everyone attending the Jamboree get a physical first (paid for by the attendee, not BSA)? What resources does it take to load a PDF file on their website containing a questions about level of regular physical activity and training plans for the event, to be signed off by the attendee’s Scoutmaster and used (in conjunction with the results of the physical exam) to decide what activities each attendee qualifies for?
It’s really not that complicated, or expensive. And it would offer BSA a lot more legal protection should something bad happen. (As Algher noted above, they already require a physical examination for the truly strenuous activities anyway.)
I have no idea. What’s your point? That the policy has not affected anyone?
Again, no idea. And again, what’s your point?
I don’t know. And again, what’s your point?
So your argument seems to be that
(1) The parents of a morbidly obese child deserve to be criticized for their child’s poor health;
(2) They are more deserving of criticism than the Boy Scouts are for simply excluding such a child;
therefore
(3) The Boy Scouts should not be criticized for excluding such a child.
Do I understand your argument correctly?
I’m a bit slimmer than that - but make no mistake, I’m still a fat chick (and always will be).
I’ve no doubt you’re right about the 11 year olds with very high BMIs. But prohibiting them from participating in a very important Scouting tradition in ANY way, even in activities they can actually handle, and even though equally incapable people (wheelchair-bound Scouts) are welcome, isn’t likely to inspire them to get fitter. It’s telling them flat out “You don’t belong,” and is more likely to put them off outdoor activities than encourage them to take up a more active lifestyle.
I don’t know. But if the number is small, doesn’t that make the point that such a total exclusion isn’t needed? If the site can accommodate a small number of crips, it can accommodate an equally small number of fatties. The terrain isn’t turning magically flat for the wheelchair users and then hilly for the obese.
They’re not simply being restricted from strenuous outdoor activities; they are being restricted from attending at all (while other who are equally incapable of strenuous outdoor physical activities are being permitted to attend). Given that, I think they have a perfect right to be bummed.
(I do wonder how much this policy is actually directed at the Scoutmasters rather than the kids, though; as several people have noted above, it applies to adults as well as kids, and morbid obesity is much more common in the middle-aged and older than in the young.)
You’re wrong. You might want to do some research on current leptin and grehlin studies before you say something like that again.
I think I got this one figured out.
In what way does this obligate the Scouts to take on such a liability? The mission statement in no way obligates this or any other organization with voluntary membership to accept all comers regardless of risk to members, the company or it’s image. Must they also accept pregnant women? Kids with defective hearts? Epileptics? Kids who require constant breathing assistance?
Theme parks exclude pregnant women and others with potentially dangerous health conditions from riding strenuous or stressful rides. The Scouts are doing the same thing: attempting to reduce liability. No one wants a kid to die from heatstroke, stroke, heart attack, or drowning simply because he or she isn’t fit enough to exercise. Why do you want to risk the life of these kids who already have serious health problems?
Show me one. Let me guess: Sumo wrestlers? Can Sumo wrestlers hike for miles in mid-summer heat or be easily rescued from a river if they inadvertently exit a raft mid-float? Why do you want to risk the life of these kids who already have serious health problems?
Babies aren’t born in this condition. If parents are willing to raise a stink and have their parenting skills examined by the media and general public: more power to them. But yes, as a parent, I feel very strongly that my primary job is to teach a child how not to restrict her abilities or shorten her life, and I’m damn certain to avoid making her chronically sick by feeding her crap and allowing her to vegetate indoors with no exercise until she reaches a BMI of 40. That’s not good parenting, and the balls of parents who would raise a stink about the Scouts attempting to avoid killing their already at risk child must be huge. HUGE. These are not merely “heavy” kids as a previous poster tried to claim. These kids are deemed to be ill and in danger of several potentially deadly events which could kill them.
This isn’t about you. I don’t care how healthy you claim to be, if your BMI is 40 or above and you ask to float with my group on a flat water, class 1 river, I’ll turn you down because I don’t want you to die from exertion or because I can’t save you if you flip. And you can’t make me. I don’t want you or anyone else to die undertaking a voluntary, recreational activity. Sue. Me.
Not exactly. My question is one of reality. Is anyone actively complaining, or is this just recreational outrage? It’s a legit question: who is actually being harmed by the Scouts decision, and are you okay with forcing a business with serious PR problems, which has been sued by parents of lightning strike victims (read that again: sued for a natural, unpredictable no-fault catastrophe) to take on a risk such as this? You’re furious that the Scouts don’t want to kill already sick children who have myriad problems with mobility, breathing, circulation, exertion and heat? Why? Do you want these kids to die?
Jesus, I hope this isn’t taken as an insult but how big are you that you can lose 70 pounds while eating more calories than ever before in your life? That’s sounds like Get-Your-Own-TLC-Specal-Big.
No link, but based on my internal conversations - this was a response to the risks of overweight adults with heart problems who have issues at the remote high-adventure camps. Again - this camp is spread out, the activities are not centralized, and saying that kids can just go from camp to Legos completely misses an understanding of how Bechtel was built. It was not built to just host an every 4 year Jamboree, it was built to be an East Coast high adventure base so that the Scouts on the East since Philmont is so far away in New Mexico.
40+ BMI Scouts can go to the vast majority of Scouting events WITH a physician signature. However, if a location/event is remote + strenuous, the BSA limits the participation based on (officially) input from medical professionals.
The more I think about this, the madder I get at the “Discrimiation! Bigotry!” crew. You can’t see the forest for your own personal agenda.
I’ve been letting my 11 year old niece practice driving on my farm for a couple years. She’s good, she’s careful, and she’s responsible. No fucking way would I turn her loose on the road even with a permission slip from her parents. Not even if I was right beside her guiding her every move. Why? Because I don’t want her to die, and I don’t want to risk or inconvenience the other drivers on the road. Why do you find it mandatory that 98% of healthy, typically developing Scouts should stall, wait, and restrict their activities because one or two participants are in serious danger of illness or death from overexertion?
This is what some of you aren’t getting: you may personally identify and feel that everyone must be FORCED at all costs to accept your self-induced limitations, but 98% of the kids on the trip are not as limited. Should not be forced to wait, to stall, to pick up the slack. The organization allows kids up to a BMI of 39 to participate. That’s huge. A BMI of 39 is a limiting, restricting, potentially dangerous condition and even those kids will be accommodated. But should the Scouts slow down and restrict every outdoor recreational activity they’ve done since inception in order to accommodate the special needs of 2% of kids who, by all appearances, probably aren’t all that interested in participating in strenuous outdoor activities in the mid-summer heat?
Hell, I like kids. No, I love kids. There is zero chance I would consider risking a young human being full of potential because his parents feel he should hike a small mountain in order to bob down a river in 95 degree weather just to prove that fat people are people, too. Kids aren’t mature and inexperienced enough to know their limits. Remember how brave you were on the monkey bars and climbing trees? Would you behave that way now? Hell, no. Kids can’t be trusted to speak up and say “Counselor, my head feels funny. Can we stop?” or ask for a break when the majority of healthier kids are merrily stomping along unaffected by heat and exertion. The fattest kid in the group isn’t going to speak up and say “I’m in serious trouble here, I need shade, hydration, and possibly a physician to check my heart.” You can’t trust them to self-report because they lack the vocabulary and the nerve to vary from the group’s behavior. The idea of forcing a kid with a BMI of 40 to keep up with typically developing kids in strenuous outdoor activity makes me sick and angry at any parent who would push this issue. And pretty disappointed with some of you.
You find this issue so important? You do it. If BMI 40+ message board posting adults want to hike and raft: go for it. Hit the trail running and I’ll loan you a paddle. But how in the hell can any of you even think that a kid in that condition is so expendable that you can speak on his behalf and force the Scouts to expect him to complete strenuous, unfamiliar activity in hot, remote locations? Do you hate kids or what?
Either that or there are daily epic shits being taken. Again, TV Special-worthy.
Why not both?
The fatties eat all the s’mores. Access denied!
That doesn’t surprise me, actually. Those adults (unlike the kids) are dealing with decades of wear and tear on their bodies, and they aren’t going to be as resilient as the kids are.
Which raises the question why they decided to host a Jamboree there, since from what I understand Jamborees have traditionally been a more inclusive celebration of the ideals of scouting than an outdoor boot camp (that’s the Philmont experience). Why didn’t they just pick another, less challenging location for the Jamboree and let this camp be a 100% high adventure camp like Philmont?
Again based on internal communications - they needed to buy a site for multi-purpose use (Jambo is only every 4 years). Since 1981, it was held at Fort AP Hill. Depending on the military / US government support was questionable at times in recent years (back on the upswing now, but still an issue). Owning their own site was a good decision.
So you build something that can take care of several holes in services, plus you are looking for something in country so that you can afford the land.
One more to add - this is the first year at Bechtel - I expect that they are learning A LOT and changes will be made for the 2017 Jamboree.
The difference is that the theme parks’ policies are narrowly tailored to serve their bona fide purpose. The correct analogy would be if theme parks flat out excluded pregnant women from the parks completely.
Are those the only two possibilities? I personally am not outraged by the Boy Scouts policy, I am merely criticizing it.
You seem to be trying to argue that nobody is actually affected by this policy (or that those who are affected probably don’t care) without actually coming out and saying it. In any event, from the fact that the Boy Scouts crafted this policy and spent energy publicizing it, it’s reasonable to infer that the Boy Scouts correctly believe that some people will be affected by it.
Where in this thread have I talked about forcing the Boy Scouts to do anything? Stop strawmanning.
I don’t “seem” to be doing anything. I asked directly if any real persons have been affected by this restriction. I can’t find any evidence of real complaints other than online and media shit-stirring.
Well why did you ask the question?
What if it turns out that there are people out there who wanted to go but were barred by this policy and are now upset? Would that change your position?