I think it’s unlikely that any real kids with a BMI of 40 or above are seriously bummed out about being prevented from participating in strenuous outdoor activities in the summer heat. The kind of kid who has such a BMI apparently isn’t a huge fan of strenuous exercise. The kind of parents who would use such a kid to win a petty victory for fat acceptance may be willing to risk their kid’s health and life, but I’m relieved the Scouts aren’t.
Some of you seem to be arguing that any exclusionary criteria must be 100% accurate without any possibility of a false negative.
Unless extremely detailed tests are done, any criteria used will potentially end up excluding someone who could possibly do the camp without injury. The problem with reducing criteria is that you increase the possibility of letting many more people through who clearly arent suitable. There is no perfect cutoff point that will include everyone suitable and exclude everyone unsuitable.
Yes its possible its mean old bigotry, but when theres a clear gradation of exclusion with health checks from 30-40, and an absolute cutoff at 40, the simplest explanation is that this is risk mitigation.
Otara
Ok, so you are basically trying to argue that nobody is affected by this policy, i.e. anyone who is excluded probably would not have been interested in participating.
Anyway, I disagree with you. If the Boy Scouts went through the trouble to prepare and publicize the policy, it’s reasonable to think that there are people to whom it would apply, i.e. people with BMI over 40 who would like to come.
I’ll repeat the part of my quote you left out:
Like I said in the beginning, I’d bet the Scouts are trying to lessen liability. But I’m glad the restriction might save the health or life of a kid whose own parents don’t care enough about to protect him from further harm. Nothing is preventing parents of such kids to help prepare them for strenuous exercise by helping him to lose a bit of weight. I wouldn’t turn a kid with peanut allergies loose in the JIF factory, allow an asthmatic kid to put up hay on an isolated farm, or put an epileptic kid on horseback for an unassisted ride. It’s not wise or safe to expect persons with a BMI of 40 or above to complete the same hot weather, strenuous exercise as typically developing kids and anyone who insists is putting a kid who cannot yet make his own decisions in jeopardy. A loving parent wouldn’t push this. A smart organization protects itself and the kids whose parents won’t.
What? Could you show me anywhere that I advocated wanting to “risk the life of these kids who already have serious health problems”? Because, you know, I didn’t. All I did do was correct your inaccurate statement. Which you conveniently side-stepped, by the way. But anyway, as to the debate itself, I have no fight in this dog. I can’t see any reason why scouting in general wouldn’t be a good idea to help obese kids lose weight, but on the other hand, I understand liability. So, whatever. I don’t support that homophobic organization either way.
However, I do think you should ask one more time “But what about the children?!” Because I don’t think the 40 times you’ve done it so far are enough.
You’re using it wrong. That phrase is only funny when applied to topics that aren’t about children. Like the complaints about nudity in Super Bowl halftime shows. Get it? That’s the battle cry of entitled parents who believe the entire planet should be sanitized and infantilized for the sake of the children. This isn’t remotely related.
This topic, in case you need a recap, is about the children. Some of whose best interests need protecting if pushy, grandstanding parents force their potentially dangerous participation in strenuous activity in order to make a stand for fat acceptance.
Oh no!! Monstro has determined that the Boy Scouts’ policy is, and I quote, “not fair”!! I guess that means that . . . life will continue on exactly as it would have otherwise. Oh.
The Boy Scouts of America is a private organization, so they can do what they want, whether or not anyone thinks it’s “fair” or “not fair.”
And yet cripples are permitted to go to this Jamboree. Is no one looking out for their interest? Doesn’t their safety matter, too, every bit as much as the safety of the fatties? Or, just possibly, could it be that the less mobile CAN be accommodated? In that case, why accommodate just the one group and not the other?
You keep dancing around this point instead of addressing it. You also keep ignoring the fact that no one posting in this thread has objected to limiting participation in various Jamboree activities based on fitness rather than BMI.
I don’t know the answer. Do you? I would assume that a child in a wheelchair will be accompanied by a knowledgeable, helpful adult who will assist him. Do they make knowledgeable, helpful Fat Assistance adults? What, exactly, would that helper do? Periodically check the kid’s core temp, heart rate, respiration, and blood sugar? Physically push or pull him along in a wheeled vehicle when the exertion is too much? Allow the heavier, less fit BMI 40+ kids to ride a four-wheeler, but restrict the use of a four-wheeler only to those kids? What accommodations would you have the Scouts make for a kid with a BMI of 40+?
My point was, that you seemed to ignore the first time I responded to you and again the second time, was that you were wrong. After seeing you in action in multiple threads, I take it that you don’t cotton to having that pointed out much. Again though, you never admitted your error about rides at Disney and now, you can’t seem to grasp that I was illustrating how your rallying cry every post was futile.
Shaming those who think differently than you by tugging at the heart strings of the old adage “Won’t someone think of the children!?” is ludicrous. Some people here feel like these kids shouldn’t be discriminated (their word, I suppose) and that viewpoint is valid without all the syrup.
But keep up the good work. I see you’re winning over people right and left to agree with you.
You call it discrimination, I’d call protecting already sick kids from getting sicker while protecting the organization from liability. Not sure why you think “Hell, let 'em try, if they have a stroke, oh well, at least they were included” is a more prudent decision than “We’ll let them in when they lose a bit of weight”, but you’ve made your point.
Is it “cripples” and “fatties” for effect?
My personal Pennywise the Clown is back in action, I see.
God, seriously? Are you that wedded to being right that you can’t ever admit to being wrong? Here’s my quote since you’re reading comprehension failed you initially. I’ll bold the relevant part.
Them. The other people in this thread. Some of them feel it’s discrimination. What I think (if there’s any extent that I do about this issue) and I quote again in bold, covers both sides:
So to recap, I said that I don’t see why scouting as a general activity wouldn’t be a good idea to help kids. Never did I say or imply what you are claiming and I don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth when I’ve noticed you have no problem using the quote function. Also, as I’m sure everyone else noted but you, is that I get the liability stance too. Either way, none of it matters to me.
My only point, reiterated several times now, is that you were wrong about Disney. If only you’d have come back and accepted the correct facts, I wouldn’t have given a shit about any of the rest of this. But I suppose your incapable and here we are. So I guess I’ll be waiting for the multiple retractions that’ll never come while you keep up the good and sanctimonious fight.
Yes, of course (says the self-confessed fattie).
Assist him how? Remember, the claim is that this new camp is so remote and so rugged that everyone who goes to it MUST be capable of walking 3-5 miles a day just to manage daily activities such as eating and sleeping. Doesn’t sound like a wheelchair friendly environment to me, at all. And yet they are not outright banning kids confined to wheelchairs. Well, whatever they are doing to help the wheelchair bound kids get around ought to work with the morbidly obese kids (who, having use of their legs, are far less mobility impaired) as well. And any activity a kid in a wheelchair can participate in is probably suitable for an obese kid as well. So why the difference in treatment between the two groups? Prejudice, cloaked in a guise of “concern for health,” would seem the most likely answer.
Well do you agree that it’s possible to allow the obese Scouts to attend the Jamboree and simply exclude them from activities which are dangerous for fatties?
I basically agree but I would add that the Boy Scouts apparently dropped over $300 million on this new facility. So they could easily have had a small part of the facility which is manageable for fatties.
They could also have included double bunks for the faggies.
Why should they? It’s a private organization, they can do what they want.
Wheelchair scouts are protected by law, if not by decency and good manners.
Fat scouts are just fat scouts. They can slim down if they want to go to Jamboree.
I’m a fat guy, and I’ll never be skinny, but I can shape up if I work on it. Scouts can too.
Can’t/won’t/don’t reduce your weight? Choose one of the other Scouting activities. Easy-peasy.
And I’m a private citizen who is free to criticize the Boy Scouts.
I agree, but so what? It doesn’t change the fundamental facts of the situation which are that the Boy Scouts could have had a much more narrowly tailored policy on obesity but chose not to.