Otto, saying “Fuck you, USA” isn’t “Fuck you America, from the most powerful capitalist down to the lowest begger… Fuck you.”
And I don’t see how the statement " Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all from the highest of the highest leader to the littlest Tiger Cub" is “strictly in regard to the sweetheart deals the scouts want from governments.”
I am a member of the BSA (Eagle Scout) and I worked for the BSA for several years. So a few old rich guys who were in the scouts back in the 30s or 40s who havn’t done shit on the local level decide they don’t want homosexual people in their group. I can tell you that the prevailing thought, at least in the local council that I worked for until about a year ago, is that most scouts are accepting and don’t oppose homosexuals in scouts. Sure, as in any group there are some people who are assholes… but just because a few people hate doesn’t mean that the average scout does.
Scouting does a lot of good things. I know of several kids I’ve instructed when I was teaching for the scouts who say that scouts kept them from giving up and walking away from major life goals.
So while some people, like Otto, say “fuck em” (of course, thats specific only to their monitary deals with the government, right Otto? ) know that a lot, if not most, scouts and local leaders do not oppose gay people as members.
I’ve met the former president of the BSA (when he was the president). Sadly, I’d have to say he was out of touch with the average scout, if not the average person. Milton Ward (google him), was the former BSA president as well as a wealthy man (in the billions, IIRC). Know that Mr. Ward is the type of person in the scouts who has his voice heard… not the average scout leader.
Otto, could you please stop pouring kerosene on the fire? I agree with you that the BSA should not receive public monies as long as they continue to discriminate against gay scouts, but this discussion is being needlessly dragged down by the personal dispute between you and Sauron.
Sauron, Otto did not intend any personal slight agiant your stepson, but was instead employing hyperbole to emphasize his fully justified disgust with the BSA’s position on homosexual scouts.
Could we please discuss this without dragging innocent kids into it?
** clayton_e **, maybe you can explain something to me, how does something like the gay ban get overturned in the Scouts (or any similar by-law)?
Is there an elected council, or is there like a congress of the scouts dependent on their areas, or is it one scout/one vote?
That would be something decided by the Chief Scout Executive, Roy Williams, I believe, and his council (the office of “president” is honorarily given to the President of the United States). It sure as hell wouldn’t be something decided on the local level by leaders or scouts. A “one scout one vote” will never happen, as decisions on the policy of the scouts is decided by the national offices (and also any “one scout one vote” idea wouldn’t fly because the average scout is about 14 or 15 years old, not the mature enough age to be making policy changing decisions related to sexual preference).
Otto, will you please just apologise? Jesus, I am wrong 20 times a day and when it’s pointed out to me, I correct the mistake and apologise, no skin off my nose. Saying “You’re right, I got carried away in hyperbole, I’m wrong, I apologise” makes people in general think more highly of you, while prevecating and refusing to admit you said what you clearly said makes you look petty and small.
I mean that it would be impossible for every scout troop to have its members vote on such a topic. A bunch of kids being told to vote yes or no on a topic they vaguely understand (the youngest scouts in the BSA are 12, the cubs go down to roughly the age of 6). Also, the informed scouts are outnumbered by young uninformed scouts who would vote whichever way they were told to, either for or against.
Also, the member records are a guess, at best. Some troops have “active” members that havn’t been around for years, but because their dad is the scoutmaster or something like that they are mailed their card each year. It would be impossible to prevent voter fraud in this loosely organized group.
Can you imagine the chad fights that would happen if you asked thousands and thousands of children to vote on an issue regarding gay rights?
You know what Weirddave? Unless you have the heretofore unknown ability to peer into my thoughts, you have no business accusing me of “prevecating” (by which, and not to be a spelling Nazi but just so that there is no misunderstanding, I assume you mean “prevaricating”). I said what I said and I know exactly what I said and what I meant, and the two are the same. I will not apologize for saying it, nor will I offer a weaselly little “sorry if your feelings got hurt” pseudo-apology. Whether you believe it or not, I respect Sauron and the others who have posted to this thread far too much to engage in that sort of thing. I was not wrong and I don’t have anything to be sorry for. I think Sauron has over-reacted and taken my comment personally to a level that’s beyond odd but I’m not going to take responsibility for his reaction by apologizing for writing what evoked it.
Hey Otto, you might want to consider that people arguing the same side of the issue as you have said you were out of line too. I have no doubt that you didn’t mean to be personally insulting to anyone, particularly a child, but it’s been pertty much universally agreed upon here that the way you said what you said was, indeed, insulting to Sauron’s child. I just don’t get it, why is it so hard to apologise? Are you that insecure that you can’t admit you mispoke and gave offense without meaning to? Where’s the harm to you in that?
Otto, looking at your posts I can see how you might’ve been saying screw their public funding. The way you said it, though, was misleading. Saying “Fuck em” then listing off every type of scout, from the highest leaders to the little cubs, sounds like you are specifically telling them that it is every scout’s fault that this is happening while in reality scouts (and most leaders) have NO input on major policy issues.
If you are not saying that, are you saying something like “Fuck BSA’s policy makers and I don’t think they should get their funding”?
Having just read the thread from beginning to end, am I the only one that’s outraged that a bunch of people are telling Aries and Sauron how to raise their kid?
Actually I can’t. The reason I can’t is because you didn’t previously identify which grandfather story you were referring to, and the last time you pulled this shit you were referring to the original grandfather story.
Which brings up an interesting point. I’ve asked you this before, and never got a satisfactory answer. This is a second time that you’ve decided to hijack a thread and take issue with my grandfather posts.
It’s not like you’re asking legitimate questions either. You’re just throwing shit out there to be a pain in the ass, and it’s shit that if you bothered to read it in context is pretty self explanatory.
If you’re too stupid to read my stuff with contextual awareness, than don’t read it. If you have questions, ask. As it is you’re making up bullshit accusations for no other reason that I can see other than irritant value.
This is the second time that you’ve done this, and wondering if it’s a violation of the “Don’t be a jerk,” and anti-trolling rules. If you insist on doing this again I am going to ask a moderator to intervene.
So now, let’s move onto the substance of your little accusation.
You have produced these three quotes by me:
and:
The substance of your objection seems to be as follows:
By my own words I only attended Catholic school during the 8th grade. Presumably I was around 13. At the same time I suggest that you can’t walk in my shoes until you’re dressed up like a Leprechaun at age 9 and walk past an inner city public school.
By my own words, neither did I.
Therefore, I am lying and I made the whole story up, right?
I suppose that if you are really an asshole and a total fucking idiot trying to be a pain in the ass for the sake of being a pain in the ass, you might put forth that proposition.
The reason you’re an asshole for doing this, is that you have to look and work hard to create that misaprehension. What I am actually doing is using poetic license in the second person to create a generic. description.
You’ll noticed that I say I was dressed as a Leprechaun. Do you think I meant that I was really and truly dressed as a leprechaun, or am I simply creating an image that should be readily understood by a moderately competant reader? Clearly the latter.
Look that I never say I walked by the school at nine years old. What I actually imply is that to be in my shoes you would have to be nine years old, and dressed like a Leprechaun.
Do you see the difference?
I am using the second person “you,” not the first person “I.”
So why the nine years old?
For purposes of my illustration the age is not really important. You don’t have to be 13 as I was. You could be younger. This is an image of the generic “you” I am creating, not I.
Walking past the school at age 9 isn’t going to be significantly different than age 8 or age 12. It’s not really germaine to the point of the example, which is simply one of being a young kid, dressed fun and chased by other kids.
St. Cassians was K-8 (and still is, I believe.) That means children between ages of about 5 and 13. Nine years old is a good median, so I made my generic “you” nine years old. Giving my example an instance of specificity makes it sound better. Clearly though to the reader the age is not important.
So let’s look at it again:
I could have easily substituted “until the day we can make you a Catholic School Boy…” For “Make you nine years old.”
I was free to be specific because I was not referring to myself (who only did this at age 13) but at the generic “you.” Being specific works because it gives the reader an image of himself at 9 nine years old to put in the example, rather than just a generic Catholic School Boy, nor does it significantly impact the example as the actual age of this hypothetical “you” is moot.
So there it is, in excruciating detail, the full description of the literary device I used properly and fairly in making my example.
Most people can understand the difference between the first person and the second person. Most people reading for comprehension and intent wouldn’t make such a misconstrual as you had, just as most people understand that being dressed as an actual leprechaun is not what is literally meant.
Most people realize there is a difference between “I” and “you.”
Most people understand that when I use “I” I am talking about myself specifically.
Most people understand that when I say “you,” I am not. “You” would tend to suggest that I was talking about either yourself specifically or generically.
Try this one:
You (generic person) would have to pretty fucking stupid and dishonest to pick on the issue that you (specific person meaning Desmostylus the idiot) did.
As I’ve said, your following me around pulling this shit is beginning to cross the line.
Your expectation that I post at length to explain basic semantics and writing when you go to length to deliberately misconstrue my words is not a reasonable one. Having done this exact same thing on at least one other occasion, if you do it again, or repeat, I think it will be reasonable to conclude that you are trolling, and I will act appropriately.
So, if you don’t mind me asking, what exactly would be the impetus for the Chief Scout Executive and his council to change this policy, especially if parents like Sauron and Aries are content to support the Boy Scouts so long as its bigotted policies don’t directly affect them? Is there any other mechanism for change aside from voting with your feet?
Most scout leaders work on the local level instead of national. Pretty much all scout leaders are on the local level. The C.S.E.'s office talks with district executives to see how the scouting community feels on topics. The district executive can be contacted through a local council’s office. The district executive reports to national. Thats the best a scout (or a scout leader) could do in trying to change policy. In reality, this advice rarely has much push and its doubtful that a scout can really do anything to change the policy.
Its even worse for non-scouts. The general public can write letters and e-mails to national, but beyond that there is little the public can do.
Keep on pushing the scouts to change, but don’t pull kids out of scouting because of its policy. When people who disagree with the policy leave scouts we only have a greater ratio of fanatical gay bashing scouts (yes, as with any group, we have a few) and less motivation for pro-acceptance scouts to stay.
The scouting program can do wonders for a child. I disagree a lot with some of what the BSA teaches, but I know that without the BSA there would be fewer strong leaders in this country. Scouting, I’ve often seen, is an alternative to nintendo that kids enjoy. Activity is something sorely lacking in the latest generation of children and I will agree with a group that promotes outdoor activity and volunteerism.
Please don’t give up on the scouting program. I know there are a few old jerks that decide who want to play like 10 year olds saying who is allowed and who isn’t, but they arn’t the majority. They will be, though, if everyone who doesn’t like this one policy says fuck it and pulls their kid out.
I want the BSA to accept homosexual scouts and leaders, but without some internal push as well as public outcry we will forever be stuck with a BSA that discriminates.
But unless people start withdrawing from Scouts over this issue, it seems there’s no reason for them to ever change. You’ve just said that the Scout’s leadership has no reason to listen to even its own members on this issue. How can a concerned parent press for change except by withholding the only thing the people in power need from them: their participation in their organization?
I don’t honestly see how this is an issue. I mean, in order to be persecuted is it necessary that your persecutor exclusively attack members of your race?
The way I figure it, and I may be wrong, I’m pulling this out of my ass… if we are talking about a person that is willing to engage in this kind of activity, chances are they are assholes and violent dicks in general. They are violent in general, they have a lot of hostility. It’s just that they’re preferred target is the object(s) of their prejudices. They have something a little extra for that.
Let’s look at your example:
If I follow your logic this is not a persecution like, say, a gaybashing because your attackers also attacked people of other races, even though you seem to think you were a preferred target.
Turning it around, let’s say hypothetically that there’s this real scumbag. He beats his wife, and women habitually. He does some drugs. He’s been in jail. One day he sees some gay guys walking down the street. Gays rub this guy wrong, so he sees an opportunity and kicks the shit out of them and for good measure he takes their wallets.
Now according to your logic as you’ve stated it, this wouldn’t be a case of gay bashing. Or, at least it would be “different” from gaybashing or other forms of prejudice.
I guess the reason you’re showing is that both parties attack others besides a preferred group. I think that’s kind of silly. I imagine most of these types are pretty much fulltime assholes.
I happen to think they have a preferred group is what makes it persecution. So, I’m really not seeing your difference.
Maybe you can give me an example, even a hypothetical that illustrates what it is you mean.
Do you know for a fact that they would not have done the same had you been gay?
My wife would sometimes get stopped by police and harassed for being a pretty girl driving her car.
I will sadly concede that an obviously gay man, or a black man is more unlikely to encounter indifference than a white straight man as far as the police are concerned.
What I truly don’t know is how much this happens. There are often other factors involved, and sometimes they are just bad policemen. Sometimes I’m sure it’s just that the people are angry and upset at what happened to them and they perceive that the policeman is not being diligent because they need a target. This can happen to white people too.
But for the sake of argument let us assume that the incident of indifference in question is motivated simply by race, or sexual preference.
It seems to me that this is a seperate instance of persecution than the one that resulted from the crime, and should be interpreted seperately.
The fact that a gay man or a black man (and make no mistake I beleive that this is a fact) is subject to more persecution than an average nongay or nonblack, doesn’t go to argue that the nongay nonblack person has not experienced, doesn’t understand and can’t comprehend persecution.
To me, it continues to be a depressingly common and banal thing. The problem isn’t that there are black people to be persecuted or that their are gay people or women, or Jews, or kids dressed like Leprechauns. The problem is that there are people who get a kick or a power trip by hurting people who are different. We’ve all experienced it, I’m sure and we all understand. There are a lot of sadists and assholes in the world and we’ve all had our turn as the target. Some more than others, I’m sure, but I don’t see how it’s different.
I am essentially open to the possibility though, and if you want to continue to dispense with the “dickweeds” and “Morons” and “fuck yous” as we’ve been doing, and you’re willing to define this difference for me, you may convine me. I’ve gone back and forth on this, particularly on the issue of “hate crimes,” which I still feel pretty conflicted about.
I’ve tried to address your points, and I’ve given you a similar counterexample. No offense, but so far I’m not seeing the difference since you seem to concede that your race had at least something to do with your selection as a target.
Seeing as you seem to think it did, I’m not sure I understand how you were not persecuted because of your race. Had your race had nothing to do with it, I would agree that it was different and not a case of racial persecution.
Actually a thought occurs to me now that I’m sober. I thought I read that when the Philadelphia council inserted sexual orientation in their non-discrimination clause the national organization threatened to revoke their charter until it was removed. Basically the current board would’ve been tossed out and a new one installed instead. In the face of what seems to be such overwhelming bullying tactics, Miller’s question seems especially important: how can any local or regional council effect real and visible change?
) know that a lot, if not most, scouts and local leaders do not oppose gay people as members.