Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

This should have been dealt with at the same time as youth membership.

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Compromise on Gays Pleases No One Scouts are Learning (Today's New York Times):

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/us...=25461634&_r=1

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Horizon View Post
      Compromise on Gays Pleases No One Scouts are Learning (Today's New York Times):
      The link in the sidebar "Elsewhere on NYTIMES: A penis with a mind of its own."

      Gotta love those cynical editors!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by qwazse View Post
        The link in the sidebar "Elsewhere on NYTIMES: A penis with a mind of its own." Gotta love those cynical editors!
        Hmmm. I don't get that link. Must be targeted to you for some reason.

        Comment


        • Now it's pointing to "D.I.Y. Weddings" ... more appropriate, but not nearly as funny.

          Comment


          • Links are variable based on traffic, throughput, cookies on your computer, and other keywords. Worst I have ever seen was a suicide in San Diego where a man jumped from a biplane that he had bought a ride in. If you went to the article, the ads it served up were around flying lessons and take a ride in a biplane.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by AZMike View Post
              Sure I can, and the kind of moral relativism that says there is an equivalence between smoking marijuana and alcohol is inane...
              Oh they're not equal, not at all. Alcohol is far worse that pot. Worse for people health-wise, worse for society and public safety, results in far more accidents and deaths, etc.

              Sure you can turn a blind eye to alcohol while condemning pot use, but it doesn't help your argument at all. Alcohol is the greater evil of the two. It's not even debatable. Railing against the pot-using leader while ignoring the alcoholic leader is truly inane.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by EmberMike View Post
                Sure you can turn a blind eye to alcohol while condemning pot use, but it doesn't help your argument at all. Alcohol is the greater evil of the two. It's not even debatable. Railing against the pot-using leader while ignoring the alcoholic leader is truly inane.
                Not wanting to pontificate very much here, but ...

                Intemperance carries with it inherent lethality. Consuming in excess kills. Driving stoned kills. There is no evidence that the rate of mortaility from recreational use of marijuana is any less than alcohol. (That's partly because we have no clue how much recreational use is really out there.) As folks consume more THC openly, I suspect we will find the numbers of related adverse incidents increase. Will the rate of adverse events per level of consumption compare to alcohol? Too early to tell.

                Now if the "legalize hemp" lobby starts posting stories of recreational users who also serve their community as members of the BSA, will your parents start nagging your COR to lobby BSA for new membership standards?

                Comment


                • The BSA standards from the new G2SS refer to medicinal MJ and simply state don't camp stoned (the same way we are not supposed to drink and camp). I don't see how there is any impact on membership standards right now.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by qwazse View Post
                    There is no evidence that the rate of mortaility from recreational use of marijuana is any less than alcohol. (That's partly because we have no clue how much recreational use is really out there.) As folks consume more THC openly, I suspect we will find the numbers of related adverse incidents increase. Will the rate of adverse events per level of consumption compare to alcohol? Too early to tell.
                    What?

                    We have quite a lot of good data on all of this.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Rick_in_CA View Post
                      Again, this is part of the problem. The conservatives believe they "own" the BSA, and it's being taken from them. The reality is they tried to take it away from everyone else. They took what was primarily a patriotic youth organization and tried to convert it into a conservative religious one. Now we are taking it back. So yes, they are loosing it.
                      I love the irony of this particular line of whining.
                      Liberals converted BSA to a conservative religious tilt by suing us out of the public sphere. The point of the suits against Chicago Public Schools/Pentagon/Housing & Urban Development wasn't to fix anything, but to marginalize and starve BSA. The point of the attacks by the sex alphabet soup aren't about fixing anything but further marginalizing and starving us.

                      Originally posted by Rick_in_CA View Post
                      The reason the BSA has not regained any financial supporters is because they didn't go far enough. Things will not change until the BSA chooses to stop discriminating. Then all those big (and small) donors that have non-discrimination policies will be free to donate. Local control would fix that. I hope you are wrong about the BSA being gun-shy. The only way to fix this (in my opinion) is to go for local control (on both Gs). Until then we will have the worst of both worlds.
                      Nothing is far enough. After homosexuals its atheists. After atheists we're still discriminating by the very nature of our organization, which is for boys (except Venturing, which creates a "second class" of members who can never earn Scouting's highest award).

                      Not one of these organizations, businesses, or people wants to do anything except wreck BSA.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Scouter99 View Post
                        I love the irony of this particular line of whining.
                        Liberals converted BSA to a conservative religious tilt by suing us out of the public sphere. The point of the suits against Chicago Public Schools/Pentagon/Housing & Urban Development wasn't to fix anything, but to marginalize and starve BSA.
                        What would you suggest happen when government agencies unlawfully discriminate against its own citizens? Ignore it?

                        And you have the cart before the horse -- atheists and gays were being kicked out before these lawsuits, and they were against the government agencies, not the BSA. They only cut off the BSA from unconstitutional government support of their now-discriminatory program.

                        It was the BSA's discrimination that triggered all the lawsuits, they shot themselves in the foot.

                        Comment


                        • Scouter, I disagree in the big pictures nobody cares about atheists, it will never gain as much traction as the gays will. There aren't huge power groups supporting atheists, atheists doesn't have the same traction that the gay issue does. I think your opinion that after atheists it will be girls is wrong. First of their is girl scouts and ventures and secondly its the same as the atheists it won't gain as much press coverage. I also don't see anything wrong with letting atheist scouts in, but that's opening a whole different can of worms.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Merlyn_LeRoy View Post
                            What would you suggest happen when government agencies unlawfully discriminate against its own citizens? Ignore it?
                            And you have the cart before the horse -- atheists and gays were being kicked out before these lawsuits, and they were against the government agencies, not the BSA. They only cut off the BSA from unconstitutional government support of their now-discriminatory program.
                            It was the BSA's discrimination that triggered all the lawsuits, they shot themselves in the foot.
                            Like I said, Merlyn, you pigeonholed us into churches, you got the obvious result. Now you want to piss and moan about that. I don't want to hear it, you've got the BSA you created.

                            Comment


                            • Just curious what the you guys think would happen or would have happened if the BSA allowed atheists membership status but kept the duty to god requirement for rank advancement ?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Scouter99 View Post
                                Like I said, Merlyn, you pigeonholed us into churches, you got the obvious result. Now you want to piss and moan about that.
                                No, AFTER I helped Adam Schwartz of the Illinois ACLU get rid of about 10,000 illegal BSA units chartered to public schools, I didn't post nearly as much, because I had been pissing and moaning about how the BSA was tricking public schools into unlawfully discriminating against atheists. Just check my posting history.

                                But you still haven't answered my questions -- what was supposed to happen back when the BSA made it clear that they were discriminating on the basis of religion and all those discriminatory BSA programs run by government entities? You've been whining about that, but as I already pointed out, the BSA shot itself in the foot.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X