Hunt

Merlyn's "response" to my question is typical behavior for someone who is trolling a message board--avoidance. He doesn't claim that he is trying to persuade anyone of his point of view--because he isn't. The fact that he thinks he's "right" about his point of view is really irrelevant to whether his purpose here was to persuade or to annoy. He makes no excuses for his rude behavior, because the rude behavior is really the point for somebody who is trolling. I looked back at Merlyn's first posts here, and they weren't too bad. His approach has gotten more shrill and bitter over the years, even though gradually BSA has moved more and more out of being sponsored by public schools and other public entities. Now they're out of military sponsorships, and it looks like BSA is saying they will move out of public sponsorship entirely. But this doesn't seem to make Merlyn particularly happy. I don't know if this applies to him, but I suppose some people thought that losing public sponsorship would be more damaging to BSA than it has been and will be--maybe some thought the threat of losing the sponsorship would cause BSA to change its membership policies. Obviously, that didn't happen. So now we'll have a BSA that continues to be strong, that isn't entangled with governments, and that can continue to set whatever membership requirements it chooses to as a private organization. I can imagine that this turn of events would be frustrating to some people.

I was happier once I shelled out the extra bucks and got the cotton shirt. Has anybody bought the cotton pants? I really don't like the manmade fabric the regular pants are made of.

I agree that you should let the scouts' interests dictate--but there are some observations based on conventional wisdom and reading. 1. I think the Camping MB should be the first Eagle MB a scout begins--although it probably won't be the first he finishes. 2. Swimming first summer at camp. As others have noted, Lifesaving when the boy is ready, may take a year or two. 3. My son's troop has done the citizenship badges with groups, and this has worked pretty well (although all the requirements, of course, have to be done individually). I think these are all doable by younger scouts, and might be a good place to start. BUT please note that the Citizenship in the Community requirements have been changed, requiring 8 hours of community service. 4. Family Life is not too hard. 5. Many people say Personal Management is better for older scouts who might have some income to manage. 6. First Aid really needs an instructor, with access to a CPR training device. 7. As far as particularly easy MBs to get boys started, Music is very easy for anybody who is in the band or orchestra. Art is pretty easy, too.

Merlyn, by talking about a "false dichotomy" (which isn't false at all), you are dodging the real question: are you simply trolling this message board? A troll can be defined as follows: "An individual who posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait." (Definition slightly edited to remove even more pejorative language.) If you aren't trying to persuade anybody to your point of view, then I think your approach here pretty well fits into that description. I think you know that calling people "liars" is not really going to help you support your arguments here--it's really a "flame." Certainly, I find it annoying, and obviously Ed does too. So let's put it this way--why don't you explain what your purpose in posting here is, and how your rhetorical style helps you fulfill that purpose? Or to put it even more bluntly, you might want to explain why we shouldn't ask the moderators to ban you for trolling.

On intelligent design ...it seems to me that as a matter of logic this idea can neither be disproved or proved. First, it clearly can't be disproved--whatever state the universe is in, it could have been designed by someone to be that way. But how might you go about proving that the universe was intelligently designed? You'd have to show that something occurred which could not be explained in any other way. What could this possibly be? If it's some event that can't be explained given our current understanding of physical laws, that doesn't prove design--it may just mean our understanding of physical laws isn't complete. It also can't be simply aesthetic evaluations like symmetry, complexity, beauty, etc.--while they may convince many of us viscerally of intelligent design, they aren't proof. To put it another way, any and every scientific discovery I can think of is consistent with a belief in intelligent design, and I can't think of any possible scientific discovery that is inconsistent with a belief in intelligent design. (Thus, it's perfectly possible to believe in intelligent design and to also believe in evolution, the Big Bang, the theory of relativity, and any other scientific theory one might name.) Ergo, intelligent design is a philosophical or religious idea, and not a testable scientific hypothesis.

"As I said before, I don't use the word 'liar' as an insult, I use it when I think someone is lying; I don't care if you think it's rude." Well, you ought to care, and you would care if you were really participating here in order to persuade people of your point of view. If, on the other hand, you are simply trolling this message board, I can see why you wouldn't care. Which is it? Also, the claim that you don't use the word "liar" as an insult is pretty funny...in fact, it's a...well, let's say it's an "inoperative statement."

"Did God dummied up evidence to make it look like it took billions of years or did man feel compelled to dummy up the evidence himself?" Believe it or not, there are some fundamentalist Christians who believe that God created the Earth with "apparent age," i.e., with fossils already in place. I guess this is a last-ditch effort to preserve the idea that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago in the face of truly overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It has become more and more obvious to most people that the Earth is millions of years old, and furthermore, that there is lots of evidence--really, overwhelming evidence--of evolution. This is why so many are now turning to the idea of "intelligent design," which is a religious/philosophical viewpoint that can neither be proven nor disproven with scientific evidence. (I happen to believe in it, by the way--although I still don't think it belongs in science class, since it's a religious idea.) I must confess that I am attracted to the idea that God would pull a joke on us by creating the Earth with dinosaur fossils already in its crust. On the other hand, I am a little disturbed by the idea that God might have created the Earth with apparent age--what if he did it five minutes ago, and all our memories are false?

In the "saluting" thread, which became a more general uniform thread, some of the discussion turned to why some scouts are willing to wear the shirt, but resist wearing the pants. I personally don't like the pants because of the fabric, but I went and quizzed my son about it. To my surprise, he denied that the pants or shirt were "dorky," although in his view the pants are "dorkier" than the shirt. His objection to the pants--he says--is the cut. They are too tight in the legs, and ride up too high at the waist. He said what he'd really like is green denim pants cut like his everyday jeans. I asked him if he'd like high tech zip-off pants, and he said that would be OK, but only if the zip-off was low enough--he said if the shorts part was too short, nobody would want to wear them. It occurs to me that the current pants are cut like "dress pants," and many boys rarely, if ever, wear any other pants cut like that.

So I go to the local Scout shop to get the 2005 Requirements Book, which they don't have. But they don't have any new Citizenship in the Community pamphlets, and the guys says he doesn't know when they will be available. "The old book should be good enough," he says. But as I understand it, because the new Requirements Book is out, the scouts beginning this MB now must use the new requirements. This irks me, and is yet another reason why I think the system of pamphlets is outdated.

Sure, they probably plow the profits back into the program. But how much is the profit from a MB booklet compared to what we pay for it? Nobody is buying them except people are in the program--so we are paying dollars for a product so the program can get a few cents of profit? In my estimation, we'd be able to deliver the MB program much better if the material in the booklets was moved online, or at least made available there. OGE, I would also point out that a merit badge counselor may or may not know that the requirements for a MB have changed. In fact, how would he know unless somebody tells him--especially if he is the rare counselor who is not active with a unit? Does somebody who is only registered as a "42" get Scouting magazine?

Calling a person a liar is rude. Responding to arguments that you don't like by labeling them lies-even if you think they are untrue--shows that you aren't trying to persuade anyone of your position, but are just trying to be annoying and obnoxious to those who disagree with you (and even--amazingly--those who agree with you). People who are genuinely trying to convince others will correct inaccurate statements without accusations. Merlyn, again, I think you should apologize for your rudeness, and stick to civil arguments defending your point of view. If you can't do that--if you're just here to sow discord and insult people--well, I don't like namecalling, but that's usually called trolling on the Internet.

"If a unit decides to deviate from anyone of the Eight Methods of Scouting, then they are pointing the Scout away from the intended destination." I understand this argument, but I just find it a little overblown when the method we're talking about is the uniform--and especially if we're just talking about the pants. I simply am not persuaded that all 8 methods are created equal. That's why I've never been impressed by the argument that goes: "How can you say no uniform pants? What if you said no outdoor adventure?" It seems to me that most people can distinguish a difference in degree here. I suppose one might think that dispensing with scout pants is the first step down a slippery slope that will ultimately turn the troop into something that bears no resemblance to a scouting unit--but I don't find that all that persuasive, either. Let me again make a distinction between no uniform and no uniform pants. If boys object to the uniform in general, it's the shirt they won't want to wear--it's the thing they may think is "dorky." The pants are just a pair of green pants. What they don't like about the pants is that they are uncomfortable and impractical. In my view, the current pants actually hinder the delivery of the uniform method. Additional note: Do boys, even from troops where the uniform is not typically worn fully, show up for an Eagle Board in blue jeans? My experience is that even boys who are very resistant to uniforms will wear them on certain occasions--for example, on Scout Sunday a boy I've never seen in scout pants showed up with the whole kit, including belt and socks. Here's a practical thought for those of us who may want the boys to wear more complete uniforms, but want to persuade them to do so without setting troop rules: find opportunities to say, "Everyone please wear full uniforms next week, because...." and fill in the reason with something concrete. For example, it might be because "the OA reps will be here" "we're expecting Webelos to visit" etc. Do that ofen enough--and the reasons are limited only by your creativity--and they may get into the habit, or at least ask themselves, "Hmmm, was there some reason I was supposed to wear full uniform this week? Better put it on."

I suppose it makes for good press in certain quarters for BSA to be embattled by the ACLU.

It was pretty clear to me that Ed was saying that ACLU supports atheists, not religious people. While this view is mistaken, it is not a "lie." It is an unfair exaggeration. It is a view of the ACLU (wrongly) shared by many people who (rightly) perceive the ACLU as a primarily liberal organization. I tried to ignore Merlyn when he called me a liar (also unfairly), but for some reason I still see his posts (is it because I have cookies turned off?). Isn't it about time to ban him for this behavior? Or maybe since he's not a scout or a scouter, it's a good counterexample for youth who might be reading this?

Maybe it's a special troop or troops--but if it isn't, I agree with the others. I've seen what happens with boys who don't want to be there, even if it's just the parents that are pushing them into the troop. It usually doesn't work out, and it's a burden on the other boys.

"The BSA determines what constitutes a uniform wrt the BSA - not individual troops (i.e a troop may not state that in our unit we don't require Scout pants)." I guess this is a fact, in a sense. But I have to quibble with the statement that a unit "may not" modify the requirements. Do units in fact make such decisions? Yes. Are those units disciplined in any way by BSA? Not that I've ever heard. Do I think units should wear full uniforms? Yes. Do I think they are denying the boys the promise of Scouting if they don't wear full uniforms? Not really, unless it's one of a number of deviations from the program.

"so, is it valid to say that if leaders are ill-trained, or not trained at all and unreasonable and have no sensitivity to the boys schedule then having attedance requirements are ok?" No...I guess all I'm saying is that when vague standards lead to arbitrary results, people will naturally ask for more specific standards. I think the current statements on "active" from BSA are too vague--maybe they should tell us that it's NOT supposed to be a numerical cut-off. But we have a system in which we are required to be quite exacting on certain requirements (number of nights of camping, and what sort of shelter you have to sleep under, for example), and others in which we don't have much guidance. Again, I think we do agree on this, OGE--I wish BSA would take your suggested approach and publish it in advancement documentation. That would help.

I would suggest that everybody spend a little time at www.aclu.org before making too many statements about what ACLU does and does not do. They have several cases going on now in which they are defending churches from actions by the government, and in their history they have often defended religious groups who were being denied their rights of free exercise. That being said, there is no doubt that ACLU is a mostly liberal group, supporting gay rights, abortion rights, etc. If you are a conservative, you will find plenty on their site to annoy you. But they generally do a good job of sticking with their principles. (For example, here's a recent news release: "The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today announced an out-of-court settlement between the Utica Community School District and a local student over the censorship of her 2001 yearbook entry. The students entry had been deleted from the yearbook because it contained a passage from the Bible.") They also recently defended Republican candidates' free speech rights. As another example, they have supported both flag-burners and cross-burners on free speech grounds. In the Philadelphia case, it appears to me that the preacher probably has a pretty good First Amendment defense to claims of "ethnic intimidation" (if that really is one of the charges), but may have a bigger problem with charges of disorderly conduct and failure to obey police orders--the government can restrict the time and place of speech, and blocking or disrupting a permitted event can probably be penalized, within limits.

I think it's important to distinguish between two things (1) the IDEA of a uniform and (2) the PARTICULAR uniform we now have. While the very idea of wearing a uniform may be a hindrance for some people, I agree that it's one of the methods of Scouting, has many advantages, etc, etc, etc. On the other hand, if the CURRENT uniform is a hindrance because of the way it looks or fits, of the way it is useless in the field, and how much it costs, then it seems to me that something can and should be done about it.

OGE, I think the frustration some people are feeling here is that a more subjective approach doesn't create a level playing field either, because it has the potential of subjecting the scouts to the whims of leaders who think the scouts "just haven't been active enough." We've had threads on this very situation. With a numerical target, at least a scout can have some certainty. I still agree with you that a more subjective approach is better if the leaders are well-trained, reasonable, and sensitive the boys' scheduling issues--but if they aren't, I can see why some parents might like a more specific guideline.

I guess I wouldn't want to take the chance that a photo of a Scouter in uniform holding an alcoholic drink would get out, but...I thought BSA's issue was with underage drinking, not with drinking per se. The reason not to drink in uniform is in order to set a good example for the youth, and if there are no youth present, I'm not sure what the issue is...except for that pesky photographer.

If you read back over this thread, you'll see some good suggestions on how to handle the question of what is "active." OGE's post, for example, is very good. What you won't find, however, is a clear statement of what BSA thinks it means--even from the person who suggested that he knew the right answer and that it can be gleaned from BSA documents. My suspicion is that BSA doesn't want to state this clearly, because the truth is that BSA will allow units to use whatever definition of active they like until somebody appeals a decision, and then BSA will decide in favor of the person appealing, as long as the person was registered and paying dues. Obviously, BSA doesn't want to come out and say this (especially not in writing), because they really do want scouts to be active.

I've been doing some more thinking about this, and I still think it can't be done the way Maryland is doing it. However, Maryland could, I think, create a scholarship that would be awarded to young men and women who have, say, "exhibited exemplary citizenship and have performed significant uncompensated service projects benefitting the community." There would be no problem with giving such an award to a young man based on the quality of his Eagle project, as long as the award could be given to non-scouts based on other service projects. I should also point out that race and religion are different in the eyes of the courts. I'm not sure state-supported scholarships based entirely on race are constitutional, but as I understand it the current state of the law is that state universities can consider race as a factor in admission to achieve diversity, as long as it isn't the sole determinative factor and as long as there are no quotas. I've never heard of any effort by a state institution to achieve religious diversity, and I'm not at all sure it would be treated the same way--I think the courts would say there is a "wall of separation" and that the university can't consider religion in making admissions decisions.

I don't think it can be done either. It's different from the child of a Medal of Honor winner, because it's benefitting a member of a private organization with restrictive membership requirements. It would be like saying that (for example) the state will give free tuition to the highest-scoring students on a religious test given by the ABC Church to its members. I agree that this is the kind of legislation that is floated so conservatives can condemn the people who point out that it is illegal. Note: can the state give race-based scholarships any more?

I guess I have to differ with the prevailing wisdom here--I think the uniform (especially certain aspects of the current uniform) is a barrier for some boys. I agree that a quality program and encouragement can overcome that barrier, but my observation is that some boys see the uniform as a necessary evil to endure in order to get the other elements of the program. Here's one thought: long-time Scouters and former Scouts love the uniform. But what do folks who are relatively new to Scouting think about it? What do parents and boys who came from families without a Scouting background think about it? Also, what do people in areas where Scouting is not all that strong think about it?