NJCubScouter

Wheeler, first you say: Aristotle disproves evolution in his book of Metaphysics. Then in a later post you say: Yet with using Aristotelian philosophy I can completely refute evolution theory. Well, which is it? Did Aristotle actually say "There is no evolution and here's how I prove it" (or words to that effect), or is it you who are claiming that, using Aristotle's methods of reasoning, YOU can prove there is no evolution? Or both? And, you evaded my comment about Aristotle the last time. Let's say he did "prove" there is no evolution. The fact that he thought the Sun goes around the Earth shows he wasn't always right. So why should we believe him any more about evolution than we do about the relationship between the Sun and the Earth? Truth is timeless. Maybe, but that assumes you have the truth in the first place, and not just opinions. And it sounds to me like most of what you've got is opinions, not necessarily the truth -- not just about evolution but about any of the other subjects you've been commenting on in this forum. Whenever I hear or see someone claim that they have "all the answers," I get this funny feeling I should pack up my family and move them to a safe area...

I said: one of each species Er... I meant one of each gender. Man, it's a good thing Noah didn't make that mistake...

OK, Wheeler, it's your turn: Where do YOU think the whales came from? And more to the point, where did the human race come from? From a common ancestor with chimpanzees? From just being plunked down here, fully developed as human beings, one of each species, by God? Some other theory? Or what?

Wheeler, I think you are missing one very important thing about the Boy Scouts of America: It is voluntary. We, as parents, make our children go to school even though it may not be fun, we make them help around the house even though it may not be fun, we make them be polite and to fulfill other responsibilities to God, country, family etc. even though it may not be fun. However, we don't make them be a Boy Scout. True, when a new Tiger shows up at a pack meeting it is generally the parents' idea, as a 6 or 7 year old does not get a lot of decision-making power. However, somewhere along the line a boy is going to start deciding what it is he does and doesn't want to do after school and on weekends, and if he becomes dead-set against doing something, at some point his parents are going to say, "Oh, ok." That is why Scouting needs to be fun. A boy is going to quit otherwise. As Baden-Powell said, it is "fun with a purpose." (Or someone said something like that.) And it is not all necessarily fun, there is responsibility and duty mixed in with the fun from the very beginning, and more as the boy goes along. I watch the 14-year-old SPL of my son's troop and some weeks he is not having very much fun, trying to keep some control of a roomful of boys, half of whom are older than he is, who have their own idea of what they want to do. But he must at least be getting some satisfaction out of it, as he gets better and better (sometimes imperceptibly) at doing his job... otherwise he could just quit. But for an 11 year old or an 8 year old Cub who has not really "committed" himself to the program as this SPL has, the program had better be "fun" or the boy isn't going to keep coming back every week. Eventually, being there every week, all the "non-fun" stuff -- character, citizenship and fitness -- is going to happen, but only if the boy is there. Now, to relate this back to something I posted, I asked you (Wheeler) a number of questions about yourself. You made a post in another topic that answered most of them. But you have not (unless I missed it) said whether you have any children. Given all the world traveling and everything that you have done, it sounds like you have not taken the time along the way to "acquire" a family. Living in monasteries is not the best way to find a wife, I guess. Not that there's anything wrong with not being married or having children. I have a brother who, although his age starts with the same digit that ours does, has never been married and has no children. The difference is that he does not try to give out a lot of advice about child development and what children need growing up, because he realizes that people with children don't really need the benefit of his inexperience. Will you realize that?

Yeah, OGE, me too. I had a very clever response to something from Wheeler, all written, and it got lost. Mine probably would have taken at least a year to bring about world peace, though...

Wheeler, I have a few questions for you, just as a matter of curiosity. None of them are any of my business, so you can ignore them if you'd like. I think some of them have been asked of you by others, but I have not seen any answers. Your most recent post in this thread prompts me to ask, because in my experience, the people who have the most advice to share about raising children, and the greatest interest in sharing, quite often seem to have no children of their own. Of if they do, the children are nowhere near the age about which the advice is being given. Maybe you don't fall into that category, but we shall see, perhaps: So: Do you have any children? If so, how old are they? Are any of your children male? If so, are any of them in Scouting, and if so, at what levels? Were you (or are you) a Boy Scout? Are you now, or have you ever been, an adult Scouter? And just to add a little more perspective, a really "improper" question: How old are you? I don't mean down to the year necessarily, just by decade.

Bob, I have read each of those before, several times. I understand what the BSA's lawyers and public relations people wrote to spin this issue. But what I find really interesting is that you think you can prove that what the BSA did is right by referring to the BSA's own statements. That is laughable. You really do think of the BSA as a religion, don't you?

Wheeler, there are many philosophies. "Philosophy" indeed exists, but it is a discipline, a means of arriving at answers, not an answer itself. And what you are talking about is really religion (which I realize some consider a type of philosophy) and specifically YOUR religion. Religion, by itself, can prove or disprove nothing, it is a matter of faith, belief and opinion. Science, on the other hand, deals with facts. Oh and by the way, before you quote Aristotle's scientific "proofs," do you also believe that the Sun goes around the Earth? That is what Aristotle believed. Aristotle and those other guys you like to quote, Plato and Socrates, were pretty smart guys, and some of the things they said can still assist us, but they didn't know everything.

FOG, Now you're just making stuff up. And anyway, the issue is not what Democrats said, but what Republicans said. Listening to conservative talk radio and reading Internet forums, I heard or saw Clinton called a "draft dodger" approximately 10 million times. (OK, maybe 1 million.) In fact I STILL hear it and he has been out of office for 3 years. About 2 nights ago I heard one of the nationally syndicated Republican radio commentators (Laura Ingraham) say, "Can you believe the Democrats are talking about this, IT WAS SO LONG AGO!) I almost fell out of my chair laughing, which would have been unfortunate given that I was driving at the time. So long ago? It seems like the rules change when a Republican is being questioned.

Unlike some others, I try not to make too many overtly partisan comments in this forum. So I'll just say: What goes around, comes around.

OK, now everybody seems to have either 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 4.5 or 5 stars. No 3.5 but more oddly, no "whole numbers" except for the perfect score. TwoCub must have posted some really great posts to go from 1.5 to 4.5 in one day while many of us stayed at 2.5. (I realize that was probably caused by some of Terry's "tweaking" of the formula, and it just worked out that way. Unless TwoCub is going around giving "thumbs up" to all of his posts from the last 60 days. )

Britag, since your statements are just your own opinions, I hope you won't mind if some of us choose to "debate" them anyway.

Eamonn, based on what Terry has posted and my own experience the past few days with this new world of stars and rankings, I think that means you are not "logged in." It seems that the system logs you in automatically under some circumstances but not under others. My computer at work seems to have the right circumstances but my computer at home does not, and I can't figure out how to change it. However, you should see a screen allowing you to log in, you may have to scroll down to get to that part. (Previously you only had to log in when you were actually writing a post and maybe when you were editing your profile, which for some reason I can't do anyway; and the login for posting was part of the post form itself. Now to use some of the new features you have to log in separately.) Terry, is that all correct?

Zahnada, Exactly.

Zahnada, I think your "content analysis" idea for Venture Scout is a good one. If the Internet were included he would probably be overwhelmed by the amount of material. On the other hand, if local newspapers were included (as opposed to just the NY Times, USA Today, etc.) there would be a different balance. But these are all options to choose from. Zahnada, I did want to just comment on this: Perhaps you'll want to analyze the role that the communication industry (the media) played in the entire Dale case. They really brought the issue to prominence and thus made one case into a major controversy. I sort of disagree on the role of the media in the Dale case. Obviously there was a lot of media coverage, but I don't think it was out of line for what was involved. In other words, I think the case had "prominence" on its own merits and didn't require anyone to "bring" it there. I think that any case decided by the Supreme Court, especially one decided by a 5-4 vote, is automatically "prominent" and newsworthy. A lot of people don't realize, the Supreme Court issues full-fledged opinions in a fairly small number of cases each year, almost always less than 100 and often significantly less than that. (I don't have the actual numbers at hand.) If you read a paper-of-record-type-paper like the NY Times, there is at least a short paragraph about EVERY Supreme Court decision, something that couldn't even be contemplated for lower courts. Obviously many cases warrant larger stories. Many of the cases that don't are things that mainly lawyers would be interested in, like the burden of proof required for the government to fine a beef importer under Section 123 of the Mad Cow Exclusion Act. (I made that up but it's not too far off from real life.) Getting a bit more attention are "criminal rights" type cases, like when it's ok to search without a warrant and things like that. Or cases defining rights and powers among different levels of government. Take out those cases and you have a pretty small number left. Many of the remainder deal with "individual rights" (other than criminal cases), which usually means the First Amendment. Stuff like whether a religious display can be put on the courthouse lawn (and other religion-clause issues), whether the BSA has the right to exclude gays, things like that. Or, due-process issues like what conduct the government may punish (like the Texas sodomy case), regardless of the procedural aspects. The first amendment and due-process cases represent most of the cases that get the MOST attention. But I think that is because people are genuinely most interested in things like that, not just because the media tells them to be.

I'm going to take Bob's post somewhat out of order, because I want to deal with the blatant falsehood (as opposed to just differences of opinion) first: HHMMM, NJ says that that there is a general consensus that homosexuality is moral. I'd like you to show me where I said that. Don't bother looking, because I didn't say it, nor would I say it, because it is not true. A consensus is not simply a majority, it is unanimity or near-unanimity. Therefore, the lack of a consensus in one direction does not necessarily imply a consensus in the other direction. The fact is that on this issue, where a consensus did once exist in one direction, there is no longer any consensus either way. There is consensus among the executive board members of the BSA and the chartering organizations they represent. I know there was a majority, but I don't know if there was a consensus. There certainly is no consensus within the BSA or its CO's, otherwise nine councils would not have tried to get the BSA to change its policy. And the nine councils are not alone, there are a lot of people in other councils who would like to change it as well. I don't have any numbers, because the only surveys I have seen have used questions so slanted that they are useless, and have not presented "local option" as a, well, option. The fact is that non-sectarian refers to the acceptance of different religious worships. Homosexuality while accepted as some as a "lifestyle" has never to my knowledge been accepted as a religion. Non-sectarian also refers to the acceptance of different religious beliefs, not just "worships." As I (preceded by SA) said on the other thread, the religious belief in question here is the belief that homosexuality is immoral. The BSA leadership has adopted that religious belief and therefore rejects the opposing religious belief held by some of its members. I followed the whole argument through on the other thread, you can respond to it there if you want. BSA is non-sectarian. Anyone of any religious belief may join. Join, but not have their beliefs treated with any respect, if their beliefs include that God doesn't want us excluding gays. Look at what the BSA did to the UUA. I know you think that was a good idea, Bob, I think it was disgraceful. Being in scouting or any other private organization is not an individual right. It is a choice of the private organization. Don't you ever get tired of saying things like that? It is no more relevant this time than it has been any other time. The question is not what the BSA has the right to do from the perspective of those outside the organization, the question is what is right for the BSA to do, from the perspective of those of us inside it. I cannot be a leader in the Jewish faith if I don't agree to practice the beliefs of the Jewish faith. Do I try to get Judaism to believe what I belive? Or, do I join a church that shares my beliefs? I thought the BSA wasn't a religion. No one HAS to belong to scouting. If you share scoutings values then you GET to be a member. That assumes that the people currently making the rules are correct as to what "Scouting's values" are, and in this one case, I don't think that's true. It's not like there is a mass of homosexuals who fell that they HAVE to be scout leaders. Do you really think that helps your argument? Just the opposite. While I agree with your implication that the number of openly gay people who want to be BSA leaders is small, it makes me wonder what the big deal really is. To my knowledge there have been very few openly gay people who have tried to be Scout leaders, and I doubt the number would be much (if at all) higher if the BSA had never had a policy excluding them. There are many other factors that would exclude someone from even wanting to be a BSA leader, or that would exclude someone from being selected, regardless of their orientation. Someone who is gay has to have "good character" in order to be a suitable leader, just like someone who is straight; but right now, being openly gay is itself viewed as proof of a lack of "good character." It's that there is a political agenda among social activists who are using the image of scouting to validate their lifestyle choices. That may be what you see. I see a political/religious agenda among religious/social/political activists to force their anti-gay agenda on others. In this case, the "others" are those within the BSA who don't share the anti-gay agenda. Do you really, truly think that James Dale was just trying to use the image of Scouting to validate his "lifestyle choice" (as you call it)? He was already an assistant scoutmaster in the troop in which he had made Eagle, he didn't tell anybody in the troop he was gay, but he did tell others in other "parts" of his life. When the college-part of his life leaked into the hometown-part, it was not he who made a big deal out of it, it was the BSA local council that did so by sending him a termination letter. Now, others (like DS) have pointed out that he became an "activist" on the gays-in-Scouting issue after that point, and he obviously did so, by suing the BSA among other things. But before he was thrown out, the only "activism" he displayed toward the BSA was in helping his troop as a leader.

FOG, You a literary critic now too? I didn't say the current Handbook was perfect. I am sure it could be improved and I am sure it will be whenever they come out with another edition. I also don't have a great deal to compare it with, it being the only edition my son has used, and my recollection of the editions I used as a youth has become somewhat hazy with the passage of large amounts of time. (Those being the one that was in use as of 1969, which you probably like, and the one that came out around 72-73, which you probably don't like.) I don't keep a collection of old handbooks to look at how things used to be. (Truth be told, my father does have such a collection, including my old ones. I think he has every BSA Scout Handbook except the first one, he also has such novelty items as the Lion-Webelos book from the 60s and Fieldbooks of various vintages. I suspect that these will come into my possession at some point but I am hoping it is not anytime soon.)

SA, That basically covers what my position is, and has been since I joined this forum. I have stated it many times and at many different levels of detail, and just didn't feel like typing it again in my previous post. But I believe that in our current society, where there is no longer any consensus that homosexuality is immoral, and to the contrary, the public policy in many states as expressed through their legislatures is that what is wrong is discrimination against gays, the belief that homosexuality is immoral has no other foundation than a religious one. (Gosh, that was a long sentence.) However, the religions and denominations are far from unanimous on the subject, reflecting the divisions in society. That being the case, when the BSA says that homosexuality is immoral (or words to that effect), it is also saying that the beliefs of religions A, B and C are correct, and that the beliefs of religions D, E, F are incorrect. That is being sectarian, in violation of the BSA's own Declaration of Religious Principles. And to tie up the argument, it would be different if the belief of religions D, E and F were so outlandish and unusual that it contradicted a strong societal consensus; but as stated above, there is no such consensus on the immorality of homosexuality.

While I may disagree with the BSA on a thing or two here or there, I personally think that the current Boy Scout Handbook (particularly as part of a program overseen by adults in accordance with the BSA's resources and training for adult leaders) gives a boy a pretty good start on "being a man" in the world of today. And whether or not you like the world of today, that's where we are. We're not trying to train the boys to be Genghis Khan.

Well, OGE, remember that old Mac Davis song, "Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way..." I just scrolled through a few threads and you and KoreaScouter are now the only ones at 5 stars, everybody else has either 2.5 or 1.5 and in one case, 0.5

I see OGE still has 5, but TwoCubDad and Ed each have 1.5. Go figure. One thing that can be said from this, combined with the fact that Bob and I each have 2.5, is that the rating system is impartial to ideology.

This is funny. As if to demonstrate what Terry said about the "volatility" of the rankings at the beginning, Terry's own user rating was at 5 stars less than an hour ago, now it is 2.5. Even the boss gets no break in this system. When I first saw BobWhite's rating it was also 5 stars, and at the same time mine was 3.5 (at least I think that's what it was.) SRBeaver had 5 when he made his first post in this thread. Well, all three of us now have the same rating Terry does, 2.5. Unless that has changed by the time I finish writing this, which is possible...

And yes, you can see who has voted up or down on a post by following the instructions above. Meaning, you can see who has voted EITHER up or down... meaning, you can see whether they have voted... but you can't see which way they voted. Right? At least, that's what I could see when I tried it on one post. It seems to be a "secret ballot" (which unlike many things with the word "secret" in them, is a good thing, not a bad thing.)

Among many other things that could be said about Wheeler's post, it shows the folly in relying too much on "labels." One of the fallacies is failing to recognize that the meaning of "labels" changes over time (well, except in the case of "liberal" where it apparently served the writer's purpose to mention how the definition has changed over time), and that even contemporanous writers can disagree about what the labels mean. I also notice that in a post that spends a lot of time talking about deceivers and deception, it takes Hitler at his word about what his ideology was and why he called his party what he called it. Hitler was one of the master deceivers of all time. He would have called his party "Shirley" if he thought that would advance his objectives. Notwithstanding what Aristotle or Plato may have said (or meant), when this nation was founded, there were really only two choices in forms of government, a monarchy and a republic. The definition of a republic was a government in which the people, not a monarch, were sovereign. In the world of today there are a number of nations that call themselves "Republics" that we (or most people, anyway), would recognize as dictatorships (either of an individual, a military group or a single political party.) These would include the People's Republic of China, Egypt and Pakistan (the first two have the word "Republic" as part of their official title, I am not sure about Pakistan.) It once included the U.S.S.R. and the Soviet-dominated nations of Eastern Europe, all of which are now in various stages of becoming "democracies" (by which I simply mean nations that have governments chosen, directly or indirectly, in fair elections.) On the other hand, many of the monarchies in the world today (particularly in Europe) are "democracies," such as the UK, the Netherlands and the Scandanavian countries. So much for labels.

VentureScout asked: And in both cases if you are a member, are you asked to leave/kicked out? And Bob answered: No, You are told to leave, not asked. But this only happens after you are given the opportunity to decide if you want to follow the rules and responsibilities membership in the BSA or not. Bob's second sentence is partially correct and partially incorrect. It is correct in the case of those who have declared themselves to be atheists. According to the material on the BSA official web site (or at least, it used to be there), it is apparently also correct in the case of youth members who have declared that they are gay. But it is not correct for openly gay ("avowedly homosexual") adult leaders. James Dale was never given such an opportunity, and in the few other cases I have read about, no such opportunity was given either. I'm not sure how it would work if there were such an opportunity; but the fact is that there is no such opportunity. Oh, and there is no "rule" either, no matter how many times Bob says there is a rule. There is no rule that says an "avowed homosexual" cannot be an adult leader. There are press releases, "fact sheets," legal briefs and "resolutions," but there is no "rule." There is, however, a "rule" that says the BSA is "absolutely nonsectarian," and the BSA itself violates that rule every time they terminate a leader simply for being openly gay.