Trevorum

Seattle,

I'm not sure you understood my point.. I wouldn't normally use the word the word 'niggardly' in conversation, not because it might be impolite, but because the word has - for better or worse - changed in our society to the extent that now it would not be an effective way to get across the idea of 'cheap' or 'stingy.' OTOH, if I wanted to purposely give offense to someone and still retain a cloak of virtue, I might use the word 'faggot' to describe the bundle of sticks they were carrying.

So, I do use the word 'homophobic' in conversation, not because it is an accurate psychological diagnosis, but because it is very effective in decribing a suite of attitudes and behaviors. If you feel that is impolite, toughen up. Or, perhaps you could wonder why I chose that particular word.

The English language has an incredibly deep vocabulary - far richer than any other. In addition, new words are constantly being added to the English lexicon at an astounding rate. Together, these facts lead to a conclusion directly at odds with the proposition of SSS Scout: the language is indeed evolving but it is becoming more precise and nuanced. It is true that any given person may not have access to the full depth of the language, but that does not mean the language is becoming more "mushy and imprecise."

All languages evolve (well, maybe not modern French). Our common usages are not the same as those of Thomas Jefferson and his were just as different from those of William Shakespeare. Some words you used as a youth now have entirely different meanings or connotations. There is no point in bemoaning the changes (again, the French Academy will disagree) any more than there is in pushing water uphill. As teachers of the next generation, one of our challenges is to communicate effectively with them. Personally, I would no more use the words "faggot" or "niggardly" than I would use the word "zounds" (except in narrowly limited contexts).

I should have figured there was another San Marcos, somewhere! But, San Diego used to be just south of me ...

Howdy Federalist, and welcome to the campfire. By San Marcos, does that mean you are in Hays County? That's just south of me.

This is a few weeks late, but I want to offer our congratulations to Scouter forum member Hillis, who was recently elected National OA Chief! Hillis is a Vigil member from my own lodge, Tonkawa 99.

http://western.oa-bsa.org/article.php?id=68

Congratulations, Hillis!

I just learned we are hosting the 2019 World Jamboree at The Summit! whoohoo!

I was disgusted with her lack of professionalism.

You're now part of the Establishment, Merlyn. Better pack it in before you become a member of the Ruling Elite ...

How about a cool patch?

Merlyn makes two excellent points.. As individuals, there is not much we can do about #2, except express our opinions.

However, his point #1 is something we can ALL do something about. Regardless of how we as individuals feel about homosexuality, it is a fact that gay teenagers have a much, much higher rate of suicide than in our general population. As leaders of young people, we need to be aware of this and be aware of our own words. Whether or not gay boys are eligible to become Scouts is not as important as letting these boys know that they are nonetheless valuable human beings with much to contribute to society.

Every gay teenager is still someone's son. And families grieve.

My son has one. I'll ask him if it's available for scanning.

... wait a minute ... you mean ... Satan isn't real?? They LIED to me ???

Any of you Scouters who have been recognized with the adult religious award of your faith, I would greatly appreciate a private message - I have a brief off-forum question you may be able to help with.

Thanks!

Thanks for reminding us, Moxie! (and, I am surprised that ol' packsaddle didn't call me on that technicality as well!)

On this shortest day of the year, I send solstice blessings to everyone!

I've always said it: Cubmaster is the best job in Scouting!

In the course of the 1:44 minute video, Smith TWICE mentions "hard science" as worthy of funding. In contrast, presumably to so-called "soft science", which includes such fields as psychology, anthropology, economics, geography, etc.

I am offended, nay outraged ...

The larger point, which pack skirts, is that scientists tend to do a pretty crappy job of public outreach and public education. We need to recognize our afirmative responsibility, not only to advance the boundaries of knowledge (our traditional role), but also to advance the degree to which our society absorbs that knowledge. We need to understand that the traditional educational structures in our society (schools, universities) are no longer sufficent in this regard. Pack touches on this, but exacerbating the situation in our modern world is the degree at which knowledge changes/evolves/increases. The basic scientific understanding obtained by Joe Sixpack when he graduated from school in 1970 did not equip him to understand new fields of public debate (eg., stem cell research) but on which he is nonetheless is expected to vote (either directly or indirectly).

Scientists need to learn how to market. Purists will sniff, of course, but it is the proven way to communicate effectively with the public. Scientific societies need to increase funding to their public education efforts. University departments need to hire public outreach specialists.

If we loose at the ballot box, it's our own fault for not even trying to play the game.

They should BOTH be illegal. Or neither. Take your pick.

I should have known ... a bio-determinist.

ahhh ... you must escape from the trap of form-follows-funtion linearity, grasshopper ...

Human sexuality exists in a broad suite of behaviors and emotional states. Ultimately driven by hormones, the behaviors often - but do not always - involve genitals. A simple example is flirting. This behavior is clearly sexual in nature but does not (or perhaps more accurately, rarely) involve genitals.

Absolutely, you're wrong! A person's sexuality is much more than their genitals.

Howdy back at'cha, from a fellow Texan. Good luck on your ticket.

Here's a topic I don't think we've tossed around before. What do you think of Government issued/mandated identity cards?

On the one hand, it would seem to be a huge Government intrusion into privacy. OTOH, if done right, it might serve to facilitate immigration reform. I suspect that opinions on this issue will not line up with traditional political lines and it has the potential to divide TeaPartiers into different camps.

(Advance request: please don't wander down a path that will take us to Godwin's Law...)

these lizards were obviously put here by Satan to confuse us and test our faith. just like fossils.

Anyone who is genuinely interested in looking more deeply into this issue is invited to read the study by the University of Washington on race and politics.

http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html

http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/tp_content_analysis.htm