DuctTape

Nice B Wolf.

Here is my poetic entry, with apologies to R. Service.

There are strange things worn on a scouter uniform by the men who volunteer.

A Scouters knots, whether worn or not can sometimes cause a jeer.

The campfire flame seems to alight the blame, but the truth is there to see.

It is the Scouts own Law, which shows them all the Scouters real quality.

So the purpose mentions character traits and values with the lone exception of "to train them in scoutcraft".  Thus, the thrust is to develop character and instill values.  Scoutcraft would seem to be a method to accomplish those goals.  That then matches with the BSA Mission Statement, Aims, and the comments of Baden-Powell.  So STEM Scouts meets the Mission Statement, fulfills the Aims, and meets the standards of outlined in the Charter with the exception of the current interpretation of Scoutcraft.

I disagree. It states specifically to train them in scoutcraft as one of the purposes. It is not just a method. Second, the "thrust" is not as you say. All of the purposes are listed without quantifying any as more or less important. The mission of Scouting is fulfilled when it accomplishes ALL of those purposes.

If I might ask, What was the reason for the two camps?

 

The camp where the single patrol went to was the younger patrol. That camp is geared more towards the younger, while the other is a bit "rougher".

We have 3 patrols. Two go to one camp, the other goes to a different camp.

I wear one knot; my eagle award. I agree with what some others have said in regards to knowledge, experience, and helpfulness are not measured by the quantity of knots worn. IMO, there is little correlation.

While I didnt get much out of SM fundamentals nor IOLS, the trainers we had were good at recognizing what I already knew and used me to help teach my patrol. I continue in Scouting to help others, I viewed my experience in these trai,ings as just that, an opportunity to help. Our district training chair now has me on a list to help train in the future, especially an Advanced OLS whe/if the finally get it scheduled.

What you are describing regarding Kant was what he referred to as hypothetical imperatives. These he contrasted with moral imperatives, ie categorical imperatives which were certainly NOT conditional.

Now we could go round and round regarding kant. But, i think if you did a bit more research into what it means to be absolute, you might find not just kant but other absolutists who do not agree with conditionals...it is these conditionals which make the principle relative. RRegardless I will allow you have the last word so as to let this thread die a natural death.

You asked for an authority on why absolutes cannot contain conditionals. I provided one. I am not arguing for Kants categocial imperative. I am recognizing that an absolute which contains a conditiobal ceases to be an absolute. Kant, as an moral absolutist would agree. Now, if we both agree that conditional morality is "where its at" and you want to call it "absolute", the pragmatic in me doesnt care as the semantics of calling it absolute or conditional or relative do not change the process of reasoning through an ethical dilemma to include the details of the specific circumstance. If you want to call it "absolute morality with conditions" and someone else wants to call it "moral relativity", I couldnt care less what it is called.

No. Absolutes can include conditional statements. By what authority do you think they cannot?

I would defer to Immanuel Kant, whom by many is considered a top-notch philosopher. His writings are part of most if not all philosophy courses. His own "categorical imperative" is an example of moral absolutism in which he defined it as unconditional.

"The Boy Scout uniform" (formerly the "Field Uniform") consisting of a selection of one of several BSA-branded shirts (or a coat), one of several BSA-branded trousers or shorts, one of several styles of BSA-branded socks, and one of several BSA-branded belts.  Headgear, footwear, and neckerchiefs optional.  That's a clear definition, just not consistent with the U.S. military's definition of a given set of clothing, including footwear, selected by a commander at a defined level.  So to BSA, a 1910 uniform is "the Boy Scout Uniform," but osolete clothing is not acceptable not to the U.S. Army except in very special and limited circumstances at the Army's discretion, not the soldier's discretion.

Agreed. I was not as careful with my wording as I should have. I stand by my general statement however that the uniforming policy of bsa is fundamentally different than that of the us military.

So QM is okay but Class B is somehow taboo?

I think there are bigger fish to fry.

QM appears is the bsa literature. Class b does not.

I agree there are bigger fish to fry, which is why I am not on some mission to get people to stop using it. I am however not using it myself for the reason already stated.

Let's see...

1. Boys' decide whether to host a camporee? No.

2. Boys' decide on theme for camporee they host? No.

3. Boys' decide on events at camporee they host? No.

4. Boys' decide/allowed to attend district camporee? No.

So much for boy-led.

I think my answer is obvious.

I agree with this personally....

& I struggle with the concept of letting the boys define what a uniform is (except for the earlier discussion of a national survey at the boy level to design a better more applicable uniform for the whole)

 

My logic is this.....

if it's ok to let the troop decide that they have class B, class C, or class J uniforms.... and letting them define what those mean.... and calling them scout uniforms

How is that any different than the scouts coming together and stating that they hereby change some element of the scout law so that it is more applicable to them?

 

Don't get me wrong.... I respect that they strive for patrol or troop uniformity..... but how do you draw the line?

 

 

Edit:  I just wanted to add, I don't mean this post to be argumentative in any way to badwolf or any troops' approach.  Just a comment based on my observations and struggles with this whole topic of uniforming.

The main difference I see, is that bsa does not well define the uniform. It allows for different uniforms. This is not the case for the oath or law. That is a fundamental distinction.

So, following that we should eliminate the follow from the Scout jargon: Reveille (and all bugle calls), KP, mess hall, cantine (aka trading post), QM, patrol, troop, parade ground, assembly, muster, etc.?

 

The entire concept of scouting was based off of the military by LBP. We can still use the terms and avoid being run like a paramilitary unit.

No. I said avoid interjecting. There is no need to use the terms class a, b, c. I agree we must avoid being run like a paramilitary unit, so why use military terms which are unecessary.

I eschew the military terminolgy for BSA uniforms. I understand that for many it allows them to generate a internal understanding of how they define different uniform options. I am if the school that scouts is NOT paramilitary and we should avoid interjecting military terms where it increases the perception that scouts should be run like the military. The entire concept of boy-led runs counter to the chain of command rank structure of the military. The uniform is whatever the patrol decides it is, not the SPL or SM or troop committee.

My favorite was not with scouts. My father had been bringing me into the woods and on canoe trips since I was an infant. At one point I was finally "old enough" to go with him on his annual weeklong canoe trip to Algonquin Provincial park, the NW corner. On that trip we saw moose, a fox (walked right into our campsite at breakfast, the northern lights. Watched birds drop fresh water mussels onto a rock island and then eat through the cracked shells. We made blueberry pancakes with wild blueberries found nearby. Invented a few camping recipes the last few days as our pantry was getting thin. The best was linguini, garlic, olive oil and mussels from the lake. While the adventure was great, it was my favorite because it felt like by going on this trip I had finally earned the trust of my father as an equal partner in the wilderness.

Wha's wrong with the knee socks.  We have bramble bushes and poison ivy around here and when I wear shorts, I really like the protection.

 

How about the old gaiters that the scouts wore in the '60's?  That was a useless piece of equipment.  Even the leggings of the teens and twenties had a function.  

 

Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder,I still maintain the red/green socks pulled to the knee along with the red beret to match wins first prize in the uggo uni contest.

I am not familiar with the gaiters from the 60s, but I use gaiters now. They are very functional. Perhaps they are more like the ones from the 20s. I also rarely wear shorts while in the woods. Clothing is a tool and one chooses the correct tool for the job.

It is a moral absolute that you treat parents who are not moral monsters well.

 

As one adds a condition, it is no longer an absolute; it becomes conditional. Another problem arises that even if one were to accept the condition, when/how/if that condition has been met becomes another rabbit hole to define. If one attempts to be vague instead, then it leaves the interpretation to others, not exactly an absolute either. One might as well go the full distance of vagueness and just say, "make ethical decisions".

...and frisbees during free time.

Lord those things were ugly.

And together with the green/red socks pulled up the knees while wearing scout shorts... the ugliest uniform was complete.

It's a two-sided street. Once parents act like that, they abdicate the parental role and need no longer be honored.

Then it is not an absolute.There is a reason philosophers have been debating this for millenia. I highly doubt we will find the magic solution. There are problems with moral absolutism, relativism,pluralism, realism, etc... Those much smarter than I couldn't satisfy this. Kant, Plato, Nietzche, etc... In the end, the only thing "I" can do is "do my best" as I travel this world.

AZ,although all your "facts" contain the word "should" which makes them not absolutes. Secondly, what happens when "should" is replaced with "must" and then someone is faced with the moral dilemma of having to make a decision which must violate one of the "facts" if the situation puts two of the facts at odds with each other? That is the fundamental problem with moral facts, or absolutes is that with more than one, a situation could/will arise in which they contradict. If one trumps another, then the inferior fact is not an absolute.

My favorite resource for PL's to use is the first edition fieldbook (any of the printings). The sections are called Pow-wows and are basically activities for a patrol to do to grow as a patrol, for the PL do develop as a leader, the Patrol to go on increasingly more challenging adventures, etc...  while the handbook is for advancement, the fieldbook is for patrol adventures. IMO, it is often the most ignored resource when I think it should be one of the most used. Especially the older ones the way they are set up.

Let's take something simpler. The sum of the interior angles of a triangle drawn on the surface of a sphere (a "spherical triangle") won't necessarily be 180 degrees. It can be as much as 540 degrees. As an experiment you can take a ball and draw a triangle on it.

And the triangle itself isnt a "real triangle" in euclidean space. It is often referred to as an Euler triangle. I always loved geometry.

Yes, but the Pythagorean Theorem holds in Euclidean geometry, not non-Euclidean. In fact, if one takes the first four Euclidean axioms and assumes the Pythagorean Theorem, one can derive the Fifth Postulate.

Yes, but then one has just added a different 5th postulate, the pythg thm.

Correction to my post. Parallelism was Eucluds 5th postulate.