DuctTape

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

The fourth parallel postulate, from which the sum of a triangles angles is 180 is proven was needed as euclid could not prove parallelism without it. We now understand the problem more clearly with what is referred to as non-euclidean geometry, that which is planar. Parallelism (and the interior angle theorem) are not true for example in a geometry which exists in a curved space. Think of the surface of a sphere as a non-euclidean geometry, the fourth parallel postulate, as well as much of euclidean geometry fails to hold true. In fact one could argue that the geometric "facts" are relative to the geometry in which they exist. In a highly complex curved universe, (which may be the result of gravity, or gravity is a result of the curvature), we would exist in a non-euclidean existence. over very small distances the curvatures are nit noticeable, so euclidean geometry works as a good enough approximation. Just like when we walk a straight line on a map for 100 mmeters on the surface of the earth. Airplanes use great circles for the shortest distance in the spherical geometry.

Agreed that some places it is impractical or illegal. That is why I made the statement that for us, those were not the obstacles.

No. But the majority of adult leaders are addicted to propane. Thus the scouts, "I learned it from watching you." It isnt like we cannot have fires, they boys still do a fire but only for "campfire" it serves no practical function.

When my father was in scouts, very few in the patrol could afford full uniforms. They had the neckerchief (a square, not the useless triangle) and the patrol sewed armbands from leftover scrap fabric to which they affixed their patrol emblem. That was their uniform.