Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


BQZip last won the day on November 28 2020

BQZip had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

About BQZip

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The bankruptcy court will determine the net worth of BSA's assets (in fact, already has) and they will be on the hook for that much (at most), no more. Mortgaging properties like Philmont was part of that strategy to put cash-on-hand and make the HA bases practically untouchable (If I have a $1M property and mortgage it for $1M to get cash, a bankruptcy court could take the cash, not the debt....the value's already been taken out of the property). Chapter 11 practically keeps this in the past and locks in the max that an attorney could take. Likewise, I doubt that the amount per case will rise
  2. Seems pointless to have locked and then start this thread.
  3. I've been in contract with my DE and, in turn, in contact with our CE. Our concerns are being heard. Diversity? In general, yes. Inclusion? Absolutely! Equity? Impossible. CRT garbage? Hard no...pass.
  4. System automatically merged my reply...didn't want it to
  5. No. It is not necessarily racism just because something impacts one group more than another. Antimalarial medications can affect people of Middle Eastern and African descent, but generally doesn't affect Asians, Caucasians, and Native Americans/Native Australians. It isn't racist just because there are disparate outcomes. You have to take into account personal choices as well. Black people overwhelmingly choose to have babies outside of wedlock. The rate is staggering. It is a primary reason for the poverty rate for Black people and it's 100% within their control. It isn't racist just becau
  6. OMG, you're doing nothing but trolling at this point. The studies you cite indeed show what they say it does. I do not agree that they support your conclusions. Additionally, one is a study of data 20 years old (criticism #1) from a limited marketplace (criticism #2). The other uses a small number of resumes which I find to be less statistically valid (criticism #3). I NEVER said racism didn't exist. I NEVER said anything was a "hoax". I NEVER uttered the words "fake news" You've tried to paint my concerns as tantamount to the worst of Trump's rants. Reply if you wish. I won't be
  7. So, I need a PhD to disagree with your opinions? yeah... I'm done here https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/18/outbreak-of-fake-peer-reviews-widens-as-major-publisher-retracts-64-scientific-papers/
  8. You're making some critical leaps of judgement here. "I think there are some problems with your logic here" is not tantamount to "There are no problems!" Criticism of their methods/accuracy and the perceptions of those you mentioned doesn't mean that I believe there aren't biases or that we can't do better.
  9. You changed what you wrote thereby changing the meaning of what I originally criticized, which was their perception. I'm not saying there aren't biases, but you're also using info from 20 years ago published in a report from 18 years ago (from Boston and Chicago, supposedly more "woke" places). Lots has changed. For the article from 2016, 100 resumes per city isn't a very large sample size.
  10. No, that's evidence that they PERCEIVE systemic racism. "I'm worried that..." isn't proof that anything actually exists outside their own perceptions (that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, only that this isn't proof of it).
  11. You painted a WIDE brush with your claim. Let's say that, for example, the Catholic Church charters a unit. You think they are going to support a scout leader as a homosexual? They shouldn't. Not because of what I or anyone else says/thinks on the subject, but that their statements of faith prohibit it. https://www.usccb.org/committees/laity-marriage-family-life-youth/homosexuality If BSA is going to say "You have to embrace our opinions on homosexuality", they are asking the church to go against their own teachings. That goes against the whole "supporting people of faith" that scouts purp
  12. Here we go again. You're taking what I said completely out of context (and is a SPECTACULAR example of how the left is twisting the discussion. You started with replying to: with You ignored the points made and gave a definition of an unspecified term. I attempted to further clarify the objection with examples of what this side of the political spectrum advocates. You decided to change the subject at hand and imply we are criticizing diversity (apparently the definition you gave). Neither of us are doing so. We are criticizing the abhorrently abysmal "research" (which is lit
  13. This right here is the problem. The terminology used includes a plethora of loaded words/phrases by design. Example: Black Lives Matter. The problem is that there are (at least) 3 definitions. All 3 are used as it suits the speaker to promote their agenda: Black Lives Matter (general concept): no objection here. The lives of Black people DO matter. Anyone who objects to that concept isn't within the realm of reason Black Lives Matter (the organization with "trained Marxists" in charge, by their own claims). Whose goals include the destruction of the nuclear family Black Li
  14. Name one that wasn't: https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2013/08/12/how-to-suggest-a-new-merit-badge/
  • Create New...