Jump to content

BQZip

Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by BQZip

  1. Not impressed, but it's immensely better than the previous draft
  2. If we're talking about meting out justice and being equitable with regards to the outcome based on the evidence presented, I'm all for it. But that does not appear to be the "equity" in question here
  3. I forgot to touch on intersectionality... https://quillette.com/2018/05/08/illiberal-logic-intersectionality/ This sums up a lot of the centrist criticism of the subject. To simply declare it "important" and ask scouts to explain why shows that BSA HQ doesn't seem to understand that even declaring this an "important" concept is an inherently leftist idea. It is about as FAR from being "not political" as possible
  4. "Scouts should never be political in nature...we aren't looking to push any agenda whatsoever" At best, this statement is disingenuous/insincere. At worst, it is misleading. When you are actively promoting far-left ideals, it is INHERENTLY political and it IS pushing an agenda. "a Discuss with your merit badge counselor the following terms and why they are important (1) Diversity (2) Equity (3) Inclusion (4) Bigotry (5) Intersectionality ... 2. Discuss racism with your counselor including the four types of racism listed below For EACH type, give one example from personal
  5. Well, if we go this route and cite leftist dogma, we're actively countering what many mainline religious positions. I can't see them continuing this way. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/03/15/vatican-says-catholic-church-cant-bless-same-sex-unions/4698628001/ By BSA definitions, one of its COs is "discriminating" against those with certain sexual preferences. Oh, excuse me, "sexual identity". I didn't realize they changed the definition in the middle of my statement/testimony just to vilify me (despite Snopes' claim, this wasn't AFTER the testimony, but DURING it... htt
  6. What SHOULD they do? What additional steps should be taken? I'm not naive. Pedophiles (especially ones who are uncaught) target youth organizations like schools, scouts, churches, etc. If YPT is insufficient, what should be changed?
  7. 1. What age were you? If he "was waiting" until you were 18, as much as I dislike it/find it distasteful, it was perfectly legal 2. The legal obligations of the SE and the council and national are at least in question as it highly varies from state to state (and certainly did in the past). 3. NONE of this means I don't care you were abused. I genuinely do and I'm VERY sorry you suffered such abuse. Have the people who committed these acts been held to account? Have they been sued? To be blunt, they should be included with any such lawsuit as they are the proximate cause. The question
  8. Oh, and as long as the TCC remains in existence, they are making $$$. They have every incentive to continue this as long as possible.
  9. 1. It’s my understanding that TCC ‘s claim that all 85,000 are confirmed abuse survivors is (at best) a massive exaggeration. When all is said and done, the total number will be WAY less. (My guess, less than 10,000...hopefully WAY less). Thousands of these claims are little more than “I was a scout and I was abused” with no clear identifying information of the claimant or whom they are accusing. That doesn’t mean that abuse didn’t happen, but they won’t be certified by the courts as claimants 2. Abuse survivors SHOULD be compensated....by their abusers and their enablers. The connection
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. System automatically merged my reply...didn't want it to
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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/
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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).
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Name one that wasn't: https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2013/08/12/how-to-suggest-a-new-merit-badge/
×
×
  • Create New...