Jump to content

Navybone

Members
  • Content Count

    148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Navybone

  1. 8 minutes ago, mashmaster said:

    Understood.   Now let's be honest.  The scouts and their parents aren't looking at the number of knots on the uniform.  That is only something that other leaders will look at.  I have plenty of knots and know other leaders with none and with a ton.  It doesn't affect me and if that is what people are focusing on, they need a reset.

    Yes, one hundred time yes.  And I would argue that there is no serious correlation between knots and leadership or ability.  Some units nominate people, some do not.  

    • Like 1
  2. 8 minutes ago, mashmaster said:

    I would also say, why would you just the overweight leader when you don't know the details and reasons behind it.  I am officially "obese" according to BMI number but I run multiple marathons a year.  people need to get beyond those first impressions.  

    My original comment was in response to another comment about the message that the scout sees when a uniform is or is not correct.  I picked weight becasue it is an easy visual, as is looking at a uniform.  And regarding first impressions, I agree, same as how some might feel about the number of knots. 

    • Like 1
  3. 12 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

    Wow! Let's see; long hair, ear-ring, nose ring, tattoos, body odor, bad breath

    I do not see anything about hair, piercings, or tattoos in the handbook.  I am all about inclusion.  But if the discussion is about what the message to the scouts, we have to be serious about what really see. 

  4. 10 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

    . The better question is to ask "what message am I sending to the youth and to other leaders by the way I wear my uniform and its insignia?"

    What message indeed.  But if you step back and look at the individual wearing the uniform.  If the leader is grossly overweight, but has three knots, is that any better or worse than leader who follows the Scout oath to keep himself physically strong but is wearing 15?  What is the more important message that the scout should be getting from the leader?  And what is the message that the is really being sent to the scout.  Performance, leadership, living up to the Scout oath and law should always trump a minor uniform infraction.

     

  5. 1 hour ago, Sniktaw said:

    Do people really think that it's not okay for a Scout to tent with his parent?

    The fault is that Scouts BSA is trying to thread the line with “family camping” while trying to have a regular scout experience.   It only puts every leader in a no win position.  Ugg. 

    • Upvote 2
  6. 26 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    The official answer from BSA National is this: NO (unless the scout is in Cub Scouts)

    I gues the issue here is family camping - how does that change things.  If not at all, then why have it?  I did not see family camping mentioned specifically on the BSA webpage.  

  7. 3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

    I have no idea how a scout is actually going to "Explain" "demonstrate" or "show" in a google classroom.

    The merit badge mills are running, running, running...

    If the counselor uses google meets as part of classroom, then it is a simple video chat to explain, etc.  

    • Upvote 1
  8. 41 minutes ago, Bowsprit said:

    Zero posters on this thread, regardless of their position on this issue, are coming across as racist or sexist to me. Yet, as I read through these comments, especially from certain commentors, there is a clear implied accusation that those of us against DEI training must be racist, despite a complete lack of any evidence to the effect.

    I think there has been some spirited discussion, but I do not think anyone has called or implied anyone is racist.  

    • Downvote 1
  9. 10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    They announced this adhering to Black Lives Matter (note the caps).

    https://scoutingwire.org/bsas-commitment-to-act-against-racial-injustice/

    And then had to backpedal, hard, 10 days later in a letter to Law Enforcement Exploring Volunteers

     

    I saw all that.  But I have not seen anything since then to suggest the MB is a joint BLM BSA badge or that BLM was involved in its development 

    • Downvote 1
  10. 1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

    No, but BSA has decided to align themselves and embrace them and use them as the basis for the MB.

    That's not political?

    Depends - I had not seen that they used BLM as the basis of the badge.  The BLM provide information for the requirements or the instruction booklet?   Does what they provided expand beyond understanding and recognizing racism?  I don’t know.  
    I am not a fan of everything BLM stands for, but I do know that the accepting people, regardless of skin color, race, sexuality, sociology-economic status, education, etc, is basic human kindness and professionalism when one is an adult in the work force.  There is nothing political about that.  And I have seen youth come into the work force totally unprepared to start working with other unlike them.  

    • Like 1
  11. 4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    And yet, BSA opted to do so. And then had to backtrack and issue an apology to the Law Enforcement explorer units.

    So your issue is with BLM, got it.  But again, BLM does not equal diversity and the concepts behind it.  Even if BLM did not exist, there would still be a need to discuss diversity in this world.  BLM did not create the word or the idea of excluding people due to race, sex, sexual persuasion, socio-economic status, etc.  

    • Downvote 2
  12. 8 hours ago, BQZip said:

    That's completely false. If you have a scout/leader that, for example, repeatedly lies or is disruptive, we can remove them from scouting regardless of whether their actions were legal or illegal. You are attempting to conflate reasonably objecting to immoral behavior with illegal act

    This is an example of what I was trying to address: Let’s say your faith does not support the concept of homosexuality and finds it immoral.  Homosexuality exists and is not illegal.  The scouts will experience someone who is homosexual, if they have not already.  The point I am trying to make is that these scouts will find themselves with a challenge, how do they reconcile this as they grow older?  What will they do if they end up working with a homosexual?  
     

    Sent from my iPad
  13. 8 hours ago, BQZip said:

    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:

    Diversity does not equal Black Lives Matter.  One can discuss diversity, equity, and inclusion without discussing black lives matter.  The definition I used is from the dictionary.  
     

    my point is that diversity and the idea that people of different races, religion, socio-economic backgrounds, etc, have value and should be included is not in of itself political.  

  14. 1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

    0.  With a parent or guardian, explain how something can be legal, but still immoral, according to your faith.  Give to your parent or guardian an example of legal discrimination that is immoral, according to your faith.  Then, without help, and within five degrees, plot a magnetic course between two points on a topographic map.

    Anyone want to add anything else?

    I would only add that when discussing something that is legal, that while you can consider it immoral, it does not mean you can ostracize or otherwise exclude someone who does not agree with your assessment of that something being immoral. 

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 2
  15. 2 hours ago, Bowsprit said:

    This is an inherently political discussion. If BSA doesn't want to have it they shouldn't be requiring a MB about it. The law and oath exemplify scouting enough, and apolitically, to get the message we all agree on across. DEI comes from one side of the political spectrum, the quality of the 'science' supporting it is on par with Eugenics, and we don't all agree it's a good thing or that it is even consistent with the law and oath. Hence this conversation.

    the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.” 

    this is political?  Really, that is what you think?  If you do, then this is a waste of time even trying to discuss it.  

    • Downvote 3
  16. 8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    No.

    Advancement Chair is a committee position (Position Code 112 Unit Advancement Chair). No one can hold two positions in any unit EXCEPT the Chartered Organization Rep who can be both COR and on committee.

    https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2016/04/29/can-volunteer-serve-multiple-volunteer-roles/

    EDIT: Here's the official rule
    Registration Guidebook of the Boy Scouts of America

    https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Registration-Guidebook.pdf

     

    This is the reason this forum is so useful, good solid experience and advice on how the Boy Scout program is run.   

  17. 2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Still no word on the requirements, but I was in an email exchange with my advancement chair and another person who will be the other MBC for this.

    He's planning on using Prager U. and Ben Shapiro videos as well. As he put it, if the point is to "discuss" this stuff, showing a video that argues that a) institutional racism doesn't exist b) systematic racism doesn't exist and c) intersectionality = Marxism and asking scouts to discuss should work fine.

    That, and a Blue Lives Matter vid (to counter BSA's Black Lives Matter endorsement)

    I really don't think BSA is going to like how this is implemented in some places. :)

    Well this is a wasted opportunity to have a non-political discussion about how some people are disadvantaged because racism exist in this country.  It’s an opportunity on how to recognize racism and step up and live up to the values of the Scout Law.  
    my biggest concern is that the approach you are mention will make some scouts think the issue is a blue lives matter vs diversity and racism.  And it’s not.  There is a part of the population of this country who are disenfranchised based on they way they are engaged based on skin color, religion or maybe their sexual leanings.  This is an opportunity to prepare scouts for college and being an adult.  What a wasted opportunity.   

    • Like 1
    • Downvote 1
  18. 3 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

    "There are real problems with this agenda, however. The first is that it’s dangerous, in exactly the manner it is hypothetically designed to fight. The argument made by those who are truly prejudiced has always been that the differences between groups are so large that discrimination, isolation, segregation and even open conflict–including war and genocide–are necessary, for the safety of whatever group they are part of and are hypothetically protecting. Why is it any less risky for the argument to be made in the reverse manner? The claim that group-based differences are so important that they must take substantive priority during hiring and promotion merely risks validating the opposite claim."

    https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/blog-posts/lie-of-diversity/ 

    This merit badge is a poison that will kill off a portion of what remains of the Boy Scouts of America.

    To state that this merit badge will kill of scouts is quite dramatic.  If scouts survives the child abuse, admitting homosexuals, and girls, this should not be the last chapter.

    However, Jordan Peterson is only one voice in this discussion, and one with a very limited and pointed perspective.  He is the darling of of the conservatives in the media when discussing diversity.  And if we welcome his point of view, should we also then not include the opposite side of the conversation?  

  19. 16 hours ago, fred8033 said:

    Because pushing this badge is offensive.

    Without knowing what the definitions are of diversity, equity, inclusion, and bigotry,  you call this offensive.  Why?  Why are these principles offensive?  
     

    or are there other specific parts of the draft requirements that are offensive?  

  20. 36 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

    So long as they are "different" in a policitcally correct way?  

     I propose that one be polite to everyone.  IS he or she "one"?  Be polite.  No mpore "education" required. 

    Of course that;s naive.  It's impolite to shake hands or eat with the left hand to a traditional Muslim., or to look at their daughter's bare ankles.  Being reprectful turns out to be darned hard in a homogenious society.  I have an Ohio American Flag license plate and my car got keyed with a lrge "PIG" Wednesday in a parking lot.  Perhaps I made someone feel unsafe.  I shudder to think a sticker supprting my son who's a State cop would bring.  After all, "ACAB."

    No "edit" link.

    I agree that everyone should be polite, but we do not life in a utopia.  Look at politics now.  We have a general break downs in basic courtesies in this country. 

    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...