Callooh! Callay!1428010939

resqman,

Good thoughts and well put.

Every so often, we encounter a kind of complaint that goes something like this:

"Spoiled rich kids... show offs, lazy, munching down fast food as mom shuttles them from activity to activity in their gucci SUV. Everything comes too easy for them. They don't appreciate scouting like poor kids do. When their uniform is spiffy it's because they're spoiled little show-offs - whereas a poor kid with a spiffy uniform is simply proud of scouting. Yep - rich kids' very existence is an affront to fairness."

And it's often followed up with a belief/hope in retribution that goes something like this:

"And oh they'll pay! They'll get their comeuppance! They'll be sorry! They won't learn all the valuable lessons like the poor kids do! They won't appreciate life after all the peak experiences they're getting now! They'll never know the satisfaction of earning their way. They don't deserve nearly the respect that the poor kids do."

Sometimes it really looks like the deck is stacked against the rich. According to Matthew (19:23-24), Mark (10-24-25), and Luke (18:24-25), Jesus also voiced concerns about the difficult circumstances of the rich.

So if rich kids are comparatively more spoiled, ill behaved, and possibly of inferior character... and if rich kids are headed for trouble... why is working with poor kids viewed by many as especially admirable when there are plenty of spoiled rich kids out there that need help?

Is advancement also like ticks, fleas, and chiggers? One can get those naturally by whilst having fun outdoors.

Suntans are: unnecessary; silly things to be proud of; sometimes sought for vanity's sake; damage your skin beyond a very modest amount

A wise person exercises some discipline and structures the extent to which he's exposed to the sun. Perhaps some discipline and structure might be useful in other areas too.

How long is a typical rope?

Regarding their first point: does Scouting have a rule that excludes losers?

Regarding their second: does football?

And what does "losers" mean in this context anyway?(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

"Hopefully you may have the chance to hire them someday and have them work for you."

Thank you for hoping that my eyes are opened. If it's really a common and serious problem, I'd like to know about it.

Your comments suggest that you are convinced raising dysfunctional kids is common enough among homeschoolers to be a primary concern in dealing with them.

Are you sure this idea isn't a prejudice?

Profiling isn't necessarily a bad aid to making private judgment and decisions. If you can observe one behavior that has a strong statistical correlation with another, you may rationally consider the probability of the unobserved but correlated trait or behavior if circumstance requires you to make a judgment about something for which the likelihood of that unknown factor is relevant.

But is there a correlation between homeschool and social maladjustment?

If there's any correlation at all, the sum of what I've read and experienced on the matter suggests it may be a slight inverse correlation, not the positive correlation that you worry about.

Here here!

Let us especially heed the Moosetracker advice about "trusting other adults" and let us trust them to raise their children.

Let us not assume that homeschoolers need us to save them from themselves by barring them from the Lone Scout program so that we can satisfy ourselves that they are "socialized."

Let us recognize that no one owes us any personal explanations or assurances that their children are being "socialized" to our satisfaction, and that unless we know them and are in their social circle ourselves, their "socialization" is none of our business unless we see evidence of some crime or gross neglect.

And when someone advises us about "allowing them to interact with others rather then just their parents" we should agree that this is good policy and agree to follow it... and we should return the favor of the good advice by advising the adviser to stop beating his wife and starving his dog.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

I admire the intent behind what you're saying.

The reason I argue is not to be unkind and unpleasant - but because I think the truth of this matter is very unpleasant indeed. We don't live in a nice world.

Not all religions have your admirable Golden Rule and Live and Let Live ethos unambiguously mandated in their supposedly sacred texts.

Some have mandates that apply to non-believers and that makes it problematic for everyone to respect everyone else's right to follow their own beliefs.

http://www.hslda.org/highschool/Best_Socialization.pdf

And you assume that if they are Lone Scouts that they will do nothing in the community?

"I am okay with anybody believing what they want."

"If everybody just followed their own beliefs...."

And if their beliefs include beliefs about what you should believe?

If their beliefs include a belief that they should take action to subject you to the rules of their beliefs?

What you saw on face book sounds nice.

But many believers get their beliefs not from face book, but from supposedly sacred texts.

Some of those texts tell them not just what they should believe, but what you should believe... and how they should deal with you if you don't.

"Lone Scouts have to meet criteria.. You need to either be home schooled (that's the one most of us disagree with as these kids should be finding ways outside of school to socialize with kids their own age.), or traveling so much you would be pulling in & out of troops 3 or more times a year, or living in a very rural area with no local troop, where you would have to travel a long distance be part of a troop."

What is quoted above is at odds with BSA publications on the program - see here http://www.directservicebsa.org/pdf/14-420.pdf

and note that the categories listed that would make lone scouting a desirable option are listed as being categories as making it a desirable option - NOT as the only categories allowable.

Here's a little blog about a Lone Scout program that did encounter some difficulty getting started as council officials were either ignorant of or resistant to the program: www.lonescouting.com

See "The Journey Begins Section"

Regarding this:

"these kids should be finding ways outside of school to socialize with kids their own age"

Sorry, but that objection is a flashing neon sign advertising ignorance.

Google "what about socialization"

"...can't register the SM or ASM until we have the 5 boys."

Can't register for camp because your group is too small?

Or can't register for camp because your adult leaders are not registered Scouters?

If it's the latter, are your boys still registered scouts, since they do not currently belong to a chartered troop?

Probably a dumb question here, since you've probably already considered it... but what about joining another troop in the area?

Another option may be BSA's Lone Scout program: http://www.scouting.org/About/FactSheets/LoneScout.aspx It's not inconsistent with eventually forming a troop. The Lone Scout Friend and Counselor Guidebook http://www.directservicebsa.org/pdf/14-420.pdf

has a section on Organizing a Pack or Troop which notes that "often a Lone Scout and his counselor lead to the formation of a new Cub Scout pack or Boy Scout troop."

Some Helicopter-Scouters will likely have a low opinion of the Lone Scout option - and mention of it may prompt some to weigh in on why that is. There's a thread on the program here: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=339728&p=1

Don't take everything in that thread as gospel - some of it is at odds with what BSA has published. Also some of the objections look a bit like Helicopter-Scouter bitterness against a parent who didn't conform to the Helicopter-Scouter's way. But some objections do seem like legitimate concerns that one should think about how to handle before embarking on such a program - for example finding POR in which to serve may be easier in a troop than without one. \

I intend to procrastinate, but never seem to get around to it.

If you don't leave something until the last minute, you might waste that minute in idleness.

"is access to health care a "right" or a privilege?"

Neither. It's a transaction. That transaction can be more voluntary or it can be more coerced.

Politicians' and opportunists' shell games surrounding these transactions grow ever more complex but still only serve to conceal different mixes of voluntary vs. coerced intercourse.

This is a good BOR question for more senior ranks.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

"Don't like rude answers?"

As a matter of fact, sometimes I do. We should regularly remind ourselves to receive honors with humility. But we nevertheless can't help but be gladdened when shallow self righteousness and grandstanding moral exhibitionism lash out at us in anger. Those lashes are badges of honor.

This little lash you've given me though seems due to nothing more than simple misunderstanding. You mistakenly read into my post an intent to insult or discourage that was not intended. So I guess the lash you've given me must be more like a participation award rather than one for exemplary service.

(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

nldsscout,

What part of my response was rude or unscoutlike?

I didn't say - nor did I mean that there was something wrong with registering 9/3/2011 and first posting on 6/29/2012. It's simply a curious phenomenon.

Anyway, since you've now declared yourself to be "the Scouter moderator to deceide which" poster gets to answer a question.... maybe you should tune the sensitivity of your rude and unscoutlikeness detector. For calibration purposes use my answer to the original question, which had no venom in it at all, and contrast it with this one, which had a little, just to answer yours in kind.

You're right. I misinterpreted what you said to be a slide into having no standards at all for adult leaders other than what the CO determines.

Once again. We are in, not violent agreement, but at least mildly emphatic near agreement.

On this we disagree and the root of that disagreement is that I don't think all traits we could list under such a rubric are meaningfully analogous. Being gay or being atheist for example, is not the same as being a convicted sex offender felon. I'm not arguing that BSA should draw no lines and should leave all such choices up to the CO. I'm saying that BSA should allow COs to make their own decisions on gays and atheists.

This slope is not slippery and need not devolve into having no standards at all other than what the CO wants.

(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

The question in the post from which this is spun was "can you do your own tribe?" to meet a study requirement for the Indian Lore MB.

A more frightening question is, if it's "your own tribe" can "your own tribe" do you? This article, mostly about the Indian Child Welfare Act, discusses a concrete example of the illogic of culture being determined by race:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304288/legislative-dishonesty-thomas-sowell

(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Then on that policy issue we are in violent agreement.

I think the same should apply for policy on atheism - CO's call.

half the homosexuals are lesbians, do you feel they are most apt to rape our male youth?

No. I agree with your argument suggesting that the logic for excluding male homosexuals does not apply to lesbians.

But that doesn't change my position that the org that charters the troop should decide this issue for its own troop.

"That is like saying not to have women as adult leaders as they will be sexually attracted to our youth."

-In what way is it like saying that? Are women's sexual drive and behaviors identical to men? When I say "picture in your mind, a rapist" do you picture a woman or a man? And since you pictured a man or you are extraordinarily naive, why did you picture a man? Is it because you are an evil sex-stereotyper or because you live on this planet and have a basic grasp of probability? Will you now tell us that there is a difference between homosexuals and rapists as if I had claimed there weren't?

"Again for the 1000th time, there is a difference between homosexuals and pedophiles"

Has it been a 1000 times? Odd. Why so many? When did anyone assert that there wasn't?

Does this difference negate any attraction that homosexual men might feel toward teenage boys?

Does such a difference negate any attraction heterosexual men might feel toward teenage girls?

And for the 1000th time, there is a difference between not wanting to send boys camping with gays and wanting to send gays to Iranian prisons.

When an oganization charters a BSA troop, doing what's good and nice and fair toward homosexuals may not be the foremost thing on their minds. They may understand that there are homosexuals who would probably work out just fine as adult leaders and whom they could trust would never. Nevertheless, regardless of how BSA policy overall evolves on this issue the chartering org should retain the right to exclude homosexuals if that is their preference.