David CO

1 hour ago, yknot said:

I would be careful with that because it sounds like you are blaming the child victim and I don't think you mean to do that. 

I am being careful.  I know that I am walking on eggshells here.  It's a tough topic to talk about.  

How do we reconcile our core belief  (A scout is to be trusted / A scout is trustworthy) with what we are now told about child behavior.  We cannot trust/depend/rely on boys to report child molesters.  This questions the very existence of scouting. 

If our core belief was wrong, then we were wrong, and we need to make amends.  

1 hour ago, T2Eagle said:

As to judging people by some supposed lesser standard 30-40 years ago --- I think that's balderdash.  The rape of children has always been a heinous crime punishable by decades in prison.  I was an adult 40 years ago so it certainly wasn't such a long ago time for me that I would claim that what would be morally wrong for me today would have been morally acceptable for me then. 

True.  The standard hasn't changed, but some assumptions have changed.  50 years ago, most of us assumed that a boy would not keep quiet about being abused.  We didn't think a boy would wait 30 minutes, much less 30 years, to report a child molester.

This has been a real shock to us.  

54 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

There are certainly other people that failed that moral test back then, but make no mistake scouters and the scouting organization were among them.  If some of the good those scouters and that organization accomplished needs to be undone to partially balance that failure with the one group of people who absolutely were not a part of that failure, the victims, then I can find no injustice in that however sad I may also find it.

I know what you are saying, but you could phrase it better. 

22 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Statistically, scouts is not that much different than other organizations. 

Even if that were true, I would still argue that scouting is philosophically different from other organizations.  B-P founded scouting on the premise that a scout is to be trusted.  That premise was fundamentally different from other organizations of his time.  It is fundamentally different from other organizations of our time.

We are being challenged by a legal system that believes that boys can not, and should not, be trusted.  

BSA has failed us in that it is not arguing our main point.  Whether we say a scout is to be trusted, or a scout is trustworthy, this should be our main argument.  It goes to the core of our program.  Should BSA, or any scout association, now or in the future, be held liable for trusting boys?

I am not a lawyer.  Maybe this is not a good legal argument.  But I would go with it anyway.  Scouting should live or die by its core beliefs. 

5 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Now what? How do most people feel about that?

4 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Who are “most people”?

It really isn't fair for you to pose the question to us, and then criticize us when we attempt to answer your question.  

4 hours ago, elitts said:

• Only a complete idiot would think you could do anything with a group of boys, with limited parental involvement, and have it be strictly "clean and wholesome".  

I'm stunned.  The entire premise of scouting is that boys can be trusted.  They can go camping with their buddies, with limited parental involvement, and have it be strictly clean and wholesome.  That is scouting.  Take away the trust, and it is no longer a scouting program. 

Until the bankruptcy, I've never given a thought to these paintings.  Never made any effort to see them.  If I've gone this long without seeing them, while they were on public display, I see no reason to be concerned about them now.  

16 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Thats kind of my point.  They dont know about WOSM, and they don't care.  All they will hear is "Scouts" and then just move along.  A lot of PR repair if anything continues.

Yes.  A lot of repair will be needed.  

1 hour ago, 5thGenTexan said:

 After its all said and done, does the general population care about WOSM? 

No.  The general public doesn't even know that WOSM exists.  The public has some vague notion that there is an international scouting group, but couldn't say who it is.  

I'm not sure that's important.  The important thing is that WOSM does exist, and it can authorize the creation of a new scout association in the USA.  WOSM will not leave the USA without a scout association.

3 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

Great for your local unit. 

Yep.  So long as it all works out well for the kids, that's all that really matters.

Just now, carebear3895 said:

The two are synonymous in the mind of your average American 

Nope.  Our local unit still has a good reputation in the community.  BSA's reputation is dirt. 

2 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Or is it going to be perceived as same people different name.... No thanks.    

I totally agree.  The new scout association will have to completely disassociate itself from BSA in the public mind.  

Just now, 5thGenTexan said:

How far can Scouting go if its tainted in public opinion?  

I don't think scouting is tainted.  BSA is tainted.

The worst possible outcome would be having us all stuck with a BSA which is barely surviving on life support, unable to serve the youth members, but just alive enough to prevent WOSM from appointing a new successor scout association.

I think the executives will try to hang on to their jobs for as long as they can, no matter how negatively it effects the kids.  

1 minute ago, vol_scouter said:

Without a national council to cover liability issues and the unpopularity of Scouting with many people, I am not o certain.  It might return in the future but my opinion is that it dies for now.

Not a chance.  WOSM will not leave the USA without a scout association.

3 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Currently, that will quickly tank membership and lead to collapse of the movement. 

It could be the end of BSA, but it will not collapse the scouting movement.  The scouting movement is bigger than BSA.  It will survive.

1 hour ago, Owls_are_cool said:

(Ignorance is truly bliss.)

Ah yes.  The District Executive motto.

16 minutes ago, Owls_are_cool said:

Nobody associated with my troop will want to pay a dime towards any settlement, because none of us participated in the abuse. 

I think that is true of everybody.  Nobody wants to pay.  So the question isn't if they want to pay, but will they pay.  The only other choice is to quit.

15 hours ago, MisterH said:

if I were BSA I would consider offering to have both national and the LC's to pay into a fund in perpetuity for victims of the recent past, present, and future as part of any settlement. 

To make that work, you would need to have a scouting public who is willing to pay in perpetuity.  I don't think the parents and donors are collectively willing to do that.  They'll quit.

36 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I do not want them damaged either, but why should BSA take the full impact?

I would imagine that CO's all over the country will be arguing that BSA kept them in the dark.  It is not only a good argument, it also has the advantage of being the truth.

34 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

and then see how the BSA, LCs, insurers and all other non-party parties can hide their heads in the sand.

It's hard to hide your head in the sand and cover your butt at the same time.  

On 4/8/2021 at 12:17 PM, RememberSchiff said:

Please reread what @David CO posted below. My take is he wants to screen kids to better protect them from predators, not exclude them.

23 hours ago, KublaiKen said:

Upon rereading, I see that. I think what was confusing was the comparison with screening adults; in this context, the only screening we do for adults is to exclude them from the program. It is single sanction.

If we are going to be fair and honest about this, you're both right.  I was talking about identifying kids to better protect them.  That's true.  But I have stated in earlier posts on other threads that my unit does reject some youth applications.  We don't automatically accept every  boy who asks to join our troop.

2 hours ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

So that's $1,000,000 less in the bucket of the "Indirect Abuse Victims" class

Boy, that's a relief. 

5 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Gah. Good point. I meant as to parents.

Yes.  Parental consent to participate in scouting.

23 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

And informed consent. 

I deliberately left that out.  I didn't want anyone to misread my comment and quote me as saying children can consent to sexual abuse.