David CO

4 minutes ago, skeptic said:

It is more of a statement to those suggesting that somehow carrying YP beyond Scouting should be in the YP material.  Perhaps I misread a few comments, but I got the impression a few thought National actually needed to put that idea into the program.   

I think you understand this correctly.  Some scouters do feel this way.  

8 minutes ago, skeptic said:

IF we claim to "live the Promise", do we need an official declaration or statement to carry it beyond the program? 

No.  We do not need to be registered adult in a scouting program in order to practice some of its values in our everyday lives.  However, scouting is a game for boys.  It isn't a blueprint for adult life.  

There is an exception to every rule.  Did you know that some kids with diabetes monitor their insulin with their cell phones?  I had a student 3 years ago who had such a device.  If there was a problem, and he didn't respond to his phone warning quickly enough, the phone would text his parents and his doctor's office.  It was a precaution in case he passed out.

He was allowed to have his phone in school.  

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Ok, I moved some of the non legal discussion to the other thread.  

 

It's time to move more non-legal stuff to the other thread.  I wonder how long it will take before you get tired of doing it.  

1 minute ago, SiouxRanger said:

And so WHY would National drape itself in the American Flag, yet DENY the fundamental principles of which that Flag symbolizes?

Three reasons.  $$$

8 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

The BSA has a Death Warrant process.

I don't know as much about this as you.  I do know that many good scouters have had their memberships revoked without good cause.  I believe what you are saying is true.

That said, I think your use of the term "Death Warrant" is unnecessarily hyperbolic.  The facts are damning enough.

14 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

This is what I am wanting to do. Propose that the LCs in my state just charter the units directly... 

This is what council guys have always wanted to do.  The bankruptcy is an excuse for them to do it.  

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

All of this puts young ASMs in a precarious position. What they might consider “normal” is extremely threatening to the organization.

Absolutely right.  Up until age 18, young people are told they can do no wrong.  Then at 18, they are told they can do no right.  The world suddenly perceives them as a threat.  (or at least a liability)

Is it any wonder why so many of our 18 to 21 year-olds retreat into a culture of self-destructive behavior?  

2 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

There is literally no reason that literally any of us on this forum would have a reason to be alone with a Scout that is not our child, in person, or virtually, Scouting event or not. 

Sorry.  I have to disagree with you here.  Many people work in jobs/professions that involve contact with children.  You can't expect people to forgo employment in order to comply with YPT.

Should I have quit my teaching job because we did not have 2-deep leadership in my classroom?  That kind of scrutiny to BSA rules would be ridiculous.  

3 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

If schools attempted to apply such a rule it would grind the system to a halt.

No school would apply or enforce the rule.  BSA would have to take action themselves.

4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The destruction might in fact be very localized, limited to merely our own galaxy.

That would spare BSA national.  Those guys live in a galaxy all of their own.  

4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Also, since they are in the same school and same robotics team, end that as well.  That is the only way for it to work.  

Yes.  That is correct.

Also, forget about them going swimming at the YMCA.  Changing and showering together would really make BSA blow a cork!

2 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

So what are you proposing an 18 year old senior do who wants to contribute to Scouting, but also wants to maintain contact outside of Scouting events with their lifelong friends who are 17?

There is nothing to propose.  He can't do both without violating YPT.   He has to choose one or the other.  Please let us know what he decides.

The really interesting part of this ridiculous discussion is about what he is supposed to do if he should be required to interact with youth members at school.  Should he obey the YPT or should he follow school rules and regulations.  

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

So he can’t call his friend without his friends mom on the call.  

Yes.  That's what it says.  

27 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

we have to follow the rules in their most current form ... or remove ourselves from the equation and not participate.

This sounds very familiar.  Many years ago, there was a member of the forum who spoke very much like you. He was constantly telling people they didn't belong in scouting.  So you should know that this is not a new argument.  It has popped up on the forum every few years since I joined.  When was that?  I can't remember anymore.  I do remember that this was the statement that prompted me to write my first post.  (Sighing nostalgically)

3 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

This is similar to scouting

No, it is not even close.  In making these over-reaching rules, BSA is the one who is not following the social contract.  BSA is the bad guy here.  Not the parents and scouts.

14 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

My issue is this:

So ... my 18 year old Adult ASM, per YPT, CANNOT hang out with scouting youth (like his 17 year old best friend) outside of scouting activities.  

 

That is correct.  He must choose between his membership in BSA and continuing his friendship with his best bud.  I'm sorry.  I don't like it either.  But those are his choices if he is going to follow YPT.  

1 minute ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

In this particular case, if the scouts wants to remain in the unit during his senior year... he could have a lot of fun coking-and-joking with the other adults. Heck, maybe push him to attend Wood Badge and/or Powder Horn. Maybe even get involved with NYLT? There are so many different ways he could stay engaged in scouting that doesn't consist of hanging out as, "one of the scouts". 

I agree as far as the young adults participation at scouting events is concerned.  I do not agree that it should effect their friendship outside of scouting.  BSA is over-reaching their authority on this one.

14 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

A senior in high school should be treated as a youth as long as he/she is under 19.  We have youth that turn 18 before their senior year starts. 

That would work for this particular situation, but I would prefer a solution that covers a wider range of situations arising from this rule.  I don't think his being a high school senior is the main issue. 

The issue is parental rights.  The parents have the right to allow their son to have a young adult friend regardless of their memberships in scouting, and regardless of what what the guys at national think about it. 

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

So then what is your solution?

I think BSA should have a form which identifies and recognizes pre-existing relationships outside of scouting.  If the scout and his parents notify BSA in this way that a pre-existing relationship exist outside of scouting, then BSA should recognize this relationship and allow an exemption from the rule.

11 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

This is interesting.  Are there numbers available for these subgroups?  How large could the group be who indicate "No Impact Alleged" or "No Physical Abuse"?  Certainly I understand emotional abuse, but what kind of claim can be made for No Impact?  

I don't know for sure, but I can speculate.

Take a situation where an adult takes covert nude photos of a scout in the locker room.  The scout is unaware of the photos.  The police later search the adult's home and find the photos.  

Even though the scout was unaware of the nude photos, and the existence of the nude photos had no impact on the scout, the scout was a still a victim of the adult.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

In Scouts, children are taken away from safe communities of adults, put in communal spaces like showers and church basements, and brought across state lines far away from their homes. Situational disempowerment seems routine in Scouting, and it creates repeated instances in which children are susceptible to abuse."

Scouts were never "taken away" from safe communities of adults.  The safe communities of adults formed these scout units, funded these scout units, and signed their kids up in these scout units.  The scout units were an extension of the safe communities of adults.

The people who wrote this nonsense are using loaded language like "taken away" and "across state lines" to make it sound like scout leaders were kidnapping kids and spiriting them away from their homes.  These boys were not kidnapped.   They wanted to join scouting.  They wanted to go on outings.  Their parents signed them up and paid for these outings.

Boys were not "put" in communal spaces like showers and church basements.  They walked there under their own power.  They knew they would be meeting in the church basement when they signed up in their scout unit.  They knew they would be taking showers. 

When social advocates use such loaded language, they usually end up diminishing their own argument and hurting their own cause.  I think they did so here.

4 hours ago, MattR said:

My fear is, because of the volume of posts, people are missing things anyway.

Well, I'm missing it, but I'm not missing it.  

40 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

more education on the topic. 

Yep.  More education will do the trick.  Like promoting covid vaccinations.  Just tell the people what's good for them and they'll do it.