Dedicated Dad

Do you have this much of a problem admitting when youre wrong in other aspects of your life? You said: Show where I have lied. Even once. If you can, Ill be happy to apologize. And you didnt. And yet another credibility issue surfaces, when will it ever stop?

Whoops, I see a typo too, it should readit went unaddressed by you

this thread

DedDad's "logic" is based completely on one premise, Wrong again, its based on two. Remember the proof by congruence thingy. that gay = perversion and perversion = immoral. Though when pressed, there is no "logical" defense offered by him of these leaps. No-no tj, thats yet another mistruth, wow two in one paragraph, I replied to that on the other thread and when I pressed you to be specific on what was a leap, you replied with leap, leap and leap. So if youre serious about revisiting this issue try using some examples OK? tjhmmr=illogic=non-specificity

See my reply to tjhmmrs credibility challenge before you believe word one here.

Dont worry about what is said on this post, see reply to tjhmmrs credibility challenge before you believe word one here.

(haven't we been through this before on this board, with you making the exact same attack and then failing to back it up?). Show where I have lied. Even once. If you can, Ill be happy to apologize. Until then, put up or shut up. HeheheI should have read this thread sooner than today. Last time you asked me to demonstrate where you lied it went addressed by you on the last post on this thread. Since youre caught red handed yet again in this challenge, I expect your admission of lying included in your apology before we can go on to your other challenges, otherwise you remain the same truth-challenged purveyor of perversion youve always been. Standing ready with high boots and towel firmly in hand.

Let me be very clear, my first post was not intended as a personal attack on DedDad or anyone else. Well I hope everyone doesnt base their opinion of you on the validity of these words, telling the truth is not a priority of yours is it? I will actually use a little of that "moral equivalency" that DedDad relies on Im happy to take on the moral equivalency of the afford mentioned, I believe there a lot of BSA families who happily wear the label. Though I dont necessarily agree with Jerry Tele tubby Falwell, Pat Im Channeling your pain Robertson and your friend Rev. I know what God thinks Phelps, we do al have one thing in common, Homosexuality is wrong and to help those who practice the behavior find help.

Dont be fooled by his analogy of my arguments, if you read them you will find they havethe usual talking points used by GLAAD and the other homosexual lobby groups. His, like GLAAD, et al, tactics are to interject key words like hate, bigotry, and name-calling in the labels of those who oppose their agenda. For instance: but I sure don't have the level of hate or fear that this other guy espouses". that the other side can not string together a consistent, intellectual argument without using name calling, realize that you've some how ended up in a pit of hate, and fear and bigotry The fatal flaw in their argument and tactics lies in the transitive aspects of their words. All there buzzwords rely on labeling the individual and not the action or behavior. I would ask anyone interested in reviewing my comments to produce one time Ive name-called, directed hate towards, or been bigoted to the individual and not the behavior. I will point out here, for those unaware, bigotry by definition cannot be against behavior. Anyway, these labels are right out of the pro-homosexual propaganda playbook and should be taken as such. I would ask how far way from Reverend Fred Phelps is he? Isn't DedDads message the same, even if delivered slightly less offensively? How far away from protesting at someone's funeral is DedDad? That would be pretty far indeed. I dont claim to know what god is thinking, nor would i. Weve all heard the verse Judge not lest you be judged, which speaks to whether you should claim to know Gods opinion of your destiny. This doesnt mean we shouldnt judge right and wrong while on earth, indeed its up to us to know what is right and wrong and not allow it into our lives. Youll notice tjs has struggled with the truth in the past because hes tried to associate me with knowing Gods intent, for example: I can take no satisfaction knowing that his (DD) message, or the message of Rev Phelps, or the message of Rev Falwell and a "vengeful God" , I make no claim to know His end. I think we can all (nearly) agree that very few of those folks can relate to DedDad Not true, see previous post for current polling data. You of all people should change your opinion now, right? All the polls are over the 50% plurality threshold. Anyway youve and NJ have made reference to my use of the nasty vivid imagery associated with the practice and from your perspective you think this hurts my cause, I think the opposite, it illustrates the deprave reality of those who define themselves by their sexual acts. It is sick and the more people see its reality the more they will take issue with the behavior. Gotta go now, be back later, see if you can address the previous issues how the practice of perversion is any more or less equal to incest and bestiality and see if you can muster what seems to be a difficult task to declare your orientation. Sorry in advance for all the typos no time to correct.

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Ouch! BANG! BANG!

Sound of head banging on wallBANG! BANG! ouch! BANG! BANG! BANG!

As well you should be Mike, its not just some alternative lifestyle, its a serious attempt to promote and justify evil and wickedness in the world. Dont give in to their agenda.

Ed, I dont disagree with that, in fact, I think a boy who wears make-up, lipstick and high heels can live by the Oath and Laws, dont you? The fact remains, would you deny a CO to make membership rules for appearance?

You know what NJ, Im going to guess that when your were a little kid youd make rules for games and then change them when you were losing, am I close? While Im happy to jump through more of your arbitrary hoops Im going to ask you keep your integrity and answer my little question. How are these things Tradition Values? Standning ready with high boots and towel firmly in hand.

But DD, you haven't been talking about mistakes. You've been talking about knowingly breaking the rules because you felt your excuse was more important than the rule, or the rule didn't matter. No neither, I know there exists scenarios where the rules are not applicable and so do you. And dont use my situation, try-answering Roosters without the ludicrous analogy and invisible ambulances, the problem is that its a real possibility and youre not humble enough to admit it. And regardless, stop the intimations and embellishments please, cant you just copy and paste our quotes so you dont keep misrepresenting them. I have no interest in breaking any rules or finding excuses, the fact remains that certain rules cant be used in every situation, I wish you were gracious enough you could admit that. I have never taken anyone to task for breaking a rule they didn't know about. Only the rules they knew about and ignored. I have no problem with that and I agree in general. Every disagreement we've had you claimed you either knew and disagreed with, or once you were told where the rule was, you created skewed arguments in order to avoid responsibility. No, no ,no! If youre taking about your misunderstanding of the membership requirements, you were wrong, period. But I dont disagree with any of the Youth Protection Guidelines, I only made a hypothetical situation where they dont/cant apply to which you dismissed with ludicrous analogy and without addressing their real possibilities. You're not asking to be forgiven mistakes you seem to want approval to continue doing whatever you want without reprisal. There you go again Bob, innuendo saying I want to continue to do what ever without reprisal is not my position. I simply pointed out the permission to make mistakes clause and asked for a clarification, and though youve not given any direction on that I actually see your point that its not an excuse to knowingly make mistakes. To this I humbly agree and see my error. Respectfully The Corkscrew Debate Team

After reading that gay Scout leaders were no different than a father/daughter/moose threeway relationship Actually its just homosexuals in general because theres no such thing as gay scout leaders, only those who pretend to be. That must be your gaydar thing workin again, which reminds me, were still waiting for that clarification on your orientation there OLE buddy, are you gay? As far as your premise goes I hadnt really given that combo any consideration before now but if youre interested in revisiting the issue how are they morally inferior to your pet perversion? , I was surprised any person could honestly believe that. While looking forward to your reading of the book Bias, it goes into some detail how the left wing media simply couldnt/cant understand how anyone could hold a different point of view than theirs, how odd you relate in the same way. Actually your arrogance is breathtaking. Now that I have read in other threads that a teenage boy with an earing or long hair is just a step away from a man with a penchant for dressing up in women's underwear, Now-now my little truth challenged exaggerator, you should at least have some resemblance of truth in your initial post. The slippery slope exists in the rule that A boy is not required to have a uniform to be a boy scout, and since there are no rules against piercing, tattoos, make-up and yes womens clothing, obviously its a reasonable next step if there can be no rules for appearance. Or are you shunning the so-called transgendered? Its basically a tactic that says "anything that deviates from exactly how I believe the world ought to be is a dangerous, slippery slope, and the further away from my point of view one gets the more wrong and evil they become". Nice try but [im] not alone here, youre actually in the minority. The following are statistics from studies released since the Supreme Court's June 2000 decision. 70.3 percent of mothers and fathers of Scouts agree with the Boy Scouts belief that homosexuals are not appropriate role models for Scouts. Among fathers of Scouts 73.5 percent agree. 65.4 percent of American mothers and fathers agree with the Boy Scouts belief that homosexuals are not appropriate role models for Scouts.70 percent of adult Americans say their opinion of the Boy Scouts of America has either not changed or has improved since learning that the group does not allow homosexual members.68 percent of likely voters agree that the Boy Scouts should have the right to set their own rules and dismiss Scout leaders for being homosexual or other rules violations.64 percent of adult Americans think the Boy Scouts of America should not be required to allow openly gay adults to serve as Boy Scout leaders.

You didnt say a Scoutmaster and his son( I agree. ) You were insinuating a scout not a son, and everyone who read that post knows it. Me included! Bob, are you sure you want to insist this is my position?

the last of which OGE and I called you on, and your attempt to slide out was weak at best. Please call me again on it, Im trying my best to follow. What exactly have I not responded too, I certainly dont want to slide out. Should you want me to restate my questions you havent answered Ill be happy to abridge. I have no problems with scouters who say you know, I made a mistake or I need to find a way to do this better Thats not true, youve told countless people and most recently eisely that he was a danger to the program. But, as just another scouter, one of tens of thousands who care about the program and the scouts, it does rankle me to read your comments where, its OK to violate scoutings rules, but not DD's rules. No I did not, dont put words in my mouth! I asked about the SM is given permission to make mistakes clause on the same page as the regulation we were talking about, what gives? Why are you like this?

Is that what you really think of the issue of whether otherwise qualified leaders are disqualified because they are honest about their orientation? It's all about what part goes where? Is there a coherent question there somewhere, Im not sure if Im suppose to answer whether I think about the practice of perversion as being filth and degradation or the choice of denying the one and only orientation we are all born with in order to choose a life of baseness and repugnance. Those were rhetorical questions. I'm pretty sure the answers are "yes" even if you don't like the way I asked the questions. Glad youre not my lawyer because the answers are no and no, but youre welcome to make your best case councilor. Knock yourself out. By the way, do you realize that in some states, "sodomy" is still illegal even between married persons of opposite genders? Hehehe Like many of the other pro perversion cheerleaders you too like to compare to practice to man/woman relationships, please enlighten us how they are the same? Better be careful, someone might be looking in your window to check. OK by me, its societies first defense against legitimizing the obscenity of same-sex marriage, abuse of gay adoption and the corruption of insuring the AIDS culture. Sorry for the topical diversion, but I didn't start it. Yep, maybe if we looked through the kaleidoscope of your world I did, but then again was I making a point to OGE? Hmm? If you want something constructive to do, why dont you bother to follow up your values question to me question on the piercing thread or maybe take this to any number of sodomy threads, regardless, dont be a distracter on Roosters thread, its not scoutlike. (Sound of OGE in background saying: Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! ) Just kidding OGE

Gee Dad, I am honored to a much higher standard of decorum when debating than you hold yourselfI have come to understand your abusive style Now now OGE, you know very well my decorum for those promoting perversion is considerably different than on other topics. I did my best to be civil to Bob at all times and I apologize if I havent lived up to your standards. I equally understand if you hold no particular use for me because of my decorum on the sodomy threads, however I will remain civil to such end. Now, Bob said "So let me get this straight, you feel a scout with an extra hole in his ear lobe has severe character flaws, but an adult who wanders off into the woods with someone elses child is "to be given permission to make mistakes. What is/was your answer to this? My answer is I only presented a scenario with the SM lost and alone with the Scout. I did not, as Bob embellished, say the SM wandered off into the woods with someone elses child, clearly that would be a violation, and surely you can give me more credit than that, at least I hope you can. And truth be known I hadnt given any thought to the scenario leading up to that point much less the situation was a result of some dubious abuse means. And I did ask Bob if there could ever exist any situation of any kind where the SM could find him self in that situation and not being a bad leader. Since he wont answer Ill ask you, do you think there exists any scenario where this could happen in good faith? As far as the SM is allowed to make mistakes thing I thought it had merit in the discussion since we were talking about mistakes. Why would they put that clause in the SM handbook if it has no application, and on the same page no less? It doesnt say SM is given permission to make mistakes except. What do you think its application is OGE, less of course Bobs little embellishment of the SM purposely wondering off someone elses child? Further, since you and Bob dont have any contingencies for the heart attack, et al scenarios, do you think this has never or will never happen, just wondering? PS. boy wearing bra and panties and purple hair and fingernails (just wanted to say it first THIS time) ??? RespectfullyThe Corkscrew Debate Team

So Bob, what you are saying is that no positive scenario can possibly exist, of any kind, that a Scoutmaster can ever be lost in the woods with a scout? None? No possibility what so ever?

And OGE, What on earth are you talking about? I need a few more sentences on the details for clarification of the Lucy thing please. Plus, you remind me the kids surrounding the schoolyard fight yelling Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! I expected better from you.

PS What is corkscrew style debate mean anyway?

Evidendly following rules and protecting scouts from abuse are not part of the values you hold so dear. Wow Bob, thats a new low. Im sorry my example has you so flustered and apparently out of the realm of any imaginable scenario in your neat and tidy little world but youre out of control. Shame on you.

Ya know Rooster, on the very same page [134] that has the hard and fast rule for Separate Accommodations is a paragraph for the SM which validates his imperfections and mortal capabilities. It says: Give yourself permission to make mistakes. I like your speeding example but I would offer this as its more to the point; if a scoutmaster and scout are lost in the woods and they only have one tent, lets make the temperature below freezing, what accommodations should the SM and scout make?

Abortion - NOT a Traditional Value

AIDS Research Currently - NOT a Traditional Value

Christian Bigotry - NOT a Traditional Value

Cloning - NOT a Traditional Value

Condoms in School - NOT a Traditional Value

Drug Legalization - NOT a Traditional Value

Euthanasia - NOT a Traditional Value

Promiscuity - NOT a Traditional Value

Hate Crimes Legislation - NOT a Traditional Value

Legal Prostitution - NOT a Traditional Value

Prayer in School - Yes a Traditional Value

Homosexual Agenda - NOT a Traditional Value

Liberal Media Bias - NOT a Traditional Value

Pornography - NOT a Traditional Value

This reminds me of a story "It's your basket." Thats a bright boy you got there NJ You should explain this thread is about what values you think they reflect. Sorry, I thought patients was a virtue. Just saying, "we know" is meaningless. I'd prefer meaningful words to ice cream (at least, until I lose some weight.) Now you know, was that meaningful enough? Did I write anything you thought I wouldnt? Your turn!

You are a poor converstionalist who apparently likes to twist and convolute other people's statements in order to prolong a question that was long ago answered. Oh come on Bob, you shouldnt lower yourself to cheap shots just because you cant support your point, thats not the Bob White expert regulator we all know and love. The answers to your question, when you actually have a direct question, are in the manuals of the BSA, I invite you to read one, any one. Nope, you simply cant support your point well enough to answer my questions because they are based directly out of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, Federal Charter, SM, Committee, Scout and Requirements manuals and handbooks. Ive read them all cover to cover and challenge you to simply support your points with direct references instead of personal interpretations. In them you will find the answer, which I guarantee you will not like because it will not match your personal opinion. My personal opinion is not involved period! Ive found all the cites, quotes and facts that apply and you cant challenge it without introducing irrelevant interpretation, cant you just admit youre wrong for goodness sake? I am no longer interested in the bait you are dangling on your twisted hook. I take comfort in knowing the fish is keener than the fisherman. What ever that means, I wish you no ill will and for the record agree with most of your positions. I hope you can give some serious consideration to the subject before you raise the issue again.

but you keep referring to hair length and having a pierced ear as a behavior. Yes, both are the manners of conduct involving an action taken, or not taken as in the case of long hair. I think this is the point of contention that everyone is having - some people don't see hair length or having an earring as a behavior. Im not sure everyone is having a point of contention, it may seem Im alone here because most arent willing to debate the high percentage of shall we say progressive Scouters on this site. Assuming your hair is cut short, can i say you are behaving well? And if you hair is long that you are not behaving well? Its irrelevant to the point, if a CO decides it wants to make requirements for appropriate behavior, its within its rights to do so. Personally I think long hair is appropriate for native Americans should they desire to wear it that way. Equally personally, I see piercing as self-mutilation, regardless of degree, and a character flaw in its adornment of the male species.

What value -- not just a tradition, but a value, is violated if a boy wears: An earring? "Long" hair? Purple hair? Facial makeup? Hmm Lets see. To start but not exclusive to, modesty, humility, propriety, politeness/decorum, good taste/etiquette and temperance/restraint kind of values. Further, Traditional Values is an analogy of conservative orthodoxy, and I know you and tjhmmr stand ready to chime in with your glib relativists slant on the issue, and youre certainly more than welcome to do so, but this is a conservative doctrine and will be after your liberal analogies. Now its your turn, I played fair, how are said behaviors Traditional Values?