Just go join Spiral Scouts

[packsaddle 753]

Trevorum, you KNOW that list is very, very long - just name off any prejudice that ever existed.

 

Gern said, "Just like our parents were more inclined to openly discriminate against blacks, our generation's attitudes changed."

 

Man, I sure hope so. In fact, in an ad hoc sort of way, this is the way I view death as a positive, creative force. It diminishes old views that are seen by society as less valuable and allows new people a chance to do better.

Doesn't always work though, sadly.

[Gold Winger 9]

"Well, you'd be wrong"

 

Can you name one white person who has been awarded a scholarship by the NAACP? Cite your source.

 

As for the fact that the NAACP was founded by whites, that's irrelevant and an attempt to divert attention.

 

 

[Joni4TA 10]

If I said the sky were blue I believe you would argue it was actually teal just because...

 

 

*****I edited my post because I didn't want to be offensive*****

 

And yes I do know how the NAACP was formed. That has nothing at all to do with whom they give out their scholarships to NOW... and notice I said they would "probably not" award a scholarship to a 100% Caucasian student.

 

I never said "won't" or "never have" (because I don't truthfully know) but since you so boldly pointed out how I was wrong please do cite your source of the white student who has received an NAACP Scholarship!!

(This message has been edited by Joni4TA)(This message has been edited by Joni4TA)

[Gold Winger 9]

But the sky really isn't blue . . . :-)

[packsaddle 753]

Color perception is one of the most interesting topics! Here is a link that I think has some wonderful color illusions. The science is even more fun.

http://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements/OpticalIllusions/illusions.htm

[onehouraweekmy 10]

"GW makes an important concession and I respect him for it. As much as many people would like to believe that human morality is timeless and inflexible, the fact of the matter is that definitions of morality are constantly shifting, evolving to reflect changes in culture."

 

Sure, and by that relativistic view of morality, there are literally no standards that cannot be just cast aside.

 

Think it's wrong to steal? Hell, that's just a culturally-conditioned belief. In my view, stealing shows that I value the possession of the goods more highly than my "victim;" it's a more efficient way to allocate resources, so don't bother me with any moralistic stuff about theft being "wrong"-- after all, people used to think interracial marriage was wrong.

 

Murder? Heck, haven't you heard of survival of the fittest? I have the right to live my life exactly as I wish, and if my "victim" gets in the way, then who are you to say I can't rid myself of him or her? You're just parroting some worn out old Christian or moralistic code that's gone by the wayside, like when people used to think that women should dress a certain way and not vote.

 

So I agree, there is no definitive morality. So not only must the BSA stop advocating morally straight behavior by theoretically excluding active, open homosexuals, they must also stop all this nonsense about the boys being "honest" "loyal" "obedient" and any other requirement that is tied to a supposed "morality" since we now know that there is really no morality, just a democratic consensus about what "most" of society agrees is "right" and "wrong" at any given moment. Once 51% of the people decide that it's OK to lie or cheat, who are we to say otherwise?

 

By the way, the old canard about lumping homosexuality in with historical examples such as slavery is just dishonest; racism was never a universally accepted viewpoint; that homosexuality should not be a favored activity has pretty well been universal in societies from time immemorial. Why? One cannot chose one's skin color; one can choose to commit homosexual acts or not. NOTE: this is not to say that homosexuality may not be strongly innate in some (not all) homosexuals, it is merely to state that acting on those urges is what morality is concerned with. Much in the same way that I have an innate desire to sleep with many women; it would be wrong for me to do so. I have a desire to possess the shiny new car with the keys in it. The desire is not wrong; the carrying out of the desire is.

[packsaddle 753]

Wow, from 'love it or leave it' to whether or not the sky is blue, to moral relativism.

Onehouraweekmy, I sense that what you are communicating is that you DO work in moral absolutes and because of that...I'm trying to connect it to sky color or 'loving it or leaving it.'

FWIW, the absolute vs relative arguments have been made many times. It's too late, protests to the contrary, because the train of moral relativism left the station a long, long, time ago.

I disagree with your contention that it is OK to steal and murder. These are moral standards that are easily derived from either absolute or relativistic viewpoints. And they require no hocus pocus or sacred documents for their derivation.

Also, 'survival of the fittest' doesn't necessarily mean death for anyone. 'Fitness' is actually a measure of reproductive success and subsequent similar success of offspring.

If you have already produced offspring and are into 'geezerdom' as my daughter calls it, death will hardly alter your fitness. However, for a child who has not grown to reproductive maturity, death is not the only way to greatly alter fitness. Debilitating disease, sterility, birth defects, bad hair (sorry, couldn't resist;)), etc. are other ways to alter or eliminate fitness in a non-lethal manner.

[packsaddle 753]

Onehouraweekmy also made some statements regarding homosexuality. I'll let someone else respond if they want to.

 

But I'm wondering, is it possible that ANY controversial thread will ALWAYS evolve to arguments over homosexuality and atheism? It sure seems like it to me at times.

[Gold Winger 9]

"Sure, and by that relativistic view of morality, there are literally no standards that cannot be just cast aside."

 

Yep. It used to be that the ruler could kill you without penalty because that was his god given right. Now we've changed, I'm sure that the Czar would be disappointed to know that.

 

We consider stealing to be wrong but in other cultures, stealing is acceptable because if you can't protect your stuff, you don't deserve it.

 

We consider spying, snooping and evesdropping to be wrong but the government spends BILLIONS to fund spying, snooping and evesdropping in the name of "national security." Interesting how it is okay for the government to spy but if you think that you're neighbors are planning to murder you, you can't spy on them.

 

Pre-marital sex and extr-marital sex used to be taboo but now they are accepted, tolerated and even condoned. The list is endless.

 

Morality is very flexible and continues to change daily.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Gold Winger writes:

"Well, you'd be wrong"

 

Can you name one white person who has been awarded a scholarship by the NAACP? Cite your source.

 

I don't know the names of any NAACP recipients, but their qualifications for scholarships don't list any racial requirements, even though they list many other requirements. Honest organizations list all their requirements for programs clearly.

[Beavah 205]

I disagree with your contention that it is OK to steal and murder. These are moral standards that are easily derived from either absolute or relativistic viewpoints.

 

Sure, dat's true of anything, eh? Yeh can derive opposition to homosexuality from relativistic viewpoints as well. Fact is, yeh can derive anything you want from relativistic viewpoints.

 

Stealing can be bad, for example, unless it's infrequent. Infrequent stealing doesn't generate much societal impact, but does increase your own success and chance for survival. Institutionalized theft, like that by a petty lord or corrupt government, can also be justified.

 

And those are just da negatives, eh? Now yeh gotta generate the positives. What does a better job of inspiring Generosity - absolute viewpoints or relative ones? How about heroic self-sacrifice?

 

Seems like most of da heroes and saints were pretty absolute in their views of right and wrong, eh?

 

Moral relativism, like Marxist-Leninism, rabid Fundamentalism, Fascism, etc. is just another dumb idea. It may have left the station, but it's runnin' off the rails just like the rest of the dumb ideas.

 

Beavah

 

[Gold Winger 9]

Then you cannot possibly say that NAACP has awarded a scholarship to a white person, can you? Tsk, tsk, tsk. You shouldn't make statements that can't be substantiated.

 

Gold Winger++

[Kudu 186]

 

I helped organize the programs for two different national Baden-Powell Scouting associations (BPSA) in the United States. Basically, BPSA is an international movement that does Scouting the way it was practiced before the liberal modernizations that swept WOSM in the late 1960s (1972 in the United States). As such it is a very conservative approach to Scouting (some would say "reactionary"). However BPSA has no anti-3G policies because such things are against the law in all of the other Western countries in which BPSA exists.

 

Like it or not, fgoodwin has nailed perfectly the challenge facing alternative Scouting associations.

 

fgoodwin writes:

 

"Have you heard of American Heritage Girls?

 

"They are an alternative to Girl Scouts. Like the folks who formed SpiralScouts [sS], rather than simply complain about GSUSA policy, they actually went out and did something constructive: they formed an alternative organization.

 

"Now, is AHG any more or less a "viable" alternative than SS? I have no idea, but I doubt if AHG started with any significant advantage in terms of infrastructure, training, potential members, etc.

 

"And if SS hasn't grown, who's fault is that? Given the interminable bickering about BSA membership policies, one would think SS would have a ready-made universe of potential members -- so why haven't the people complaining about BSA put some action behind their words and flocked to SS?."

 

Fred is exactly right. Liberals complain about the BSA membership policies but they do very little to establish Scouting associations for their young. At least one of these, The Navigators, received a very nice review in UU World some years back. More recently the BPSA-USA was very warmly received at the UUA General Assembly.

 

However, UUA units failed to materialize in any significant numbers. Unitarian-Universalists and other liberals may believe that alternative Scouting associations are a good idea in the abstract, but they do not support them.

 

On the other hand, The American Heritage Girls (AHG), established in 1995 (at roughly the same time as most of the other alternative Scouting associations), has grown to about 6,000 in 33 states. This may be very small by GSUSA standards, but AHG is certainly larger than all of the liberal and 3G-neutral Scouting associations in the United States combined.

 

fgoodwin writes:

 

"My point about the size of SS is that you mentioned they were not a viable alternative because of their size (lack of local units). I think that's a chicken-and-egg argument -- if they are small, its because the people who complain about BSA are staying in BSA rather than helping SS grow by actually joining them."

 

I think I can shed some light on the "chicken-or-the-egg" argument. The truth is that there have never been many liberal sponsoring organizations in the United States. According to statistics compiled by David Peavy (the owner of bsa-discrimination.org) the total number of Unitarian-Universalist (UUA) units spiked significantly in 1973 (the year following the BSA's addition of the progressive "Leadership Development" Method, and its elimination of the conservative Uniform and "Scout Way" Methods), but the average number of UUA units nationwide in that decade was less than 85. Likewise the highest number previous to 1973 occurred in 1922 (combining the Unitarian and the Universalist units), but the average number of units in the 1920s appears to have been around 78.

 

The strongest UUA involvement in the BSA appears to have been the 1950s with the average number of units for the decade being less than 88.

 

All of these numbers are previous to the controversy over BSA membership policies!

 

Compare them to the Mormons, with more than 31,000 units.

 

The UUA is probably a good indication of liberal involvement in the BSA. Evidently it was the largest liberal sponsoring organization because if you look at the BSA Handbooks previous to the current edition, the UUA's "Religion in Life" award was described by the BSA as being for "Unitarian Universalist or members of other liberal groups."

 

fgoodwin writes:

 

"to claim that SS isn't big enough to have nearby units is putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion. If SS is to get big enough to have lots of local units, then people need to have the courage of their convictions and join them, thereby making it bigger and attracting even more members."

 

Yes, in my limited experience the lack of local expertise is just an excuse. A small group of fathers at the UUA congregation a few blocks from my house wanted to establish a Baden-Powell Group. The project was warmly received by the minister who is a strong supporter of Scouting (his previous congregation sponsors a large Scout Troop that meets two blocks from Columbine High School). The bottom line was that the church could not find a couple of dads willing to contribute one night a week and/or one weekend a month to a Scouting unit consistent with their own values.

 

fgoodwin writes:

 

"So its the very people complaining about the lack of a viable alternative who are responsible for the lack of viability of groups like SS by not joining them.

 

"Look at it this way: if people would join SS if only SS were bigger (i.e., have a lot of units nearby), how exactly is SS supposed to get any bigger if they don't join?"

 

Exactly right.

 

This is the exact opposite of Slouchhat's culture. In one of his first posts he wrote:

 

"Scouts in Germany are very different from the rest of the world as they sort of mixed with the various independent youth organisations for which their outdoor activities are not a concept of education and training in citizenship, but a way to express their liberal, free-thinking views."

 

Germany has more than 40 different Scouting associations (plus dozens of unaffiliated single groups). See:

 

http://www.troop97.net/intscout.htm

 

My guess is that none of them have anti-3G rules!

 

The simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of liberals in the United States would never try to teach values by getting their knees dirty around a campfire once a month.

 

SpiralScouts and all of the other liberal or 3G-neutral Scouting associations in the United States will never be a success until they understand why liberals in our culture are so very different from Slouchhat's culture.

 

I have been trying to figure out the lack of UUA involvement in Scouting for ten years. My conclusion is that the answer to Beavah's question is that absolute viewpoints do a much better job of inspiring generosity, at least as can be measured by dirty knees.

 

My last suggestion to the BPSA-USA was to look for the support of moderate Republicans (those seeking a traditional outdoor Scoutcraft program for their daughters, for instance).

 

Unfortunately I do not have any practical suggestions for other associations beyond a careful investigation of the social dynamics of Scouting in Germany.

 

Kudu

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Gold Winger writes:

Then you cannot possibly say that NAACP has awarded a scholarship to a white person, can you?

 

Lucky thing I've never said that, then. What I HAVE said is "None of the scholarships that the NAACP handles seems to have race as a requirement."

 

And they don't.

[Gold Winger 9]

Let's see

 

Joni4TA said, "the organization for Advancement of Colored People would probably not award a 100% Caucasian student a scholarship."

 

Meryln responded, "Well, you'd be wrong." and tried to deflect the issue following with " . . .it was created mostly by white lawyers . . ."

 

When I asked for a citation of a single white given a scholarship by NAACP, Merlyn tried to avoid the issue by claiming that he never said that. Hmmmmmm . . .

 

Thank you for playin Merlyn, please try again later.

 

Gold Winger++