Rules and Values (again...)

[Bob White 20]

That kind of comparison is very misleading here CA. This is not a civil rights matter, You cannot possibble compare the issues being discussed here as related to the civil rights movement, segregation, Nazi Germany, or another similar human rights issue. We talking about Beavah and others picking which BSA regulations they want to follow. Violating Safe Swim Defense is not civil disobedience, it is reckless and endangers the welfare of others people's children.

 

If Beavah or those who support his position want to dive into water that has not been cleared of obstacles then they should be allowed to do that, but to purposely ignore safety rules designed to protect others, because they are personally inconvenient to you is self-centered and displays a lack of values among other shortcomings.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Trevorum 24]

OK, time for a quick show of hands:

 

1. Rules are to be obeyed.

2. Rules should be questioned.

 

Otherwise known as the Bob White Principle, and the Beavah Principle, respectively

[skeptic 1001]

Sorry, but that is too cut and dried, which of course is why this discussion is still happening (well, bull headed and obdurate personalities aside); Most reasonable and legitimate rules/laws should be obeyed, but harmful, or unreasonable ones are subject to question and possible pressure to change, including civil disobedience or similar activity.

[Trevorum 24]

OK, I'll put you down for a #2.

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

I'll take door #2.

[Bob White 20]

I agree trevorum that you have not represented the issue accurately.

 

Beavah's position is not that rules should be questioned, but rather that he and others can ignore rules based on their individual opinions and that it has no reflection on their personal values or ethics.

 

Whereas I maintain that rules create a common struction, and that if you agree to a part of that community then you accept that structure. For instance, the Ten Commandments, therules of Baseball, the rules of Scouting, Fishing regulations in your State, etc. are all designed to give structure to a common community.

 

If you are going to play basebal then everyone follows the rules. It doesn't matter that you think you should get four strikes for an out, the rules say three. If you are going fishing and the rules say that a Bss has to be 13 inches to keep, it doesn't matter if you think it should be 11, if you are leading a scout activity and the rules say set up swimm areas then you do it, your personal opinion is not what matters here.

 

Beavah has not suggested that rules be questioned, he is trying to build support to justify ignoring rules without hisd actions being reflective of his values and ethics, and that is simply not how a society functions.

[BadenP 93]

1) Rules are the starting point upon which a group determines its behavior.

2) No rule is above being questioned or challenged if it proves to be harmful, inadequate,or no longer relevant to that groups well being.

3) All societal rules are created by human beings who are imperfect by nature ergo the rules that are created are also subject to the same imperfection.

 

"That is why in every society rules are reviewed, revised or eliminated as society changes and evolves because rules mirror society, society does not mirror the rules."

 

Does anyone know who made that statement?

 

 

There you go Bobby on topic just for you, oh by the way you still are wrong about sea scouts on a national level, because you once again twisted perameters. It doesn't matter what happens on your little pond in Kansas, I was talking nationally.

 

Have a nice day Bobby.

 

[CA_Scouter 11]

"If Beavah or those who support his position want to dive into water that has not been cleared of obstacles ..."

 

Where does Beavah say that?

 

He doesn't.

 

I think this lends credence to Beavah's statement about fear mongering. But that's just my opinion.

 

 

[Bob White 20]

BadenP if you would like to discuss Sea Scouting please do so in the appropriate thread. By the way I said that membership was up in the Central Region, and that is still correct. I never said I was in Kansas. I said that an early National Flag Ship was in Kansas. You continue to be in error.

 

As for your last post on on rules nothing you wrote disagrees in any way with anything I have said. Nor does anything you wrote suppport Beavahs stance that he can ignore rules he personally does not like. Questioning rules does not mean not to obey them.

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[BadenP 93]

 

I do believe that Bobby White is only person who could squeeze blood out of a turnip.

 

Man you love to twist other peoples words beyond recognition don't you Bobby. Throughout history societies have ignored rules that no longer were relevant to that group. There is a town down south where if you spit on the sidewalk it is a mandatory sentence of 30 days in jail, no one follows it or enforces it and yet it's still on the books and people choose to ignore it. In another town a mother breast feeding her baby in public can be issued a $500 citation for the first offense, again it is not enforced and the people IGNORE THE RULE, why, because they are both ridiculous laws and irrelevant to the welfare of the townspeople.

 

I am even willing to bet in the Guide to Safe Scouting, Bobbys scouting bible, there are rules that are no longer valid, incorrectly written, or relevant and need to be updated for the welfare of the scouting program.

[skeptic 1001]

Moderators: at what point do you decide to lock down the pettiness by simply locking the thread? Please, I am getting a headache trying to wade through all this nonsense in hope that something worthwhile may appear. I really would prefer not to simply block them, as occasionally they actually have something to say that is on point and is not petty bickering and fingerpointing. Thanks for listening.

[Bob White 20]

Skeptic. If the topic no longer interests you simply do not read the thread. Why must it be locked? Is not the purpose of a discussion forum to discuss the topic? What topic does not have diverging views?

 

BadenP, if you feel there are rules in the G2SS that are no longer valid, I woud think that as a former professional you would A) want them followed until they are changed, and B) Take action to have them changed by identify them to the proper committee for consideration.

 

Which rules specifically have you identified and taken action to change?

 

 

[SSScout 1616]

Eyup, some folks just have too much time on their hands. Idle keyboards are the devil's programming tool, or something like that.

 

I would like to think that rules and laws are promulgated because not everyone knows what might be appropriate (and safe?) in a given situation. They are at least a starting point,One knows what has been a good idea in the past, what wiser, more experienced hands have seen be a good, safe procedure in the past. What the boss wants, expects.

 

But if the 'on the ground' situation doesn't match the situation for the rule/law, well, common sense (never very common, as my dad use to say) and experience must hold sway.

When I teach Woods Tools in IOLS, I try to CAREFULLY demonstrate some of the unfortunate things that can happen (and have, in my experience) and discuss why the rules/guidelines are there. My hope is that the Scouters listening and watching will gain from MY experience and go off to let their Scouts gain from THEIR third hand gained experience. The Safe Swim Program is excellent, but even that must be adapted to the given situation. It makes the Scout/er think about what could/might/shouldn't happen. One takes precautions.

No rule book can possibly cover every possible situation (but glance thru the Golf PGA book sometime, and one might think so). Good judgement must be used.

Before I retired from my Transit job, I risked being fired more than once, I know, because I HAD to utilize my own judgement in dealing with a strange, totally unfamiliar situation. If it turned out good, I got an attaboy (maybe). If not, and there was no policy or rule to point to as my inspiration for how I responded, I might be hung out to dry.. Sometimes, I can say, my response became the rule, for the NEXT time that happened, if ever.

But the rule must be a starting point in our planning and dealing with things, if only for consistancy and predictability.

 

So BW is right, as far as he goes, and Beavah et al are right, too.

 

And sometimes the Higher Authority must be followed and the possible consequences weighed.

 

Now, Hank Aaron....

 

 

[evmori 11]

I know Bob won't see these so would someone please repost these so he does.

 

Would you follow these laws?

 

It is against the law to make faces at dogs.

 

The English language is not to be spoken.

 

You may be arrested for vagrancy if you do not have at least one dollar bill on your person.

 

You must contact the police before entering the city in an automobile.

 

You may be convicted of a Class 4 felony offense, punishable by up to three years in state prison, for the crime of "eavesdropping" on your own conversation. -720 ILCS 5/14-2.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Skeptic, I could close the thread which would only elicit future comments castigating and excoriating me for censorship and possibly inbuing the forum with my leftist liberal idealogy so I wont as long as no one calls the other a dopey poopy face or words of similar ilk. Look at it this way, as long as this thread is active the principals aren't sniping at each other on other threads