Honorary president of the BSA comes out in favor of gay marriage

[Beavah 205]

Obviously I disagree. But to say, essentially, that the policy is right because it was adopted by a majority of those who get to vote, there I really disagree.

 

Yah, speakin' of makin' ridiculous assertions...

 

Yeh don't really think that any of us folks who argue from a religious perspective believe what yeh just claimed, right? We would to an individual claim the same thing as you, eh? A bad policy would be wrong even if it were adopted unanimously, because Natural and Divine Law is more important than human law.

 

However, in a democracy and a society of laws, we debate policy choices and make decisions as a community, eh? In our community, we agree that the majority decides the policy, albeit with some structures to slow down certain kinds of changes to avoid da heat of the moment, and a few structural things that require supermajorities to change. Even when we disagree with a policy adopted by da majority, in almost all cases we agree with the process, and believe that destroyin' the process is generally worse than the bad policy. We call that good citizenship, and it's even consistent with Natural and Divine Law in most cases, because tearin' down the system does greater harm than the bad policy.

 

Of course we still have da right to gripe, complain, and say "I told you so!"

 

Might makes right in a democratic context means yeh use da levers in the system to force a result that yeh want instead of convincing people. Yeh use da courts to try to force a private policy change in this case, rather than usin' argument and example to convince people to change. Or yeh want to try to get others to force a change by economic power, cuttin' off access to funding or access to potential members. In a democracy, that tends to happen when in fact your arguments aren't good enough to convince others, or yeh aren't committed to doin' the hard work of changin' hearts and minds.

 

So if yeh want to change da BSA policy, become an active, large, enthusiastic charterin' partner and exercise your right to vote. Show up and convince others that are on the fence of the rightness of your position.

 

Or, otherwise, go start your own organization and compete in da market. Nobody's stoppin' yeh.

 

It's like respondin' to arguments rather than takin' shots at people for perceived airs of superiority, or their rural upbringing, or their funny accent. It takes integrity and a good argument. Name callin' or ad hominem stuff requires neither.

 

Beavah

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Beavah says:

 

Yeh don't really think that any of us folks who argue from a religious perspective believe what yeh just claimed, right?

 

Wrong. I think it is implied in many of your statements. But I am not talking about "us folks", I am talking about you individually. As for a "religious perspective," I don't necessarily know that you are arguing from a religious perspective. I think Eagledad is, and I think DLChris is, but I would say you argue more from a political perspective. When you start counting up (or miscounting, as the case may be) different religions, or placing your reliance on how many CO's vote one way or the other, that sounds more like politics to me. Of course, there has always been an overlap between religion and politics, but in your case the emphasis is definitely more on the political side.

 

Even when we disagree with a policy adopted by da majority, in almost all cases we agree with the process, and believe that destroyin' the process is generally worse than the bad policy. We call that good citizenship, and it's even consistent with Natural and Divine Law in most cases, because tearin' down the system does greater harm than the bad policy.

 

I have never advocated destroyinG or tearinG down anythin(g). I'd like to see the majority make the right decision.

 

Might makes right in a democratic context means yeh use da levers in the system to force a result that yeh want instead of convincing people.

 

Says you. "Might makes right" can be done by "majority rule", and often is. And the majority is not always supposed to rule, see U.S. Constitution, Amendments 1 through 10 as well as various other anti-majoritarian provisions in the original constitution and later amendments. Of course, "might makes right" can also be exercised by a "minority", but usually it's the kind of minority that's in control of an army or nuclear weapons or something like that. Going to court over an issue of rights is not "might makes right," it's using the legal system as it is intended to be used. (I find it interesting that you don't seem to believe in our legal system, but that is a discussion for another time.)

 

Yeh use da courts to try to force a private policy change in this case, rather than usin' argument and example to convince people to change.

 

I've never been involved in a lawsuit against the BSA.

 

So if yeh want to change da BSA policy, become an active, large, enthusiastic charterin' partner and exercise your right to vote. Show up and convince others that are on the fence of the rightness of your position.

 

Or I could express my opinions in the manner and in the venue I see fit. Which, on the 2G issues (I don't regard the "g"irl issue as an issue), is basically this forum. I almost never talk about these issues in real life. I have no illusion that the policy is going to change because I say it should, although I do think it will eventually change because the BSA would eventually find itself vanishing if it doesn't change, though it may take 20 or 30 years. In the meantime, I pick and choose the causes I fight for, and they are all on the local level and outside the BSA. In the BSA I just do my little job as a troop committee member and advancement coordinator.

 

Or, otherwise, go start your own organization and compete in da market. Nobody's stoppin' yeh.

 

Yeah, yeah. I have been being invited to leave the BSA in this forum since before you were even here. Nothing new.

 

It's like respondin' to arguments rather than takin' shots at people for perceived airs of superiority, or their rural upbringing, or their funny accent. It takes integrity and a good argument. Name callin' or ad hominem stuff requires neither.

 

Of course, you just made an ad hominem attack right there, you just couch it so cleverly (you think) that you can deny it later.

 

As for your "accent", you don't have one, in writing. Whether you have one in spoken English, I have no idea. (I have been told that I do, but it's probably not the same one.) I usually just ignore your affected spelling and make believe the words are spelled correctly. Most of the other forum members seem to think it's "cute" or something, so who am I to argue?

[Beavah 205]

I am talking about you individually.

 

Ah, glad we got that out there in da open, eh? At least Merlyn is delightfully direct about it.

 

B

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Beavah, you are the only one who engages in the precise type of behavior (and I am not talking here about your "accent") that you engage in, so if I am discussing that behavior (not you individually, that would be ad hominem), why would I be talking about anyone else?

 

By the way, your silly word games don't work with me. Haven't you figured that out by now?

[packsaddle 753]

Wow, I just got back to this thread and holy smokes, I'm not sure what to say.

NJ, my 'hard day at work' was hardly that. Bragging rights coming next...I breakfasted on as many mangoes as I could eat and washed them down with fresh guava juice. Spent the morning wading and surveying remote streams surrounded by absolute splendor. It rained...hard...nearly all day and we were soaked to the bone so we spent the last couple of hours soaking in a hot spring beneath a 200' waterfall. Dined this evening on callaloo soup, fresh bread, jerked beef, dasheen and rice, and a wonderful salad of tropical greens. Dessert was red banana mousse. The evening was spent attending a lecture on avian diversity and the influence of European colonization and other invasive exotics, lol. I'm thinking that if I could just get all the 'warring factions' to join me here....h'mmmm....maybe not.

 

So not to worry about my day. You should have it as good. Reading through the Scouter equivalent of a Jerry Springer episode just makes me appreciate my plight more.

 

FWIW, I've been called a 'hick' many times, even by my future mother-in-law. My sister-in-law still refers to me as 'Jed Clampett'. No problem. They're probably right.

But that 'ignorant' part, in some sense we're all ignorant, I think. Some of us are more likely to admit it...kind of like being able to admit that we made a mistake...some of us can, some can't.

 

Oh well, batteries running low...the 'net is about to go down. Only sounds are the river, the rain on the metal roof, gazillions of frogs, and the thud of more mangoes for breakfast.

:)(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

Come on guys just a few more and we make 200 replies. Let's beat the American Heritage Girls thread!