Scouters as communist weapons dealers

[packsaddle 753]

Adrianvs, I second Trevorum's praise. Therefore to answer the question directly in a pedagogical manner, I would teach ethics the same way whether I had violated a rule or not. However, if I had violated a rule and was willing to discuss it, my failure might be a good case-in-point as an example of a thinking error.

 

A person who is basically honest and who tries to be fair can still make thinking errors. If such a person learns from the error, it could actually give them an advantage when instructing young people.

 

On the other hand, a person who is NOT basically honest, who tries to rationalize thinking errors, may be challenged in an attempt to teach ethics to anyone.

 

Edited Part: Oooohh, I'm at the top of the page again!

Parting shot: Someone (I think it was Bob White but I might be mistaken) a long time back used the exclamation, "Aunt Gertie's Garters". Man, that really creeped me out! And now Fuzzy Bear is talking about his. Eeeeuuuuuuuwwwwwww!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Oak Tree 15]

Adrianvs,

 

Nice post. But even in those terms, people have been trying to answer the question. Or at least giving what they think is an answer, whether other people accept it or not.

 

My answer would be that I don't expect my boys to act differently than I do, so I don't see the hypocrisy. Core issues of right and wrong, I expect them to follow. Other items, use their judgement. The default is to follow the rules. One of the criteria is how seriously the organization making the rules takes them. I'm pretty sure that most of the parents in our unit agree, because I've had the conversation with many of them.

 

Let's see if I can avoid the ad hominem attack by phrasing things in the subjunctive (I can see all kinds of possibilities for this)

 

If someone came on the forum and called other Scouters lazy and self-centered, said they were duplicitous and could not be trusted, would that person be following the Scout law (a Scout is courteous)? If not, would that be a rule that could justifiably be ignored in these circumstances?

 

Oak Tree

[Bob White 20]

"I'm sure you're aware of the contributions Eamonn makes to his Scouting organizations. Suppose he chose not to wear regulation BSA socks, or was obese."

 

This was never about how to punish! This is about how does a leader rationalize ignoring rules when they expect scouts to obey them. If Eamonn were not physically fit then he should not be expecting the scouts he leads to be fit, if he does not wear scout socks he has no business expecting the scouts he leads to wear them, and if a leader does not follow the rules he is expected to follow then he should not expect the scouts he leads to follow the rules they are expected to follow.

 

It's just that simple. There is no good excuse for setting a bad example to the scouts as their leader.

 

 

"BW, I think you "stack the deck." I don't think any Scouter (or at least I hope none) feels they pick and choose rules to obey based on personal comfort, preference or convenience."

 

Actually what prompted this thread was a scouter who said they knowingly wore the uniform incorrectly for sentimental reasons. In other words they ignored the rule because it did not suit them personally to obey it.

 

"If someone came on the forum and called other Scouters lazy and self-centered, said they were duplicitous and could not be trusted, would that person be following the Scout law (a Scout is courteous)? If not, would that be a rule that could justifiably be ignored in these circumstances?

 

If a saw someone rob a bank and I called him a thief would I be discourteous? If a scout leader knowingly ignores rules but expects the scouts to follow them and I call that behavior duplicitous is that any different?

 

If someone ignores rules that are there for all to follow but they put themselves above the law and I call the behavior self-centered can you prove me wrong?

 

This is not the first time this topic was presented. Eamonn raised it a while back in the middle of another thread after a poster said he did not follow rules he did not like.

 

Many posters beat around the bush then too. Do not think that scouts do not see the scouters who say to do one thing but do another, do not thing others in and out of scouting do not see it also. It is even obvious to some of us on the forum.

 

-30-

[packsaddle 753]

"If someone ignores rules that are there for all to follow but they put themselves above the law and I call the behavior self-centered can you prove me wrong?"

I'm wondering, isn't ignoring "...rules that are there for all to follow...", you know, like, the same thing as putting oneself "...above the law"?

To call this self-centered is one's privilege but at least the person so described is consistent, ignoring the same rules that the they put themself above. (It does seem that one would have to pay at least a little attention to the rule in order to decide to be above it. Just a thought)

 

And proof? The null hypothesis would be that there is no difference between putting oneself above the law (aka ignoring it) and being self-centered. So far so good.

It would be incumbent on experimental evidence to indicate that the two characteristics are not the same. If such evidence was statistically significant it could be accepted as a rejection of the null. But even a highly-significant result would not amount to 'proof'. I'm not sure that 'proof' is possible even for the strongest evidence. We would simply reject the null until future evidence caused us to re-examine the original idea.

That is, unless a DEFINITION of 'self-centered' IS 'putting oneself above the law'. In which case proof in either direction is pointless as it is true by definition.

 

Edited part: Back in the '70s, I and a co-worker actually did see some men running out of a bank, money and guns in hand. My co-worker said, "Hey look, they're making a movie.." I'm thinking there's another term for his observation. My reaction was a little more accurate but Politeness Man didn't fracture my skull with his steel hanky. Probably should have though.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[SeattlePioneer 144]

In his last post, Bob White says he's not interested in punishing people who might be violating relatively trivial rules.

 

He asks instead how people violating those rules can justify that behavior.

 

 

That's a question I'm not usually especially interested in answering in such situations. I might ask a person violating such a rule why they are doing it, and if they realize they are violating a rule. But I would avoid debating WHY they are violating it beyond that kind of casual inquiry.

 

Why? Because arguing, debating, cross examining and criticizing behavior aren't very nice ways of dealing with such issues, and not very likely to gain compliance, either. Indeed, Bob White's rather pedantic tone that he takes repeatedly in these forums grates on people, who often perceive it to be unfriendly and discourteous. I trust that I make my point by illustrating that pedantic behavior can often be perceived as being unfriendly.

 

 

 

So rather than asking people to justify and explain their behavior, why not ask the best ways to INFLUENCE such behavior.

 

I'll suggest several ways:

 

1) in the case of the socks or uniform, conducting a uniform inspection weekly that includes the adults (or perhaps just for adults) might be a useful way of encouraging people to conform to Scout norms.

 

2. One or more Scoutmaster minutes on the importance of proper uniforming might influence adults as well as Scouts.

 

3. Including proper uniforming as an agenda item at Troop Committee meetings

 

4. Frankly, issues like socks and minor departures from uniform standards probably aren't important and not noticed in many troops. If it's not an issue and not important for some reason, very likely it can be safely ignored without harming the Scout program.

 

5. But such issues COULD be important. Some Troops have high standards for uniforming which adults need to respect. Or departure from uniform standards could be pointed out by Scouts as reasons why they should be able to ignore rules. If conditions like these threatened to damage the Scout program, then placing demands on adults to conform would be justified, including not renewing a Scouter's position in the Troop.

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

 

[Bob White 20]

I never saw so many try so hard to NOT answer a question before. I think we have seen every possible avoidance device employed now so there is little reason to continue this thread. I set out only seeking to learn the logic used by leaders who allow themselves different behavior than they accept from the scouts they "lead".

 

What I learned was far more interesting. It's time now to move to another topic.

 

 

[Hunt 11]

"If a saw someone rob a bank and I called him a thief would I be discourteous? If a scout leader knowingly ignores rules but expects the scouts to follow them and I call that behavior duplicitous is that any different?"

 

Well, yes, it is different. To call such a person "duplicitous" is a discourteous insult. If you said "hypocritical" it would be a little better. "A bit hypocritical" would be better yet, and would better fit the sort of things we're talking about. Personally, I think it's wrong to label people as "duplicitous" if you're referring to trivial matters like detail of uniforming.

 

 

 

 

[Eamonn 61]

If we prescribe to the idea that some wrongs are more wrong than others, which of these is the bigger wrong:

1/ Cruising down the PA Turnpike with the cruise control at at 65 MPH, when the speed limit drops back down to 55 MPH. Driver for some reason doesn't notice.

2/ Driver knows that the top speed on the Turnpike is 65 MPH, but sets cruise control at 70 MPH anyway.

3/ Driver has a car full of Boy Scouts and they see him set the cruise at 70 MPH and when they ask him why he does that he says, "I'm a good driver and always set the cruise above the posted speed limit"

Eamonn.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Well, Mr. Bob White---

 

 

I have rarely seen a person get so many answers to his question and still claim that no one has bothered to reply.

 

While you describe yourself as a long time, experienced Scouter, I frankly hope you don't treat boys and Scouters you deal with in the same condescending and pedantic manner that you display on these boards very commonly.

 

While there is an argument for using such Socratic methods in a classroom environment in a search for the truth, those methods can be a way to express hostile and angry feelings that are far from the friendly and courteous methods recommended by Scouting.

 

From your first post on this thread to the last one, you have displayed that kind of angry and condescending attitude, and now manage to have me down in the mud too. It's a good illustration of why that kind of approach is a poor one to use in Scouting.

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

[acco40 95]

Why are Scout Leaders willing to pick-and-choose what rules they will follow based solely on their personal comfort or convenience.

 

Why you may ask? I'll answer with the same response that is given to the question, "Why does a dog lick his *****? Answer: Because they can.

 

Now I'm not say the majority or large minority of Scouters do this but for those who do, my rather blunt, sarcastic answer does hold some truth.

[Kudu 186]

The BSA Uniform is the perfect metaphor for this discussion, because it is an example of an emotional issue which, in common with the larger issues confronting the BSA, will never be settled with logic.

 

The Uniform has an advantage over the 3-G issues because it is not based on religion. However, I suspect that how we perceive the BSA Uniform on a visceral level probably reflects our religion more than most people realize.

 

The only time I ever got blisters on my feet in my adult life was the one day I wore Scout socks to summer camp, so from that day forward I simply refused to wear them.

 

When I first took Scoutmaster's Fundamentals, the SM called a surprise uniform inspection. I got the best grade, but failed getting a perfect score because I wasn't wearing Scout socks.

 

My solution was to wear Scout socks to the next session, in accordance with the uniform policy. Since the policy does not specify that Scout socks are to be worn on our feet, I simply tied them around my ankles, securing them with a respectful square knot.

 

To answer Bob White's question: if a Scout ever called me on this issue, I would quote to him what Baden-Powell referred to as the unwritten 11th Scout Law: "A Scout is not a fool."

 

Scouters are "weapons dealers" when we feel that it is our duty to use Scout Law against our Scouts as a "weapon." Our justification for trying to making them look like fools by forcing them to wear impractical and ugly Scout pants is often based on "loyalty" and "obedience," but B-P's 11th Scout Law trumps this common BSA abuse of Scout Law.

 

It is fun to watch you Scouters agonize over logic and ethics, or make a virtue out of necessity, while ignoring the obvious larger issue (no freedom to go to a competing Scouting association, as in the UK--where Scouting was invented).

 

While we must conform to the Guide to Safe Scouting, for instance, there is no REAL moral virtue in following bad rules like the GtSS rule against lazar tag. Baden-Powell wrote plenty of games that involved "killing" your opponent. Given a choice, most of my Scouts would, in a heartbeat, leave for a BSA competitor that allowed lazar tag. This IS Scouting, after all.

 

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The reason that Scouters need to conform to bad rules in order to set an "example" for our Scouts is that the BSA, in common with communism, does not benefit from the self-correcting forces of freedom in the marketplace :-/

 

Thus the topic, "Scouters as Communist Weapons Dealer," although a tad over the top, gets to the very essence of the question that Bob White is asking!

 

Oh, and speaking of Bob White, I am new to this forum, but I notice that you do not stick to your own topic. Do you ignore the topic "Scouters as Communist Weapons Dealer" because it does not suit you personally to observe it? :-/