Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Oak Tree

What would have to change if gays were allowed in?

Recommended Posts

This thread has turned into one about the posters rather than the topic.

 

In Australian politics there's an old saying. (Not sure if it's common in the US.) It's about what you do with dissident party members.....

 

"It's better to have your opponent inside the tent with you, p|ssing out, than outside the tent, p|ssing in."

 

A good discussion can handle all sorts of opinions. Someone who only wants contributions from people who already agree with him is ultimately likely to get his spirits (and other bits) dampened. I think we would all like to see Scouting continue to succeed. Let's share the tent nicely.

 

And GaHB, there's a difference between lying and misunderstanding. The latter is guaranteed with long posts on the Internet. (As you have already acknowledged.) I've already apologised for doing that, and hereby apologise for all future incidences.

 

There, do reckon that covers me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HiLo wrote "And GaHB, there's a difference between lying and misunderstanding. The latter is guaranteed with long posts on the Internet. (As you have already acknowledged.) I've already apologised for doing that, and hereby apologise for all future incidences."

 

I do recall a sort of acknowledgment, but nothing that I read as an apology. However, you have clearly done so now, and I do accept that.

 

So, we're good, now.

 

BUT . . . my point wasn't about you; it was about the REACTION to the exchange between you and me.

 

My point was that many or even most posters here -- echoing patterns I've seen among Scouters locally -- care more about 'making nice' than being honest, and thus were more offended by my calling you on what you did, than on what you did. Their reaction precisely mirrored the pattern I've seen in dealing with serious transgressions by older Scouts.

 

And, ironically, that same pattern is a major reason why I don't trust Scouters to keep Scouts safe in the presence of potential predators, whether they are homosexual as we've discussed here, or heterosexual as is apparently the case in schools in South Africa (I linked a study on that topic earlier).

 

Many Scouters want to 'make nice' more than they want to be brave or trustworthy or clean. And, confronting evil behavior by Scouts or Scouters often can't be done 'nicely'. So, to allow them to 'stay nice' they just stick their head in the sand and "just believe".

 

Just so I'm clear: I can't recall any statements that would make me think that you behave this way, Hilo.

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of honesty, GaHillBilly, what you said earlier:

 

But, Merlyn, my problem with you has been, almost from the start, your dishonesty.

 

Then post something I have written, and state why you think I'm being dishonest. If you don't, I'll consider you a liar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But, Merlyn, my problem with you has been, almost from the start, your dishonesty."

 

I acknowledge that that statement has problems; it implies that I have known from the beginning that you were here dishonestly. However as you know, I have only recently discovered that for a certainty.

 

I tried to rewrite the statement, but I haven't been able to find a succinct way to state what I meant, so instead I'll give you a list:

 

 

+ Not all dishonesty consists of telling overt lies. I have not accused you of lying in that manner.

 

+ The earliest perception I can recall, regarding your dishonesty, was that you were insincere in your discussion. What I noted was that you never (or almost never?) acknowledged error or correction, even when your arguments were totally blown out of the water. This is the mark of someone who's not discussing sincerely, but is religiously committed to their opinion, no matter what the evidence.

 

+ A later perception was your behavior that I've described as acting like a toothless pitbull: even when you had nothing cogent or relevant to say, you would continue to argue against positions you disliked.

 

+ Another feature of your dishonesty is your almost immediate resort to ad hominem arguments. You often don't have particularly strong rational arguments for your positions, and when you don't, you switch to attacking the person instead. You are not the only who behaves this way here, but as best I can recall, you are far and away the worst.

 

 

All of these behaviors constitute dishonesty, though not overt lying.

 

I confess, until I discovered that you were actually Brian Westley of "Scouting for All", and are an anti-Scouting activist, I found your behavior puzzling. I couldn't figure out why you were here. Of course, now the answer is obvious: you are just an activist who wants to punish Scouting for excluding gays and atheists.

 

Ironically, it appears that you don't couldn't care less whether Scouting is seriously damaged or destroyed. That explains why you've never seemed to respond to arguments that doing this or that thing (which you want) will seriously damage Scouting as an organization.

 

For you, destroying Scouting altogether seems to be just as good as forcing it to accept gays and atheists.

 

 

 

But, to return to your original point, my earlier statement, especially in the context of prior discussion, could be taken to have implied that I was accusing you of outright lies. Though I wouldn't personally trust you with my wallet, I did not mean to even imply that you have lied outright here, so to the extent that I did so, I both withdraw that statement, and apologize.

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OldGreyEagle

I want to be sure I understand, as SOmetimes I get quite the exercise jumping to conclusions.

 

GaHillBilly, are you saying, based on your experience, that most scouters would rather allow scouts to be sexually abused rather than turn in a suspected child abuser?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GaHillBilly writes:

The earliest perception I can recall, regarding your dishonesty, was that you were insincere in your discussion. What I noted was that you never (or almost never?) acknowledged error or correction, your arguments were totally blown out of the water.

 

So, you've gone from one vague accusation to another -- when, specifically, have my arguments been "blown out of the water"?

 

This is the mark of someone who's not discussing sincerely, but is religiously committed to their opinion, no matter what the evidence.

 

Tell me, what's your opinion of human evolution over the last 2 million years or so?

 

even when you had nothing cogent or relevant to say, you would continue to argue against positions you disliked.

 

That isn't dishonest. I'll agree I can be argumentative, but that's got nothing to do with being dishonest.

 

Another feature of your dishonesty is your almost immediate resort to ad hominem arguments.

 

And AGAIN, here's another vague, unsubstantiated statement that I've made ad hominem arguments. Quote, specifically, where I've made ad hominem arguments.

 

All of these behaviors constitute dishonesty, though not overt lying.

 

Sorry, you still haven't provided any SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of my dishonesty; you've CLAIMED that I've made dishonest statements, but you still have NOT QUOTED ANY SPECIFIC STATEMENTS I'VE MADE THAT ARE DISHONEST.

 

So, until you do so, I'll consider you a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merlyn (AKA Brian of "Scouting for All"), I've answered you which is more than you deserve. Given that you are just an anti-Scouting activist, I have no reason to reply to you further.

 

 

 

OGE asked;

"GaHillBilly, are you saying, based on your experience, that most scouters would rather allow scouts to be sexually abused rather than turn in a suspected child abuser?"

 

No. I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but rather than try to go back, I'll state as precisely what I can, here.

 

1. On several topics including this one, I've tried to avoid "most" in favor of "many". I only have experience with Scouters here, and locally. That's enough to say "many", but not to establish "most", as in a majority nationally. If I said "most", I probably should have said "many".

 

2. I suspect the number of Scouters who'd CONSCIOUSLY overlook sexual abuse is limited to actual abusers, and is both a small number and a small percentage.

 

3. However, I think MANY Scouters have a 'hear no evil', 'see no evil', 'say no evil' approach to MANY topics, including bogus advancement and bullying. I have actually SEEN this happen locally in multiple circumstances, sufficiently to justify the statement that "MANY, and probably "MOST", local Scouters tend to overlook both dishonesty and bullying.

 

4. I SUSPECT, but cannot prove, that this Sergeant Schultz-like "I see nothink!" approach to bullying, etc. WILL result in Scouters ALSO not watching closely on those infrequent occasions when bullying goes all the way to sexual abuse. I believe that this is a reasonable conclusion, given the evidence.

 

5. Before my discovery that Merlyn was actually a non-Scouting pro-gay pro-atheist activist, his unwillingness to recognize that ANY negative results might follow led me to give thought to how people with such commitments will deal with sexual problems involving gay Scouts.

 

I do think that there are some other trolls or ringers here besides Merlyn, but I also am sure that there are some actual Scouters who are pro-gay or pro-atheist.

 

In general, people are reluctant to admit that ideas they support may lead to problems. I've seen this repeatedly, and most clearly, in public education fads. Teachers, and especially administrative types, have a massive allergy toward any statements that acknowledge the down side of new educational approaches. Some of these changes are probably good ideas, but almost all changes have some negative effects.

 

I'm not picking on education; I could have given examples from the evangelical community, but didn't because the details would be too arcane. However, this is a HUMAN tendency that AFAIK affects everyone.

 

I have no idea what you do, but many people have seen this pattern in their work place: those who fought for a new idea, often are later found fighting to conceal the problems or damages that resulted. This is often the case, even when the 'new idea' was basically a good one.

 

Consequently, I consider it very likely that pro-gay Scouters will have an even stronger tendency to overlook bullying behavior, including bullying sexual abuse, than do other Scouters.

 

Given that "MANY" Scouters already tend to overlook bullying, I find this frightening. You may disagree, but I believe that a SINGLE episode of sexual abuse is FAR more damaging than a SINGLE occasion of being beaten up by a bully.

 

 

6. I can't imagine any kind of study that could settle this question absolutely. Perhaps something is possible. Vol_Scouter might know. But, short of that, the discussion of risk to Scouts has to proceed, on BOTH sides, without proof and instead must rest only on reasonable plausibilities.

 

 

I hope that's clear. I'm not sure I can do better.

 

 

GaHillBilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GAHB and vol,

I determined long ago that discussing Scouting with Merlyn is the equivalent of casting pearls before swine. He probably counts as a victory taking any time you spend arguing with him, instead of using that time for the benefit of Scouting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would simply encourage everybody to study the phenomenon of homosexuality for himself or herself, and draw his or her own conclusions, rather than rely on the stereotypes and depictions offered in contemporary media portrayals.

 

The facts are there. Do your own work and study this. You might be surprised at the conclusions you draw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GaHillBilly writes:

Merlyn (AKA Brian of "Scouting for All"), I've answered you which is more than you deserve.

 

You've answered, but you've repeatedly failed to post actual examples of anything I've written that's dishonest. All you've done is accuse me of dishonesty, but you can't seem to be bothered to scrape up even one example of something I've actually written that's dishonest; all that's left are your baseless accusations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GaH, Vol, and others. It is hard, but rather than responding to our favorite gadfly, or whatever he is, just ignore him. If it happens enough,perhaps he will go away. Or, maybe he will resort to disagreeing with himself, and calling himself names. Give it a try. It certainly feels less frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GAHillBilly Stated:

 

"Consequently, I consider it very likely that pro-gay Scouters will have an even stronger tendency to overlook bullying behavior, including bullying sexual abuse, than do other Scouters. "

 

Interesting (and Insulting) Hypothesis. I will reply.

 

The worst bullying I see is from He Man Macho Scouts and Scouters. Adults who think that boys will be boys, and look the other way. Those are the same Scouters who wave the flag of bigotry and homophobia in their anti-gay statements. If there is anyone ignoring bullying, I hypothesize based on my observations that it is those same individuals who are also the most likely to be anti-gay. To turn your statement around, anti-gay = pro-bully.

 

Given your bullying through the threatening of "outing" poster's identities on this board, I have another data point right here in this thread of an anti-gay attitude being held by a visible bully. Interesting, since internet bullying is now a required discussion point for advancement. How do you square your internet based bullying threats with the new Handbook requirements?

 

I have asked for BORs for bullying in my Troop, and I have gone with my SPL to visit the SPL and SM at other Troops at Summer Camp when bullying has occurred (both by and to my Scouts). So I am either an outlier (possible, since we have no way of collecting the data), or I am anecdotal evidence against your insulting hypothesis.

 

You also appear to claim that those of us who would like the BSA to follow its definition of Reverence (which require respecting the religion of others) are looking the other way regarding possible sexual molestation risks. I disagree. In the cases I am familiar with in Scouting, molestation has come from married adult male Scouters - not single men. It is the closeted molesters who appear to be the problem we face. I do not think that there will be a significant, measurable increase in molestation risk if the BSA allows Charter Organizations to determine if being gay is allowed in their chartered Unit. The reason for my belief is my experience with Sea Scouting in the UK, where I have not heard of any rampant issues. HiLo also mentions Australia, where this does not appear to be an issue either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Horizon, well said.

 

My experience is also that the people who ignore bullying are the same people who are anti-gay. Especially when the nature of the bullying is to make fun of boys who are not "manly" enough, or the bullying includes slurs involving sexual orientation.

 

So pro-gay folks are going to ignore the possibility of sexual abuse as well? I think not. My personal and professional experience with sexual predators makes me acutely aware of such things. And yet, I still don't have a problem with my gay friends and relatives spending time alone with my sons. Whodathunkit?

 

Horizon, not engaging in Internet bullying must be one of those "aspiration goals", for which we are not supposed to hold people accountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...