Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Is it really moving the line if BSA determines that the application of the 'rule' results in the apparent outcome? If BSA gets to decide where the line 'is', does their decision constitute 'moving' it?

 

In the case of the graduate student, the statute of limitation had not run out so he was well within his right to complete the degree. All he needed was the information that it was possible for him to do it. You would have denied that info. Is that moving the line? Really?...if the line was some time still in the future?

In the case of the graduate student, I could argue that denying that info constitutes "moving the line" to the date at which time the student came to his misconception.

 

Where does it end? That's speculative. You won't know the answer to that question until the "end" happens, whatever it is. You  don't know what that outcome will be. Ignorance is a poor basis for a decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lack of accountability is a poor reason to make a decision too. Look where that's gotten society lately. Everyone is a victim. No thanks.

I hardly think that a 65-year-old man receiving an award he EARNED is contributing to any problems we have in our society.

 

Plus, this is not a new or unique thing. There have been stories like this occasionally for years. There have been men in their 70's and 80's who have received their Eagle as well. Every one has their own reasons why the paperwork got detoured decades earlier - but as far as I know, every single one of them completed the requirements before the age limit. If National thinks the reasons are good enough, I don't really have a problem with it.

 

Let's also remember that there hasn't always been a strict cutoff for advancement at age 18. I believe that until sometime in the 1950's, adult leaders could continue to earn merit badges and even earn Eagle. My father, who became a Scout at age 12 in the late 30's, told me he earned a couple of merit badges as a young ASM in the mid/late 40's, though he did not advance beyond the Star rank he earned as a youth. So the current age cutoff is not some immutable characteristic of Scouting that was handed down from the mountain by Baden-Powell and Seton and Beard and has continued unchanged to the present day. The age cutoff is a choice and is subject to change when appropriate, and the rules on exactly what you have to do before your 18th birthday are merely details.

Edited by NJCubScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad Wolf, you are the person who is advocating: 1) that a good scout would not provide assistance to either of these persons and 2) that the 'harm' is that a 'line' has been moved (presumably the benefit of denying assistance is that the 'line' is not moved). If we are to accept your arguments, it is fair for us to understand where the line should be if we are to avoid moving it. And because you are its advocate, it is incumbent on you to identify what that line is and how the rest of us can objectively identify where it should be in order not to move it. So far you have provided no such information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@@packsaddle I've answered your question. You don't like the answer. Oh well.

 

The guy had THREE YEARS to fix his problem. He didn't. I think 50 years after the fact is a bit too foregiving.

 

I'm done on this issue. You may not like my answer but I have given an answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, I like that you have made an attempt to answer my question. But you responded first with a restatement of your position and then a vague justification that is unclear. I am asking for clarity. Anyone else want to give Bad Wolf some help with this?

His position is that a good scout should not give assistance to the old scout in the OP, nor to the graduate student in my real-life example. Bad Wolf's justification is that helping either of these persons constitutes moving a line but he is unable to articulate where the line should be.

In the case of the graduate student, I submit that even the 'line' of the statute of limitation had not been crossed, much less moved, so in that case it is unclear how Bad Wolf's justification of 'line movement' applies. Perhaps someone could help with that one as well.

Edited by packsaddle
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, I like that you have made an attempt to answer my question. But you responded first with a restatement of your position and then a vague justification that is unclear. I am asking for clarity. Anyone else want to give Bad Wolf some help with this?

His position is that a good scout should not give assistance to the old scout in the OP, nor to the graduate student in my real-life example. Bad Wolf's justification is that helping either of these persons constitutes moving a line but he is unable to articulate where the line should be.

In the case of the graduate student, I submit that even the 'line' of the statute of limitation had not been crossed, much less moved, so in that case it is unclear how Bad Wolf's justification of 'line movement' applies. Perhaps someone could help with that one as well.

 

  I don't think Bad Wolf is all that wrong. In neither of the situations did they do anything to help themselves. Guess it takes me back to what I learned in Sunday school "God helps those that help themselves"  Now as a scout would I assist them in getting what info or what not they needed?  Sure but assist. not do what I feel they should have at least started or looked into themselves to start with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see that point. The two persons in these cases didn't exactly cover themselves with glory in either case, although were those mistakes really all that big, really? Who among us has not made any mistakes in life? Have any of us ever had the benefit of undeserved help for a mistake we made?

For the late Eagle, I see the least benefit for providing the help, mostly because of the person's age. The whole thing seemed symbolic really. To me the potential real benefit is that which a good scout would derive from providing assistance and remaining faithful to the points of the law which are NOT conditional or dependent on the situation. 'Helpful' is helpful. If someone made a really poor choice, that was their mistake and while I might be disappointed that they made the mistake, if I, as a good scout, turn my back on that person to whom I could provide assistance, I'm not sure I am living up to the point of 'Helpful' and possibly 'Kind'. I am fairly certain that to condemn someone in that situation and deny them assistance as a result is not 'Kind'. Especially when there is little or no personal cost to me as a result. I see Bad Wolf's point about meeting deadlines and being responsible. I'm not sure I see it in the stark, unforgiving terms he seems to express.

 

As for the graduate student, I only gave enough detail to make the analogy. If anyone had asked I would have informed them that the shock of the loss of his advisor caused him to have a lapse in judgment. He discussed this later when the clarity of all the factors had sunk in. He experienced such a strong feeling of hopelessness that he gave up. It only took a few encouraging words to rekindle his interest and desire to complete the degree which was of great benefit to him, his family, and to his current employer. Once he felt that he wasn't 'orphaned' he took control. As I mentioned, the statute of limitations had not expired so there was no problem with some 'line' being moved. I also add that the person who spotted him and took the little effort it took to encourage him derived great benefit from seeing this person rise to a better life as a result.

 

The two facts that [first] the graduate student met immediate condemnation here, and [second] without any followup questions of clarification, is troubling, even more so that this might be the expected response from a good scout. Is it possible that the reaction of condemnation closed the door to the desire to help? Once a position like that is taken, it is difficult to 'unset' those heels. Perhaps the judgment against this student was made in the spirit of the golden rule...I hope not.

Edited by packsaddle
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned this (the ability of adult Scouters to advance and make Eagle) earlier in this thread, but I thought this ended sometime in the 50's. My father earned a couple of merit badges as an Assistant Scoutmaster, in the late 40's, but did not advance in rank as an adult.

 

Added note: I like the picture, though. I remember those shirts, and my father had one of those ties but didn't wear it very often.

 

Added added note: Aha! I knew I saw it somewhere: http://www.troop97.net/bsaeagle.htm. That page says the age limit of 18 was set in 1952, not 1965. That doesn't necessarily mean it's correct, but it doesn't mean the scoutingwire page is correct, either. 1952 seems more likely though.

Edited by NJCubScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...