Jump to content
SCOUTER-Terry

Decorum And Acting Scoutlike

Recommended Posts

I agree with Packsaddle. I believe the moderators have acted fairly. I also believe that Terry is trying to set a new tone for the forum. That doesn't mean the new BSA policy (if there is one) cannot be discussed. But it does mean that posts and pictures that attempt to paint an entire group of people as being terrible and dangerous people are no longer going to be permitted. I think that as rational people, we don't need to go to that extent to discuss the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as he only says certain things or doesn't say certain things. 

 

As has always been the case for all of us. The rules of decorum have always existed but perhaps were not very clear and perhaps not applied as stringently as they needed to be applied. As was made clear to me by Bob White a long, long time ago when I was out of line, a person is not welcome to write or post anything they want. They are welcome to write or post what they want within limits. And in response to recent posts, Terry just made the limits clearer for all of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not close to a good editor, so I'm speaking only from your last two paragraphs. The rest of your post went into left field and spoke of your life or something. Oh I understand, I'm getting old and my responses are getting long and rambly as well..

 

For the record, my comment that I feel unwelcome here has nothing to do with anything that happen to me personally. It's more of a tone I've notice by all the moderators the few last weeks. The mods seem to be making a more concerted effort to bring the difficult discussions to a conclusion instead of letting the die on their own merits. There is some threatening as well and suggestions of moving on. That in my view is not the job of the moderators. Terry's comments I felt supported that tone..

 

I've known you Pack for over 15 years, so I know the difference in your personal opinions and your moderating and I felt you did a pretty good of keeping the two separate until lately. I have many times accused your of thinking you are the smartest person inthe room, or discussion. Your magnanimous defense of yourself supports my reasoning and the why I struggle to feel sorry the reprocussions of your positions. You knew exactly what you were doing. My opinion of your moderating lately is that you are so emotionally invested to the subjects of some of the discussions lately that you can't tell the difference between the progress of a discussion from or an endless plodding. Being fair requires an univested pragmatic unbiased approach. You are being hit from all sides because you aren't being fair and you intrude with the wrong reasons at the wrong time.

 

I believe the reason Terry and all the moderators are loosing patience with the discussions lately is because they thought the debate was over when the BSA made the membership policy change. As Pack, Terry (and others) keeps pointing out, we won, you lost, move on. But, that doesn't mean the debate was over, as new members came in and fueled new discussions with old arguments, many of us weren't going to be talked down and insulted. The reasons for opposition to gays are still the same. To many many of us those who believe they are the winners, as pack implies, are still wrong and more youth will suffer than will gain from the change.

 

I don't think things will change until we all feel we are in this together. I don't get that feeling from you pack, the other moderators or Terry that you want that unless it is on your terms. that's why several of the post that stand up for the moderators and Terry feel the need to say they agree with the gay decision. I keep asking myself, why do they feel the need to say that. Can't you see it's devisive?

 

So maybe Terry is right, maybe the only solution to this situation is not allow the discussion. Scouter.com would not be the first forum to remove the politics and religious discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has always been the case for all of us. The rules of decorum have always existed but perhaps were not very clear and perhaps not applied as stringently as they needed to be applied. As was made clear to me by Bob White a long, long time ago when I was out of line, a person is not welcome to write or post anything they want. They are welcome to write or post what they want within limits. And in response to recent posts, Terry just made the limits clearer for all of us.

You're being intellectually dishonest.  What does "harm" mean, it doesn't mean anything.  It means a certain type of user is free to spout off about "conservative Christians" (of which I'm not one) and their bigotry—painting, as NJ put it, an entire group of people (and the largest sponsors of the organization) with one stroke—or to pooh-pooh groping, or to accuse their opponents of being gay, while the other is villified for their equally contentious views.

The idea of "harm" as the test for whether the moderators are to shut people up is designed not to create a guideline for debate, but to stop all debate.  Is it "harmful" to point out these facts: Gay men use meth at a rate 20 times the general population, gay men contract HIV/AIDS at a rate 14 times their share of the population, a study of San Francisco gay men found that 20% had more than 1000 sexual partners, that the suicide rate for post-op transexuals is the same as pre-op transexuals. 

 

Can there even be a real space left for religious opposition?  After all, isn't it harmful to note that as far as homosexuals, the Torrah says "their blood is upon them"?

 

The off-the-cuff addition to Terry's restrictions that discussion of the issue must not discuss homosexuals as a group is also nothing more than a barrier to discusion at all.  If we are to discuss whether left-handed Arabian midgets should be allowed to be Scout leaders, then we cannot discus that issue based on John the left-handed Arabian midget, it must be done on terms of left-handed Arabian midgets as a group.  Just as the plural of anecdote is not "data," the opposite is true.

 

No debate can be had on the already-occuring results of this debate.  There can be no debate about why Scouts shouldn't be at a gay pride parade, or why gay scouts should be separated from the sex of their attraction just as men and women are separated, etc. 

 

There is no aspect of this debate that speech-controlling leftists do not find "harmful" to homosexuals, because to discuss the negative aspects of homosexuality or the morality of homosexuality is to insult you and homosexuals.  And that proscription is by design, don't patronize us and pretend otherwise.

Edited by Scouter99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Packsaddle. I believe the moderators have acted fairly. I also believe that Terry is trying to set a new tone for the forum. That doesn't mean the new BSA policy (if there is one) cannot be discussed. But it does mean that posts and pictures that attempt to paint an entire group of people as being terrible and dangerous people are no longer going to be permitted. I think that as rational people, we don't need to go to that extent to discuss the subject.

Is that really fair? Tell me what group deserves that kind of discussion, especially with the youth? I have been frustrated many times with the way youth are discussed here when their behavior isn't considered appropriate. Ok, maybe there can be some allowance for bully's and discipline problem scouts, but what about young Eagles or scouts who don't camp much. I could go on, but you understand what I'm saying. I can't believe what adults here will say about these youth. Dangerous Maybe, but certainly terrible. Why must specials rules be set for special groups when it should apply to everyone equally.

 

And, what about discussion of gay adults? How can one be discussed without referring to the other? Lots of slippery slopes that would not be needed if the forum were held to higher standard for everyone.

 

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion.    We just finished watching "Twelve Angry Men " on TCM.    Bigotry versus facts vs perception vs experience vs democracy vs need to punish vs need for fairness vs  real life vs  expectation vs personal desire vs need for revenge vs  integrity vs compassion.

 

I don't remember any mention of religion, but "you know how those people are" was mentioned several times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope I don't become the "kumbaya guy" but it was too hot outside for a bike ride and I'd rather do this than deal with the 3 parents pissed off at me because their children (one of whom decided to poop in the woods at summer camp) are too perfect for my crude methods. An entire patrol went off the rails and I required all the parents and the scouts to join me in a discussion about the Scout Law. This seemed like an opportunity for the boys to learn more about the ideals of scouting. A number of parents didn't like that approach.

 

So here we are, trying to live up to the same ideals. Maybe we also have an opportunity. One way to describe character is what you do when nobody is looking. Maybe another is how you treat people you disagree with. We have lots of opportunity for that one! Friendly, courteous, and kind are a lot easier when I make the effort to find the good in others. Now, before anyone says "yes, but what they are doing is really wrong," it's time to focus on the whole person. We're all trying to do right by our sons so there's good in all of us.

 

So, in defense of Barry: Pack, I have to agree that you have made comments that have surprised me regarding the membership issue. It's obvious it's very important to you. Also, to everyone, we do hammer on a lot of scouts and phrases like paper eagles are not fair to the scout as they're following the adults' rules.

 

In defense of Pack: I've seen the fire-and-brimstone-you're-all-going-to-hell-if-you-don't-accept-Jesus sermons at camporees. I bite my tongue and walk away until I calm down and go back to talk to someone, which is a waste of time. A lot of Christians don't even like it. That's not to say that you can't find the equivalent from rabbis. We do, after all, have a lot more years experience at this. ;)

 

In defense of the moderators: There's a lot of emotion pouring out on these pages and I doubt if many people expected things to change so quickly. The emotion is fanning the flames. It might be best if people would write their response, walk away for a while, and then edit out the emotion. Based on the membership subject and what National has done, it makes sense that most of the anger is coming from one side of this argument and so it might look like the moderators are one sided. The moderation doesn't seem too far off to me. And lets face it, this forum is better moderated than any other we know so it can't possibly be easy.

 

In defense of those bringing up potential problems with allowing gay scouts and adults: Gays are different and I have no doubt there will be problems. Something is different. It might be genetic, environment, or both. I also know kids with Asperger's have problems as well, as did I with reading as a kid. There was a thread about confident kids that ended up with addictions. So the potential for problems in our troops is there. None of us know how bad the problems will be. So I don't see a problem talking about it. I also suspect National will ignore all of this because, well, they're National and they ignore most everything.

 

In defense of Christians: On average the religiously active (nearly all are Christian) in my troop are easier to work with and I appreciate their sense of helping out. They tend to be more humble than others and differences are solved quickly. Maybe I'm lucky but in my town the religiously active do a lot of helping of the homeless and needy and no shouting. I'm not saying it's for everyone or that everyone that's religious is wonderful, but it works great for a lot of people. I welcome them in my troop. My guess is we're all pretty much in agreement but I can appreciate that other troops will have big problems with a change.

 

Finally, in defense of the BSA: I was at a scout's Eagle project today and my neighbor, who goes to the same church where the project was, came up to me and said he'd like to get his son into scouting. He was really impressed with how the boys acted and thought scouts would be good for his son. I didn't have the heart to tell him one of those boys was the PL for the patrol that ran off the rails at summer camp.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said.  For those that want to leave, I hope you can reconcile in your hearts why we are all here.  We appreciate and the boys appreciate what you do for them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Haven't been here long. I have agreed to be a den leader again for my son's Bear Den. Won't be coming back to Scouting as of next May. We graduate the boys in May. The National Politics have reached a tipping point

for me. I will use my time, money and energy somewhere else.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure we can. Some of us just need more space than others. Sometimes it needs to be completely different space. :confused:

Edited by packsaddle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... The idea of "harm" as the test for whether the moderators are to shut people up is designed not to create a guideline for debate, but to stop all debate.  Is it "harmful" to point out these facts: Gay men use meth at a rate 20 times the general population, gay men contract HIV/AIDS at a rate 14 times their share of the population, a study of San Francisco gay men found that 20% had more than 1000 sexual partners, that the suicide rate for post-op transexuals is the same as pre-op transexuals. 

 

Can there even be a real space left for religious opposition?  After all, isn't it harmful to note that as far as homosexuals, the Torrah says "their blood is upon them"?

 

The off-the-cuff addition to Terry's restrictions that discussion of the issue must not discuss homosexuals as a group is also nothing more than a barrier to discusion at all. ...

 

I believe this is a good example of what Terry wants to moderate.  This kind of post uses improper debating techniques because it uses the fallacy of stereotyping.  Stereotyping is the generalization that some people of a group have a characteristic so all members of that group have that characteristic.

 

Since it is not valid in a debate, it must be assumed that statistics are meant to denigrate the group which, I agree with Terry, is very un-scoutlike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your a mod you can push people around, threaten to ban them and then close the thread. That's scout like?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your a mod you can push people around, threaten to ban them and then close the thread. That's scout like?

I closed the thread. I didn't threaten anybody. I posted my reasoning for such.

Share this post


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

×