Pornography

[Lisabob 13]

In this particular instance, I don't think there are very many parents or charter organization leaders or scout leaders - or scouts - who would even attempt to argue that possessing pornographic material at a scouting function is anything like appropriate behavior. No need to twist and contort things in such ridiculous ways. Imagine having this discussion at a committee meeting or a PLC. Anybody who attempted to make the argument you are making here would either be laughed out of the room or met with stunned silence.

 

 

 

[BrentAllen 10]

xlpanel,

You are correct. We should all just give up.

 

(to fish by pulling a lure slowly behind a boat)

[Kudu 186]

Teaching our youth to make moral and ethical decisions is our mission. How we go about teaching our youth may vary, but that is the mission of the BSA - not teaching how to camp.

 

The Congressional Charter, the ultimate legal authority on this matter, is very clear that the true "mission" of the BSA includes training in Scoutcraft (how to camp):

 

Sec. 30902. Purposes

 

The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

 

[evmori 11]

What if the kid who brought the porn has a standard that approves of it?

 

Then that standard is breaking the law the same as the youth.

[xlpanel 10]

Who says the law is right? If I remember correctly, slavery used to be legal.

 

Also, if people didn't break laws durin apartheid in South Africa apartheid would still exist.

 

How about the city ordinance somewhere in Texas that does not allow people to go barefoot on sidewalks without a 5 dollar permit?

 

In Lefors, Texas it is illegal to take more than three swallows of beer at any time while standing.

 

Possibly that under-18 possession law, my a morality standard different than yours, gives those in possession the same feeling of incredulity that you feel when you read the law about three sips of beer.

 

You ask, according to your standard, Why do we need a law like that? I can take as many sips as I want.

 

They say, according to their standard, Why do we need a law like that? Not looking at it does not deny the truth.

 

 

Finally, banning printed materials is silly and questionable. Some schools have tried to ban Fahrenheit 451, which is a book about banning books. So we ban the book about banning books. Real smart. Just because you don't appreciate or like the content doesn't mean that you have the right or responsibility to tell others that they cant appreciate or like the content.

[evmori 11]

You can't compare laws regarding porn to laws regarding slavery or apartheid. And bringing up old laws that are still on the books is, well, just looking for a way to justify your argument.

 

Do you really think Scout age kids should be allowed to see and or own hard core porn?

[BrentAllen 10]

To respond to Kudu:

 

Charter and Bylaws

Boy Scouts of America

 

Article X. Program

Program Objectives

 

Section 1. The program shall be one designed to achieve objectives in character development, citizenship training and mental and physical fitness.

 

In all activities, emphasis shall be placed upon practice in daily life of the principles of the Tiger Cub Promise, the Cub Scout Promise, the Scout Oath or Promise, and the Venturing Code. In association with suitable adult leadership, members registered in Scouting will be guided to develop traits of character which are expressed in self-reliance, consideration of and help to others, personal courage, and above all in lives of useful citizenship.

 

The Congressional Charter authorized the BSA to adopt and amend bylaws and regulations, which the above is from.

 

BTW, we are still using methods in place in 1915. We camp in tents, hike, backpack, and canoe.

[xlpanel 10]

You identified another point about different standards of morality when you called it an old law.

 

You think: Well, thats a stupid law. There is no harm in taking more than three sips of beer without sitting down. I don't hurt anybody. This law is only made to discriminate against people who like beer and to make them feel guilty about drinking it. I hate this law so much, I am going to go to that town, and drink a whole can just standing up taking tiny sips.

 

They think: Well, thats a stupid law. There is no harm in viewing porn when they are under 18. It doesn't hurt anybody. This law is only made to discriminate against those who like porn and to make them feel guilty about viewing it. I hate this law so much, I am going to read my magazines in plin sight of the police station.

 

 

Of course, then the moral righteousness will try to debunk the second example by saying, "Yes, but we have all this proof that when kids view porn they get a slanted view of the real world. What they see is not actuality."

 

 

The same works on the first example. The moral healthiness will debunk it by saying, "Yes, but we have all this proof that drinking beer without moving around is bad for you. In fact, without repeatedly using your leg muscles, your blood achohol concentration increases 33% faster."

 

 

In reality, you can do any study that will prove anything. Just the words that you use to write the results matter.

 

If you write: Children who view pornography will have severe self-esteem issues plus an unrealistic view of life and unhealthy beliefs

 

it sounds much worse than

 

If you wrote: Teens who see nude pictures will notice they aren't as beautiful as the actors and that will cause them to think they can't be porn stars.

 

But they both say the same thing.

 

 

 

 

Now, we will address the references to slavery/apartheid. Yes, I am sure their are many other things on a smaller scale that I could have referenced to. But, what is the probability that you would have heard of them before. Mentioning them would either

a) Have gotten you to argue something you knew nothing about

b) prompted you to do an hour's worth of research.

 

So instead of that, I mention somethign that everyone has heard of before.

 

 

 

Finally, my thoughts.

 

I wouldn't like kids under 13 to look at porn, but I wouldn't punish them or make their parents drive 500 miles to pick them up. I would ask the younger kids to please do it on their own time. I wouldn't tell their parents. I wouldn't take it from them. Just ask them to use discretion so those who didn't want to see it wouldn't.

 

Kids older than 14 I wouldn't care at all. If Good Morning America is to believed (which it isn't) they have already done much worse.

 

Now, we address the issue that always comes up --- the kids showing each other the porn. Well, I wouldn't care if they showed each other, as long as the kids consent. This means that if a kid is following another kid around shoving porn right under his nose every chance he got, I would punish him --- But not for having porn --- for showing it off. But if the kids in the troop find out that Jimmy is looking at porn in his tent I have no problem if 3 or 4 that want to see it also go to look. I doubt they are going to have a group jo session. Those who don't want to see won't go.

 

I seriously doubt that a kid that voluntarily goes to Jimmy's tent to view the porn is going to go home and tell his mommy that "Somehow, I can't explain how, I was involuntarily made to voluntarily move to view the porn. I was seriously traumitized by it, but did not think of leaving, so I had to sit their and look for two hours."

 

 

Also, most of the porn the boys show to each other is not hard core. If jimmy had a 10 minute hard core video that he watched in etirety he would be probably labeled as a freak by the other boys. Boys only show porn to each other in groups for the shock value.

 

Jimmy: Hey dudes, come watch this its really hot!!

Johnny and James: Ok, cool

(The video starts and it is, in actuality, 2girls1cup)

Johny and James: Ewww!

Jimmy: Lol, shocked ya haha!

 

 

It is forgotten after that with no ill effects. Many guys do this to their friends. Most of the porn your scouts show to each other will be for the shock value.

 

 

 

At the end of this whole argument is the root of protection of self governance. Why should party a get to tell me what is immoral and what I can't do. What gives them the authority? You should always protect others' rights to their own views and morals, and not try to enforce yours on them. You are not the morality police, or a self appointed censor.

 

The below demonstrates that point.

 

When they banned hunting due to 'cruelty to animals',

I remained silent;

I was not a hunter.

 

When they locked up those who viewed porn,

I remained silent;

I was not a pornophile.

 

When they came for the homosexuals,

I did not speak out;

I was not a homosexual.

 

When they came for the Muslims,

I remained silent;

I wasn't a Muslim.

 

When they came for the scoutmasters

there was no one left to speak out, so they took me too.

 

 

 

At the end I have one more standard of morality differnce to show:

 

Well, If I went up to a guy on the street and told him I had my cat and dog for breakfast, the SPCA would be at my door in no time. If I told the same guy I had steak for dinner last night, he would say good for me.

 

In India, If I told a guy on the street I had steak for dinner, a lynching mob would be at my door in no time. If I told the same guy I had my dog and my cat for breakfast, he would say good for me.

 

Different moral standards, eh?

[Kudu 186]

BrentAllen writes:

 

The Congressional Charter authorized the BSA to adopt and amend bylaws and regulations, which the above is from.

 

Yes, but Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 states:

 

"These Bylaws shall be consistent with the Charter. The

Rules and Regulations shall be consistent with the Charter and the

Bylaws. In the event of any conflicts or inconsistencies, the Charter

shall govern primarily and the Bylaws secondarily."

 

In other words, no matter how badly the BSA millionaires want to move the BSA away from camping and towards soccer and "making ethical choices," by law the BSA's "mission" is supposed to include camping using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

 

There is an opportunity there for ambitious alternative "old-school" Scouting associations which (like the GSUSA) are perfectly willing to offer niche Scouting practices that the BSA no longer finds profitable.

 

BrentAllen writes:

 

BTW, we are still using methods in place in 1915. We camp in tents, hike, backpack, and canoe.

 

And use the Patrol Method at summer camp. I admire your program. Nice canoe shot on your Website too.

 

Kudu

 

[xlpanel 10]

BrentAllen, your calling me a troll is very immature and not at all warranted.

 

I am sure trolls do not make worthwhile philosophical posts.

 

Trolls start threads such as "What are trolls? Do I need to look under the bridge between my router and cable modem?"

 

and

 

"Who should I vote for for class valedictorian"

(http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArPc_OfmA4Q2nzb_E0dhJa967hR.;_ylv=3?qid=20090604125019AAzfg5m)

 

"Is it safe for my boyfriend to pinch me"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Av1xN4oMULIwj3W_H7EU5B567hR.;_ylv=3?qid=20090604124352AA5HIgf

 

"My Electric toothbrush is covered in poop"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak3SLKFqMdB26GpJavAoepF67hR.;_ylv=3?qid=20090604071627AAlWxgX

 

 

 

Instead, my posts are arguing philosophical points about what is moral. Who gets to decide what is moral? Is their a true standard?

 

This whole morality argument comes right off of a high-school debate class in which the semester-long topic was: Resolved:Sancuary Cities are Morally Justified. Bottom line on this topic was that that the cities did not have to just be justified - but they had to be justified morally. As there is no way to determine what is truly moral (as in everyone's standard is different) I won all my negative rounds as the affirmative could not answer what determines if something is moral. Sure they could spew off defns, but they could not argue against the logic that everyone has different standards. Thus they couldn't morally justify it, as they did not know what was even moral.

 

 

 

I feel that the only reason that you called me a troll is that you have no arguments to offer to rebut my assertion that there are different standards of morality and none of them can be disqualified as to do so you would have to be a morality czar, and who put you in charge?

 

So, stop with the juvenile name calling, and think up some real arguments.

 

 

[BrentAllen 10]

xlpanel,

Sorry, but I don't have much time for silly philosophical debates, or trolls. I am a Christian so my morals come from the Bible. The Bible does not change based on majority rule. Our Troop is chartered by our Baptist church, so even though we have Hindus, Jews, Catholics and others as members, the moral standards are those of the church. Anyone who doesn't agree with those morals is welcome to go join another Troop. I am the Scoutmaster. Who put me in charge? Our Senior Pastor and our Chartered Organization Representative.

 

As for 13 or 14 year olds showing other Scouts porn and you not doing anything about it, I suggest you check into laws concerning contributing to the delinquency of a minor. They are serious. Even without those laws, if I were to do as you suggest, no one in our community would allow their son to join our Troop. Allow that happen to once, and the Troop will soon die. Word about such incidents travels like wildfire, and has no mercy.

 

I remember being in High School and thinking I knew everything. Then I went to Georgia Tech and found out how naive I was. I graduated and thought I knew everything. Then I entered the real world with a job and found out how naive I was. I made a few bucks in a decent job, got married, and thought I knew everything. Then I became a father and found out how naive I was. Now I have a teenager and a younger daughter, and have a few years in as a Scoutmaster, and I see that I have actually learned a few lessons in my 46 years. High School philosophy classes are fun - enjoy them while you can. Just don't expect the real world to mirror them.

[xlpanel 10]

There is a misunderstanding about what I said about philosophy class. The class did not try to teach me that there was no true morale. However, with brief introductions to different philosophers Kant, Marks, Rawles, Mills etc you see many different viewpoints. Which one is right? No one is completely right.

 

And for the part about classes being different in the real world -- definately. Look at Marks. Socialism/Communism IN THEORY is the best of all, and everone will be better off. The standard of living will be 25x higher than we have in U.S. Today. However, that is not the case. Everyone does no follow it. Thus Communism/Socialism falls apart. Difference in school/theory and real world/life is recognized.

 

And you say that xxxxxx put you in charge of your troop. That is true. But lets look at a bigger picture. Who put you in charge of determing what is moral?

 

In reference to your saying you get your morality from the bible, that is a big no-no.

 

Do you really want to claim thats what you base your everyday decisons and morals off of?

 

Lets go to my original argument about the majority rule. Or might of numbers makes right.

 

Lets look at the #1 Commandment:

 

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me

First, ask why is this? Well, God brought them out of egypt so he wants them to only worship him, sounds good right? What happens if the guy says no? Well, the answer is simple, god will smite him. That sounds pretty much like might makes right, or majority rule. Maybe the bible supports me instead of you here?

 

#6

 

6. Thou shall not kill.

 

Ever gone deer hunting? Poisoned ants? Mouse trap? Weed Poison? You can't do that. Of course, you will say that he only meant humans and he actually meant murder. Should have written that, shouldn't he?

 

 

Now, some hyopthetical examples:

 

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. I know Exodus states that I need the whole village to help, but with everyone's busy lifestyle they don't have time to help. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself then?

 

Exodus 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. Would you suggest for me to buy a Mexicant or a Canadican?

 

It is morally wrong to eat shellfish according to Leviticus 11:10. Does that mean 'shellfish' exactly, or any fish that has a shell?

 

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. How would I go about fighting the ban on slavery in the U.S?

[BrentAllen 10]

xlpanel,

Let me ask you a few questions, since I have answered yours. Are you in Scouting? What age? What religion?

 

FYI, Christians follow the New Testament. Another FYI, thou shall not kill applies to humans. It would have been pretty hard to make the sacrifices God required if you couldn't kill an animal.

[Lisabob 13]

Please. Marx. Not Marks.

 

Debate club is a great activity. I encourage you to keep it up. You probably already know that some colleges have great forensics programs and there are scholarships tied to this activity too. Philosophy is fascinating too. And you're certainly right that there is often no absolute definition of anything. By the way, if you haven't read it, you might like the book _Sophie's World_. It is a great introduction to the history of western philosophy, wrapped up in a story. Written by a Norwegian philosophy professor.

 

Regardless of how many debates you win though, most parents I know will not be impressed with your logic. There's a huge difference between purely abstract thought and practical application. (As a matter of fact if you've been reading Marx, you probably know about the challenge of praxis)

 

When it comes to deciding what they want their child exposed to, and who they trust to make good judgments about their child's welfare, and who they want to put forward as good role models for their child, most parents look at things differently than you are currently doing. They look for people who seem to share a common moral understanding, whose judgment and common sense they feel they can trust. Allowing minors to view - or worse, disseminate - such material without taking any action to the contrary, is not going to be viewed by very many parents as evidence of good judgment and trustworthiness.

 

I gather you are a high school student. I think it is probably fair to say that your views on this issue are rather different because you (presumably) have the luxury of taking a purely abstract view. Parents have a much more immediate and tangible interest at stake. If you don't think so, you might want to try asking your parents, and the parents of the younger kids in your neighborhood how THEY would feel about this matter, and listen carefully to what they say. Of course you'll want to be careful how you approach the neighbors, since any suggestion (even if incorrect) that you might be showing THEIR kids this stuff could cause you a world of hurt or at the very least, an unfriendly visit from the local police.

 

 

 

[xlpanel 10]

In Scouting: Yes ASM

Age: 37

Religion: Christian

 

However, I do not believe that the bible is absolute. So many contradictions in the new testament.

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

 

I would consider the most important thing religion teaches me is to respect others views. Not to ostracize people. To not denegrade groups of people. I have learned, through it, to respect others' views and morality.

 

For example, vegetarians refuse to eat meat. Many people, when going out to eat with a vegetarian will take an extra 30 mins to find a 'friendly' restaurant. Why won't people go out of their way to make a 15 year old who admits to looking at porn not feel humiliated? Especially when there are probably more 15 year olds who have looked at porn in the past week than there are total vegetarians in the world.

 

While on the subject of vegetarians we can reference to CPS. Some people feel that kids raised as vegetarians are not recieving the right nutrients. This means they think CPS needs to come in to take the kids and feed them meat. Is it morally right to take a kid just because his parents don't feed him meat?

 

You have to take everything with a grain of salt. This includes underage possession. What's so bad about it? Ok, a kid can see porn 4 years before he is legally able to. When you look at the millions and millions of years the world has existed, is 4 really a big deal?

 

I take the lack or rebuttal to commandment #1 to mean a dropped argument.

 

 

Finally, another anecdote to sum up the post

 

Johnny just joined troop 123. He is a weird kid. From a strange religion no one has ever heard of. His religion states he can only shower on Sunday. This means during the week of summer camp, he cannot shower. He drives the other scouts insane with his horrible smell. But you, as a scoutmaster, must defend him, and his rights. You tell them that Johnny's beliefs, his morals, are different than theirs and he must respect them. If George tells his parents about Johnny not showering and George's parents complain to the scoutmaster, is the scoutmaster going to kick Johnny out? No, he will tell George's parents to respect other cultures and religions.

 

Henry just joined troop 987. He is a normal kid. From a mainstream religion. However, he is very liberal and open-minded, and not afraid to speak his mind. During summer camp, he brings some open-minded literature (pro pot) and some porn magazines. He doesn't drive the other boys insane at all. Those who want to listen do, and those who don't don't. Aren't you, as a scoutmaster, also obligated to defend his right to his beliefs, even if you don't agree? Now James tells his parents about Henry having pro pot literature and porn. James' parents complain to the scoutmaster, is the scoutmaster right to kick Henry out? No, he should tell James' parents that just because they do not agree with Henry's viewpoints and standards does not mean he needs to be kicked out. The scoutmaster should tell James' parents they should respect Henry's views. After all it James' parents don't want him to listen to what Henry says, they should just tell him that whatever henry says is a lie and to stay away from him. Those interested in what Henry says are free to come and see him, his pro pot, and his porn.

 

 

And lets not get started in on banning literature or ideas. It has been illustrated time and time again that the more you ban something, the more kids want to watch it.

 

As soon as 2girls1cup became legally obscene in the U.S., I know for a fact that the viewing of this video, in my school, went up from probably 2 or 3 students a class, to 17 or 18 in a class (class size of 20).

 

Now, you are probably saying Aha! in his school this shows that I am not 37. In actuality, I am the debate coach/philosphy teacher.

 

And what am I going to do about my freshman class watching 2girls1cup? Lecture them about it? How would that go - "What did you do in class today, Jimmy?" --- "Oh, Mr. B lectured us on his thoughts about a new legally obscene porn video." Well, actually that has been done before. A teacher I know lectured her freshman class on the real meaning of douche-bag and how it is used, as they kept call each other that. Of course, if we expected kids to complain about something to their parents, this would be in that category. No one told their parents. Possibly the same thing with porn? Maybe the kids are more open about accepting others' views than you think. I did nothing, and it was the best course of action. Of course, I could have followed the law and turned them in for under-18 viewing, and had my whole class fined $150 each or so. Smart?

 

Then to another banning causing viewing. We reference Harry Potter 5, The Quibbler and Umbridge.

 

She bans the magazine, as its view differs from hers. Well, the magazine had record sales and everyone in the whole school read it. Readership before? 1 Students in Hogwarts. Readership after? Every single student and all the teachers.

 

Banning Smart? Same with porn? Tell the kids "Johnny has nasty stuff on his phone. Never look at it." What do they all do "Hey Johnny, SM says that you have cool nasty stuff on your phone. We wouldn't have known it was there unless SM told us, but please show us!

 

(This message has been edited by xlpanel)(This message has been edited by xlpanel)