Nick Gillespie in WSJ: What I Learned in The Boys Scouts of America and Why They Should Change Their Policy Toward Gays.
I've got a piece in today's Wall Street Journal about the upcoming vote by The Boy Scouts of America about revising its policy toward homosexual members and leaders.
Here's the opening:
The Boy Scouts of America are in the news again, for the only thing they ever seem to be in the news for anymore: their attitudes toward homosexuals.
Next week, the Scouts will hold a vote that's widely expected to end the blanket ban on gays joining as members or holding adult leadership. By most accounts, the century-old organization will probably let individual chartering groups—many of which are churches—decide whether homosexuals can join and help run their troops.
Before I get to whether that's a good idea, let me share some of the lessons I learned while working toward the rank of Eagle Scout which I earned in 1980. Many were trivial, others profound. Most have stayed with me.
I learned how to show up on time, or better yet, 10 minutes early. I learned how to dress carefully and distinctly, how to roll and secure my troop's signature pale blue neckerchief in exactly the prescribed manner, how to shine my shoes and how to cinch my belt so that the metal-clad tips met "brass on brass." I learned that wearing a uniform didn't mean you all had to think the same way….
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Bring on the homophobes disguising themselves in rhetoric to pretend they aren’t homophobes!
When will you cosmatarians realize that the existence of darkies, Messicans and queers in our society is destroying the culture that made America great? You people really are just willfully blind, and when our great society is overrun with the spawn of unwed mothers, and they all vote Democrat, we’ll just see how pro-gay you are then!
God damn gay Mexican welfare queen border hopping scum! Do your donkey shows on your side of this line that restricts freedom of movement which should make aghast anyone who actually believes in liberty!
Speaking of gay Mexican welfare queens, where the fuck is John today?
Wow, Epi is wise to the whistle words. No homophobe, xenophobe, or femophobe is safe from the blinding power of his glibness.
Hey Tulpy-Poo, does using the word “glib” give you wood? I’m guessing yes. How attracted to me right now are you? Be honest!
You’re glib, Matt.
Episiarch thinks his odious name calling is actually debating. It’s just like the person that calls others racist has lost the argument.
Calling people homophobes means you have already lost the argument
Non-stop KULTUR BONERS.
Freedom of religion was something our forefathers fought and died for and enshrined in our Constitution. Some of the worst enemies of the freedom of religion are the homosexuals. Have a bakery? You must make same sex “wedding” cakes. Have an inn? You can’t exclude homosexuals. Freedom of religion is not something that you do in the secret hideaways. Freedom of religion means freedom to practice openly and publicly. The government and homosexuals try to say there is a difference between public life and private worship. There is not.
I understand Nick’s reasoning, but it’s a shame his kids didn’t get those lessons.
Maybe Nick was able to teach his kids those lessons, just not within the framework of the BSA? I was never in the Scouts, but my dad took me camping, fishing, taught me how to use hand tools, also to be ethical, moral, prompt, thrifty, etc.
My dad kept me out of the boy scouts because he didn’t want me to learn how to stand at attention or shine my shoes for authority figures. I still appreciate it.
I was in the cub scouts, briefly. I fucking hated it. Study? Fuck you. Stand at attention? Fuck you. Follow some sort of code made up by someone other than myself? Fuck you.
I always thought the girls in Brownies were creepy. They would wear their uniforms to school on the day they had their meeting and had these little chants they would use on people who would, say, put their elbows on the table at lunch or something. But little girls would find a way to be creepy mini-collectivists no matter what.
You’re such a misogynist.
Aren’t all women:)
To be fair though who here asn’t a misanthropist.
Someone, maybe, but it isn’t me.
A misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate each other.- H.L.Mencken
spurious?
“Take your elbows off the table
Sit up close as you are able
Put your knees down
Sit up straight
Eat everything that’s on your plate”
I wasn’t in the BSA; it was another organization. It was like Boy Scouts, but you had to sing songs about Jesus around the campfire–and it was co-ed.
You want to take me out into the woods with some chicks and some light supervision?
I spent half my time tryin’ to figure out how to get chicks into the woods, anyways. Thank you for answering my prayers, Jesus Christ!
I desire: macaroni pictures.
Indian Guides?
I think they have gotten rid of most of the authority shit by now, for the better and for their participation numbers. Standing at attention and shining shoes probably died ages ago, now they wear various combinations of the “official” uniform with sneakers, jeans, t-shirts, hoodies, and fitted caps.
Cub Scouts was awful. They put 20 grade schoolers in a room and expect them to silently sit still for an hour while lecturing them about something boring a hell? They succeeded maybe twice, when they had some interesting guest.
*hands-on activity
Yes. I really have no idea what I was supposed to get out of that besides Webelos Camp.
I learned how to say “Webelos anyone for a dime.”
Heh. I didn’t last long in the Cub Scouts. One meeting was enough. I despised most of the other boys, mostly because they were idiots.
But then I went into the Boy Scouts, attained the rank of Eagle and nine palms beyond that (each palm represents five merit badges).
I agree with Nick. I can’t support the current BSA stance because it conflicts with the very principles the Boy Scouts claim to stand for. Some will say that gay, atheist and agnostic scouts should just shut up and they’ll be accepted – but this really conflicts with Boy Scout values, which include trustworthiness. More to the point, other scouts – exhibiting the Boy Scout value of kindness – should never expect others to deny an essential part of themselves and require them to live a lie just to be able to participate.
It is also worth remembering that many scout organizations around the world do not feel a need to discriminate against gays, atheists, or agnostics.
(There’s also a persistent rumor that many of the founders of Scouting were either gay or lesbian.)
You would perhaps be surprised to find that your failure to study does not come as a complete surprise to those of us unfortunate to read your writings.
Scouts is far more relaxed now, and probably better for it, but the camping skills could use an improvement.
Well, I was never into any of that shit as a kid. I would always rather sit in a corner by myself with a good book. Knowing I was gay and atheist at a pretty early age kind of soured me on the whole idea too. I did attend a sort of “day camp” one year – where the major lesson I learned what what monsters most of the other boys my age were. Nowadays I don’t care – let the Boy Scouts do what they want, so long as they are a private agency and are no longer some sort of national “rite of passage”.
“I understand Nick’s reasoning, but it’s a shame his kids didn’t get those lessons.”
I was thinking the same thing.
And Nick, what the hell were you doing walking around in the woods with a pound of ground beef in your pocket?
All I ever took with me was a slingshot and some salt and pepper. When I got older I would bring a gun, but you can get by without one.
I disagree. There’s a bigger lesson Nick was teaching his kids by keeping them out. And that is that we have the power to change society without government force. There are a lot of people out there who want the government to “do something” this issue. They want the government to force the scouts to change. But Nick is showing his kids that there is another way. I think that is a great lesson for any kid to learn.
Canoing and hiking is a lot more fun.
You can do that anyway. My family had a summer house, so we never really went to camp or anything (and I never wanted to anyway), But I spent my summers swimming, canoeing, sailing, repairing the house and docks, exploring the woods, starting fires (safely) and checking out paleo-Indian archaeological sites. I’m sure scouting can be a good experience, but there are other ways to learn and do the same things.
Not every family has a “summer house”.
Nick seems to think he learned a Hell of a lot of good and important things in Scouting. I hope he found a good alternative for his sons. Asking people not to make their sexuality their public identity in a youth group is leagues apart from discriminating on race.
SIV| 2.2.13 @ 6:32PM |#
“Not every family has a “summer house”.”
I’ll say!
Growing up, it was clear that paying for the “4-seasons house” wasn’t always easy for mom and pop.
It’s not a question of just not making a scene about one’s sexuality or lack of religious beliefs. Even scouts who have kept mostly quiet but were outed by others have been expelled from Scouting.
I think we can all agree that we don’t want to allow gay Boy Scouts the option of an all leather uniform that exposes their private parts, but that has never really been an issue.
More to the point, if the Scouts lived up to their own law they would never want to throw obstacles in the way for gay or nonreligious scouts.
You don’t know much about the scouts moral code do you?
No, and I didn’t mean to say it was necessary. It was just a reason why I ever did scouts or camp. And it’s not like we were rich (NTTAWWT) or something. It’s been in my family for 3 generations and it is what we do instead of taking other kind of vacations.
Agreed. Keeping your kids out of scouting because you disagree with the organization is overpoliticizing your life. It’s like boycotting Chick-Filet (for people who like rubber chicken served without sauce on spongey bread), refusing to use the public ROADZ. Do you also keep them out of LL because the pledge to “respect my country’s laws”?
“Keeping your kids out of scouting because you disagree with the organization is overpoliticizing your life.”
No more than boycotting Woolworth’s over their segregated lunch counters would have been.
Just because you believe segregation is wrong is no reason to drink exclusively out of the colored water fountain.
If I am not mistaken, wasn’t it a law that they had to segregate in the South? If I remember correctly, they didn’t kick out the kids who had their sit in. Nor did they serve them to get them out of there. They complied with the law and the absurdity is what awakened people.
That was the case in many places and for many institutions, but it was Woolworth’s policy on top of any other laws to segregate. They changed their policy company-wide in response to the Greensboro sit-ins.
I learned how to dress carefully and distinctly
Who says irony is dead?
Dude, don’t write shit about The Jacket. It reads these comments. Just saying.
Gulch forbid I ever disparage The Jacket. Look, see how The Jacket has mastered irony.
I think it’s a pretty common assumption on the left that the government should impose the left’s agenda on organizations like the BSA (and the Catholic Church, etc.), and in the face of that onslaught, I find myself rooting in my gut, sometimes, for the homophobes’ right to be as stupid as they want to be.
…but Nick’s right about homophobia being stupid. It really is stupid.
I find homophobia to be pretty much as stupid and arbitrary as racism. I think that the BSA should be allowed to exclude black people too, but I would also think that any decent people should not associate with them if they did.
I completely agree with you on this. BSA is a private organization so they get to set their own rules.
I agree that homophobia is dumb. You can’t catch the gay by associating with gays. In America, though, it is your god damn right to be stupid.
+1
” I learned how to dress carefully and distinctly…” Check?
None of this explains Warty.
Warty’s existence defies explanation.
Warty has been stabbed, shot, poisoned, frozen, hung, electrocuted, and burned.
And every morning he wakes up without a scratch on him, not a dent in the fender…Warty is an immortal.
How appropriate.
Warty is Ned Ryerson?
Pens just gave up a shitty shorthanded goal.
Warty is Captain Jack Harkeness? This is a turn.
Warty is Rasputin! Much becomes clear now.
Or, you know, they could just learn to stop being dicks about teh gheys and athiests. I stopped supporting them a long time ago for those reasons. My grandfather was involved in the BSA for over 50 years and lead one of the first integrated scout troops in NJ of all places. Three of his four sons (my uncles) were Eagle Scouts. I was an Eagle Scout. Fuck them for ignoring their own values when it comes to icky topics like homosexuals and those who too smart to fall for the sky-god bullshit.
Re: nipplemancer,
What for? So the gays and atheists don’t feel alone in the universe any more?
Nobody has a right to be accepted or to be liked, N. You can always pull a Baden-Powell and found your own scouting outfit for atheists, agnostics and those that dress too well for their own good.
You seem to be avoiding how any force is involved.
You’re right, no one has the right to be accepted or liked, including the BSA and their current policies. Their supporters have all the right in the world to withdraw that support in exchange for or in hopes of changing those policies.
Those who are against the BSA changing are exactly like those who fought my grandfather back in the 50s when he integrated his troop. The only thing I have to say is fuck you.
What is the New Jersey version of camping and fishing like?
Contrary to popular belief, NJ is not one giant urban/suburban hell-hole. Hell, I live on a mountain(or east coast version thereof) with a lake! The NW and SW of the state are totally rural. It’s the coast and the NE that are chock full of suck.
Trying to explain Jersey to people is a losing battle, dude. I wouldn’t even other.
“bother”
Bruce Springsteen is gay!
New Jersey rural is like “Chicagoland” rural, not Indiana, Wisconsin, or Kentucky rural. All of New Jersey is a day trip for New York or Philadelphia.
It’s more of a pointless battle, but I occasionally defend my home state even though I hate 90% of it. That 10% is really fucking great.
They don’t call it “The Garden State” for no reason.
You would so other. You’ve just othered people who don’t understand Jersey.
New Jersey is weird. Not Florida weird, but pretty weird nun-the-less.
… and those that dress too well for their own good.
I always picture Old Mex typing at an adobe computer wearing a serape and a sombrero. ‘Cause I’m a racist and shit.
“Si si, senor! Blockquote is Spanish for Blockquote!”
*fires gun into the air*
Arriba!
Ol’ Mexico is El Bloombergito?
I think they’re mostly worried about scoutmasters coming to be seen as something like the bad reps priests have in certain quarters after the scandals of recent years.
I don’t think they’re worried about openly gay men actually committing crimes as much as they’re worried about the scoutmaster becoming a pop culture icon for…someone who preys on children.
When the marketing risk of being seen as a homophobic organization gets worse than the marketing risk of letting openly gay men participate, they’ll change the policy.
It’s the same way baseball and private country clubs integrated–these decisions often seem to hinge on fears about marketing. “If we let in blacks and Jews, nobody will want to join our country club anymore!” turns into, “If we don’t let in blacks and Jews, nobody will want to join our country club anymore.”
So, it isn’t really about the BSA. It’s about how they perceive the prejudices of their potential members. And, unfortunately, their perception of their potential members parents has probably been accurate for far too long.
The whole pedophilia argument is lame. Like banning gay scoutmasters is going to stop a committed pedophile. Jerry Sandusky anyone? It’s just irrational fear. And yes I agree the Boy Scouts should have the right to discriminate and everyone else should have the right to condemn them for it.
South Park dealt with that very well. The flamboyant, out homo is no more likely to be a kiddie diddler than Mr, Manly Toughguy.
You know that South Park isn’t real, right?
It’s a real TV show.
ANd it’s true. Gay people are no more likely to be pedophiles than not gay people.
Horseshit.
“This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.”
True. As a business decision, the BSA may have made the right choice. Change in this case must follow the culture – which is one reason I think a policy allowing local councils and/or troops to decide for themselves is a good one from a business perspective. Some parents will refuse to allow their sons to participate if gays are allowed, some will refuse to allow their sons to participate if gays aren’t allowed – so the optimal solution is to have both gay-friendly and gay-unfriendly troops.
Yes, how dare an explicitly religious (although ecumenical in the broadest sense) organization not allow irreligious members!
Do you also storm into synagogues and screech at the rabbi when he won’t allow non-Jewish people to give a sermon?
You have to be a super nerd to be an Eagle Scout, right? This further supports the theory that Nick is merely a host-human for The Jacket. That thing moves on and all his wop, Fonz-style cool goes with it.
Because of its mind-altering powers, Nick doesn’t even realize that he’s wearing The Jacket. That’s why he thinks all our talk about The Jacket is some kind of absurdist joke.
The Jacket is his brain slug.
Ha. HA. HAHAHAHAHAHA!
No. Not in my troop anyway.
Now I’m a supernerd who got Eagle, but I’m a supernerd anyway.
They gave you a pound of ground beef for one night in the woods? Man, they coddle kids these days. Back in my day we had to catch our own squirrels with a snare if we wanted to eat.
Hint: A large mouse trap tied the to side of a tree and baited with peanut butter is cheap, easy to aquire and carry, and works pretty damned well.
It is still a good idea to learn how to make a snare.
You ever eat snake? Is it like alligator? Because I love alligator.
Rattlesnake is quite delicious. Other species not so much. I tried moccasin once, it tasted like I was sucking on a penny. Most other species stink so bad I never could bring myself to try.
The jowls and hind quarters of the alligator are the best cuts….good stuff.
See, you sound a lot more useful than some of these survivalist ads. Seeds? I don’t want seeds, motherfucker, I want some meat.
Doing anything awesome like riding 4-wheelers around the swamp and shooting alligators this weekend?
No seeds/plants in a survival diet? Enjoy your folate deficiency anemia.
Unless you’re eating the organ meats. Eat your liver.
I guess I would eventually eat some goddamned seeds, but it seems like trapping game would be the first priority. And would also be a lot more fun.
We are omnivores, after all. Emphasis on “omni.”
Hunting is fun when you’re well-fed and have calories to burn. Not so much otherwise. First priority should be water (duh!) and easy calories, i.e. gathering nuts, berries and insects.
Thank you, Survivorman.
Hey, these are the things you learn in Scouts!
And Survivorman rocks. Much better than Bear Grylls, in my opinion.
And Survivorman rocks.
That’s because he’s Canadian.
“…trapping game would be the first priority. And would also be a lot more fun.”
If you are ever in Louisiana and have some free time on your hands, let me know.
Vegetables are always a side. I’m not going to sacrifice fine dining just because it gets crazy out there.
Only the liver of certain animals, because you don’t want to get Vitamin A overdose. Nasty stuff.
Sadly no.
After this hunting season my wife informed me that I am too old to galavant around in the woods at night. She says I can hunt from the stand but no more trying to get myself killed.
I said “You are starting to sound like my Ex-wife”
She was surprised…” you were married before?”
I said “No.”
Nah, that is a joke. She is right. So I will only hunt from the stand in daylight from now on. Camping and fishing is still an option. I might run some yo-yos on the bayou tonight, but that is in my backyard. The perch are biting and the water is starting to go down.
I’m so stealing that joke:)
Hunting raccoons from a stand in the daytime must really suck.
Concur with Suthenboy. Rattlesnake is really good.
And I fully condone their killing at every opportunity. Hate those fucking things!
I see copperheads in my area all the time and have never seen a rattlesnake in wild ever. Should I stop leaving my copperheads to rot, or should I just keep doing what I do?
Got me. I’ve never heard of anyone eating them, but that’s not to say they don’t.
I see venomous snakes all the time (much of my work is outside). I never even think about killing them. I will always stop to shoo any snake, particularly rattlesnakes, out of the road so some yahoo won’t swerve and run it over.
I have seen so many snakes in one place that it changed my “feelings” about killing a few copperheads. Despite the “don’t mess with snakes, they can dart at you” advice, they are surprisingly easy to kill with a machete or something. Its like they’re retarded or blind. Anyway there’s worse animals to have around like rodents so I tend to leave snakes alone for that reason.
Just before Thanksgiving I was a bit South of where Suthenboy lives. There were so many cottonmouths over a 1.5 mile walk I was jumping out of the way of one and landing on or next to another.
I see them quite often but they usually get out of the way but many of these were “standing their ground” and showing their mouths. Finally I went out of my way to wade through a cypress swamp to avoid them, came up on a hardwood hammock and had a copperhead strike at me. I have snake chaps/leggings but I almost never wear them and I wasn’t that day. I had no cell service, was by myself and as far as 2+ miles from my truck (which I wasn’t 100% sure was going to be easily driven out of there).
That does not sound like fun.
Actually it kinda was fun. After I got out of there anyways.I was in Bayou Lacassine in SWLA.
Oh I love being out in woods but playing hopscotch with cottonmouths would not be my thing. We don’t have a lot of poisonous critters here in Ohio. Some in southern Ohio but definitely nothing to that extent.
I’m pretty glad to live in a place without a lot of poisonous critters. I’ve seen an Eastern Diamondback once, but I think that is the only thing I’ve run into that could easily kill you.
If you were somewhere where there were Eastern Diamondbacks you were in or near the habitat of the whole panoply of dangerous animals of the Southeastern US.
Timber rattlers are a different story. You can be in their range and never see one even if you try.
It must have been a timber rattler.
Kingsnakes and bullsnakes will also eat rattlers occasionally.
I live in the Mojave desert. I have seen my share of rattlers, particularly Mojave Green rattlers in my area. They are mean and aggressive snakes, and they are armed with both neurotoxins and hemotoxins. I just leave them alone.
Peanut butter is better than squirrel, so I’d just eat that.
There are two types of people in Boy Scouts. The ones who don’t want to be there, and the ones that survive.
I don’t get it.
Suthenboy| 2.2.13 @ 2:04PM |#
“Hint: A large mouse trap tied the to side of a tree and baited with peanut butter is cheap, easy to aquire and carry, and works pretty damned well.”
I grew up in the midwest; we learned early-on that you didn’t aim a gun in directions where housing was closer than a mile.
And the squirrels learned it too; a couple of ’em would hang out on the side of the tree where you couldn’t aim, let alone shoot.
I shoulda got some rat-traps and peanut butter just to spite those damn rodents.
Surviving in the woods overnight with a pound of ground beef. Wow! Makes you wonder what the hell the Donner Party’s problem was.
They didn’t grind up the human before cooking it.
I prefer cooking meat with the bone on. That’s were all the flavor is.
Yeah…that didn’t impress me much. You can go a couple of weeks without food if necessary, so a freaking pound of ground beef is WAY more than you need for an overnighter.
And now I’m getting a ton of survivalist banner ads, so that is kind of fun. Makes a nice change from mail order brides.
You get mail order brides?
All I get is T-shirt ads. Not that I’m complaining.
I remember we had a dating site ad thread inside another article, and suddenly: BOOM China-Love-Match.com and the like were all over the place.
And now I’ve got a dating site ad. Google is behind all of this, isn’t it?
I think they look at what you’ve been searching for and match it against a profile. What have you been searching for DK?
Francisco d Anconia| 2.2.13 @ 6:48PM |#
“I think they look at what you’ve been searching for and match it against a profile.”
Wife and I do most Xmas shopping on-line; I now get ads that she’d love and I don’t.
I got an AirTran and a Verizon ad. Go figure.
It’s funny because most of my family is women so after online shopping for Christmas for them I get all these pop up ads that are totally irrelevant to what I would normally be interested in.
I’m getting this lovely ad: http://i.imgur.com/GVuzrWd.png
Libertarians, live and let live right? What is this fascist bullshit. The Boy Scouts are a private organization. If they don’t want homosexuals in their ranks, that is their right! Just as homosexual organizations are free to only permit gays into their club. Why is Reason trying to force homosexuality on people who don’t want it? There is nothing libertarian about that.
What the fuck are you talking about? Nobody is forcing anything. There’s nothing anti-libertarian in exercising your right to free speech and press in saying “Stop being A-holes”.
Nobody is forcing anything.
STEVE SMITH RAPESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.
Re: Warren,
Their corporate sponsors are. As if they suddenly discovered that the BSA has a policy of not allowing homosexuals to be scout leaders.
Again, not force.
OldMexican| 2.2.13 @ 1:36PM |#
“Their corporate sponsors are.”
Uh, yes?
You ask for money and it comes with some strings. That’s “force”?
When my parents gave me money for downpayment, they, like, tried to tell me what kind of house I should buy! WAAAAH!
*I have actually heard people whine about this. Somehow I managed not to punch them.
Somehow I managed not to punch them.
The whiners or your parents? 😉
“Somehow I managed not to punch them.”
Next time, DON’T RESIST! Poke ’em one in the chops.
You ask for money and it comes with some strings. That’s “force”?
I should run that comment by my boss.
Still not force. No one has an obligation to give you a job. If you can convince someone to give you a job despite things they don’t like about you (professional or personal), then more power to you.
“No one has an obligation to give you a job.”
Except in NY now.
“I should run that comment by my boss.”
Tough. Quit and find a job where no one requires you to do anything you don’t like.
And get back to us when you find it.
/sarcasm
The internet has ruined sarcasm and parody.
Yes, but Sevo’s predictable, sanctimonious retorts makes it all worthwhile. I’d call him “Weekend John” if he weren’t here 24/7.
Yeah, just because you think they should be free to be stupid doesn’t mean you have to support stupidity.
In fact, it’s perfectly possible to be both against stupidity and in favor of the BSA being free to make its own choices.
They aren’t trying to force anything on anyone. He’s saying that the Boy Scouts SHOULD change their policy and is explaining why. He’s not saying anyone should force them.
Libertarianism doesn’t mean not criticizing people who do something wrong. It means not forcing them to behave the way you want through government dicta. I think the problem here is that you don’t understand what libertarianism is.
Oh sure, he understands, libertarianism!
Libertarianism is when you’re so extreme, that you take the position opposite of the people on the left–no matter how stupid that makes you look.
So, for instance, if people on the left want the BSA to stop acting like homophobes, then you have to start supporting homophobia–it’s your duty as a libertarian!
Hope this clears things up.
Well done, Ken.
Are they using the guns of the state to force them?? No? Oh, they’re just withholding charitable funds until they change their policy. How is that not libertarianism? It’s all voluntary.
It’s not libertarianism because, according to Captain Kirk, libertarianism means never criticizing anyone for anything.
To be fair, given our proto-fascist business environment, it’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference between corporate sponsors’ decisions made freely and corporate sponsors’ decisions intended to please the government.
Yep.
And you can show this is the case here HOW? Where is the hand of government in this? Oh right, nowhere in sight. The gov challenges to their policy all burned out, thankfully.
So what are you saying? Should these companies be forced to continue supporting the Boy Scouts even if they don’t want to be associated with its policies? Even if there is some government pressure on teh companies to stop supporting BSA (which I really don’t see at all), there is far more social pressure that involves no coercion at all. Being seen as anti-gay is not good for business these days.
Well, I don’t know if there really is a solution (other than getting the govt’s paws off as much of the economy as possible). Just saying that the knee jerk reaction of IT’S A PRIVATE COMPANY, NOT THE GOVERNMENT! whenever someone questions something like this is getting less and less justifiable.
And there doesn’t have to be evidence of the government pressuring companies for there to be influence there. There’s no evidence that Coca Cola was pressured to donate loads of money to BO’s inauguration fiesta but you’d have to be the naivest naif to walk the earth to think it wasn’t intended to curry favor.
Saying it’s a private company when it’s a PRIVATE COMPANY isn’t a knee-jerk reaction. If you can’t point out to us how the government is “making” these companies drop their support, there isn’t a reason to believe that’s the cause. On the other hand, you seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to changing social attitudes and the effect it has on private relations.
At the risk of piling on…
If my local private country club doesn’t allow blacks, that’s their right. It is also my right to call them racist pigs.
That doesn’t mean I’m FORCING them to do anything.
Whoa there F d A, we BOTH know it’s our duty to assume they were pressured into it by the government and thus oppose the change. All the REAL libertarians here told me so!
Some of them probably were, but assuming they hadn’t been, what Frisco describes above would have probably occurred.
What I learned in the Boy Scouts: Ex-marine sergeants may not be suitable as troop leaders in a volunteer organization.
Atheists still left out in the cold. It would be nice if they could tweak their understanding of “God” to emulate the Masons’ apparent interpretation of “higher power.”
“It would be nice if they could tweak their understanding of “God” to emulate the Masons’ apparent interpretation of “higher power.””
Not to this atheist. Ain’t no “higher power”.
What is power? Higher than what or whom? The laws of physics seem pretty powerful to me, and their operation is certainly above my paygrade even if (as I believe) there’s no intelligent mover behind them. You might open your mind just a tad.
When I had to do the religious evaluation for Eagle, I pull the Deist card. It’s pretty convenient to have around, and actually can be used in conjunction with rational agnosticism when dealing with atheists.
Being agnostic got me thrown out of the Scouts.
Note that I said use the agnostic side around atheists…
It definitely depends on the troop and how vocal you are about it. I kept it quiet and my troop was far from puritanical.
They kept asking and I was an honest 12 year old.
Different troops, I guess. Plus I was still pretty religious, if unorthodox, until I was 15 or so.
My troop never had enough kids that they would willingly try to make one leave.
Being quiet kept me in the Scouts. It was sort like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. They never asked (and I don’t think they’re supposed to) and I never told.
You’d think the pig squeals coming from you and your buddy’s tent would be a dead giveaway.
Ooh, projection. I guess you had some of “those” adult leaders. It explains everything!
Isn’t there a religious belief that the Universe itself is God? Pantheism, right? When I mentioned the idea (sans terminology) in high school, some people told me it was a cop-out. Really, it depends on whether a person believes it or not (not sure if I do; I certainly don’t identify as religious).
That’s kind of my approach. No God in the strict sense, but the universe itself, “an immaculate order,” if you will.
I’d love for there to be a god, heaven and eternal life. Just extremely hard to make it work in my brain. When there’s some scientific proof, hell, even a rational theory…we’ll talk.
Not quite full atheist though. I like your idea of the universe itself. Physics, nature…whatever.
Francisco d Anconia| 2.2.13 @ 6:58PM |#
“Not quite full atheist though. I like your idea of the universe itself. Physics, nature…whatever.”
You bleeve there’s a god? You’re a bleever. Hard seeing that as a ‘partial’ atheist.
Where did I say I was a bleever?
Wanting something to be true and believing it true are NOT the same.
Don’t feel too bad. I once suggested that militant atheist cunts acting like militant cunts might be giving broader atheism a PR problem and was magically transformed in the mind of Sevo into a “bleefer greefer”
Xenocles| 2.2.13 @ 1:55PM |#
“The laws of physics seem pretty powerful to me, and their operation is certainly above my paygrade even if (as I believe) there’s no intelligent mover behind them.”
Thank you, Mr. Pedantic!
You sounded as though you needed an explanation.
Not to this atheist. Ain’t no “higher power”.
Um, there’s me. :-p
Yeah, well, I forgot about YOU…
Who gives a shit? For people supposedly above the “religiosity” of “stupid people”, you certainly demand the same recognition as a religion. You supposed atheists are some of the most insecure, selfish people on this blue marble of ours.
Yeah, I’m so selfish for wanting to be able to give back as a volunteer in a youth organization that I benefited greatly from as a child. Go fist yourself.
Projection: it’s not just for TEAM BLUE, it’s also for TEAM BUTTHURT RELIGIOUS DIPSHITS.
Asking participation in a 30 second prayer doesn’t count as “discriminatory” in most sane, mentally secure people’s minds. I dont understand your bitching when youre not supposed to have an opinion on if prayer is “offensive”, since you dont believe in a God in the first place. Basically 30 seconds of one person talking. If thats unbearable, try being a conservative or libertarian in public schools.
THE BUTTHURT IT BURNS
SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)| 2.2.13 @ 1:56PM |#
“Who gives a shit? For people supposedly above the “religiosity” of “stupid people”, you certainly demand the same recognition as a religion.”
You bet, you idiot!
I demand tax free-status of my income and residence. I demand you swear to the non-entity when you testify in court.
Stick it up your butt.
I was asked to leave (as in thrown out of) the Scouts for being an atheist not affirming the existence of God. I blame the rigid thinking of Mainline Protestants.Evangelicals understand the sharp difference between an agnostic heathen like me and those asshole Atheists. It helps to be able to quote scripture where appropriate.
I hope tReason runs an article next week about my right to march in the Pride parades. If you disagree, you’re a heterophobe.
Uh…you can march in any Pride parade you want, genius. Straight people do it all the time to show solidarity or just have fun. So, do you have an actual point or do you want to just whine some more?
Nope, still not whining. I dont boycott businesses owned by LGB….well maybe the “T”, people. I support freedom of association, which most cosmotarians dont, unless it conforms to their social leftism. Its called leaving people the fuck alone. The BSA shouldn’t change their entire policy to appease 2-3% of the population who still wont likely join.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You used “cosmotarian”, which means you are, well, a fucking butthurt douchebag. Go be butthurt somewhere else, douchebag. Your endless butthurt whining is unbelievably tedious.
DRINK!
KULTUR WAR!
Sweet, are we now applying my recently submitted “cosmotarian” rule?
The elders have spoken.
DRINK!
Freedom of association is not freedom from criticism.
Is this Tulpa trolling, or are you just gunning for the number two whiny bitch spot? “Social leftism”? Not giving any fucks about who other people fuck is now social leftism? Give me a break.
Don’t think it’s Tulpa. Tulpa (to my knowledge) doesn’t screw around with fake names, and frankly, he’s smarter and less of a douche than this.
What I really find amusing is that everyone who seems to like or agree with Tulpa’s “Law and Order Libertarian” stuff are almost to a one people like Patriot, Merkin, etc. That is, crypto-racists (never thought that term would accurately describe someone posting here, but….). It doesn’t bode well for his idea that the only people he gets defending it are some of the most horrible people that I’ve seen posting here.
What I really find amusing is that everyone who seems to like or agree with Tulpa’s “Law and Order Libertarian” stuff are… crypto-racists
Because same-sex attraction is totally a race.
Wasn’t talking about that. But you’d have to actually understand what I wrote to know that.
Or you’d have to articulate yourself with more nuance than 5 year old. I’ll be holding my breath.
Oh, you’re one of THOSE commentators. “Things aren’t going my way, need to bust out the insults. OH YEAH! Right on target. They’ll surely heed my sage wisdom now!”
The people who use (LAOL) in their names are mocking me (I’m assuming they’re variations on our old friend Mary).
I’ll accept responsibility for “American” when you accept responsibility for shrike and Tony who agree with you on this issue. Deal?
I don’t think Salty Sea Captain is mocking you. And I never said you had “responsibility” for anything other people say or believe. It just doesn’t bode well for your LAOL framework, is all. I think it might indicate a problem when a disproportionate amount of people buying into those ideas are pretty horrible people.
I’m glad that when confronted with someone with a similar ideology as mine, I don’t have to accuse them of satirizing me.
What a burden for the law and order crowd.
Why is it that people have such a hard time with the concept of force?
I support whatever the fuck I want. I do not force my beliefs upon others. It ain’t rocket surgery Captn’.
well maybe the “T”
Christ, what an asshole.
You need to understand, Salty’s trip to Pattaya scarred him for life.
You cannot unsee Pattaya beach. Been there in the Navy.
Have you been rejected? I wasn’t aware they were exclusive events.
Just like how the BSA isnt exclusive to only the most Christian boys. You can still be gay and/or atheist, just dont whine about the 30 second prayer for safety before a camping trip. Its not that fucking hard to understand.
Actually, you can’t. It’s not don’t ask don’t tell, it’s an actual ban. You’re out of your element here.
For kids, the current policy is more like DADT.
That conflicts with the Scout Law, as amplified in the Scout Handbook:
Interestingly, the official stance on gays and atheists could also could be interpreted to violate several other points:
Like that shit actually ever meant anything.
respects them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own.
He respects the beliefs of others.
This alone pretty much rules out most Atheists.
It also rules out most every religion, particularly the monotheisms which teach that those who share their particular dogmas deserve to be tortured eternally.
Not when I was thrown out/”asked to leave”.Fuck-em, I already learned canoing and orienteering skills I use to this very day.
He respects the beliefs of others.
Um, pretty sure that means the religious beliefs of others. You know, fellow believers. Even if their god is false, it’s better than to not believe at all, which is, as every Scout knows, communistic.
I believe there is no god. Your move.
Arguably, you can respect the beliefs of others without embracing them, or even without admitting them into your club.
In explaining their rejection of atheists the BSA leadership basically said that atheists can’t be good citizens or people.
Eh, it depends on the sense in which the word is used I suppose. You could think someone is a horrible person and still give their views respect in the sense of 4.
deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect’s right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.
Have you ever been to a Pride parade, or did the stick up your ass make it difficult to get there? There are probably roughly equal numbers of straights, at least at the Seattle Pride parade. Because drinking during the day and celebrating, essentially, sluttiness and sparkles (and, fine, some nice sweet families too) is fun as shit.
From zerohedge: DHS has some advice for potential victims in an active shooter situation: make sure you have scissors on hand to defend yourself.
Not sure how that would have helped the people outside the Tucson safeway, or the Aurora theater, or in an elementary school where all the scissors are probably rounded. But, just in case you’re victimized in a barber shop, you can put this advice to good use.
I’ve seen a lot of 2nd amendment supporters act all butthurt over that DHS video.
I kind of like it, at least it’s telling people to fight back instead of just run and hide which is the typical statist advice. And it won’t take long for any normal person to realize that the best way to fight back is by having your own gun.
Yeah I think it’s more mocking scorn then genuine outrage.
The human response to aggression is fight or flight. Period. Choose your course of action, then execute it as effectively as possible. If you chose running, run out of the building, not down the hall. If you chose fighting, go with the most effective weapon you have.
The scorn for the DHS video is that the government has accepted the truth that fighting in defense of your life is a moral action, but has allowed political correctness to twist the logical conclusion into nonsense about fighting with scissors. If all you have nearby to defend yourself is scissors, then you fucked up.
That’s one throwaway line from the video. Most of it is about the best way to hide and welcome the people who can be trusted with guns (cops) when they finally arrive.
I couldn’t care less what the Boy Scouts do, but I will say that any man crying about “homophobia” in the context of this ridiculous non-issue is a fagged-up, limp-wristed peter-puffer who desperately wants to play stinky-pinky with little boys.
I can think of several reasons why parents might not want their eight-year old boy to roast weenies with Alec Baldwin’s Scout Master out in the woods. But if a private organization like the Boy Scouts want to do it, that’s their right. Catering to the coveted “gay dad” demographic worked great for JC Penneys.
And let’s face it, the Boy Scouts are already pretty faggy anyway. I’d rather go family-camping with my wife and other couples and let my kids catch crawdads and shoot their pellet gun at empty Hamm’s pounder cans than teach them to be little goose-steppers.
Wow. That’s one big pile of insecurity there. I suggest you come out of the closet soon, for your “wife’s” sake.
Oh, and fuck you.
I’m pretty sure it’s a sockpuppet. I would suggest ignoring it.
You will note how the ragingest homophobes invariably fixate on the most graphic sexual aspects of gayness. It is funny how they don’t seem to realize what a huge, throbbing tell that is.
Really? You mean showing your “disgust at how sweaty, muscular men deign to place their turgid, pulsating members into the willing, humid, warm mouths and within the tight, well-built loins of their same-sex lovers” might be a sign of psychological sublimation?
Get outta town!
And butts! When they have their gross gay buttsex there is totally sometimes butts involved! Let me now ruminate extensively on how gross and stinky that might be, and diligently bring this to people’s attention at every opportunity. BUTTS!
Ah, the conformity of non-conformity. So liberating. I couldn’t care less what anybody does sexually, I’m just sick of the word “homophobia” being thrown around like so many other idiotic thought-killing PC buzzwords.
If people feel the need to call anyone who doesn’t care to see two twelve-year old boys kissing around a campfire a “homophobe” then they’re the ones with the issue. Frankly I don’t understand how the issue of Official Sexual Orientation should have anything do with a children’s outdoor club. Why the fuck does there need to be an Official Sexual Behavior Policy for an organization geared to pre-teen boys?
But definitely fuck you too.
Who said anything about “12 year old boys kissing round a campfire”?
Other than you, of course.
Odd.
You’re an asshole speaking out of ignorance. If the BSA frowns on a married couple engaging in public displays of affection on a Scout event, why would they condone two 12 year-olds of any gender kissing?
I agree.
You’re the one who called the BSA “faggy”. If you’d rather take your children into the woods and, instead of teaching them useful outdoor skills, teach them inbred yokel bullshit, that’s your prerogative, but that doesn’t give you licence to denigrate an organization of which it is clear that you know nothing about.
I hope your children die a slow and agonizingly painful death, full of abject terror as the end of their life approaches, from leukemia.
I chimed in on this thread because the very first post was an oh-so-witty-and-hilarious declaration that anyone who questions why There Must Be Proud Gay Boy Scouts is a Politically and Ontologically Incorrect Homophobe. What’s the matter with that? I also think it’s fun to call people names who disagree with me.
But I guess you’re not having as much fun with name-calling-as-argument now. Sorry I hurt your feelings. Try crying about it, sometimes that helps.
If you say so. It’s a beautiful sunny Saturday and I have better things to do with my free time and money than keep getting schooled so mercilessly in the Libertarian Virtual Re-Education Camp. I bow before you.
Proud Gay Boy Scouts ?ber Alles!
“Inbred yokel?” INCESTOPHOBE!!!!
You want my children to die because I think homophobe is a stupid word? But what if my kids turn out to be gay?
That would make you a you-know-what. Why are you so pathologically fearful of gay children, Heroic Mulatto?
I hope your children die a slow and agonizingly painful death, full of abject terror as the end of their life approaches, from leukemia.
Hear hear! Those hateful assholes are so full of uncivilized hateful hatiness. That’ll show ’em!
You really are a cunt, bro.
Ah, here comes the assumption that gays will take any opportunity to behave inappropriately. It’s like when DADT was being debated and I got to see a bunch of pasty fat guys (submariners) worrying that someone was going to look at them in the shower.
Guys, this “Guy Incognito” is just the newest sockpuppet of the person who sockpuppets Tony. Ignore it.
Aw, are you still made because I cwiticized your new bestest most-favowite author, David Wong? Don’t get mad, bro.
Isn’t Nick the primary “Tony”?
“Isn’t Nick the primary “Tony”?”
Mind = blown.
Oh yeah, I’m big on the gay porn. That’s why I secretly belong to the Man Scouts of America.
I also criticize Obama because I’m not just a homophobic secret homosexual, I’m a RAYYYCIST homophobic homosexual. Please don’t tell anyone about my collection of Color Me White With Your Big Black Crayon collection, volumes I-XIII, I hate Obama because he’s just so dreamy!
I thought homosexuality was pretty much defined by the kind of sex one wishes to engage in? In which case, expressing disgust about it would necessarily require disgust at the sexual aspect. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the meaning.
That’s kind of like saying someone who goes into detail about how awful a McDouble tastes must really secretly like McDoubles, because they’re so graphic about the eating aspect of the McDouble.
Look, Tulpy-Poo, no one thinks you’re closeted. You’re definitely straight. You just never get laid because you’re a grade-A dork. NTTAWWT, other than never getting laid.
Whatever dude. I get more action during a six hour visit to the zoo than you’d get in a three month safari.
The “breastplate of righteousness” is a well-known concept in psychology and sociology.
But you knew that already, didn’t you?
Oh, wow–a well-known concept in sociology?! Well, that changes if everything. Well-known sociology and psychology concepts are irrefutable dogma to a Well-Conformed Non-Conformist like me. I stand politically corrected.
You need to remember to change your forum nick if you’re going to be a successful troll, Tulpa.
Yes, I am Tulpa, and Tony (that was me arguing with myself on the union thread this morning), and everybody else who doesn’t agree with you, posting under dozens of various names. There’s actually nobody else here on this board right now except me and you. You’ve fallen right into my closeted-homosexual trap.
You say you have better things to do, but you continue to let me play you like a harp from Hell.
Has Epi officially come out of the closet yet? I’m Ok with it, personally. Come on out, Epi. We’ll roast some weenies and sip some bodacious craft-brews!
Well, for a long time it was a well-known psychological “fact” that homosexuality was the result of stunted emotional maturation. But assuming that today’s sociologists and psychologists have evolved beyond such collusion to christen their opinions as scientific fact, the fact that some people may claim to hate that which they secretly enjoy, does not mean that all people condemning something must enjoy it.
It’s also interesting that people who proclaim their tolerance on these matters from the mountain top, immediately start accusing their opponents of being gay… almost as if they considered that to be an insult. Maybe there is something to this “breastplate of righteousness” thing…
Soooo…Epi gay or not?
C’mon, you have to give them a break. I think that this guy has articulated his point very well.
DEBUNKED: Sex doesn’t burn as many calories as you think
That’s because you’re supposed to use ankle weights. Idiots.
Try it standing on your hands.
effects of lovemaking are equivalent to a walk of about 4 km per hour
Im not sure that slow even qualifies as walking.
If I have to figure out what a km is, it means the terrorists have won.
Yeah, I’m totally not forwarding that to my wife.
That’s just because you’re not using the right gear.
Libertarianism doesn’t mean not criticizing people who do something wrong.
Phew! That’s a load off my mind.
I hope tReason runs an article
and no DRINK!
I am disappoint.
I didn’t even see that ‘t’ there at first. Good catch.
Thought that was just a typo. Don’t know how I could have missed the significance.
To those who don’t want BSA to change its policy:
If you think you’ve got good “gay-dar,” you’re probably wrong. There are lots of gays and atheists out in the world who are in the closet.
Given that, what would you prefer:
a) the chance that your son has a leader who is gay or an atheist, and you don’t know it because the leader is in the closet; or
b) the chance that your son has an openly gay or atheist leader?
With choice b), the leader wouldn’t have much of a chance to exert improper influence on your son; everybody would have an eye on him.
And with choice a)?
All that being said, BSA is a private organization, and they can discriminate however they please. But, if a troop or pack discriminates with respect to color, belief, culture, etc., it had better not take (or be offered) one cent of public assistance (such as free or reduced rent at a town hall meeting room).
“Nyah-Nyah” Department: Our son and our daughter were in BSA and GSA respectively. As closeted non-believers, we co-led a Cub Scout pack, my wife co-led a Girl Scout troop with other mothers, and I was a Cubmaster. I was also a registered member of GSA, so I could help ferry the troop around while covered by GSA insurance.
Uh…gay people are not pedophiles. They like physically mature sexual partners just like everyone in the world except for pedophiles. You seem to be implying that they are. Is that what you are implying?
Epi: Thank you. I said that wrong, and I apologise. But there are people who think that many, if not all gays are child molesters. They are whom I was addressing.
OK, thanks for clarifying.
What just happened?
A rare moment of sanity in the chatroom?
Better call a psychiatrist.
That’s why I won’t be a leader if my son someday wants to join.
Also, I don’t think the GSA has a similar policy.
It doesn’t. The GSA national leadership is actually sickeningly Progressive (IMO).
Of course it is. It’s no coincidence that the explosive growth of the federal government starts the moment women got the franchise. The number of women who support genuinely limited government, be it conservatism or libertarianism, is very small.
We should build a wall to keep them out.
What should be done is to repeal every single one of the Amendments passed after the year 1900, with the single exception of the 22nd Amendment.
The 21st and 27th aren’t bad either.
The 21st just undid the 18th. Scratching both of them leaves us in the exact same position vis a vis alcohol. The 27th is chump change compared to the rest. It is literally the least important of all amendments.
I just read up on the 27th Amendment; apparently COLAs are OK. Smooth.
I will say that homosexuality and atheism didn’t seem to be the big issues then that they are now. Nobody asked, we knew it wouldn’t make a difference, and we didn’t volunteer anything. We never tried to influence any scout, and if one wanted to earn a religion-based award (none ever did) we were ready to support and coach them.
a)
Why should your sexual preferences be your identity?Shoe fetishists and BDSM enthusiasts don’t insist that you believe they “were born that way”.
Well, I don’t go to the meetings.
You’re not missing much, to be honest.
Things always get interesting after you leave.
I knew it!
Yeah, some of them do actually. That’s not even getting into the furries.
As closeted non-believers
That’s a violation of the Terms of Use. Carmen Ortiz will be in contact with you shortly.
Terms of Use appears to deal with licensing issues and the use of BSA websites. BSA’s Youth Protection policy might apply, but I can’t find the date on which it was initiated. I don’t remember it being there in the early Eighties. Do you know?
The Youth Protection policy started in the late 80s. However, unless you started a secret cabal of atheists in your troop, it wouldn’t fall under Youth Protection.
How many of those who think gay people shouldn’t be allowed to be scoutmasters becasue of what they might do are the same people who think we should be free to buy an AR-15, regardless of what we might do?
It really is the same principle–except that you don’t have to put your kid in the Scouts if you don’t want to. But the general public really should be free to buy an AR-15–whether you approve or not–regardless of whether AR-15s puts some children in danger.
In other words, if we support the freedom to bear arms–regardless of whether that puts some children in danger–then why wouldn’t we extend the same consideration to gay scoutmasters, especially considering that you don’t have to keep your kids in the BSA?
OK. Except that nobody is proposing legislation to ban gay scouts.
Yeah, I’m clear on that.
Like I said before in this thread, the BSA has the right to be as stupid as they want to be. I don’t think anyone here–including Gillespie–is disputing the BSA’s right to make their own choice on this.
…but for everybody out there who’s opposing gay scoutmasters on the basis that they might do something criminal, they’re begin mighty hypocritical if they’re also opposing an AR-15 ban on the basis that people should be free to do things–until after they’ve actually hurt someone.
There are two kinds of libertarians, or so it seems to me. One kind admits that our rights sometimes entail risk. If preserving the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, for instance, means that more Americans are killed in terrorist attacks–then I sill want to protect my right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure anyway.
I feel the same way about a lot of things; in fact, you could say I’m pretty consistent on the issue. But people who oppose gay scoutmasters because of what they might do and, meanwhile, oppose an AR-15 ban becasue we shouldn’t be held accountable for what we might do until we do it? They’re being inconsistent.
Like I said before in this thread, the BSA has the right to be as stupid as they want to be.
What exactly is the policy that you thinks makes them stupid?
Other than dressing in goofy paramilitary uniforms.
I think homophobia is stupid, but I’m not sure the BSA is motivated by its own homophobia. I suspect they’re concerned about the homophobia of parents–and the BSA being concerned about that isn’t any more stupid than McDonalds being concerned about what its customers want.
When I said that the BSA has the right to be stupid, I was really trying to say that they have a right to do what they want–whether it makes sense or not. It doesn’t matter if their reasoning is stupid or smart–the Church of Scientology has the same right. Their right to make their own choices about their own policies doesn’t depend on whether I think it’s smart or stupid–so they have a right to be stupid.
Guess what? A pump-action shotgun with an 18″ barrel and a pistol grip, I understand wanting that really well! But I don’t understand why people want AR-15s. Doesn’t matter though–just because I don’t understand why people want to do it doesn’t mean they don’t have that right or that their right shouldn’t be respected.
That’s what I meant when I said that the BSA (like everybody else) has a right to be as stupid as they want to be; it doesn’t have to make sense to me or be smart in order for them to have that right.
So why is this even an issue, other than equality of teh gayz is supposed to some kind of superior value.
And that’s exactly what the culture warriors bashing the bsa are doing, claiming that equality is a higher value than freedom of association.
Personally I don’t care what the BSA’s policies are any more than I can what the Catholic Church’s are or Disneyland’s. If anyone doesn’t like the way they run their shop then don’t join. Or start your own organization or whatever. But STFU about the butthurt protests to get them to change their policies to accommodate you.
I think answering some of these culture war issues does have some benefits in the real world.
This is probably for another thread, but I really do think the psychotic public policy I suffer in California is due to culture war issues outside the state. In California, all politics is national. When some idiot culture warrior in the South or the Midwest says something stupid, “legitimate rape”, what have you, it makes all the swing voters in California vote Democrat.
It’s not that California’s swing voters don’t care about their own paychecks; it’s that they’re so offended by culture warrior bullshit that they’ll vote for economic idiots they’d never vote for otherwise–just because the Republicans are associated with the culture warriors in name.
I also think it’s important that someone out there sees that not all fiscal conservatives, supply-siders, and anti-tax people are necessarily culture warriors. Letting people know that libertarians offer an anti-homophobic, anti-racist, anti-misogynistic alternative to the Republican brand of fiscal conservatism is probably a really good thing.
Hell, Nick and Matt getting that message out may be our only hope.
The voters here are hopelessly retarded if they care more about some stupid comment by some redneck than they do about their finances or freedom.
I don’t think that’s true by the way. At least not for an overwhelming majority of voters.
I think CA’s political problem is that there is no organization on the right that is within a couple of orders of magnitude of the public employee unions when it comes to organizing and financing political campaigns. That problem is driven to a large degree by the prohibition on party endorsement for local offices.
Bottom line the socialists have a farm system to develop talent and the right doesn’t.
Probably the only way to address that structural problem is via ballot initiatives to address both problems.
Should be
ballot initiatives to remove the ban on party endorsements for local election and to curtail the power of the public employee unions (ideally ban them altogether).
I disagree on the hypocrisy charge, simply because we’re talking about two different spheres. The Assault Weapons Ban was a governmental action. The BSA is a private organization, and they have the inalienable right to set their own policies of who is allowed to associate with them.
I think I already addressed that.
If your objection is that becasue the BSA isn’t the government, they have the freedom to have whatever policy they want on gay scoutmasters, then that’s a perfectly legitimate argument. However, if because they’re a private organization, they have a right to write their own policies, then deciding not to discriminate against gay scoutmasters is just as legitimate.
Meanwhile, if you object to the AR-15 ban on the basis that we shouldn’t discriminate against people who haven’t committed a crime yet, then you’re being completely hypocritical if you’re supporting the BSA’s ban on gay scoutmasters–on the basis that they might commit a crime.
you’re being completely hypocritical if you’re supporting the BSA’s ban on gay scoutmasters–on the basis that they might commit a crime.
Did anybody bring that up here besides you and the sock puppet?
“Did anybody bring that up here besides you and the sock puppet?”
Is there any reason why me bringing it up makes it wrong?
It’s just kind of random since it wasn’t under discussion or being defended by anyone.
I just don’t think the solutions are political. It’s about hearts and minds. We win those, and the ballot initiatives and the politicians will all fall in line.
It’s politics so of course the solutions are political.
Your just flat out wrong if you’re saying that the republicans don’t have structural problems in CA.
Look at 2012. The republicans couldn’t even nominate a credible candidate to run against Frankenstein. You could actually say the same thing going back to the recall of Gray Davis in 2003.
The republicans just don’t have politician of any stature in the state and have to go with celebrities. Arnold, Whitman, Fiorina were all celebrities not pols. Arnold won because a ham sandwich could have won in that recall campaign. His complete lack of government and political experience and even any political philosophy were revealed once he was in office. Same thing would have happened with Whitman except that she was so inept that she couldn’t even beat a retread loser like Brown, despite spending tens of millions of dollars more than he did.
They may have structural problems, but I think that’s the least of their problems compared to what’s happening to them in the minds of swing voters.
If you think swing voters in California would warm up to the Republicans if only they fixed their structural problems, then you’ve got the tail waggin’ the dog.
In our political system it takes a candidate to beat a candidate. Ideas, by themselves, don’t do it. Sorry but they don’t.
And the biggest problem for republicans at the state level is a lack of viable candidates.
“It’s politics so of course the solutions are political.”
Jesus took over the Roman Empire…he never even ran for election–just worked on people’s hearts and minds.
That’s the kind of campaign we need to be running, and that’s why things like Reason are more important than politicians.
I mean…when we get people’s heads screwed on straight, the politicians will beat a path to our door. In the meantime, telling people that their problems would go away if only they voted for the right politicians seems kinda counterintuitive to this libertarian’s eye…since I keep telling them that politicians are not the solution to our problems.
The politicians we need will come around once their constituents get the libertarian gospel. They’ll be the last ones to come to the party. The world where the right libertarian politicians are elected, and they lead a constituency that doesn’t want their solutions to the promised land–that scenario will never happen in the real world.
We are not a structural tweak away from fixing things. We need a different constituency than what we have now, and that means changing people’s hearts and minds–not changing their representatives.
Jesus didn’t take over the Roman Empire until Constantine defeated Maxentius in battle.
I’ve always suspected the pre-Constantinian prevalence of Christianity in the Empire might have been just a tad overstated by the later Christians who wrote the extant history of those times.
Yep, and the truth is that christians took over the empirial government thanx to the conversion of Constantine, not because they had large numbers of adherents. Which was matched by christianity’s spread among the barbarians of Europe, wherein the efforts were focused on converting the rulers, not the subjects.
“Yep, and the truth is that christians took over the empirial government thanx to the conversion of Constantine, not because they had large numbers of adherents.”
Pardon me for being cynical, but I don’t believe Constantine converted to Christianity becasue he saw a cross and the sky and heard a voice saying, “In hoc signo vinces”.
Constantine converted to Christianity because there were so many Christians, and he thought it behooved him in his quest to unify the Empire. Christianity had become large and influential, and by becoming Christian, he could exude his influence over the church.
We can only hope that such a thing will happen to libertarians someday. That is the road to Libertopia: the number of libertarians proliferates so large that politicians seek to become libertarian in order to gain influence–just like Constantine did. What’s more, the emperors (and kings) after Constantine tended to feel like they needed to be Christians, too…
…because Christianity continued to proliferate, being a Christian continued to behoove emperors and kings. Hell, even today, thousands of years later, Barack Obama considers it advantageous politically to present himself as a Christian. That’s the staying power of a proliferating belief system–that is what happens when a belief system proliferates.
“Jesus didn’t take over the Roman Empire until Constantine defeated Maxentius in battle.”
Constantine became a Christian once the critical mass of Christians became so large and influential that it behooved him to become Christian, take over the administration of the church and, thereby, try to help unify the Roman Empire.
If libertarianism ever becomes as influential as Christianity was, it will have surpassed everybody’s reasonable expectations. Regardless, Jesus didn’t run for office and try to become emperor, but what he did, by winning hearts and minds, meant, eventually, that people wouldn’t support you as the Roman emperor–or as a king–unless you were a Christian.
That’s the way libertarian sensibilities will triumph. We should start preaching them more like a set of values and less like a political platform. I think people should be free to make their own choices–you can turn that into a political platform, but the important component of that is a personal value.
All the utilitarian arguments in the world won’t matter–if people don’t understand why benefiting the most people is important. All the libertarian arguments in the world won’t make any difference either if people don’t understand why they should value freedom. You teach them the values, and then they start voting the way you want them to.
It’s not the other way around.
Jesus took over the Roman Empire…he never even ran for election–just worked on people’s hearts and minds.
Which is a decent template if your goal is creating a new cult.
I’m more interested in cutting the size and scope of government.
“Which is a decent template if your goal is creating a new cult.”
I don’t think valuing freedom should be denigrated to “cult” status, but valuing freedom is a value.
Again, what difference does it make if you show people that the libertarian outcome produces more freedom–if they don’t value freedom?
The problem we’re having with anti-gun people right now, doesn’t it boil down to them thinking that the freedom to own a gun isn’t as important as the potential danger guns present to children?
We can argue until we’re blue in the face, but if our arguments don’t promote the value of freedom, then we’re not really addressing the problem. But I don’t think preaching the value of freedom is exactly a “cult” at all. I think there are actually very good reasons to value freedom–I think the case for freedom is easier to make than the case for Christianity.
“I learned how to dress carefully …”
Lose the leather jacket, dude. It looks dumber every time you wear it.
How dare you…
Blasphemy!
I’m not really clear on what the BSA banning gays means.
Do they exclude ten year old boys that are out? Or is it banning gay men from being scout leaders? Or is it banning gay men that don’t have kids from being scout leaders but not banning straight childless men?
Also, why should I care what the BSA does? Why does any gay person? Do they really want to join an organization full of people that despise them? Why?
I don’t really understand why gay people want to get married, but I understand why people resent being discriminated against.
Anyway, people’s rights don’t have to make sense to me in order for me to support them. I support the right of the BSA to set their policies however they like, and I support the right of gay people (and anybody else) to exercise their free speech rights to denounce the BSA for discrimination.
Sure everyone can agree that it’s wrong for the BSA to hate gays.
But what does that actually mean? How are they expressing that gay hatred?
These aren’t rhetorical questions that I’m asking here.
For example: Are they banning ‘gay’ ten year olds? How does that work interrogating potential recruits about their sexual preferences? Any organization that did something like that is creepy as hell and I’d keep my own kids far away from it.
There is bullying in our local school- like in many others. Oft times becasue a kid exhibits too much “gayness” to the bullies. Amazingly, local (or non-local for that matter) Boy Scouts are never involved in the bullying! Or maybe not so amazing. Law 6. Kind. Law 1. trustworthy. Law 4. Friendly. Some of the others would also apply.
The most common denominator in bullying, and in any activity in any school which makes the police reports, is membership on a varsity sports team. Surprise, surprise. I remember my HS days 42 years ago, and that hasn’t changed.
Yes, they are banning gay ten year olds.
They don’t interrogate them, but if the boy is out or comes out as gay, and word gets back to the leadership, they will expel the boy.
Same for atheists and agnostics.
Does that answer your question?
That’s totally fucked up. Does that actually happen?
How in the world would a ten year old boy even know he was gay? Most boys don’t enter puberty that early. And those in the early stages of puberty tend to be confused about all sorts of things sex-related so even then, what they’re into may not reflect their real sexuality.
I don’t really understand why gay people want to get married,
You’re kidding right?
They want to get married because of the government benefits that are automatically bestowed on married people.
My wife and I get checks for $1000 each month ever since we tied the knot. Then there’s the married people discounts you get everywhere. We also have a direct line to the whitehouse whenever we have a problem.
Weak sarcasm.
Proponents of SSM talk about the hundreds of benefits that married couples get which are unavailable to teh gays.
I know and after 23 years I’m still waiting for those benefits to kick in.
I’m not married. I just put all the benefits on my WhiteMalePrivledge Card.
The Platinum one for straight guys.
The biggest ones I can think of have nothing to do with money. Such as: hospital visitation and immigration. I don’t even know what these supposed financial benefits that folks like you claim folks like me are demanding.
Pretty sure VG didn’t actually say financial benefits, but just off the top of my head: Mandatory insurance coverage by your partner’s employer, social security spousal benefits, government pension spousal benefits, possibility of tax benefits via joint filing, and higher IRA contribution limits.
I’m still left a little bit bewildered wondering why the fuck anybody, regardless of sexual orientation, should be able to get a slip of paper from the government that entitles them to preferential treatment by any government office in exchange for having a relationship with another person of their choice. It’s bullshit.
They could fight for all those government benefits without fighting for the right to get married.
Like I said, it doesn’t need to make sense to me in order for it to be a right that should be respected.
A lot of my fellow libertarians have fallen for utilitarianism–often without realizing it. I’m glad that free markets and individual rights often lead to net benefits for society, but that’s just icing on the cake for me.
If respecting people’s Second Amendment rights or gay peoples’ right to get married is a net negative for society, I’d still support all of those rights anyway. Freedom is its own reward…
…and besides, when we start only respecting people’s rights if they’re a net benefit to society, then we necessarily start treating people as if they and their rights only exist for society’s benefit. That’s the essence of socialism, right there. I think it’s great when somebody chooses to do something for other people’s benefit, and I choose to do nice things for other people all the time!
But I am not here for your benefit. Certainly, my rights don’t disappear just because 1) other people don’t appreciate them or 2) because what I want to do doesn’t make sense to other people or 3) because it doesn’t benefit more people than it hurts.
I don’t know if gay scoutmasters are a net benefit to society, but I’d oppose the government mandating that no scoutmasters can be gay either way.
WRT marriage. You do realize that marriage is inherently discriminatory, don’t you?
It’s worse than that! You give up almost all of your constitutional rights when you move in a with a woman.
The right to free speech? You can forget about it.
The right to peaceable assembly? Sure, right up until you wanna have the guys over to watch a game or play poker.
The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? You lose that.
And anytime you live with a woman, the right not to be forced to testify against yourself goes out the window day one!
After all that, hearing that marriage is also inherently discriminatory doesn’t surprise me one bit.
Oh, when you move in with a woman, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment–I forgot to mention losing that one, and it’s a biggie!
Well then, this one’s on me….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..7PLTTcFm0#!
A lot of my fellow libertarians have fallen for utilitarianism–often without realizing it.
Exactly as you have done. It’s pretty much impossible not to articulate a political position from a utilitarian perspective. There is no such thing as a political argument that doesn’t entail affecting other people’s lives, and “freedom is its own reward” is just another way of saying “a society that promotes maximum individual freedom is the best society.”
In a society of one there would be no need for rights. Rights are protected activities, and activities need only be protected when there are potentially other people who might restrict them.
Libertarians advocate for a set of policies that affect everybody because they think those policies will lead to the best functioning society. We are all utilitarians.
If you’re advocating policies strictly because they are required by a set of moral axioms with no regard to social outcomes whatsoever, you are still being a utilitarian fundamentally (why should we chain ourselves to those moral axioms? Because it’s practically good–on some level–for us to to so.)
This may be defining utilitarianism down to meaninglessness, but either way one is allowed to, quite justifiably, question why we should live according to your quasi-religious deontological premises and not some others–and one of the most relevant critiques would come on utilitarian grounds. Why should we do X when it only results in widespread misery? If you argue that it doesn’t, that it in facts leads to widespread well-being, then you’ve admitted my point.
Have libertarians gone utilitarian, or have utilitarians gone libertarian?
Seriously, there are limits to every ideology. If libertarian policies led to widespread devastation or the extinction of humanity, I would have to go against those policies no matter how much they promoted “freedom”.
But the fact is that libertarian beliefs are usually very much in line with utilitarian beliefs – i.e., libertarian policies work. That should be celebrated, not lamented.
Libertarian policies work. That should be celebrated.
Hooray pragmatism? Mussolini made the trains “work.” That, too, should be (and was) celebrated. Right? Or at least until the “widespread devastation” part, which was the inevitable result of a pragmatic, utilitarian ideology.
“But the fact is that libertarian beliefs are usually very much in line with utilitarian beliefs – i.e., libertarian policies work. That should be celebrated, not lamented.”
Okay, maybe it isn’t just icing on the cake, but there’s a lot more to it than that. There’s a big downside, too, if people have come to imagine that we are only free to do those things which are a net benefit to other people.
The belief that people should only be free to do things that are a net benefit to other does not lead to a free society. It is the essence of socialism; it is the essence of communism–the idea that everything you do should be a net benefit to society is the assumption behind “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.
The idea that individual rights should be sacrificed for the net benefit of other people is the justification for the holocaust. I wouldn’t care if murdering an entire race of people and distributing their property among the rest of really were a net benefit to society–I’d still oppose doing it on libertarian grounds.
Again, I’m glad respecting other people’s rights tends to benefit the most people most of the time, but the primary purpose of other people’s rights is not to benefit me. Other people do not exist for my benefit, and I don’t exit for their benefit either.
Sometimes my rights mean I get to put you out of business by taking all your customers away. Sometimes my rights mean I get to criticize you in public. Adam Smith showed us that we’re generally better off when we’re free to pursue our own interests–not that we’re better off when society pushes for our net interests from above.
When we emphasize utilitarianism so strongly, we lose something important. The government should do what’s in the best interest of the most people? That’s not libertarianism! People should be free to pursue their own best interests–that’s libertarianism.
I gotta be honest here.
I think that it’s creepy for any grown man to want to hang out with a bunch of kids, period. I and other people I knew that were into it at all only did so because our kids were involved and stopped as soon as the kids aged out of it. I guess I can kind of see the people that originally got into because of their kids but stayed involved after their kids left, but even that’s weird. A man that wants to get involved that doesn’t have any kids is just creepy, whether they’re straight or gay.
Anyway, It’s been a long time but I don’t remember them asking about the sexual orientation of volunteers when my son was in it. Do they do that now?
It’s more don’t ask don’t tell. No one ask and gay people back then pretty much acted just like straight people so I’m sure there were plenty of gay people in the organization. Just like there were in the military,Hollywood, professional sports, etc, etc.
Right, and what’s wrong with that?
It’s an organization for kids, which should be asexual.
The scouts were the pre-cursor to NAMBLA?
Wow.
Maybe the organization really is homophobic to its core. It sounds like he was a self-loathing gay.
More than this, it seems that many of the men who helped Baden-Powell establish the scouting movement had more than a passing interest in adolescent males, and many of the women who founded the female scouting movement rather liked young girls.
It might surprise people who project their own tendencies onto others, but most people regardless of sexual orientation are not interested in raping the people they love. In the case of Baden-Powell, he even channelled the extreme repression of the day and actively campaigned against masturbation – even as he enjoyed looking at photographs of nude boys.
Whether actively repressing masturbation among boys counts as a type of mind-rape or not I leave to the judgment of the reader.
What was Lord Baden-Powell’s position on masturbation?
His views were typical of Victorian and Edwardian times. Masturbation makes one lazy, crazy, blind, etc. The way to deal with lustful thoughts was cold showers and strenuous exercises, etc.
What kind of stupid shit is this. There’s no evidence that Baden-Powell was queer.
Tim Jeal’s later biography discusses the relationship and finds that there is no conclusive evidence that this friendship was physical.[7] Jeal then examines Baden-Powell’s views on women, his appreciation of the male form, his military relationships, and his marriage, concluding that Baden-Powell might have been a repressed homosexual.
Or perhaps Baden-Powell was a fairly average guy by Victorian standards and our retarded intellectual caste insists on reading sexual deviance into historical figures as a pasttime because they’re an incurious lot of dumbasses.
Do you have an appreciation of the male form Rick?
Do you have close male friendships?
You should try hanging out with kids.
Terms of Use appears to deal with licensing issues and the use of BSA websites.
That was just a reference to our new regime, in which failure to adhere to private contractual agreements has been criminalized (with heavy penalties) at the federal level.
Coming soon: Merit badges in Fashion Design, Hairdressing and Interior Decorating.
From the offical list: http://www.scouting.org/scouts…../list.aspx
A few merit badges worth noting
Cooking
Gardening
Sculpture
Textiles
Theater
If you want to look for other gay stereotype-friendly badges, be my guest.
You forgot Dog Care.
Thank you for not posting the link to that sick bestiality video.
Well, that was woman/dog. So not gay.
I sliced my thumb to the bone doing Cooking, which meant I was unable to complete Swimming (lake water and giant cuts don’t mix), which meant I got three badges that week instead of five.
We need to make sure that young boys are surrounded by homosexuals in a position of authority. We need to make sure that homosexuals feel safe around young boys.
Catholic Church?
I’m Protestant.
The alt-text writes itself.
Well, why not? They already let Gillespie in, how much of a reputation could they have left?
Good point. Same for wsj.
Badass shit , support it.
293 comments and I can’t believe nobody has commented on this:
“I learned how to dress carefully and distinctly,”
Yes, you have Jacket, yes you have! Does nobody actually read TFA around here?!?
“293 comments and I can’t believe nobody has commented on this:
“I learned how to dress carefully and distinctly,””
Wrong. At least three.
I learned how to dress carefully and distinctly
Fair enough. I learned how to shoot a bow and arrow, something I also never practice.
The one time I tried normal bows (not the kiddy toy bows you can by most anywhere) I couldn’t even draw it. It was just too much for me. Didn’t help that I was pretty weak even for my age. Shooting a bow and arrow is one of things I never learned from Boy Scouts, despite their attempts to teach me. I did get introduced to horse-back riding though.
Yeah it’s quite tougher than it looks. My most embarrassing merit badge was golfing, though. Never got the hang of that, and have never wanted to go in public to practice.
T o n y| 2.2.13 @ 8:15PM |#
“I learned how to dress carefully and distinctly
Fair enough. I learned how to shoot a bow and arrow, something I also never practice.”
Yes, shithead. So?
No, don’t bother.
Wow, it’s like you have Tourette’s or something. Have you ever checked it out? They have pretty good drugs now to control it.
OK wow, that dude makes a whole lot of sense. I like it.
http://www.ur-anon.tk
I love having the gay adult scout leader discussion with male parents of teenage daughters. Right after they’re done ranting about evil homophobic Scouts, I’ll ask if if I can take their daughter camping that weekend. Not one has said yes, nor have any ever answered when I ask how my taking their nubile young daughter camping is different then a homosexual taking a teenage male camping. Huff and walkaway is the argument- because they have no counter to common sense.
As for Nick Gillespie not letting his sons be Scouts because of their stance- I call BS. It’s his excuse- and the excuse of other parents- who immediately after Scouts lift the ban- if they do- will find another reason to not let their kids join. Because they are against everything Scouts stand for. Alleged homophobia is simply todays reason de jour.
Heroic Mulatto asked about leaders.
3 people in each troop can blackball adult members- committee chair, scoutmaster, and charter rep. If an adult who was never a member of our troop, with no kids, or with kids who are not and never have been members wants to join up as a volunteer, all three in my troop will say “No.” Married or single, doesn’t matter. If you were part of the troop as a scout, or were a leader when your kid was in, you’re good to stay as long as you’d like. Start to ignore the child abuse guidelines, particularly the two-deep leadership rules, you’re gone. This minimizes the chance of child abusers getting in. Not eliminate- minimizes.
God, it must suck to live in constant fear. Assume the worst of everybody, great lesson for young minds.
I love it when people read things that aren’t there.
But there is a reason all cars have door locks, and people use them. Same with house doors and locks.
It only takes a samll proportion of untrustworthy people to make locks and such necessary.
Or are you going to tell me you leave everything unlocked and open?
And BTW, I was wearing seat belts before it was required, same with bike helmets. And driving with headlights on before daytime running lamps. Statistics say all those things are safer.
Not letting your sexually functioning teenage boys out in the woods camping with adult homosexual males? Statistics say- safer! Or would, if there actually were any. Common sense says so though. Or don’t you believe in common sense either?
I haven’t locked my house, with the exception of going away for a long period of time, in my life. Never had ANYTHING stolen in 48 years… because the odds are, it will NEVER happen to you
What a ridiculously broad and ignorant statement. Not everybody lives in a white, suburban, 100k+ per year enclave. Some people have good reason for locking their doors (and having bars on their windows, and keeping furniture away from places where bullets can easily penetrate). There’s a difference between not living a life of fear and being retarded WRT risk. Cancel your life, medical, and fire insurance policies too – that’ll show the world what a fearless motherfucker you are!
So you’re particularly worried about a child abuser infiltrating your kid’s BS troop? Seriously, you spend time worrying about that? So worried that you’d blackball those who want to help out, because they don’t have kids? That’s the default? No kids…must be a child molester?
Wow. If you think that’s not living a life of fear, I’m glad I’m not you.
Save your precious snowflakes. There’s a child molester behind every bush.
That isn’t remotely what I said, and it isn’t remotely what you were referring to either. You pretty specifically said:
I haven’t locked my house, with the exception of going away for a long period of time, in my life. Never had ANYTHING stolen in 48 years… because the odds are, it will NEVER happen to you
I even quoted it in my reply. If you actually think that way, I wish you lived in some of the neighborhoods I have. Rectal-cranial inversion is a terrible condition to be afflicted with.
Please review the entire thread. It is EXACTLY what I was referring to.
It initially started with him worried about child molesters, to which I replied it must suck to live in fear.
He countered by asking me, “Or are you going to tell me you leave everything unlocked and open?” As if such a practice would be unheard of. As if not locking your house was an act of risk taking lunacy. Which is why I used the locked house in my argument at all.
I quoted the portion I was replying to. Twice. And taking it in the larger context, I don’t think it helps your argument much that you were making a comparison between the routine activity of locking one’s doors, which isn’t a ridiculous proposition in the parts of the country where, say, your landscaper lives, and living in fear of rampaging homo-pedophiles. Some people actually do live in places where not locking your doors is an act of risk taking.
Never said locking your doors wasn’t prudent in some places, did I?
The point was, that making such rash assumptions, like people without kids have a higher probability of being child molesters and shouldn’t be trusted leading a BS troop…
AND
…it is irrational to not lock your home when you leave.
ARE EQUALLY BULLSHIT!
The gun grabbers will be happy to adopt your argument to show that no one needs a gun for self-defense. Murders are even rarer than burglaries.
BTW, I’ve had my house broken into four times in a much shorter adult life span.
We have no crime, simply because everyone here has a gun.
You have a gun? Why? Do you expect the worst in everyone, and intend to shoot them? No reason to have a gun in the fantasy neighbothood you inhabit- there’s no crime, because it only happens to someone else.
Guns are always the answer.
School shooting?
The teachers should have had guns!
Theater shooting?
The moviegoers should have had guns!
Cops shoot a dog?
We should shoot the cops!
Well said.
See my 1:03 above.
Tulpa wins here, I’m afraid. FdA’s argument is exactly what the grabbers would say, and the response is correct: when faced with the possibility of a rare but disastrous event, some risk reduction measures are appropriate.
Oh come on X. Where did I say NO risk reduction?
My point is, risk reduction based upon probability. Please refer to Gospace’s post where he’s afraid of a child molester infiltrating his kid’s BS troop.
I wear a seat belt. I own a gun. I don’t worry about getting struck by lightening and I wouldn’t drive with my headlights on in the daytime if my truck didn’t have those stupid automatic running lights.
There is a difference between being rational and just being a pussy.
It’s not unreasonable to screen people who will have a lot of contact with other people’s kids.
X, did we worry about such nonsense 30-40 years ago? Are the odds of such a thing happening any greater now than then? Do we have a child molester EPIDEMIC?
What’s changed is that when something tragic DOES happen, the media portrays it like it’s commonplace, when in actuality its probability of happening to you, or even anyone you know, is negligible.
Fear sells. The media makes money by frightening people and stirring up controversy. They have turned everyone into a bunch of sniveling pussies afraid to let their kids out of their sight. I believe the resulting over-insulation from harm people perpetrate on their kids does more harm than good. They don’t learn to cope with reality and they pass these irrational fears onto their kids. IMHO.
I refuse to hide under my bed from a bogyman I’ll probably never encounter.
FWIW, I agree with you on this point wholeheartedly. My dad was a proponent of the “fear everything” school of thought long before it was widely popular, and it can certainly end up causing more harm than it solves if taken too far. A healthy sense of caution and taking reasonable steps to insulate onesself from risk, however, is prudent. And in some places, that includes locking your doors, locking your car, putting mace on your keychain, etc. That’s all I was saying.
Got it, and agree.
Prudent risk avoidance is perfectly justified. Irrational risk avoidance is not.
Unfortunately the mood of the nation seems to be one of trying to eliminate ALL risk, which to me, is akin to slavery.
It’s clear that even if the rate of molestation is the same as it was decades ago, it’s higher today than we thought it was then because of differences in reporting. I’m not suggesting we go crazy about the problem of trusted adults raping kids, but it seems foolish to do absolutely nothing about it. Again, screening the people you’re going to trust seems like a reasonable intermediate measure.
Our house was broken into several times when I was growing up. Fortunately, they all occurred while we were away, but it was always a big downer to come home and see the carport door hanging open. Once, when I was about seven, I was playing in the living room, and saw the doorknob start to jiggle, so I went and opened the door. A man stood there with a surprised look on his face. He turned and hightailed it to the car. Once, my mom came home from work (the rest of us were at school), walked into the kitchen, and saw a some things out of place, then heard a noise from the back of the house. She left, shutting the wooden door and locking the security door behind her (it was a metal storm door that required a key even from the inside), and went to a nearby church member’s house to call the police. When they returned to the house, they found the inside wooden door open.
My dad is a pastor, and our church was located just down the hill from us. By the late eighties/early nineties, we had to start posting lookouts to watch the parking lot, because people would steal the church members’ cars off the parking lot during services.
It all originated from an apartment complex that sat adjacent to the church. Fairly inhospitable place, probably section 8 (or whatever the term is for government-assisted housing).
So, odds are, you probably lived a sheltered life, you lucky stiff.
So, were your doors locked when your house was broken into?
Were the cars locked?
Did it do any good? Does it do any good to worry about it?
Yes, the doors were locked, but we eventually had to get the metal storm doors. We also, for awhile, managed to win the loyalty of a stray dog. A RACIST stray dog. We didn’t have any problems when we had him (except we couldn’t keep any cats as pets; he liked to kill them, then string their guts across the front yard).
Car locks barely slow a guy down who really wants your radio.
Oh, you meant the church members’ cars. (The thieves liked to steal our radios out of our cars). Well, this was the eighties, so they still had metal coat hangers and car doors could still be jimmied…
As to worrying about anything; sometimes it does one good to worry, because it makes one more cautious, more alert to his situation. It can be taken to an extreme, obviously, and can thus become a counterproductive emotion.
Name calling! Loser, you lost!
My house in SC was broken into while on Xmas leave. Broke the window frame in the back to get in, and discovered that they couldn’t get out the doors with the double locking deadbolts- and the windows were all locked. As a result, they weren’t able to clear everything out.
Wearing the seatbelt prevented serious, well, any injury when I hit an ice patch in NM and flipped the car at 55 MPH.
The bike helmet savred my head from road rash when a car pulled out from a stop sign directly in fromnt of me while I was doing 30 MPH (a slight downhill with a tailwind).
The fire extinguisher in my car helped put out a fire in someone’s truck.
Jump cables- I carry those too. Have been useful both ways. Cold winters are hell on batteries.
I know the statistics. Probably a lot better then you. I live by them. They’ve served me well over the years.
You’d know about assuming the worst of everybody.
A LOT of projection on this thread…. especially among the folks accusing others of projection.
Tulpa, you prove the worst in yourself every day. No need to assume.
Heh. Two-deep leadership.
One of my best experiences in the Scouts involved going camping in the Appalachian mountains. We drove to the mountains, parked at a trailhead, hiked about 5 miles into the woods, set up camp, enjoyed ourselves and learned camping skills, hiked back to the trailhead and drove home.
How many adult leaders did we have?
None.
The oldest person in the group was our patrol leader, age 16.
So many wusses these days.
That’s called patrol camping. It’s still an allowed part of scouting, thought most parents would have a fit if you tried to send their children into the woods without an adult. I went patrol camping 45 years ago several times.
If an adult goes along, two have to go. Period, end of discussion. That’s the rules.
You have to love seeing the Reason Bait & Switch in action. Their articles always start out with the premise they’re going to be discussing liberty, but somehow the topic always seems to wind up being equality.
Equality is the highest value to Cosmos.
Hawk Spitui| 2.2.13 @ 9:46PM |#
“You have to love seeing the Reason Bait & Switch in action. Their articles always start out with the premise they’re going to be discussing liberty, but somehow the topic always seems to wind up being equality.”
Uh, you’d do far better learning to read rather than spouting nonsense.
Did your mom tell you that you had something to say? She lied.
Has anyone ever told you that you’re really quite funny? All you have are insults. You’re Episiarch Lite. Is he your sensei?
Always?
Geeze, I figure that I would have noticed that.
A religious organization excluding non-religious people and observing an article of faith common to the world’s 3 major religions… well color me shocked. I don’t understand, nor will I ever understand, why this is an issue anymore than the Salvation Army’s or Catholic Charities’ policies towards gays. Histrionics and name calling aside, this is really no different than skipping over TBN on your cable guide. Why would you want to belong to a club that doesn’t share your values? Why would you care? I don’t join the Knights of Columbus because I’m not Catholic. I don’t join PETA because I don’t support bestowing human rights on animals. I don’t join Pi Kappa Chi because I’m not a chiropractor. I never belonged to the Boy Scouts because it’s more than a little creepy and I wasn’t interested in the activities. If you need the reassurance of belonging to a club, pick one that suits your values, lifestyle, interests, career, etc.
Why do you hate gay people SO MUCH????
Maybe, some gay people really like being scouts. It’s not like there main mission is eliminating homosexuals; actually, it’s kind of a side issue.
their
Doooh!
There’s probably plenty of gay people who would otherwise volunteer for the Salvation Army or Catholic Charities as well. The point is, if the organization by its very nature disapproves of your lifestyle and doesn’t want you in their club, why would you want to be part of it? Obviously this is intended as hyperbole, but as a black man would you go start a protest because the KKK was keeping you out? Why would you want to join in the first place? I don’t get it.
Yes, being gay in the Boy Scouts is EXACTLY like being black in the KKK. You’re so observant.
Obviously this is intended as hyperbole
By hyperbole, I meant hyperbole
And while an exaggeration, it’s not really any different in character. I don’t understand why a person would approach an organization that says “We don’t like people like you around here” and want to join it so that they can spend their leisure time surrounded by people who don’t like them, or at least think a lot differently than they do.
To take an example you might have an easier time with, the whole Boy Scout controversy strikes me as the same type of idiocy as the morons who sued the gay softball league for throwing them off a team for being straight. I don’t understand shit like that. It just doesn’t compute for me.
The gay softball league is ALSO different, their being specifically for gay people wanting to play softball together. Not really the same as an organization trying to promote the healthy growth of young males being asked to let in young males (and adult leaders) who happen to be gay.
It’s not just hyperbole, it’s the most retarded comparison you could think of. It would be hard to make you seem any more out of touch without risking Poe’s Law. You’re just barely on the “believable” side of thing. That’s pretty sad.
Well yes it is. The KKK were ABOUT putting white people over blacks, that was one of the reasons for the group’s existence. The Boy Scouts are specifically about the development of young males, not about being straight.
Are you really this fucking stupid? The organization is “about” whatever the fuck they decide they are about! They’ve decided, at least for the last hundred years or so, that at least one of the things they’re about is not letting gay or non-theist people into their organization. They even took the trouble to write it down so there wouldn’t be any ambiguity about it. They don’t make a secret of that policy, and it’s a private club. So again, they have no obligation to accommodate anyone, they can set whatever rules they want, and if you are one of the myriad people who their policy shuns, I don’t understand why you would want to join. It’s like pursuing a romance with somebody who tells you to your face that they don’t like you and asks you stop calling them. Like I said, I can’t wrap my head around the mindset. I’m comfortable with the idea of being “othered” by a private club. Most people who’ve been through grade school understand the concept of cliques, clubs, and groups so it’s not a devastating shock in adulthood.
THAT’S EVERY ORGANIZATION EVER, PRIVATE AND PUBLIC.
Kinda my point.
It really helps explain the inherent bitterness in your posts that you think it’s impossible to improve any group you’re a part of.
If you choose to interpret ambivalence as bitterness. Aside from “human being” and “American”, I don’t really belong to any groups, because the sort of identity politics you’re advocating don’t do it for me.
Your fatalistic attitude in regard to group attitudes is just mind-boggling
I find your moralistic attitude in regard to ideological diversity equally mind-boggling. It doesn’t make me want to put you in a re-education camp though.
It is fashionable among hipsters (Reason.com) to support the militant gay agenda, so that’s why you are seeing this nonsense here on Reason. It is also why you see a disproportionate interest in sideline issues like “raw foods” and marijuana legalization. These are fashionable subjects for hipsters and if you want to look hip among the San Francisco set, these are the issues you prominently feature.
This sort of thinking really reminds me of politics, and the way people will say “If you don’t like it, why don’t you just leave!” in response to hearing how someone doesn’t like part of our country or government.
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
Right, because that’s totally the same thing. Ignoring religious or fraternal clubs that are composted entirely of people who at minimum disagree with you and reject your lifestyle is exactly like being booted out of your country by troglodytes because you disagree with the government. Voluntary, private religious organizations are just like the state. Man, what a perfect analogy!
*composed, obviously.
Good thing the Boy Scouts ISN’T like the organizations you’re talking about. Wow, who would have thought that an organization about scouting for boys should be open to boys regardless of their sexual orientation. Unthinkable!
Uhh, yeah. If you just take out the voluntary, private, and religious parts, the Boy Scouts of America is not like a voluntary, private religious organization at all…
Is your dispute just with characterizing it as religious despite it’s charter characterizing it as a basically unitarian religiously-influenced group? Even if so, it doesn’t actually change anything about the argument. Throwing people out of the country isn’t like throwing them out of the Boy Scouts, or a fraternity, or a religious order, or a fucking grocery store. Do you get that?
The Boy Scouts is about religion? With a consistent focus on scouting, who knew? Having an involvement with an idea isn’t the same thing as being about that idea. Not to mention that not all religions have something against gay people. Your problem is thinking that something that, frankly, isn’t the driving force behind an organization is somehow inviolate and unchangeable.
Except your whole retarded issue is with getting them to CHANGE. THEIR. MINDS. on the subject. Apparently this is evil. Saying “If you don’t like it, leave!” is just as much bullshit here as it is with a country. If I don’t like it and I think I can get them to change, then fuck that shit, and fuck anyone who thinks “leave” is the only option that makes sense.
The Boy Scouts is about religion? With a consistent focus on scouting, who knew? Having an involvement with an idea isn’t the same thing as being about that idea.
They’re enough about religion that they decided to make it part of their charter and discriminate on its basis. It’s really an irrelevancy though. If they were satanist or wiccan they could just as easily set a policy not to admit gay members if they feel like it. Your problem is thinking that an organization should set its policy based on your moral ideals and not being able to accept their non-conformity and move on.
Except your whole retarded issue is with getting them to CHANGE. THEIR. MINDS. on the subject. Apparently this is evil.
My whole “retarded issue” is with giving a flying fuck about what XYZ organization does. I know that’s a weird idea at a LIBERTARIAN website, but I just don’t understand what motivates anyone to expend any mental energy on changing a policy at a private organization they disagree with. That’s why I tell religious proselytizers on my doorstep to fuck off.
Saying “If you don’t like it, leave!” is just as much bullshit here as it is with a country.
Actually, my thinking is more like “If you don’t like it… cool story bro”. And it’s entirely different. Because voluntary, private organizations do not have the same obligations as a state. It’s really kind of hilarious that would go Poe’s Law on me and then make a comparison that incomprehensibly stupid.
Your problem is that when you don’t like something you just sit on your ass and do nothing about it.
To the extent that’s a “problem”, you’re right, that’s the one I have. Knowing there’s people out there who don’t think exactly the same way I do doesn’t bother me enough to “do something!!!!” about it, until it hits the state level and starts affecting my rights. Like I said, totally weird concepts within libertarianism…
There’s nothing ridiculous at all with thinking their policy is wrongand trying to get them to change it.
That’s your judgment. It seems terribly fussy to me.
It seems to be more along the lines “Why don’t you give up and go away? Things are the way they are, nothing can be done Who gives a shit? Go live your life”
FIFY
Well no it isn’t. If you think coercion is the only meaningful trait regarding an organization, you’re wrong.
If you think it isn’t the only meaningful trait that differentiates a state from a private organization, you aren’t in any meaningful sense of the term a libertarian.
This means anything I don’t like about an organization’s policies is inviolate and untouchable? Don’t make me laugh.
The only thing it means is that a private organization is not a state and doesn’t owe society the same obligations as a state. I didn’t think that would be all that controversial. It’s the fucking identity property.
Here’s a good way to think of this.
I don’t like Apple’s OS X operating system. But some of their notebook chassis are quite stylish. However, Apple will only sell me a notebook with OS X installed. Despite my frustrations at not being able to purchase a headless Apple notebook, I don’t waste my time or energy trying to get Apple to change their OS or change their sales policy and sell me a notebook with a different OS. Since Apple operates within a marketplace where I have several alternatives, I just move on and buy something from another company that better suits my needs. Even if no alternatives existed, I might be motivated to exploit that opportunity by starting a business catering to people who think the same way I do rather than continuing to petition Apple to change its policy to suit my needs.
I don’t conduct myself any differently in any other marketplace, including the marketplace for my leisure time and personal development, or should I have children, their leisure time and personal development. I actually prefer having a more diverse marketplace that includes people, ideas, and products I absolutely despise, so long as the other participants in the market refrain from having the government stick a gun in my back. In a world with so many choices and so much diversity, I don’t understand, as I said at the outset, why anyone would waste their time on quixotic missions to change a given policy at a given organization.
With that, let me thank for the discussion. I feel like we’re just spinning our wheels here.
“If you don’t like it, why don’t you just leave!”
That’s just dumb. Why go to all the trouble of leaving the whole country when I can just bitch about it here? I’m accomplishing a lot at Hit & Run. Making a real difference. My day will come!
The Boy Scouts is not a particularly religious organization, and certainly not a sectarian one. It allows people of any faith to join, whether they believe in the Christian God or the Voodoo gods, the Hindu gods or the Shinto gods – in fact, any god or gods you like with the only exception being people who aren’t sure about that whole god thing.
This is also a policy of the American organization, but not the British, Canadian, Australian, French, German, Russian, etc. organizations. Maybe the Iranian Boy Scouts discriminate against non-believers. I don’t know.
Yeah, I think some of these people think boy scouts get together to pray and condemn homosexuals, ergo, why would the atheistic gays want any part of it.
I did the scout thing for a few months when I was a kid and don’t remember any shit about jesus or gays ever being mentioned. It’s funny too, because one of the kids that stayed in the scouts the longest(in high school) ended up being gay. He was, and still is, interested in the outdoors, and as far as I can tell, he didn’t join up to rape little Johhny Snowflake.
Morons. Groundhog day. Watch a seasonal appropriate movie once in awhile.
The Boy Scouts organization disapproves of homosexuality. They are a private organization. It is their right, as a group of free individuals, to choose who they admit to their membership.
Does libertarianism stand for freedom for those whom its pundits approve of? Are some animals more equal than others?
If you disagree with the Boys Scouts, then don’t join.
Not everyone has to accept you or like you. You don’t have a right to demand that.
Gillespie is wrong, not the Boy Scouts. (By the way, a quick Google search reveals that the organization is the Boy Scouts, not the Boys Scouts.)
The Boy Scouts have the right not to admit gay men, and other people have the right not to associate with the organization because of it, and to speak publicly about why they made that choice. As long as neither side gets the government involved to shut down the other (and to the government’s credit, when one side did the courts shut *them* down), there’s no problem.
You absolutely have the right to demand that. They don’t have to comply with your demand. Not too hard to understand.
So. Epi.
Gay? Not Gay?
I guess Gilliespe missed the part about morally straight. Fortunately the various Scout organizations (troops) are not bound to follow the lead of the National Board. In my opinion, the board should be tossed out and a new one elected that will follow the tenets of scouting.
If any of you libertarians actually think being gay is being “morally straight” go ahead and flame me. I couldn’t care less what you think.
Being gay or not is irrelevant to being morally straight. Morality is about how you treat other people.
Is it moral to use the state to force other people to accept your behavior?
really very nice post.
Mr. Gillespie, as far as your boys are concerned, I think you threw the baby out with the bathwater. I hope you had a reasonable alternative.
Permitting homosexual men positions of leadership over ephebic boys worked so well for the Catholics, why wouldn’t the BSOA replicate the practice?
Nicest chat and chat Iraqi entertaining Adject all over the world
http://www.iraaqna.com