Merlyn_LeRoy

BrentAllen writes: Yep, it's a good thing we have global warming, otherwise, those RECORD snow falls hitting Alaska and the northeast would be REALLY BAD! You obviously have no idea what the issues are. Really. You're as bad as people who say evolution is a hoax because if people evolved from apes, why are there still apes, or who say the moon landing is a hoax because space travel through a vacuum is impossible. Like Harlan Ellison said, everyone's entitled to an INFORMED opinion.

Gonzo1 writes: Merlyn, you mentioned on 12/12/09 "There's no "right" not to be bothered or annoyed per se." - - - - Kinda relates to atheists and Nativity scenes, crosses and so on, just look away, look away, look away. Which is exactly how I and every other atheist handles it -- for nativity scenes and crosses on people's lawns, in front of churches, and the like. When the government erects religious symbols, or only permits some people to put their displays on government property, it's not merely annoying, it's unlawful government promotion of religion, and even some religious people like the Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State are opposed, even though they may agree with the religious views currently being promoted.

GaHillBilly writes: The [Miller/Urey wiki] article seems be generally accurate, but have been largely written by a fan-boy who minimized current problems. Which fan-boy? Just looking at the history, It has over 500 edits by lots of different people.

BrentAllen writes: ...BTW, what does her religious views have to do with science? Keep religion out of the science classroom, and vice-versa, right? Stating that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time" is a religious view? Is stating that "dinosaurs preceded humans by millions of years" also a religious view? If not, why is one statement religious and the other statement not religious? "Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion." -- Superintendent Chalmers

BrentAllen writes: If the Scouts Canada membership decline due to admission of girls and gays is a post hoc fallacy, then I can claim the same thing with the BSA decline. That was my point. The problem is, neither of us can prove our point. Too many variables and not enough information. Which is why your statement is worthless. And, by the way, what's your basis for stating "AGW is the greatest hoax of our lifetime" in the other thread? Oh, it's the same basis. Absolutely nothing.

You still don't know what a post hoc fallacy is, Brent.

The ban has been so taken out of context by its detractors, that it is hardly really understood. First, it has never included youth, as long as they do not make things public displays. The BSA's 1991 position statement said that "the Boy Scouts of America does not accept homosexuals as members or as leaders, whether in volunteer or professional capacities." Just like hetero individuals, the issue should simply not be public. So the BSA should kick out heterosexuals who wear wedding rings?

So there must be some sort of global conspiracy between thousands of scientists, eh?

BrentAllen writes: You libs might want to check out what happened to Scouts Canada, where they opened up membership to girls and gays. From 1997 thru April 2009, they have lost around 138,000 members, on average 11,500 members per year. You cons might want to check out what happened to the Scout Association in the UK, where they opened up membership to girls and gays. They had the largest increase in membership in 22 years in 2007. And you cons might want to check out what happened to the BSA. From 1997 thru 2008, they've lost around 790,000 members (counting their discriminatory membership only). And Brent, you should look up what a post hoc fallacy is.

Eagle92 writes: Upon reflecting about the Exploring/Venturing split, I remember 1 exploring unit, and heard of others, that maintained their specialty, i.e. police, SAR, etc, but switched from a public entity being the CO to a private entity in order to become Venturing Crews and not have to accept gays. There was a lot of concern by everyone involved. Concern over what?

skeptic writes: You are correct; they do have the "right". But it is no longer a "right" when it infringes directly on someone else. Only if it conflicts with another genuine right (in which case the courts generally determine which right has right-of-way). However, judging by what you've written in the past, your definition of "infringement" appears to be "slightly bothers someone," which isn't infringing someone else's rights. There's no "right" not to be bothered or annoyed per se.

skeptic writes: realize there are a few on these boards that will NEVER face these realities, as to them, everyone should have the right to do whatever they want, no matter how if effects the large majority. If someone is attempting to exercise what truly is a "right," then of course they can do it, no matter how it affects the large majority. Some people think rights should be ignorable if too many people find a particular one annoying, but not me.

it's my understanding that the Scouts gave the city the building in return for a lifetime lease No, the scouts gave the city the building in return for being allowed to build it on public land.

vol_scouter writes: If the majority pushes the congress to deny rights, then they can be denied as I outlined. I already knew that. But what I said was that that's not the same as the majority voting away the rights of a minority.

vol_scouter writes: Once again you are wrong. No, I'm not. A constitutional amendment could be brought before the congress who are representing the views of the majority to strip a group of some right. Which is not the same as the majority voting away the rights of a minority. You have to change the constitution first. Then that group will have lost the right without a means to restore it except by repealing the amendment. Wrong; armed revolt can work, too. So the majority can rule whenever we elect people who believe in a representative democracy. Which is not the same as the majority voting away the rights of a minority. We currently do not have a majority of congressmen who believe in representative democracy. How so?

vol_scouter writes: Majority rules is the basis of democracy. Hopefully, the majority will see fit to pass laws to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. Ah, "rights by crossed fingers." Like that works. However, the more common phenomenom is now for the the minority to dictate to the majority which is no longer democracy. Well, the US never has been a democracy, but you say that like it's a BAD thing that the majority can't vote away the rights of a minority.

It isn't contrary, Ed. I'd say most school officials were ignorant, and didn't realize that the BSA expected them to break the law. Now, signing a contract out of ignorance isn't a good thing, but it's better than signing a contract knowing you are agreeing to break the law. The BSA certainly knew that, but I doubt most school officials knew it. That's why I don't agree that they share the blame equally; the BSA knowingly acted dishonestly in every case, but I'd say the vast majority of school officials acted out of ignorance. This is off-topic, Ed, if you bring it up again I'll just state that you can't learn things, and I will repeat that thereafter.

Not in my opinion, Ed. I'd say most school administrators didn't realize that the BSA expected their schools to actually break the law.

John-in-KC writes: Last time I checked in business world, people try very, very hard not to offend, deliberately, their largest customers. Well, they didn't exactly "offend," just made it legally impossible for their former largest customer (public schools) to even charter units.

So THAT'S where Dinsdale Piranha got the idea from...

I have people?

So yes I am angry about this issue, and if there is a law that allows this tragedy to happen then it is time to change that law. Why not spin off L4L instead? Seems a bit easier than trying to repeal a longstanding law about not having city contracts with discriminatory organizations. You'd need to argue that the city ought to have contracts with discriminatory organizations, and coming from members of a discriminatory organization like the BSA, it'll just look self-serving. Merlyn, your statement that you are going to "cut the BSA off from the government for their discriminatory practices" is nothing more than a pathetic smokescreen that will have serious consequences in this case for the city and the youth of LA. Speaking for myself, I think you are a loathsome human being. Well, I think you're loathsome for supporting a discriminatory organization like the BSA. The BSA isn't the only game in town, and their discriminatory policies certainly don't help when it comes to any sort of governmental involvement.

Ed, the whining in this thread is supposed to be about how people with trivial and dismissable "complaints" have the gall to use the courts to make everyone else kowtow to them, like how Rosa Parks just couldn't move a few seats into the back of the bus and had to inconvenience everyone by winning in court over her extremely slight "injury." As you ought to know, any injury that someone else (who would never be subject to that injury) that can be put inside scare quotes isn't a real injury, and shouldn't be given the time of day in our overcrowded courts, because their "rights" are in scare quotes too, and don't matter to anyone. Or at least only matter to a tiny fraction of the population, which means they can be safely ignored, because ignoring people's rights (excuse me, "rights") is always the right thing to do. Addendum: Well, technically, Browder v. Gayle wasn't Parks' lawsuit.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Yeah, I have this "horrible" agenda that the government must treat all people equally, instead of practicing discrimination. I'd be against the government using a program run by a nondiscriminatory division of the KKK, too. As long as the BSA keeps insisting on discriminating, I'll work to get them cut off from the government.

And Rosa Parks could've just sat at the back of the bus and gotten to her destination, same as the white people who sat right up front.. Some "injury," right?