packsaddle

Any idea what species it is? How big is it (diameter)? Is it green with leaves still attached? I agree with JMHawkins...if the 'bugs' are eating the bamboo that is one problem. But if they are living 'on' the bamboo, you might be able to just douse it with rubbing alcohol or a detergent solution. A lot depends on the bamboo as well as the 'bugs'.

Peregrinator, an open marriage is, nevertheless, a marriage. As long as it doesn't affect us, who are we, outsiders, to question a relationship that other people agree on? It might not be what WE have decided for ourselves but that is OUR individual choice, right? Why deny that freedom to others? As for family, there is no doubt in my mind about the emotional bond between, for example, parent and child. I can't explain instinct but I sense that it exists. But your answer doesn't really explain an incompatibility between individualism and family. What you describe is how the individual 'relates' to or 'fits in' with family - in your ideal world. You refer to 'errors' of individualism. That's what I'd like you to explain. What are those errors and, if possible, how do they explain the incompatibility of individualism with family?

AZMike, You asked how I could reconcile my atheism with the Scout Law. And I answered that question. There is nothing to reconcile. The question was prejudicial in nature and I told you so. If anyone can suggest how a non-atheist can give a better answer to that question, please let me know and I'll give it another shot. I asked you YOUR question and if you think it was convoluted, then blame yourself. But you didn't answer it. Until now you didn't even reply. If you'd like to continue the dialogue, the other thread is still available. But given your claim of ignorance, well, there's always that trusty VIC20 and Wikipedia. See you on the other side.

Bless you Bart, you actually are trying to stay on topic. If the argument was reversed; if those denominations were threatening to leave because BSA was refusing to allow membership to gays, would it really be an argument to allow gays in? The question of what the 'right thing' is - is not affected by the reactions of folks to the membership decision. If the decision was made on the basis of maximizing membership (and $$$), it would be a marketing decision or something like that, and not something necessarily based in moral compass. Peregrinator, what is "awful" about individualism, whether it's in conservative or any other kind of thought? Why is individualism incompatible with 'family'? Husbands and wives have a contract with each other, on many simultaneous levels. But I could argue that awareness of 'individual' actually strengthens this contract we call marriage. Keep in mind that Rand married young and remained with her mate until he died. I realize this is largely because of O'connor's devotion...does that minimize the fact that remains? Moosetracker, can you even consider the possibility that altruism is an illusion that you and others have? Can you consider the possibility that individual enlightened self-interest CAN lead to a structured and ordered society? Do you not realize that this is precisely the economic system that we live in and it is possible that society is structured and ordered as a result of related or similar interactions? What is so wrong about individualism?

Is that all it takes to go "...far, far beyond her atheism..."? Do conservatives think she is incorrect, that we DO have claims on others? I was hoping to be surprised to find out that she had eaten children or something. But other than being atheist, her philosophy of individual freedom seems well-suited as a conservative philosophy. Is prejudice against atheism THAT powerful in politics, really? Moosetracker, I'm not sure HOW you got THAT out of a question about Ayn Rand.

LOL, pot accusing kettle

"...far, far beyond her atheism..." OK, please explain.

I guess I didn't ask the question correctly. I couldn't care less about Ryan's problems with slinking and all (I agree, it is somewhat amusing but I have felt similar things about -name the Democrat-). I want to understand what it is about Ayn Rand that makes association with her politically toxic. I'm familiar with her views on a variety of subjects but those seem to be loyal to a libertarian perspective. So again, is it 'bad' to be libertarian?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

OK, I give up on staying on topic. So...what is the problem with Ryan being an Ayn Rand devotee? I understand the potential political impact. I'm mostly trying to understand why people would object? It's kind of like that question I asked AZMike in the other thread which he seems not to want to answer, the one related to health care and eugenics. I get that people don't like certain ideas. I'd just like to understand the reasoning for their dislike.

And I appreciate it, Beavah, thanks. Wasn't this supposed to be about the 'B'SA president, not the 'U'SA President? You guys are trying to confuse me, aren't you?

Yeah, bad link. This one should work. http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=20866 Your search is within the forum itself. On this page that you are reading right now, scroll up to the 'Reply' button and look just below it for another button that reads, 'search'. I just did it and studentscout is there, every last post. So yes, I'm fairly certain of it. As for the registrar, I was questioned about my religious affiliation when I declined to be forced to read from a Bible to demonstrate my literacy. I think my words were something along the lines of, 'My faith is personal and I'm not going to have it examined by you' or something like that. It degenerated from there but eventually a 'higher authority' rightly saw their error and blinked. I went on to cast my vote for Richard Nixon. I blame myself. As for what you think you know about me...I will not relieve you of your ignorance. Except, of course, to inform you of it. You don't know me from Adam's dog and yet you think you know my thoughts. Most of the time I'll take the opportunity to confront prejudice but when it's directed at me, I'm good with it. You just go ahead and continue to think I'm an atheist. No problem. In answer to your question, I have no problem reconciling my membership. There's nothing to reconcile. By the way, BrentAllen made a similar attempt a while back. Once you figure out how to do a proper search, you can read about that as well. You know, Social Security was one thing I didn't list in that original post where I posed the question. And it's the ONLY thing you mentioned just now. I have objections to Social Security but they're not related to health care. So let's set that aside. You are the one who suggested the 'nebulous' question which I have agreed to ask. I'll repeat it for you: (I am) "asking if" (you) "believe the government should provide some share of the health care for certain specified groups?" The rest was an attempt to be more specific. I asked for you to specify 'how much' not just "some share" and I asked for more specificity about the groups as well. YOU are being evasive.

I'm getting travel ads and hotels. Could be worse from what I'm hearing.

How does that old Carly Simon song go?.... Procrastination, procrastination Is makin' me late Is keepin' me waitin'

Asheville, North Carolina...it figures. There was a book burning near there a while back. A Baptist church was burning non-KJV bibles to celebrate Halloween. Those wacky Baptists! You just never know what mad-cap antics they'll be up to next, whether it's handling serpents or realistic mock-crucifixions. Truth really IS stranger. As for Herb Silverman...you forgot to mention that he's also Jewish. THAT could be a huge part of his problem as well. Oh yeah, that math professor thing doesn't help much either. Education isn't exactly a social asset in SC.

Yes, I am a member. Here is one of those old threads: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=20866#id_213050 In NC a few years back a voter registrar informed me that in NC, you can't vote if you don't believe in God. I think that has changed since then though. But it was recent enough to be within my lifetime. "Does this mean that Buddhist people are atheists?" You'd have to ask a Buddhist but at least one in these threads has affirmed that Buddhism is atheistic. Crank up the ol' Vic20 and search on 'studentscout'. The internet is your friend. In response to your passionate rejection of the some methods that might be used to achieve the goals of eugenics, I had asked if you support socialized medicine. And you responded, "Are you asking if I believe the government should provide some share of the health care for certain specified groups?" To which I replied in the affirmative: "An answer to that question would be OK, especially if you explain how the groups are defined and how much of a share. Or it could include government paying the cost...it doesn't have to be a government doctor or clinic." And then from you...nothing. So the question is really the one YOU suggested. Do you "believe the government should provide some share of the health care for certain specified groups?"

AZMike, Merlyn is not a member of BSA so I'm not sure how he could answer your challenge. But that question has been discussed at length in these forums before. You might as well aim the challenge at BSA itself because they seem to 'wink' at Buddhist (for example) memberships. I can't remember if or how a Buddhist responded in the past though. I'd still like to hear your answer to the question I asked a while back.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Actually there is a small distinction: the moderators have an asterisk (*) after their designation as type of forum membership. All of the moderators have the designation: "Senior Forum Member*" It's unobtrusive and I agree, that is good.

Acco40, wow. I credit you with the courage to admit it.

Yes. I assume your question asked for more than that. As I see it, the question is: how much 'moderation' do you really want and what 'rules' do you want applied? The current practice seems to be a fairly open approach which allows a broad acceptance of words. What would be better and how would you propose to achieve that goal?

"Are you asking if I believe the government should provide some share of the health care for certain specified groups?" An answer to that question would be OK, especially if you explain how the groups are defined and how much of a share. Or it could include government paying the cost...it doesn't have to be a government doctor or clinic.

Does anyone else think that 'lurking' sounds just a little creepy? I'd say that 'observing quietly' as in making observations in primate social behavior sounds better even if it is the same thing. I guess the chimps may have thought that Jane was creepy for that matter, lol, at least at first, before she wormed her way into their social structure. Anyway, I've been deleting dozens of posts, some without even reading them carefully. They are mostly the same identical spam ad. Yesterday I deleted a few which had been posted in triplicate by accident. For the most part I take the approach that Eamonn takes and I sympathize with Acco40, I don't even think about being a 'moderator' unless something really catches my attention. There have been a couple of times where I thought a couple of guys who I know are thoughtful good people seemed ready to unload on each other. So I sent them a message to let them know how it looked to me. I'm still not adept at applying Godwin's rule: that one I leave to OGE. The problem with the Issues and Politics forum is that it is a place where an individual can cultivate hard feelings which can be carried elsewhere in the forums. I think I've observed this on a few occasions. But compared to discussions I've read in other forums (not necessarily scout-related), these forums are on the tame end of the spectrum. I think the gentlest one I've participated in is one that is purely for the purpose of sharing personal religious thoughts. The roughest has to do with firearms (I'm amazed at the emotion that can arise from one person's opinion of their favorite killing device when others have different opinions on their favorite killing devices).

I'll use the concept in the sense that I've seen it expressed by persons in these forums. In that sense it is access to medical care that is either paid for by tax dollars, or subsidized by tax dollars, or actually owned and run by government. This would, I guess, include any care that results from a variety of welfare programs, medicare, medicaid. Things like that. And, of course, the new law...that probably goes with the other stuff. I have read references to all these things at different times in the sense that they, to a variety of extents, are 'socialized'. Do you support these?

No. I mostly wanted to understand what your reasoning is. You expanded on it nicely, thanks. Do you support socialized medicine?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Gad, I guess this thread has been 'brought back to life'. OK, "Muhammed a False Prophet, or da Jewish prohibition on pork a bunch of superstitious nonsense?" So what was Muhammed wrong about in his prophecy? Or better yet, what are the characteristics which define 1) what a prophet is? and 2) what it takes to make them a false one? Could Jean Dixon qualify as a false prophet? As for the pork thing, THAT isn't and never was a bunch of superstitious nonsense, at least in the sense that in retrospect there seems to have been a legitimate public-health relationship to pork. Of course, today that practice is quaint, perhaps charming.. but unnecessary. At least its harmless. But I agree with Merlyn, perhaps not in the same terms. I'm about to thoroughly enjoy stripping students of some more illusions. It's one of the most satisfying things I do, to see those 'lights' come on and to see their faces when they realize that there's a better, more interesting way to think about things than the way they had. After that, I almost have to hold them back. I'm really looking forward to it. AZMike, I certainly do credit religion with a modicum of emotion surrounding the abortion topic. But with respect to eugenics, do you really think that is a result of the absence of religion? You might want to check out a little book, "Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement" by Christine Rosen. It's published by the Oxford University Press and you can probably find a used copy cheap. While there was indeed a great deal of religious opposition to the ideas of eugenics, there were also some religious leaders who embraced it, "Christianity must be a religion less concerned about getting men to heaven than about fitting them for their proper work on earth." The internet is your friend. Here is an interesting link as well:http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_54-60.pdf I also note that in the days of slavery, the Bible was used to justify that 'peculiar institution' in the South and as a result there were attempts to breed slaves just you might livestock (shades of Dred Scott). But, AZMike, since you bring it up, what is your objection to eugenics? Do you think this is a bad thing? Why?

OK, I get it. In order to try to get some rain in that parched, hellish state you call home, you're willing to take a lightning strike.