Jump to content

Beavah

Members
  • Posts

    8173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by Beavah

  1. Some folks need public ceremonies, others are annoyed by 'em. I'm a fan of adjusting to da way a scouter prefers to be recognized. If they like da public hoopla, do it at a RT or adult district event. If they prefer da company of their fellow patrol mates at da local pub, do it there. If handing 'em their accouterments in a back room at the council office with a "thanks for your contributions" handshake is more their style, do that. So if you want to do it as a nice dinner with da people who supported you, sounds good to me! Beavah (who was da back room at the office guy )
  2. Yah, another one shot poster with an endorsement, eh? There are dozens if not hundreds of outfitters in da near Atlantic and Caribbean who can help with a unit high adventure sailing / scuba trip, eh? Lots of good ones that work with kids. And most of 'em are more courteous than what SSB seems to be in terms of their spam advertising practice and other correspondence. I'd encourage anyone thinking of such a trip to look further, eh? And consider making contact with da Scout Association of whatever island or nation you are thinking about. Beavah
  3. And then there are people who don't believe God had anything to do with the Bible (or one or more testaments), and that it was just written by people, like any other book. In which case you're still left with da issue that it was and is by far da best selling, most influential book in human history. So still da one book that any honestly well read and thoughtful human should have read and thought about in detail, read commentaries on, and considered as potentially useful even if it seemed to disagree with their own notions. Which, in turn, would lead 'em back to considering more seriously d possibility of God. Beavah
  4. Yah, no easy way to answer this by remote. There can be folks who take advantage of da good will of others. In my experience, however, it's extremely rare in scouting. Generally speaking, a family that is severely financially stressed is stressed in every other way, too. In time. In emotional stability. In stress. Fact is, especially at da cub scout level, participating in fundraising requires the parent to have free time and energy to do most of da work. That sounds easy if you're a stable, 2-parent household. It's incredibly difficult if you're not. So here yeh have a family that seems clearly under stress, so much so that even the task of getting kids to meetings regularly is a burden they can barely manage. And you want to increase da stress on them? What do yeh think the result of that will be? I'd go da other way myself, and in scoutly charity try to figure out what else besides just helping with fees yeh could do to make da burdens on this young family lighter. Maybe arrange regular carpool pickups so that the boys make more meetings? Maybe encourage pack families to reach out and do some family stuff with/for 'em? Maybe invite them along on a weekend, because a family that's stressed rarely has the wherewithal for a vacation. In my years of scouting I can think of one, maybe two families that "took advantage". For all da rest, if yeh ever got to really know their circumstances it made yeh cry. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  5. Yah, acco, I can't really offer any perspective on da Catholic ceremonial getup and rigamarole. I'm sure someone finds it meaningful. From da perspective of an outsider, it sure seems like a lot of excess pomp and ego, especially on da part of your episcopate. Sometimes it seems like it borders on a form of idolatry, eh? Da message seems like it's "look at me, obey me!" rather than "I'm just a fellow human, let's focus together on God, obey God." Just sayin' But unless I misunderstand, I don't think da Catholic ceremonial finery includes personal awards, eh? It's just stuff that signifies role. It's da equivalent of wearing a plain uniform with a Scoutmaster patch, so that people can recognize your role in da service. In fact, I think most of da Catholic religious orders prohibit da wearing of personal recognitions, do they not? I agree with BadenP, I really find adult awards at youth COHs distasteful. Our time with da youth should be focused on them, and celebrate their accomplishments, not our own. I've sat through a few "beadings" done at troop events that only bored the kids or over-hyped da adult award (and thereby outshone the youth awards). Here's something to think about, eh? Do yeh do ice cream after the meeting for a boy who earns First Class? A boy who has earned First Class or Star has put more time into that work than an adult who has done Woodbadge and worked his ticket. It was probably proportionately harder for da boy than da man. Yet yeh honored the adult more. Is that da message we want to send? Do we as adults really want/need/deserve more time in da spotlight than the boys? Do we really have to have more ribbons and dongles on our uniforms than the boys can have on theirs? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  6. Yah, hmmm... So I've sat next to our council registrar as she looked up a boy's records in another council and transferred 'em to ours. It needed only da former council name/number and the former troop number. It can be done. Or at least it could be done at one time. With ScoutNet yeh never really know. Now, I can't say it's a trivial process. Nothing in ScoutNet is ever as easy as it should be. So it might be that it's somethin' your registrar hasn't figured out yet. And I've heard tell that there are a host of "issues" with da online advancement reporting and TroopMaster and records transfers. I can't confirm that, but stuff like da TroopMaster upload would erase/replace the records that were transferred in from another council. So it could be da registrar is just trying to avoid all that hassle by making everyone "start fresh" and hand-enter da old records under a new ID. Beavah
  7. B, I'll forgive you and it's not simplistic. If you meant straw man and were just being funny, well, whatever. Shucks, I thought it was funny. Though not as funny as packsaddle's nose ring. I just can't figure out how yeh can feel dividing all of Christendom into "two camps" is anything but simplistic. Yeh might have to give it another go explaining that to me. Current "progessive/permissive" Christian thought goes at least as far back as Erasmus'(a contemporary in the late 1400's of Luther and Calvin) espousal of free will. Not to mention Kant, Hume, and Locke (The Enlightenment) in the 1700's. You know better. Yah,... Huh? I think your mind made about a dozen logical steps there that yeh neglected to type out for da rest of us to follow. Otherwise it just seems like something that Folly would Praise, eh? I don't think Erasmus took a position in favor of homosexual practice, or any of those other fellows either. I don't reckon Erasmus began discussion of free will, eh? Rather, he was defending the millenial Judeo-Christian teaching on free will against da challenges raised by determinists like Luther and Calvin. Yah, and I can't figure da whole blacks-and-baptism thing, eh? Seems like da Christians from the early Patriarchies to da Orthodox and Catholics and on have always followed da gospel's admonishment to "go, make disciples of all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Perhaps a few snooty national churches or whatnot along da way may have done something different, but da notion of general baptism hardly got its start in 1700. And as to women, da ancient Jewish law afforded women more property rights than da early laws in the United States. So I'm afraid yeh just lost me in all that, eh? Care to try again? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  8. I thought "Introduction to Outdoor Leader Skills" was supposed to teach the Outdoor Skills required to go from Tenderfoot to First Class. If your District/Council version of IOLS does not end with a participant who can competently perform all the required skills then there is an issue with either the presentation of the material or the participants ability to comprehend or perform the skills. Or da structure of the course itself. We believe it takes a kid at least a full year of active participation in a strong troop to achieve First Class. Some of us believe that if we're honest and have high expectations it takes longer than that. Why do we then believe we can get adult beginners the same skills in just one weekend? Just doesn't make sense. Beavah
  9. This thread is still going on? And now we've got singing pigs and someone has fitted packsaddle with a nose ring. Guess it goes with his new island habitat. I will say there are two Christian camps - those who believe in the "inerrancy" of scripture and those who believe that the Bible was written by human beings in a particular place and time and that it helps us to understand applications to our time and place if we study it from that perspective. Yah, forgive me for sayin' so, but only two Christian camps? That seems like a remarkably simplistic analysis and yet another straw pig. I think there are dozens on dozens of Christian views, eh? From literal fundamentalists (which you mischaracterize as "inerrancy") to da real "inerrancy" communities who aren't fundamentalist, and on and on up to da UCC, UU, and then liberal academics who feel the Bible is a nice, quaint storybook and then make up their own stories about it. And I'm never quite sure what to make about "da bible was written at a particular place and time." Of course it was. So was Einstein's paper on General Relativity, or Jefferson's writing in da Declaration of Independence. Doesn't mean that the content isn't still accurate and applicable today. So let's revise Eagledad's statement to "you'd have to ban the vast majority of traditional religious practice which has been around for more than 50 years." Which, as quaze suggests, is a remarkably brazen thing for folks who've only been around da last 50 years to do. Kinda like da bankers who say "let's ignore all da stuff from 30 or more years ago about business ethics and prudent financing and regulation. It's so dated and un-modern" Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  10. Yah, hmmm.... Congratulations on acquiring 14 knots in only 10 years. That's hard to do, eh? And still harder to do well. I'm always a bit nonplussed by adults claiming da purpose of wearing knots is to show their "pride" in their accomplishments in da program. It's a childrens program, eh? I'm never quite sure why an adult would be that proud of a children's program award that they'd wear a mess of 'em and strut around. Most adults are proud of their professional accomplishments and such, eh? You know, awards for real-life adult activities. And even then, they don't wear 'em around. I think adults who are proud of their scouting work are proud of kids, not themselves, eh? They talk about what kids do or have done. Perhaps they're proud of a special unit award, except we have very few of those, or maybe they're proud of a Philmont belt buckle because it was a gift from a crew and brings back good memories of what da kids achieved. Da topic of their own awards never comes up, and it certainly isn't worn like a flag to attract da attention of others. Pride in Scouting as a movement involves wearin' some uniform or other token of membership in da movement, but I'm not sure it needs 5 rows of knots. Beavah
  11. Yah, claiming that someone "twisted" words is of da same character as claiming "oppression" for what is a difference of opinion. It's presuming an exaggerated negative approach by da other fellow which isn't justified. You presented your words, eh? Others responded to what yeh wrote. If yeh didn't communicate your real thoughts, I reckon that's more likely a failure of communication on your part than a deliberate "twisting" by other people. Rather than get combative, why don't yeh try to reframe your idea and communicate it more clearly? Beavah
  12. So to paraphrase George Orwell, it looks like some "sins" are more equal than others. Yah, whoever said that sins were equal, eh? Dat's no more the case than all violations of law or custom are equal. You're mixin' up two different things, eh? One is whether an act is morally sound, da other is whether a government or social institution should impose sanctions for it. Unless yeh adhere to something like Islamic Sharia, those are two different questions. Yeh can believe that homosexual activity or divorce are wrong and also believe that da BSA should allow individual COs to determine criteria for leadership in their own units. But da key to local option is mutual respect, eh? Which includes not disparaging some units and COs for "oppressing" someone just because they don't feel the person is the sort of mentor for youth that they want. As ScoutFish implies, local option can't work without that mutual respect. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  13. Yah, I'm with BadenP, eh? This is only an issue if some nitwit of an administrator somewhere decides to be foolish. And if yeh have to deal with such a person, then charter both of the young people as ASMs in a local troop and bring 'em along on that basis. VYPT is offering basic general guidance, which then has to be applied to da particular circumstances by the CO and real adult leaders. In all my discussions at Region and National, da folks are far more nuanced and intelligent about the application of these things than some of our more black-and-white volunteers. Beavah
  14. Hiya evry, I think you're mixing up two things, eh? Da first is the behavior of a rogue parent. Yah, you're right, the parent is doing things that will not really benefit his son, and is indirectly compromising da program for other boys in small ways. I'd be inclined to buy the fellow a full set of merit badges that he can present to his son and then hang on his wall. If yeh don't have a strong CO or committee (or SM), then yeh often find that a strong-willed parent will take advantage of other people's desire to avoid conflict and push this stuff through. Really there's no controlling it unless someone says "Thank you for your service, you are no longer an ASM, all of your son's MB work must be approved in advance by the SM who will specify a counselor". But da question of whether you or your son should look for another troop is completely unrelated, eh? Is your son having fun? Is he learning things about the outdoors and working with others? Those are da questions you need to ask to answer the second question you pose. Whether our kids participate in an activity does not depend on us agreeing with everybody else in that activity, just on whether or not our kids are getting something worthwhile from it. Your boy will have occasional imperfect teachers, teachers who play favorites. Da school will occasionally have weak curriculum or let some kid pass because their parents pushed. That doesn't necessarily mean it's time to withdraw your kid from school. Good luck with it. Beavah
  15. My point is still there. Define torture. From da United States Code (18 USC 2340) (1) torture means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) severe mental pain or suffering means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from ---(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; ---(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; ---© the threat of imminent death; or ---(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. From the UN Convention Against Torture (to which the U.S. is a signatory, and da Senate ratified making it U.S. law as well): For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. And just for OGE, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (description of violations of the Fifth Commandment, 2297-98): Torture, which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Beavah
  16. Och! Now we'll be discussin' the morality of leper jokes. You're not only a crime against humanity, you're downright evil. What happened at the leper hockey game? There was a face off in the corner. What happened at the leper poker game? They all threw their hands in. Gosh, it's been decades since young scouts told me all those jokes. Amazing the random junk da brain holds onto. Beavah (yah, agree with packsaddle too... we like talking tough about torturing a fellow to get our child back. Da thing is, the folks who love their children deeply really don't have da stomach to torture a man. That takes a kind of moral callousness of a vastly different order).(This message has been edited by Beavah)
  17. Thinking...does this mean I can't sing to my students? That's not torture, eh? It's a full-out crime against humanity. B
  18. Nah, it really isn't a tough issue at all. You don't torture people. Not the five year old girl, not the man. There's a difference between a fellow who is a suspected terrorist who might know about a bomb and a man who is actually in your house shooting at you. Yeh can pull the trigger on da fellow who walks into the cafe with a dynamite vest on, and we'll all give yeh a medal. But in da free, civilized, and moral world we don't subject people to torture based on suspicion. Even if it costs lives. Da reason is that if I can do it to him, based on suspicion, I can do it to you and your family based on suspicion. Now raise your hand if you agree that you and your relatives and children can be tortured any time the government has suspicion that you might be involved in a serious crime affecting the safety of others. Let's say, for example, your name resembles a name on da terrorist watch list, and there's unaccounted luggage on your plane flight. Your nosy neighbor has been reporting you for "suspicious activity" in your garage because yeh have a workshop there and she can't see too well. Yeh might be involved in a heinous crime. Or yeh might just be a regular guy with a nosy neighbor whose luggage got screwed up by da airline. Let's install a rack at each terminal, eh? And then those other countries may follow suit, eh? Not da dinky little terrorist cells, but other nations may follow our lead. Those young white American college kids are awfully suspicious, eh? That off-duty U.S. military person traveling with her family might be a spy collaborating with da insurgency. Best be safe and protect our people. Pick 'em up, no habeas corpus, off to da torture chamber. What do yeh know about that, they confessed! Off to da prison or da executioner. You distraught American parent can try to get your embassy to issue protests. And da family and friends of the fellow you tortured? What do yeh suppose they're likely to do, eh? Yep, they're likely to come after you and your community and your friends and nation with everything they've got. So now yeh have 50 new terrorists. If yeh tortured my kid, yeh better believe it'd be a blood feud, and I'm a fairly calm fellow. Yeh think others won't do da same? The point of Natural Law (and divine positive law) is that it's Law, eh? Da real deal, not the human imitation. Yeh can disobey, but da penalty is your soul, and the cost of severe consequences to everything yeh love and cherish. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  19. Thus far. I'd love to revisit this matter in another 1,000 years. Yah, sure. That's a hypothesis, eh? But until then, good teachers teach the current consensus view of our understanding. Beavah
  20. I am also starting to think that Beav might be a closet UU, the way he loves to debate Nah, those UU folks are too wishy-washy for me. I reckon I have a professional interest in argumentation which is hard to outgrow. B
  21. Beav, thanks for your thoughts. You say that ethical mores are "grounded in" (that is, are derived from) religion. Nope, that's not what I said. In da West, the most commonly described tenets of Natural Law come from da Greek philosophers, whose approach or at least argumentation was essentially secular in character, and certainly not Judeo-Christian. Religious folks at least in the west maintain that Natural Law is common to all humanity by virtue of our creation in the image and likeness of God. Natural Law is not religion-dependent, even in da view of those of us who are religious. It is not "derived from" religion; it derives from da essential character of Creation. Da problem yeh have to contend with is transmission and acceptance of ideas. Da secular philosophers of Greece and other places throughout history have come up with all sorts of notions. Da ones that have been successful at building cultural consensus are those which were consonant with religious tenets and practice. That is to say, religion and religiosity are necessary for the broad transmission and acceptance of moral/ethical principles. That's what I mean by "grounded in religion." Da Greek formulation of Natural Law is only present in our culture (and in your brain) because it was transmitted and reinforced throughout the west by da Christian churches. So we wouldn't disagree. In fact, we're in resounding agreement. Our natural humanity and our natural tendency to search for and deepen our relationship with God does give rise to religion. God certainly has never created a religion per se, that's a human response to the call of God. Societies slowly develop their understanding of Natural and Divine Law by their experience with nature and the divine. And they formulate and transmit their understanding of these ethical principles through religion. That may be because no other cultural mechanisms can both demand adherence and effectively resist self-interested manipulation in da long run. Human governance can demand adherence but is subject to corruption. Secular philosophy may also resist corruption but cannot demand adherence. So even if it were not "True" in da capital-T sense, religion would be necessary for da survival and transmission of ethical principles within and especially across cultures. Your daughter cried over da crucifixion because da many followers of the Crucified taught our culture, and indirectly her, that one weeps over the torture of another human being of any tribe. Torture is "wrong." Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  22. Yah, I think muzzle control (and da related trigger control) is a learned habit/behavior, eh? There's no reason why it should be innate. With any beginner, young or old, who hasn't yet developed the habit, you'll get mistakes when their brain is distracted by other things (loading, talking, etc.). That's normal, eh? Has nothing to do with stupidity or wanting to break the rules or not understanding. Yeh can't teach it with a lecture. Just has to do with mental load when hit with distractions. Like all habits, da earlier in life yeh learn 'em, the harder they are to break. And yeh can learn 'em early in life. I like JoeBob's practice drill for beginners. I think it's da right way to go, because it helps them develop/reinforce the habit even when their brain is being distracted by other things. And yah, I've been "swept". By adults as often as kids. As someone who picked up da habit early in life, it drives me bonkers. Beavah
  23. In answer to Beavah, I submit that as proof that torture is wrong. Yah, Trevorum, that is what is called an argument from Natural Law. It's da longest-standing and most predominant response to Calico's question. Even among da young, partially formed members of ordinary intellect and temperament, most people and cultures would reject da behavior, at least by and against members of their own community. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't individual members of unusual temperament who don't delight in da torture of animals and others. We know there are kids like that, eh? So not every member of a culture agrees by temperament. And yeh can learn, choose, or even teach behaviors contrary to da Natural Law, as demonstrated by da recent willingness of a few of our public officials to embrace the practice of torture. Natural law is an inclination for the majority's conscience, not a determiner of personal belief or behavior. Da problem, as others have pointed out, is that your daughter has grown up and already been enculturated in a Western, Judeo-Christian culture. Da fact that she even has a word for "torture" with negative connotations is a product of her upbringing and the majority culture. Da fact that she is willing to see someone of a remote tribe other than her own as sharing in common humanity is a product of a culture grounded in religion which espouses universal human relationships with God. It doesn't matter if you and your family don't have that religious background, da Judeo-Christian ethic is pervasive in our culture, from Saturday morning cartoons to preschool to your behavioral expectations to the very language you use with your daughter. So others would argue that it's difficult to separate Natural Law from cultural influences at the least, or that Natural Law is strictly a cultural phenomenon. Either way, whether the source is human or ultimately divine, da cultural phenomenon that determines ethical mores is grounded in religion. Now here's da problem for you. Da same natural law argument can be made for homosexuality, eh? Da majority of ordinary members of most cultures have a negative reaction to it. Only a few members seem to enjoy it, and they are generally viewed as aberrant. Yah, just like torture, yeh can convince a greater number of the community that it's permissible by argumentation contrary to the prevailing religious/cultural thought. We've seen some folks here embrace torture as OK for some people/cases, just as we've seen some embrace homosexuality in da same way. So your Natural Law argument against torture, which I do support and agree with, has a philosophic and religious basis. And it also applies to homosexuality. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  24. Yah, pack, I was responding to Trevorum's argument, eh? Though I love da misdirection. Developing instruments whose sole purpose is torture and death, that's not science's responsibilty, that's "human desire" or "da marketplace.". But if a religious tenet is misused or misapplied, that's religion's fault for not being rational. Trevorum made da following case: , the more abundantly clear it becomes to me that the only irrefutable objection to homosexuality is based in religion. Some religions (not all as we have seen in some of the above comments) label homosexuality to be a moral transgression - a "sin". I say "irrefutable" because religious beliefs are immune to scientific evidence. That is to say, science could never yield evidence to convince someone that homosexuality is NOT a sin. I'm asking for irrefutable scientific evidence for anything else we collectively agree is morally repugnant. Rapine? Like Ghengis Khan, advances the selection of genetic material. Genocide? Historically very effective at enhancing the selection of the genetic material of the winners. Torture? Not so good at finding the truth, but very effective at suppressing alternate ideas. Da point is that science could never yield evidence that ANYTHING is a sin or not, eh? Moral judgments, though vital to humanity, are completely beyond scientific ken. All science has ever managed to do is multiply the technological leverage of da most aggressive humans. That's not a particularly illustrious moral record on which to build a case. ... is an adaptive trait that served to increase group fitness among evolving hominids (see my comment above). Yah, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, eh? But this claim doesn't pass the sniff test. That being said, it's irrelevant if there's a biological cause. There is likely a biological cause for alcoholism, but da practice of alcoholism is morally opposed, even if da only person being harmed is the alcoholic. What does seem to be da case is the practice of homosexuality has been strongly selected against in da societies that have been historically successful. That is strong evidence that successful societies make it a taboo, no matter what a study of a few people conducted by a biased researcher in one town comes up with. Beavah
  25. Yah, trevorum, perhaps yeh can help me out. What irrefutable evidence is there that stealing is wrong? I can't recall a peer reviewed scientific article on da subject. In fact, some of da psych studies and a reasonable view of natural selection suggest it is best to occasionally steal. Not enough to break trust with everybody, but enough to advance da cause of your own genetic material. We after all just went through one of da biggest episodes of organized theft in da history of the world, and all the perpetrators remain free and rolling in clover. What irrefutable evidence is there that torture is wrong? It's been used by societies and governments for millennia to subjugate people with different genetic material, thereby advancing the genetic material of da torturers. In fact, conquest and rapine are so successful in terms of natural selection that some ridiculously large percentage of da world population are descendants of Ghengis Khan. What irrefutable evidence is there that teen drug use is wrong? They're only hurting themselves, eh? They aren't hurting anybody else, and they're providing a market for da crop of impoverished Afghan poppy farmers. The majority of teen drug users end up leading relatively productive lives, and yeh can certainly find non-drug users who are more messed up. Yeh can have irrefutable evidence of whether da solar system is heliocentric. But when it comes to morals and ethics and their development, da advances haven't ever in the history of humanity come from science. They've come from religion. Science has, throughout human history, only given us better weapons and torture devices. And "reason" has been right there with 'em to justify their indiscriminate use. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)
×
×
  • Create New...