Beavah

Sorry Beav - While Science is based on Facts, Religion is based on Faith... Nonsense, moosetracker. Yeh really should take a class on da History and Philosophy of Science sometime. It's a "fact" (i.e. an observed piece of data) that one large object is attracted to another in a set of circumstances. Callin' that "gravity" and assuming action at a distance as a universal law is a human invention. When yeh apply that to new circumstances, it's an act of faith. A belief that these circumstances are similar enough to those of the original "fact" to be predictable, even though we know that da arrangement of atoms, molecules, and fields is never the same again. A belief that the human-made-up explanation is goin' to still apply in different conditions, locations, and ages of da universe. No different than religion. Observin' that prayer and charity are helpful for individuals or society in a set of circumstances is a "fact", an observed piece of data. Callin' that a universal law is a human invention. Applying the principle of caring for strangers to different circumstances is an act of faith. A belief that there is such a thing as God, or universal law, and it can be applied generally. Of course, just because we humans came up with da notion, doesn't mean we're wrong. It could well be that there is a universal law of gravitation, that we have succeeded in describing a characteristic of the universe. The more evidence we find, da more faith we have. Just like it could well be that there really is a universal law of charity, that we have succeeded in describing a fundamental characteristic of the human experience. Indeed, Western science was founded on Western religion, which is why it believes in universal laws in the first place. Which brings us to... Neopaganism is western, and is polytheistic. There's no consensus. Yah, Merlyn, this is really hysterical, eh? On the one hand, you're only willing to accept Western, canonical science as real science, and dismiss anything else as "fraud". But then yeh want to compare it to da worldwide potpourri of spirituality. Many of those modern neopagans yeh refer to believe in da healing power of crystals or similar nonsense as "science", eh? Da stuff you call "fraud". So if you're goin' to lump 'em in with religion, I only insist that yeh also lump 'em in with science. In which case, there is no consensus on anything. But if yeh compare Western canonical science and da Western canonical religion from which it grew, that's a more fair comparison. Both are willing, as you are, to dismiss some notions as just wrong-headed. In that case, there is consensus on most things, within both science & religion. Includin' many of the things that they consider "frauds", like modern neopaganism. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmmm.... I read your link, johnponz. I confess I found it a confused muddle of nonsense. I was goin' to respond to some points, but there were far too many to even begin. This is da sort of tract that's typical of advocacy groups tryin' to "fire up" their base to get donations. I note that this is in fact a donation site. Yeh see the same extreme nonsense from da far right and far left political groups and a lot of other lobbies. Someone with a clinical eye might say it borders on losin' touch with reality, until yeh actually meet da folks that write this sort of copy. Often yeh find they are cynical PR types that are just doin' a job, and get a kick out of this sort of writing. Personally, I think it only detracts from real debate and encourages people to view fellow citizens as "the enemy". Haven't we had enough of that in America by now? Beavah

As to the slavery issue, these animals have been bred to work especially "working dogs." But yeh can breed humans to work too, eh? That was da point of some of the eugenics programs. And then they'd "seem to be happy" by doing what they were bred to do. Seems like you're just desensitizing people to the whole eugenics and slavery issue. Many a slave owner would claim their slaves "seemed to be happy". Many would claim them to be "companions" in work as well, except only one side of da "companionship" was free to leave. Rewards for doing what yeh want, punishments for not. Sounds like slavery to me. And worse, you're keeping your animal slaves for recreation. At lest the old-time slave owners were doing it for their livelihood. Just sayin'. Thanks for da honest and interestin' discussion. B

Beavah, Show me the theology (aside from Unitarian Universalism ) in which the ultimate goal of the believers is to increase knowledge and understanding of their own faith by attempting to disprove the ideas of their own same faith. But that's not the ultimate goal of science either, eh? If all yeh did was disprove theories, you'd be left with nothing. The ultimate goal of science is to develop a greater understanding of the world. Yeh do know that in traditional Judeo-Christian theology, it's never really possible to make a claim about what God really is, foundational statements aside. God is too big for human mind or language. It's only possible to say what he is not. All da documents of the early Church councils spend their time on rooting out error in belief, only establishing that some beliefs are false. Western science got its notion of falsification from Theology.. Science agrees on a lot of statements, like the fact that the earth is roughly spherical. Theology can't even agree on how many gods there are. Oh, don't be silly. Make a fair comparison. Western science agrees on a lot of statements. Just as Western religion agrees that there is One God. Once yeh open things up to cultures in da developing world, "science" starts to include things like psychic surgery and chakra channeling, and religion has its equivalents. . That's not to say that there might not be some underlying truths in native medicines or faiths, of course. After all, Christian monasticism shares a lot in common with eastern monastic practice, and some drugs have been developed from efficacious tribal herbology. But it's a bit more muddled than a Western thinker like you or I can accept. No, subatomic particles aren't "myths" Sure they are, by your somewhat broad use of da term. They're invisible entities that in your stories are used to explain behavior of da universe that yeh don't yet fully understand. Yeh make up laws/commandments that yeh believe are set up by these invisible fellows. Dark matter and dark energy are good examples, eh? Develop a whole system around 'em, and even a certain sense of orthodoxy. Science is still polytheistic in its myths, I note, but they keep trying' for Grand Unification. Looking' for that one God thing. . Large scale economic tests are rather difficult to conduct in a "laboratory" setting, so generally the idea is to dream up something that a person would like to test (for instance, is there a correlation between abortion and the crime rate, and what sort of economic impact does prostitution have), figure out how that could be tested, then go look for real life data that can be parsed to suggest that's really happening Yah, BartHumphries, I believe this is called somethin' like "secondary analysis of observational data". It's not the same thing as an experiment, because yeh can't isolate variables. Da best yeh can do is try to account for terms statistically. Much more susceptible to bias in a bunch of ways. That was my point. Yeh can conduct observations, but not experiments in economics, geology, astronomy, astrophysics, ecology, climatology, etc. Religion is da same. Though we do have 2000 years or more of forward-testing. Beavah

Didn't miss da press reports at all, Merlyn. I was explicitly referring to 'em. I've enjoyed listenin' to their quest. I hope they learn somethin' worthwhile, and I eagerly await the news. But yeh know, while they've been pursuing their quest for just one of their myths, me and my co-religionists have been contributing many, many times more than $9B to da care of the poor and needy, in an ongoing test of our myths that has been running for 2000 years or more. Lots more than you secularists, eh? (http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers). Two thoousand or more years of data, across many cultures and nations. Da LHC folks are nuthin' but a bunch of pikers.

"Not a lick of difference between that and theology." Assuming that "that" is 'science', this is one idea where Beavah and I disagree. I do see a difference between theology and science. The methods of inquiry are very different (here I note the prominence of experimental tests of hypotheses in science, not in theology) Come now. How many "experimental tests" does anyone conduct in economics? In sociology? In psychology at anything beyond da trivial level? In geology? In astrophysics? In complex ecological systems? Had a lot of superstrings in da laboratory lately, have we? A few, simple phenomena are amenable to true experiment, but really precious few. An awful lot comes just from accumulated observation over time, not experiment. Science is just a form of human rational thought, with da same approach and limits but a different object. We learn from what is passed on by others, what we learn is refined or modified over time by additional observation / thought / revelation. Whacky ideas are dreamed up and later discounted; individuals can sometimes spout non-canonical beliefs that are nutty, or that are sometimes inspired. It's a human endeavor, with all da human failings and foibles and arrogance that we humans bring to the table. Not a lick different than theology. Do Higgs bosons exist? Many have faith that they do, enough to spend a life's work, many lives' work, and a fortune that would feed many a starving village in the pursuit of a "God particle", and beyond that in pursuit of an understanding of an underlying Truth of da Universe that the Higgs is just a hoped-for marker toward. There's a whole made-up literature spun out of that hope and faith without yet any observation. And that's different than theology? Well, I reckon, in a way. At least da theologians are relyin' on eyewitness accounts and testimony. If yeh believe bosons act in da world, or a meteor destroyed the dinosaurs, then yeh go out and look for signs. If yeh believe God acts in da world, it's the same. Signs in history, signs in how He has affected the lives of people and the development of peoples. Don't be surprised when some of us trust our data as "the Word of God" if you are willin' to trust your data as the Word of the Universe. That's not to say the data isn't noisy, that its reporting doesn't contain some of da author's cultural language, that it isn't subject to possible misinterpretation. Is religion about "controlling the masses"? No more than science is. When medical research shows higher risk of heart disease from eatin' steak and eggs, or higher risk of cancer from smoking, or risks from belching gigatons of carbon into the air, is that "controlling the masses"? It has that effect. Even that intent often enough. Causes folks to pass laws restricting some activities, or refusing to allow "avowed" peddlers of some products access to advertising or young people. It's put out there at very least to try to inspire people to change their personal behavior, even work together on a common problem. Not because scientists want to control, but because they care about others and want to help. No different than religion. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... Linzey is a philosopher, eh? And da book yeh mention is published by his own university press, presumably as a philosophical work. I think yeh have to be a bit discerning about scholarship. One can certainly understand and make a case for a philosophy that precludes killing of many living organisms (though that frequently breaks down at least when yeh get to bacterial and parasitic infections). Many forms of Hinduism espouse such a philosophy, and with it a mandate of vegetarianism (killing only plant life, but still killing in many cases). It's a different thing to make a claim that there's a connection to other sorts of sociopathic behavior, or "desensitization" to such behavior. That isn't a philosophical claim, it's a scientific one, which is properly addressed not by philosophy, but by psychology. And da fellow Linzey is not a psychologist. In fact, da psychological research in the area as close as I can tell doesn't show what you're claiming. I reckon we all have to be careful about not mixin' up our beliefs with da relevant science. Me included! Thanks, though, for bein' a good sport and allowin' us to engage in da philosophical discussion. Along those lines, I'm wonderin' how yeh justify not being a vegetarian? Or perhaps limiting your diet to artificial protein concoctions. Is it somehow better if yeh pay other people to do your killing for you? Have yeh ever seen da conditions in a factory farm, where animals are just raised to be slaughtered? How is that sort of mass cruelty and slaughter not worse than hunting? Philosophically speakin'. Doesn't it just teach us that life is a thing, a commercial object to be bought or sold? Wouldn't that be just as "desensitizing" or worse? And I'm still wonderin' why keeping pets or draft animals is OK. If, philosophically, hunting is related to murder, then why isn't keepin' pets or draft animals related to slavery? Why isn't animal breeding a philosophical stepping stone to eugenics? Yah, I think this is all mostly a city-folk thing. Milk comes from a jug, meat comes in shrink wrap, and da fellows who never got to learn about life and hunting through nature seem to need to express that lack through human-on-human violence in da asphalt jungle. Beavah

Oh, pish tosh. Most of da early astronomers of Galileo's day, including that fellow Copernicus were churchmen. Modern science and da whole modern university system were built on the foundation provided by Christendom. There's a reason why graduates wear robes with monks' hoods, eh? There's no such thing as "Scientific Fact". There's just observed and measured reality and our made-up theories to explain and predict that reality. Da observations and measurements aren't "facts", they're data. Data that can be good or bad, precise or imprecise, noisy or clean. Over time, made-up theories that seem to do a good job explaining or predicting get written down, passed along, taught to others. New made-up theories come along constantly. String theory anybody? Some last for a bit, others even a generation or two. But as packsaddle says, da ones that stand the test of time the longest are the ones viewed as the most useful. And they're da ones we use to make decisions, design aircraft, trust bridges. Not a lick of difference between that and theology. The beliefs that stand the test of time, the ones that get written down and passed on to others are the ones that are viewed as the most useful, that have best contributed to human understanding and are most supported by the data of human experience with the divine. As one early rabbi said of early Christendom, "Let it be. If it is from man, it will fade with time. If it is from God, nothing we do will ever stop it." And those successful theories are da ones most people refer to or trust in when making decisions. Many books have been written about God ... most by those engaged in an effort to control the masses using the fear of God's vengeance. Yah, hmmmm.... Yeh know, I've been a faithful fellow all my life, and I can't say that I've actually read a single one of the books yeh think constitute "most" of those written about God. Let's try an experiment, shall we? Go to your local bookstore, to the religion and spirituality section. Select a truly random sample (or if it's small enough, take a look at each book in turn). I'm willin' to bet my life's savings that yeh won't find that "most" of the books match your claim. In fact, I doubt that a truly random sample will find even one that does so. If it does, I'll lay odds that it's some flash-in-the-pan "modern" preacher runnin' off at the mouth, not anything that has stood the test of time.

Wear orange and duck Yah, hmmmm... I'm not sure that wearing duck is goin' to improve your chances. Especially not if Dick Cheney is around. johnponz, you're correct that there is a correlation between sociopathic behaviors and torturing animals. Usually pets. Correlation, mind you, not causal connection. Da causal connection is probably that sociopaths like hurting everything and everyone, not that hurting pets leads to bein' a sociopath. There's no association between mental health issues, not valuing life, etc. etc. and working as a butcher, or hunting, or any other sort of killing as part of path to table, nuisance control, sport, etc. None. So I think yeh have no need to be concerned. Just as there's no reason to believe that people enslaving animals for recreation or labor leads people to believe that enslaving people is an OK thing. Our brains are happily well-developed enough to make those distinctions with virtually no effort. In fact, our brains seem to be hard-wired to evaluate things in each context separately, eh? It's very very hard for us to "transfer" skills or thought processes from one context to another, if yeh believe all the psychologists. Besides, I think you're misunderstanding hunters. No one finds the act of killing per se "fun". They find da challenge of hunting successfully fulfilling. They enjoy spendin' time in the woods with like-minded friends and achieving a goal. You're projectin' assumed motives on other folks that just aren't there. Most hunters would be furious with a person who deliberately tortured animals, eh? It's not the same thing. Beavah

I don't know what Nature's Law is, for I am not Nature... But I have faith in the findings of Newton and Einstein, even though they were men. I believe in the findings of Maxwell and Bohr and Watson and Crick, even though they too were only men. I know that the science I learn is only from copies of copies, reinterpreted by teachers, far removed from the original data and those who made the discoveries decades or centuries ago, often in a different language than the one I speak. Science was written by men. Fallible, imperfect men. I know the Science I have learned is not Nature itself, and describes the Laws of Nature only imperfectly. But I trust it enough to get on an airplane. I trust it enough to take medications that I do not fully comprehend. I believe it's close enough to make use every day of electricity, and radio signaling, and chemical combustion. I put my life at risk daily crossing bridges and entering buildings engineered based on mere men, relying on other men, none of whom were Nature itself. And yeh know what? It seems to work OK. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Yeh know, it reminds me a bit of da young lads who are too scared to go take a dump in a pit toilet that they hold it to the point of makin' 'em sick. They've lived all of their lives in an artificial, sterile, sanitized porcelain plumbing world, and they start to see natural functions as something awful, dirty, or ethically unsound. We're not producer organisms, eh? No chlorophyll. That means to survive, we kill things. Plants and animals. Can't see where it makes much difference whether we do it ourselves or pay other "lower class" people to do our killing for us so that we can have our artificial, sterile, sanitized and shrink-wrapped food, other than how it lets us get all snooty lookin' down at other people. Does anyone really believe that the animals on a factory farm are somehow happier and better treated than those that run in the wild? I'll certainly agree that fish and wildlife are managed in part for hunters, who in turn produce revenue. In the same way that trails are managed for hikers, who in turn produce revenue in visits, tourist dollars, hiking boots, etc. I'll agree that managed herds, like managed forests, are not entirely "natural". There are places which should be free of such things that remain true wilderness preserves. Just not every place, or even most. We need places for harvesting wood and for scouts to hike. I know some folks prefer artificial Christmas trees (because they feel harvestin' metal and plastic is more environmentally sound?), and most prefer to have some working stiff cut their tree for 'em and package it up at da sterile neighborhood tree lot. Me, I like to go out and cut my own (legally, on land where it's allowed). It gives me pleasure. I enjoy the excuse to get outside and enjoy the fresh air, I enjoy the "hunt" for the right tree, and the fact that none are as "perfect" as the factory lot trees. I like that it teaches me about trees and tree growth and nature. Over da years I've learned the names and differences of all da various conifers. I like that it takes some real effort on my part, and I get to do it with my own hands rather than buyin' a sterile package. And yep, I like to say a quiet prayer of thanksgiving to God for the bounty of nature he's provided, which I feel closer to. Can't see why hunting is any different. Some avoid it with artificial protein supplements. Some like it sterile and shrink-wrapped by others. Some find pleasure in gettin' outdoors and doin' things themselves. To each his own. My question, if yeh really object, is "Why stop at killing?" Subjecting humans to slavery is an awful ethical violation. Almost as awful as murder, sometimes even worse in some ways. Yet we routinely subject other mammals to a lifetime of servitude - oxen, horses, working dogs. Worse, we subject most of 'em to selective breeding and eugenics programs because people like good-looking, well-behaved slave/pets. Is there really much difference between stocking ponds with fish for fishermen and breeding canine stock for pet stores? Beavah

Yah, cooking. Yeh don't think your hamburger comes from da shrink-wrap factory, surely. Also, in states like mine, hunting is important to control a herd that has no other natural predators. Otherwise da number of injuries and fatalities from car vs. deer or plane vs. deer encounters would be a lot higher than they are. At too large a herd size, da things are pestiferous. B

Put a "Occupy Santa Monica" sign on the back of the chair so the cops won't hassle you. Yah, because da cops have been so good about not harassing peaceful "occupy" protesters. Anybody know if da guys who pepper-sprayed the students have been charged yet, or how much da civil rights suit against the University is goin' to be? B

And here it was I thought it was a gay golfer who had gone "Pro".

Yah, honestly, in a pluralistic society I've always been in favor of celebrating everyone's holiday. So put Menorahs up during Hannukah, put trees and nativity sets up for Christmas, put up crescents and rams for Eid al-Adha, put down drawings of Kolam for Makara Sankranti. Whatever. Da focus should be celebrating with each other, or at least respecting each other's observances, not trying to interfere with each other's celebrations. I think that's what some in each of da various communities, including our atheist colleagues, fail to grasp. Da atheist community in particular is so focused on what they are not that they haven't really developed what they are. A self-image defined only in the negative isn't a productive or positive one at all. Beavah

ask if anyone has a set of online plans for those awful plywood white deer as lawn ornaments? Oh deer.

Problem is that only in America have we distorted the values by adding scolarships and the NEA that a Scout can only get by being a Eagle Yah, gotta agree with yeh there, VigilCPO. And about the rest, too. Perhaps we all need to get together and start funding some Green Bar Bill scholarships at twice the level of any Eagle Scout scholarship. Open to all lads who were truly active in their troop or crew for seven or four years, who meet their SM's and peers' standards for Scout Spirit and who did not make Eagle. That and a Scouting for Life Association open to everyone who remembers their time in Scouting with fondness. B

Yah, yeh know.... A good friend of mine says that God answers all prayers for help, eh? Sometimes the answer is "Yes". Jesus prayed and Lazarus was raised from the dead. But sometimes the answer is "No". Jesus prayed that da cup of Calvary would pass him by, and it did not. And sometimes the answer is "Not yet". Jesus prayed that his disciples would all be One with him and da Father. The boy is lookin' for help to get a position he needs for Eagle. There are lots of times we tell children "no" when what they're asking for help with is "getting something" (or getting out of something ). That's where da Methods and Goals thing comes in. The Scoutmaster ain't as wise as the Almighty, so we should cut the fellow a bit of slack. But like the Almighty, sometimes da proper answer to a request for help is "Not until you've talked with da SPL and exhausted all other options". And sometimes da proper, most caring and compassionate answer is "No, all the positions are filled with people who also deserve their chance at advancement, and stepped forward when we had a need." Just like some of the time da right answer is "Yes, I will resurrect your opportunities." Methods and Goals. Yeh have another 97 times . Yeh also might want to consider da definition of "diatribe". Though I like bein' credited as the font of all wisdom. We older furry critters are growin' old and feeble and find it hard to Beavah any more, so we have to do what we can. Beavah

Except that only the SPL, and PLs are elected. The other leadership positions are appointed, so there is no way for a Scout in those other positions to "run for election". Of course not. But you and I both know that da practice in almost every troop out there is for newly elected SPLs to make their appointments right away and effective for their term, not leave open positions vacant. An occasional change here and there happens, but not if everyone is happy workin' away doin' their jobs. So in all likelihood, all of da PORs that the troop actually uses were filled by election or appointment back when the lad wasn't interested or available. The key is that it's the end of his journey as a scout. Off yeh go. "Advancement and the Eagle Rank are a Method not a Goal". 100 times. Longhand, no usin' the computer! The end of a lad's journey as a scout should never be about Eagle. It should be about friendships and good times had, and lookin' back at how much he's learned and lookin' forward to where he's goin' to take those lessons. If in a lad's last months in the program you are focused on Advancement, you're doin' this Scouting thing all wrong. Maybe that's why you're gettin' your dander up with so many fellow volunteer scouters. I'm always just as happy about the Life for Life scouts and da 18 year olds who finish as Tenderfeet. Yah, for that matter I'm just as proud of the lads who go off to da hard-workin' world as those who join the service or who move on to higher education. In that way, I like treatin' all the kids the same. I'm proud because of the sort of people they've become, and will be. Happy because they'll carry a love of God's wild places in their heart and pass it along to their kids and grandkids long after my carbon components are sequestered six feet under. Don't let da Methods get in da way of the Goals. The Goals are so much more fulfilling. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, BartHumphries, in this case Eng61 is right in that some of da high-profile abuse cases (Oregon, Idaho, etc.) have been in LDS units, and da actions by LDS officials followed what was common at the time (and similar to the Catholics and others). That is to say, they honored family wishes and believed they were protecting the kids from lurid exposure and more emotional duress by hushing things up and either just movin' the perp out of the program or, in some cases, tryin' to minister to him spiritually. In 20-20 hindsight, that was an awfully unsuccessful approach. Emphasis on awful. But it was common back then for all types of sex crimes, not just crimes against children. Date rape was often handled similarly. And to be fair, there's a rationale for it, because prosecutin' these creeps back then didn't have the same sort of protections for kids at trial, and person charged has a right to confront his accuser. I don't reckon da incidence of this stuff was any higher in LDS, any more than it's higher in Catholics than us Protestant folk, or higher in Scouting than in sports or schools. In fact, I think when yeh run da stats the incidence is less in some of these big organizations than in da neighborhood swimming pools or roller rinks. It's just when you're seen as one big centralized organization like da BSA, LDS, or Catholics, it seems worse because there are more cases and there's a sense that da Big Institution should have "done something." Da schools and smaller institutions passed the perps along in exactly the same way, except they passed 'em on to other institutions. It diffuses responsibility. Beavah

Yah, yeh should get better boots. I'm not sure what "the fact" really is, eh? Neither are you. We do have from da poster that the troop leadership are on the same page and that the boy waited until "literally the last possible moment." So now, perhaps, he wants an adult to displace another boy or create a job for him out of thin air because he "needs" one. If that's right, then that's an approach that ain't goin' to get him very far at any of the service academies. They're not so much into da spoon-feeding adults thing. It might be a true kindness to say "no." It also might be a true kindness to say "yes." I'm not advocatin' one way or another, eh? I personally might help the lad out. Or I personally might not. There's not enough here for me to know. What I'm mostly advocatin' for is not calling fellow scouters SH**HEADS when yeh don't know 'em. Odds are they're good people who care about kids who are doin' the best they can with the cards they've been dealt. After all, da SM, CC, and COR ran a program that kept a lad in for seven years and seems to have helped give him da desire to serve his country. That's to their credit as well as the boy's. Maybe we owe 'em some Loyalty, Courtesy, and Kindness. Beavah

Yah, I think we always need to deal with the person and the situation, rather than the rule. I don't reckon anybody on these forums for any length of time sees me as a real rulemonger . Often enough, though, the proper way to help the program, the person, and the situation is to follow the rule. After all, the rule used to be that if yeh gambled in da markets and lost, you were left holding the bag. However, arguments for compassion or systemic stability have led to bailouts. Great for the individual! I'm not bankrupt! Terrible for society, as it leads others to come to expect that they, too, will be bailed out. Da same moral hazard exists in spades for a youth program. Each exception yeh make has the very real risk of teachin' the entire group that the exception is the norm that they can get away with when it's their turn. Or worse, it teaches others that the Scoutmaster "plays favorites" by makin' exceptions for the boys he "likes". Kids by and large don't listen to our words, they listen to our example. Sometimes da right example is compassion, when somethin' beyond a boy's control is the primary cause or when there has been some real repentance and effort to make good. Sometimes an individual rule was poorly conceived and is doin' more harm than good in a situation. But it would be wrong of us to always assume that one of those things were the case. Often da proper, albeit hard, course of action is allow boys to experience the natural consequences of their own choices, because the rules are decent rules, because the needs of the group for truthfulness and consistency are important, and because a young man learns character and judgment by living with the consequences of his personal choices. Beavah

Yah, I think most hunters are pretty responsible folks. Never had an incident with hunters in a lot of years in da field, on or off trail. I think da real issue, especially for scouts, is a courtesy issue, eh? I'm not sure a game animal will ever be found within a couple mile radius of a boy scout troop. We should be courteous to other land users, especially those whose use of the land is limited to only a few weeks a year (some of whom might be countin' on baggin' their limit to help feed the family). Beavah

Yah, yah. By expectin' the lad to run for election when the troop is holding elections, the ignoramus of a Scoutmaster is "denying" a deserving lad of his Entitlement. Everyone needs to go home and write "Advancement and the Eagle Rank are a Method and not a Goal" a hundred times. There are all kinds of good reasons for a troop to shrug and say "if you want to run for office you have to do it when we hold elections". There are all kinds of good reasons sometimes to make exceptions and stretch for a particular boy if that's the right thing to do. Hard for anyone to tell from afar where any case falls, and different CO's might have different takes on what's important for their unit or how they view citizenship, fitness and character. Da important thing here is that the COR and CC and SM are on the same page. That's a good thing for a troop, and usually suggests that things are runnin' OK in general. Beavah

So I'm going to risk offending Beavah by violating his CP can't post policy . Yah, that's OK, CalicoPenn. I reckon I have about as much enforcement authority and desire as da BSA . - Da furry Beavah with da "hick dialect".