Beavah

There's a whole lot of disrespect going on in this discussion. Here we have beavah and some others encouraging and defending "singing" and other treatment of boys that is clearly hurtful to them, and insisting over and over that it should't be hurtful and isn't hurtful. Yeh must be readin' a different thread and a different Beavah then. Da Beavah in this thread that I know hasn't encouraged or defending singing for things. In fact he was pretty clear that it's not an approach he finds effective. Nor has that Beavah defended actions that were hurtful to kids. All that he's done over and over has been to say that 1) just because singing or whatever isn't right does not mean that it amounts to hazing or abuse. There are degrees of right and wrong, and not everything is a felony; 2) just because a scouter or an older scout makes a bad call and a boy feels hurt does not necessarily mean they are bad people, 3) falsely accusing a fellow scouter or a youth member of a serious infraction like "abuse" is reprehensible, and 4) just because a boy feels hurt and upset does not necessarily mean that a particular activity or action is inappropriate for other boys. Or even that it was necessarily inappropriate for him. Da notion is to treat everyone with respect and understanding eh? Not just da side yeh sympathize with da most. At least that's what I think da Beavah in this thread is sayin' if yeh read him carefully. His accent, though, is abominable. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Brotherhood, but haven't really been active for years. OA is a fine thing for many lads, and especially for da honored campers of troops that don't offer as many opportunities for older boys. Also helps strengthen many troops, probably better than NYLT because it's ongoing. I just think we always have to be honest with ourselves. B

It's possible to sympathize with OGE's experience without condemning others or reaching strained conclusions. Deception isn't always a terrible moral thing. Sometimes it's a feature of a game, a part of entertainment, or an aspect of fun, social relationships. A surprise birthday party is deception, and might be taken as an awful, terrible, life-changing embarrassing thing that teaches someone never to trust their friends again. Or it can be a surprise birthday party. By OGE's own telling, they "cheered, laughed, and hooted". I'd certainly cheer for such a lad, and laugh with him. In a lot of troops, what he did would be a badge of honor talked about for years (even as the perpetrators felt embarrassed and sheepish about the buddy system oversight). The failure was puttin' a lad in over his head to a situation he wasn't prepared for. But that's an easy mistake to make, eh? I remember once teachin' a lad how to ski. I'm a long-time instructor and do quite well with kids, but this one fellow I misread the signs on. He was good at hidin' his feelings and actually he was a lot more scared and worried about how he appeared to the other boys than I had figured. If I'd picked up on it, I would have arranged for some private lessons without other boys around and gone more slowly. But I blew it, eh? I bumped him up to da bigger bunny hill with his friends. So he had a poor experience, perhaps embarrassing or humiliating in his eyes, though I and his friends cheered, laughed and hooted encouragement. He never went back to skiing, and left scouting a short time afterward. I still feel bad about it, eh? Been over 20 years. But sometimes mistakes and errors in judgment are just mistakes and errors in judgment. Before we talk about abuse and betrayal, we have to imagine da story rewritten from the other fellow's point of view, imputing to him all da characteristics of a good man. I reckon it's far more likely that a scouter who makes a lad sing is just a fellow givin' his time and doin' his best, trying a technique he's seen before or that worked for other lads. Not an abuser. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Generally I'd say not customary to wear full WB regalia as a unit scouter. Far more common for folks to wear da neckers of their unit. Beads and woggles yeh see a bit more often, though most of da 3-beaders or 4- beaders will limit 'em to courses. Remember, understated is cool and stylish B

Darn, here it was I was hopin' maybe there was a Democratic field shapin' up. How'd we get to the point when not a single declared candidate seems worth a darn? Yah, I was a bit confused by da liberal echo chamber thing, eh? Can't remember once seeing a Daily Kos, and recall only one Huffington Post reference, but we've seen stuff way out on da fringe past the National Review on the right. I agree with JoeBob though. I'd like to see Obama face two challengers. A real liberal Democrat and a genuine moderate Democrat. Or maybe two of each, with one or two way out there nutters just for symmetry with da Republicans. Beavah

Oh for heaven's sake. Deception is it now? That's da big humiliating evil? So when a lad playing Capture the Flag deceives the opposing team and sneaks in to steal the flag, we are to believe the poor, traumatized members of the opposing team have been humiliated because they didn't expect deception or understand it was part of the fun? Let's just hope da lads never play poker or their poor psyches and moral compasses will be damaged for life. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

And, yes. It's abuse. No, it's not. Proper terms are important, and it's just as wrong to call a water balloon a Weapon of Mass Destruction as it is to call a nuke a "peacemaker.". You are making the first mistake, because yeh want other people to feel da issue is a Big Deal. But that's just not being honest or courteous, eh? It might be harder work to convince 'em without using WMD language like child abuse, but that just means yeh have to do more work to convince people. Making a lad sing is not abuse, and claiming it is is just bearing false witness against your neighbor. Yeh need to learn how to disagree with somethin' without makin' it a felony offense, eh? That would also be a good gift to give your son. Some things only deserve a $5 ticket or a "hey, why don't we try somethin' different?" Beavah

Tell me, is accusing a fellow scouter of a felony because you're mad at him helpful, friendly, courteous or kind? Is accusin' a patrol leader of violating BSA youth protection rules because he happened to make your son upset trustworthy or loyal? These terms are loaded terms, eh? They can cause real harm to people and reputations. Da Scout Oath and Law run on both sides of this discussion, and encourage us to be calm, understanding, empathetic sorts of people who recognize ordinary disagreements or mistakes for what they are, and put 'em in a broader context of each person's intent and contributions. I've seen da singing thing work out just fine, and the quest for left-handed smoke shifters be a delight that made a boy feel welcome. And I've seen ordinary duty rosters that even with counseling caused fragile boys to be "traumatized" and quit. I reckon we all have. These are da things that scouts and scouters do differently based on personality, and don't always get right for each lad. Just as each of us does't always get da Oath and Law right, either, even when we're tryin'. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

What is more important here, the correct use of the word Hazing or an attitude of how scouts and scouters are to be treated? Yah, both! Accusin' a scout or scouter of hazing or abuse or bullying when it's somethin' more minor is an awful, mean-spirited, discourteous, untrustworthy, disloyal thing to do. That's not how yeh treat people in Scouting. If yeh disagree with 'em yeh disagree with 'em, eh? Have the decency to to call it a simple disagreement rather than accusin' 'em of something nefarious. Usin' these highly emotionally charged terms that are defined as criminal acts often causes absurd overreactions and "zero tolerance" responses. Pretty soon we'll be conductin' da inquisition and throwing Patrol Leader Bill out of scouting and referrin' him to the D.A. because he was hazing, abusing, or bullying little Joey when he wouldn't give him dinner until Joey had washed his plate that still had caked on food from breakfast. After all, there was a power relationship! Joey was deprived of food!! He was being "blackmailed" into doing something he didn't want to do!!! Oi. I'm not fond of singing or pushups or whatnot. They work sometimes, they don't work others, yeh have to be a bit careful about emotionally fragile kids or over-eager patrol leaders. But regardless of whether or not I'd discourage the practice, I wouldn't equate it with abuse. That's just hurtful, and a form of cryin' wolf that does a disservice to lads who truly do experience real abuse. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

"term of art" means a technical term that has a special meaning within a discipline. For example, within physics, "conservation" as in "conservation of energy/momentum" has a technical meaning that presupposes a certain underlyin' mathematical structure. It's not the same as being a conservationist. In da same way, "term of art" has nuthin' whatsoever with being artistic. But that does illustrate how if yeh don't know an area, or haven't studied it, yeh can read words but not really understand their meaning, whether it's "term of art" or "infallible". Doesn't matter if yeh were baptized Catholic if yeh didn't actually spend da time to learn about your religion. Which is why just asking your husband or his social circle is not as good as askin' a priest or bishop or theologian. Learning matters. Study matters. Experience matters. Just like askin' my professional colleagues or some state governor about how evolution works is about hopeless. In fact, it might convince yeh that evolution is a crock. Yeh need to ask a biologist. Or remain ignorant. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Beavah: Your asserting red herring arguments raising slander and examples of swimming limits. It just muddies the debate water. Nuthin' muddy about it. If you went around my district telling other adults that I was "emotionally abusing" youth, I would have yeh in court for a defamation claim faster than yeh can sing da teapot song. Have to, to protect my livelihood and reputation. And I assure yeh, I would win. Da swimming case met your stated definition as readily as singing, unless yeh want to revise your definition. Which of course is my point. So your okay with using some quantity of humiliation to toughen kids. Yah, I'm not sure why folks so often find it necessary to go haring off to these black-and-white extremes, eh? Did I ever say that? No, of course not. I said that I hoped in scouting that we were raising kids to be robust enough that they don't go into emotional break down when faced with a simple task. Yeh do that through support, not humiliation. Much as jblake's very thoughtful post describes. One of da things yeh notice when yeh do some international scouting is just how fragile American kids are compared to kids in most other countries. Pampered, spoiled, overprotected, I don't know da reasons. Noticeably less mature and robust, though. Da average Scandanavian 8 year old is more emotionally mature and independent than a typical American 11 year old. Singing is just singing. It's not hazing, it's not bullying, it's not abuse. It might be appropriate in sone contexts, or inappropriate, and we can debate that. I already said I agreed with yeh that it was inappropriate in da jambo context yeh described, and I sorta like your argument above, at least until yeh went back to callin' it "abuse". Hopefully we can debate propriety or effectiveness, though, without hyperventilating and goin' all hyperbolic with loaded terms like "abuse." Or maybe we're just immature Americans. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

So hopefully with showing the exact wording of others on the subject I have corrected anything I mis-spoken Yah, da thing is, yeh can quote exact wording of anything and still not understand what it really means, eh? I've seen amateurs do that with law texts, I'm sure packsaddle has seen amateurs do it with biology texts. Disciplines require time and study to understand, eh? Learning takes more than just google. Da Catholics I know have a very sophisticated and highly nuanced understandin' of the role of the papacy, and for them, da word that gets translated as "infallible" is a term of art, eh? It has a technical, specialized meaning that is different from da common English meaning. Same with da term "vicar". If we are to avoid prejudice and bias, it is not enough just to grab random quotes. It is important to understand da terms as they understand the terms. To respect da culture, and learn a bit of its native language. No Catholic would ever claim that God was "only ever so slightly above" the pope. That's just a statement of simple, and somewhat ugly, prejudice. Calico, weatherman was moosetracker's analogy. Mine is da comparison between climatologists and ministers. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Fred, there's a difference between defending that behavior and defending your behavior. I don't defend either. To my mind, your describing singing a song as emotional abuse is slander, both legally and ethically. You are accusin' a fellow adult leader of committing a felony against a child. That goes far, far beyond "mean". Is that what yeh really want to do? Webster's silly over broad definition of emotional abuse includes "controlling what the victim can and cannot do". So when da BSA says that a non-swimmer is not permitted to go whitewater rafting, and the lad is in tears because he can't go with his friends, that is emotional abuse? Puhlease. That's what I mean about over broad defintions, eh? It's fine if we want to talk about whether singing is a good choice, or an effective one, or is appropriate in a jamboree context with relative strangers, or even if it's "mean" or unfair to shy kids. But one way or another, there has to be a willingness to acknowledge that there's a difference between singing and abusing a child. Unless of course Mrs. Beavah is singing. Any court in da world would certify that is abuse! Personally, I hope in scoutin' we're helping to raise kids who aren't so fragile that, right or wrong, singing a song affects their self-respect in any way at all. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, so da parent thread raises a good topic, eh? What does your troop do to handle lost scout stuff and returning it, and how well does it work? I'm not talkin' about da occasional thing which I reckon most of us would just return to da individual. I'm talkin' about the tricks yeh also use to try to help boys learn and remember to "put things in their place". Please, no accusations of criminality or other abuse! If it works for some troop it works for 'em, or if they tried it and it doesn't work then they were just tryin' it, eh? Beavah

Emotional abuse? Holy Smoke! Fred8033, we take children away from their parents for emotional abuse. Do yeh really want to claim that making a lad sing a song to get his book back is da same thing as an offense that will have your children removed and you imprisoned? I don't think so. Makin' a lad sing is just makin' a lad sing. Could be a bit embarrassing, but then so can encouraging a lad to try the climbing wall again and having him fail, or pointin' out that his fly is unzipped. Now, I agree that most of us adults wouldn't be asked to sing if we were late to a meeting (perhaps because of da torture it would cause others ). But then singing is not somethin' that we do in most business offices, whereas it is something we do in scouting. I can think of lots of times when I was late to a meeting and therefore got "volunteered" for far more onerous tasks than singin' a song. Let's be careful not to confuse things that are really, truly awful and merit criminal penalties with things that are ordinary activities a good scouter might try to use and not succeed with for a particular boy. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

what exactly makes the law you cited a "hazing law" Yah, I forget which one I grabbed, but of course I'm just grabbin' excerpts. Whichever it was was passed as the "State anti-hazing law" and came up in a Lexis search. But if it makes yeh happy, here's another representative sample (b) Hazing means an intentional, knowing, or reckless act by a person acting alone or acting with others that is directed against an individual and that the person knew or should have known endangers the physical health or safety of the individual, and that is done for the purpose of pledging, being initiated into, affiliating with, participating in, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization. In da state with the above definition, hazing can be a misdemeanor or a felony, and "organization" is again defined as a club that is affiliated with a school. So I would say that "subject to harassment or ridicule" would be one of those ever-expanding definitions, eh? . I mean, really, "subject to ridicule?". So every political cartoon or stand up comic is committing hazing? Every scout campfire skit that pokes fun at da SM or SPL is hazing? Nonsense! B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, LeCastor, I've certainly known parents and scouters who objected to the OA. I think if we're honest, we have to admit that da OA's ritual trappings spring from da "secret society" stuff popularized by the Masons that was very popular in da world for a while. There've been all kinds of spinoffs in various men's groups and such, from Bush's Skull & Bones at Yale to da Catholic Knights movement to da honor society Phi Beta Kappa. Yeh have to admit, they're all a bit weird, eh? But there's no disputing that OA in particular is really odd, made-up jumble of da secret society thing coupled with a caricatured white man's version of Native American spirituality. Now, we can all say that's mostly just harmless oddity, except that I think we also recognize that there's a certain emotional power to being selected to a secret society and inducted with various rituals. So da question is whether it's right to do that, eh? To create a fundamentally non-Christian, animistic, pseudo-religious experience for youth who feel "special" to participate in? Does that detract from genuine religious experience, or mislead those who have not yet had genuine religious experience? Does it cause confusion in young, impressionable minds? I think we have to admit they've got a point, eh? I've seen adults who are more "into" their practice of da silly OA rituals and membership than they are of their supposedly "genuine" faith, and they are the worse for it. So I can understand families being uncomfortable with it. Now, on the other hand, I think most kids are pretty robust in da face of adult silliness, they understand make-believe, and they are able to take the ritual in stride in a good way and just learn da fun of cheerful service with like-minded "brothers". So personally, I don't think it's a big deal, but I reckon we can all be understandin' of those who do. Beavah

I just said don't take the word of a minister, preist (or even the Pope (I am not Catholic so I do not think his word is infallable).. As Gossip, as a fact, as indisputable.. Listen to them, listen to others, and listen to your own inner voice Gossip? Yeh must be usin' one of those new-fangled iDevices with their funny autocorrect, eh? Here's the thing. If a climatologist tells yeh there's global warming but your "inner voice" of opinion and "listening to others" in your social group tells you there isn't, which is more likely to be right? Wouldn't it be foolish not to at least give the climatologist's "opinion" substantially more weight than your own or your friends'? How about if the large majority of climatologists agree? So if a respected religious minister tells yeh something about religion and morality, but your own opinion and that of your social group is different, which is more likely to be right? How about if the large majority of religious leaders, even from very different religions agree, based on thousands of years of human experience? Wouldn't it be foolish not to at least give their opinion substantially more weight than your own or your friends? And if yeh see a difference between these two cases, in either direction, doesn't that show an unfortunate and unproductive bias on your part? they don't call their Pope God or Christ, but the vessal of Christ and God is somewhere above him still (if only ever so slightly above him).. Yah, hmmm.... speakin' of biases! . Now I'm a Protestant fellow who doesn't really understand da whole popery thing, but OGE did once make me a Defender of the Faith or gave me a plenary indulgence or somethin' like that. I reckon that indulgence thing is a bit like payin' for a room at a Holiday Inn Express I think you are badly misrepresenting what Catholics really believe and teach, in a way that's a more than a bit nasty. Or maybe yeh just don't understand da meaning of the word "vassal". Either way, yeh should really learn some more and reflect on that prejudice with your " inner voice". Or just plain cut it out. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I guess I'm like pappadaddy, eh? I remember my snipe hunt as being mostly fun. Got to run around the woods in the dark with friends. Like OGE I was a stubborn and determined sort, so I was the last one in. I don't recall feeling betrayed at all. I felt like one of the guys, and thought it was a sort of funny prank. Got left behind and lost a couple times too, eh? Didn't feel betrayed then either. Felt like I should have paid more attention. So in terms of da Golden Rule, I guess I'd be OK with snipe hunts, where OGE wouldn't. That having been said, I strongly discourage snipe hunts these days, just because there's always a risk that some lads will be like OGE. I confess I'm not convinced there's an institutional spot to draw the line, just an alertness to boys personalities and maturity. After all, at camp yeh often see boys feeling betrayed and reduced to tears by da annual 'hazing' ritual we call "swim checks.". Does that mean swim checks are bad? Maybe. It does at least mean that we need to be mindful of handlin' 'em differently for the more fragile lads. Problem is that sometimes it's just so hard to predict who is goin' to be scared but fine, who is goin' to get the joke... and who isn't . My great uncle used to do this thing with kids where when you'd shake his hand he'd really shake it, eh? Back and forth, up and down. It was funny, and as kids we always enjoyed it and remembered him as a bright spot in some otherwise dull adult gathering. But then there was one cousin whose hand he "shook" that freaked out and was reduced to tears. So was that "hazing"? Was it a poor practice because one young lad out of 50 became tearful? Or is it poor practice to deprive da 49 other kids of a fun moment and fond remembrance of their uncle? Beavah

We make 'em tuck in both Whatever for?

I'd be happy to be proven wrong. If you can tell me where I can find, in writing, the authorization for units to establish a local option on membership rules, I look forward to it. Again, you're thinkin' of the BSA like it's the government, eh? Like it sets and enforces the law. That's always goin' to lead you astray. Yeh have to think of the BSA like it's a corporation, because that's what it really is. There is no law, there is a product. Mostly, the BSA cares about customers buying the product, and delivering a quality product to 'em. It doesn't particularly care about how da customer chooses to use the product as long as the customer is happy, and as long as da customer doesn't damage the corporation's reputation, brand identity, or risk exposure. Until yeh understand and really internalize that the BSA is a corporation and acts like a corporation, yeh aren't goin' to properly understand its approach to this issue. Beavah

I would say the older guys only show up for 1/2 the camp-outs and meetings and that leaves quite a PL hole. Yah, I think this is typical of a troop transitioning to mixed age patrols. The older boys are stuck in the ethic that they learned as they grew up in the troop. It takes a few years and some real adult mentoring to establish a true servant-leader ethic. Having clear expectations, making PLC membership "special" and not automatic, and including APLs in da PLC so that they serve as learning co-PLs and can take over when a PL is sick or has to miss all help. Yeh can start that effort with your middle/Star boys, but it won't be complete until your first years who grew up in the system and really looked up to their older patrol leaders move into the position. B

Yah, hmmmm... So let's take a fairly typical state's hazing law: No person may intentionally or recklessly engage in acts which endanger the physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of initiation or admission into or affiliation with any organization operating in connection with a school, college or university. Under those circumstances, prohibited acts may include any brutality of a physical nature, such as whipping, beating, branding, forced consumption of any food, liquor, drug or other substance, forced confinement or any other forced activity which endangers the physical health or safety of the student. So to be hazing, it has to 1) be a requirement of initiation, 2) be associated with a school, 3) endanger the physical health or safety of a student 4) be deliberate or reckless. Singing for things, going for shore line, etc. are not requirements for joining scouts, scouting is usually not associated with a school, singing and pranks do not endanger physical health or safety. Therefore they are not hazing by any stretch of the imagination, and accusing an adult of the crime of hazing for making a lad sing for something is slander and contrary to the Scout Oath and Law. Now states that do have hazing laws are all over da place on 'em, but I'm not aware of any that even come close to making these things hazing. (OA ordeals, by contrast, are initiations, and depriving boys of food while working hard can endanger physical health if carried out a bit too enthusiastically.) We can argue, as OGE does, that singing for things isn't a good choice, or that doing pushups doesn't work well. I personally agree with him, though I reckon it depends a bit on da personalities and the context. I just don't think we need to turn every disagreement about approach or technique into a crime against youth. Beavah

Are you saying the issue of divorce and murder is defined as a political difference of opinion rather than an immoral decision? Of course not, and you know it. Da claim you made was that schisms were caused by Christians differing on questions of morality. I refuted that claim by pointing out that historically schisms were in fact about human politics and debates over theological, not moral, theories. Da Anglican community founded by Henry VIII still believed that divorce and murder were wrong, eh? There was no dispute over morality. Da dispute was over the power of the secular king. As is often da case, evil secular government will prevail over da more moral guidance of religion, which is why yeh should always be careful about givin' too much power to da secular state. . Humans unchecked by da moral norms of both personal and communal religion are dangerous, which is why da best sort of citizen owes a duty to God first. Now I'm a Protestant fellow, so I'll agree with yeh in terms of Catholics and all of their pomp and adornment, though I reckon callin' 'em all idolaters is a bit over the top. After all, they have more religious sworn to lives of personal poverty than all of us Protestants put together, eh? So at least they don't worship at da altar of Money in quite da way some of our Protestant brethren do, eh? But when yeh disparage learning by claimin' yeh don't value someone trained in da field, my agreement ends. It was, after all, da need for trainin' Protestant ministers that founded Harvard and Yale, and they still have respected divinity schools. "We don't need no education!" makes for a good Pink Floyd song, but it makes for a lousy Christian. Just like it makes for a lousy scientist, or a lousy citizen. If yeh feel yeh do need and respect learning in da sciences, but yeh don't respect learning in other fields, then that's da veritable definition of bias, eh? And were yeh to devalue science because of all da horrible things it's done ... weapons of mass destruction, pollution, involuntary experimentation on humans, rationales for eugenics and all da rest... without also crediting science for all the good things it's accomplished, then that wouldn't be fair, eh? So to da the same to religion, isn't that also bias? A well educated minister ain't a weatherman, eh? He or she is a real meteorologist. They can offer advice and guidance on your personal choices for the day, or educate yeh on the principles and mechanisms of atmospherics and meterology of the soul. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, more likely that people tend to return to more traditional religious belief with poverty and stress, eh? So da upcoming economic collapse is likely to change da equation significantly. Either way, I'm willin' to bet on God and da power of ideas that have survived thousands of years across many cultures and peoples over da modern boutique notions of a few spoiled western elites.