Gwaihir

I have been told repeatedly by scouters in favor of this new change, both online and in person, that boys and girls are the same and the program doesn't need to change to meet the needs of girls or boys, because those needs are the same.

If you get a ticket for reckless driving or speeding, you get points on your license. Enough negative points and then you lose your license. Getting points on your license is the exact same thing as getting corners taken off your totin' chip card (and used to be Whittlin' chip card too).

imo, treating the taking of a corner of a totin chip card, or asking a group "who's item is this" (where there is no name on it) and the person's who's item it is comes up and gets their lost item (no idea who put words in my mouth about singing or dancing, but I was clearly stating the simple act of asking the group who's item something was so that they could come up and get their gear back is now considered hazing) diminishes the seriousness of actual dehumanizing hazing to the point wolf has been cried so often, no one will care. We are seeing this very thing played out with other social issues... when you lump everything in with serious offenses... nothing is serious and no one cares.

Real lesson learned 2.0: Lawyers ruin everything. No offense @NJCubScouter

My understanding was that during in person training, this was the message given by trainers. So now the question is, is this trainers and district/council staff taking liberties and embellishing?

The added ridiculousness is that it is advised to take the Totin Chip/Whittlin Chip card away if there is knife misuse.... how does that not constitute stealing? the shark has been jumped high and far...

The new Scout Motto: "Be Prepared... to be hurt, cowardly, and perpetually offended"

I haven't taken YPT 2 yet, but I'm hearing from council that ripping corners is now considered hazing. So, apparently, is if you find a lost neckerchief slide or dropped flashlight and call out to the group something like "who's neckerchief" slide is this? that too is now hazing. wtf?

So much this. Could not agree more.

This was how my troop was when I was a scout, our ASM(s) didn't have roles. They were there to assist as needed in whatever capacity was required at the time and did a good job of it.

I think a part of my problem is in the messaging. If National would come out and say just this, that they desire, not as an option, but as a solidified goal, to have girls be fully autonomous from boys but that startup will be difficult so as part of an implementation plan they're doing this linked troop/pack with some shared activities with the goal of, in 2 years (hard dates are needed) to let the girls spread their wings and fly solo... there would be, at least from me, much less consternation. It gives everyone clear goals, it gives framework to allow others to be helpful in striving for those goals and it matter of factly states single-gender is the outcome and why that is the desired result. Instead we get wishy-washy terminology, hedging, double-backs and the like.

Hmm, Why aren't you allowed to reply with that pitch line? It's a good one. I won't speak for @Eagledad, he can correct me if I'm wrong. but as a third party observing, the gist I always got from him was it was never about girls loving scouting stuff... it was about what the boys lose through the laws of unintended consequences.

Not to resurrect an old thread... but that's my current conundrum... I can see several places where our RTs could be much better, the lack of camaraderie between the scouters is the biggest gap.. ... but my plate is so full right now that if I raise my hand, I know I'll be elected to a committee of one and I just cant do that right now.

great news out of Utah, I can't wait for more states to follow suit!

what if the girls don't want to wear what the boys wear? Do you tell those girls to sit down and shut up?

Sadly, it looks like National disagrees.

A couple things: 1. for the first 202 years, we had no back ground check system, and we had very little gun violence... it wasn't until the prohibition of alcohol that gun violence started to climb. Now we have the prohibition of narcotics, which also facilitates the VAST majority of gun violence. 2. Mass shooters pass back ground checks, they have done so time and again. Background checks check for prior behavior, someone with no record passes a back ground check. 3. The idea that a state with weaker gun control allows people to buy guns and then truck them back into states with strong gun control fails all sorts of logic tests... why would a criminal travel great distance to perpetrate crime where there is more gun control, when they just illegally purchased guns in the state with the weak gun control? 4. No other right in this country requires you to prove your innocence before exercising the right. none. The very concept of justice in this country is predicated on assumed innocence. 5. The black market flourishes and criminals, get their guns from there. Not gun shows, not FFLs. 6. Background checks do not stop those who would wish to do violence from getting guns. 7. Mass shooters are proven methodical and patient. If they know they can't pass a back ground check they will secure whatever they need other ways. 8. Internet sales require background checks, the firearm needs to be transferred through an FFL, who will not transfer the gun to the buyer, unless they pass a NICS check. 9. The very idea of a background check is absurd. It essentially says "this person is so dangerous to society, we WILL NOT let them buy a gun.... but they are free to walk among society and kill and rape by any other means they wish, trucks, gasoline, arson, stabbing, bombs." this is absurd on it's face. The justice system is what needs reform. If a person is so dangerous they cannot own a gun, they are quite literally too dangerous to be free among the general public and they should be kept behind bars or in mental health facilities.

Same Troop #... So this is just 1 Troop with boy patrols and girl patrols, which is what everyone was promised wouldn't happen. National is playing the semantics game. Trustworthy.

help the organization already in place to provide that? teach the girls how to master it so they can create an organization dedicated to that end?

The NRA is it's members, it's members vote, it's members pay their dues and have an active roll in what the organization does. So yes, you called its members terrorists. That's like saying "ISIS is a terrorist organization! I didn't say the suicide bomber and beheader individual members are terrorists, just the organization" it's intellectually dishonest and a back peddle. The NRA is 5million+ and is closing in on 6, in the first post I said "almost 6 million", and in heated response left out the almost, I'll add it in for clarity. So you, you are the dishonest one. "almost 6 million" Can't edit, so I'll clarify here.

Does the classification matter if a child was taken during a drunk driving accident or a regular vehicular accident? To the people involved, of course it doesn't matter, but when looking at facts and statistics to do proper analysis, the classifications matter.

Except that the 2nd Amendment as it's written, is blatantly clear that gun control legislation is in violation of the enumeration of rights. If we said there should be heavy restrictions on who should and shouldn't be able to speak openly or publish news... there would be almost universal agreement this is in violation of the 1st Amendment, regardless of the merits of such a claim. Heck, Donald Trump even proposed such an idea in response to his "fake news" claims, and there was collective rejection of the premise out of hand, despite the technology advances since the amendment and the ability to disseminate vast amounts of fake and potentially harmful news to millions of people in seconds.

you called 6 million Americans terrorists, and you want to talk about calling people dishonest?

That's because it isn't true. It's a nonsense number with no actual facts to back it up. If there were 18 school shootings 6 weeks into the year, there would be 3 school shootings a week and Trump and Russia would have NEVER hit the news cycle.

Which examples? and I already stated that we need to understand the why, and solve that. If there's mental illness, it needs to be cured, or if it's incurable, they need to be committed if they are a danger to themselves and society. I also refuse to chalk everything up to "mental illness", that Hitler's only problem was he needed to see a psychiatrist and he wouldn't have killed 6 million people. Sometimes, people make evil choices.