Gwaihir

The ballot is one tool, yes and it's working well in Venezuela... North Korea... Cuba... Syria... Frederic Douglass, who I'm going to go out on a limb here, is far smarter and more wise than most of us, and rose up from actually being a slave said "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box. Let no man be kept from the ballot box because of his color. Let no woman be kept from the ballot box because of her sex" The ballot box only works, when elections are still held in a democratic republic... if that disappeared, what ballots are you casting?

violence by long guns is statistically non-existent compared to hand guns. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

drunk driving kills something like 30,000+ people a year... we don't hear calls for the ban on alcohol. And when we did ban alcohol, we quickly learned how the black market meets that demand, drives organized crime through the roof and results in more death and destruction. I mean sure, banning meth has done wonders for the horrific opioid crisis we are in where close to 50,000 die every year. and of course, none of this takes into account that of all these things, one is protected by a constitutionally enumerated right...

because it's people, responsibility and application that matter, not the object. I just find it funny that Donald Trump is literally a dictator, Mike Pence is going to electrocute homosexuals, cops are racist murderers who prey on black Americans and yet the tool one would need to fight an oppressive tyranny, everyone wants to restrict to only the government use. That seems like a not so smart strategy.

Most of this nations history kids brought guns to school, they were part of rifle teams and shooting teams and put them in their lockers. This isn't a gun problem, it's a people problem. Somewhere along the way morals, values and the sense of value for human life got impaired.

I don't even begin to know where to start with this asinine comment, and thank you for calling me and 6 million Americans, including hundreds of thousands of cops and both active and retired military, a terrorist. A Scout is kind, so I won't begin to say what I want to say to this comment.

Utah has had armed teachers for something like 20 years, and there has never been a school shooting, or an incident with teachers harming students with guns. If a teacher is "nuts" and potentially a danger to students, telling the teacher "don't bring guns to class" isn't going to stop the teacher from harming the student.

Violent crime is still at historic and record lows, the lowest in recorded human history. One could argue that this is a direct or indirect result of boys being outcast in society. Masculinity not being focused, tempered and honed to be production and protective of society, but instead vilified and called toxic, you're evil because you're male. It's why the BSA should have doubled down on boys and figured out how to reach the boys left out in the cold, instead they opted to forget boys and target getting girls, who are already thriving in society. It's a damn shame. "There are thousands of boys being wasted daily to our country through being left to become characterless, and, therefore, useless wasters, a misery to themselves and an eyesore and a danger to the nation. They could be saved if only the right surroundings or environment were given to them at the receptive time of their lives." - Baden Powell

side note, I love how the cap is no longer part of complete uniforming.

Devils advocate, if they're trying to set a tone of separate but equal, this is the mental imagery you'd do it with. girls all together without boys, doing cub scouting.

A Scout is Trustworthy... Obedient... lol... naw, just foolin.

it is possible but it's certainly improbable.

and that was an initial concern... when girls show up, but the numbers are small... National will change the program to "fix" that problem, and now we're no longer talking about "girls doing the same program the boys have done" as was pitched. There will be changes to the program to meet girls needs, something we were told repeatedly simply doesn't exist, that girls and boys have the same interests and are basically the same person, with the same needs. (this is of course my speculation based on my observations)

Again, the exercise at play here was that this decision already killed the organization (membership drop offs to level of unsustainablility) Do you then kick the girls out or just fold up shop and we all go play e-sports?

I left my gambling days behind me in my 20s.

it's totally speculation. this is all thought exercise since nothing is in place. However, didn't the SCOTUS already rule BSA could create their own membership rules? Wouldn't that ruling mean they could change back to all boy?

This flies directly in the face of what the boy wants. He will be made to comply. So like I said, it's taboo to go back to what worked, we must maintain all change regardless. 15% boys don't buy into adult explanation, decide this is not what they want and walk... that's ok.

To you, an adult woman. (because that's what you are as we are conversing, the statement could be for any adult, man or woman, who interprets the message one way or another) To a teenage boy, that may be different.

Your statement is predicated on the fact that those girls were told they MUST wear skorts. If they were given the option and they chose to wear skorts... I don't see how this affects your argument that nothing major would have to change? It does lend credence to the concept that girls and boys have interests in different things.

I agree, we don't know yet, this is all thought exercise. I'd say membership dropping by a sizable percentage, maybe double+ of the annual trend in the next 2-4 years would be a good indicator of "bad change" Unless removing boys from boy scouts is not considered bad change...

before I answer, my train of thought is predicated on the yet to be clearly decided concept of "co-ed" troops. It's certainly more difficult to do because national specifically steered clear of using words like "pilot" or "trial". But yes, I would. Would it work out well? who knows, I didn't think Trump would win either, but here we are. conversely, telling the 15% of boys to get lost is ok? Because that is what the policy change was saying to them (in this hypothetical scenario)

Not my point... my point is, if the addition of 2% of girls results in the subtraction of 15% of boys (specifically because of the addition of the 2% of girls, rightly or wrongly)... does anyone have the bravery to tell the 2% of girls, co-ed scouting is ending in an attempt to get the 15% back, or do we just ride the bad decision train into oblivion? reversing those decisions meant change books, reversing this decision means telling some people they can't participate any longer. big difference.

I didn't say any and all change was bad, merely that change that is proven to be bad change, should logically result in going back to how it was working most successfully, not continually pushing forward bad change.

Unless of course, the ultimate answer is to change it back, because that was the best way to work the program. A truly open mind would be tolerant and accepting of that as a possible outcome. I still don't quite get why as a society, going back to something that worked, after something that sounded good failed, is so taboo.

My school was a private school, that was the school of the church that chartered the unit, so this has nothing to do with public schools and chartering. It might be a conversation about how government forces have forced private schools to shutter, and instituting school choice vouchering might revive them... but that's out of scope for this topic. I agree that having parents involved is has many positives and allows a lot more flexibility and sometimes parents do everything they can but can't commit to the level needed, but do their best. That said, uniformed adult leadership would bolster the numbers, it would bring a committed investment to the program that would more than likely result in more youth joining and it would filter up to district/council level and have more bodies available to do that volunteer work. It would also filter up to the troop level as boys (and girls) cross over. Making it a laissez faire type of atmosphere at the Cub level has, imo, played a role in declines (or at a minimum, stagnation).