xlpanel

Because they are smart enough to stay in the background. When Bush Falls off his Segway, who gets blamed? Bush When Bush read a book upside down in a picture, who gets blamed? Bush When Bush decides to invade Iraq, who gets blamed? Bush When Bush says he knows about the internets, who gets blamed? Bush When Bush does anything, who gets blamed? Bush Of course, it is his campaign manager/strategist/chief of staff or personal advisor that told him to: Ride the Segway Take a picture reading to kids To invade Iraq To talk about the 'internets' To do whatever he does But does the chief of staff or strategist get blamed? No, that blame solely goes on the figurehead leader. Thus, the guy who made the bad decision gets off scott-free, while the figurehead takes all the blame. Smart.

Being a leader is not a true sign of success. Being the force behind the leader is. When McCain and Obama were running for the presidency, what were they actually doing? Reading speeches, stating views, arguing each other in debates etc. But, you look behind them, behind the scenes at the managers and strategists. They are the ones who wrote the speeches, told the candidates how to state their views, and were on the mic to the earpiece of each candidate during debates. They are the true leaders. The "leader" is actually just a figurehead for the strategists and minds behind him.

Lets clarify some from the earlier posts. Contrary to popular belief, I am NOT advocating giving the kids all the porn they want and finding it for them. I am NOT advocating the SM hooking up a projector and a screen and the kids all watching it every evening. I just am advocating no punishment for those who have it in possession. I don't want them to bring it on a campout, but once they do, I am not gonna blow up about it. Take it calmly and everything will turn out for the best. And beer is an interesting counter-example. If Johnny came up to me and told me that Billy had beer on a campout, I would ask Billy if he had beer. I would look for beer cans. If he had it, I would ask him why he thought it was appropriate to bring, and if he knew how much legal trouble he could get in, along with the person that brought it for him. I would tell him that he is not to share it with others, and he better not be drunk when I see him next. Again, confinscating and calling the cops will put me in the middle of a trial, which is a pain to deal with, make Billy not like me, and possibly land some of Billy's friends in trouble for supply, which will make the kids like what I did even less. The best is the same approach with porn. If Johnny told me Billy had porn, I would asky billy about it. I would see if it was obvious, such as a mag on a table. If he had it, I would tell him that he shouldn't bring it on campouts, BUT THERE WOULD BE NO PUNISHMENT FOR HIM! That is what I am adovacting the whole time here. You don't need to punish him for it, just ask him not to do it again. That is normally good enough. And this thread isn't about "state what the G2SS and National say about something while blindly repeating the scout oath and law". The thread asked "what would YOU do if xxxxxx happened?" I told you guys what I would do. I do not advocate them bringing porn, but jeez, back off the kid, just ask him not to do it again. Don't dream up a punishment. Don't tell others about him. Don't force mommy to drive 1000 miles. (Want a better way to make mom side with junior than this?). Ask him to put it away. I hope i have persuaded others to see the wisdom of this way and how it keeps everyone calmer and the unit function nicer.

Copy what the other troop is doing, they must be doing something right that you are not.

This example combines two points from the earlier video games thread. 1. The playing of M Rated Halo 2. My Arguments about the exposure of kids at school In this case, about 14 students are going on an overnight trip with their public school. They are spending the night at a hotel. One of the students brings his Xbox and Halo. There are no rules not permitting bringing of electronics, and the teachers know he brought the Xbox and don't care. In his hotel room, with three of his friends, he plugs in his xbox and all of them start playing Halo. Is it the teachers duty, once she knows that they have a game system, to supervise their play and disallow them from playing halo? Would it be acceptable for the teacher to also play?

I assume the Reid that forced him to drink the urine was 16 year old Harrison Reid. Not 21 Year old Joseph Reid. And telling a kid to go back to camp really isn't an accomplice act. I assume that Joesph was a leader for that troop, and to tell a kid from his troop to go to camp is standard and happens all the time. It could have gone down like this: Poor Kid: Mr. J Reid, I am scared four guys are gonna jump me cause I said something to them. They are hiding in the woods for me somewhere. J Reid: Go back to camp and don't leave. Their are other leaders there that will keep them from getting you as long as you are there. Poor Kid: Thanks, I am going back to camp now to the protection of the other leaders Sadly, on the way back to camp they jump him, before he gets to the 'safe haven' that J Reid was suggesting he go to. Now, if we look at the Gainesville article, they state that kid was ""lured" away by four other campers to an isolated area". I am sure that if J Reid was involved, he would not have told the kid to go back to camp. It was H Reid that forced him. The gainesville article defends J Reid even more. The boy was accused of using a racial slur, and J Reid probably was pissed at him, and told him to leave swimming and go to back to his campsite. Then, as he was walking back "four others ran out of the woods" and jumped him. Again, from gainesville. Both articles so far defend J Reid and indite H Reid. I hate the part about drinking urine, and know that it is serious business. I don't want them to get off totally. I am perfectly fine with 2 months of juvie or so (get em in and out quick so it doesnt mess up their school). I just don't want them to be ruined for life for something they did when they were 15.

I don't like what they did, but the reaction is heavy handed. First, Why was Joesph Reid arrested? The article states that Reid told the 12 year old to "walk back to his campsite". Then on the way back to the campsite "Four OTHER scouts jumped him". Then it Lists Joseph Reid and 3 Others as being arrested. If four OTHER scouts jumped him, why was Joesph arrested? All he did was ask the scout to walk back to his campsite. As they only arrested four, they did not get one of the people that jumped him. Seriously though, I hope that the 15 and 16 year old scouts can get it stricken from public record. One prank gone wrong, and it ruins the rest of their lives. While they do need some punishment --- that is not correct. Joesph -- I hope you get off, as all you did was ask the scout to go back to camp. And I hope they get the fourth member of the jumping party. But please, do not mess up the rest of their lives just off of one prank gone wrong.

JJJJ, a checkout system is inherently flawed and destroying the game is, in most cases, not possible. Also, you statements about destroying the game lead me to whether you are an imposted on issues considering game consoles. Here's why: First, to destroy the game, you must have a physical copy of the game. I know for the xbox360 and PS3 and even Laptop, if they brought one of those, that the gamedata is copied to the hard drive. Then, to prevent the disc from getting scratched, a NO-CD patch is downloaded to the device. This effectively allows the game to run without a physical copy you can destroy. Next, searching the depths of every PS3 360 or PC brought for M Rated games would be impossible. And if you happened to find one, what would you do? Make them uninstall it? Smash the xbox? Its like a needle in a haystack. The kid has one file out of 10 Million on his computer that you outlaw. Find it pl0x? And don't even get into creative naming. Kid renames game to Microsoft Word or Typing Tutor Deluxe. Are you going to open every program to see it it really is what it says it is? Now that we have established that we cannot keep kids from bringing whatever they want in, and cannot destroy the offensive data, we address the checkout system. Are the scouts really gonna turn over THEIR games to be 'checked out' back to THEMSELVES? And can you imagine any kid reporting someone for not checking in their game? 'Scoutmaser, Billy didn't check in his Madden. I don't know why this upsets me so much, but I can't live with myself.' This leads to ALL the kids being mad at the tattler. First, Billy. Second, those who wanted to play with billy. Third, those who wanted to play madden. Fourth, those who don't care about playing, but like billy. A scout tattling on billy would amount to social suicide. Does the scout that tattled ever expect to be told anything interesting again? A regulation system only works when those it regulates agree to be regulated. Does an army work if the army won't listen? Furthermore, a checkout would rally the scouts against the system, and you. The system would be a big hassle. Plus, you would hold on to their property, and they don't like that. If Johnny wants to play Halo, Johnny will play halo. And any arguments stating that the kids are not smart enough to try these are idiotic. You need to give these kids credit. A kid could even copy a Halo DVD, fix a Madden NFL (Rated E) Label to it and even put up with the check-in system. Unless you physically play the disc, you will think it is madden. And once you saw them playing, you would think the game they were using was approved, as it got by you.

Final Verdict: You can try to get the kid to stop out of respect for the others around him. But that is all. No punishment. Just ask him to stop AT THE CURRENT TIME. Tell him you don't care what he does when he is not on a campout. Don't punish him at all. Just ask him to stop for the respect of others present. Do not mutilate his belongings, do not tell his parents. Do not demand his parents drive 1000 miles round trip. This will lead to the scout losing his trust of you. Then, if there really IS a problem, he will not talk about it. Do not try to alienate him, either. That will backfire against you, the scoutmaster. The other boys will rally on his side, as they also believe it is not a big deal.

Well, making a mistake like that isn't desired for. But it is a ...so what? moment. When those parents that complained let their kid out of the house (if they even do) he can be exposed to this. If he is ever let out to see a friend, he will be exposed to this. Its like a "Yeah, we're sorry lady, but we can't do anything" moment. The Blame rests on too many people... The Scoutmaster for not supervising the game The Scout for bring a banned game The Scout's Parents for not telling their scout not to bring the game The Scout Troop for not reporting the game to scoutmaster immediately The Scout who is mad for not reporting the game immediately By the time we punish everyone who could have ended the action, the whole troop is in trouble. And I am to understand that the upset scout was not chained to his chair in front of the xbox? He was free to walk off if the content was objectionable? If so, he can't complain anyone 'forced' him to play the game. If not so, he can complain about kidnapping and false imprisonment. Parents always assume its never their lil angel's fault. Always blame someone else, never lil johnny.

Hi J4. You stated that every man does not look at pornography. You are very adamant in your denial of that fact. Have YOU ever looked at it? I mean, you can't deny the facts of life, no matter how hard you try. Would you want your son to be under the leadership of an idiot that denies facts and statistical evidence? We do not need moral crusaders going on a morality war. I mean, sure, you can ask the kid to stop SHOWING THE OTHER KIDS but that is all. You do not get to tell him that is is wrong or unsafe (unless he is prone to papercuts).

Lets try this test: Does the boy attend school? If yes, nothing on the boy scout campout is going to be any more improper than he sees/hears at school. Why? The Same kids with the 'dirty mouths' or 'dirty ideas' that "poisoned" lil ol johnny at Boy Scouts also attend his school, and are probably his friends at said school. Do you think they limit their impressive vocabulary to scout campouts only? As the clear answer is no, Johnny needs to be homeschooled immediately for his own protection. Of course, when he moves out into the real world he will be totally shocked and will withdraw due to it scaring him.

For starting a troop, you would want to go with 2 or 3 burner, heavy, propane stoves. Why? The good 3 burners stoves can put out 30,000 BTUs a burner, which is 90K total they can use. When cooking dinner a a patrol, you are normally going to have at least two pots of food going (sometimes up to three) and a pot of water you are heating to rinse the dishes. Even IF you bought three backpacking stoves (much more expensive) you would only get, at best, 10,000 BTU a burner. This means that the backpacking stoves will take 3x times to boil water, heat dinner etc. Do the guys want to spend their time waiting around for the pot to boil? Or do they want to be done with cleanup and out to play? Plus, backpacking stoves are a no-no for griddle cooking or frying pans. You can't really use a large frying pan 12" or above on a BP stove. The stove's burner is just not big enough around. You would not get enough even heat distribution. Most of your camping will be weekend 'base' camping, where you go out somewhere and not move your base around. You might go backpacking once a year, which means a new base every day. It is better to prepare for the camping you are doing 88% of the time, than to prepare for the camping you do 12% of the time. If you need backpacking stoves for that one time, ask troops in the area if you can borrow some.

I am going to assume that they were playing a FPS game against each other, and it probably was Halo. There is nothing M about Halo competitive play. There is no language in that part of the game, other than what the competitors say themselves. The blood is blue or green. And now the parents are trying to act like this was the first time Jimmy was exposed to that? I can assure you that the conversations and actions of the competitors are a whole lot worse than the game will ever be, and with every game. I routinely hear 14-15 year old kids cussing the hell out of the games/design/tv etc as they play. I can attest that 33% of the words out of their mouths today are swearwords when playing. Why don't we just also ban the kid from talking to people, as I bet every kid in his troop would 'if rated' recieve a R of M.

I don't believe there will be a big enough market for a scouting video game. Some of the ideas that were listed were: 1. Capture the Flag 2. Shooting Sports 3. Find the Boy Scout 4. Campsite Bowling 5. Volleyball 6. Burro Racing / Pinewood Racing The first three are already pretty well covered already by the VG industry. Capture the Flag is a key staple of online Halo play, as well as Shooting Sports. Try Halo without shooting? Find the Boy Scout can also relate right back to Halo - Arbiter. Now, we must examine the marketability of a game featuring boy scouts. Will Johnny invite his friends over to play a game in which the players shoot at targets, play capture the flag, and look for a missing boy scout? Johnny: Hey guys, lets play Scout-tacular! Freddie: No thanks man, we are going to Joe's house to play Halo. Johnny: Why's that? Freddie: Well, Halo is competitive against each other. Like, in the scout game, we can't fight each other. Johnny: Why's do you need to fight each other? Surely its not that much fun? Freddie: Look man, All my other friends play Halo, the graphics are 20x better, It has all those features and more (such as shooting at each other). I don't need another game that does 1/3 of what I already can do, and an unpopular new game at that Basically, for the first three items to succeed the Scout game would have to compete with Halo, one of the most arguably widely sold video game franchises of all time. Its popularity speaks for itself ---- at the UIL (Texas) State Meet the alternates that our school took stayed awake all night playing Halo. I even played with them a little bit. Campsite bowling would be in direct competition with Wii Bowling - Works? No. Volleyball - Yes! All the Boy scouts want nothing better than Volleyball! Which guy invites his friends over to play volleybal video games? Burro/Pinewood Racing - Just by Nascar Simracing --- 100x the content plus a game wou would play with friends.

Its just like the example before about the brownies that was lifted from somewhere with no author claim. He did admit he couldn't find an author, maybe I should have put that on their as well. Also, there is controversy about whether the Niemoller guy even wrote the poem. Niemoller even said himself that he was not certain he said that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... And if that offends you, please do not frequent online message board where dissenting opinions are presented. Or else install a filtering software that blocks everything that does not conform to your morality standard. That will save you from being offended in the future. Just a side comment, this is starting to look like 2 against the mob. Lastly, one more anecdote. Willie has some weird political ideas. He believes in no taxes at all, but still likes to drive on public roads. He plans to send a tea bag in an envelope to his representatives to 'scare' them from giving out taxes. He somehow thinks this will work and roads will still be built and maintained. Johnnie has some views. He believes all porn should be legal for any age, as censoring the truth does not change anything. Larry does not like this and plans to 'scare' johnny by telling him he will go to hell when he dies. Johnny does not believe in hell, just as larry does not believe in under 18 possession so he ignores him, and scare tactics fail. Larry is then so distressed that Johnny does not have the right morals he worries night and day for johnny's soul. Johnny starts viewing porn less and less when he is 17, and finaly barely does it at all. Larry continues to worry every night and day, stressing out repeatedly. As in the monks' example, Johnny has set the porn down along time ago, while Larry thinks about it every day. (Sorry for not citing correctly).(This message has been edited by xlpanel)

I see no reason that 37 ASM and teacher seem odd. If I had a son when I was 22 after leaving college that would put him at 15 right now. Check for scouting age. Our troop is a small one, so basically any parent that submits a parent application gets ASM if he wants. Check for that two. Teacher, what seems odd about that? If I remember correctly (which I do) my first post on this thread was talking about a teachers' response. I either am obsessed with teachers by starting out like that, BEFORE I started this debate with you, or I know very many, which would strengthen the idea that I am one. Again, instead of responding to my argumentative logic, you resort to personal attacks again. If you can't argue the logic, please don't start name calling and attacking my age. If you really thought I was a high school student, starting a name calling war with me wouldn't be a very good idea. Would you want to freely admit that a high school student defeated your view on morality and you had to resort to name calling? If so, by all means continue to call me one. I, for one, would take a path of humility and would rather admit to being bested by a 37 year old philosophy teacher than a 15 year old wannabe debater. And I see the post about assuming I am a high-school student due to me talking about a high school debate topic. Of course, I must say I enjoy debate, (which is one of the reason I coach it) and sometimes debate with my students and help them with case points etc. Again, I am either really obsessed with teachers and school as a student, or I actually work there. You get to decide. iz nt lk i b tpn lk i b n d 9 grd.(This message has been edited by xlpanel)(This message has been edited by xlpanel)

In Scouting: Yes ASM Age: 37 Religion: Christian However, I do not believe that the bible is absolute. So many contradictions in the new testament. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html I would consider the most important thing religion teaches me is to respect others views. Not to ostracize people. To not denegrade groups of people. I have learned, through it, to respect others' views and morality. For example, vegetarians refuse to eat meat. Many people, when going out to eat with a vegetarian will take an extra 30 mins to find a 'friendly' restaurant. Why won't people go out of their way to make a 15 year old who admits to looking at porn not feel humiliated? Especially when there are probably more 15 year olds who have looked at porn in the past week than there are total vegetarians in the world. While on the subject of vegetarians we can reference to CPS. Some people feel that kids raised as vegetarians are not recieving the right nutrients. This means they think CPS needs to come in to take the kids and feed them meat. Is it morally right to take a kid just because his parents don't feed him meat? You have to take everything with a grain of salt. This includes underage possession. What's so bad about it? Ok, a kid can see porn 4 years before he is legally able to. When you look at the millions and millions of years the world has existed, is 4 really a big deal? I take the lack or rebuttal to commandment #1 to mean a dropped argument. Finally, another anecdote to sum up the post Johnny just joined troop 123. He is a weird kid. From a strange religion no one has ever heard of. His religion states he can only shower on Sunday. This means during the week of summer camp, he cannot shower. He drives the other scouts insane with his horrible smell. But you, as a scoutmaster, must defend him, and his rights. You tell them that Johnny's beliefs, his morals, are different than theirs and he must respect them. If George tells his parents about Johnny not showering and George's parents complain to the scoutmaster, is the scoutmaster going to kick Johnny out? No, he will tell George's parents to respect other cultures and religions. Henry just joined troop 987. He is a normal kid. From a mainstream religion. However, he is very liberal and open-minded, and not afraid to speak his mind. During summer camp, he brings some open-minded literature (pro pot) and some porn magazines. He doesn't drive the other boys insane at all. Those who want to listen do, and those who don't don't. Aren't you, as a scoutmaster, also obligated to defend his right to his beliefs, even if you don't agree? Now James tells his parents about Henry having pro pot literature and porn. James' parents complain to the scoutmaster, is the scoutmaster right to kick Henry out? No, he should tell James' parents that just because they do not agree with Henry's viewpoints and standards does not mean he needs to be kicked out. The scoutmaster should tell James' parents they should respect Henry's views. After all it James' parents don't want him to listen to what Henry says, they should just tell him that whatever henry says is a lie and to stay away from him. Those interested in what Henry says are free to come and see him, his pro pot, and his porn. And lets not get started in on banning literature or ideas. It has been illustrated time and time again that the more you ban something, the more kids want to watch it. As soon as 2girls1cup became legally obscene in the U.S., I know for a fact that the viewing of this video, in my school, went up from probably 2 or 3 students a class, to 17 or 18 in a class (class size of 20). Now, you are probably saying Aha! in his school this shows that I am not 37. In actuality, I am the debate coach/philosphy teacher. And what am I going to do about my freshman class watching 2girls1cup? Lecture them about it? How would that go - "What did you do in class today, Jimmy?" --- "Oh, Mr. B lectured us on his thoughts about a new legally obscene porn video." Well, actually that has been done before. A teacher I know lectured her freshman class on the real meaning of douche-bag and how it is used, as they kept call each other that. Of course, if we expected kids to complain about something to their parents, this would be in that category. No one told their parents. Possibly the same thing with porn? Maybe the kids are more open about accepting others' views than you think. I did nothing, and it was the best course of action. Of course, I could have followed the law and turned them in for under-18 viewing, and had my whole class fined $150 each or so. Smart? Then to another banning causing viewing. We reference Harry Potter 5, The Quibbler and Umbridge. She bans the magazine, as its view differs from hers. Well, the magazine had record sales and everyone in the whole school read it. Readership before? 1 Students in Hogwarts. Readership after? Every single student and all the teachers. Banning Smart? Same with porn? Tell the kids "Johnny has nasty stuff on his phone. Never look at it." What do they all do "Hey Johnny, SM says that you have cool nasty stuff on your phone. We wouldn't have known it was there unless SM told us, but please show us! (This message has been edited by xlpanel)(This message has been edited by xlpanel)

There is a misunderstanding about what I said about philosophy class. The class did not try to teach me that there was no true morale. However, with brief introductions to different philosophers Kant, Marks, Rawles, Mills etc you see many different viewpoints. Which one is right? No one is completely right. And for the part about classes being different in the real world -- definately. Look at Marks. Socialism/Communism IN THEORY is the best of all, and everone will be better off. The standard of living will be 25x higher than we have in U.S. Today. However, that is not the case. Everyone does no follow it. Thus Communism/Socialism falls apart. Difference in school/theory and real world/life is recognized. And you say that xxxxxx put you in charge of your troop. That is true. But lets look at a bigger picture. Who put you in charge of determing what is moral? In reference to your saying you get your morality from the bible, that is a big no-no. Do you really want to claim thats what you base your everyday decisons and morals off of? Lets go to my original argument about the majority rule. Or might of numbers makes right. Lets look at the #1 Commandment: 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me First, ask why is this? Well, God brought them out of egypt so he wants them to only worship him, sounds good right? What happens if the guy says no? Well, the answer is simple, god will smite him. That sounds pretty much like might makes right, or majority rule. Maybe the bible supports me instead of you here? #6 6. Thou shall not kill. Ever gone deer hunting? Poisoned ants? Mouse trap? Weed Poison? You can't do that. Of course, you will say that he only meant humans and he actually meant murder. Should have written that, shouldn't he? Now, some hyopthetical examples: I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. I know Exodus states that I need the whole village to help, but with everyone's busy lifestyle they don't have time to help. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself then? Exodus 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. Would you suggest for me to buy a Mexicant or a Canadican? It is morally wrong to eat shellfish according to Leviticus 11:10. Does that mean 'shellfish' exactly, or any fish that has a shell? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. How would I go about fighting the ban on slavery in the U.S?

BrentAllen, your calling me a troll is very immature and not at all warranted. I am sure trolls do not make worthwhile philosophical posts. Trolls start threads such as "What are trolls? Do I need to look under the bridge between my router and cable modem?" and "Who should I vote for for class valedictorian" (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArPc_OfmA4Q2nzb_E0dhJa967hR.;_ylv=3?qid=20090604125019AAzfg5m) "Is it safe for my boyfriend to pinch me" http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Av1xN4oMULIwj3W_H7EU5B567hR.;_ylv=3?qid=20090604124352AA5HIgf "My Electric toothbrush is covered in poop" http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak3SLKFqMdB26GpJavAoepF67hR.;_ylv=3?qid=20090604071627AAlWxgX Instead, my posts are arguing philosophical points about what is moral. Who gets to decide what is moral? Is their a true standard? This whole morality argument comes right off of a high-school debate class in which the semester-long topic was: Resolved:Sancuary Cities are Morally Justified. Bottom line on this topic was that that the cities did not have to just be justified - but they had to be justified morally. As there is no way to determine what is truly moral (as in everyone's standard is different) I won all my negative rounds as the affirmative could not answer what determines if something is moral. Sure they could spew off defns, but they could not argue against the logic that everyone has different standards. Thus they couldn't morally justify it, as they did not know what was even moral. I feel that the only reason that you called me a troll is that you have no arguments to offer to rebut my assertion that there are different standards of morality and none of them can be disqualified as to do so you would have to be a morality czar, and who put you in charge? So, stop with the juvenile name calling, and think up some real arguments.

You identified another point about different standards of morality when you called it an old law. You think: Well, thats a stupid law. There is no harm in taking more than three sips of beer without sitting down. I don't hurt anybody. This law is only made to discriminate against people who like beer and to make them feel guilty about drinking it. I hate this law so much, I am going to go to that town, and drink a whole can just standing up taking tiny sips. They think: Well, thats a stupid law. There is no harm in viewing porn when they are under 18. It doesn't hurt anybody. This law is only made to discriminate against those who like porn and to make them feel guilty about viewing it. I hate this law so much, I am going to read my magazines in plin sight of the police station. Of course, then the moral righteousness will try to debunk the second example by saying, "Yes, but we have all this proof that when kids view porn they get a slanted view of the real world. What they see is not actuality." The same works on the first example. The moral healthiness will debunk it by saying, "Yes, but we have all this proof that drinking beer without moving around is bad for you. In fact, without repeatedly using your leg muscles, your blood achohol concentration increases 33% faster." In reality, you can do any study that will prove anything. Just the words that you use to write the results matter. If you write: Children who view pornography will have severe self-esteem issues plus an unrealistic view of life and unhealthy beliefs it sounds much worse than If you wrote: Teens who see nude pictures will notice they aren't as beautiful as the actors and that will cause them to think they can't be porn stars. But they both say the same thing. Now, we will address the references to slavery/apartheid. Yes, I am sure their are many other things on a smaller scale that I could have referenced to. But, what is the probability that you would have heard of them before. Mentioning them would either a) Have gotten you to argue something you knew nothing about b) prompted you to do an hour's worth of research. So instead of that, I mention somethign that everyone has heard of before. Finally, my thoughts. I wouldn't like kids under 13 to look at porn, but I wouldn't punish them or make their parents drive 500 miles to pick them up. I would ask the younger kids to please do it on their own time. I wouldn't tell their parents. I wouldn't take it from them. Just ask them to use discretion so those who didn't want to see it wouldn't. Kids older than 14 I wouldn't care at all. If Good Morning America is to believed (which it isn't) they have already done much worse. Now, we address the issue that always comes up --- the kids showing each other the porn. Well, I wouldn't care if they showed each other, as long as the kids consent. This means that if a kid is following another kid around shoving porn right under his nose every chance he got, I would punish him --- But not for having porn --- for showing it off. But if the kids in the troop find out that Jimmy is looking at porn in his tent I have no problem if 3 or 4 that want to see it also go to look. I doubt they are going to have a group jo session. Those who don't want to see won't go. I seriously doubt that a kid that voluntarily goes to Jimmy's tent to view the porn is going to go home and tell his mommy that "Somehow, I can't explain how, I was involuntarily made to voluntarily move to view the porn. I was seriously traumitized by it, but did not think of leaving, so I had to sit their and look for two hours." Also, most of the porn the boys show to each other is not hard core. If jimmy had a 10 minute hard core video that he watched in etirety he would be probably labeled as a freak by the other boys. Boys only show porn to each other in groups for the shock value. Jimmy: Hey dudes, come watch this its really hot!! Johnny and James: Ok, cool (The video starts and it is, in actuality, 2girls1cup) Johny and James: Ewww! Jimmy: Lol, shocked ya haha! It is forgotten after that with no ill effects. Many guys do this to their friends. Most of the porn your scouts show to each other will be for the shock value. At the end of this whole argument is the root of protection of self governance. Why should party a get to tell me what is immoral and what I can't do. What gives them the authority? You should always protect others' rights to their own views and morals, and not try to enforce yours on them. You are not the morality police, or a self appointed censor. The below demonstrates that point. When they banned hunting due to 'cruelty to animals', I remained silent; I was not a hunter. When they locked up those who viewed porn, I remained silent; I was not a pornophile. When they came for the homosexuals, I did not speak out; I was not a homosexual. When they came for the Muslims, I remained silent; I wasn't a Muslim. When they came for the scoutmasters there was no one left to speak out, so they took me too. At the end I have one more standard of morality differnce to show: Well, If I went up to a guy on the street and told him I had my cat and dog for breakfast, the SPCA would be at my door in no time. If I told the same guy I had steak for dinner last night, he would say good for me. In India, If I told a guy on the street I had steak for dinner, a lynching mob would be at my door in no time. If I told the same guy I had my dog and my cat for breakfast, he would say good for me. Different moral standards, eh?

Who says the law is right? If I remember correctly, slavery used to be legal. Also, if people didn't break laws durin apartheid in South Africa apartheid would still exist. How about the city ordinance somewhere in Texas that does not allow people to go barefoot on sidewalks without a 5 dollar permit? In Lefors, Texas it is illegal to take more than three swallows of beer at any time while standing. Possibly that under-18 possession law, my a morality standard different than yours, gives those in possession the same feeling of incredulity that you feel when you read the law about three sips of beer. You ask, according to your standard, Why do we need a law like that? I can take as many sips as I want. They say, according to their standard, Why do we need a law like that? Not looking at it does not deny the truth. Finally, banning printed materials is silly and questionable. Some schools have tried to ban Fahrenheit 451, which is a book about banning books. So we ban the book about banning books. Real smart. Just because you don't appreciate or like the content doesn't mean that you have the right or responsibility to tell others that they cant appreciate or like the content.

With all these different standards, who says his grandmother is right? Maybe she is old, and out of touch with the beliefs of the majority. Just as if he asked his grandmother to name him the #1 song on the billboard 100. And while he is at it, why doesn't he ask his 85 year old great-grandfather, a die hard redneck confederate, about the morality of slavery? And his cousin Bud, who is 20, about the morality of underage drinking. Everyone has a different standard of what is moral. There is no true definition. Thus morality=fail.

So with no 'one size fits all' everyone is allowed to have their own standard of morality. What if the kid who brought the porn has a standard that approves of it? Are you calling his moral standard wrong? If you are why? Just because it conflicts with your standard? Just because you don't believe its right? Why do you get to determine what is moral? Who gets to determine what it is? An individual for himself? You for everyone? the Morality Czar on Capitol Hill? If everyone can have their own standard their is no true morality. Thus I contend morality is a hyped-up worthless term as there is no true definition. How can you support something if you can't globally define it?

OK people may have misunderstood about defining moral. So, lets just take the first definition or moral that appears in google:define concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles; "moral sense"; "a ... the significance of a story or event; "the moral of the story is to love thy neighbor" psychological rather than physical or tangible in effect; "a moral victory"; "moral support" Ok, so basically we can define moral just fine. Next, how do we determine what is moral? Say I am a muslim. With my parents and religious leader around, I could (if I was a woman) never discuss going out in public without my head covered. This would be frowned upon. Or say I am a christian. Could I discuss supporting any islamic group freely with my religious leader? That would be frowned upon. Soooooo, how do we, as a whole, determine what is moral? Well, almost everyone will tell us that we can determine what is moral by accepting what the majority believes about an issue. The Majority of people believe slavery is immoral ...... thus it is. HOWEVER, if we go back to the 1600s, the Majority of people thought slavery was perfectly acceptable, and thus it was moral then, when the majority accepted it. So basically, moral can be deemed a trumped-up word without true meaning as it basically means majority rule. Majority rule can lead to the worst sort of human-rights violations. If we assume the majority is in control (which it always is) and there are 20 people in a room, 19/20 are christian and 1 is a muslim. Well, these particular christians believe that all muslims are evil and need lynched. The christians have no one to answer to, as they are in charge. So they lynch the muslim. Is it moral to lynch someone just because you disagree? No. So, we can see that if morality is defined as majority belief system it creates a logical fallacy unto itself and cannot be truly defined, and thus can be rendered worthless. And I agree that it is illegal for under 18s to possess porn. I was making the point that we are not to assume the porn is of under 18s. And if you found someone under 18 with porn, would you report them to the police? If not, you are guilty of assisting with a crime as well, by failure to turn over evidence of wrongdoing. So you have committed, in actuality, a crime that is considered more severe by law enforcement than the kid with the porn. You both are guilty of an offense. Thus the whole argument about under 18s in possession falls.