DuctTape

Only if the focus is on training and skills instead of adventure. I see the "teaching" and advancement happening on the adventure. A patrol with a wider range of ages than just a single year can go on more than a beginner trip and on that trip use their skills and pass along their knowledge to their patrol mates who may not havecas much experience or knowledge. This moves the teaching, learning and advancement into the adventure in a real life experience instead of the classroom. I have no "preference" between age based or mixed age; to me the most important characteristic is the common type of adventure. THe Otter Patrol likes to do adventures on the water while the Moose Patrol likes to go deep into the woods. The Fir Tree patrol likes to plop camp and cook amazing things on the fire. I guess I see the slightly older patrol mates providing and passing along their expertise to their patrol mates while also growing themselves via the merit badge program. Some of the merit badge requirements can be done on these adventures too.

Stosh, My point was not that it cannot be done with same age patrols, or nsp, just that all you describe can also be done with mixed age patrols as well. In your paradigm, the troop QM is in a separate patrol with other older boys. Why must his role as troop QM be any different if he is in a patrol which happens to also have some t-fc scouts in it? It doesnt.

In a troop which may have mixed aged patrols (which does not necessarily mean the extreme age differences that some allude to), does not mean that troop leadership positions are adult led, or patch wearing only. Let's look at an example. Patrol A has a boy who is Star. Has been the patrol leader and patrol quartermaster among other things along the way. A new boy joins the patrol and he and the PL decide he would be the patrol QM, now he doesn't have much experience here as he is new. Patrol B also has a boy who has never been a patrol QM before. The older boy who used to do it for the patrol is no longer there. The Star Scout from Patrol A becomes the troop QM, he is still a member of his patrol but helps the two newer boys learn the ropes as he functions in the troop QM role. This is functionally no different than him being in a patrol with other Star Scouts and helping these two boys in their new role. I guess my point is, the Patrol method and functional POR do not require age-based patrols or mixed age patrols. It can work in both, neither require more or less adult-intervention. IMO, when an adult states his preference for mixed or fixed, his belief system will push the boys into that type. In other words, the adult interfered with the patrol process. If we stop referring to the patrols based on age mixture we can then allow the boys to truly decide who is in what patrol and how they are to operate.

So with all of that, the arguments based on fear of abuse to scouts would then be extended to heterosexual women as scout leaders. Or to heterosexual males as venturing crew leaders with mixed gender crews.

Nice B Wolf. Here is my poetic entry, with apologies to R. Service. There are strange things worn on a scouter uniform by the men who volunteer. A Scouters knots, whether worn or not can sometimes cause a jeer. The campfire flame seems to alight the blame, but the truth is there to see. It is the Scouts own Law, which shows them all the Scouters real quality.

I disagree. It states specifically to train them in scoutcraft as one of the purposes. It is not just a method. Second, the "thrust" is not as you say. All of the purposes are listed without quantifying any as more or less important. The mission of Scouting is fulfilled when it accomplishes ALL of those purposes.

The camp where the single patrol went to was the younger patrol. That camp is geared more towards the younger, while the other is a bit "rougher".

We have 3 patrols. Two go to one camp, the other goes to a different camp.

I wear one knot; my eagle award. I agree with what some others have said in regards to knowledge, experience, and helpfulness are not measured by the quantity of knots worn. IMO, there is little correlation.

While I didnt get much out of SM fundamentals nor IOLS, the trainers we had were good at recognizing what I already knew and used me to help teach my patrol. I continue in Scouting to help others, I viewed my experience in these trai,ings as just that, an opportunity to help. Our district training chair now has me on a list to help train in the future, especially an Advanced OLS whe/if the finally get it scheduled.

What you are describing regarding Kant was what he referred to as hypothetical imperatives. These he contrasted with moral imperatives, ie categorical imperatives which were certainly NOT conditional. Now we could go round and round regarding kant. But, i think if you did a bit more research into what it means to be absolute, you might find not just kant but other absolutists who do not agree with conditionals...it is these conditionals which make the principle relative. RRegardless I will allow you have the last word so as to let this thread die a natural death.

You asked for an authority on why absolutes cannot contain conditionals. I provided one. I am not arguing for Kants categocial imperative. I am recognizing that an absolute which contains a conditiobal ceases to be an absolute. Kant, as an moral absolutist would agree. Now, if we both agree that conditional morality is "where its at" and you want to call it "absolute", the pragmatic in me doesnt care as the semantics of calling it absolute or conditional or relative do not change the process of reasoning through an ethical dilemma to include the details of the specific circumstance. If you want to call it "absolute morality with conditions" and someone else wants to call it "moral relativity", I couldnt care less what it is called.

I would defer to Immanuel Kant, whom by many is considered a top-notch philosopher. His writings are part of most if not all philosophy courses. His own "categorical imperative" is an example of moral absolutism in which he defined it as unconditional.

Agreed. I was not as careful with my wording as I should have. I stand by my general statement however that the uniforming policy of bsa is fundamentally different than that of the us military.

QM appears is the bsa literature. Class b does not. I agree there are bigger fish to fry, which is why I am not on some mission to get people to stop using it. I am however not using it myself for the reason already stated.

Let's see... 1. Boys' decide whether to host a camporee? No. 2. Boys' decide on theme for camporee they host? No. 3. Boys' decide on events at camporee they host? No. 4. Boys' decide/allowed to attend district camporee? No. So much for boy-led. I think my answer is obvious.

The main difference I see, is that bsa does not well define the uniform. It allows for different uniforms. This is not the case for the oath or law. That is a fundamental distinction.

No. I said avoid interjecting. There is no need to use the terms class a, b, c. I agree we must avoid being run like a paramilitary unit, so why use military terms which are unecessary.

I eschew the military terminolgy for BSA uniforms. I understand that for many it allows them to generate a internal understanding of how they define different uniform options. I am if the school that scouts is NOT paramilitary and we should avoid interjecting military terms where it increases the perception that scouts should be run like the military. The entire concept of boy-led runs counter to the chain of command rank structure of the military. The uniform is whatever the patrol decides it is, not the SPL or SM or troop committee.

My favorite was not with scouts. My father had been bringing me into the woods and on canoe trips since I was an infant. At one point I was finally "old enough" to go with him on his annual weeklong canoe trip to Algonquin Provincial park, the NW corner. On that trip we saw moose, a fox (walked right into our campsite at breakfast, the northern lights. Watched birds drop fresh water mussels onto a rock island and then eat through the cracked shells. We made blueberry pancakes with wild blueberries found nearby. Invented a few camping recipes the last few days as our pantry was getting thin. The best was linguini, garlic, olive oil and mussels from the lake. While the adventure was great, it was my favorite because it felt like by going on this trip I had finally earned the trust of my father as an equal partner in the wilderness.

Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder,I still maintain the red/green socks pulled to the knee along with the red beret to match wins first prize in the uggo uni contest. I am not familiar with the gaiters from the 60s, but I use gaiters now. They are very functional. Perhaps they are more like the ones from the 20s. I also rarely wear shorts while in the woods. Clothing is a tool and one chooses the correct tool for the job.

As one adds a condition, it is no longer an absolute; it becomes conditional. Another problem arises that even if one were to accept the condition, when/how/if that condition has been met becomes another rabbit hole to define. If one attempts to be vague instead, then it leaves the interpretation to others, not exactly an absolute either. One might as well go the full distance of vagueness and just say, "make ethical decisions".

And together with the green/red socks pulled up the knees while wearing scout shorts... the ugliest uniform was complete.

Then it is not an absolute.There is a reason philosophers have been debating this for millenia. I highly doubt we will find the magic solution. There are problems with moral absolutism, relativism,pluralism, realism, etc... Those much smarter than I couldn't satisfy this. Kant, Plato, Nietzche, etc... In the end, the only thing "I" can do is "do my best" as I travel this world.

AZ,although all your "facts" contain the word "should" which makes them not absolutes. Secondly, what happens when "should" is replaced with "must" and then someone is faced with the moral dilemma of having to make a decision which must violate one of the "facts" if the situation puts two of the facts at odds with each other? That is the fundamental problem with moral facts, or absolutes is that with more than one, a situation could/will arise in which they contradict. If one trumps another, then the inferior fact is not an absolute.