Alrighty Then, Now That We Have That Settled....

[Rick_in_CA]

Totally off my point. 

How? You wrote: "I have heard that the staff at Girl scout camps is sometimes as much as half lesbian." You then continued under the assumption that it was true. Your rant however is nonsense because the "half lesbian" stuff is nonsense. Just because "I have heard..." something doesn't make it true. If you want to rant about GSUSA camp staff being half lesbian, you need to present some evidence that the claim is true if you want anyone to take such an extreme claim seriously.

 

Look, my point was that it is easy to find people saying ridiculous things about GSUSA (and about the BSA, and about <... insert topic here ...>). That doesn't mean you should take them seriously.

[Rick_in_CA]

Rick you're still missing the point, from her BIBLICAL perspective, she's spot on. In other words, from her religious views what GSUSA is doing has nothing to do with Biblcal teachings and is not a role for GSUSA. You are looking at this from YOUR perspective. Look at it from HER perspective and through the filter of the mission of her organization. When you do that and account for,her religious beliefs, she's right. That's where the argument lies. GSUSA does not belong talking to girls about such issues according to that organization. That's their opinion and position.

And you are missing my point. I don't care WHY she is making up lies about the GSUSA, just that she is. And yes, the statement I quoted is a lie.

 

I get that she has strong feelings against the GSUSA. I get that she doesn't agree with it's policies and values. If she wants to complain and campaign publicly about and against the GSUSA, more power too her. But when she then takes it to the level of making up lies about the GSUSA to "make her point", she has moved into wacko territory. Unfortunately, this is becoming so common on the wacko right, that it isn't even considered unacceptable in many circles.

 

And I don't understand your point @. I get that from her religious point of view the GSUSA is wrong. What I don't understand is how that justifies lying? Or are you saying that because of her religious point of view, she is not capable of understanding the difference between truth and falsehood? Or that any statement about GSUSA is acceptable as long as it's negative, regardless of it's truth? I don't buy that.

[Gone]

And you are missing my point. I don't care WHY she is making up lies about the GSUSA, just that she is. And yes, the statement I quoted is a lie.

 

 

I'm tapping out on this one. We don't see eye to eye on this. I do see your point, I just think it's exaggerated.

[qwazse]

Alrighty. We know there are gonna be spin-offs, decisions to be made about girls and the godless, etc ... all of which will be equally divisive.

 

Assuming we all look at ourselves in a year or ten, and discover in the US we have a federation of scouting organizations (of which the BSA is one). Forces (mainly external) may pressure organizational heads not to collaborate, but we seasoned boots on the aren't gonna care. Eight kids and their parents from any of these groups are gonna show up at our door wanting to hike and camp independently. We're gonna find a way for them to do it, and that will involve finding an adult or two who all local parties/sponsors agree fit the bill.

 

To avoid the problem of skilled predators taking advantage of the national rifts, do we share "ineligible volunteer lists"? How?

[gumbymaster]

Alrighty. We know there are gonna be spin-offs, decisions to be made about girls and the godless, etc ... all of which will be equally divisive.

...

To avoid the problem of skilled predators taking advantage of the national rifts, do we share "ineligible volunteer lists"? How?

When those files were first created, there was no such thing as the sex offender registration lists, etc.

Now admittdely, not everyone who should be on that list is (insufficient evidence, prosecutorial miscounduct, etc).

Also, we have to also face that there are many people on that list who while making specific bad choices in their lives, are not a risk to others.

 

The Ineligible Volunteer files expanded to include even unproven allagations ... As a parent, I agree that it is better to err on the side of safety, that the detriment of the relatively minor number of those on the lists who really should not be there is outweighed by the diminished risk to our children.  As a civil libritarian, I oppose punishment without proof.  Ashamadly, without a better system, being a parent wins for me.

 

The downside, however, is too many of our parents think that that's enough.  The background check is enough, the Sexual preditor lists are enough, etc., and they let down their guard against those that passed the test.  Forgetting the many who have not been caught ... yet.  In the end, it's things like the BSA's YPT policies, that no matter how inconvienent thay may be, help us to keep our kids safe.

 

If there is a rift, and the organization slinters, It is my hope that all the surviving organizations at least keep YPT principles in mind.  Particually as even the act of sharing Ineligible Files between the groups would probably be perceived as libel against the ineligble individual, crushing the groups under the weight of lawsuits.

[skeptic]

" Particually as even the act of sharing Ineligible Files between the groups would probably be perceived as libel against the ineligble individual, crushing the groups under the weight of lawsuits."

 

Interesting comment, as currently we have lawyers suing the BSA because "they did not share" the files.

[Stosh]

Like I would like to be the one sharing files based on innuendos, rumors and hearsay..... It's a PR nightmare the way they do it now, having the world in general know about this wouldn't be a really smart move on the BSA's part.

[gumbymaster]

" Particually as even the act of sharing Ineligible Files between the groups would probably be perceived as libel against the ineligble individual, crushing the groups under the weight of lawsuits."

 

Interesting comment, as currently we have lawyers suing the BSA because "they did not share" the files.

To a large degree, I think that's what was so wrong about the controversy about the "perversion files".

The fact that we had them should not have been an issue, the BSA should be allowed to hold a list of acceptable and unacceptable members (the reason not withstanding).

As a private group, outsiders should not be entitled to view them - that could libel individuals in the files.

For better or worse, this was one method the BSA used to try and keep our youth safe, and should not have been demonized for having it (the list).  Nor should the courts have allowed the release of those individuals on the list to the public - to law enforcement to follow up on unresolved accusations, sure, but the list as a whole ... since the BSA would generally err on the side of caution, there were probably many names there that really did not belong, and those should not have been made public unless further legal examination put some substance to the accusation.

 

That said, the BSA should have, within the requirements of the law at the time  at least made reports with the appropriate legal entity that an accusation has been brought to their attention, and then allow the legal process to proceed from there.  Even if the legal process failed to achieve a conviction, that would not negate the BSA keeping the individual in the ineligible files - the BSA is a private organization.

 

Ideally, there should have been some (more formal) process for those on the list to challenge that assertion - but in reality it is very hard to prove a negative.