Interesting topic came up....

[Krampus]

I'm just saying, keep in mind that he sees how "our" girls are abused, coerced into pseudo-consensual promiscuity, and trafficked in this country and wants that crappola to stop, and work from common ground that you both want the best for your kids. You just are pretty convinced that fiddling with dress codes doesn't even touch the margin of the problem.

 

Nope. This guy was going off on the burqa rant and how women here show too much...and how girls here should be modest and show literally nothing.

 

The kid was wearing regular jeans, a hoodie (hood down) and Converse All-Stars, no make-up and her hair back. More covered for an American teenager she could not be. Trust me, as a father, if she were dressed provocatively I wouldn't let her out of the house. She was a normal American teenager. This guy was off the hook.

 

You don't tell a kid they are improperly dressed UNLESS they are breaking a law OR a stated dress code. She was doing neither. If this guy longs for the way things are in his country I am happy to buy him the plane ticket back, but don't come down on my kid for nothing! 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Krampus

[Stosh]

Over the course of the history of the US, what was once a small Federal government established by our Constitution has now exploded into a bloated bureaucracy that can't control itself let alone it's citizenry.  It used to be the creators, the manufacturers, the builders, the visionaries that build upon the previous generations, now it is only the destructive forces of litigation and fear of litigation that dominate the countryside.

 

One cannot legislate morality, There's supposed to be a separation between church and state, but the Christian-Judeo code of morality still dominates and Sharia with it's totally different code has a valid argument.  So why is the government in the religion business?  Because it likes to stick it's nose into everything a millimeter at a time.  Kinda like the frog and kettle of water thingy.

 

It's going to take a miracle to reverse the process because one has to stop doing what's being done and go in the opposite direction.  With the continued loss of freedom, in order for the progression into more loss, the current processes have to be stopped. If the people want more freedom, the processes have to be reversed. 

 

Lincoln may be correct, the experiment set forth by our Founding fathers may not be able to sustain itself.  Nothing at the hands of people lasts very long and the process of change is majorly faster than it has been at any time in history.

 

If it hurts to keep banging one's head against the brick wall, .... stop doing it. 

[Stosh]

By the way, @@Beavah in other forms of government, the duties have checks and balances to regulate and keep everyone on the reservation.  School Boards don't seem to have that system applied to them.  They make the rules, they have the administration and employees execute those rules and they adjudicate them when they wish.  That is NOT a Constitutional system in America.  It's something someone made up along the way.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Stosh

[Sentinel947]

 

What seems odd to me, though, is how some of the folks who are opposed to zero-tolerance policies and want local judgment and discretion for da schools at the same time think da BSA policies are absolute mandates and there shouldn't be local discretion.  I don't understand that.  The argument that there are bad scouters out there so we have to have rules is da same argument that the zero-tolerance folks make, eh?  There are bad teachers/administrators out there so we have to have rules!

 

Beavah

 

Ok. Lets try this again..

 

Beavah son plays on a soccer team. There are rules to how to play soccer set up by the League of Youth Soccer. Beavah coach decides his players can use their hands because "the rules are not absolute mandates."  

 

The GTA and other BSA documents are the rules to how to play Scouting. There is already plenty of room for interpretation within those documents that reasonable people constantly disagree on. Even Troops that follow the GTA and other documents can vary within how they approach things. The rules provide ways to flex themselves. 

 

Take "Be active in your Troop for 6 months." A troop can define what that means, communicate it, and hold a scout accountable to it. There's your flexibility, and your local judgment. But for example if we to decide that we are going to make it be 8 months, because "it's better for the lads and its the lesson I want to teach them." is disregarding the rule. If that's the "local judgment" you are looking for, then we have to agree to disagree. Why have requirements at all? 

 

But completing disregarding those documents, and doing the opposite, is playing soccer while using your hands to throw the ball. I guess that's a "Zero tolerance" rule in some peoples eyes. There should be flexibility for all players in soccer to touch the ball with their hands, and flexibility for all Scoutmasters to stonewall Scouts advancement for whatever reason they deem prudent. I don't believe that's what you're really advocating for Beavah. 

 

I feel like we are misunderstanding each other across various threads. 

 

Again, BSA rules are not zero tolerance, because zero tolerance mandates a specific penalty in addition to having a rule. There is frequently no punishment for not following BSA rules. You're basically making an argument that there should be no rules at all, because everybody needs to be flexible. But we should follow the BSA rules, because we volunteered to run a BSA program and that's the way the BSA says the program should be run.

 

At the end of the day, I can't force anybody to follow the documents. I sure do feel for the Scouts who get crappy programs, without the patrol method, where their advancement gets denied for ridiculous reasons because the SM feels like he can do whatever the heck he wants, and all the BSA crap is optional. 

 

Sentinel947 

 

 

[Krampus]

What seems odd to me, though, is how some of the folks who are opposed to zero-tolerance policies and want local judgment and discretion for da schools at the same time think da BSA policies are absolute mandates and there shouldn't be local discretion.  I don't understand that.  The argument that there are bad scouters out there so we have to have rules is da same argument that the zero-tolerance folks make, eh?  There are bad teachers/administrators out there so we have to have rules!

 

@@Beavah, you couldn't be missing the point more if you tried.

 

In the example of the student accidentally bringing an aspirin to school and getting suspended, he's trying to comply with the law but made a mistake.

 

In the case of the Boy Scout denied his SM's signature, he complied with the law but the SM (and other adults) changed the rules.

 

So in your example, it would like the school board making up their own zero tolerance rules and applying them to the student. The two situations are not remotely similar. In the case of the student he is trying to comply with the law and made a mistake. In the case of the Scout he IS complying with the BSA rules but is being punished anyway.

 

There's a HUGE difference in both cases. With the Scout, the adults are making things up. I would have no more tolerance for adults making things up in a Scouting program than I would for administrators making up policies in the schools.

[qwazse]

Nope. This guy was going off on the burqa rant and how women here show too much...and how girls here should be modest and show literally nothing.

 

The kid was wearing regular jeans, a hoodie (hood down) and Converse All-Stars, no make-up and her hair back. More covered for an American teenager she could not be. Trust me, as a father, if she were dressed provocatively I wouldn't let her out of the house. She was a normal American teenager. This guy was off the hook.

 

You don't tell a kid they are improperly dressed UNLESS they are breaking a law OR a stated dress code. She was doing neither. If this guy longs for the way things are in his country I am happy to buy him the plane ticket back, but don't come down on my kid for nothing! 

Not disagreeing with the insanity of it all. We've got some adorable girls in hijabs around here, and I know that it does nothing to stop guys from being, well, guys. I'm sure having put your time in in-country, there's plenty more to go on about.

 

Just suggesting some honey over vinegar.

Telling him you'll treat his women with the utmost respect if he can see it in his heart to do the same for yours will get you more miles in the long run.

 

Buying the ticket home ... well we've found that doesn't necessarily end well.

[Krampus]

I've lived half my life overseas. I've spent years in various countries doing my tour of duty. I respect other cultures and customs. I have never lived anywhere, even where my parents are from, and expected them to assimilate to my customs. I would never go to Saudi or Afghanistan and expect my kids to NOT assimilate in to their culture...even though I would hope the locals would respect them.

 

When I come back to my country I expect those living here to assimilate to the American customs. At very least I expect them NOT to apply their customs to me or my family. They can do what they want to in their homes, but outside of them don't expect others who live here to avoid eating pigs, drinking or wearing skirts with boots. If they're offended by that stuff stay away from Walmart.

 

I treat ALL women with respect. They want to wear a hi-jab, that's fine. Don't expect me to conform to your cultural standards if they are not American standards.

[TAHAWK]

The zero-tolerance policies I find via Google are local, although federal and state laws often seem to have pressured the school districts into adopting such rules.

 

 

I volunteered to join Scouting knowing that it has rules and has a value of obedience to rules.  

 

Having said that, how do we read "Obedient" given that BSA hails Dr. King as an icon - a man who won the Nobel Prize for Peace for running a campaign of civil disobedience?

[David CO]

This is where I think Sentinel947 's  analogy goes wrong.

 

Beavah has a son on a soccer team in the League of Youth Soccer.  Beavah doesn't own the league.  Beavah isn't an officer of the league.  So, Beavah has no authority to change the rules.

 

Beavah has a son on a soccer team in the League of Youth Soccer.  Beavah is a member of the organization that owns the League of Youth Soccer.  Beavah is an officer of the organization that owns the League of Youth Soccer.  This is a different situation.  Beavah may, in fact, have the authority to change the rules.

 

It really depends on who owns the League of Youth Soccer.

Edited April 21, 2016 by David CO

[Krampus]

This is where I think Sentinel947 's  analogy goes wrong.

 

Beavah has a son on a soccer team in the League of Youth Soccer.  Beavah doesn't own the league.  Beavah isn't an officer of the league.  So, Beavah has no authority to change the rules.

 

Beavah has a son on a soccer team in the League of Youth Soccer.  Beavah is a member of the organization that owns the League of Youth Soccer.  Beavah is an officer of the organization that owns the League of Youth Soccer.  This is a different situation.  Beavah may, in fact, have the authority to change the rules.

 

Huh? I think you missed the analogy.

 

In soccer, the league does not make up the rules. The league has to follow the rules laid down under the Laws of the Game (LOTG) by FIFA. So in this analogy FIFA is the BSA, the LOTG are the GTA, the League is the troop. 

 

No troop or adults have the right to add/subtract from requirements, just like soccer leagues cannot say that the players can use their hands.

[qwazse]

...

I treat ALL women with respect. They want to wear a hi-jab, that's fine. Don't expect me to conform to your cultural standards if they are not American standards.

I know that. We all do (although truth be told, yoga pants ain't making it easy in this town).

But these guys don't know you we do (or, would rather believe that all of us don't) respect the people they are meant to protect. So somehow you got to convince them that you're being a good neighbor as well as protective dad.

 

Bringing back to topic: you could open with a story about how folks with zero-tolerance policies are demonizing our school kids who would otherwise grow up strong and do good for our country.

[Stosh]

When I grew up in the society I did it was almost a virtue to have tolerance of others around you.  With that being said, zero-tolerance seems to imply that intolerance is the route we find good in today's world and culture.

 

Well, I just don't buy it, and I will continue to call a spade a spade and stay on record as one who does not believe in intolerance of any sort and people need to be judged with compassion and understanding if warranted to be judged at all.

[TAHAWK]

Two teams played under their own rules.  But is wasn't football anymore or even Association Football.  It was American Football.

 

Imagine the Quadruple Option: run, pass, punt, drop kick.

[Stosh]

Two teams played under their own rules.  But is wasn't football anymore or even Association Football.  It was American Football.

 

Imagine the Quadruple Option: run, pass, punt, drop kick.

 

Yes, but did they whine until the World Football Association buckled and had to change the rules to make the American more welcomed in the sport?  Was there a big court case and did Americans go over to Europe and South America demanding they allow these new issues to be welcomed into the game?

 

Of course then there's the extreme footballers in Australia that if you were to even suggest anything negative against their scrums and ever so slightly question what they are doing there, and you'll be keeping your teeth in a jar next to the bed at night. 

 

I kinda enjoy watching all three different "football" games.  But then I'm a bit eccentric in my old age.

[ianwilkins]

Two teams played under their own rules.  But is wasn't football anymore or even Association Football.  It was American Football.

 

 

There's a slow insidious problem in rugby in the UK, quite a few of the players wear thin layers of padding under their shirts, under armour I believe it's known as, and soft padded head protection. I squarely blame you colonials and your fancy ways.

 

Ian (who will happily watch American football, rugby union, rugby league, would watch aussie rules but it's never on)