Woodbadge for Me

[Eagledad]

4 minutes ago, qwazse said:

It is sexist because empirical studies have never universally confirmed this.

That's not sexist. That is a different opinion based on different information. Shesh.

Your supporting my point that you can't (won't) have an open mind because you risk loosing ground on your opinion. Even though you control your opinion. Are you afraid the other person jut might change you mind? Do you really think your information is the only information on the subject? Does personal experience that doesn't agree with your information count for anything. 

Seems like folks today can only have a discussion if they feel they have the upper hand. Scoutlike?

Even scientist differ on opinions based from personal evidence. As an engineer, I often have different opinions with other engineers even though our numbers are an exact and don't have an opinion.. 

Barry

[ParkMan]

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

You had me up to here. What is the point of the local option if some options are off the table? All the examples you gave for supporting the local option are political in nature to some degree. This is exactly why many posters (pro gays included) didn't support the local option. How can the local option give COs room to provide a program if the CO is given limited options based on perception. I thought the whole idea of the local option was to give the BSA a break on perception.

Barry

I recognize the inconsistency in my statement.  In the case of female leaders for male scouts that question was settled years ago. Announcing a new policy that lets units now restrict leaders based on gender is going contrary to the general direction of the evolution of the country.  Making that decision today doesn't help anyone.  Making that decision 40 years ago would have been different.

But, were I trying to come up with a co code rule, I would say that in times of transition of commonly held values, the BSA should employ local choice to avoid picking a side on a contentious decision.  It's not in the benefit of Scouting to pick a side.  But since decisions like the gender of leaders is very long since settled, opening up those kind of issues again only goes go create division again on topics that are settled.  I don't think that benefits Scouting.

[CynicalScouter]

27 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Even though you control your opinion. Are you afraid the other person jut might change you mind? Do you really think your information is the only information on the subject?

First, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. As qwazse amply showed in peer reviewed literature, your assumptions regarding same-gendered education are simply wrong.

I'm not worried about my mind being changed when the data points in that direction. I am worried about sexists explicitly (or implicitly) harming girls education and development with outdated, outmoded, and unscientifically based notions of "proper" educational roles.

27 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Does personal experience that doesn't agree with your information count for anything.

The plural of anecdote is not data. Anecdotal evidence is not adequate to prove something.

[Eagledad]

57 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I recognize the inconsistency in my statement.  In the case of female leaders for male scouts that question was settled years ago. Announcing a new policy that lets units now restrict leaders based on gender is going contrary to the general direction of the evolution of the country.  Making that decision today doesn't help anyone.  Making that decision 40 years ago would have been different.

I believe Mormon units have been allowed use single gender leaders. 

I could go on and on, but what's the point. You want to set your personal standard on others while trying to appear open mind with your Local Option. 

Barry

[Eagledad]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

First, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. As qwazse amply showed in peer reviewed literature, your assumptions regarding same-gendered education are simply wrong.

I'm not worried about my mind being changed when the data points in that direction. I am worried about sexists explicitly (or implicitly) harming girls education and development with outdated, outmoded, and unscientifically based notions of "proper" educational roles.

The plural of anecdote is not data. Anecdotal evidence is not adequate to prove something.

Your just  using narrow scope nip picky specifics to feel relevant. I know what I know and your post doesn't provide anything useful for anyone.

And You miss the point. There is plenty of studies over the years that contradict both sides. So what! I respect qwazes desire for girls in scouting. I think his resources are sound. I don't respect him using condescending terms to reinforce point. Does anyone gain from it? At best he just continues the defiance. At worst, he drives folks away that might have otherwise wanted to learn. If his post is so strong to stand alone, then he should provide it by itself without being condescending.

[CynicalScouter]

14 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

You want to set your personal standard on others while trying to appear open mind with your Local Option.

I would argue that there's got to be, generally, some limits to the Local Options. Otherwise, you don't have a Boy Scouts of America program/unit at all.

And given that Boy Scouts of America owns (via the Congressional Charter) the rights to that material and the use of the names/terms that means they get to set this.

But where's the line?

Is it "do whatever you want, but you cannot touch advancement?" That reduces BSA to nothing more than

• the Guide to Advancement
• the various Handbooks (from Tiger through the Scouts, BSA Handbooks, plus the corresponding material for Sea Scouts and Venture)
• the merit badge books

Note even Guide to Safe Scouting/YPT makes that cut.

Is that all BSA should be are those documents and everything else is "Local Option"? That's not a rhetorical question.

[CynicalScouter]

6 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

then he should provide it by itself without being condescending.

This coming from someone who recently posted that anyone who has not been in scouting since they were children should "humble" themselves to you?

Yeah. ok.

[Eagledad]

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

This coming from someone who recently posted that anyone who has not been in scouting since they were children should "humble" themselves to you?

Yeah. ok.

Show me that quote " In context".

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, Eagledad said:

Show me that quote " In context".

I linked it.

I'm not going to "humble" myself to you. I don't care who you think you are.

[RememberSchiff]

Here's a quote from the Moderator Policy

"When a discussion deteriorates into a stagnant endurance contest, a moderator may interject that both sides "Agree to Disagree" and instruct that discussion move on or  the moderator may lock the topic pending review."

We agree to disagree and move on?

Or should I lock topic?

@John-in-KC

@MattR

Edited October 20, 2020 by RememberSchiff

[ParkMan]

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

I believe Mormon units have been allowed use single gender leaders. 

I could go on and on, but what's the point. You want to set your personal standard on others while trying to appear open mind with your Local Option. 

Barry

No problem @Eagledad.

Yes - I fully recognize that my point is not consistent from the perspective you are looking at it. 

I'm not attempting to advocate a particular political agenda, but instead am trying to keep Scouting out of political agendas.  Scouting has to get out of the politics business.

EDIT: Sorry, just saw @RememberSchiff's last append.  Not trying to inflame this at all.  Sorry folks.

Edited October 20, 2020 by ParkMan
expanded the thought

[CynicalScouter]

20 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Scouting has to get out of the politics business.

Everything can be politicized.

Everything has been politicized.

That's not a slight on Scouting as much as it is a reflection of modern America

[ParkMan]

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Everything can be politicized.

Everything has been politicized.

That's not a slight on Scouting as much as it is a reflection of modern America

Understood, but that's where Scouting needs to learn it's lesson.

Scouting today expressly forbids Scouts from getting involved directly in politics.  It should learn it's lesson and really strive to assume a non-political position.  I think it's achievable if the BSA is explicit in saying:

• Scouting wants to focus on helping youth to grow and develop.  Scouting's approach is to provide program materials which can be utilized by local units sponsored by individual local organizations such as churches, schools, and civic organizations.  Scouting will look to those local institutions to make the right choices on contemporary issues affecting their communities.

But Scouting has to voraciously protect that position.  It has to voraciously defend it's neutrality and work to elevate itself above these sorts of discussions.  It will be hard because very smart people will attempt to push Scouting in to making choices that favor one side in an effort to further their beliefs or the goals of those organizations.  And yes, at some point Scouting has to say that in the best opinion of the organization a question is effectivly settled across the country and we're going to move on. 

None of this is easy, but in the opinion of this Scouter is what Scouting needs.

Edited October 20, 2020 by ParkMan
clarified a thouhght

[MattR]

So how is woodbadge doing these days?

No, I don't really care. I've been blissfully away from scouts for a few days.

If I stand back from all these arguments all I can think of is that scouts is supposed to be based on fun. Apparently not. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. With all the really big challenges of character, motivation and developing society's next generation it's easy to get hung up in the weeds and lose sight of the fun. Maybe that paradox is worth cogitating on.

[yknot]

11 minutes ago, MattR said:

If I stand back from all these arguments all I can think of is that scouts is supposed to be based on fun. Apparently not. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. With all the really big challenges of character, motivation and developing society's next generation it's easy to get hung up in the weeds and lose sight of the fun. Maybe that paradox is worth cogitating on.

Multiple times throughout this thread I have pointed out that scouting needs to be fun -- a game with a purpose.

That fun has to be relevant for younger generations coming up though. Lotta people here seem to get their jam from doing things their way and holding on to old grievances. Every other youth organization I'm involved with is worried more about keeping and serving the kids than clinging to traditions. I don't hear or see this kind of talk anywhere but in scouts.