Claimant Discussion and Impacts on individuals/BSA

[qwazse]

26 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

This has been addressed a number of times by me and others, but I understand and respect that folks come on the forum at various stages of the discussion.

Do you really mean to say “THE abuse” is being passed forward in the form of depriving Scouts of the program? I don’t think Scouting is going away in its entirety, but there will undoubtedly be reductions. Whichever it is, I invite you to create a list of deprivations resulting from fewer camps or HAB’s or more restrictive YPT and compare them with 50 years of wreckage from repeated sexual abuse by an adult Scout leader while a Boy Scout. Then, multiply the latter list by 84,000 lives.  If you really believe this is an apples to apples equation of “abuse,” I can’t help you understand or further answer this question. 

Of course, that calculus is impossible because families aren’t obliged to report any abuses that happen while their children are not In scouting. But based on our current understanding of the pathology, it is a reasonable guess that youth are at much greater risk when an uncle, sibling, or friend takes them camping.

84,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated millions who have been sexually abused as minors over the past 50 years. Remove BSA and its various methods of accountability, break the budget of every CO and remove them as contributors to youth programs, and we merely increase the isolation of vulnerable youth. We could create tenfold more victims than we compensate.

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Of course, that calculus is impossible because families aren’t obliged to report any abuses that happen while their children are not In scouting. But based on our current understanding of the pathology, it is a reasonable guess that youth are at much greater risk when an uncle, sibling, or friend takes them camping.

84,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated millions who have been sexually abused as minors over the past 50 years. Remove BSA and its various methods of accountability, break the budget of every CO and remove them as contributors to youth programs, and we merely increase the isolation of vulnerable youth. We could create tenfold more victims than we compensate.

Answers like this are academically sound, but morally disingenuous and ultimately avoid the issue. One to one, less Scouting is equally as impactful and repugnant as being repeatedly raped by your Scoutmaster resulting in millions of dollars in life wreckage, suicidality, self harm, CPTSD, depression, failed marriages and etc. Got it.

[David CO]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Years later and I was nearly adult by then. They’re much younger than I am. I would be surprised if I didn’t point that out when I shared this history back when.

I looked back at your March 1 post.  You never mentioned the age difference or your age at the time.  Not all of your posts are as clear as you think they are.  

 

[Eagledad]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Do you really mean to say “THE abuse” is being passed forward in the form of depriving Scouts of the program? I don’t think Scouting is going away in its entirety, but there will undoubtedly be reductions. Whichever it is, I invite you to create a list of deprivations resulting from fewer camps or HAB’s or more restrictive YPT and compare them with 50 years of wreckage from repeated sexual abuse by an adult Scout leader while a Boy Scout. Then, multiply the latter list by 84,000 lives.  If you really believe this is an apples to apples equation of “abuse,” I can’t help you understand or further answer this question. 

Suggesting that the loss of scouting for future youth is not a form of moral loss to the culture (my words for abuse) is to suggest the program itself does not promote moral and character growth. That would mean that the BSA mission of " to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." is not valid.

I have personally witnessed in my own personal observations of many scouts who came to scouting to get away from abusive, harmful and stressful environments in their personal lives. They craved a place where they could fairly practice ethical and moral choices in a safe environment so they could learn and grow in the values of morality and ethics. Many found their scouting unit to be a refuge from their persona lives. Those scouts later became productive adults with families and members of the community.

If I witness such accomplishments from scouting in my very tiny limited world, how much greater when spread across the whole program? How many youth with abusive personal lives in the future will not have the option of scouting to give them a practice of moral and ethical decisions within community of like minded companions or even a refuge were they can express themselves. 

I believe a loss of BSA scouting will at the very least take away the possibility of improving morality and ethics of the culture of the nation, much less of the community. In fact, I can't think of any youth program that is even close equal to providing providing youth the opportunity of the BSA mission and vision.

Barry

Edited April 21, 2021 by Eagledad

[skeptic]

44 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Suggesting that the loss of scouting for future youth is not a form of moral loss to the culture (my words for abuse) is to suggest the program itself does not promote moral and character growth. That would mean that the BSA mission of " to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." is not valid.

I have personally witnessed in my own personal observations of many scouts who came to scouting to get away from abusive, harmful and stressful environments in their personal lives. They craved a place where they could fairly practice ethical and moral choices in a safe environment so they could learn and grow in the values of morality and ethics. Many found their scouting unit to be a refuge from their persona lives. Those scouts later became productive adults with families and members of the community.

If I witness such accomplishments from scouting in my very tiny limited world, how much greater when spread across the whole program? How many youth with abusive personal lives in the future will not have the option of scouting to give them a practice of moral and ethical decisions within community of like minded companions or even a refuge were they can express themselves. 

I believe a loss of BSA scouting will at the very least take away the possibility of improving morality and ethics of the culture of the nation, much less of the community. In fact, I can't think of any youth program that is even close equal to providing providing youth the opportunity of the BSA mission and vision.

Barry

That is of course the truth and reality.  But, our society seems unwilling to find the fair and better solution, depending on our warped legal system to somehow salve the wounds with money and vindictive decisions.  Meanwhile, as pointed out by a number of posters, the bulk of the iceberg remains hidden and dangerous, mostly in the very places that should be the safest havens, the families and their immediate social constructs.  No manner of revenge or societal water-boarding will solve the larger and most hidden elements of this.  On the other hand, we should continue to find viable ways to keep it at bey.  Strengthen, as we find ways, YP.  More importantly, establish a monitoring system as part of it, and try to assure it is in place.  

We will NEVER eliminate the darkness that lurks in the human animal or condition.  And completely ruining BSA, or any other mostly positive element of society only makes the darker shadows more likely to grow.    JMPO of course.  

[Eagledad]

3 minutes ago, skeptic said:

That is of course the truth and reality.  But, our society seems unwilling to find the fair and better solution, depending on our warped legal system to somehow salve the wounds with money and vindictive decisions.  Meanwhile, as pointed out by a number of posters, the bulk of the iceberg remains hidden and dangerous, mostly in the very places that should be the safest havens, the families and their immediate social constructs.  No manner of revenge or societal water-boarding will solve the larger and most hidden elements of this.  On the other hand, we should continue to find viable ways to keep it at bey.  Strengthen, as we find ways, YP.  More importantly, establish a monitoring system as part of it, and try to assure it is in place.  

We will NEVER eliminate the darkness that lurks in the human animal or condition.  And completely ruining BSA, or any other mostly positive element of society only makes the darker shadows more likely to grow.    JMPO of course.  

It's a scary world for kids today. I heard a statistic that percentage of  kids born in a single parent family in the 1950s was something less than a quarter of today. We had a lot of scouts who struggled in their personal lives, but as a scout leader, I found divorce by far to be the most common contributor for scouts personal suffering. Something like 50% of our nations children come from divorced parents. The statistics of the struggling behaviors for adults who were children of divorced families is heart wrenching. But, the culture just seems to keep piling on our youth. 

The issue with finding more and more ways to protect scouts in the program from predators is that the solutions are turning scout units into afterschool daycare programs for teenagers. Nothing healthy about that, and why would they even want to join.

Barry

[elitts]

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Answers like this are academically sound, but morally disingenuous and ultimately avoid the issue. One to one, less Scouting is equally as impactful and repugnant as being repeatedly raped by your Scoutmaster resulting in millions of dollars in life wreckage, suicidality, self harm, CPTSD, depression, failed marriages and etc. Got it.

I'm not sure how you got that out of qwazse's post.  No one is arguing that the impact on an individual of being raped can be balanced by whatever positive benefit they might have gotten out of the program.  Obviously on an personal level, being abused can pretty much outweigh everything else that happens in a kid's life. 

But the situation isn't as simple as the idea:  "If Scouting hadn't happened, kids wouldn't have been raped, so Scouting was/is a failure".  I mean, Scouts didn't create pedophiles, it just gave them a target, but in the absence of scouts, one would assume they simply would have looked for alternative ways to access kids.  Child rape happens everywhere kids exist and we don't even know if the incidence of abuse is higher in Scouts than it is anywhere else.

The harsh truth of life is that there will ALWAYS be a calculus that includes a certain amount of "acceptable losses" for any activity and the incidence of tragedy that people will insist on before they will participate is NOT zero.

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Answers like this are academically sound, but morally disingenuous and ultimately avoid the issue. One to one, less Scouting is equally as impactful and repugnant as being repeatedly raped by your Scoutmaster resulting in millions of dollars in life wreckage, suicidality, self harm, CPTSD, depression, failed marriages and etc. Got it.

And, speculating about avoidance of abuse through Scouting is not statistically established and, again, does not address the bankruptcy.

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, David CO said:

I looked back at your March 1 post.  You never mentioned the age difference or your age at the time.  Not all of your posts are as clear as you think they are.  

So, I had two brothers who wanted to join Scouting when I just joined and 10 who I prohibited from joining while simultaneously deciding I couldn’t tell my dad about the abuse. Got it.

Glad you have so much time on your hands to pick apart my posts and the points I’m making, even if not wholly accurately. Be a bit more logical and consider all the components of my statements, please. I have a lot of you to defend myself against. It gets wearying. Look all the way back, as well. On second thought, don’t. I’m tired of it.

[ThenNow]

4 hours ago, qwazse said:

84,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated millions who have been sexually abused as minors over the past 50 years.

I really respect you and always appreciate your posts, even about cooking with or without tinfoil. But, this “drop in the bucket” and “not even a blip” language is simply offensive and denies that this is a discussion about the BSA and its Chapter driven by sexual abuse in Scouting. Let’s start another cultural, historic, contextual and academic discussion, maybe? 

[Eagledad]

10 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

And, speculating about avoidance of abuse through Scouting is not statistically established and, again, does not address the bankruptcy.

But, your off topic post is responding to your own off topic posts.

When your post are out of bounds, should you not expect opposing responses? Fuel on the Fire?

Saying nothing sometime has the most positive effect in keeping the discussion strait.

Barry

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

But, your off topic post is responding to your own off topic posts.

When your post are out of bounds, should you not expect opposing responses? Fuel on the Fire?

Saying nothing sometime has the most positive effect in keeping the discussion strait.

Barry

Um, I responded to and echoed the post (below) by yknot. You just don’t like what I have to say and represent, leading you to conclude and regurgitate your mantra that I shouldn’t be “here,” whether overtly or by inference. Have at it.

This was not as attacking as the past, but still not accurately reflecting my post and context. Many things I say are meant to illustrate the survivor experience and perspective. It was not aggressive, tearing down the BSA or out of bounds. Maybe harkening to a previous post, but I didn’t initiate the boundary. 

“A scout is trustworthy but that lesson starts with the adults who are there to guide him or her and teach them what that means.  If a child who believes in Santa Claus encounters an adult Santa who abuses him or her, what reaction would we expect? Mute incomprehension and confusion would probably be the first reactions, followed by fear, shame, terror, horror... I don't see any actionable requirements on the kids here. They trust the adults around them to keep them safe, or at least that's what we tell them. If victimized, they would expect the adults in their lives to save them. And we failed.”

Edited April 21, 2021 by ThenNow

[Eagledad]

42 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Um, I responded to and echoed the post (below) by yknot. You just don’t like what I have to say and represent, leading you to conclude and regurgitate your mantra that I shouldn’t be “here,” whether overtly or by inference. Have at it.

I never said you shouldn't be here, I said, "why are you here?". Meaning, what do you want from this forum?  The answer is not clear to me. 

44 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

This was not as attacking as the past, but still not accurately reflecting my post and context. Many things I say are meant to illustrate the survivor experience and perspective. It was not aggressive, tearing down the BSA or out of bounds. Maybe harkening to a previous post, but I didn’t initiate the boundary. 

I wasn't attacking, I was seeking clarity. I didn't word it well, my bad. 

And what are your boundaries. You keep, let's say, moving the goal posts.

Let's keep this simple so that we know when each know the boundary's; in one (just one) simple sentence, what do you want from this thread. Honestly, I think you will struggle with your boundaries more than us.

49 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

“A scout is trustworthy but that lesson starts with the adults who are there to guide him or her and teach them what that means.  If a child who believes in Santa Claus encounters an adult Santa who abuses him or her, what reaction would we expect? Mute incomprehension and confusion would probably be the first reactions, followed by fear, shame, terror, horror... I don't see any actionable requirements on the kids here. They trust the adults around them to keep them safe, or at least that's what we tell them. If victimized, they would expect the adults in their lives to save them. And we failed.”

What does that mean? Who is WE? Sounds like a scorched earth mission? Is that what you came to this forum to get?

Barry

[David CO]

9 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Years later and I was nearly adult by then. 

 

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

 when I just joined and 10 

 

?????????

[yknot]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Um, I responded to and echoed the post (below) by yknot. You just don’t like what I have to say and represent, leading you to conclude and regurgitate your mantra that I shouldn’t be “here,” whether overtly or by inference. Have at it.

This was not as attacking as the past, but still not accurately reflecting my post and context. Many things I say are meant to illustrate the survivor experience and perspective. It was not aggressive, tearing down the BSA or out of bounds. Maybe harkening to a previous post, but I didn’t initiate the boundary. 

“A scout is trustworthy but that lesson starts with the adults who are there to guide him or her and teach them what that means.  If a child who believes in Santa Claus encounters an adult Santa who abuses him or her, what reaction would we expect? Mute incomprehension and confusion would probably be the first reactions, followed by fear, shame, terror, horror... I don't see any actionable requirements on the kids here. They trust the adults around them to keep them safe, or at least that's what we tell them. If victimized, they would expect the adults in their lives to save them. And we failed.”

Thanks. I think if there is any idea here that abused kids were somehow to blame for their abuse and the adults and responsible organization weren't, there's not much that can be rationally discussed.