Catholics turn

[SiouxRanger]

On 8/7/2023 at 7:49 AM, Tired_Eagle_Feathers said:

There has definitely been an ongoing attempt to undermine American institutions for most of my life.

By whom, how?

[InquisitiveScouter]

32 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

I just cannot understand this.

Until your post I don't recall anyone, anywhere claiming BSA has a "r...c...."

This smacks of a "straw man" argument where a false, inflammatory statement is made, then to dramatically knock it down.

My recollection of basic logic (Copi-look him up-took a university 3 credit hour course on logic) is that the logical structure of "If P then Q," if P is assumed to be true, then Q is always true.)

So, as applied to your post, if "family members' statements" are presumed to be true (when might they be available for deposition?), then any statement you post after that is TRUE (logically)-even if false.

And, who switched? Exactly, precisely WHO switched?

I am not trying to give you a (pointless) hard time.

But words matter. And the senses, tenses, innuendos, flavors, intimations...of those words.

There are many folks on this site whose lives have been tragically affected.

Every post here raises their hopes of lowers their hopes.

After all they have endured, they do not need a roller coaster ride.

Just Google 'BSA "rape culture"' and you'll get lots of results.

[InquisitiveScouter]

39 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

By whom, how?

Soros' group and the US Justice System:  https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/george-soros-criminal-justice-reform-227519

Media bias dividing US social cohesion by hyping incidents (particularly those claiming racial causes):  https://apnews.com/article/poll-misinformation-polarization-coronavirus-media-d56a25fd8dfd9abe1389b56d7e82b873 

Destruction of military readiness through attempts to revise policies about gender, sexual orientation, sex changes, etc., https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/military-readiness-takes-back-seat-wokeness-the-pentagon

Finding "by whom" is sometimes difficult.  But you can see the erosion everywhere.  Can you not?

In many cases, the attack is not directed at destruction of the system, but rather to change it to fit a group's hobby horse of an agenda... with the unintended consequence that the institution begins to crumble, as in our military.

Edited August 17, 2023 by InquisitiveScouter

[MattR]

55 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Soros' group and the US Justice System

Soros is to blame for the downfall of the BSA? That's a new one.

I think I'm done here. This is a waste of my time.

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 minute ago, MattR said:

Soros is to blame for the downfall of the BSA? That's a new one.

I think I'm done here. This is a waste of my time.

Quite a leap there, partner...

Answering the question about US institutions in general, per the post above...

 

[Eagle94-A1]

@SiouxRanger   Yes the IVF did have limitations due to the technology of the time. But can you come up with something better with the technology of the time? I think a lot of folks do not remember the limitations of the times.

 

As for the folks who implemented the IVF, one was a top notch, well respected lawyer on youth issues at the time. His name was James E. West.

As for other entities and abuse, what about the US Olympic Women's Gymnastic team? Penn State was already mentioned. And there are others that I cannot think of at the moment. If I can find my research notes, I will give you the stats you keep asking for. grant you my research is dated, did it in my undergrad days, but it is out there for folks to see. And if memory, serves other organizations besides sports are included. But remember, sexual abuse was something reported to authorities or prosecuted like to today. Even the IVF files note that parents did not want to subject their children to the trauma of a public trial. And mandatory reporting laws did not really come about for youth organization volunteers until the mid 1980s. So more than likely my information is underreported.

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 I think a lot of folks do not remember the limitations of the times.

How about limitations of now.  

I was just talking with a friend at a staffing agency about a candidate they had to pass on.  No names were used. 

The candidate had a felony conviction.  They searched newspaper clippings (last ten years??).  Charged and convicted after multiple youth soccer clubs had him on paid staff and then banned him internally within their club without passing the information outward to protect other youth in other clubs.  This allowed him for many years to go just from one club to the next looking for the next victim.

Perhaps, one of the national youth soccer organizations should have collected these incidents and allowed local soccer clubs to look for previous problems.  Perhaps, more youth could have been protected.  ... Oh wait.  That's what BSA did.  

[InquisitiveScouter]

I see I touched a nerve there @mrjohns2  Care to elaborate?

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

I'm neither mrjohns2 nor MattR, but I'm betting my internal reaction to Soros being mentioned was similar to theirs. Let's see if I'm right.

George Soros being some sinister dark force controlling bad things behind the scenes is a decades-old internet trope. There doesn't seem to be much George Soros isn't ruining. If you believe the internet, it's George Soros' fault if I burn dinner. Ok, not really, but he's cast as the evil mastermind ruining everything when most of the time, he's not actually involved. 

Of course, his philanthropy and its aims can and should be discussed and it is fair to disagree with what he's actually doing. But because of all the decades of internet conspiracy theories, any such real, serious, fact-based discussion needs to be very carefully framed before digging in, or eyes will predictably roll.

Forbes is a serious media organization, and I would expect them to have verified that Soros really did fund those election campaigns, but because of the sheer volume of false claims about what Soros funds my first thought was "is this really true though?" Normally I trust Forbes fact-checking, but even so I found myself wanting to see if any other serious traditional media are reporting this.

In the 00s, I couldn't figure out why Soros was blamed for so much random stuff, especially for being some kind of leftist when actual leftists were protesting Davos (where he was almost a dignitary). So I googled it, and it turns out it's the old Jewish cabal lie.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-is-george-soros-and-why-is-he-blamed-in-every-right-wing-conspiracy-theory/

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-49584157

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2020/09/12/the-troubling-truth-about-the-obsession-with-george-soros/?sh=5c34404b4e2e

https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/antisemitism-lurking-behind-george-soros-conspiracy-theories

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_conspiracy_theories

[InquisitiveScouter]

4 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I'm neither mrjohns2 nor MattR, but I'm betting my internal reaction to Soros being mentioned was similar to theirs. Let's see if I'm right.

George Soros being some sinister dark force controlling bad things behind the scenes is a decades-old internet trope. There doesn't seem to be much George Soros isn't ruining. If you believe the internet, it's George Soros' fault if I burn dinner. Ok, not really, but he's cast as the evil mastermind ruining everything when most of the time, he's not actually involved. 

Of course, his philanthropy and its aims can and should be discussed and it is fair to disagree with what he's actually doing. But because of all the decades of internet conspiracy theories, any such real, serious, fact-based discussion needs to be very carefully framed before digging in, or eyes will predictably roll.

Forbes is a serious media organization, and I would expect them to have verified that Soros really did fund those election campaigns, but because of the sheer volume of false claims about what Soros funds my first thought was "is this really true though?" Normally I trust Forbes fact-checking, but even so I found myself wanting to see if any other serious traditional media are reporting this.

In the 00s, I couldn't figure out why Soros was blamed for so much random stuff, especially for being some kind of leftist when actual leftists were protesting Davos (where he was almost a dignitary). So I googled it, and it turns out it's the old Jewish cabal lie.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-is-george-soros-and-why-is-he-blamed-in-every-right-wing-conspiracy-theory/

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-49584157

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2020/09/12/the-troubling-truth-about-the-obsession-with-george-soros/?sh=5c34404b4e2e

https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/antisemitism-lurking-behind-george-soros-conspiracy-theories

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_conspiracy_theories

Thanks, but I do not buy into all that other stuff you cited...  as I am not a conspiracy theorist...

Which is why I also looked into the veracity of Open Society Foundation's (using Soros's money) injection into the support of "progressive" (really poor word to describe) candidates into the justice system, before posting.  Everything in that article bears out to be factual.  (BTW, it is their constitutional right to do exactly what they are doing.  But that does not change the disastrous consequences of what we see happening in the justice system in the US.)

@SiouxRanger ask for examples of socio-political organizations (and how) which are undermining institutions.  I gave three instances of views that are out there.  I, too, and still awaiting @Tired_Eagle_Feathers response.

Your internal reactions are just that... as John Adams said "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Please put aside your inclinations and the dictates of your passion, and let me know which of the three instances I pointed out are untrue? 

Also, as I pointed out... the intent does not have to be nefarious... an organization can be undermined as an unintended consequence of the policy or change some seek to put in place.

I never said anyone came out with the express intent to destroy BSA (except Kosnoff?).  But the actions many take are doing just that.

I have also posted here, many times, that I am ambivalent to the existence of BSA.  BSA does not equal Scouting.  One is a corporation, the other a movement.  I support the movement.

Thanks for taking the time to post your views rather than just slapping a down vote on something.

[HICO_Eagle]

On 8/16/2023 at 1:44 PM, SiouxRanger said:

Which socio-political groups?

Specifically, small but very vocal activist segments of Socialist/Communist, atheist, and LGBT groups.  I've been watching the attacks since the 1980s. There have been others but those 3 communities have predominated in the attacks on Scouting that I've seen in public media for the past 40 years.

On 8/16/2023 at 1:49 PM, SiouxRanger said:

Meaning what? That a continuation of the failed IVF system continue?

Meaning Scouting as I've known it is done -- you can't roll back the clock.  The separations we're seeing with charter organizations, youth departing for other activities or organizations, these are all indicators that Scouting will never go back to what it was even if the socio-political attacks stopped tomorrow.

On 8/16/2023 at 1:53 PM, SiouxRanger said:

I don't think I've seen evidence of that. BSA is being held liable as a co-tortfeasor along with the miscreants. Miscreants have natural lives.  Corporations have infinite lives. At some point, only the corporation is left standing on the field as the miscreant is deceased.

In fact, other than in a legal context, most folks, at least in my realm, hold the BSA in high esteem. Despite all the legal turmoil.

I must move in wider social circles.  I've seen parents actively deflect their boys away from Scouting.  We've gone from an era where it was acceptable (but dorky) to wear your Scout uniform to school to an era where it isn't even acceptable lest the Scout get verbally abused.

There are still plenty of cases where the miscreant is still alive -- I have seen precious few (none, actually) tort cases pursuing the miscreant for their actions.  From what I understood, BSA agreed to the settlement because the class action lawyers expanded the class so much that there was no hope of getting into details of exactly how BSA was liable in these cases -- and consequently, the risk of going to trial was just too great.  I may be wrong on that but that's how I understood the decision to settle.

On 8/16/2023 at 2:35 PM, SiouxRanger said:

Precisely true.

However, the BSA is not unique in this respect.  EVERY (not some, not most,) lawsuit targets those legal entities against which liability can be established (that is, the law and facts make them liable), AND which has assets capable of paying an award of damages.

The legal principals which establish liability have long been established, without reference to the existence of the BSA.  (Theories of negligence, gross negligence, willful and wanton, intentional, products liability, vicarious liability, strict liability, and so on.)

So, if you really have a problem with BSA being caught up in this tangled web of legal liability, take it up BSA National, ITS lawyers and ITS administrators.  These principles of liability existed when BSA National made its decisions on how to handle abuse claims.

And, either:

1.  those folks failed to appreciate the risk and application of the rules (entirely understandable considering that many decades have passed and societal norms have changed significantly),

or,

2.  those folks were business and legal geniuses and decided to run the risk, nonetheless. (Leaving future BSA employees to deal with the consequences.) (The sentiment being:  "I'll have my pension in 2 years, and the guy I just hired will hire someone in 20 years, and that newly hired will have to deal with it 20 years after that, or if really lucky, pass the problem downstream to someone else.")

Regardless, "that day" has come to pass.

No matter, the future of the BSA is not a burden the survivors have any obligation to bear. 

If according some measure of justice (haven't seen it yet in the whole bankruptcy process to date) results in the dissolution of BSA National, so be it.

The Scouting Program has been my only activity outside work. From age 6 to 70. My Scouting resume is 4 pages long, single spaced, most positions held 10 to 15 years and 3 or 4 held simultaneously.  It is what I know, love, and I can participate with my children, all Eagles.

I am no BSA basher.

But the BSA cannot move forward until there is some closure regarding the damage done to the Survivors.

Scouting has not been my only extracurricular activity but it was the main one for roughly 40 years until I retired from Scouting.

I have had little regard for the "professionals" at National for much of that time as I saw the program diminished year after year.  Looking at the Handbook or Field Guide from the 1960s or 1970s and comparing it to what was published in the 1990s or 2000s was somewhat demoralizing.  Even before the settlement, some of the financial deals originating at National were IMO suspect and placed the organization on a bad financial footing for the future.

On the other hand, I still maintain BSA as an organization did not damage these victims.  I find it ironic that the step BSA did take to protect youth -- maintaining secret files of suspect volunteers -- was what was used to push the lawsuit forward and force a settlement.  As you say, the principles of liability have been long established and outside this particular case -- and BSA prevailed against being held liable for many reasons, not the least of which was that there is a very real difference between miscreants evading the protection protocols and the organization supporting or even actively ignoring them.

On 8/16/2023 at 3:46 PM, SiouxRanger said:

Well, a statistical analysis of where the assaults occurred is an essential element of your argument.

In my world, a statistical analysis means a voluminous data collection and rigorous mathematical analysis.  I haven't done that so I stated I haven't done a statistical analysis.  However, simply reading the reports and accounts over the years shows numerous instances of assaults through youth athletic teams.  Girls' swim teams, gymnastic teams, basketball, volleyball, etc.

On 8/16/2023 at 4:07 PM, SiouxRanger said:

I would really like to see sources and statistics for this.

From my experience, opportunities for abuse in children's sports seem to be much less than those in Scouting camping experiences.

Kids leave their parents' car, go to the field, play, return, and leave. Where is the time for things to go wrong?

Scouts are gone from Friday afternoon until Sunday morning.  Two nights. Lots of time window for abuse to happen.

In my experience, there very few parents present at high school and even junior high school practices, team rallies, etc.  Coaches used to frequently have 1-on-1 sessions with athletes and from the accounts I've read, this is often when the assaults would take place.

In the reports I've read or heard, many if not most of the assaults in Scouting similarly did not occur at group activities like camping when the miscreant was likely to be discovered but instead at private sessions at homes or other isolated places.

On 8/17/2023 at 6:04 AM, SiouxRanger said:

And yet, the statistics?

 

On 8/17/2023 at 6:03 AM, SiouxRanger said:

Well, agreed, week-long sports camps provide similar opportunities, though scout unit campsites are intentionally wide-spread to enhance the wilderness experience. Never having any experience with sports camps-just scouting.

As stated above, most of the accounts I've read or heard were not at camps but instead at isolated places like homes or (in the case of sports teams) gym facilities which the coach knew would be vacant.

On 8/17/2023 at 6:29 AM, SiouxRanger said:

I just cannot understand this.

Until your post I don't recall anyone, anywhere claiming BSA has a "r...c...."

This smacks of a "straw man" argument where a false, inflammatory statement is made, then to dramatically knock it down.

You seem to want to dismiss my statements as a strawman but this is something I heard directly from a family member, the wife of a cousin, in a family Message channel.  I've heard it repeated on popular media and in public forums online.  Direct, first-person witness to these statements here.

On 8/17/2023 at 6:37 AM, SiouxRanger said:

By whom, how?

The attacks on what have traditionally viewed as pillars of American society have been going on in public media and discourse for decades.  Various bad actions have been bundled together into wholesale attacks on clergy and churches for decades.  The same has went on with attacks on the police -- including direct physical ambushes of policemen  in their vehicles -- portraying Michael Brown as a "teenager" (technically he was one at 19) and overlooking his assault on the officer who finally shot him in self-defense.

Activist elements in American society have been pushing against Scouting for decades.  During the Clinton administration, my Scout troop was denied permission to camp at the US Air Force Academy because of recent policy changes (which were reversed after Clinton left the White House).

Denial isn't a river.

[SiouxRanger]

7 hours ago, HICO_Eagle said:

Specifically, small but very vocal activist segments of Socialist/Communist, atheist, and LGBT groups.  I've been watching the attacks since the 1980s. There have been others but those 3 communities have predominated in the attacks on Scouting that I've seen in public media for the past 40 years.

Meaning Scouting as I've known it is done -- you can't roll back the clock.  The separations we're seeing with charter organizations, youth departing for other activities or organizations, these are all indicators that Scouting will never go back to what it was even if the socio-political attacks stopped tomorrow.

I must move in wider social circles.  I've seen parents actively deflect their boys away from Scouting.  We've gone from an era where it was acceptable (but dorky) to wear your Scout uniform to school to an era where it isn't even acceptable lest the Scout get verbally abused.

There are still plenty of cases where the miscreant is still alive -- I have seen precious few (none, actually) tort cases pursuing the miscreant for their actions.  From what I understood, BSA agreed to the settlement because the class action lawyers expanded the class so much that there was no hope of getting into details of exactly how BSA was liable in these cases -- and consequently, the risk of going to trial was just too great.  I may be wrong on that but that's how I understood the decision to settle.

Scouting has not been my only extracurricular activity but it was the main one for roughly 40 years until I retired from Scouting.

I have had little regard for the "professionals" at National for much of that time as I saw the program diminished year after year.  Looking at the Handbook or Field Guide from the 1960s or 1970s and comparing it to what was published in the 1990s or 2000s was somewhat demoralizing.  Even before the settlement, some of the financial deals originating at National were IMO suspect and placed the organization on a bad financial footing for the future.

On the other hand, I still maintain BSA as an organization did not damage these victims.  I find it ironic that the step BSA did take to protect youth -- maintaining secret files of suspect volunteers -- was what was used to push the lawsuit forward and force a settlement.  As you say, the principles of liability have been long established and outside this particular case -- and BSA prevailed against being held liable for many reasons, not the least of which was that there is a very real difference between miscreants evading the protection protocols and the organization supporting or even actively ignoring them.

In my world, a statistical analysis means a voluminous data collection and rigorous mathematical analysis.  I haven't done that so I stated I haven't done a statistical analysis.  However, simply reading the reports and accounts over the years shows numerous instances of assaults through youth athletic teams.  Girls' swim teams, gymnastic teams, basketball, volleyball, etc.

In my experience, there very few parents present at high school and even junior high school practices, team rallies, etc.  Coaches used to frequently have 1-on-1 sessions with athletes and from the accounts I've read, this is often when the assaults would take place.

In the reports I've read or heard, many if not most of the assaults in Scouting similarly did not occur at group activities like camping when the miscreant was likely to be discovered but instead at private sessions at homes or other isolated places.

 

As stated above, most of the accounts I've read or heard were not at camps but instead at isolated places like homes or (in the case of sports teams) gym facilities which the coach knew would be vacant.

You seem to want to dismiss my statements as a strawman but this is something I heard directly from a family member, the wife of a cousin, in a family Message channel.  I've heard it repeated on popular media and in public forums online.  Direct, first-person witness to these statements here.

The attacks on what have traditionally viewed as pillars of American society have been going on in public media and discourse for decades.  Various bad actions have been bundled together into wholesale attacks on clergy and churches for decades.  The same has went on with attacks on the police -- including direct physical ambushes of policemen  in their vehicles -- portraying Michael Brown as a "teenager" (technically he was one at 19) and overlooking his assault on the officer who finally shot him in self-defense.

Activist elements in American society have been pushing against Scouting for decades.  During the Clinton administration, my Scout troop was denied permission to camp at the US Air Force Academy because of recent policy changes (which were reversed after Clinton left the White House).

Denial isn't a river.

Good luck to you.

[SiouxRanger]

On 8/17/2023 at 8:02 AM, InquisitiveScouter said:

Just Google 'BSA "rape culture"' and you'll get lots of results.

And a Google search is proof of fact?

Hardly.

[InquisitiveScouter]

3 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

And a Google search is proof of fact?

Hardly.

You said "anyone, anywhere"... LOL

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

It's taken me quite a while to respond, because I went to watch all the available documentaries about CSA in the BSA and read a large number of articles about it so that I can be more precise and accurate. 

I want to return to this:

On 8/17/2023 at 7:29 AM, SiouxRanger said:

I am not trying to give you a (pointless) hard time.

But words matter. And the senses, tenses, innuendos, flavors, intimations...of those words.

There are many folks on this site whose lives have been tragically affected.

Every post here raises their hopes of lowers their hopes.

After all they have endured, they do not need a roller coaster ride.

In order to be kind, friendly, helpful, courteous, trustworthy, and loyal towards our fellow scout and now scouter survivors, we need to have the bravery to live through some (very minor compared to that of survivors') pain. It hurts to see an organization you hold dear fail ethically and fracture due to the fallout of the ethical failure. It does. But let's be loyal to our brothers and sisters in scouting first - and process our own pain around the organization fallout in a way that doesn't detract from the survivors' pain. Serious crimes were committed against our fellow scouts en masse. That really happened. That is the real problem. (And I'm glad you did acknowledge it in a sentence.) Everything else is secondary. 

For us who aren't survivors, the secondary problems move up to the mental primary slot easily. (That's how "first world problems" arise.) But the survivors are here, this isn't a private conversation between non-survivors with "first-world problems." So when the conversation goes in a the-lawsuit-is-all-just-a-malicious-attack direction, the implication from a survivor point of view could very well be "I care more about the BSA as an organization than my fellow scouts and scouters". I can't speak for the survivors, but that's what I take away from what you're arguing. You're really mad about "leftists", but apparently not pedos because you spend your time typing about the conspiracy. Presumably this is only an appearance, right? You are actually really mad at the pedos? Make sure to say that out loud then, please, so that the survivors can be 100% clear on that you do believe and support them.

Why that's important brings me to the next thing:

On 8/16/2023 at 11:07 AM, HICO_Eagle said:

This switch from the fact of the crimes to claiming BSA had a "rape culture" (something I have heard personally from family members) or sponsored these activities is a typical example of the leftist tactics in this regard.

I have no reason to disbelieve that your family says this, but it is far from clear to me that this is some general "leftist tactic". You mentioning it is the first time I've heard of it (and I'm pretty sure I hang out in a lot of what you would consider "leftist" circles and have for years), and I cannot pull up any instances of "BSA" or "Boy Scouts of America" on the same page as "rape culture". But having reminded myself of the definition of rape culture, it does seem to describe parts of the BSA.

"Rape culture is a setting, studied by several sociological theories, in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality.^[1][2] Behaviors commonly associated with rape culture include victim blaming, slut-shaming, sexual objectification, trivializing rape, denial of widespread rape, refusing to acknowledge the harm caused by sexual violence, or some combination of these.^[3][4] " (from Wikipedia)

Scoutmaster CSA jokes are shocking to me exactly because this is absolutely not normal and frankly not funny because they're trivializing rape. (Same problem as with adult rape jokes - and that's exactly how I perceived them as a teen.) Obviously they aren't a thing in all of the BSA. But we can't "round down" to say it's not indicating any problems because it's not present in the entire BSA. It does indicate a general pervasiveness of CSA problem in parts of the BSA - and pretending it doesn't is in and of itself part of the definition of rape culture.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/08/how-rape-culture-shapes-whether-a-survivor-is-believed/

Rape is the nation’s most underreported violent crime, according to U.S. Justice Department statistics, as survivors fear that juries will believe the perpetrators, not them, and if they pursue justice, they may suffer further physical, economic, or social harm.

This stacked deck, known as “rape culture,” is the set of social attitudes about sexual assault that leads to survivors being treated with skepticism and even hostility, while perpetrators are shown empathy and imbued with credibility not conferred on people accused of other serious crimes, like armed robbery.

If you say "rapists gonna rape, all you can do is protect yourself" or "the BSA did try to keep pedos out" in a policy discussion to argue that nobody needed to do anything differently in the past, you're declining to deal with a specific crime at a society level. In a policy discussion, you need to be talking systems - systems like policing and how to catch all criminals without falsely convicting innocent people. Talking about the BSA's reputation, it being attacked, about the perpetrators' reputations, instead of crime prevention and prosecution does match the definition of rape culture. It isn't that you can never talk about those things. But in order to make it crystal clear that you do not condone crimes and therefore want the perpetrators prosecuted, tried and convicted, and that you aren't accusing your fellow honorable scouts and scouters of lying about the abuse they report, you need to say those things out loud.

And since this attack on the BSA is clearly not universally experienced, it would be better to make that a whole separate topic because that alone will hijack the conversation. Much like, @InquisitiveScouter, mentioning Soros will. Guaranteed derail. You have to frame those conversations so much before getting into your real point (I acknowledge hundreds and even thousands of scouts were sexually abused in BSA scouting, I believe the survivors, the perpetrators should all have been prosecuted; I don't believe in conspiracy theories, I am aware that Soros is the subject of a lot of anti-semitic propaganda, I fact-checked this, etc) that you can't expect to just drop them in as a small part of some other discussion.

On 8/16/2023 at 11:07 AM, HICO_Eagle said:

Sorry but I object to the blame-shifting and that's precisely what has gone on with this lawsuit and the resulting impacts.  Instead of blaming the criminals and their proclivities, these socio-political forces have tried for decades to (and succeeded in) shifting the blame to churches and organizations who they wanted to undermine anyway.  Blaming BSA or churches for the activities of these criminals and destroying the future is not (in my opinion) a more meritorious way at all. 

Since you're not clearly blaming criminals either, this comes off as... blame-shifting onto "socio-political forces". Can we agree on that the primary problem is criminals in the BSA? That this is, even if it were very rare, a problem that requires us to sit up straight and DO SOMETHING as part of being kind, friendly, helpful, courteous, trustworthy, loyal, brave, and morally straight? Even if it happened to a single scout one time?

SiouxRanger is right about the following as well:

On 8/16/2023 at 4:17 PM, SiouxRanger said:

I will say that there is immense Truth in the concept that the aggressor needs only succeed ONCE whereas the defender has to be 100% perfect to mount a defense.

So, an abuser gets pushed out of Troop A and goes to Troop B.  And from Council A to Council B, if needed to pursue his abuse intentions.

Abuser changes name. Or name to nickname. Or uses middle name.

And they are off the radar until an arrest.

On 8/16/2023 at 11:07 AM, HICO_Eagle said:

No, it really doesn't because the fact of the matter is that BSA did take steps to protect Scouts from sexual abuse.  There were some cases where troops or councils hid the abuse because they didn't want to deal with the public scandal but in many cases, the abuse was alleged and not proven.  BSA held files where the suspicion was strong (but not enough for legal prosecution) in order to keep the alleged abusers from having direct contact with Scouts -- and these secret files were ironically the evidence used in court in the claims that BSA should have done more.

What the BSA should have done in each case of alleged abuse is file a police report and let them investigate and worry about the prosecutability of each case. That's the "do more" that people think they should have done. (Including me.) It isn't the BSA's job to prosecute crimes, so while you're correct in that the BSA was in parts indeed trying to keep scouts safe (and sometimes succeeded, as detailed in both documentaries and as people here on the forum know cases of), the responsibility of enforcing laws and ensuring public safety lies with police. When you think a crime has been committed, you call the police and you help them as best as you possibly can. This is the principle, including but not limited to when the crimes involve the BSA and/or pedophilia. 

If you honestly believe a crime has been committed and you report it to police, they investigate, and they find that this isn't the case, you haven't defamed anyone. You haven't even given a false police report. What stopped the BSA from reporting? Sounds like you're saying it was right to go soft on the rapists because "it was complicated". If this isn't what you mean, please do clarify for everyone's sake.

As for the civil tort lawsuit and blame - the crime was CSA. The BSA is not being prosecuted criminally for CSA - ergo, they are not being blamed equally with the perpetrators. Rather, they are in civil court for tort of negligence.

I read up on the history of tort law in both common law and civil law systems, and not surprisingly the legal philosophy of economic compensation to crime victims is very, very old and very, very widespread. There is no possible way you can claim that current US tort law is a leftist blame-shifting conspiracy to ruin the BSA.

From https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/tort-liability/:

"A tort is a civil wrong. This may sound complicated, but basically a tort happens when a person or company, called a tortfeasor, violates someone’s legal rights (other than by breaching a contract). Under tort law, the tortfeasor can be held liable for that violation. 

Tort liability arises in a number of ways, including the tort of negligence. (...)

What Is Tort Liability?

Tort laws govern the rights of victims to pursue legal claims against tortfeasors. When a victim is harmed or suffers damages, the victim can pursue a claim in civil court under tort laws.

If the court finds the defendant liable under tort liability laws, the defendant is required to compensate the victim. In civil court, there’s no risk defendants will go to jail. The purpose is to determine if they committed a civil wrong against someone and if they should be required to make that victim whole–usually by paying monetary compensation for damages.

Types of Tort Liability

There are different legal rules that can result in a tortfeasor being held liable for committing a tort. These include negligence; intentional torts; vicarious liability; and strict liability.

Tort of Negligence

Negligence is extremely common. The tort of negligence occurs when a tortfeasor harms someone by failing to fulfill a legal duty to act with the required level of care.

In negligence claims, a victim does not have to show a tortfeasor harmed them intentionally. Instead, they must show:

The tortfeasor had a duty to them. This could be the duty of a doctor to provide professional care for a patient or the duty of a store to offer customers a safe environment or the duty of a driver to exercise reasonably safe behavior on the roads.

The tortfeasor failed to live up to the duty and was considered negligent. In some cases, a reasonable person standard is used, and a tortfeasor can be held liable for failing to exercise the level of care a hypothetical reasonable person would have. In other circumstances, a different standard is used. For example, in medical malpractice claims, a doctor’s acts or omissions are compared with what a similarly-trained medical professional would have done under the circumstances.

The plaintiff was damaged as a direct result of the tortfeasor’s breached duty. The damage must have been a direct and foreseeable consequence of the negligent behavior.

The plaintiff suffered compensable harm. This means showing actual losses occurred as a result of the negligence of the tortfeasor. (...)

In other words, in every case - and again, let's be clear, such cases really did happen - in which a scout was a victim of CSA by a scout leader (who had a duty of care), reported it, and the BSA didn't successfully (even if they tried) boot the criminal from the organization and file a police report (excepting cases where parents were fully told and requested the BSA not to) the BSA seems legitimately liable for tort of negligence.

We know that in some cases, the BSA did go to police, police investigated, prosecuted, jury convicted, and criminal went to jail. Those cases of CSA were handled appropriately. We know that in some cases, parents did not want to pursue a case with police. That was their right, and so in those cases lack of prosecution was handled appropriately. In some cases no police report was filed, but the BSA did successfully bar pedophiles from re-entering scouting with the IVF files.

But there's a whole other set of cases in which not even one of these things happened, and again we can't point to the complete and partial successes in doing everything possible to protect children from pedophiles to excuse the cases which were completely and totally mishandled. Those, very unfortunately, also really happened, and some are nightmarishly egregious like Adam Steed's case. After you mentioned rape culture, I realize that Frank Vandersloot jumping to defend the perpetrators and the scouters covering up their crimes is a prime example of rape culture. He ultimately admitted that he made a mistake in trying to defend the undefendable, but before he realized it he put massive resources behind going after victims and the journalist drawing attention to the rape culture in the Grand Teton Council. It's blindingly obvious that for example Kim Hansen and Brad Allen were negligent in preventing further CSA.

For example, Steed said "I can tell you directly what I know: in a camp where I'm being sexually abused by a man, and he's abusing other kids, there was an entire subculture of 'it's OK,' and when it wasn't OK, I tried to get them to turn him in. They called their leaders, and they talked to me on the phone, and they tried to get me to not come forward, not talk about it, make me promise I wouldn't tell my parents, and make me feel guilty that I'd destroy all the good in the organizations if I came forward." How is that not rape culture? Your relatives seem to be on point, even though I hadn't thought about it like that before. Unless you're calling Steed a liar despite his abuser Brad Stowell confessing (which would also seem like more rape culture), this really happened. And it is, of course, absolutely ^&%*(& ^%^#$&^ (&%&%^$&^% unacceptable. Stowell is a criminal, but Hansen and Allen are by the same token tortfeasors. 

USA Gymnastics had a single pedophile on their hands, and they are also defendants in a negligence tort lawsuit because Larry Nassar's abuse was also an open secret. Like with the BSA, had USA Gymnastics gone to the police as soon as they got the first allegation there might not be any tort at all to pursue against them, and even if they weren't 100% perfect about it, it wouldn't be anywhere near the monster of a lawsuit that it is now. Same thing with a number of other sports bodies. There's even a federal law requiring certain sports organizations to get on handling sexual abuse cases. The existence of CSA outside scouting - at any rate comparison to scouting - does not make CSA inside scouting ok, or not a problem. All CSA everywhere ever is a problem.

In other words, there is absolutely no ideology of either left or right or a BSA-specific attack involved in the mere existence of a negligence tort lawsuit against the BSA given the facts of crimes that were actually committed by scout leaders and both actively covered up as well as not effectively prevented from being committed again. 

And, more importantly than being right on the internet, it isn't helping either survivors nor the BSA to talk about leftist conspiracies instead of straight up accepting responsibility - down to each one of us scouters here - to make gosh darn sure every single report of CSA gets handled 100% appropriately and compassionately from now on.

You know what really going to stuff a sock in critics' throats? No further cases of CSA connected to the BSA. Hard? Sure. Our moral duty? Absolutely. At least, I see it as mine. What about you?