What BSA Rules get in the way of a Good Program/Image?

[Bob White]

HillBilly

You don't seem to have any difficulty understanding the content of the G2SS other than you do not understand what is a rule and what isn't.

 

The chlorine treatment you quote is not a BSA policy, it is a safety recommendation. At the very beginning pof the G2SS it tells you that the BSA policies are typed in BOLD font.

 

The chlorine treatment is just one of a few methods of water treatment that is suggested. As you correctly pointed out it will not poison you, it probable won't taste good, but is will not hurt you.

 

And for something you say is confusing you seem to understamd it quite well.

 

GoldWinger

Your comparison to Nazi Germany is repugnant.

[Beavah]

Good heavens, it's another BobWhite thread!

 

Yah, I think the demand for clear answers from a manual is unrealistic, eh? Da real world is just too complimicated for a policy or guidebook writer to be able to anticipate and correctly answer any question in any given circumstance. Plus there's da law of unintended consequences, eh? Sometimes giving full, detailed, and nuanced answers can confuse novices who are lookin' for some sort of declarative, authoritative judgment. So they take a detailed answer and try to turn it into a simplistic authoritative one, with weird results.

 

Da speed limit thing is an interestin' case in point, eh? As Ed mentions, speed limits are often set based on political or revenue interests, not on safety. And in a democracy, is any law ever valid if more than 50% of da population is violating it? Or is it OK for special interests to dictate rules to da majority?

 

There has been a recent trend in state laws requirin' speed limits to be set on a more scientific basis, like da 85% rule (a speed limit should be set such that in daylight, dry-road conditions 85% of the drivers naturally drive slower than the limit). In most cases, when such a law is in place, speed limits increase substantially, and safety improves. People like BobWhite who drive artificially slowly based on a poorly set speed limit are a real hazard, and reduce safety. They actually place other peoples' lives at risk, even though they think they're being good citizens. To quote an article I quickly googled (with special interest for Scouters in Michigan):

 

[the State Police Lieutenant] said, drivers traveling at the slowest speeds are statistically 100 times more likely to be involved in a crash than drivers who travel with the pack - even if the pack is traveling above a posted limit. (http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2007/09/officials_agency_stall_speed_i.html)

 

Or for more information, consider: http://www.azdot.gov/highways/traffic/Speed.asp

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[GaHillBilly]

Gee, Bob, if you don't know how to respond to the question another poster poses you, you just make up your own question, and respond to that!

 

I described the G2SS water treatment method as a "process", not a rule! I could have gone further, and called it "declarative advice". Here's the lead-in from the manual itself:

"To treat water, follow these steps: . . ."

 

That's pretty definite advice, whether it's "policy" or a "rule" or not.

 

 

And blowing off GoldWinger's Nazi reference just because you find it "repugnant" is irrational and non-responsive. The same exact reference occurred to me, and probably dozens of other forum users as soon as they read your simplistic and naive definition of "good citzenship"

 

You don't have to go as far as Germany, to find examples of citzenship that was NOT good, precisely because it followed "the laws of the community". I'm in Georgia, where it was the law 150 years ago that you had to return an escaped slave to the owner. Citzens -- presumably including some of my ancestors -- who followed this law were certainly NOT being "good" when they did so. Likewise, the land upon which my house rests at this very moment was stolen somewhat illegally from its Cherokee owners 180 - 190 years ago. But, the "community" law as all for the theft, as was our then President Andrew Jackson, who was otherwise known for his strict ethics.

 

You don't even have to go back 100 years ago.

 

Several years ago, I had occasion to do some consulting and design work for the president of a mutual life insurance based nearby. It was an interesting experience. For whatever reason, he felt comfortable bragging to me how he'd arranged to have the law changed in Georgia to allow him to extract more personal benefit and income from his company, which as a mutual company was nominally owned by the policyholders.

 

Since then, I occasionally pose the only slightly facetious question, "What's the difference between a car thief and many company presidents?" Answer: "A company president pays lobbyists to get the law changed to make your property his, BEFORE he steals it!" No doubt, you'll cheer the felonious president all the way to his bank, since he's following the law he changed!

 

Goldwinger's reference was perfectly reasonable and appropriate; my guess is you find it repugnant primarily because you have no good answer for it!

 

GaHillBilly