Boy Scouts Introduce Merit Badge For Not Pirating

[Lucius]

I've worked with kids for about a year, and you know I didn't really feel attracted to them, since..., you know, I'm into men, not boys you bigot prick.

 

Oh and btw. when I made cartoons with them it was usually about tanks, action, wars etc. and not, you know, goddamn queery flowers and ****.

 

Some of the parents there, none of whom ever suspected a thing of course, are probably the worst people I've ever met, ungrateful bastards who focus more on their carees than their kids, yet still they managed to whine about each and every thing... anyway it brings me some amusement that the fools never found out, I regret not telling everybody the day I left.

[Dark_Raven]

Major points scored by the Great Dane.

[Sand]

Skynet, only those who have serious mental problems are attracted to children. It doesn't matter if you are hetero or homo, if you are attracted to children then you are sick.

 

We are on the cusp of major social change in human society and the old beliefs, traditions, and prejudices need to be cast aside if we, as a civilization, are going to make any sort of progress.

 

Good words, Lucius.

[Calax]

I agree with Skynet. It's as much a concern issue as anything and really, parents have a right to know everything about the people spending time with and teaching their children. They also have a say in who those people are.

 

They don't let girls in. There was a big brouhaha or however you spell it when some girls wanted to be boy scouts and they wouldn't let them in.

 

Kind of like how these girls up here sued the school board so they could try out for their high school boys hockey team. They won and were allowed to try out, and were the first ones cut.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm. I wonder why there wouldn't be girls in an organization called the Boy Scouts, or on a Boys hockey team.

 

What next, boys wanting to be Brownies? FFS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually the main reason girls want to get into "boys" sports and particularly the boyscouts. is A) the extra competition. and B) (this mainly applies to the scouts) they have a much different focus. From what I've heard the girls scouts mainly deal with making you into a good housewife. Boyscouts is mainly about turning into a "mans man!" I mean girl scouts don't exactly have Backpacking, rife badge, Shotgunning, archery, and a few other badges.

 

One interesting thing is looking through my old scout book the Scouts actually let you send a letter to a certain place and get a medal for being a member of a freaking church.

 

 

I've worked with kids for about a year, and you know I didn't really feel attracted to them, since..., you know, I'm into men, not boys you bigot prick.

 

Oh and btw. when I made cartoons with them it was usually about tanks, action, wars etc. and not, you know, goddamn queery flowers and ****.

 

Some of the parents there, none of whom ever suspected a thing of course, are probably the worst people I've ever met, ungrateful bastards who focus more on their carees than their kids, yet still they managed to whine about each and every thing... anyway it brings me some amusement that the fools never found out, I regret not telling everybody the day I left. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

would have been interesting to see the reaction.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Calax

[LoneWolf16]

Actually, I think it's another thing that should be dealt with on an individual basis...

 

Someone like Lucius, A OK to me.

 

A fat man in a tube top constantly grabbing little Tommy's ass and singing show tunes, not so much.

 

And yes, I was thinking of gay as Will and Grace gay. Yes, I was stereotyping. Sorry, but that's all I've seen of the homosexual community...

 

However, calling Sky a "bigot prick" and proceeding to say what Lucius said, is a tad bit hypocritical. Also, to be blunt, it makes him look like a jackass.

 

Then again, I do that on a regular basis here.

Edited October 24, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[Sand]

If Will and Grace is all that you have seen then you need to get out more. Also I have never seen a "gay fat man" in a tube top grabbing boy's asses. If someone does that, that does no mean they are gay. it means that they are sick and disturbed individuals that need to be taken out of our society.

[LoneWolf16]

Yeah, 'cause intentionally blowing things out of porportion in order to make a point is....completely alien to you, Hade- er, Sand?

 

Yes, I do need to get out more. Unfortunately, doing so wouldn't put me in contact with a large quantity of homosexuals. Also, I don't go around asking dudes their sexual preference.

[Dark Moth]

If Will and Grace is all that you have seen then you need to get out more.  Also I have never seen a "gay fat man" in a tube top grabbing boy's asses.  If someone does that, that does no mean they are gay.  it means that they are sick and disturbed individuals that need to be taken out of our society.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Voice of experience, Hades?

 

But with all due respect, perhaps you should try to sort out your own bigotry before pointing fingers at others. Not that it matters to you, of course. As long as it makes you right, that makes it right.

 

Ok, but just because they are gay doesn't mean they aren't.  The Boy Scouts are just playing it safe, you know, always being prepared and stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Using that logic they should prevent evil using the demonstrably overwelmingly predictive trait of all hardenened criminals (i.e. above 98%): masculinity. Just throw every man in jail: no more serious crime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Within reason, meta. That's not a logical comparison. What you're saying for one thing is discrimination based on sex and one's biological traits, not on someone's choice of lifestyle, and it's something that's on a ridiculously large scale to boot. What boy scouts are doing is merely a precautionary measure, and an understandable one. With the cases of scout masters abusing boys in the past, why are you surprised that they'd take measures such as this? The parents' feelings on whether or not a homosexual should be teaching their children is their own affair, but the scouts choose not to take that risk. Also, the boy scouts are a private organization, not a public one. Even if they are doing what you think is discrimination, they have a right to do it. That does not make it bigotry. It's no different or worse than white people not being allowed to join a black union.

 

So to be blunt, yes I am in agreement of what they do. To everyone out there, go ahead, call me a bigot. But it will not change my views on the matter.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Dark Moth

[alanschu]

The parents' feelings on whether or not a homosexual should be teaching their children is their own affair, but the scouts choose not to take that risk. Also, the boy scouts are a private organization, not a public one. Even if they are doing what you think is discrimination, they have a right to do it. That does not make it bigotry. It's no different or worse than white people not being allowed to join a black union.

 

 

This is the problem, given the huge amounts of public dollars they get, in addition to huge exceptionally cheap access to public venues. I'd have zero problems if the Boy Scouts of America were purely a private corporation.

 

 

EDIT:

 

And just to clarify, you get excessively defensive when someone points out something bad about CHristianity and then applies to all Christians. Do you afford homosexuals the same respect?

Edited October 24, 2006 by alanschu

[Lucius]

A good answer to that would be... no? After all he thinks we're mutants.

[thepixiesrock]

Lucuis needs to like, calm down or something, he's worse than Mothman right now.

[LoneWolf16]

I love you guys.

[metadigital]

Ok, but just because they are gay doesn't mean they aren't.  The Boy Scouts are just playing it safe, you know, always being prepared and stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Using that logic they should prevent evil using the demonstrably overwelmingly predictive trait of all hardenened criminals (i.e. above 98%): masculinity. Just throw every man in jail: no more serious crime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Within reason, meta. That's not a logical comparison. What you're saying for one thing is discrimination based on sex and one's biological traits, not on someone's choice of lifestyle, and it's something that's on a ridiculously large scale to boot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Supposition.

What boy scouts are doing is merely a precautionary measure, and an understandable one.  With the cases of scout masters abusing boys in the past, why are you surprised that they'd take measures such as this?  The parents' feelings on whether or not a homosexual should be teaching their children is their own affair, but the scouts choose not to take that risk. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See my point you quoted above [<{POST_SNAPBACK}>]: homosexuality ≠ pederasty. No matter how many times you try to associate the two.

Also, the boy scouts are a private organization, not a public one.  Even if they are doing what you think is discrimination, they have a right to do it.  That does not make it bigotry.  It's no different or worse than white people not being allowed to join a black union. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So if a local scout group (i.e. the families of the boys) decided that they were tolerant of homosexuality, then you would have no issue with members of all genders joining?

So to be blunt, yes I am in agreement of what they do.  To everyone out there, go ahead, call me a bigot.  But it will not change my views on the matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see, so regardless of the logic and reasoning you are adhering to your fundamental view? And this seems perfectly reasonable to you? (As a Christian?)

 

By the way, the implicit point your points make is that homosexuality is a choice, and it is contagious. That is bigotry.

[Walsingham]

I really don't see why homosexuality is an issue, whether it is biological, a choice, or comes in cereal packets. Homosexuality is about having erotic feelings about your own gender. It doesn't automatically mean you like kids of any gender.

 

Anyway, just to remind everyone how we got onto this, I seem to recall we branched out on the suggestion that the Boy Scouts should act as hitlerjugend in the coming reich. Report on copyright abusers, homosexuals, gypsies and so on. You know, unlike their more traditional role as a harmless almost whimsical structured after school activity.

[Lucius]

Lonewolf, none of us needs your "OK" anymore than anyone else, you really ought to worry about if it was some christian fundie who'd be preaching your boy into some sort of bible maniac.

 

Mothie and Sky's views just forces people like this to stay in the closet, but that's hardly news.

[Dark_Raven]

If I was to have kids I would not want them to have a teacher that is a christian. I would be afraid that this teacher would spread his christian dogma onto my kids.

 

And I certainly wouldn't want it to be a catholic priest, they are after all, known pedophiles.

 

Certainly I would not want little Johnny to be educated by an Arab, we all know Arabs are nothing but muslim terrorists that go around and kill none muslims.

 

 

 

 

The above examples are just that examples. Examples on stupidity and narrow mindedness just like saying gays should not be around little boys, because they may molest them.

 

Go, go Lucius.

[Sand]

Within reason, meta.  That's not a logical comparison.  What you're saying for one thing is discrimination based on sex and one's biological traits, not on someone's choice of lifestyle, and it's something that's on a ridiculously large scale to boot.

 

First off a person's sexuality is not a "lifestyle choice." Its not a choice at all. A person's sexuality is largely biological. If you have followed recent medical findings, Dark Moth. In recent studies doctors have found that there are notable physiological differences in the brain of a homosexual male and a heterosexual male. A person does not have a choice in what he or she finds attractive in a sexual manner. Only control an individual has is how he acts on that attraction, but the bottomline, if you believe in a deity of some sort, we are made in what way we are born as.

 

What boy scouts are doing is merely a precautionary measure, and an understandable one.

Understandable yes, but so are the acts of the KKK.

 

With the cases of scout masters abusing boys in the past, why are you surprised that they'd take measures such as this?  The parents' feelings on whether or not a homosexual should be teaching their children is their own affair, but the scouts choose not to take that risk.

 

Then it is perfectly reasonable to cast all Catholic priests and Christian ministers in the same lot then. Blame all for the acts of the few. Did you criticize someone called Hades for this?

 

Also, the boy scouts are a private organization, not a public one.  Even if they are doing what you think is discrimination, they have a right to do it.  That does not make it bigotry.  It's no different or worse than white people not being allowed to join a black union.

 

Yes, they are a private organiztion which they can have their own standards, no matter how skewed they are, but they should not go crying to the government when they loose funding and acceptance by cities and government organzation who seek to give fair treatment to all regardless of gender, race, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, and whatnot.

 

So to be blunt, yes I am in agreement of what they do.  To everyone out there, go ahead, call me a bigot.  But it will not change my views on the matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then as a private organzation that practices bigotry and hate they should no longer recieve local, state, and federal funding. If they wish to recieve this funding for their organization then they need to change and diversify. If they don't then let them reap the consequences then. That is their choice and they are free to choose as they wish.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Sand

[Kaftan Barlast]

But.. I thought in-the-closet homosexuality was the very essence of boyscouts? I mean, all those dodgy camps and homoerotic uniforms?

 

 

Personally, I wouldnt like any gays, christians, germans, danes, jews, negroes, japanese, muslims, greek-roman wrestlers, americans, stamp collectors, hamsters or amish to have anything to do with my hypothetical children.

[Walsingham]

But.. I thought in-the-closet homosexuality was the very essence of boyscouts? I mean, all those dodgy camps and homoerotic uniforms?

 

 

Personally, I wouldnt like any gays, christians, germans, danes, jews, negroes, japanese, muslims, greek-roman wrestlers, americans, stamp collectors, hamsters or amish to have anything to do with my hypothetical children.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As i was recently obliged to explain, 'camp' means something else in the USA. hence their inability to laugh at Camp Commandants in ww2.

[Diamond]

Did you criticize someone called Hades for this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stop pretending.

[Dark Moth]

Did you criticize someone called Hades for this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stop pretending.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For real. And don't think I didn't see what you wrote before you edited your post, Hades. If you don't want to drop your bigotry until you think all Christians drop theirs, fine. But don't think that behavior will get you very far. And honestly, what are you trying to pull? This little alt game you have going isn't garnering you any respect. It was bad enough seeing you try to switch to the bunny alt, now you're doing this? And to top it off, you still insist on pretending you're not who we all know you are? You really are a riot sometimes. So I'll merely say what I said to you last time - Until you stop this pathetic little act of yours, and grow up along with it, we don't have anything to say to each other. Have a nice life, Hades.

 

This is the problem, given the huge amounts of public dollars they get, in addition to huge exceptionally cheap access to public venues.  I'd have zero problems if the Boy Scouts of America were purely a private corporation.

 

 

EDIT:

 

And just to clarify, you get excessively defensive when someone points out something bad about CHristianity and then applies to all Christians.  Do you afford homosexuals the same respect?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even if they get public dollars, they are still a private organization. If you have a problem with them getting public money, fine. But that doesn't change it.

 

Yes, I do hate that. But you'll notice I never said or implied that all homosexuals are potential pedophiles. I'm well aware that the vast majority of them are people who prefer their own age group. But there are those out there who do do these sorts of things. It's happened before, homosexuals abusing boys through Boy Scouts or other organizations. There have been numerous cases of homosexuals joining boy scouts or becoming Catholic priests in order to prey on young boys. No, that does not mean homosexuals are also pedophiles. But this is a very serious issue, and the Boy Scouts prefer to not have to take that risk, or at least minimize it as much as possible. So if they choose to do what they do, then that's their decision.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Dark Moth

[~Di]

Ouch. Some of the comments in here are really hateful... and probably unintentionally so.

 

Some of y'all seem to think that homosexual is synonomous to pedophile-predator, that people just wake up one morning and decide to switch sexual orientation for giggles, then head out to the local elementary school to practice on kids. With all due respect I must ask... what the hell is the matter with you?

 

I don't want to get into the whole 'choice versus genetics' thing, although it is clear to me that since I didn't make a choice to be attracted to the opposite sex... I just WAS... I can't imagine that homosexuals make a choice to be attracted to the same sex. What really stuns me is the willingness of some to believe that homosexuals should be treated like sexual predators, and kept from any profession that deals with children in any manner. I mean, good God. Y'all are aware, are you not, that the vast majority of real sexual predators and pedophiles are NOT homosexual? So if statistics count (rather than plain old bigotry), then non-homosexuals are the ones who should be banned from any profession that deals with children.

 

I really some of you believe you are not being cruel or hateful in your beliefs, but I seriously encourage you to examine those beliefs more closely, discard the myth and seek the realty. Homosexuals are not monsters; they are exactly like anyone else on the planet... with the exception that they are apparently the only group that can be legally bashed and discriminated against.

[Dark Moth]

Supposition.

Not really. There is ample evidence to show that homosexuality can be just as much nature as it is nurture. IMO, it's both. But either way, it brings problems. If it's a choice, then it's justified. If it's biolical, even that doesn't erase all problems. Many people are born predisposed toward a certain type of behavior that society might find wrong, but at the same time, it's hereditary. You could easily call that discrimination as well. So why is this different? Even if it's just biological, we are human beings. We have minds. We can choose whether or not to go by our primal instincts or not. We can choose whether or not to act the way we are born to be. That's what set our species apart from animals in the first place. So just because something is biolocial does not make it right. My point is do not argue just on the basis that it is biological.

 

Also, a problem here is that in both our societies there is already a lot of discrimination based on biology and lifestyle. For example, any special group based purely on race, such as a black student's union or a women's union. That's discrimination, isn't it? And you have it based on lifestyle, such as any religious group, or any political club or oganization based on one's political views. That's discrimination. So, why does this make the Scouts any different? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the scouts doing what they do is wrong, then that makes everything above wrong. Why does their discrimination automatically equal wrong in your eyes why many others see the above examples of okay? Help me out here.

 

See my point you quoted above [<{POST_SNAPBACK}>]: homosexuality ≠ pederasty. No matter how many times you try to associate the two.

I never said that. I agree with you that homosexuality does not equal pederasty. See my post to Alanschu regarding this also.

 

So if a local scout group (i.e. the families of the boys) decided that they were tolerant of homosexuality, then you would have no issue with members of all genders joining?

No. Even if I did, they have a right to do what they want with their organization.

 

I see, so regardless of the logic and reasoning you are adhering to your fundamental view? And this seems perfectly reasonable to you? (As a Christian?)

By the way, the implicit point your points make is that homosexuality is a choice, and it is contagious. That is bigotry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't just base my views on my 'fundamental' religious beliefs. I base it on a lot of things. Including logic and reasoning. Regarding you second point, yes, homosexuality can be a choice. It has happened before, and I believe it can influence others. To say that it can't influence others IMO is just wrong. For the record, I don't judge the content of a person's character by their sexual preference, race, religion, or political views. I judge it by their actions. I don't think the Boy Scouts are doing that here, either. Their are plenty of heterosexuals out there who are terrible persons, and plenty of homosexuals who are great persons, and vice-versa. I see this more as a precautionary measure than anything else.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Lucius]

If I was to have kids I would not want them to have a teacher that is a christian. I would be afraid that this teacher would spread his christian dogma onto my kids.

 

And I certainly wouldn't want it to be a catholic priest, they are after all, known pedophiles.

 

Certainly I would not want little Johnny to be educated by an Arab, we all know Arabs are nothing but muslim terrorists that go around and kill none muslims.

 

 

 

 

The above examples are just that examples. Examples on stupidity and narrow mindedness just like saying gays should not be around little boys, because they may molest them. 

 

Go, go Lucius.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks

 

However it is very very sad to see that the gay conspiracy hasn't managed to abuse every kid on the planet, or succeeded in global gayification... yet.

[alanschu]

Even if they get public dollars, they are still a private organization. If you have a problem with them getting public money, fine. But that doesn't change it.

 

Actually, it does change it. I don't want "private companies" that are pretty much publicly funded, doing whatever they want with tax payer dollars. And I certainly don't want them using taxpayer money to promote intolerance. I honestly don't know how you're okay with this, unless you yourself are intolerant of homosexuals, because no matter how much you spout off that they are a "private company," they receive more public funds than many public companies do.

 

Yes, I do hate that. But you'll notice I never said or implied that all homosexuals are potential pedophiles.

 

The instant you A-OK'd their decision to not allow them to do so you certainly did imply that. Especially when considering that sexual abuse upon little boys is NOT restricted to homosexual men (in other words, yes, heterosexual men have committed sexual abuse on little boys as well...not just homosexual men).

 

Not really. There is ample evidence to show that homosexuality can be just as much nature as it is nurture. IMO, it's both.

 

Start citing your sources bub. Besides, nurture != choice. It's not all biological, but there is zero evidence that hanging around gay people makes you gay.

 

 

Regarding you second point, yes, homosexuality can be a choice. It has happened before, and I believe it can influence others.

 

That's because you've been woefully misinformed. Probably from church related sources. As I just said, there is no evidence that hanging around gay people makes you gay. (And even if it did.....why is that necessarily a bad thing?)

 

don't just base my views on my 'fundamental' religious beliefs. I base it on a lot of things. Including logic and reasoning.

 

I see no logic or reasoning. I see you towing the company line of your religion. It's the same type of logic and reasoning that says don't leave your children alone with a Catholic Priest.

 

 

For the record, I don't judge the content of a person's character by their sexual preference, race, religion, or political views. I judge it by their actions. I don't think the Boy Scouts are doing that here, either. Their are plenty of heterosexuals out there who are terrible persons, and plenty of homosexuals who are great persons, and vice-versa. I see this more as a precautionary measure than anything else.

 

And at this point, I would greatly appreciate it if you never called anyone a hypocrite again. A "precautionary measure?" Precautionary against WHAT? You're still buying into the church's dogma that one, homosexuality is bad, and two, that homosexuality is contagious. You say you don't judge a person's character by their sexual preference, yet A-OK the decision of a company heavily funded by taxpayers (i.e. not as private of a corporations as say, every other private corporation out there) to ban people specifically because they are homosexual. And no, they aren't banned because they as a "precaution," they're banned because the Boy Scouts of America are a right-wing conservative group, that highly values the church (in fact, it is heavily, heavily supported by the Mormon Church). Because they exercise the exact same judgement on athiests. No Athiest troop masters. No athiest boy scouts.

 

Then you say you judge people based on their actions, when the actions of the Boy Scouts of America is to discriminate based on religious, racist (yup, many of them are racist too), and sexual orientation.

 

Unfortunately, it's a recent phenomenon. When the Mormon Church started to really get involved, they added to the Scout Oath that people must have a duty to God, and morally straight. It's odd that allowing homosexuals and athiests wasn't a problem before the Mormon Church hijacked the organization, and utilized it's popularity and pervaisiveness to spread its intolerance. But I suppose banning people because they are athiests is just as precautionary as banning them because they are homosexuals.

 

Face it, the BSOA are an elitist club. Which would be fine, if they were actually a private corporation. But they receive mountains of public funding, and frequently utilize public schools (which are not allowed to host elitist, discriminatory organization) as host locations for their troops. The BSOA are still cashing in on their history, and people are ignorant to the recent changes that have gone on at the highest levels. And it's perfect for those in charge of the BSOA to perpetuate their intolerance, because they have the good history of the Boy Scouts behind them.

 

Fortunately, it's getting tougher for them to receive public funding and gain access to publicly funded instituitions as people learn more about the current state of affairs of the BSOA. They used to be a good club, but it's sad that they've become what they are today.