Boy Scouts Of America Compromise?

[Stone holm]

If you think my response was ad hominem, then you, along with many people, don't correctly understand what an ad hominem is.

Your missing the point. There is a reason no one is proposing that heterosexual young men camp out and sleep with heterosexual young women. It would be terribly ill-advised. Right?

Yet, it is as problematic for young men with SSA to camp out and sleep with young men as it is for heterosexual young men to camp out and sleep with young women. Now do you see the point?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Except that babies don't result, and you are overstating the issue.

[wenglund]

Funny... from my perspective, any "God" or "Heavenly Father" that would force me to choose between Him or my husband, based on my husband's gender, isn't anyone I would consider to be worth (or worthy of) my time or adoration. I'd say the same of a God that forced me to choose between him or associating with any other of my family members, as well.

I'd suggest that scripture and approach isn't a winning strategy that's likely going to attact many people to the gospel. "Family First" probably works a lot better. ;-)

Daniel2

2nd Tim 3:1-5:

1 This know also, that in the ^alast days perilous ^btimes shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, ^acovetous, boasters, ^bproud, blasphemers, ^cdisobedient to parents, ^dunthankful, unholy,

3 Without ^anatural ^baffection, ^ctrucebreakers, ^dfalse accusers, ^eincontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 ^aTraitors, ^bheady, ^chighminded, lovers of ^dpleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a ^aform of godliness, but ^bdenying the power thereof: from such turn away.

(Bolded mine)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Except that babies don't result, and you are overstating the issue.

Were pregnancy the only potential serious problem, you may have a point. It isn't, and so you don't. Otherwise, no one would have the least qualm with promiscuity among our heterosexual youth as long as they use birth control. No one would be up in arms about Catholic Priests sexually abusing young boys.

Again, for those who may wish to conform to pop culture and its promotion of perversion, and live of the world as well as in the world, could you please not entirely take leave of your senses?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Craig in Austin]

If you think my response was ad hominem, then you, along with many people, don't correctly understand what an ad hominem is.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

defintion of ad hominen: Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

Example of ad hominem: "entirely take leave of your senses"

This attacks a person, and does not address the discussion at hand. I have indeed have taken leave of my senses, but that is orthogonal to this discussion.

[Stone holm]

2nd Tim 3:1-5:

1 This know also, that in the ^alast days perilous ^btimes shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, ^acovetous, boasters, ^bproud, blasphemers, ^cdisobedient to parents, ^dunthankful, unholy,

3 Without ^anatural ^baffection, ^ctrucebreakers, ^dfalse accusers, ^eincontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 ^aTraitors, ^bheady, ^chighminded, lovers of ^dpleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a ^aform of godliness, but ^bdenying the power thereof: from such turn away.

(Bolded mine)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yep, nearly every generation says that about the rising generation sort of an ode to conservatism.

[wenglund]

defintion of ad hominen: Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

Example of ad hominem: "entirely take leave of your senses"

This attacks a person, and does not address the discussion at hand. I have indeed have taken leave of my senses, but that is orthogonal to this discussion.

Your example doesn't fit because: 1) The part you quoted wasn't part of my argumentation. Instead, it was a helpful follow-up suggestion. 2) my argumentation, which you conveniently didn't quote, logically countered your position. and was thus not ad hominem.

So, again, if you think that my comment was ad hominem, then you would be mistaken, and don't correctly understand what an ad hominem is. Sorry!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Except that babies don't result, and you are overstating the issue.

Completely and totally irrelevant.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wade, I don't think it helps to resort to ad hominem responses here.

Ad Hom? Are you serious? For extra credit pls point out the ad hom.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mark Beesley]

Your example doesn't fit because: 1) The part you quoted wasn't part of my argumentation. Instead, it was a helpful follow-up suggestion. 2) my argumentation, which you conveniently didn't quote, logically countered your position. and was thus not ad hominem.

So, again, if you think that my comment was ad hominem, then you would be mistaken, and don't correctly understand what an ad hominem is. Sorry!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It was demeaning to the person to whom you said it, and it suggested that their argument was a result of their having taken leave of their senses, and thus their argument should not be taken seriously. As such, it was also part of your argumentation.

[wenglund]

Yep, nearly every generation says that about the rising generation sort of an ode to conservatism.

Since "nearly every generation" that has said this about "the rising generation" has been in the last days; and given that with each successive "rising generation" the things Paul mentioned have, to some extent and in some respects, gotten worse; then, the so-called "ode to conservatism" seem apropos and in increasing fulfillment of Paul's prophecy, and oft ushered unwittingly along by those giving voice and bowing to the "odes to liberalism" mentioned in the prophecy,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

It was demeaning to the person to whom you said it, and it suggested that their argument was a result of their having taken leave of their senses, and thus their argument should not be taken seriously. As such, it was also part of your argumentation.

As the leading expert on what I was and wasn't arguing, you are incorrect in several respects, and have but read things into what I said that weren't intended. So, if you are looking for fallacies, you may want to do something abut the straw man you just constructed.

My suggestion (not to be confused with "argumentation") was an appeal to critical thinking, which admittedly could be interpreted as implying that the ARGUMENT I was challenging lacked critical thought--i.e. it was illogical. So, even if one unreasonably attempts to ignore my logical argumentation and shoehorn my suggestion into my argument, it still wouldn't be an attack on the person, but rather an attack on the position, and thus is not ad hominem. If anything is being demeaned, it is the argument, not the person.

I will accept, in advance, your and other people's gracious appreciation for this free enlightening lesson on logic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Since "nearly every generation" that has said this about "the rising generation" has been in the last days; and given that with each successive "rising generation" the things Paul mentioned have, to some extent and in some respects, gotten worse; then, the so-called "ode to conservatism" seem apropos and in increasing fulfillment of Paul's prophecy, and oft ushered unwittingly along by those giving voice and bowing to the "odes to liberalism" mentioned in the prophecy,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would I believe have to disagree. I think in many ways each rising generation has been an improvement. Though I have some concerns about what could happen in my grand children's generation due to a decline in education and certain media developments. I believe in general my generation was better parents than my parents generation and my children for the most part are better parents than I was. So I have refused to join the going to Hades in a hand basket chorus.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Stone holm

[USU78]

Others are picking up on the problems inherent in this compromise, which is likely only a short-term Band-Aid that doesn't provide a long-term solution:

Well . . . nothing can guaranty "moral straightness" in a BSA alum. People fall short of ideals. Whatchagonnado?

[Scott Lloyd]

Others are picking up on the problems inherent in this compromise, which is likely only a short-term Band-Aid that doesn't provide a long-term solution:

I imagine the same scenario would apply to anyone else who, as he attains adulthood, takes on attitudes and behavior that are incompatible with the ideals of Scouting. Promiscuous sexual behavior, for example.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Well . . . nothing can guaranty "moral straightness" in a BSA alum. People fall short of ideals. Whatchagonnado?

Thank you for stating more concisely what I did in the post just following yours. We posted about the same time; otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.

[wenglund]

I would I believe have to disagree. I think in many ways each rising generation has been an improvement. Though I have some concerns about what could happen in my grand children's generation due to a decline in education and certain media developments. I believe in general my generation was better parents than my parents generation and my children for the most part are better parents than I was. So I have refused to join the going to Hades in a hand basket chorus.

Were I to confuse the general with this specific, as you have evidently done here, I might agree with you. But reason and pragmatism constrain me from doing so. My comment about things getting progressively worse, were specific to Paul's prophesy, and not parenting in general. Reading in context is important to accurate comprehension and effectively following the line of discussion. You should give it a try.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 22, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

My eyesight is not that great. But there appears to be a black "censor" bar covering the young man's hands. If so, isn't that a bit too suggestive and inappropriate?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mark Beesley]

As the leading expert on what I was and wasn't arguing, you are incorrect in several respects, and have but read things into what I said that weren't intended. So, if you are looking for fallacies, you may want to do something abut the straw man you just constructed.

My suggestion (not to be confused with "argumentation") was an appeal to critical thinking, which admittedly could be interpreted as implying that the ARGUMENT I was challenging lacked critical thought--i.e. it was illogical. So, even if one unreasonably attempts to ignore my logical argumentation and shoehorn my suggestion into my argument, it still wouldn't be an attack on the person, but rather an attack on the position, and thus is not ad hominem. If anything is being demeaned, it is the argument, not the person.

I will accept, in advance, your and other people's gracious appreciation for this free enlightening lesson on logic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

My eyesight is not that great. But there appears to be a black "censor" bar covering the young man's hands. If so, isn't that a bit too suggestive and inappropriate?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hadn't noticed that until you pointed it out. It does warrant an explanation.

[Daniel2]

My eyesight is not that great. But there appears to be a black "censor" bar covering the young man's hands. If so, isn't that a bit too suggestive and inappropriate?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There are no "black censor bars". The picture is of Ryan Andreson, the Boy Scout recently denied his eagle because he's gay. It's taken from a public appearance of Ryan standing, hands clasped, shadowed behind a podium:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/01/08/1416421/california-boy-scouts-chapter-challenges-national-organizations-anti-gay-ban/?mobile=wp

Your sight is off... and perhaps your mindset.

Interesting that no one's addressed the substance of that graphic, or my comments to the same affect.

Daniel2

Edited April 22, 2013 by Daniel2

[USU78]

Interesting that no one's addressed the substance of that graphic, or my comments that it exemplifies.

I quite understand you neither like nor agree with my or Scott's posts, but they are both substantive, concise and on point.

[wenglund]

There are no "black censor bars". The picture is of Ryan Andreson, the Boy Scout recently denied his eagle because he's gay. It's taken from a public appearance of Ryan standing, hands clasped, shadowed behind a podium:

http://thinkprogress...-ban/?mobile=wp

Your sight is off... and perhaps your mindset.

From as best I can tell, the alleged "shadow" doesn't fit the shape or the lighting in the linked photo or in the graphic you posted. But, I will accept that there may have been nothing intentionally untoward happening at the time of the photograph.

Interesting that no one's addressed the substance of that graphic, or my comments that it exemplifies. Daniel2

There were at least two comments preceding mine that addressed the graphic you posted. Interesting, indeed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Were I to confuse the general with this specific, as you have evidently done here, I might agree with you. But reason and pragmatism constrain me from doing so. My comment about things getting progressively worse, were specific to Paul's prophesy, and not parenting in general. Reading in context is important to accurate comprehension and effectively following the line of discussion. You should give it a try.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well I don't know about confusing general and the specific. I do know that when I ran track and cross-country back in the 1960's that the only adults other than coaches who showed up for our meets were my mother and father. And that was back when most of the mothers still worked at home. When my children ran in track and cross-country meets a small crowd of parents were there. My boys now coach both and the same holds true. We had plenty of girls getting pregnant out of wedlock in my hometown growing up, the difference between then and now is that we used to kick the girls out of school and suspend the fathers (if they came forward) from extracurriculars. So basically, I think we are getting better. True the gays and lesbians are more likely to come out of the closet, and drugs have about the same availability rate, but fewer kids are smoking. Pre-maritial sex is more common -- I think primarily due to the "pill" as the major deterrent back in the day was the girl being afraid of getting pregnant. But I don't see that the rising generation is necessarily more deviant than prior generations and they certainly aren't indiscriminately hanging blacks down South anymore. People are still raising families, but women aren't staying with men that beat the crap out of them as much, etc. On a macro level I don't see the Soviets killing millions of their own people for expressing their opinions, and I don't see any European country gassing people because of their ethnicity. True some of the middle-eastern countries are degenerating into medieval type societies, but that has been a tendency over there for years -- they have just had the curse of having too much oil underneath their land else we probably wouldn't give a rip. I don't see any country with the capacity to deliver an A bomb actually making any moves like it would do so -- although North Korea's leader does appear a bit deranged.

[Daniel2]

I imagine the same scenario would apply to anyone else who, as he attains adulthood, takes on attitudes and behavior that are incompatible with the ideals of Scouting. Promiscuous sexual behavior, for example.

I missed these responses before.

Are you aware of any adult Eagle Scouts that have been denied the ability to serve in the BSA for having sex with women? (I'm not referring to the LDS calling of scoutmaster, here, but to the general position of Scout Leaders...)

Does the BSA make a point of asking scout leaders whether or not they're sexually active, and with how many partners? Can you point to any links with specific examples of such?

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Well . . . nothing can guaranty "moral straightness" in a BSA alum. People fall short of ideals. Whatchagonnado?

Can't a gay man be "morally straight"?

Daniel2