|
Ｉ ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｆｉｎｄ ｉｔ ｆｕｎｎｙ ｔｈａｔ ｍｏｓｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｐｅｏｐｌｅ ｈｅｒｅ ｉｎ ｔｅａｍｌｉｑｕｉｄ ｒｅｓｅｎｔｓ ｒｅｌｉｇｉｏｎ ｂｕｔ ｔｈｅｙ ｔｒｅａｔ ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃａｌ ｃｏｒｒｅｃｔｎｅｓｓ ａｓ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｒｅｌｉｇｉｏｎ
User was warned for this post
|
United States24574 Posts
On October 11 2012 23:33 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 23:04 micronesia wrote:On October 11 2012 17:32 Introvert wrote:
Didn't we have a similar thread before?
For the record, I am an Eagle Scout.
"Recently, a Scout proactively notified his unit leadership and Eagle Scout counselor that he does not agree to Scouting's principle of 'Duty to God,' and does not meet Scouting's membership standard on sexual orientation," the statement reads. "While the Boy Scouts of America did not proactively ask for this information, based on his statements and after discussion with his family, he is being informed that he is no longer eligible for membership in Scouting."
Why did he say this right before he was going to be given the award? It seems to me that he thought it was a done deal and so saying it would be "sticking it to the BSA." I can see no other reason for this ill timed revelation.
He knew throughout scouting than such practices were not allowed, yet he decided to join and keep it all a secret anyway. I feel bad that he did all the work, but this knowingly deceptive behavior is not becoming of an Eagle Scout (yes, I am aware he was unaware of his orientation at age 6).
An even bigger problem is the following: "he does not agree to Scouting's principle of 'Duty to God'"
This is unacceptable. Every time scouts meet they recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law. The first 2 make explicit references to God, and the latter includes the trait of "reverence" in a list of things that a scout should be. Now I don't know if he is an atheist or not, but saying this is a huge no-no, it basically means he was lying all those years and does not believe in a core tenant of the organization's founding. On these grounds alone I support the decision. The only statement from a BSA official listed both Duty to God AND homosexuality as grounds for refusal. This thing about "he was rejected because he's gay!" is only part of the story. The only part people want to focus on.
Don't join an organization you know bans these things in first place. And DON'T reveal right before the final hurdle.
And the scouts are hardly evil, they have a long record of service at the national level and in the community. Whether it's the policy against homosexual scouts or the policy against non-believing scouts, it's the same thing. It's only letting certain types of people into your organization. Saying you shouldn't join an organization that doesn't permit people like you because you are a homosexual, or because you are an atheist/agnostic/etc, sounds good on paper, but there is a problem: there is no substitute for the boy scouts in most areas. If there was only one junior athletic league in a given region, and it didn't allow certain children for reasons that would be illegal in a public venture, it would be hard for the parent to explain to their child why they aren't able to play organized sports. On October 11 2012 22:56 kmillz wrote:On October 11 2012 22:09 Velr wrote:
The problem with this is that you can't or cannot "approve" Homosexuality. Thats like openly approving or not approving people on the grounds of haircolor or size... Homosexuality is not a choice. Are homosexual actions a choice? WTF is the point of this post? I can't see any. Don't the Girl Scouts allow boys to join now? They'd make a pretty good alternative...a better one I'd say since their cookies are so damn delicious. Ideally people would flip the bird to the boy scouts and all start joining the girl scouts instead and the boy scouts would be pushed to the margins of society with racists and misogynists. But in reality, the troop level is so distant from the national leadership that no one will really turn the troops into pariah's and so the national leadership will still have a platform from which to be idiots.
I don't think it's typical for boys to join the girl scouts (although from what I've read they make some accommodations for gray areas). Currently there is no reasonable alternative to the BSA in most areas, if you are looking for several things that the BSA offer.
|
United States2306 Posts
On October 11 2012 15:35 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 12:01 heliusx wrote:
Don't forget the DoD has used 29million tax payer dollars in the past 30 years to help cover expenses at the jamborees. Let's also not forget they get access to public equipment and land anytime they want. Yeah, totally not funded or helped by the government not at all. Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 13:34 heliusx wrote:except they use taxpayer money for their benefit, so no you don't have to tolerate them. I'm not too informed on this topic. I get the sneaking suspicion that you aren't either. But the arrangement that you're referring to above (the Department of Defense's supplemental funding of BSA jamborees) seems to have already been resolved. The constitutionality of the DoD's support of BSA was called into question, the case was thrown out of court, and the BSA has since moved the location of their jamborees to private, non-military land. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_v._RumsfeldIt's interesting to note that part of the reason that the Department of Defense shared certain expenses with the BSA for these jamborees was that it regarded "the national Scout jamboree as beneficial for public relations and recruitment," as well as "a unique training opportunity, particularly in testing operations needed to support large scale military encampments or refugee tent cities." In other words the DoD's investment in BSA is just that, an investment from which they expect and attain certain returns that ultimately support the mission of the DoD and therefore benefit the very taxpayers that (to a very small degree) foot the bill in the first place. The whole BSA-gets-arbitrary-preferential-treatment narrative, therefore, seems a little unfair to the complexity of the situation. It's also interesting to note that the DoD will likely still send troops to future jamborees (even though they are no longer to be held on military-owned land) precisely because of the "recruiting and training opportunity" that the BSA jamboree provides to them. Once again the relevance of this is that obviously participation in these jamborees is important to and beneficial for the purposes of the Department of Defense. Once again it represents, in the Department of Defense's perspective, taxpayer money well spent, not taxpayer money unfairly donated to an organization that holds views at odds with certain taxpaying demographics. Ultimately, I think your approach to this whole issue is a little under-read and a little too black-and-white. You seem eager to paint this as a simple abuse of government funding, but it's probably more useful to look at it in a broader historical and political context, with due attention paid to the arguments that could be presented from both sides, as well as similar agreements between the government and other organizations that might provide insight into the sort of norms and precedents that obtain for an event like the BSA jamboree. But then again complexity is typically the first casualty of culture war. It's much easier to galvanize a voting bloc under the assertion that the opposite side consists of progress-hating bigots (or, for that matter, anti-American socialists), rather than a cadre of fellow citizens attempting to navigate the largely uncharted interstices of personal conviction and democratic duty.
Actually the last one (2010) was held at fort hill, and was funded with tax payer money. It's moving next year and will still have tax payer money spent as you have said, although more likely in the form of shuttling troops and equipment. Therefore it's completely understandable for tax payers to be critical of their bigoted ways.
|
On October 12 2012 00:52 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 15:35 HULKAMANIA wrote:On October 11 2012 12:01 heliusx wrote:
Don't forget the DoD has used 29million tax payer dollars in the past 30 years to help cover expenses at the jamborees. Let's also not forget they get access to public equipment and land anytime they want. Yeah, totally not funded or helped by the government not at all. On October 11 2012 13:34 heliusx wrote:except they use taxpayer money for their benefit, so no you don't have to tolerate them. I'm not too informed on this topic. I get the sneaking suspicion that you aren't either. But the arrangement that you're referring to above (the Department of Defense's supplemental funding of BSA jamborees) seems to have already been resolved. The constitutionality of the DoD's support of BSA was called into question, the case was thrown out of court, and the BSA has since moved the location of their jamborees to private, non-military land. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_v._RumsfeldIt's interesting to note that part of the reason that the Department of Defense shared certain expenses with the BSA for these jamborees was that it regarded "the national Scout jamboree as beneficial for public relations and recruitment," as well as "a unique training opportunity, particularly in testing operations needed to support large scale military encampments or refugee tent cities." In other words the DoD's investment in BSA is just that, an investment from which they expect and attain certain returns that ultimately support the mission of the DoD and therefore benefit the very taxpayers that (to a very small degree) foot the bill in the first place. The whole BSA-gets-arbitrary-preferential-treatment narrative, therefore, seems a little unfair to the complexity of the situation. It's also interesting to note that the DoD will likely still send troops to future jamborees (even though they are no longer to be held on military-owned land) precisely because of the "recruiting and training opportunity" that the BSA jamboree provides to them. Once again the relevance of this is that obviously participation in these jamborees is important to and beneficial for the purposes of the Department of Defense. Once again it represents, in the Department of Defense's perspective, taxpayer money well spent, not taxpayer money unfairly donated to an organization that holds views at odds with certain taxpaying demographics. Ultimately, I think your approach to this whole issue is a little under-read and a little too black-and-white. You seem eager to paint this as a simple abuse of government funding, but it's probably more useful to look at it in a broader historical and political context, with due attention paid to the arguments that could be presented from both sides, as well as similar agreements between the government and other organizations that might provide insight into the sort of norms and precedents that obtain for an event like the BSA jamboree. But then again complexity is typically the first casualty of culture war. It's much easier to galvanize a voting bloc under the assertion that the opposite side consists of progress-hating bigots (or, for that matter, anti-American socialists), rather than a cadre of fellow citizens attempting to navigate the largely uncharted interstices of personal conviction and democratic duty. Actually the last one (2010) was held at fort hill, and was funded with tax payer money. It's moving next year and will still have tax payer money spent as you have said, although more likely in the form of shuttling troops and equipment. Therefore it's completely understandable for tax payers to be critical of their bigoted ways.
As a taxpayer, I know it sticks in my craw when the Department of Defense pays to shuttle troops to a training exercise!
|
On October 11 2012 23:39 bakarin wrote:
Ｉ ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｆｉｎｄ ｉｔ ｆｕｎｎｙ ｔｈａｔ ｍｏｓｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｐｅｏｐｌｅ ｈｅｒｅ ｉｎ ｔｅａｍｌｉｑｕｉｄ ｒｅｓｅｎｔｓ ｒｅｌｉｇｉｏｎ ｂｕｔ ｔｈｅｙ ｔｒｅａｔ ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃａｌ ｃｏｒｒｅｃｔｎｅｓｓ ａｓ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｒｅｌｉｇｉｏｎ
:D I see what you did there. I see it, you made spaces to exaggerate your text. Very cute :D, you're a big boy.
|
I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons.
|
United States2306 Posts
On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote:
I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons.
we get it you and your possible alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance.
|
On October 12 2012 01:44 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote:
I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons. we get it you and your alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance.
:D I love seeing situations like this arise because all I can think is back through history he'd be the guy "Blacks sit at the back of the bus, it's the bus companies decision" or "Women shouldn't get paid fairly, it's the business choice" etc etc. He just gets up, drinks the kool-aid he's told and repeats every day.
|
On October 12 2012 01:44 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote:
I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons. we get it you and your possible alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance.
Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that, but it appears you are role-playing the strawman from the wizard of Oz at the moment, so I'll get back to you when you're done with that.
|
On October 12 2012 01:47 Nightshade_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 01:44 heliusx wrote:On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote:
I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons. we get it you and your possible alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance. Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that, but it appears you are role-playing the strawman from the wizard of Oz at the moment, so I'll get back to you when you're done with that.
If that would be your argument then he's making noo strawman argument. A strawman is to derive an argument/conclusion that is different then what the actual argument/conclusion really is to try and make said position weaker. If your argument is his strawman then it simply is an argument, not a strawman.
T.T
|
On October 12 2012 01:35 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 23:39 bakarin wrote:
Ｉ ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｆｉｎｄ ｉｔ ｆｕｎｎｙ ｔｈａｔ ｍｏｓｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｐｅｏｐｌｅ ｈｅｒｅ ｉｎ ｔｅａｍｌｉｑｕｉｄ ｒｅｓｅｎｔｓ ｒｅｌｉｇｉｏｎ ｂｕｔ ｔｈｅｙ ｔｒｅａｔ ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃａｌ ｃｏｒｒｅｃｔｎｅｓｓ ａｓ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｒｅｌｉｇｉｏｎ :D I see what you did there. I see it, you made spaces to exaggerate your text. Very cute :D, you're a big boy.
I'm just typing using microsoft IME. what the fuck are you talking about
|
On October 12 2012 01:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 01:47 Nightshade_ wrote:On October 12 2012 01:44 heliusx wrote:On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote:
I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons. we get it you and your possible alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance. Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that, but it appears you are role-playing the strawman from the wizard of Oz at the moment, so I'll get back to you when you're done with that. If that would be your argument then he's making noo strawman argument. A strawman is to derive an argument/conclusion that is different then what the actual argument/conclusion really is to try and make said position weaker. If your argument is his strawman then it simply is an argument, not a strawman. T.T
uh what. I literally said that most people who preach "tolerance" are hypocrites. Please quote me where I said that we should tolerate intolerance, and please, bring it to my attention.
|
On October 12 2012 01:50 Nightshade_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 01:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 01:47 Nightshade_ wrote:On October 12 2012 01:44 heliusx wrote:On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote:
I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons. we get it you and your possible alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance. Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that, but it appears you are role-playing the strawman from the wizard of Oz at the moment, so I'll get back to you when you're done with that. If that would be your argument then he's making noo strawman argument. A strawman is to derive an argument/conclusion that is different then what the actual argument/conclusion really is to try and make said position weaker. If your argument is his strawman then it simply is an argument, not a strawman. T.T uh what. I literally said that most people who preach "tolerance" are hypocrites. Please quote me where I said that we should tolerate intolerance, and please, bring it to my attention.
Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that,
Saying "I would have put it that way" and then saying his statement or presentation of your argument is in strawman form either means 2 things 1) You lied and you wouldn't present it that way, thus making it a strawman or 2) You accept the stance he's presenting thus making it not a strawman because it literally would be your argument.
I never said you said anything other then admitting you would have put it similar to how he formulated his position.
|
On October 12 2012 01:53 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 01:50 Nightshade_ wrote:On October 12 2012 01:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 01:47 Nightshade_ wrote:On October 12 2012 01:44 heliusx wrote:On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote:
I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons. we get it you and your possible alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance. Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that, but it appears you are role-playing the strawman from the wizard of Oz at the moment, so I'll get back to you when you're done with that. If that would be your argument then he's making noo strawman argument. A strawman is to derive an argument/conclusion that is different then what the actual argument/conclusion really is to try and make said position weaker. If your argument is his strawman then it simply is an argument, not a strawman. T.T uh what. I literally said that most people who preach "tolerance" are hypocrites. Please quote me where I said that we should tolerate intolerance, and please, bring it to my attention. Saying "I would have put it that way" and then saying his statement or presentation of your argument is in strawman form either means 2 things 1) You lied and you wouldn't present it that way, thus making it a strawman or 2) You accept the stance he's presenting thus making it not a strawman because it literally would be your argument. I never said you said anything other then admitting you would have put it similar to how he formulated his position.
Has it occurred to you I was never responding to you????
And please stop quoting random shit out of context, it makes my head hurt.
|
On October 12 2012 01:55 Nightshade_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 01:53 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 01:50 Nightshade_ wrote:On October 12 2012 01:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 01:47 Nightshade_ wrote:On October 12 2012 01:44 heliusx wrote:On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote:
I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons. we get it you and your possible alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance. Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that, but it appears you are role-playing the strawman from the wizard of Oz at the moment, so I'll get back to you when you're done with that. If that would be your argument then he's making noo strawman argument. A strawman is to derive an argument/conclusion that is different then what the actual argument/conclusion really is to try and make said position weaker. If your argument is his strawman then it simply is an argument, not a strawman. T.T uh what. I literally said that most people who preach "tolerance" are hypocrites. Please quote me where I said that we should tolerate intolerance, and please, bring it to my attention. Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that, Saying "I would have put it that way" and then saying his statement or presentation of your argument is in strawman form either means 2 things 1) You lied and you wouldn't present it that way, thus making it a strawman or 2) You accept the stance he's presenting thus making it not a strawman because it literally would be your argument. I never said you said anything other then admitting you would have put it similar to how he formulated his position. Has it occurred to you I was never responding to you???? And please stop quoting random shit out of context, it makes my head hurt.
Are you alright? You've resorted from actually trying to show why it was a strawman to saying "oh golly" like remarks. Either show how it was a strawman or don't but no need to add rhetoric after being upset by a similar fallacy
Nothing I quoted was out of context and you weren't replying to me nor were you accusing me of making a strawman. I simply stated your strawman makes no sense when you concur that your argument would be his "strawman". That just means your argument is exactly how he presented and it is not exaggerated nor a strawman.
|
On October 12 2012 01:50 Nightshade_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 01:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 01:47 Nightshade_ wrote:On October 12 2012 01:44 heliusx wrote:On October 12 2012 01:36 Nightshade_ wrote:
I love all the tolerance talk from the pro-gay side, but in reality most of them are like the OP on the internet and just shit-talk everyone else that doesn't agree with them, and writes them off as bigots. ㄴㅇㄴ
Edit: I guess what I've always found both ironic and disgusting is the fact that political correctness and "tolerance" whateverthefuckthatmeans, has always been one sided regardless of people's opinions and arguements. Either you're on the liberal, politically correct side OR you are a fucking asshole bigot Bible thumping non-tolerant idiot and uninformed regardless of your reasons. we get it you and your possible alt accounts think people should be tolerant to intolerance. Well that WOULD be my argument had I said that, but it appears you are role-playing the strawman from the wizard of Oz at the moment, so I'll get back to you when you're done with that. If that would be your argument then he's making noo strawman argument. A strawman is to derive an argument/conclusion that is different then what the actual argument/conclusion really is to try and make said position weaker. If your argument is his strawman then it simply is an argument, not a strawman. T.T uh what. I literally said that most people who preach "tolerance" are hypocrites. Please quote me where I said that we should tolerate intolerance, and please, bring it to my attention.
But dude, what they are intolerant of is intolerance.. why don't you state your fucking views instead of screaming strawman over and over again.. so annoying.
|
Okay, I've not posted in this thread so far.
Nightshade_, I don't like an organization that receives federal funding and is theoretically open to all boys in an age group of physical fitness begin to impose exclusions based upon sexual orientation.
Simple.
|
Firstly, the organization of the boy scouts is does NOT receive their operating costs from the gov. Funding from jamborees, regardless of if its from the DoD or otherwise doesn't mean they are funding the BSA.
BSA is always a recruiting ground for the military, so for the DoD to give it money, and its a pretty small amount of money relatively. (we have a 14 trillion dollar a year economy and over 30 years the gov. have granted 29 million to the BSA? that's a drop of piss in a well..... those 29 million dollars wouldn't fix the economy.....not even close...) really doesn't change the issue and doesn't have a bearing on whether or not the BSA supports/not gays. (I do completely disagree with the BSA's stance even though I am an Eagle scout.)
Court case aside because it doesn't matter too much in the overall argument. Plenty of cultural institutions(I.e. museums) receive grants from the gov. and yet they are still private institutions. (95% of museums in USA are private, unlike most of europe.) All they are allowed to do with the grant money is what they applied for. A museum can receive money from an openly anti-gay foundation. But if their grant is for restoring an old building? that's all they do with that money, it doesn't mean they hate gays..... everyone is tight for money now... especially non-profits... so where they get their money (if there isn't a conflict of interest) doesn't matter in my eyes.
the DoD didn't give them money for things outside of the Jamborees... (at least in my understanding.) So i dunno why this matters.....
|
On October 12 2012 02:02 Ravensong170 wrote:
Firstly, the organization of the boy scouts is does NOT receive their operating costs from the gov. Funding from jamborees, regardless of if its from the DoD or otherwise doesn't mean they are funding the BSA.
BSA is always a recruiting ground for the military, so for the DoD to give it money, and its a pretty small amount of money relatively. (we have a 14 trillion dollar a year economy and over 30 years the gov. have granted 29 million to the BSA? that's a drop of piss in a well..... those 29 million dollars wouldn't fix the economy.....not even close...) really doesn't change the issue and doesn't have a bearing on whether or not the BSA supports/not gays. (I do completely disagree with the BSA's stance even though I am an Eagle scout.)
Court case aside because it doesn't matter too much in the overall argument. Plenty of cultural institutions(I.e. museums) receive grants from the gov. and yet they are still private institutions. (95% of museums in USA are private, unlike most of europe.) All they are allowed to do with the grant money is what they applied for. A museum can receive money from an openly anti-gay foundation. But if their grant is for restoring an old building? that's all they do with that money, it doesn't mean they hate gays..... everyone is tight for money now... especially non-profits... so where they get their money (if there isn't a conflict of interest) doesn't matter in my eyes.
the DoD didn't give them money for things outside of the Jamborees... (at least in my understanding.) So i dunno why this matters.....
I think it's more to the point that they receive approximately 1 million dollars every year from tax payers money. No matter the "piss in the well" it's the principle of supporting a barbaric ideology. If they want that piss in the well they should then act accordingly. I'm sure they would suffer greatly from losing 1 million a year.
|
On October 11 2012 20:02 OceanLab wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 18:17 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 11 2012 18:09 HULKAMANIA wrote:On October 11 2012 17:54 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 11 2012 16:59 HULKAMANIA wrote:On October 11 2012 16:49 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 11 2012 14:38 OceanLab wrote:
People talk about tolerance yet show none.
So what if they do not accept gay people in their ranks? They aren't beating them up or insulting them or anything of the sort are they?
If an individual does not feel comfortable around gay people, who are you to force him to hang out with them?
I mean what stops you from creating a different boy scouts organization that accepts gay people?
PS Just so you know I have nothing against gay people Generally, when people support tolerance, they mean tolerance towards differing points of views that cannot be proven objectively and that don't harm and/or discriminate. A person can be "intolerant" towards things that are factually proven wrong. If I said 2+2=5 and claimed that I have the right to hold that opinion, through rationality, you should be intolerant towards my ignorant statement. As for the latter condition, it might be possible through severe warping of human rights and ethics for a person to somehow provide justification for harm/discrimination. But in a progressive world I wouldn't expect tolerance towards hateful speech/actions that cannot be backed up by reason. In what sense is your stance on homosexuality or human rights "factually" provable? In what sense are you "objectively" correct? Did I say I was objectively correct? As it applies to this thread, the first condition is not what is being argued. What is the issue is that there is blatant discrimination with no reasonable justification. Oh, I get it now. The first condition doesn't apply to the thread. My bad. It's the second condition, which, if I'm following correctly, is that you don't think his position is progressive enough and that it also fosters "hate." Just for clarification: do you think the BSA hates homosexuals? Do you think their speech and actions are hateful? Perhaps you would like to give me reason to think otherwise? I can't answer for him, nor for the BSA, BUT I have a few christians friends that don't approve of homosexuality yet are nowhere near hateful towards gay people,
With regard to this boyscout situation, how exactly does being a homosexual have anything to do with being qualified to be a boyscout? You can say you're not being hateful towards gay people yet you end up discriminating against them with your actions. I can say I am not sexist and harbor no ill feelings towards women, but then contrary to my intentions, I treat them like second class citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
