Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mouse

Boy Scouts of America

76 posts in this topic

Mouse, bubbling beneath the surface of many liberals I know is a contempt for the USA, the Constitution, traditional family values, free enterprise and religion.

Sorry but this is ridiculous. There are many liberals who are unhappy with things the government do, like all the wars for example, but that doesn't mean they dislike the USA. Wanting to change things for the better does not make you unpatriotic. Patriotism is more than just blind acceptance of whatever the government does. Also I have never heard anyone express contempt for the Constitution. EVERYONE says they are defending the Constitution, but some parts of the Constitution are so vague that it can be interpreted different ways. Also, dislike of religion has nothing to do with politics. I know plenty of hardcore religious liberals and plenty of atheist conservatives.

This thinking that "the other side is evil and our side is good" gets us nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but this is ridiculous. There are many liberals who are unhappy with things the government do, like all the wars for example, but that doesn't mean they dislike the USA. Wanting to change things for the better does not make you unpatriotic. Patriotism is more than just blind acceptance of whatever the government does. Also I have never heard anyone express contempt for the Constitution. EVERYONE says they are defending the Constitution, but some parts of the Constitution are so vague that it can be interpreted different ways. Also, dislike of religion has nothing to do with politics. I know plenty of hardcore religious liberals and plenty of atheist conservatives.

This thinking that "the other side is evil and our side is good" gets us nowhere.

I don't think it's ridiculous. You call it "interpreting" the Constitution, when what liberals do is "twist" it.

And you're a hypocrite, I'm guessing, with your last statement. What do you think of the Tea Party movement? Yeah, thought so.

Edited by Jerrydevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the Boy Scouts are getting a lot of funding from religious groups. That could explain their stance on homosexuals. I'm starting to agree with Mouse that the Boy Scouts took this thing to a level it didn't need to go. Still, I would be very wary of any attempts by the "progressive" left to turn the Boy Scouts into their platform for gay rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry, you are throwing around a bunch of vague terms like "contempt for the USA" and "twist" without giving any example or definition of what you're talking about. "Contempt for America" What does that even mean?! The way that I find most conservatives do this is they twist (your word there) the definition of America to mean "a bastion of conservative principles." Well no crap someone who is liberal will sound like they hate this country if that's how you define it. Anybody could play this game though, so in the end it's just a cheap way to hurl insults at your political opposites.

What do I think of the Tea Party? A group of people with policy ideas for the USA, many of which I think would lead the country to a future that does not sound very appealing to me and, I'm purely guessing, a majority of Americans. At least they're trying though, just like everybody should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's ridiculous. You call it "interpreting" the Constitution, when what liberals do is "twist" it.

And you're a hypocrite, I'm guessing, with your last statement. What do you think of the Tea Party movement? Yeah, thought so.

Yeah okay the liberals "twist" the Constitution and conservatives do nothing of the sort. :blahblah: This is exactly what I'm talking about. How can we even begin to have any kind of discussion when you think people who disagree with you are some sort of evil villains?

I'm not even sure what your point is with that question regarding the Tea Party but I'm guessing you just made a straw-man argument and knocked it down. Please find me a post where I said the Tea Party is evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry, you are throwing around a bunch of vague terms like "contempt for the USA" and "twist" without giving any example or definition of what you're talking about. "Contempt for America" What does that even mean?! The way that I find most conservatives do this is they twist (your word there) the definition of America to mean "a bastion of conservative principles." Well no crap someone who is liberal will sound like they hate this country if that's how you define it. Anybody could play this game though, so in the end it's just a cheap way to hurl insults at your political opposites.

What do I think of the Tea Party? A group of people with policy ideas for the USA, many of which I think would lead the country to a future that does not sound very appealing to me and, I'm purely guessing, a majority of Americans. At least they're trying though, just like everybody should.

Contempt for America is pretty self-explanatory. When liberals try to capitalize on a tragedy by attacking the Second Amendment, they show contempt for America. The entire healthcare bill is contempt for liberty, and anyone who supports it has contempt for America. When liberals throw their support behind public unions, they show contempt for America because they are supporting bribery with taxpayer money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can we even begin to have any kind of discussion when you think people who disagree with you are some sort of evil villains?

The truth is, we can't. And my intransigence didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened in response to the intolerance and nastiness of the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contempt for America is pretty self-explanatory. When liberals try to capitalize on a tragedy by attacking the Second Amendment, they show contempt for America. The entire healthcare bill is contempt for liberty, and anyone who supports it has contempt for America. When liberals throw their support behind public unions, they show contempt for America because they are supporting bribery with taxpayer money.

Right so anything a liberal does is contempt for America. :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:

After the Aurora shooting I saw as many or more people clamoring for easier access to guns so they could defend themselves than people shouting for more gun control, but I'm sure in your eyes those people aren't trying to capitalize on a tragedy because it's not a liberal stance. That is one of the most outrageous posts I've ever seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always assumed that the Boy Scouts' stance on homosexuals had more to do with the misconceived relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia than conservative/religious values. Before child molestation was synonymous with Catholic priests or Jerry Sandusky, it was Scout leaders. By disallowing homosexuals into their ranks, the Boy Scouts put to ease the simple minds of parents dumb enough to think all homosexuals are automatically attracted to young boys and will do inappropriate things to their children on camping trips.

It always seemed like a tragically misguided PR move thinly veiled as a conservative/religious thing to me.

Edited by DaneykoIsGod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always assumed that the Boy Scouts' stance on homosexuals had more to do with the misconceived relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia than conservative/religious values. Before child molestation was synonymous with Catholic priests or Jerry Sandusky, it was Scout leaders. By disallowing homosexuals into their ranks, the Boy Scouts put to ease the simple minds of parents dumb enough to think all homosexuals are automatically attracted to young boys and will do inappropriate things to their children on camping trips.

It was always seemed like a tragically misguided PR move thinly veiled as a conservative/religious thing to me.

Possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is, we can't. And my intransigence didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened in response to the intolerance and nastiness of the left.

Dude, it goes both ways. There are people like that in every political viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always assumed that the Boy Scouts' stance on homosexuals had more to do with the misconceived relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia than conservative/religious values. Before child molestation was synonymous with Catholic priests or Jerry Sandusky, it was Scout leaders. By disallowing homosexuals into their ranks, the Boy Scouts put to ease the simple minds of parents dumb enough to think all homosexuals are automatically attracted to young boys and will do inappropriate things to their children on camping trips.

It always seemed like a tragically misguided PR move thinly veiled as a conservative/religious thing to me.

Except they did it after the focus had already shifted to Catholic priests. I always thought it had more to do with appealing to Mormon leaders, because Mormons require all boys to become Eagle Scouts. Ironically, if this is the case, Mormons are becoming more flexible (more, not enough IMO) about homosexuality than Boy Scouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, it goes both ways. There are people like that in every political viewpoint.

I can admit that there is a political war in this country. The Democratic Party has demonstrated it is not interested one whit in abandoning identity politics, cutting entitlements and reducing government. (The Republicans have been awful on spending, too ... until the Tea Party came along to start cleaning house.) It's clear there will be no compromise with the Democrats, and there is NO EFFORT with the Democratic Party to change their big-government, race card-playing ways. So, what do we do? We fight. I'm in favor of destroying the Democratic Party. I see it as the best solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can admit that there is a political war in this country. The Democratic Party has demonstrated it is not interested one whit in abandoning identity politics, cutting entitlements and reducing government. (The Republicans have been awful on spending, too ... until the Tea Party came along to start cleaning house.) It's clear there will be no compromise with the Democrats, and there is NO EFFORT with the Democratic Party to change their big-government, race card-playing ways. So, what do we do? We fight. I'm in favor of destroying the Democratic Party. I see it as the best solution.

I don't support the Democrats either, but the Republicans aren't exactly the beacon of compromise considering they have tried to repeal the healthcare law 30-something times now.

You are the only person in this thread that has been vilifying the other side, you said liberals express contempt for America and the Constitution, and said things like duty to God and country, patriotism, and individualism are conservative values. Those aren't conservative values, they are just values that anyone can hold regardless of politics. Then you said your intransigence isn't your fault, it's because the left started it. You seem to be blind to the fallacies of the right while attributing everything that is negative to the left; you are almost as bad as Jimmy Leeds. You also never explained how supporting the healthcare law and public unions show contempt for America, I am looking forward to reading that gem.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't support the Democrats either, but the Republicans aren't exactly the beacon of compromise considering they have tried to repeal the healthcare law 30-something times now.

You are the only person in this thread that has been vilifying the other side, you said liberals express contempt for America and the Constitution, and said things like duty to God and country, patriotism, and individualism are conservative values. Those aren't conservative values, they are just values that anyone can hold regardless of politics. Then you said your intransigence isn't your fault, it's because the left started it. You seem to be blind to the fallacies of the right while attributing everything that is negative to the left; you are almost as bad as Jimmy Leeds. You also never explained how supporting the healthcare law and public unions show contempt for America, I am looking forward to reading that gem.

There was a time when I would spar with Jimmy Leeds ... until I came to figure out he was right about the destructive left in this country ... and the Democratic Party, which should probably change its name to Communist Lite!

It's not all the left's fault ... most of it is, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mouse, I respect your decision to do what you believe is right. I do, however, see why the Boy Scouts do not want to change its policy. It is a socially conservative organization, and it would like to stay that way. But the Boy Scouts is under enormous pressure to jump in the pool of gay politics, when it has no desire to be there, and has no desire to sexualize its organization. But the mainstream liberal media, as I see it, is ganging up on the Boy Scouts. I have not read ANY mainstream media story defending the Scouts' right to freedom of association. I find that disheartening.

I'll bet the Boy Scouts is looking at what has happened to the Girl Scouts, and it is very concerned. Girl Scouts has been sexualized, and it's inappropriate. The Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood are partners, and I know parents of preteen girls who are none too happy about it. In general, Girl Scouts has become a place for girls to be indoctrinated in liberal politics.

My opinion is that groups like the Boy Scouts and, since it's in the news, Chick-fil-a should keep to providing a service and stop making things political. It's retarded. When I buy fast food, I just want my fat filled meal, not to think about how eating my grease covered sh!t burger represents how I do or don't approve gay marriage, abortion, whatever. The Boy Scouts should just not care about whether people are gay or not. It should be a matter of sticking to their code. If they provide the same service as a straight person would, who the hell cares what they do in their own home? I seriously do not care in the least whether people have gay sex, smoke crack, or even cross dress if they do it on their own time and it doesn't affect them providing the service they are responsible for. These are all just people and if they can serve me food or teach a kid to be able to light a fire in the woods, or whatever, the way expected of anyone, I DO NOT GIVE A FLYING fvck what they do outside of that job.

Right so anything a liberal does is contempt for America. :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:

After the Aurora shooting I saw as many or more people clamoring for easier access to guns so they could defend themselves than people shouting for more gun control, but I'm sure in your eyes those people aren't trying to capitalize on a tragedy because it's not a liberal stance. That is one of the most outrageous posts I've ever seen.

You also gotta love that Colorado has ultra lax gun laws and the fact that those lax gun laws didn't result in the gunman being struck down without incident doesn't show that easy access provides ZERO aid in stopping crime, yet still people are spewing idiocy about how more guns=safer, lol. There's only been a myriad of studies that show less guns=less homocides/less crimes involving guns, but ya know, all those damn scientist are just backing up their secret lefty science agenda....

Edited by ATLL765

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is that groups like the Boy Scouts and, since it's in the news, Chick-fil-a should keep to providing a service and stop making things political. It's retarded. When I buy fast food, I just want my fat filled meal, not to think about how eating my grease covered sh!t burger represents how I do or don't approve gay marriage, abortion, whatever. The Boy Scouts should just not care about whether people are gay or not. It should be a matter of sticking to their code. If they provide the same service as a straight person would, who the hell cares what they do in their own home? I seriously do not care in the least whether people have gay sex, smoke crack, or even cross dress if they do it on their own time and it doesn't affect them providing the service they are responsible for. These are all just people and if they can serve me food or teach a kid to be able to light a fire in the woods, or whatever, the way expected of anyone, I DO NOT GIVE A FLYING fvck what they do outside of that job.

You also gotta love that Colorado has ultra lax gun laws and the fact that those lax gun laws didn't result in the gunman being struck down without incident doesn't show that easy access provides ZERO aid in stopping crime, yet still people are spewing idiocy about how more guns=safer, lol. There's only been a myriad of studies that show less guns=less homocides/less crimes involving guns, but ya know, all those damn scientist are just backing up their secret lefty science agenda....

IDK about you but I wouldn't want my kid be near a person who smokes crack, even if it is on their own time.

There is a study for everything.

One of my favorite pictures going around is one where a guy is holding a sign saying to the effect of "guns kill people." There is a guy standing next to him saying something to the effect of "If that's true then spoons made me fat."

Why cant we just chalk this up to a crazy lunatic going on a rampage? The guy in Norway where there are less guns and guns are illegal except for military and law enforcement didn't have much of a problem getting them on his rampage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IDK about you but I wouldn't want my kid be near a person who smokes crack, even if it is on their own time.

There is a study for everything.

One of my favorite pictures going around is one where a guy is holding a sign saying to the effect of "guns kill people." There is a guy standing next to him saying something to the effect of "If that's true then spoons made me fat."

Why cant we just chalk this up to a crazy lunatic going on a rampage? The guy in Norway where there are less guns and guns are illegal except for military and law enforcement didn't have much of a problem getting them on his rampage.

It's because it's not just about these freak events. You're right about how if someone really wants to go on a killing spree, guns or no guns, they can find a way to do it. The purpose is that if you have someone who is borderline, by having easy access to guns, you make it easy to kill. If it's harder to get guns, you provide a person who may be mentally ill or maybe just having a bad day, week, month, whatever, the time to seriously think about what they are doing. You also make it so a person has to really be committed in order to do something like this since they can't just walk into a store, buy a gun, walk out and start shooting.

I am in no way advocating that guns don't have a place in American society, I'm just saying, you don't need tactical weapons. It should be limited to weapons solely for hunting and possibly handguns that are limited by the amount of bullets it can carry, i.e. revolvers or maybe forcing manufacturers to provide clips that limit the number of bullets able to be carried in the gun so that it's enough to scare off an intruder, but not enough to kill a ton of people with. Like with a revolver, you have 6 shots, if you can't scare off an intruder with 6 shots, you're either a terrible shot or you were screwed anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because it's not just about these freak events. You're right about how if someone really wants to go on a killing spree, guns or no guns, they can find a way to do it. The purpose is that if you have someone who is borderline, by having easy access to guns, you make it easy to kill. If it's harder to get guns, you provide a person who may be mentally ill or maybe just having a bad day, week, month, whatever, the time to seriously think about what they are doing. You also make it so a person has to really be committed in order to do something like this since they can't just walk into a store, buy a gun, walk out and start shooting.

I am in no way advocating that guns don't have a place in American society, I'm just saying, you don't need tactical weapons. It should be limited to weapons solely for hunting and possibly handguns that are limited by the amount of bullets it can carry, i.e. revolvers or maybe forcing manufacturers to provide clips that limit the number of bullets able to be carried in the gun so that it's enough to scare off an intruder, but not enough to kill a ton of people with. Like with a revolver, you have 6 shots, if you can't scare off an intruder with 6 shots, you're either a terrible shot or you were screwed anyways.

I'll address your 2nd paragraph first by saying in general I agree with that. No need for heavy assault rifles to be sold to the general public.

As for the first part, even without easy access to handguns a person who is mentally ill will kill if left untreated and exposed to the public. My gf works in a mental health facility dealing mostly with addicitions, but she sometimes gets assigned a shift in the in-patient section where there are people who are seriously ill. I am talking about sociopaths, and sometimes potential and convicted rapists and murderers. She has told me many times that even taking a gun or weapon out of their hands if these people were in the general public they could easily kill another person who just happened to be walking the other way. By what I have heard about James Holmes, he is seriously mentally ill and even if he had either a knife or fists, someone was most likely going to get killed. What I am saying is that guns or no guns, James Holmes would be a killer no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Criminals will always have guns/weapons. Defend yourself. My link

Funny how these stories of people using guns to end a horrific situation rarely make the front page and in many times the news at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll address your 2nd paragraph first by saying in general I agree with that. No need for heavy assault rifles to be sold to the general public.

As for the first part, even without easy access to handguns a person who is mentally ill will kill if left untreated and exposed to the public. My gf works in a mental health facility dealing mostly with addicitions, but she sometimes gets assigned a shift in the in-patient section where there are people who are seriously ill. I am talking about sociopaths, and sometimes potential and convicted rapists and murderers. She has told me many times that even taking a gun or weapon out of their hands if these people were in the general public they could easily kill another person who just happened to be walking the other way. By what I have heard about James Holmes, he is seriously mentally ill and even if he had either a knife or fists, someone was most likely going to get killed. What I am saying is that guns or no guns, James Holmes would be a killer no matter what.

I understand that some crimes are not preventable and that usually includes crimes committed by seriously ill people. I'm not talking about that though. I'm talkjing about people who are on the edge of sanity and insanity. By limiting access to weaponry, you may dissuade someone from committing a crime by making it more difficult for them to purchase a weapon.

I mean, have you ever wanted to do something, but because you didn't have the time to do it or maybe learn to do it, you said "nah, forget it". This is the person I'm talking about when it comes to making guns harder to get. It's about having that person who is on the edge say, "nah, forget it" because getting a weapons would require too much time and maybe a check that would bring up a red flag if that person has a history of violence, mental issues, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that some crimes are not preventable and that usually includes crimes committed by seriously ill people. I'm not talking about that though. I'm talkjing about people who are on the edge of sanity and insanity. By limiting access to weaponry, you may dissuade someone from committing a crime by making it more difficult for them to purchase a weapon.

I mean, have you ever wanted to do something, but because you didn't have the time to do it or maybe learn to do it, you said "nah, forget it". This is the person I'm talking about when it comes to making guns harder to get. It's about having that person who is on the edge say, "nah, forget it" because getting a weapons would require too much time and maybe a check that would bring up a red flag if that person has a history of violence, mental issues, etc.

Usually when a guy snaps and starts killing people, they were not on the edge. They were already over it. If the person is stable, then he would always say nah, forget it. When a person is unstable he coule say nah, forget it 99 times out of 100, but that 1 time will prove he was never stable to begin with.

I am basing this off of what my gf has told and taught me over the past few years about her job. There are indeed a lot of gray areas but not as much as one would think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually when a guy snaps and starts killing people, they were not on the edge. They were already over it. If the person is stable, then he would always say nah, forget it. When a person is unstable he coule say nah, forget it 99 times out of 100, but that 1 time will prove he was never stable to begin with.

I am basing this off of what my gf has told and taught me over the past few years about her job. There are indeed a lot of gray areas but not as much as one would think.

You are telling me that there has never been a person to commit a "crime of passion"? Really? No person has ever committed a crime where if they had given themselves a bit of time to allow them to gain a bit of perspective on the situation, they would have been able to see that committing the crime is not the best choice? Come on, that's just silly.

I myself have been in similar situations. I didn't kill anyone, but I have been made to be so angry that I've broken a cell phone before and then soon afterwards said to myself, "that was dumb". Has something like that ever happened to you? If so, do you see how providing time between when you want to do something and when you can actually do it can provide a person with the necessary perspective to make the better decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are telling me that there has never been a person to commit a "crime of passion"? Really? No person has ever committed a crime where if they had given themselves a bit of time to allow them to gain a bit of perspective on the situation, they would have been able to see that committing the crime is not the best choice? Come on, that's just silly.

I myself have been in similar situations. I didn't kill anyone, but I have been made to be so angry that I've broken a cell phone before and then soon afterwards said to myself, "that was dumb". Has something like that ever happened to you? If so, do you see how providing time between when you want to do something and when you can actually do it can provide a person with the necessary perspective to make the better decision?

In the professional psychiatric world there are still arguments about whether crimes of passion are indeed real or not something made up by defense lawyers to get their clients off the hook. It's your responsibility to put your feelings in check and let the proper authorities take care of it. If you commit a crime of passion while it is understandable you still let your feelings and emotions get the best of you which a lot of times are signs of a deranged or mentally unstable person.

To put it in persoective, most of the psychiatric community reject the notion of temporary insanity. You are either mentally ill, recovering, or stable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0