On this we agree fully.
Glad to hear it. This is the thing I love about BLF. We can have these discussions randomly whenever it comes up and everyone is mature about it. :)
You don’t see the inherent inconsistency with these two statements?
You find the BSA discrimination objectionable, but feel that discrimination by minorities against majorities are fine. This is what I meant about not knowing where your True North lies.
Scaru, are you a “young kid”? I mean relative to me (middle aged).
Well, it’s really just you and me at this point.LOL!
I know where I stand on different issues, however when I say "situational ethics" I am talking about deciding something on the fly like when one has to decide whether to give money to the homeless man on the corner. On the larger issues (e.g. gay rights, sexism, discrimination, 2nd amendment) I know exactly where I stand. However, I will admit it is inconsistent.
Relative to you then yes I am a "young kid".
In society today there exists an argument over the morality of a gay/lesbian lifestyle. I happen to come down on the side of the individual. I believe in human rights and that however differently we are put together we should all enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities and that each of us has the responsibility to speak out against injustice. I enjoyed my time in the BSA and though in my view it has a flaw in its charter it still has much to commend it. How to work together to achieve a common goal and learning the skills necessary along with learning how to learn something new. Don’t quit when it’s hard. Keep your promises. Help each other. Do the things that need doing for their own sake and not for personal gain. Leadership is not about telling someone else what to do or how to think. We are all on point for our own lives/honors/souls. I agree that the BSA has the right to be as they are. I disagree with the stance on gays that leads to their exclusion.
Well-put, Rufus.
Yep.
It amazes me how some can get totally off topic and then keep going and going.
Give it a break and stick with what this thread was about.
Can you recognize a drowning victim?
That’s the topic at hand.
Im not sure why you say that. Everyone remained perfectly civil through out the discussion.
Your missing the whole point of what I said and the purpose of this thread. I made one post earlier about my experience since I was almost a victim. That was on topic.
I realize that there is such a thing as “forum etiquette”, but in real life, conversations are not all about a narrow single topic. After all this time, I can not wrap my mind around the fact that some people can’t let threads take their natural course. If all the same members participated in a face to face, tragic discussion of drowning, odds are we would eventually move to other topics and/or go off on tangents. It’s how humans communicate.
Anyone who comes to this thread in the future will get plenty of water safety before the get to any other stuff. I just don’t see the harm that was done. This thread was up for a long time before the change of topic. If anyone was interested, they would have already commented. But if the OP shows up, I will apologize to him personally. I might even have my wife bake him a cake.
He’s 5? where is the adult supervision? Or if not did he have siblings or friends swimming in it too? I find it hard to believe other kids would let 1 kid drown.
Reminds me of that question. Does ADHD kids know he’s lost in the woods?
They are saying now that the lifeguard was involved in a rescue when the drowning occurred and no one noticed because attention was focused elsewhere. The pond itself isn’t very big and I guess the church that the Vaughan family belongs to was having some type of gathering, so there should have been plenty of adults to look after the young one.
One can only speculate as to why the parents were not more vigilant. But the truth is it only takes a moment for something bad to happen.
It wasn’t clear in the paper, but I heard that they initially thought it was a child abduction/missing person issue because there is a fairly well used rail trail that runs along the edge of the park. Plus, there is a main road on the other side of the park. While something like that is always a possibility, I would have still thought “water” once the child was no where to be found.
It’s horrible to even think the thought, but another family member (of mine, not the Vaughans) suggested that one of the older kids could have been horsing around (dunking and what not) and may have inadvertently held the little one down a little too long, then panicked and didn’t say anything to any of the adults.
It’s really just a horrible tragedy all the way around, no doubt about it. Mother nature is always unforgiving even when you think there is no danger.
While you are here, feilox, do you have any thoughts on our ancillary topic, the BSA?
- I thought that was you.
- Not long after I joined the forum I posted a question on the etiquette of off topic posting and was informed that as long as the OP was cool its no big deal. Since the OP was one of those drifting it becomes more conversational and less rigorous. There were no distasteful jokes and each post had relevance to those that preceded it. A good part of the attraction of this forum for me is the informality and lack of rigid adherence to mindless rules. Members are depended on to decide for themselves what is appropriate. Have respect for the topic and the OP and think first but don’t get too worried about it.
- I personally have numerous times decided not to save a post I had written because I was not satisfied with what I had written.
Identified pedophiles are already excluded . . . unfortunately, even with that exclusion kids are still being abused by some who advocate or otherwise support man/boy love . as CX pointed out.
Accepting your assertion as truth does nothing to protect those children, however. Protection today trumps everyone’s feelings . . whether it be a gay volunteer or a professed straight man who argues for trusting him alone with these young people (which unfortunately also happens).
The problem is one of trust . . I personally don’t trust any man as being alone with young kids . . they should not want that for their own safety. I’m simply not willing - on this issue - to trust the judgement of someone who puts general rights above the specific kids’ safety, whatever their other private beliefs. It’s hard enough for me to trust two other men I know to chaperon each other and the kids, so arguing for the general rights of men I don’t know with a wildly different world outlook over the safety of my progeny is spitting in the wind.
Cone handled the logic problem in your stance . . I see your stance as more hypocritical and intolerant. If you tolerate and respect others, you don’t label them as homophobic so that they push your agenda. A perfect example of how gay rights beliefs are antithetical to the BSA purpose. The parents of the youth have the responsibility of raising them regarding sexual mores, not the BSA.
It is me, that’s what makes it funny! :nerd_face:
what’s that? and why is everybody so worked up? This topic kinda reminds me of, “Do ADHD child get lost in woods?”
Are you saying, “we can’t see the forest for the trees”?