• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boy Scouts vote to welcome gay members

Henrin said:
So your argument is not one of reason, but simply one of appealing to authority? Would you like to try something that isn't a fallacy?

Perhaps you would like to argue against my logic with logic of your own?
Click to expand...

When it comes to determining what the law is, appeals to authority are legitimate and not fallacious as long as the authority is a legitimate one
 
Meh. About the only folks facing this are those parents deciding whether to let their eight year old go on that scout camping trip with the Eagle Scouts. With the large exodus in scouting the last couple decades I don't know if this will hurt or help their membership.
 
clownboy said:
Meh. About the only folks facing this are those parents deciding whether to let their eight year old go on that scout camping trip with the Eagle Scouts. With the large exodus in scouting the last couple decades I don't know if this will hurt or help their membership.
Click to expand...

It was Conservatives who launched a kulturkampf.......................
 
Lutherf said:
If you mean the scout master who is supposed to be teaching the fundamental principles of the oath then yes, him.

If the kid hadn't done anything overt to express his sexual preference then it was the other kids that were creating the problem and that's unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Many of these kids got kicked out because they mentioned their "preference" outside of the scouts, such as in school or maybe a picture or story of them in the news that showed them as gay or with a boyfriend, instead of a girlfriend. It didn't even have to be about them being gay, just mentioned and they were kicked out for it.
 
Dapper Andy said:
That's clearly not what I said.

The BSA is generally a more conservative organization whereas homosexuals are generally an ultra liberal demographic group.

Homosexuals, particularly young homosexuals, are probably the most liberal demographic there is.

Part of what makes scouting so appealing to the conservatives that have made up the organization for generations is the belief that hard work and dedication is the route to success. Right or wrong, this is a belief liberals tend to reject. They tend to see success as being the result of the proper skin pigmentation and how wealthy one's parents are. I'm not against letting gays into scouts but I wonder how long before the requirements to become an Eagle Scout are modified because it is suddenly culturally biased or single parent households can't take time off to do all the activities.
Click to expand...

Actually, I saw something just recently that said that most young gay men were libertarians, not liberals.
 
Part of the problem modern Consevatives face is there is no space for them to change their minds on their stance on gays. There is no place for them even if they could...........................
 
Dapper Andy said:
The BSA is generally a more conservative organization whereas homosexuals are generally an ultra liberal demographic group.
Click to expand...

Might have something to do with how conservatives treat homosexuals. There's nothing about being queer that intrinsically makes a man liberal.
 
Lutherf said:
When the hell will we get past this idiocy of having to embrace every damned proclivity a person might have? There have been gays in the BSA probably forever. I don't recall ever seeing "gender identity and/or sexual preference" on any of the applications. If you were in the scouts and you were gay and you kept it to yourself then there never was a problem. If, however, you decided to make it an issue then you were being disruptive and you were out. The same applied to people who made their religion an issue or made their ethnicity an issue.

When I was in the service it was the same way. I can't imagine that some percentage of the guys I served with weren't gay but they didn't make it an issue so it wasn't a problem. What counts is what you do with your life and how you conduct yourself, not your damned "gender identity". That's your own personal thing to deal with and I don't need to know about it.

Why the hell should I have to respect you just because you're queer? What makes you so damned special that you can just circumvent all the other crap that goes into EARNING respect?

This wasn't a courageous decision by the scouts. It was acquiescing to popular opinion. This wasn't loyalty to ones principles. It was utter abandonment of those principles.
Click to expand...

Why the hell should I respect ignorant fools like you?
 
Dapper Andy said:
I'm not so much against gays being admitted as I am allowing an ultra liberal demographic into a conservative organization.

I'm glad that the scouts made the decision on their own but I wonder how long until the experience is ruined by political correctness. It almost seems inevitable that hard work and achievement will give way to quotas and an "everyone needs to be an Eagle Scout" mentality.
Click to expand...

So everyone gay is ultra liberal and conservatives ****ting on them, for example until today the BSA, has nothing to do with that? Kids aren't born with a political lean.
 
sangha said:
When it comes to determining what the law is, appeals to authority are legitimate and not fallacious as long as the authority is a legitimate one
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but without any sort of argument defending any sort of ruling all you're doing is wasting time.
 
sangha said:
When it comes to determining what the law is, appeals to authority are legitimate and not fallacious as long as the authority is a legitimate one
Click to expand...

And that is precisely why an Appeal To Authority is fallacious...because it begs the question....
 
csense said:
And that is precisely why an Appeal To Authority is fallacious...because it begs the question....
Click to expand...

depends what type f argument you are making. If it's how the law *should* be interpreted, then yes, appealing to current interpretations leaves something to be desired. If you're arguing about current interpretations and application of that law, then clearly appealing to such authority is more than applicable in such circumstances. because they are the one's who establish such
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
depends what type f argument you are making. If it's how the law *should* be interpreted, then yes, appealing to current interpretations leaves something to be desired. If you're arguing about current interpretations and application of that law, then clearly appealing to such authority is more than applicable in such circumstances. because they are the one's who establish such
Click to expand...

And particularly when their (ie the Judiciary) authority derives from a document that is considered to legitimately bestow upon them the authority to make such determinations.

IOW, if you accept the legitimacy of the Constitution as a vehicle representing the will of the people, then accepting the Court's decision is a legitimate and non-fallacious appeal to authority. If you don't accept the legitimacy of the constitution, then one should not quote the constitutional provisions such as it's guarantee to protect people's right to freely associate.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
depends what type f argument you are making. If it's how the law *should* be interpreted, then yes, appealing to current interpretations leaves something to be desired. If you're arguing about current interpretations and application of that law, then clearly appealing to such authority is more than applicable in such circumstances. because they are the one's who establish such
Click to expand...


I'm not exactly clear how you can divorce application from interpretation, unless your point here is the use of citing facts, which isn't an argument per se. I'm not sure why you seem to think that there is consensus on the application of any given law, and without such consensus, an appeal to authority, again, begs the question.
 
Bonzai said:
What were you complaining about, if I can ask ?......................
Click to expand...

People are constantly crying about discrimination when it comes to private property or in the affairs of everyday life, but if you were to look at the three things I listed it becomes clear it must be allowed or otherwise you breach all three.

The government can not force you to allow people on your property or else their violating your right to property
The government can not force you to associate with people or else their violating your right to association
The government can not force you to provide service to someone or else they are placing you in servitude against your will for the benefit of someone else and breaching the 13th amendment for the reason of involuntary servitude.

For these reasons the government can not act on discrimination in business or in the everyday affairs of people.
 
Last edited:
Van Basten said:
Long as they decided for themselves and didn't do it simply because of social pressure. They had all right to ban gays, but one more step for equality, right?

Now, I don't have to hear about this again. Lovely, we can move on.
Click to expand...

They had a right to ban gays, but they are also a organization looking for members to continue their operations which makes social pressure an important factor in their membership. Unlike a discriminatory group who exists for the purpose of promoting discrimination they are an entertainment group that is there for the betterment of the lives of the members. The reality is life is more fun for the members when they have more people to participate with in their recreational activities and more donations. They are a group made for having fun not for promoting a political or social ideal, and that is why social pressure is relevant for them.
 
Henrin said:
The government can not force you to provide service to someone or else they are placing you in servitude against your will for the benefit of someone else and breaching the 13th amendment for the reason of involuntary servitude.

For these reasons the government can not act on discrimination in business or in the everyday affairs of people.
Click to expand...

There are certain areas of necessity where the government needs to step in or else they create an environment where white privilege becomes a huge problem. Things like discriminatory land sales, discriminatory sales of fodd to black people, discriminatory hiring practices, and things that deny a necessity based on prejudice are increadibly harmful to minorities. I use black people as an example but you could put hispanics, gays, women, or certain religious groups within this. I am all up for private clubs who operate on voluntary and non-necessary membership to be allowed to discriminate.

I would even be up for a small number of segregated communities to operate. I havce seen a reason for things like restricted elderly communities, and even communities where strict religious beliefs are help by it's voluntary membership. I lived in NY and there were a few orthodox jewish communities and i could see why the orthodox members might want to live in seclusion. But I think over all that those communities should be in areas where they do not restrict property ownership because it is needed for minorities. For example a jewish community in a city would put stress on the other non-jewish people because they take up finite resources of housing and land. But if you put it out in some less populated areas with tons of land resources I have no problem with it. I just used jewish and elderly communities because I have seen them do fine in places like the northeast and Florida.

In essence the US has shown that when allowed overwhelming practices of prejudice by private business cause massive disparities in diversity and wealth opportunities for minorities and harm the community. They create a power structure that becomes monopolized by the prejudiced factions and that simply cannot be allowed in a country that values opportunity for all. We had that freedom for a time and we showed that it damages peoples lives on a massive scale when allowed to operate unchecked. Don't blame the government because people cannot operate in a moral and ethical manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom