• 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!

Parents outraged that Hooters sponsored Cub Scouts

nota bene said:
Well, somebody had to say that.

And somebody has to take the 'typical mom" view. I wouldn't be happy if my cub scout's picture was on a Hooter's FB.

And whose great idea was it to have a Hooters sponsor this troop event anyway?
Click to expand...

Look at it this way, those cubs got their tent pitching badges sooner rather than later. :2razz:
 
Sigh, that's just it, of course. Whether they're boys or girls, I just wish 7-10-year olds could just be kids doing kid things and thinking kid thoughts. We're talking about second to fourth-graders here.
 
nota bene said:
Sigh, that's just it, of course. Whether they're boys or girls, I just wish 7-10-year olds could just be kids doing kid things and thinking kid thoughts. We're talking about second to fourth-graders here.
Click to expand...

and why does a h00ters sponsorship prevent them from just being normal 7-10 year old kids
 
PoS said:
Parents outraged that Hooters sponsored Cub Scouts | abc13.com


Gee lady, it sure beats having your son sponsored by the Chippendales, right? :2razz:
Click to expand...

It's so ridiculous how uptight our society is when it come to sexuality and nudity. Roughly half the population has boobs, it's not all that exciting. Just about everyone has sex, it's a natural (and fun!) part of being human. Yet we have no problem with violence.
 
Groogrux said:
It's so ridiculous how uptight our society is when it come to sexuality and nudity. Roughly half the population has boobs, it's not all that exciting. Just about everyone has sex, it's a natural (and fun!) part of being human. Yet we have no problem with violence.
Click to expand...
Actually, just about everyone has boobs. ;)
 
I thought that sponsoring meant to give money to someone to do an activity,, I seriously doubt that Hooter girls are showing up at meetings to serve cookies and milk, Or showing up at the camp site to tuck them all in at night,, I would venture to guess that most (if not all) of those scouts, while in the scout uniform, will never see a hooters girl.

djl
 
justabubba said:
appears my point was sound given the absence of any valid rebuttal

maybe i view this issue personally, having been a scout leader. it was those parents who were not involved in the scouting program who wanted to be critical about the actions of those parents who were active and supportive
Click to expand...

You point is invalidated by the fact that you based your post on a completely false assumption that she should have known about an event not in her area, or had a reasonable opportunity to donate. But then this is typical for you.
 
American said:
You point is invalidated by the fact that you based your post on a completely false assumption that she should have known about an event not in her area, or had a reasonable opportunity to donate. But then this is typical for you.
Click to expand...
as is typical of you, you inserted the wrong post. here is the one that ties to your argument:
justabubba said:
the person charged with finding a donor willing to underwrite the pack's activities


suspect (s)he would have accepted your donation instead had you stepped forward instead of h00ters
Click to expand...
and as usual, you are wrong
her "area" is unknown
but donations are not limited to those prospective donors in a given "area", even had the forum member's "area" been known
the point was that the person(s) critical of the scouts accepting the h00ters donation could have stepped forward to supplant that offered by h00ters
they did not and h00ters funded the scouting activity

now, i AM assuming that but for the h00ters donation the scouts would have been denied that scouting experience. again, assuming if the funds were otherwise available the h00ters donation would not need to have been solicited

and i disagree with those who appear to prefer the scouts be denied a scouting activity only because h00ters was the donor that facilitated that scouting experience
 
justabubba said:
as is typical of you, you inserted the wrong post. here is the one that ties to your argument:

and as usual, you are wrong
her "area" is unknown
but donations are not limited to those prospective donors in a given "area", even had the forum member's "area" been known
the point was that the person(s) critical of the scouts accepting the h00ters donation could have stepped forward to supplant that offered by h00ters
they did not and h00ters funded the scouting activity

now, i AM assuming that but for the h00ters donation the scouts would have been denied that scouting experience. again, assuming if the funds were otherwise available the h00ters donation would not need to have been solicited

and i disagree with those who appear to prefer the scouts be denied a scouting activity only because h00ters was the donor that facilitated that scouting experience
Click to expand...

She would first have to know about the event to have the opportunity to donate, SOMETHING YOU CAN'T PROVE.
 
American said:
She would first have to know about the event to have the opportunity to donate, SOMETHING YOU CAN'T PROVE.
Click to expand...

i don't need to prove it
i doubt she had any inclination to donate to the scouts for this event
but she was critical of the scouts' use of h00ters' donation to make this event possible
which caused me to observe that she could have eliminated h00ters' involvement by replacing its donation with her own
which is a fact
 
justabubba said:
i don't need to prove it
i doubt she had any inclination to donate to the scouts for this event
but she was critical of the scouts' use of h00ters' donation to make this event possible
which caused me to observe that she could have eliminated h00ters' involvement by replacing its donation with her own
which is a fact
Click to expand...

Doesn't justify your statement at all.
 
nota bene said:
Sigh, that's just it, of course. Whether they're boys or girls, I just wish 7-10-year olds could just be kids doing kid things and thinking kid thoughts. We're talking about second to fourth-graders here.
Click to expand...

Kids go to hooters and think about the food and maybe owls that's it. I had my son at hooters with a bib that said "I ❤️ boobies" when he was about 5 months old. I'm willing to bet even at 8 he wouldn't understand the humor of that without someone explaining it to him. The kids, even boys really don't know that some of their parents would find it wrong that this particular place was inappropriate to sponsor them (which I don't agree with). How would it be anymore inappropriate than a fast food place that advertises crappy food specifically to children?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
With all due respect, if you have to ask this question--if you're trying to compare a McDonald's to a Hooter's--I don't think any answer I gave would make sense to you.
 
i dont see the big deal

the scouts got their trip....which is the important thing in my mind

if their troopmaster had to resort to asking hooters for money to make that happen....i say wtg troopmaster

not as if the hooters waitresses were chaperoning....

geez people....lighten up....this is NOT a major issue
 
No, it's just a thread on this board. Maybe I've missed something--was the scoutmaster so desperate that Hooters was the only choice. I kind of doubt that.

But I don't understand the casual well, the pack got the money, so who cares where it's from notion either. Would everybody be okay if the local adult bookstore or head shop sponsored a team or troop of Scouts?
 
Hooters didnt do anything inappropriate, it wasnt like the girls were walking around topless or doing a striptease- they all wore jackets and did it for a good cause. I think its a storm in a teacup.

7rnozEW.jpg
 
Van Basten said:
A ten year old boy is at that stage where he begins to think on such things.

Puberty can start as early as nine.

Also, I can speak from experience as a former ten year old boy.

In all seriousness though, I agree that this was very inappropriate.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. Erring on the side of caution is never a big mistake. Pushing boys into uncomfortable circumstances has the potential for less than positive outcomes. Kids seem to be forced to grow up too fast these days as evidenced by Jon Benet Ramsey, et al. At Cub age, boys are beginning to realize their maleness but they are not swept overboard by it. I believe that they should be allowed to grow and mature a little like a good California Cabernet. They'll find girls in the fullness of time and the less their view of the female of the species is skewed, the better they will assimilate. It would be easy for a misdirected boy at see a Hooters employee as an object. I don't think that would be healthy.
 
nota bene said:
With all due respect, if you have to ask this question--if you're trying to compare a McDonald's to a Hooter's--I don't think any answer I gave would make sense to you.
Click to expand...

Hooters servers aren't naked. Many camps you might send your children to have lifeguards and even staff in equivalent or less attire than hooters employees. What exactly do you imagine the kids are seeing? Unless the kids are taught to objectify women at a very young age (cub scouts are under ten years old), they wouldn't even notice.

And while Hooters might be tacky, McDonalds goes out of their way to market highly unhealthy food to children. I find that to be much more harmful for children than having workers with their breasts accentuated, or in revealing attire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
nota bene said:
No, it's just a thread on this board. Maybe I've missed something--was the scoutmaster so desperate that Hooters was the only choice. I kind of doubt that.

But I don't understand the casual well, the pack got the money, so who cares where it's from notion either. Would everybody be okay if the local adult bookstore or head shop sponsored a team or troop of Scouts?
Click to expand...

As long as neither of those places actually brought their products to the boys why not?

One of my favorite movies is Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. The Chicken Ranch was one of the biggest sponsors in town of the little league team. What's the big deal? Sponsors shouldn't push their products onto any organization they donate to and volunteers should all be watched to ensure they are acting appropriately around children, but none of that has anything to do with the reactions here. The reaction is purely about complaints on where the money to sponsor an event or organization comes from because some don't approve with some aspect of the company giving the money when that aspect has nothing to do with the donation or work donated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
radcen said:
See, it's kind of misleading anyway. I've been a few times, and the girls almost never really have big hooters. :2razz:
Click to expand...

Only if they called it "Big Hooters." :)

On the OP. BFD. Not like the girls were naked or giving the kids hummers. Somebody stepped up and helped pay for the thing. Don't like them - don't take their money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom