FOS just got needier?

[Jarid in Cedar]

I would like to meet these handsome devils, though.

So you could consummate your man love?

[wuapinmon]

Oh look, Wuap graced this board with another of his 21,000+ posts. Let's look back on some of the highlights from his years of composition. There was that one... about something... or another...

...hmm, sorry I got nothing.

Based on the tone of the bad seed you've spilt around here, it would appear that you're not going to last long in these parts. On an average day, you seem to want nothing more than to offend and draw attention to yourself. But, thy rod and thy staff bring little comfort to anyone besides the hand that cradles them. Your words, sophomoric on a good day, are often the product of a mind more concerned about appearance than substance. You make no attempt to substantiate anything that you say; you make ad hominem attacks almost gleefully, and you seem intent on driving home the notion that you're a big dick around here.

I'd venture that your days here are numbered. But, your survival thus far is somewhat of a miracle and I'm a little impressed by you; you've got so little to work with, but, out of 400,000,000 sperm, you were the fastest. You did something right to make it to this mortal realm, but there still something missing. Sometimes I see hope in your writing, but then you squander it by retreading flawed ideologies. You leave little doubt about your intellectual faculties and so, while you may write like an idiot and think like an idiot, that doesn't distract us from the fact that you really are an idiot.

[il Padrino Ute]

Exie is coming more forcefully than his prior incarnations. Stupid, still.

Hey how's your residency going, Exie/Hallelujah/BK?

I'm telling you, Blitz ain't exie. exie wasn't this smart.

[Northwestcoug]

Very good Wuap! Yes I am the fastest sperm to compete for the egg of Giselle, and like Tom Brady and his two girlfriends, no defense can stop my advance. Further, the evolution of this CUF is happening before your eyes. The fish here have been swimming contentedly back and forth in the prehistoric brine, oblivious to the fact that Blitzkrieg just sprouted legs, strode onto land, and made the tired old dogs obsolete. This new species isn't interested in befriending the fish so much as eating them to make way for his kind to colonize the world.

Your talents are needed elsewhere:

http://www.jimrome.com/

[Harry Tic]

Based on the tone of the bad seed you've spilt around here, it would appear that you're not going to last long in these parts. On an average day, you seem to want nothing more than to offend and draw attention to yourself. But, thy rod and thy staff bring little comfort to anyone besides the hand that cradles them. Your words, sophomoric on a good day, are often the product of a mind more concerned about appearance than substance. You make no attempt to substantiate anything that you say; you make ad hominem attacks almost gleefully, and you seem intent on driving home the notion that you're a big dick around here.

I'd venture that your days here are numbered. But, your survival thus far is somewhat of a miracle and I'm a little impressed by you; you've got so little to work with, but, out of 400,000,000 sperm, you were the fastest. You did something right to make it to this mortal realm, but there still something missing. Sometimes I see hope in your writing, but then you squander it by retreading flawed ideologies. You leave little doubt about your intellectual faculties and so, while you may write like an idiot and think like an idiot, that doesn't distract us from the fact that you really are an idiot.

Wuap, this is masterful. But I'm beginning to learn that there is little point in calling Blitzkrieg's attention to his own idiocy. His preening about his supremacy on this board reminds me of a guy with a severe bowel control problem who marvels at the fact that he never fails to get a seat all to himself on the bus. This thread is a case in point.

[Solon]

I know it's hard for you to imagine, but you're not as smart as you think you are, and even though you have your mind made up on an issue, there may be legitimate arguments on both sides. This is one of them. People like you who are convinced you are smarter and more enlightened than everyone else (not uncommon here) think everyone who doesn't agree with you is either less intelligent, a bigoted redneck, or both. While I may be less intelligent, I'm not a bigoted redneck, which is what you are insisting I must be if I am raising questions about an issue you feel so strongly is cut and dried.

Look, I'll break this down and make it simple for you, and since you've chosen to be a prick about it, I'll return the favor. It's like you swallowed that last bit of pie too hard, the force turned you inside out, and you became a walking asshole.

As much as you wish it did, my question has nothing to do with catching the gay. It's simply this: If we don't send teens on camp outs with leaders of the opposite sex then why is sending teens who may be gay on camp outs with gay leaders any less of a concern? Also, while this may be hard for even your enlightened Mensa-qualified intellect to grasp, this isn't about thinking gay people are all pedophiles. A 22-year-old developing a relationship with a mature 16 or 17 year old may be unwise, but he is neither deviant nor a pedophile.

You're making this entirely too personal.

I'm not sure what good it does to call me a prick and an asshole, to accuse me of close-mindedness, or of having an overinflated sense of my own intelligence. But hey, knock yourself out. I haven't and won't stoop to calling you names in return. Besides, you're one of CUF's most beloved, and you don't come across as very good at being snarky and mean.

I stand by my assertion. This argument isn't really about protecting kids. Everyone wants to protect kids.

It's about recognizing the legitimacy of homosexuality.

I know plenty of people who don't want to recognize homosexuality as legitimate. I respect their opinions, especially when they ground them in religion or custom instead of junk science or overgeneralizations.

I do see your point-of-view, and I am sensitive to the worries about having homosexual males supervise teenage males in an isolated and intimate environment. However, I think these potential situations are only superficially different from the situations our young people face all the time with regards to coaches, teachers, church-leaders, and other persons of authority. With adequate safeguards and vigilance, I hope we can keep our children safe from predators regardless of sexual orientation.

Peace, cowboy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I can't believe anyone is still responding to this clown.

bump.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You're making this entirely too personal.

I'm not sure what good it does to call me a prick and an asshole, to accuse me of close-mindedness, or of having an overinflated sense of my own intelligence. But hey, knock yourself out. I haven't and won't stoop to calling you names in return. Besides, you're one of CUF's most beloved, and you don't come across as very good at being snarky and mean.

I stand by my assertion. This argument isn't really about protecting kids. Everyone wants to protect kids.

It's about recognizing the legitimacy of homosexuality.

I know plenty of people who don't want to recognize homosexuality as legitimate. I respect their opinions, especially when they ground them in religion or custom instead of junk science or overgeneralizations.

I do see your point-of-view, and I am sensitive to the worries about having homosexual males supervise teenage males in an isolated and intimate environment. However, I think these potential situations are only superficially different from the situations our young people face all the time with regards to coaches, teachers, church-leaders, and other persons of authority. With adequate safeguards and vigilance, I hope we can keep our children safe from predators regardless of sexual orientation.

Peace, cowboy.

Well said.

Here is my final take on the debate: I think any time you set up a leadership situation where you are relying on the publicly stated sexual orientation of the leaders(s) in question as a safeguard against abuse, you are doing it all wrong. You simply cannot make that your line of defense. Rather, you have to institute procedural safeguards consisting of carefully designed management strategies and deep parental involvement; the most important key being redundant leadership. One of the examples people keep making here is a week-long campout in the back country. Forget about two-deep, any unit who engages in an extreme activity like this with less than 4-6 leaders would be crazy. As a parent, if your unit is engaging in long activities where there is only minimal leadership coverage, don't allow your kid to participate. Period. And again, far and away the greatest risk is the pedophile, all of which operate under the radar.

Banning gays from participating as scouts and leaders would not be an effective way to eliminate abuse and it simply promotes homophobia and institutional discrimination. And as I said before, this is all a moot point because the BSA has never made this argument as a justification for the ban on gays.

[Harry Tic]

Well said.

Here is my final take on the debate: I think any time you set up a leadership situation where you are relying on the publicly stated sexual orientation of the leaders(s) in question as a safeguard against abuse, you are doing it all wrong. You simply cannot make that your line of defense. Rather, you have to institute procedural safeguards consisting of carefully designed management strategies and deep parental involvement; the most important key being redundant leadership. One of the examples people keep making here is a week-long campout in the back country. Forget about two-deep, any unit who engages in an extreme activity like this with less than 4-6 leaders would be crazy. As a parent, if your unit is engaging in long activities where there is only minimal leadership coverage, don't allow your kid to participate. Period. And again, far and away the greatest risk is the pedophile, all of which operate under the radar.

Banning gays from participating as scouts and leaders would not be an effective way to eliminate abuse and it simply promotes homophobia and institutional discrimination. And as I said before, this is all a moot point because the BSA has never made this argument as a justification for the ban on gays.

I could get on board with this. Does anybody know just how the BSA has attempted to justify the ban?

[Harry Tic]

I could get on board with this. Does anybody know just how the BSA has attempted to justify the ban?

Even as I posted that question, I couldn't help but think there are lots of other reasons to question FOS. Maybe it's time for a change of scenery.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I could get on board with this. Does anybody know just how the BSA has attempted to justify the ban?

They don't think it is consistent with being "morally straight".

[The_Douger]

They don't think it is consistent with being "morally straight".

Well, the ban isn't exactly kind, brave, loyal, or trustworthy either.

[The_Douger]

You have no idea wtf you're talking about.

[Harry Tic]

Does anybody remember that dude that used to post here with the Ronald Reagan postage stamp avatar? Not Colly Wolly, some other dude who tried desperately to stir the pot and beg people to pay attention to him. Whatever happened to that guy? Can't say that I'm sorry to see he's gone.

[The_Douger]

Think this through for a moment Douger. Do you really think the drive to "recognize the legitimacy of homosexuality" stops with gay troop leaders, or gay marriage? It doesn't, if given free reign, any religion that doesn't modify its doctrine and practice to eradicate any association between homosexuality and "sin" will likely lose its tax exempt status, be labeled as an organization that promotes "institutional discrimination", and driven into obscurity through whatever legal or other means available. The idea of freedom of religion and recognizing the "legitimacy of homosexuality" are incompatible concepts 100% of the time, so we might as well just draw the line here with the BSA.

If you say so, Chicken Little.