KCitons
Footballguy
If I am reading this correctly, you would let your kids join Scouts?
I understand the word bigot. I understand the word tolerance. And I understand displaced anger.
You are calling all Boy Scouts bigots.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Lockheed Martin cuts $ to BSA for anti-gay/atheist rules. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Wilfredo Ledezma
- Start date
I understand the word bigot. I understand the word tolerance. And I understand displaced anger.
You are calling all Boy Scouts bigots.
KCitons
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Wrong again. Please direct me to anywhere that even points to me slightly even implying that all scouts are bigots. Please, enlighten me.
KCitons
Footballguy
Not buying a Christmas tree from a Scout. Regardless of the Scouts stance on gay leaders. That same scout may spend 11 months out of the year fighting against the BSA, and one month selling Christmas trees to raise money for a local orphanage or a so that he may attend camp. Yet there are those that choose to define a person based one months work and not the other eleven.
Aren't you classifying every Scout as being against gay leaders when you refuse to buy the tree? Doesn't that define you as a bigot?
Since I am involved in Scouts, are you saying that I am against gay leaders? When in fact, I said I am not
fatness
Footballguy
You seem worked up.
And your crack baby analogy has an eerie, surreal quality, like when you're on vacation in another city and "Jeopardy" comes on at 7 p.m. instead of 7:30.
It glistens in the rain like nose hair after a sneeze.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
None of that comes close to implying that I think all scouts are bigots. Not even close.
fatness
Footballguy
"Not buying a Christmas tree from the big lot where the Boy Scouts and their leaders sell Christmas trees each year" is the accurate description. They don't have individual scouts carry trees around door to door selling them here. Perhaps they do on your planet.
Unless they change their policy I won't buy from them next year either. So try pacing your apoplexy. Maybe you could spend the year trying to persuade BSA leaders to stop shortchanging their scouts in favor of a culture war.
KCitons
Footballguy
Not at all. Intolerant people are just a fact of life.
It's not Jeopardy. It's Wheel of Fortune or Judge Wapner. You can't get anything right.
KCitons
Footballguy
OK, if you say so. You might think so, but others reading your comments would disagree.
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
I don't understand this one at all. Plenty of people don't buy Christmas trees from Boy Scouts.
KCitons
Footballguy
Then you can say for certain that the tree lot is funding the entire BSA? How do you know this? Did you ask? Do you have a link?
Perhaps I am trying to persuade the BSA to change there stance. What have you done to progress the situation. Oh, that's right, you chose not to buy a tree.
KCitons
Footballguy
Yes, but only one declared he chose to do so because of the BSA stance on gay leaders.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
I sincerely doubt that. You only think that way because you're trying to make Scouts into victims and the people exercising their rights to financially boycott the organization are akin to child killers.OK, if you say so. You might think so, but others reading your comments would disagree.
KCitons
Footballguy
I'm not making all Scouts victims. I take each on their own merit. Since Fatness doesn't know the stance of those particular scout or leaders, why does he choose to punish them?I sincerely doubt that. You only think that way because you're trying to make Scouts into victims and the people exercising their rights to financially boycott the organization are akin to child killers.OK, if you say so. You might think so, but others reading your comments would disagree.
Again, judging someone without knowing them, is the definition of bigotry. Two wrongs don't make a right.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
You might be getting slightly better at definitions, though your grasp of meaning and reading comprehension is still way off. I don't see "judging someone without knowing them" in any of the dictionary sites I looked up, but you're at least closer than you were before. He's not judging "them" without knowing them. He's judging the BSA by their own actions. He's not discriminating against any of the individual scouts or their leaders. He's judging the BSA by their own actions.I'm not making all Scouts victims. I take each on their own merit. Since Fatness doesn't know the stance of those particular scout or leaders, why does he choose to punish them?I sincerely doubt that. You only think that way because you're trying to make Scouts into victims and the people exercising their rights to financially boycott the organization are akin to child killers.OK, if you say so. You might think so, but others reading your comments would disagree.
Again, judging someone without knowing them, is the definition of bigotry. Two wrongs don't make a right.
And yes, you are. That's why you've compared them to crackbabies and civilian war deaths. That's why you're painting those who choose to give their money to non-hate groups as victimizing the little children, simply for being a part of the organization that discriminates.
fatness
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Glad I can meet you approval. As minor as it may be.You might be getting slightly better at definitions, though your grasp of meaning and reading comprehension is still way off. I don't see "judging someone without knowing them" in any of the dictionary sites I looked up, but you're at least closer than you were before. He's not judging "them" without knowing them. He's judging the BSA by their own actions. He's not discriminating against any of the individual scouts or their leaders. He's judging the BSA by their own actions.I'm not making all Scouts victims. I take each on their own merit. Since Fatness doesn't know the stance of those particular scout or leaders, why does he choose to punish them?I sincerely doubt that. You only think that way because you're trying to make Scouts into victims and the people exercising their rights to financially boycott the organization are akin to child killers.OK, if you say so. You might think so, but others reading your comments would disagree.
Again, judging someone without knowing them, is the definition of bigotry. Two wrongs don't make a right.
And yes, you are. That's why you've compared them to crackbabies and civilian war deaths. That's why you're painting those who choose to give their money to non-hate groups as victimizing the little children, simply for being a part of the organization that discriminates.
If his actions are doing more harm than good, is it really a smart thing to do?
KCitons
Footballguy
mad sweeney
Footballguy
How do you measure harm? I'd say it evens out as long as he buys it from some kind of charitable organization and not, say Home Depot. However, if his protest is in any way helpful in compelling the BSA to end its discrimination and thus allow x number of great men to become leaders, to encourage more gay kids to join knowing that they'll one day be able to lead and teach the next generations what they learned or more practically, to regain the good name of the BSA and the money that comes along with it, then I'd say the chances that he's doing more harm than good is effectively zero.Glad I can meet you approval. As minor as it may be. If his actions are doing more harm than good, is it really a smart thing to do?You might be getting slightly better at definitions, though your grasp of meaning and reading comprehension is still way off. I don't see "judging someone without knowing them" in any of the dictionary sites I looked up, but you're at least closer than you were before. He's not judging "them" without knowing them. He's judging the BSA by their own actions. He's not discriminating against any of the individual scouts or their leaders. He's judging the BSA by their own actions. And yes, you are. That's why you've compared them to crackbabies and civilian war deaths. That's why you're painting those who choose to give their money to non-hate groups as victimizing the little children, simply for being a part of the organization that discriminates.I'm not making all Scouts victims. I take each on their own merit. Since Fatness doesn't know the stance of those particular scout or leaders, why does he choose to punish them?Again, judging someone without knowing them, is the definition of bigotry. Two wrongs don't make a right.I sincerely doubt that. You only think that way because you're trying to make Scouts into victims and the people exercising their rights to financially boycott the organization are akin to child killers.OK, if you say so. You might think so, but others reading your comments would disagree.
KCitons
Footballguy
Ah! We've found some common ground. Fatness never mentioned where he purchased his tree this year, just that he was not going to purchase from a Scouts.How do you measure harm? I'd say it evens out as long as he buys it from some kind of charitable organization and not, say Home Depot. However, if his protest is in any way helpful in compelling the BSA to end its discrimination and thus allow x number of great men to become leaders, to encourage more gay kids to join knowing that they'll one day be able to lead and teach the next generations what they learned or more practically, to regain the good name of the BSA and the money that comes along with it, then I'd say the chances that he's doing more harm than good is effectively zero.Glad I can meet you approval. As minor as it may be. If his actions are doing more harm than good, is it really a smart thing to do?You might be getting slightly better at definitions, though your grasp of meaning and reading comprehension is still way off. I don't see "judging someone without knowing them" in any of the dictionary sites I looked up, but you're at least closer than you were before. He's not judging "them" without knowing them. He's judging the BSA by their own actions. He's not discriminating against any of the individual scouts or their leaders. He's judging the BSA by their own actions. And yes, you are. That's why you've compared them to crackbabies and civilian war deaths. That's why you're painting those who choose to give their money to non-hate groups as victimizing the little children, simply for being a part of the organization that discriminates.I'm not making all Scouts victims. I take each on their own merit. Since Fatness doesn't know the stance of those particular scout or leaders, why does he choose to punish them?Again, judging someone without knowing them, is the definition of bigotry. Two wrongs don't make a right.I sincerely doubt that. You only think that way because you're trying to make Scouts into victims and the people exercising their rights to financially boycott the organization are akin to child killers.OK, if you say so. You might think so, but others reading your comments would disagree.
I didn't define Fatness, he defined himself with his comments. He believes that boycotting tree sales will change the BSA stance, I was explaining to him that it will not. It's an ineffective use of his resources in that regard.
He's made it clear, he doesn't care if his actions are helping the cause. He believes they are and he's not going to be told otherwise.
KCitons
Footballguy
Yep, and women are allowed to be scout leaders, and they can go camping with little boys. What percentage of those women are going to have sex with scouts? In your mind, probably 100%.
LinusMarr
Footballguy
fatness
Footballguy
mad sweeney
Footballguy
So he's doing it to help the cause but he doesn't care if it helps the cause but he believes it will even though he doesn't care? You have some serious logic problems. You've defined yourself as such, btw. One individual boycott is usually ineffective in itself, it's when it's joined en masse that it becomes effective. Sort of like how the boycotts against the BSA made them relent on gay Scouts. And if his individual boycott doesn't work, that in no way obligates him to relent and go back to contributing to any BSA endeavor. Throwing in the towel and saying "that didn't work so here's my money and my tacit acceptance of your stance" isn't logical on any level.Ah! We've found some common ground. Fatness never mentioned where he purchased his tree this year, just that he was not going to purchase from a Scouts.I didn't define Fatness, he defined himself with his comments. He believes that boycotting tree sales will change the BSA stance, I was explaining to him that it will not. It's an ineffective use of his resources in that regard.How do you measure harm? I'd say it evens out as long as he buys it from some kind of charitable organization and not, say Home Depot. However, if his protest is in any way helpful in compelling the BSA to end its discrimination and thus allow x number of great men to become leaders, to encourage more gay kids to join knowing that they'll one day be able to lead and teach the next generations what they learned or more practically, to regain the good name of the BSA and the money that comes along with it, then I'd say the chances that he's doing more harm than good is effectively zero.Glad I can meet you approval. As minor as it may be. If his actions are doing more harm than good, is it really a smart thing to do?You might be getting slightly better at definitions, though your grasp of meaning and reading comprehension is still way off. I don't see "judging someone without knowing them" in any of the dictionary sites I looked up, but you're at least closer than you were before. He's not judging "them" without knowing them. He's judging the BSA by their own actions. He's not discriminating against any of the individual scouts or their leaders. He's judging the BSA by their own actions. And yes, you are. That's why you've compared them to crackbabies and civilian war deaths. That's why you're painting those who choose to give their money to non-hate groups as victimizing the little children, simply for being a part of the organization that discriminates.I'm not making all Scouts victims. I take each on their own merit. Since Fatness doesn't know the stance of those particular scout or leaders, why does he choose to punish them?Again, judging someone without knowing them, is the definition of bigotry. Two wrongs don't make a right.I sincerely doubt that. You only think that way because you're trying to make Scouts into victims and the people exercising their rights to financially boycott the organization are akin to child killers.OK, if you say so. You might think so, but others reading your comments would disagree.
He's made it clear, he doesn't care if his actions are helping the cause. He believes they are and he's not going to be told otherwise.
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
I get what you're saying, but I still don't think it passes muster with Ramsey's comment that no charitable organization is entitled to someone's money. I have several organizations that I donate money to; they tend to be causes that are "near and dear to my heart". Am I hurting the children because I don't give any money to BSA?
Also, in a similar vein, I used to give money to a certain organization, but stopped after learning their stance on a few issues. I'm sure the organization does good work overall, but I've got other groups I'd rather give my money to.
I suppose I don't look at it as the donors figuratively harming the kids. If BSA's anti-gay/anti-atheist policies cause some random people to stop donating money to the cause, it's BSA leadership that is figuratively harming the kids, not Joe Smith who decides to spend his $50 elsewhere. At least IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons
Footballguy
That's pretty much the "go to" response when you have nothing else to say?
KCitons
Footballguy
If that's what you've garnered from my comments, the so be it.So he's doing it to help the cause but he doesn't care if it helps the cause but he believes it will even though he doesn't care? You have some serious logic problems. You've defined yourself as such, btw. One individual boycott is usually ineffective in itself, it's when it's joined en masse that it becomes effective. Sort of like how the boycotts against the BSA made them relent on gay Scouts. And if his individual boycott doesn't work, that in no way obligates him to relent and go back to contributing to any BSA endeavor. Throwing in the towel and saying "that didn't work so here's my money and my tacit acceptance of your stance" isn't logical on any level.Ah! We've found some common ground. Fatness never mentioned where he purchased his tree this year, just that he was not going to purchase from a Scouts.I didn't define Fatness, he defined himself with his comments. He believes that boycotting tree sales will change the BSA stance, I was explaining to him that it will not. It's an ineffective use of his resources in that regard.How do you measure harm? I'd say it evens out as long as he buys it from some kind of charitable organization and not, say Home Depot. However, if his protest is in any way helpful in compelling the BSA to end its discrimination and thus allow x number of great men to become leaders, to encourage more gay kids to join knowing that they'll one day be able to lead and teach the next generations what they learned or more practically, to regain the good name of the BSA and the money that comes along with it, then I'd say the chances that he's doing more harm than good is effectively zero.Glad I can meet you approval. As minor as it may be. If his actions are doing more harm than good, is it really a smart thing to do?You might be getting slightly better at definitions, though your grasp of meaning and reading comprehension is still way off. I don't see "judging someone without knowing them" in any of the dictionary sites I looked up, but you're at least closer than you were before. He's not judging "them" without knowing them. He's judging the BSA by their own actions. He's not discriminating against any of the individual scouts or their leaders. He's judging the BSA by their own actions. And yes, you are. That's why you've compared them to crackbabies and civilian war deaths. That's why you're painting those who choose to give their money to non-hate groups as victimizing the little children, simply for being a part of the organization that discriminates.I'm not making all Scouts victims. I take each on their own merit. Since Fatness doesn't know the stance of those particular scout or leaders, why does he choose to punish them?Again, judging someone without knowing them, is the definition of bigotry. Two wrongs don't make a right.I sincerely doubt that. You only think that way because you're trying to make Scouts into victims and the people exercising their rights to financially boycott the organization are akin to child killers.OK, if you say so. You might think so, but others reading your comments would disagree.
He's made it clear, he doesn't care if his actions are helping the cause. He believes they are and he's not going to be told otherwise.
It's obvious that you and Fatness have no idea what goes on with Scouts and the way it works.
If the BSA changes it's stance on gay leaders tomorrow, Fatness will probably try to take the credit.
KCitons
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
I have no problem if Fatness stopped writing a donation check to the BSA. But, using the anti-gay excuse to not buy a Christmas tree is missing the mark. He also never mentioned buying a tree from some other group because he felt it was money better spent.
He has said he chose not to buy one this year because he believes it will make a difference. I'm telling him, from the experience of having two Boy Scouts in the family, that it's not. I'm not telling him to agree with the BSA's stance, Just that he's going about it the wrong way.
Some people don't want to know the truth.
tdoss
Footballguy
Interesting take...might increase membership...Yes, women are such predators and all...
I know I'd consider hanging in for Eagle Scout if this was a perk.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
And if he did, it still wouldn't be as stupid as trying to paint the plight of the Scouts to crackbabies and massacred children at the hands of people who don't agree with the BSA motto. However, he would be a part of the mechanism that did bring about a change in their policies, just like earlier boycotters (at macro and micro levels) enabled gay kids to at least be granted entry, though with the knowledge that they aren't human enough to be allowed to be a leader.If that's what you've garnered from my comments, the so be it.So he's doing it to help the cause but he doesn't care if it helps the cause but he believes it will even though he doesn't care? You have some serious logic problems. You've defined yourself as such, btw. One individual boycott is usually ineffective in itself, it's when it's joined en masse that it becomes effective. Sort of like how the boycotts against the BSA made them relent on gay Scouts. And if his individual boycott doesn't work, that in no way obligates him to relent and go back to contributing to any BSA endeavor. Throwing in the towel and saying "that didn't work so here's my money and my tacit acceptance of your stance" isn't logical on any level.Ah! We've found some common ground. Fatness never mentioned where he purchased his tree this year, just that he was not going to purchase from a Scouts.I didn't define Fatness, he defined himself with his comments. He believes that boycotting tree sales will change the BSA stance, I was explaining to him that it will not. It's an ineffective use of his resources in that regard.How do you measure harm? I'd say it evens out as long as he buys it from some kind of charitable organization and not, say Home Depot. However, if his protest is in any way helpful in compelling the BSA to end its discrimination and thus allow x number of great men to become leaders, to encourage more gay kids to join knowing that they'll one day be able to lead and teach the next generations what they learned or more practically, to regain the good name of the BSA and the money that comes along with it, then I'd say the chances that he's doing more harm than good is effectively zero.Glad I can meet you approval. As minor as it may be. If his actions are doing more harm than good, is it really a smart thing to do?You might be getting slightly better at definitions, though your grasp of meaning and reading comprehension is still way off. I don't see "judging someone without knowing them" in any of the dictionary sites I looked up, but you're at least closer than you were before. He's not judging "them" without knowing them. He's judging the BSA by their own actions. He's not discriminating against any of the individual scouts or their leaders. He's judging the BSA by their own actions. And yes, you are. That's why you've compared them to crackbabies and civilian war deaths. That's why you're painting those who choose to give their money to non-hate groups as victimizing the little children, simply for being a part of the organization that discriminates.I'm not making all Scouts victims. I take each on their own merit. Since Fatness doesn't know the stance of those particular scout or leaders, why does he choose to punish them?Again, judging someone without knowing them, is the definition of bigotry. Two wrongs don't make a right.I sincerely doubt that. You only think that way because you're trying to make Scouts into victims and the people exercising their rights to financially boycott the organization are akin to child killers.OK, if you say so. You might think so, but others reading your comments would disagree.
He's made it clear, he doesn't care if his actions are helping the cause. He believes they are and he's not going to be told otherwise.
It's obvious that you and Fatness have no idea what goes on with Scouts and the way it works.
If the BSA changes it's stance on gay leaders tomorrow, Fatness will probably try to take the credit.
Sigh, we do know how they operate. They "do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals ". We get the fact that the individual Scouts do not create the policy and most have little if any idea what they are or why they exist. I feel bad for them. But what you can't seem to grasp is that it's the leaders of BSA that are letting down the kids, not the people who choose to give their money to organizations that discriminate. You are being let down by your organization, period, and you can't see it because you're one of the people those leaders have decided to turn their back on.
Keep digging KC.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Disagree with the organization but give us your money anyway because t won't make a difference.
PS - I love the whole argument that people often use that so and so didn't state "every single thing that could possibly be included as a tangent to a statement". So because he didn't say who he bought a tree from, it automatically discounts the argument. And if he wasn't avoiding it because of the anti-gay stuff, then why would he do it? Plenty of people and businesses don't donate because of the anti-gay stuff. It's absurd, though totally within your wheelhouse, to think that in a thread about donations flying away from the BSA because of the anti-gay stuff that a persone who says they stopped buying stuff from the BSA is doing so NOT because of the anti-gay stuff.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Also, still waiting for those politicians who stumped for the First Amendment rights of an anti-gay duck hunter against a big bad meany TV show to come out in support of the BSA and castigate Lockheed Martin for their anti-American choice to try and censor an upright, Christian Values group who are clearly on the right side of the gay debate. My guess is they've all taken too much money, and expect more in the future, to say anything against a giant defense contractor.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
You're the only one who's suggested that one person thinks they're big enough to effect a change on their own. The BSA changed their stance because of the mechanism of boycott/protest, not because of any specific individual. I can't actually believe that you actually think this is an attainable theory from what's been said. If you actually are this clueless, then I feel sorry that they're being failed by more than just the BSA leaders.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
bigbottom
Footballguy
Yes, you never hear stories in the news about female teachers being charged criminally for hooking up with underage male students. Never ever.Yes, women are such predators and all...
timschochet
Footballguy
tdoss and LinusMarr have made a series of very unfortunate posts in this thread.
fatness
Footballguy
You seem weirdly obsessed with me. Is this foreplay?
Would that threaten your scout role?
KCitons
Footballguy
No and maybe.
Just found your stance odd. Don't have a problem with you as a person, just don't agree with your view on where to purchase a Christmas tree.
What's wrong with that?
fatness
Footballguy
You're obsessed with it. That's not wrong and go right ahead as long as you like. But it has gotten way into ridiculous-land and it's damn near impossible not to make fun of it now.
KCitons
Footballguy
Yep your right, I'm obsessed with it.
I actually couldn't sleep last night, so I drove around buying every Christmas tree I could find.
fatness
Footballguy
Here's the people you ought to be mad at.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3103517/posts
Here's why.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3103517/posts
Here's why.
fatness
Footballguy
Because they're one ones pushing the BSA in the anti-gay direction, which currently is "no gay leaders". That's something you don't agree with, you've said that.Why would I be mad at them? They aren't posting in the FFA.
That, and I only have enough time for one obsession.
Yet instead of taking them on you obsess about one guy, me, who won't buy one Christmas tree a year from BSA.
Basically you're afraid to go after the source of the problem.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}