Boy Scouts of America deal another blow to boyhood

[Liberty Sanders]

What do you mean by "harm"? Let's first ensure it is defined. Then do you mean spiritual? Physical? Emotional? Mental?

I'd prefer to keep this a bit narrow for now but if you'd rather broaden our scope let's define "just"and "moral" as well. I'll leave the breadth up to you.

I am appreciative of your effort and courtesy here. Thank you.

​To injure or damage, mentally or physically.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Why? Who made that decision?

What other decision CAN be made?

​Are you saying that you HAVE a right to harm people who don't harm you?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

What other decision CAN be made?

​Are you saying that you HAVE a right to harm people who don't harm you?

Nope. I'm saying it has to be based on something. What is yours based on? Human reason? Science?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Nope. I'm saying it has to be based on something. What is yours based on? Human reason? Science?

​For me it is based on human reason. I have no religious based belief system.

 

[hog slayer]

What does that even mean? Oh, all predators are of such a distinctly different lifestyle choice that if my child saw would turn them down a path of immorality that even Jesus himself couldn't fix.

I missed this the other day. I'm going to assume that you believe there was, in fact, a man who led a well documented life with the name of Jesus, who did make claims about being divine, who was crucified, and who disappeared from the grave he was placed in and guarded against vandlaism.

The only difference then is that I say he DID fix the problems of humanity. He's just letting you decide which side you're on.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

​For me it is based on human reason. I have no religious based belief system.

It can NOT come from internally. It MUST be externally. We are all different. My reasoning is not your reasoning and is not Trump's reasoning and is not Stephen Hawking's reasoning and is not Hitler's reasoning and is not Darwin's reasoning.

 

[ATM]

...You may be doing something I don't like. You may be doing something that flies in the face of my most devoutly held religious beliefs. You may even be doing something I find revolting.

But unless you are doing something that causes me some kind of tangible harm I have no right to interfere with you.

As long as you do not harm me I will agree to not harm you...

It seems that you are trying to fabricate something to argue against here. I'm game, but you'll need to actually make a case.

How do I harm anyone by claiming that they made a choice vs your claim that they were born a certain way?

How is that anything but a discussion? Show me what harm you believe I've advocated.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

It seems that you are trying to fabricate something to argue against here. I'm game, but you'll need to actually make a case.

How do I harm anyone by claiming that they made a choice vs your claim that they were born a certain way?

How is that anything but a discussion? Show me what harm you believe I've advocated.

I'm arguing FOR something, namely, that if we all simply agree to mutually respect each other no other belief system would be required.

Anti-gunners want to curtail or completely eliminate our gun ownership rights, not because we are using those rights to harm them, but simply because they believe we shouldn't be allowed to have them.

I will not inflict that distorted reasoning on others.

 

[hog slayer]

​To injure or damage, mentally or physically.

I really don't want to put words in your mouth but what I'm getting from you is that the basis for right and wrong are whether or not it hurts someone.

What about telling the truth? That can hurt mentally and emotionally? Physical therapy can hurt. What about throwing someone in jail for murder? Certainly that would hurt the murderer.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I really don't want to put words in your mouth but what I'm getting from you is that the basis for right and wrong are whether or not it hurts someone.

What about telling the truth? That can hurt mentally and emotionally? Physical therapy can hurt. What about throwing someone in jail for murder? Certainly that would hurt the murderer.

I'm going to do you the courtesy of presuming that you know what I'm talking about.

When I go to the chiropractor and he crunches my neck it hurts. He is not harming me, he is treating me, and our interaction is consensual.

When innocent parties are attacked they have a right to defend themselves, individually or collectively. I speak of harm INITIATED by another.

I think all of us here understand this regardless or moral beliefs or a lack of them.

 

[ATM]

I'm arguing FOR something, namely, that if we all simply agree to mutually respect each other no other belief system would be required.

I can respect you while refusing to condone your beliefs and/or choices.

Anti-gunners want to curtail or completely eliminate our gun ownership rights, not because we are using those rights to harm them, but simply because they believe we shouldn't be allowed to have them.

I haven't advocated for curtailment of rights, have I?

I will not inflict that distorted reasoning on others.

I am free to inflict reasoning on anyone able to reason, I am not free to initiate force.

 

[hog slayer]

I'm going to do you the courtesy of presuming that you know what I'm talking about.

When I go to the chiropractor and he crunches my neck it hurts. He is not harming me, he is treating me, and our interaction is consensual.

When innocent parties are attacked they have a right to defend themselves, individually or collectively. I speak of harm INITIATED by another.

I think all of us here understand this regardless or moral beliefs or a lack of them.

The issue is going to end up is each person capable of making their own version of right and wrong. You've given nothing as a standard save for that you believe nobody should be harmed. This doesn't account for enough of the world. It only accounts for yours. Don't give me too much room presuming I know what you speak of. While I can, maybe I don't. It doesn't make any sense to me that you could have served (thank you very much for that, by the way) in the capacity you did as an officer of the law and not understand that the world cannot simply govern itself. Individuals cannot simply make up their own right or wrong. I am interested in this word initiated. It's almost as if you intend to defend all evils that do not immediately cause physical harm to someone. Take pornography, for instance. While it may seem acceptable for the guy in the privacy of his own home, he is single after all (or maybe he's not, but it's ok with him and it's not hurting his wife) it creates many other problems, namely slave trafficking. I would initially think you'd have received countless hours of instruction on this topic, though, given your profession. I know that I did. But, my area of operations was different, I guess. Either way, you know the butterfly effect applies to crime.

What you're going to have to do is figure out what you mean to say when you use the word moral. I know it would be difficult to have a thorough conversation about behavior and character without using the word moral. Moral is, however, a word that will lead you down a dirt road in a book called Romans. If morality is determined by each individual, then a universal moral code that all men should follow cannot be validated. If a universal code of right and wrong cannot be established, the definition of what harms people will be soon to follow.

It's obvious you've put thought into this. I'm struggling personally with the dismissal of an absolute 'law' from a law man. I'm going to have to be prepared and disciplined to give you a better effort. I'm stuck on an idea that for someone to be issued a speeding ticket, they aren't hurting someone at that moment, how do we handle that? That's initiated(police) upon someone(driver) who was not in the act of harming someone else.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I've stated my thoughts on this as clearly as I'm able to. I've little more to add.

I'll simply state once more that if the Scouts want to let transgendered kids join their ranks it's of no concern to me whatsoever. People with strong feelings about it on either side will either NOT let their kids join the Scouts because of it or will be ENCOURAGED to have their kids join.

This change will harm no one and life will go on.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I've stated my thoughts on this as clearly as I'm able to. I've little more to add.

I'll simply state once more that if the Scouts want to let transgendered kids join their ranks it's of no concern to me whatsoever. People with strong feelings about it on either side will either NOT let their kids join the Scouts because of it or will be ENCOURAGED to have their kids join.

This change will harm no one and life will go on.

If people want to do anything to any other persons, or freely (or even forcibly) "associate" with whomever they choose, it is no concern to me whatsoever. My life will go on no matter what some guy or gal is or does to another man, woman, or child. What you or I think of any such actions on their part is just our opinion and we shouldn't force our opinions of what is right and wrong on others.

 

[ATM]

I've stated my thoughts on this as clearly as I'm able to. I've little more to add.

I'll simply state once more that if the Scouts want to let transgendered kids join their ranks it's of no concern to me whatsoever. People with strong feelings about it on either side will either NOT let their kids join the Scouts because of it or will be ENCOURAGED to have their kids join.

This change will harm no one and life will go on.

However, if they changed their policy in some part to avoid facing the unjust consequences other private businesses and organizations have had forced upon them by nonsensical court decisions when sued by individuals who were in no way harmed by their policies, your statement is false as we are all harmed living under such a precedent.

You also never showed how I was harming someone by not condoning or catering to their beliefs.

Give me something to debate.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

However, if they changed their policy in some part to avoid facing the unjust consequences other private businesses and organizations have had forced upon them by nonsensical court decisions when sued by individuals who were in no way harmed by their policies, your statement is false as we are all harmed living under such a precedent.

You also never showed how I was harming someone by not condoning or catering to their beliefs.

Give me something to debate.

Non-affirmation is discrimination!

 

[ATM]

Non-affirmation is discrimination!

Clearly.

Also, what's wrong with discrimination? When did that become a bad thing?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

However, if they changed their policy in some part to avoid facing the unjust consequences other private businesses and organizations have had forced upon them by nonsensical court decisions when sued by individuals who were in no way harmed by their policies, your statement is false as we are all harmed living under such a precedent.

You also never showed how I was harming someone by not condoning or catering to their beliefs.

Give me something to debate.

I don't recall saying that you were harming anyone.

​I've said my piece and I'm through debating.

 

[ATM]

I don't recall saying that you were harming anyone.

​I've said my piece and I'm through debating.

We weren't really debating, I was just correcting you. Every time I did, it seemed you just said something else rather than attempting to defend your positions.

The conversation is still there if you want to go back and defend anything.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Clearly.

Also, what's wrong with discrimination? When did that become a bad thing?