Question for Draginol

Oh well. I had hoped to hear Draginol's response.

I think the BOy Scouts response was because it might not be easy for you to understand the motivation of the other parents. You might not see that they have a good reason to feel the way they do. Blind activism, is, well, blind.

If you had kids, maybe you'd realize that most people would tolerate descrimination and worse if they felt their kids safety was at risk. Decisions aren't made jsut philosophically when your kids are in question. In the vacuum of the messageboard it is easy for you to decide, but if your kid was going to someone's house for scout meetings, and there was a source of concern there, you might not feel it is so simple a judgement.

f you had kids, maybe you'd realize that most people would tolerate descrimination and worse if they felt their kids safety was at risk.

Especially if that somebody was a queer, and we all know that queers are evil pedophiles who lurk unsuspecting behind every bush and corner to jump out and touch our little children in their no-no spots.

Or, even worse, in the case of the Boy Scout decision, the person in question was a horrid mongoloid retard who might breed with us healthy folk and create a race of mongoloid frog babies. Wouldn't want that to happen. Not to mention we would hate to have our kids (who are ALL above average) exposed to anyone who might have a disability of some sort -- why no, we want to keep them walled up in the lily white suburbs and thinking about video games -- not retards.

Reminds me of the time my grandma didn't want me to play with the neighbor kids because they were black. I'm so glad she protected me from anything different.

Jesusstayscrunchy: If you want to be a jerk, be one, but none of your points were in question.

The question here was the scout was being "disruptive", and how he was being disruptive wasn't dealt with by the one-sided article. IF the original article had dealt with how the scout was being disruptive, it would have left room for discussion. As it stood, though, it pretty much left the situation open for interpretation, which was what Brad was trying to point out.

You continually show yourself to be asinine at all costs. Your Myrrander guise isn't very convincing . The reason you were previously banned shows through in almost everything you write. There was no reason to let your idiocy back in. With any luck it will only be temporary.

Well, being a parent of a small child (smaller in her class) I worry about my child's safety all the time.  I would say that certain decisions that parents make are because they are parents, and think differently about the situation than a person without children would.

If my daughter was in an organization and their was a child (any child, but we'll say that they are mentally handicapped) that showed signs that they could be harmful to her, I would first find out if other people agree (which is the beauty of how most organizations work) and if they do, find a way to dismiss the child.  If they didn't agree, I would remove my child for their safety.  We shouldn't have to make all decisions on whether or not it is politically correct.  We also don't have to make a group suffer so that one person is not left out.

And, if my child was the disabled one, I would also worry about my child's safety and the way the child would be treated.

When I was in highschool, I volunteered to help in the disabled class.  I was kicked, hit, slapped, and had things thrown at me by mentally disabled children that could not function in a normal capacity.  It's easy to say that every child should be able to participate in activities, but in reality, there are children that endanger others, and as adults we need to decide what is best to protect our children.

Myrrander, you're starting to sound like a liberal nut case again   I don't think that the parents don't want their children exposed to "other" people, they are just concerned over their child's safety.  If all parents were as concerned, and forced other adults to do the same, this world would be a safer place for our children.  Instead, it's an adult world where it is OK to swear on radio and TV, kids see images on prime time that they shouldn't, and adults want equal opportunity for everyone even at the expense of a great number.  Political correctness is great, but it's not always reasonable or best for the situation.

You continually show yourself to be asinine at all costs. Your Myrrander guise isn't very convincing . The reason you were previously banned shows through in almost everything you write. There was no reason to let your idiocy back in. With any luck it will only be temporary.

You're the only one that keeps bringing it up, Baker. I really think your irrational hatred of me should be discussed with a professional.

Myrrander, you're starting to sound like a liberal nut case again

I wasn't aware I had ever quit.

I read about the boy scout thing before the "one sided article" here on JU. It's my opinion that if we had to ban any disruptive kid from social settings such as the scouts, we wouldn't have many kids involved in anything.

This is not an issue of "political correctness." I've worked with people with disabilities for awhile, and it never fails that people fear them until they get to know them.

BS is as usual, full of BS. Myrrander makes a few funnies, but the extreme Right, like BS, can't hack it.
I grew up in a school in which I had the opportunity to play and work with an intellectually disabled child, and I found the experience rewarding for both of us. Obviously his looniness was contagious, because I have now joined the loony left, but I graduated with excellent grades and I continued a successful academic career at Uni.

How ironic that the one person the one person who I wanted an answer from refuses to comment. That is not to say that I don't appreciate the comments from everyone who has, though. I thank you all for your input.

I discussed the issue of the boy scouts in the article, so I will refrain from doing so here. I did not want to unearth old arguments with this article. I was just wondering why I can't comment on discrimination cuz I'm not a parent, or why I can't comment on gay marriage cuz I'm single.

Oh well. I had hoped to hear Draginol's response.

Me too.

I think the BOy Scouts response was because it might not be easy for you to understand the motivation of the other parents. You might not see that they have a good reason to feel the way they do. Blind activism, is, well, blind. If you had kids, maybe you'd realize that most people would tolerate descrimination and worse if they felt their kids safety was at risk. Decisions aren't made jsut philosophically when your kids are in question. In the vacuum of the messageboard it is easy for you to decide, but if your kid was going to someone's house for scout meetings, and there was a source of concern there, you might not feel it is so simple a judgement.

I can't bring myself to understand the motivation of the other parents, or of the BSA. If my child was in danger because of a mentally disabled child, or any other child, I would try to work towards some solution, not kick the child in question out of an organization that has already accepted him, and which enjoys painting pictures of itself as the end all be all of morality. I fail to see how this is me being blind (pun completely intended).

" I fail to see how this is me being blind (pun completely intended)."

...

"I can't bring myself to understand the motivation of the other parents, or of the BSA."

'nuff said.

No, actually I will clarify. blind activism to me is when someone so believes in the absolute truth of their ideal that they cannot accept that there may be circumstances where it breaks down. A good example is the "Rules of War" crowd not being able to accept that those rules simply don't work when fighting terrorism.

In this case, you believe so much in your idea of how this boy should be treated by the BSA, that you can't or won't entertain the idea that your "rule" breaks down in this circumstance.

That, to me, is blind activism, because it refuses to see anything but its own "rule". It isn't like "blind justice", because at least motivation and circumstance is taken into consideration judicially. You refuse to accept even that.

How ironic that the one person the one person who I wanted an answer from refuses to comment.

I think that you looking at this the wrong way.  Being that Brad (Draginol) runs a corporation and runs this site, I think that he might be pretty busy and might not have even seen this.

No, actually I will clarify. blind activism to me is when someone so believes in the absolute truth of their ideal that they cannot accept that there may be circumstances where it breaks down. A good example is the "Rules of War" crowd not being able to accept that those rules simply don't work when fighting terrorism.

Or when the "War on Terrorism" crowd won't accept that its a war that can't be won. Point taken. However:

In this case, you believe so much in your idea of how this boy should be treated by the BSA, that you can't or won't entertain the idea that your "rule" breaks down in this circumstance. That, to me, is blind activism, because it refuses to see anything but its own "rule". It isn't like "blind justice", because at least motivation and circumstance is taken into consideration judicially. You refuse to accept even

Yes, in this case I believe strongly in my idea that the boy should not be discriminated against. I do have not read anything that suggests my "rule" breaks down. All I have read about is an organization who refuses to get off an idealized high horse while continuing to exclude people they don't want to deal with. Tell me how the boy endangered the others, or tell me how you tried to accomodate him and failed, and show me that kicking him out was a last resort, and I'll agree and be on my merry way. You can't just say someone's a danger and not elaborate. I could say people with red hair endangered me and be on my way. I wouldn't get very far without explaining myself.

I think that you looking at this the wrong way.

Perhaps "refuses" was the wrong word for me to use. I only meant that I had hoped he would respond and am disappointed that he has not.