Scouts welcome the gays

[john9blue]

because one is a question of existence, and the other is a question of frequency.

Yet there was NO "question of existence" prior to your statements...no one was stating that homosexuals don't ever abuse boys (including Symmetry)...you were simply providing "evidence of existence" because you seemed to believe it was supportive of your idea that homosexuals abuse boys more often than heterosexuals and it gave you a strawman to fight against.

if existence was evidence enough for me, then why would i ask for statistics?

i think you already know this, which is why you initially typed "gay men are abusing boys" before your edits.

Except that ISN'T what my initial statement was, which you can clearly see because it's still there in it's original spot. If I had wanted to hide it, I would have changed it there too. It was simply a poorly worded statement, as I said it was. Stop being dishonest, John. I know you can do it if you try really hard!

not sure how you ended up with "gay men are abuse boys" unless you initially typed "are abusing" and decided to change the verb tense... random helping verbs aren't your style, woody

[Woodruff]

because one is a question of existence, and the other is a question of frequency.

Yet there was NO "question of existence" prior to your statements...no one was stating that homosexuals don't ever abuse boys (including Symmetry)...you were simply providing "evidence of existence" because you seemed to believe it was supportive of your idea that homosexuals abuse boys more often than heterosexuals and it gave you a strawman to fight against.

if existence was evidence enough for me, then why would i ask for statistics?

i think you already know this, which is why you initially typed "gay men are abusing boys" before your edits.

Except that ISN'T what my initial statement was, which you can clearly see because it's still there in it's original spot. If I had wanted to hide it, I would have changed it there too. It was simply a poorly worded statement, as I said it was. Stop being dishonest, John. I know you can do it if you try really hard!

not sure how you ended up with "gay men are abuse boys" unless you initially typed "are abusing" and decided to change the verb tense... random helping verbs aren't your style, woody

I'm pretty sure I clearly stated that I had screwed up the initial statement, and that was prior to your bizarre claim about my statement being different than what I said it was.

But whatever...if you want to claim I don't know what I meant, I suppose that's the only thing you've got going for you here. Alternatively, you could...you know...actually discuss what I said that I meant based on what I actually changed it to. You seem awfully desperate to try to "gotcha" me.

[thegreekdog]

Any entity that receives direct government support should be subject to government rules on whatever. That excludes tax breaks.*

* Lootifer is of the opinion, apparently, that the natural state of affairs is for there to be a tax. Thus, a tax break, to Lootifer apparently, is the government giving back money that is rightfully the government's money. I take the polar opposite stance (and my stance is correct given that the government must COLLECT the money from the taxpayer before it can give it back).

Maybe I am being stupid here but all I meant was entity x pays 30% tax; entity y which is subject to the same tax rules as entity x pays 25% as they receive a 5% discount on their tax for reason z. Entity y is receiving government support from my pov.

Okay, I withdrawal my *.

[Woodruff]

Thanks. Yes while it is true that they accept token people of other races, they do literally have a "for blacks" sign on their door.

Pics of the signs, or STFU.

you aren't serious, are you?

Apparently they "literally have a "for blacks" sign on their door". I'm interested in seeing those signs. Who wouldn't be?

All this time, and no sign of the sign...

[Woodruff]

Thanks. Yes while it is true that they accept token people of other races, they do literally have a "for blacks" sign on their door.

Pics of the signs, or STFU.

you aren't serious, are you?

Apparently they "literally have a "for blacks" sign on their door". I'm interested in seeing those signs. Who wouldn't be?

All this time, and no sign of the sign...

Now where could that sign be...

[JBlombier]

Somebody talked a little too much he couldn't back up, I guess.

[jonesthecurl]

I think gays should be forced to join the scouts.

The problem with gay people is gay culture. How dare these people have different tastes and interests than me? By forcing them into an apple pie American mold, the world will be a better place.

Next up: forcing gays to serve on PTAs - even if they don't have children.

I think that would count as cruel and unusual punishment.

[jonesthecurl]

I ll give my opinion from what i know about french boyscouts.
Here it s 100% catholic and 100% for boys. You got other organizations for catholic girls, for protestant girl or boys ect.. And also some that are none religious.
If you are openly gay, why go to boy scouts that are catholic? The church doesn t accept it so it s normal that it can be an issue. Go to none religious boy scout like organizations.
There is a contradiction between one s beliefs and one s sexuality if you are gay and catholic. Why make it more complicated? For boy scouts or scouts leaders i mean.
Like you can t be gay and a priest (officially).

But Baden-Powell was an Anglican. Why would the institution in France be exclusively Catholic?
Incidentally, in the UK girls can join too.

[Woodruff]

Thanks. Yes while it is true that they accept token people of other races, they do literally have a "for blacks" sign on their door.

Pics of the signs, or STFU.

you aren't serious, are you?

Apparently they "literally have a "for blacks" sign on their door". I'm interested in seeing those signs. Who wouldn't be?

All this time, and no sign of the sign...

Now where could that sign be...

"Sign, sign, everywhere a sign..." Well, except that one.

[Woodruff]

Somebody talked a little too much he couldn't back up, I guess.

[john9blue]

ITT woody doesn't understand hyperbole

[Woodruff]

ITT woody doesn't understand hyperbole

ITT john9blue doesn't understand the term "literally".

Sometimes I wonder if you can even read. (There's your hyperbole.)