What are you calling liberal? Anymore anyone who isn't far right is considered liberal even those who identify as moderates.
If you're in agreement that the Boy Scouts of America should drop "Boy" from their name, then you're a liberal.
We can all agree that Joe Crow should drop 'boy' from his vocabulary when addressing black males, right @BNIBoiler .
Seems like a reasonable enough change given it hasn't been restricted to boys only since 2019.
This isn’t liberalism. It’s progressive/cultural Marxism. Classic liberals don’t have a place in today’s Democratic Party. Classic liberals would not block Jewish kids from entering a building or force young girls to be in a locker room with naked man.
Actually, @purdave has a point. What we are seeing these days aren't Liberals. They are Progressives and other leftists like Communists and Fascists. Liberals have been pushed to the side for quite some time now, which is why many of them are switching to the right.
By definition, it should be restricted to boys. It's as if it's in the name or something.
That may be true, but the far left of the democratic party has made 'liberalism' part of the democrat, progressive movement. There is no distinction any longer.
Why would there be girls in it anyway? It's not like they don't have something of their own already.
Because lefty lib dems don't believe in gender. Keep in mind, these are the same morons who believe a man can get pregnant. They hate the fact that an org like the BSA actually teaches boys how to be responsible, problem solving, young men. They hate that the BSA teaches that there are gender roles in a society and certain responsibilities that a man should take on.
Ronald Reagan would be labeled as a liberal, or at least a RINO to these Flav-Or-Aid drinkers.
Dude, you tell me. You're one of those Flav-Or-Aid drinkers. He would be RINO nowadays at the least, correct?
What do you mean "by definition?" Who gets to decide that it "should" be restricted to boys? Has it been handed down from on high or something?
Um...the word "boy" is in the name. That sort of signifies who it's designated for.
No, it signified who it WAS designated ofr. But, as you pointed out, they're taking "boy" out of the name. So, that solves the problem you've identified, does it not?
Yup, and they've chosen to remain girls only, as is their prerogative.
Apparently, there's no need for that, as anyone can join Scouting America.
Cool. And obviously you feel really strongly about it since it only took you 5 years to get upset about it.
It's nearly exactly what it was before, but hopefully minus the sexual abuse and whatnot. Can you articulate how it is somehow "worse" because it's not exclusive to boys anymore? Like, how does allowing girls to participate ruin the scouts?
I don’t think it was a necessary change, but I don’t think changing to “Scouting America” is terribly controversial…especially since they already allow girls to be members.
Who gets to decide girls schools should be restricted to girls? Or girls sports teams should be restricted to girls?
God?
By allowing girls, Boy Scouts is working to destroy Girl Scouts. Likewise, allowing boys in girls sports is working to destroy girls sports.
This is a claim that requires evidence.
So is this.
Could you load a question any harder?
It is an opinion, not a claim.
Also an opinion, but its validity should be evident even to the densest of libs.
It is not God behind it, but whoever it is obviously hates girls. I am sure it is not conservatives behind it, so why do woke dems hate girls?
So, it's your opinion that the Boy Scouts are working to destroy the Girl Scouts, but you're not making the CLAIM that the Boy Scouts are working to destroy the Girl Scouts?
That's not girl's sports, that's women's sports, and it seems that women's sport continues to exist, despite the sport's governing body's decision to allow trans athletes. So, not destroyed.
This is the exact same loaded question, it still deserves no response.
Correct.
There are many examples from "girls sports", as I suspect you know, JM.
No, I made it more loaded at your request. I thought you would appreciate it, but apparently not.
Ok, so no response needed.
I agree there are examples from girls' sports. I don't know why you didn't pick one, as it would've supported your case better. Not well -- given that you'd still have to demonstrate those sports are being destroyed -- but better.
My mistake, looked like a copy-paste at first glance. But, the loading was the same, as both wordings of the question assume that there exists a group that hates girls, which has not yet been demonstrated. The new version also presents a false dichotomy, so two fallacies for the price of one!
Different person here, but since there's no way to demonstrate that, think what you want.
