Log In
Register
4.19pm
1 November 2013
Offline
Girl scouts isn’t as cool as boy scouts.
2.35am
11 November 2010
Offline Evangeline said
I was in Girl Scouts for 4 years and we sat inside and ate snacks and made home crafts. The most outdoorsy thing we did was to go outside and collect leaves for leaf shading.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I was going to say. A big reason why girls want to join Boy Scouts is because Girl Scouts is (or at least sounds) pretty lame. Some feel that it reinforces dated stereotypes of what girls should do.
I guess that I don’t feel too strongly either way, but I don’t particularly have a problem with girls joining Boy Scouts. I’ve got no skin in this game. I quit Boy Scouts when I was eleven largely due to their policies on atheists and gays. (By the way, I am aware that the BSA have since changed their policies on gays).
I'm Necko. I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.
I'm also ewe2 on weekends.
Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017. 
8.47am
9 March 2017
Offline It’s very interesting you said that because when boy scouts allowed homosexuals, my old troop disbanded because so many people left because of it, which is pretty messed up IMO but they’re a very Christian organization so it’s expected.
Anyways, you’re right that girl scouts seems to really suck and is very feminine but the problem I have is that girls get an extra option over boys (and to a lesser extent fear that the boys and the girls will be separated within the boy scout troops making the whole change redundant and a complete waste of time). No matter how lame the option is I think boys and girls should have equal options.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
2.21am
5 November 2011
Offline Dark Overlord said
It’s very interesting you said that because when boy scouts allowed homosexuals, my old troop disbanded because so many people left because of it, which is pretty messed up IMO but they’re a very Christian organization so it’s expected.Anyways, you’re right that girl scouts seems to really suck and is very feminine but the problem I have is that girls get an extra option over boys (and to a lesser extent fear that the boys and the girls will be separated within the boy scout troops making the whole change redundant and a complete waste of time). No matter how lame the option is I think boys and girls should have equal options.
There are a lot more options out there that aren’t boy scouts or girl scouts. If you take all of those into consideration, then girls being able to be in one more thing really doesn’t make a difference.
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
9.33am
26 January 2017
Offline Little Piggy Dragonguy said
There are a lot more options out there that aren’t boy scouts or girl scouts. If you take all of those into consideration, then girls being able to be in one more thing really doesn’t make a difference.
I agree. I went to sleep away summer camp for four weeks every year for seven years, and my outdoor skills and experience either matches or surpasses every boyscout I meet.
"The pump don't work cause the vandals took the handles!"
-Bob Dylan, Subterranean Homesick Blues
"We could ride and surf together while our love would grow"
-Brian Wilson, Surfer Girl
8.15pm
9 March 2017
Offline Is it okay to ever discriminate against someone solely because they have extreme views. This question came up to me after reading this article where someone successfully gets Richard Spencer banned from his gym solely because of his views. I hate Richard and his views but i think discriminating against people’s beliefs, no matter how extreme they are, is wrong and it’s not even like he brought up his opinions in the gym, he just went there to lift weights, he wasn’t bothering anyone. I can understand the gym’s POV how having the leader of the alt-right at their gym will make them lose members and also how people have the right to ban anyone they want for any reason but i still think that what the gym did was wrong.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
10.38pm
15 May 2015
Offline Dark Overlord said
Is it okay to ever discriminate against someone solely because they have extreme views. This question came up to me after reading this article where someone successfully gets Richard Spencer banned from his gym solely because of his views. I hate Richard and his views but i think discriminating against people’s beliefs, no matter how extreme they are, is wrong and it’s not even like he brought up his opinions in the gym, he just went there to lift weights, he wasn’t bothering anyone. I can understand the gym’s POV how having the leader of the alt-right at their gym will make them lose members and also how people have the right to ban anyone they want for any reason but i still think that what the gym did was wrong.
Well, the club could allow him access, but assign a 300-lb. black Muslim bodybuilder to spot him while he’s benchpressing…
All seriousness aside (as Steve Allen used to say), I think if it’s a public gym it’s illegal and he could sue them, but private clubs can do that. However, more generally, the principle is that if we allow people to do that to people they don’t agree with, who gets to define that? Better to enshrine and protect the principle of free speech for all (other than direct incitement to violence).
The following people thank Pineapple Records for this post:
BeatlebugA ginger sling with a pineapple heart,
a coffee dessert, yes you know it's good news...
7.42am
1 November 2013
Offline Since there hasn’t been any mass shooting recently, this might be a good time to discuss what you feel about guns and how accessible they should be. That way emotions aren’t running as high as they would be during those times.
Personally, I think that getting a gun should be a difficult as getting a car. Should require taking classes and getting tested. Both a car and a gun are deadly in ill-informed hands and it would do good to apply the same restriction to both.
What do you think? And as always remain civil. No need for 20 pages of Ahhhs.
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
Dark Overlord1.49pm
9 March 2017
Offline 
I’m surprised this page didn’t get locked when most of the other non-Beatles pages did.
Anyways, both extremes have fatal consequences. Have no gun control and terrorists can purchase machine guns and start mass shootings that could’ve been easily prevented. On the other hand, if you ban guns entirely then only the bad guys will have guns and there will also be a lot of mass shootings that could’ve been easily prevented. There needs to be a balance.
What i’d recommend is only allowing permanent legal citizens 18 and up with no felony convictions, mental illnesses, or ties with gangs and or terrorist organizations. They will be forced to take a gun safety course and must score at least 90% on their test and you must be clean shaven or you fail. You will be limited to 1 gun per year and there will be a 50% sin tax applied to discourage sales. Also, if the salesman or the course instructor has any suspicions he can refuse to sell to you.
Oddly enough, Australia banned guns completely and they’re doing just fine but i don’t think that’d be the case in America because we fought hard for the 2nd amendment.
The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:
QuarryManIf you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
4.47pm
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline I’m of the firm view that only farmers (and police officers, I guess) should own guns (and even then, it should be a hard process for them to get one).
Dark Overlord said
Anyways, both extremes have fatal consequences. Have no gun control and terrorists can purchase machine guns and start mass shootings that could’ve been easily prevented. On the other hand, if you ban guns entirely then only the bad guys will have guns and there will also be a lot of mass shootings that could’ve been easily prevented. There needs to be a balance.
But if there are no guns, how can they get them?
What i’d recommend is only allowing permanent legal citizens 18 and up with no felony convictions, mental illnesses, or ties with gangs and or terrorist organizations. They will be forced to take a gun safety course and must score at least 90% on their test and you must be clean shaven or you fail. You will be limited to 1 gun per year and there will be a 50% sin tax applied to discourage sales. Also, if the salesman or the course instructor has any suspicions he can refuse to sell to you.
And then once they get their gun, 5 years later they get brainwashed by ISIS, then what?
Also, what the hell does a beard have to do with anything? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard!
Oddly enough, Australia banned guns completely and they’re doing just fine but i don’t think that’d be the case in America because we fought hard for the 2nd amendment.
Yep. We had a mass shooting in 1997. Killed 17 iirc. A bill to pass parliament was voted unanimously, and we haven’t had a mass shooting (that’s killed more than 2…) since.
Unlike America, who’s had more schoolchildren die last year than military personnel.
#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 
2017 awards: 
2018 awards:
2019 awards: 
2020 awards:
2021 awards:
5.15pm
6 May 2018
Offline The Hole Got Fixed said
Also, what the hell does a beard have to do with anything? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard!
I agree with your comment, @The Hole Got Fixed.
Look at these five characters, for example:
Yoko Ono and Allen Klein would be OK, but John, Paul and Ringo would not be accepted. (George would also have failed the test; the bearded George was visiting his mother in Cheshire when this photo was taken.)
And in the end
The love you take is equal to the love you make
5.29pm
9 March 2017
Offline @The Hole Got Fixed
1. There are 3 ways that bad people will have guns. Either they kept their guns, they smuggled them in illegally from another country, or they make their own, which is surprisingly easier than you think.
2. We’d have an extensive database of everyone who ever bought a firearm and a database of all confirmed and suspected terrorists/gang members. If a person matches the two we get a search warrant and search his house and take all of his firearms and he’s banned from purchasing firearms unless if it’s proven in court that he’s not a terrorist/gang member.
3. It’d only be for when they take their gun safety course and purchase their firearm, he can grow it back once he’s got his gun. It’s just a simple test to see whether or not you’re capable of owning a firearm, as if you’re too lazy or defiant to shave, even just to buy a gun, then i don’t think you should own a gun.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
5.48pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline I, too, think the “beard” test is silly, @Dark Overlord (good to see you). Many religions, and not only Islamic religions, demand that male believers have a beard. For true believers shaving their beards would be breaking their religious faith. Surely, were such a person to shave their beard to get a gun, you might wonder why they were prepared to go against their beliefs to get one.
It also discriminates against men as 99.99% of women do not have beards that they can be asked to shave. So, you’re actually suggesting a test that cannot be applied to women (not all women should own guns), and discriminates against observant male followers of certain religions.
Not something you’ve fully thought through, I would suggest.
I will make a post about my thoughts on the gun situation in the US later.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Richard"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
8.01pm
9 March 2017
Offline I didn’t think of how facial hair is important to certain religions, i usually associate a clean shave with professionalism but i wouldn’t dare enforce a rule that goes against people’s religion.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
12.51pm
9 March 2017
Offline Since it’s Columbus Day, what do you think of Christopher Columbus. I think he’s a horrible person and a fraud. First of all, he didn’t even set foot on American soil which is why i think of him as a fraud but my main problem with him is that where he did set foot (Hispaniola or what we now know as Haiti and the Dominican Republic)), he enslaved and killed the natives. I think it’s sad that we still celebrate the expeditions of this racist colonialist. I say we instead get Halloween off since it’s a much more pleasant holiday.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
8.40pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline Jeez, it’s not as bad as all that. History is a muddy thing, no one is ever purely a horrible person, and everybody was racist back then. He’s just kinda overrated.
([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
1.03am
11 September 2018
Offline Dark Overlord said
Since it’s Columbus Day, what do you think of Christopher Columbus. I think he’s a horrible person and a fraud. First of all, he didn’t even set foot on American soil which is why i think of him as a fraud but my main problem with him is that where he did set foot (Hispaniola or what we now know as Haiti and the Dominican Republic)), he enslaved and killed the natives. I think it’s sad that we still celebrate the expeditions of this racist colonialist. I say we instead get Halloween off since it’s a much more pleasant holiday.
I dunno, I like a few films he’s directed – Home Alone 1 + 2, Mrs Doubtfire, the first few Harry Potters.
The following people thank Tony Japanese for this post:
SgtPeppersBulldog, vonbontee, sir walter raleigh4.44pm
1 November 2013
Offline Beatlebug said
Jeez, it’s not as bad as all that. History is a muddy thing, no one is ever purely a horrible person, and everybody was racist back then. He’s just kinda overrated.
The guy literally amputated people who didn’t give him enough gold.
Regardless of history, that is a pretty bad thing.
And saying ‘everyone did x’ doesn’t excuse x behavior.
6.28pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline @Starr Shine? said
And saying ‘everyone did x’ doesn’t excuse x behavior.
While it doesn’t excuse certain behaviours those behaviours do have to be taken in context of the times they lived in, and makes judging them in terms of modern morality a flawed and futile exercise which does more damage than good. The vast majority, for instance, of the founding fathers of the USA were morally flawed – to a greater or lesser extent – in terms of how we regard things now. That doesn’t mean they were bad men, just that they were men of their time, and the foundation they gave your country (the Constitution among them) is highly regarded.
Were you to judge them by today’s standards, most would be found wanting, and as you get this picture of these giants of American history falling well short of today’s social and political mores, it undermines the basic rulebook (such as the Constitution) on which your country is based into question. After all, history shows that the majority of those who drafted it, by modern morality, were flawed individuals with vested interests, so how could any document produced by such people still be such a cornerstone and, aspects of (such as the 2nd Amendment), highly regarded and debated.
If you looked at the men who wrote your Constitution, the lives they lived and the beliefs they held, you’d wonder if they had useful to contribute, rip it up and start again, rather than make small changes to reflect changing social mores.
If we judge historical figures by today’s social mores and morality, nearly everyone would fall. It’s important to show these people as they were, and to explore the environment which produced them, as that is the way we learn from history, but I’m with @Beatlebug that it isn’t really a good thing to judge those lives lived as if those lives were lived taking into our modern viewpoint.
They didn’t live in our world so judging them as if they did is just plain wrong. Put them into the context of their time, and how they were as individuals in comparison to their peers, but soon as you start digging and judging them by today’s standards, you get to wondering whatever happened to all the heroes.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Shamrock Womlbs, Beatlebug, Von Bontee"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
7.26pm
9 March 2017
Offline While i certainly agree when it comes to average people doing things that were ok back then but not now, Chris’s actions were far worse.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
3 Guest(s)