Stu

The post you have replied to was a specific response by me to the claim by HockeyDad that Perception Is Reality. Nevertheless, when doing risk assesment, percieved possible guilt does enter heavily on the final decision. And it does lead to gross generalization and stereotyping that everyone in a particular group is guilty until proven innocent.

Perception: Interpretation based only on sensory reception. Reality: The quality or state of actually being true with real certanity. Perception can and does affect behavior. But it does NOT define nor change what is real/true. The oughtright false teaching of so-called intellectual professors have convienced many that Perception 'is' Reality. So let's put this to the test and see what we/you believe. There have been dads involved with hockey that have commited crimes against children. The perception then could move to we, especially children, should avoid dads who are involved with hockey until they are proven innocent. Therefore, to be consistent, you must agree that all Hockey Dads should be treated as being guilty until their innocence is proven because that perception makes their guilt actually real/true, correct? Or, is perception not reality?

In the case of Ray Rice I did not hear anybody holding the Cowboys, the Dolphins, or any team other than the Ravens and NFL as the governing body accountable. It was a specific issue to Ravens and NFL, not to any of the other teams. In the case of the kneeling in protest, not merely sitting yet respecting, but actually protesting, when a person is in the uniform of their employer and on the clock, their freedom of protest expression can and should be curtailed to the desires of the team owner and the governing body that is over the employer. Out of uniform and off the clock individual freedom of protest prevails, but not in uniform and on the clock because during those times they are official representatives of the employer.

Yes, but presumtion of innocence also matters in both cases.

Granted, perception impacts behavior. But truth trumps perception. And if it doesn't, then idiotic perception prevails.

My context here is specific. It stems from the discussion of school boards fearing to house all other corps because of the actions of a very few, combined with a poster who said earlier that another possible shoe dropping is enough of a justification to cause pause with actually calling those other corps innocent. Here is an example of exactly what I mean by declare: At this juncture the Board, Director, and Staff of (inject name if a non-accused corps here) should not only be presumed as innocent but moreso should be declaired as innocent. That is unless something specific to them and only them is charged, then it should move from declared to presumed innocent until found guilty. Is that more clear?

.

Currently, I believe, there are no known convicted sexual preditors within DCI or any DCI corps. As for historically, searching names from older programs, books, etc and checking data bases would be a good start (however, careful scrutiny is needed to make sure the issue occured prior to or during the tenure with the corps). It is far better to begin there than continue the speculative perception of guilty by proxy, possibly, and indirect association. Or, better yet, unless proof is found, the declaration of innocence should always prevail.

There is no possibly about it; innocent until proven guilty is one of the foundational principles of true honor and righetousness. And I have named other corps such as Academy which are innocent. But will say now, for the record, for you, that the directors, boards, and staff of all DCI WC/OC corps, as well as the DCI corporate administrators, are 100% innocent until proven guilty. Now if you have something solid to bring forth, the corps you have that solid info on should be investigated. I do care about the youth. And the moment proof, legal proof of criminal activity where someone gets convicted occurs, I will, at that time, say that person, board, corps, organization is guilty. Until then there is no possibly about it; they are all innocent.

I have seen it in every place I have lived as well as places I have traveled. So I assumed it was common knowledge. My bad; sorry.

Not trying to be snarky. Sorry if it came across that way. For clarification, you said it would be an interesting avenue to persue; and the quote of yours I was specifically responding to was: "...not even sure it that was considered a public building as building was owned by the church."

Where did I ever say a church is a public building? A church is a body of people that either use, lease, or own a building. The church (body of people) can and do lease out 'public' schools and other 'public' buildings all the time. In many cases they own their own building, or lease out a privatly owned building; however that building is not public. But if the church (again body of people) lease a 'public' building to hold their services, that 'public' building cannot be denied to other organizations.

In the jurisdictions I have worked with, as long as proper application and fees are in order, the 'public' use of a 'public' school building outside of school cannot be denied; unless, of course, there is a legal issue preventing it (such as proof a known convicted child preditor is in the organization) or the building is booked during that time. A public school can, in many cases, have the building completely shut down overnight; but it has to be closed to all events and all organizations. If, say, they allow a church to have an overnight youth lock-in, they cannot then turn around and say a corps cannot also stay overnight. It is just that most organizations neither have time nor resources to fight a denial. They just move on to another place.

Um... Public schools are public buildings, and are just that, public. And non-profit entities such as churches, organizations, groups, clubs, etc.. are legally allowed to use the public building, outside of school time, provided they fill out the correct forms and pay any required fee. That is not entitlement.

Yes; and um, Yes. If you cared you could present that truthful factual information to DCI and the schools; which, by the way, would also help the situation. Just sayin'.

I did make a suggestion. Start with looking up the truth as to how many known convicted sexual offenders have been directly involved with all DCI corps from 1972 to the present. But if memory serves, you said that you did not care.

Try this on for size y'all. One year ago charges were brought against an individual. If there is a trial, and I would happen to be on the jury, I hold that the accused at the start of the trial is innocent, 100% innocent; irrespective of my opinion of the personality of the individual. And it is the responsibility of the prosicution to prove guilt. If that proof is sufficent I will vote guilty without reservation; if not sufficent, then innocence is maintained, also without reservation. I believe that strongly in the presumption of innocence. Again, this is irrespective of my opinion on the personality of the individual.

Yes I have an agenda. It is that individuals and organizations are innocent until proven guilty. That until you show verifiable proof that BD is another shoe to drop then BD, and the pletheora of other corps for that matter, is/are 100% innocent. My agenda is also that the innocent should not be held responsible for the guilty. Your item #3 discusses other people's perception an public relations; well your item #2 indicates that your perception is that BD might very well be guilty; that they should not be presumed as innocent. If I am being stubborn and crass it is because I firmly believe innocence as a default until guilt is proven.

That's two. You and BigW are in the same camp that BD must pay; it might not be fair; but because the corps are DCI, all corps including BD, and that is also the perception, then BD must pay for the sins of a few. Now what does JimF and Gar have to say?

Ok. You are in the camp that BD must pay; it might not be fair; but because the corps are DCI, and the perception that all corps are DCI, including BD, then BD must pay for the sins of a few.

(a) Is BD innocent and schools boards are wrong to blame them for the sins of a few others? Or.... (b) Since DCI is the corps; DCI is a collective; BD is a member corps in DCI; BD is a member of the collective; DCI is to take blame; the collective is to take blame; thus BD is to take blame and BD must then pay their part to rectify the issue? Which is it, (a) or (b)?

Because, according to some posters, apparently the people on school boards who are axing housing for all corps are idiots who blame the 50+ innocent corps for the sins of a couple. And in their eyes, BD is just as guilty, just as responsible, and must pay the consiquences due to that.

For me, I was not offended. So no apology needed, but thanks. A single thread bump, with only the word 'bump' written, is a typical way to bring something back to the top that is of major interest but want to seek other's input first. Most posters have done that on ocassion. However, doing that back to back to back to back to back... with around twenty threads, sorta sends out a snarky statement. And it was that which I was addressing concerning making legit posts when reopening threads. And again, even though it was not needed on my end, thanks for the apology.

And I have a gut feeling that sexual abuse of minors, and known convicted sex felons being on staff, was/is very, very rare, or completely nonexistent, in an overwhelming majority of the DCI corps from 1972 to present. Nor were/are there any systemic Cardinal Law type cover-ups from any of the DCI admins or the corps directors/boards either.

Tried to make a light joke on the whacking but guess it did not work. 🙄 But to me this response of yours would be akin to having all the schools involved in the NCAA, as well as the NCAA itself, none of which ever had any issues, who already had policies in place which were working, revamp and show proof their revisions will prevent another Penn State issue when they had nothing to do with it in the first place. Action based on public misperception of optics trumping actual truth is, to me, not the correct answer.