Were they taken because of their names?

Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by BeautifullyChaotic, Nov 22, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BeautifullyChaotic

    BeautifullyChaotic Well-Known Member


    Parents who name children 'Adolf Hitler' and 'Aryan Nation' claim they've wrongly lost custody of their kids

    What are your thoughts?

    Do you think they were taken because of their names, as the parents claim?
    Do you think they were taken because of abuse that came to light when people outside of the family learned of the names?
  2. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    nm just sigh...
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2011
  3. In a Lonely Place

    In a Lonely Place Well-Known Member

    I think their kids were taken away because they are obviously insane,I mean c'mon what was the next kid gonna be called "Jew hater"? People like this should be sterilised.
  4. lightbeam

    lightbeam Antiquities Friend

    Sterilization should be required for dolts like these.
  5. BeautifullyChaotic

    BeautifullyChaotic Well-Known Member

    This couple actually just had another baby a few days ago, Child Protective Services was there 17 hours later to take custody of the newborn.
  6. Growing Pains

    Growing Pains Well-Known Member

    Could be just because of their names, but really, we cannot say without knowing them or the case.

    Still, you have to question the judgement of someone who would seriously give their kids names like that and be surprised when people have a problem with it.
  7. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    I wonder what would have happened if they were named Jim Crow or George Bush or Pat Robertson. It's not against the law to name your child. Also this:
    Parenting classes might be in order, but not separation. I don't even know how this is still going on.
  8. tx915

    tx915 Active Member

    I read a news story on this that mentioned that the children were removed due to domestic violence in the home. I don't think that we know the exacts on this case. We don't know if the parent(s) are alcoholics, drug addicts or just plain abusive. Getting kids out of a domestic violent situation if the parents refuse to get their act together is necessary. If they we're followign the cps program ie. getting the drug tests, taking the parenting classes, getting counseling they would have a good shot at getting the kids back and probably some lawyer volunteering for their case. Since that hasn't happened my money is there is something else going on we don't know about.

    It's not illegal to be stupid although maybe it should be in some ways. In some countries it is illegal for your kids to be named stupid things (Japan, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Portugal etc). Naming a kid George Bush is quite a bit different than name your kid Hitler, the exterminator of the Jews. It's bad for the kids mental health when he gets older.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2011
  9. Kaos General

    Kaos General Well-Known Member

    Hmmmm methinks people doth protest too much. I mean seriously, just because they decided to name their kids because they hold pro nazi views does not give the authorities the right to act like nazis.

    If people had actually read the article it quite clearly states: were suffering from unspecified physical and psychological disabilities. If people truly believe that people such as this deserve sterilisation i suggest you remove yourselves from this site, because that my friends, means also that you also approve of steralisation for every single member of this site who suffers from psychological issues, which, last time i looked was about 99% of the entire site.
  10. In a Lonely Place

    In a Lonely Place Well-Known Member

    I stand by what I said,it's one thing having your own problems but to name your kids hitler,himmler etc... Is inflicting a miserable fucking existence on them.
  11. In a Lonely Place

    In a Lonely Place Well-Known Member

    Had these people named their kids Fred flintstone,sonic the hedgehog and darth vader I'd feel sorry for them but they know exactly what they've done. Trying to spread their vile beliefs through those poor kids is inexcusable and constitutes child abuse.
  12. In a Lonely Place

    In a Lonely Place Well-Known Member

    And regarding sterilisation for everyone here,having mental illness doesn't mean you can't be a good parent but are they being good parents?
    Everybody has a responsibility to think long and hard about bringing children into this world,can you provide a decent standard of living for them? Can you make the sacrifices needed? Can you give the love,support and nurture needed by a child? But c'mon are these people looking like responsible human beings capable of love when they've branded their children with names associated with hate,misery and suffering? I was neglected and mentally abused by my parents and I wished I'd been removed from my family coz once your damaged you can't undo it. I know people worry about the authorities snatching children but sometimes it really is needed.
  13. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Yes, you make sense, but the problem is the violation of freedom. In all aspects, it's not illegal to idolize hitler, or their beliefes. It's not illegal to hate your country and everyone in it. It's not illegal for alot of things, even though they go against our very ways of life. It's a very delicate thing when you allow a government to dictate things to people. As far as I'm aware, it's not illegal to be racist in your own household. I don't know how the states considers racism being taught to children, if the racism is a firm aspect in the parts beliefes.

    :( It's just very delicate. You can't just go in there saying the name is abuse because of potential responces by future pupils/people who find out the childrens names. It's a dodgy power to give to a government, that does try, but makes mistakes under the guise of it being in the best interests of it's people.
  14. In a Lonely Place

    In a Lonely Place Well-Known Member

    It seems to me that child protection agencies are damned if they do and damned if they don't! So opponents of children being taken into care are basically saying a child should be left with its parents no matter what they do to that child because nobody has the right to violate their rights? Sad really coz theirs millions of fuckwits out there breeding like rabbits neglecting their offspring and then society has to suffer the consequences of those damaged children becoming damaged adults. I'm all about freedoms not being eroded by governments but this is one area I feel people need help with. Whether that be through parenting classes or some new school of thought. My overall impression of society is that it's getting less respectful and more violent than when I was a child and bad parenting must play a part in this.
  15. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Well let's get one thing straight, I think this is messed up.

    But anyhow. They name their kid Adolf hitler. It's difficult to concretely say this is wrong because it's a matter of perception. It's not the name or the beliefe, otherwise every Nazi sympathizer could be arrested for believing what they believe. So it's not the beliefe.
    The only reprocussions are the impact the name is going to have on the childs life. But this is dependant on the environment. If these children are raised and kept in a Pro-nazi environment, then it's not going to drastically impact their lives in their community. But when the children want to interact with modern day society, there will be a conflict of expression, which will hinder the children. ... ug i dont know why im writing this.

    It's just .. very very bad when a society can dictate to a family how to raise their children. Society is here to protect people from abuse as best as it can. But the moment society "knows" what's best, it is in effect stopping one aspect of life. Just because we completely disagree with it, doesn't mean it doesn't have the right to exist. Who are we to techniqually tell these people what to do.

    If we went to war with forieng nation, and that foriegn nation had commander that obliterated millions of people. Would you say no to a family naming their child after him? What justification is it? The neglect for the future of that child as it bears that name? Or the fact that the suffering and misery caused by someone using that name makes you sick, and you don't want that name on another person. When does the government have the right to intervene on a beliefe structure?

    I mean we had a case in Canada where a family, who was religious(I can't remember which one) had a sick early teen daughter who needed a pretty standard medical procedure to survive. The family refused the treatment under the cause that it conflicts with their beliefe structure. Now, in most cases we're very open, but when it comes to the direct well being of a child, or person, it's splitting hairs. In the end, a beliefe/religion can not block a persons right to live. But it was very touchy, even on that note.

    This sort of issue runs along side diluted topics like parents who let their children become obese, or who don't teach them manners, or bathe them regularly, or get them clean clothes, or include them in social activities, or allow them to wear skimpy clothingy, or get tattoos or piercings.
    Granted the major difference in those examples are the permanent nature of a name vs alot of these more malluble characteristics. But it does unfortunatly boil down to a perception, a choice, and possibilities. Sometimes in freedom people will take the piss, simply because freedom encompasses everything. You have to be very careful where you put your walls in that freedom and how you use your tools. It's not just the individual situation, it's the application of that situation on future more generalized situations.
  16. In a Lonely Place

    In a Lonely Place Well-Known Member

    SBLAKE~ I reluctantly agree with your well written post,I only say reluctant because I'm over the top when it comes to issues like this. It's probably too close to my heart for me to have a balanced opinion when it comes to children being neglected/abused etc...
    I concede that we do have to allow people to bring their children up as they see fit not as others say they should. Just because I don't like something doesn't make it wrong and I see that now.
  17. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Well, idk. I think you're very right at the end of the day. These kids are so screwed. As for the ways alot of people are bringing their children up? :S makes me shudder.
  18. gloomy

    gloomy Account Closed

    I don't think the government should interfere in families.

    I think it's pretty obvious that the kids are already going to be indoctrinated… there's no stopping that. I also don't think that people should be pressured to conform. You can't control the way people are going to raise their kids… and there's still hope that one day the kids will be able to think for themselves.

    This is sort of one of those 'Everyone has a right to free speech unless you say something that we don't want you to say' things.

    Personally, I think it's time that people stopped being so sensitive about these things. Hateful words only have power if you react to them.

    To be honest, I'm about 100x more afraid of the US government than I am of any neo-nazi, even though my beliefs are pretty much the polar opposite. Now they're stealing children?? That's messed up.

    And the thing is-- as long as they pick their targets, they can get away with it. If you ever want to pass a law restricting someone's freedoms, just mention Nazis or pedophiles and then people will support it unconditionally. It's a huge part of what is wrong with society today.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.