posted
Besides Scrap, which I agree is an awesome name for The Pixiest, what are names not on any sort of standard list that would actually enhance how awesome a person is?
I'm thinking about it right now but it's hard!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad to hear that Youth and Family Services is doing something about the nazi family. I'd like to hear that their social security claim was in question too.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Besides Scrap, which I agree is an awesome name for The Pixiest, what are names not on any sort of standard list that would actually enhance how awesome a person is?
I'm thinking about it right now but it's hard!
Danger. As a middle name. For a girl. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moxie is a good name... Crimefighter isn't... I love Penn, but...
One can have a non-standard name without it being truly awful, but for every "Moon" there's a "Dweezel."
KQ: Danger WOULD be a cool middle name for a girl!
BB and Dag: I'll answer to Scrap but not Scrappy. (Seriously, Scrappy was my granpa. No joke. No, not the damn dog either.)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really need to know what the justifications were for taking the little Nazi kids away from their parents. Until then I'm not really okay with this.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trent Destian: the little Nazi kids
You might just have offered yourself the justification... I'm not sure how I'm leaning on this, but those names were way beyond what I consider "strange" names.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the cake makers refuse to do their jobs because of "moral objections" then maybe they should find another line of work.
And the N.J. agency that took the kids away only proves that Nazi-ism is alive and well. It didn't take the parents' naming practices to prove that. Jack booted thugs can come in the name of children.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Strange" or no, I don't think it's illegal to be affiliated with the Nazi party. Unless it is, I admit I haven't researched it.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trent, in many European nations (Particularly Germany) it is illegal. In the United States, it is not. To be a Communist is also not illegal in the United States.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: If the cake makers refuse to do their jobs because of "moral objections" then maybe they should find another line of work.
Its not the employees though, its a business-wide policy
quote: Karen Meleta, a ShopRite spokeswoman, said the grocer tries to meet customer requests but rejects those deemed inappropriate. "We believe the request to inscribe a birthday wish to Adolf Hitler is inappropriate," she said.
posted
Friends of my former roommate have a son and daughter... the son's middle name is "Danger" and the daughter's middle name is "Moxie". Which I think is awesome.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Friends of my former roommate have a son and daughter... the son's middle name is "Danger" and the daughter's middle name is "Moxie". Which I think is awesome.
I would do this in an instant with my future children, except that they're going to have Indian first names & probably look pretty white. I figure they should have a more typical American name to fall back on if they want.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be much more willing to do weird names if I had the middle name to play around with. First name is American name, middle is Chinese name. So, nothing fun or unusual for my kids (unless you count extremely white kids having a Chinese name- I swear, my daughter has no Chinese looks at all).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
I doubt they removed him just because of his name. There's probably more complicated things going on.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We also have naming regulations here in Brazil (but it's a newish law). No names that would "ridicule" the child.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to start off by saying that I, personally, think the racist views of the parents are atrocious, violent, go against everything that is right with the world, and altogether make me sick to my stomach.
However, I'd also like to say that the parents have the right to name their kids whatever they damn-well please.
The parents have beliefs that, while close-minded and anti-progressive, they are entitled by the American Constitution to express in whatever way they so desire, so long as it does not border on criminal.
They probably did pretty much screw up their kids for life with not only their jaded views, but also the humiliation and possible endangerment of growing up with such a name.
However, they were only paying homage to people and icons [albeit ones that the average person, me included, consider atrocious and abominable], and are completely justified in doing so.
It's no different than someone naming their child after a major historical, political, or cultural figure that they respect, admire, etc.
Moreover, the government, who I suspect of taking away the children only because of the personal beliefs of the parents, was absolutely wrong in doing so.
Any views, thoughts, religious, philosophical, or political beliefs someone has are entirely their own business and they should be allowed to practice, and exercise them as they wish.
Now, I absolutely do NOT believe in hate crimes, violence, child abuse, etc., I do believe that they should be allowed to express their beliefs, even if it's reflected onto the children. They are allowed to school their children in whatever views they please, providing that there is no violence indoctrinated.
The government is only as powerful as we allow it to be, as provided by the Constitution deriving its power from the will of the people. While the government has definitely increased in size and influence over the past 200 some-odd years, it is only because of our allowance of this happening.
If the government is allowed to take away people's children because of their beliefs, no matter how extreme they may be, who's to say they can't just as easily take away children for beliefs less extreme?
In another twenty years, whenever the tendency to associate Islam with terrorism has been even further ingrained into the collective American psyche, it wouldn't be too brash to say a child could be taken away for being named Saddam, or Osama.
Those names may seem extreme, but just consider that Mohammed would be next. [Mohammed, of course, being the most common name in the world.]
Posts: 135 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: The decision might have been handed down from higher up in the company than the cake makers.
Someone posted something up above that implied that this was in fact the case. I'd still be interested to hear Occasional answer outside of the context of this particular case.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If the government is allowed to take away people's children because of their beliefs...
When I was watching CNN yesterday, the Family Services' statement was very careful to remind folks that they only remove children after they have received a complaint and found an immenent threat. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until it goes to court.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I indeed, should give the case the BOD, but I do think that any judgment would be exacerbated in their appraisal of the case because of the people involved.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but as far as I'm concerned there are many unwanted practices in our government.
As for the cake matter, while the cake makers may have decided not to make it for personal reasons, it may also have been purely for business matters. Certainly they had to think how it reflect upon the company to be serving people considered less than pleasant, to put it mildly.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm aligning myself behind what Vyrus is saying. It sucks that these kids have these parents, and perhaps I should give the government the benefit of the doubt. But considering the circumstances I'm going to have retain my doubt on child service's motive and handling of this case until some evidence proves otherwise.
I'm vehement about very few things, but nothing sets me off like the issue of free speech. I hold these views strongly and I attempt to apply them to all people and not just the people I agree with. Those are their kids, that is a mother and a father, and if their worse crime is talking about how the hate Jews, blacks, and other various shades, them somebody overstepped by taking away those kids.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trent Destian: But considering the circumstances I'm going to have retain my doubt on child service's motive and handling of this case until some evidence proves otherwise.
Don't hold your breath. Such evidence is almost certainly protected by privacy laws.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Moreover, the government, who I suspect of taking away the children only because of the personal beliefs of the parents, was absolutely wrong in doing so.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and figure that the kids were not taken away because of the personal beliefs of the parents, but were instead taken away because the parents were figured in an investigation to be in a significant way provably abusive and/or neglectful.
quote:And the N.J. agency that took the kids away only proves that Nazi-ism is alive and well. It didn't take the parents' naming practices to prove that. Jack booted thugs can come in the name of children.
Why do you think taking the kids away proves that 'nazi-ism is alive and well?' Do you think there should be no child protective services, or what?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the cake makers refuse to do their jobs because of "moral objections" then maybe they should find another line of work.
quote:Interesting. Do you think that applies to other lines of work?
My statement was ironic. At least your on the right track of my intentions for saying that statement.
quote:Why do you think taking the kids away proves that 'nazi-ism is alive and well?
Have you ever read "The Trial" by Kafka? With an organization that has power to take children away from parents, isn't it a good idea for the public to know why they are doing something beyond "trust me"? That is what a lot of people have been saying for the past five years who all of a sudden seem rather silent on this issue.
quote:Do you think there should be no child protective services, or what?
I think their power should be reduced tremendously. They have little oversight and often act independently of police and other agencies. About the only time they are held up to scrutiny is when they screw up and after the fact. They have their uses, but there methods are dangerously unchecked.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think their power should be reduced tremendously. They have little oversight and often act independently of police and other agencies. About the only time they are held up to scrutiny is when they screw up and after the fact. They have their uses, but there methods are dangerously unchecked.
That I completely agree with. I just don't think the newspaper is the appropriate place for that scrutiny. These aren't elected officials accountable to the people. These are parents who may or may not harm their kids.
Since in my experience, the parents that do get away with it and the ones who don't are drug through the coals, I'd rather not see that play out publically. The last thing parents need is random strangers in town thinking they beat their kids when they were found innocent.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if the state does take the kids, can the foster parents (or relatives- whoever they end up with) rename them?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Since in my experience, the parents that do get away with it and the ones who don't are drug through the coals, I'd rather not see that play out publicly. The last thing parents need is random strangers in town thinking they beat their kids when they were found innocent.
So I assume you write letters to your local newspaper informing them that you refuse to buy their services because of their actions? Because that's your recourse.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't matter if I buy the paper at that point. Once that kind of info is out there in the public conciousness, you can't just take it back. And if the news is the one spreading the info, you can't expect them to go behind themselves and make sure they told the story fairly. Who'd make sure the papers and cable shows were being responsible there?
I don't just want one check on DCF. I want a series of checks and balances that manages both safety and privacy.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: So, if the state does take the kids, can the foster parents (or relatives- whoever they end up with) rename them?
I don't think foster parents would have that right. Adoptive parents, if it went to that point, I imagine would.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:They have little oversight and often act independently of police and other agencies.
This is simply not true. While it differs from state to state, DCF is overseen by the courts, assisted by the police and often other agencies as well. While DCF agents do have the power to remove a child who is in imminent danger without a court order, that action is subject to immediate court review, usually within 24 hours.
Perhap Occasional rather than making broad generalizations, you could tell me specifically how DCF is overseen in NJ (or even in your home area), why you find that oversight inadequate and what specific additional forms of oversight and limitation would you like to see?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
