Badmovies.org Forum

these morons also gave their other kids Nazi inspired names  :hatred: :hatred: :hatred:

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/parents-adolf-hitler-lose-custody-newborn-020633900.html

Adolf Hitler pretty much ruined his own name for everybody forever.

I think the only person who is still pulling off any sort of variant is Dolph Lundgren. Sort of amusing because Dolph Lundgren would be the stereotypical Aryan.

Now I'm not defending these stupid, hateful, and stupid racists, but at least Adolf Hitler is a name. The article says that they have another daughter who they named JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell. That doesn't even make sense. They may not be the worst parents ever, but they're certainly in the running.

Wouldn't the world be a much nicer place if stupid and mean people were not allowed to reproduce?

Stupid, mean people can have intelligent, kind children, and vice-versa.

And a mustache style oddly.

I don't know, recently Michael Jordan had one samliar to that

and many many moons ago Charlie Chaplin did

so I wouldn't say he ruined the mustache, it's just considered to be in horrible taste to have one like Hilter did

J. Jonah Jameson can still pull it off. 

I guess it's too soon to be naming kids Adolf Hitler then, ay? There goes my plans for naming my next child.

I guess I'll have to go back a little further then. Ivan the Terrible has an nice ring to it.

The fundamental, core problem with this is that it is no one's business what a parent names their child.  Yes, these names are idiotic (on a number of levels)...less so than "Moon Unit"?...but,

To take someone's child away because you don't like what you named them is INSANE.  And wrong (on many levels).

This speaks volumes about what ILLUSIONS the freedoms we think we have really are.  And, how deeply low our culture has sunk.  This coming Friday, people will get into fist fights over the last pair of day-glo-green Nike's on sale, but no one bats an eye that:

THE FREAKING GOVERNMENT IS RIPPING CHILDREN FROM THEIR BIOLOGICAL PARENTS because of what they chose to NAME THEM.

What GOD gives anyone the power to tell a parent what to NAME THEIR CHILD?  Why do "they" get to decide what names are acceptable?  What if next month, "Peter" is deemed unacceptable, and thus a jailable offense?  Or Richard?  Or Debra?

Who gets to choose?

No, this is wrong, but not because of what the parents have done.  This is wrong because of the response to what the parents have done and the fact that it is news and very, very few people are even talking about this side of it.  There's a much bigger picture here than just this one family.

We need to rise above the Godwin's Law emotional response that the name Adolph Hitler evokes and look deeper at this  problem.

And lest you guys think I'm the resident tin-foil-hat-guy, parens patriae run amok is a very real problem...and a growing one.

Some light reading:

http://www.barefootsworld.net/parensp.html

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/6e.htm

http://www.hslda.org/hs/international/Germany/201111080.asp  (this is but one example of many on this site)

And, how about a 35 minute web video on the topic?

http://www.overruledmovie.com/

Well, ulther, I understand the fundamentals of your position, but I can think of few bigger red flags of deeper problems at home than a couple that would name their child Adolf Hitler. The vibe I got from the article was that the removal had to do with more than that. But if I worked for Child Protective Services and a couple named their child Adolf Hitler, and were even stupid enough to order a birthday cake with Adolf Hitler on it, I would investigate immediately. How idiotic is that?

Besides, the article states that the child was not removed simply because of naming, although I would venture to guess that it was an initial indicator that drew attention, as well it should be.

If you workd for Child Protective Services and learned that a couple adopted a black child and named him “n****r,” wouldn’t you immediately question the fitness of the parents? Wouldn’t you immediately have concern for the well-being of that child? There are certain things you just don’t do, and naming a child Adolf Hitler is one of them. Any reasonable person is going to question the competency of parents who would do such a thing, so it's not a question of who chooses what names are unacceptable. This goes well beyond that.

I disagree completely, which is okay.  I'm used to being an iconoclast.

There is nothing transcendentally wrong with any name a parent chooses.  It is YOUR emotional baggage that is making it an issue.

Hitler was evil, no doubt.  No doubt that *I* think those parents are stupid for doing that.  And perhaps more than a bit odd.  But, here's the thing.

It is not MY CHILD, and it is not MY CHOICE.

There's a very fundamental, philosophical issue here.  Is the parent sovereign in the family?  I say "yes."  There are clear cases where the parent is abusive; this is not one of those.  You and I don't have to like, or agree, with what the parent choose, but it's their choice.

If there were other, more substantive reasons to remove the children from the home, the article should have been about those...hell, at least MENTIONED them specifically rather than alluding to nebulous claims to try to build credibility.  But no, the article was an emotional appeal (one of our Logical Fallacies...often used to manipulate) capitalizing on one of the strongest memes in modern culture.

How about this example.  An acquaintance raised his daughter alone from age 9 to 16.  She was happy and healthy.  He had dreamed of moving aboard a boat and sailing the world.  She was totally on board with that idea and wanted to go with him.

A neighbor, a third party, heard of the idea and thought that was no way for a 16 year girl to live.  How would she go to the mall, watch American Idol, eat junk food and "fit in?"  She petitioned the local family court and...

Got the child removed from the home and placed into HER CUSTODY!

Yes sir, the court decided (I THINK this was in Ohio) that "the best interest of the child" was to be placed in the custody of a neighbor rather than her own parent.  She strongly disagreed and wanted to stay with her Dad.  The court figuratively patted her on the head, said, "there there, little missy, let the grown-ups talk," even though she was old enough to drive, reproduce, have a job and not so long ago, be married and have a family of her own.

True story, man, and not an isolated one.  This is a VERY serious issue, and we have to be very careful what cases we side with the parens patriae arm of the government.

Sanctioned kidnapping over a name...and people are defending it...just wow.   

Apparently it's everybody on the planet but You 's emotional baggage.

(...   You 's?  I feel weird just typing that.)

No, there are a lot of folks that agree with me, but so what?  Mob rule is right now?

You guys aware that in the first article I read on this (weeks before it was posted here), it was clearly stated that the judge in the case found there was NOT evidence of other abuse?  The sole basis for this is the NAME.

I remain stunned.

My emotional baggage makes it an issue? I assure I was not personally affected by the Holocaust, nor raped by Hitler, so I don't see how emotional baggage has anything to do with it.

It is not a subjective opinion that Hitler was one of history's ugliest monsters. It is virtually unanimous, and the only people that would actually consider him a hero are exactly the type of people I would question in their ability to raise a child. I have no problem with you fundamental position. However, there are rare occasions in life where situations rise above basic philosophical issues. Philosophy serves as a guide, not a ball and chain.

I bet did they nazi that coming.
But Anne Frankly, they deserved it. This is not reich.
Allright, these nazi jokes have been goring on for to long. This is getting out from mein kampfort zone.

Everytime I hear you say one of those puns, I hear a rimshot in the distance somewhere.

You're killin' me.

 :bouncegiggle:

ulthar, I agree with your sentiments, but I don't think that's what going on here.

Yes, the article is inflammatory, and it does not provide the whole story. I'm not an expert, but I hope it doesn't tell the whole story, because CPS stories should not be available to all. But the people involved emphatically say that they did not simply remove the children solely due to their names. In fact, they say they never would. We, as readers of this quickie internet story, do not have any access to the CPS case files, nor should we.

The blanket statement that the government is taking kids away because of what their parents name them is conjecture.

There's nothing in the article to say that the parents were negligent in any way. In fact, there's almost nothing in the article at all, but does the media have to be ultimately responsible for all decisions? The media is not government run, they're free to make their own decisions about what they want to say.

This isn't an issue of government restriction.

At the same time, I have to agree with Flick James. The fact that this couple named their children "Adolph Hitler" and "Aryan Nation" is gigantic warning sign that all is not right. It's every parent's right to name and raise their children, but when one of them decides to subject their child to the everlasting hell of being name "Adolph Hitler", I would say that's a pretty good reason to investigate that family further.

There's more to it than that blanket red statement you posted. In fact, there's nothing in the article to say that the government removed the child because of its name, although its implied because the news is lazy.

Frankly, I'd consider just giving the kid the name Adolf Hitler to be child abuse.  Think about how that's going to be for the kid growing up.  He's got the sort of name that people will want to spit on him or punch him in the face just for having. 

And job hunting when he gets older isn't going to be much better.  How many people do you think are going to look at an application that says "Adolf Hitler" and want to call the guy back for an interview? 

A career in politics is straight out of the question. 

I'm glad I got some support.

Ulthar, I think you understand that I don't have a strict ideological difference on this matter. I do believe that, while children don't have rights until they are of legal age, they are deserving of some level of protection against abuse. If you don't, then I can see where you get your hardline stance here. If you believe that children should be no legal protection against abuse, then we will simply agree to disagree and move on. No problem.

If you do agree that there should be some protection against abuse, then what I'm saying is that the naming of a child Adolf Hitler can be argued as causing undue hardship and could be argued as potential abuse on its own. But, let's say that you don't agree with. Even then, I don't see that it is unreasonable to investigate for child abuse based on such a thing.

I'll relate it to a similar stance I take on prescription drugs, although I know it's not exactly the same thing. Now, this is my opinion, but I believe that putting kids on prescription drugs can constitute abuse in some situations. Kids don't have any choices. They live based on the choices made for them by their parents. Some parents will administer a prescription drug for necessary health reason. Some parents will administer a prescription drug because THEY don't want to deal with a difficult child. A kid may have a mild developmental or emotional issue that could reasonably be dealt with through behavioral methods without resorting to pharmaceuticals, but the parents take the prescription route more out of convenience to them than the health concerns of the child. I THINK THIS IS ABUSE. Some may disagree, but I do think at the very least it can be argued as abuse and potentially established as abuse in a court. The reason I believe this is because of the choice factor. What if the child becomes an adult and decides that he would rather have been free of drugs and deal with it behaviorally. Now he may be dependent on pharmaceuticals. I think he is justified in suing his parents in a case like this. Now, do we let the kid wait until he is 18 and let him arrive at that conclusion on his own? Or do we offer some form of legal protection?

My point is that in these types of situations, it's not easy to apply a blanket philosophical approach. It gets sticky.

My question to you would be, do you believe children should have some level of protection against abuse? If you do, then I would argue that naming a child Adolf Hitler, or a black child "n****r" would be examples of something that can be argued as abusive on it's own merits, or at least a strong indicator of potential abuse.

Anyway, I think I've gone as far as I can to explain my position. It's an interesting debate.

Query:

Joseph Stalin had millions murdered.

Should all parents naming their children "Joseph" have their children removed and same be charged with child abuse?

I'm not just trying to be provocative; there really are some fundamental philosophies at work here.

(And for the record, those few that have tried to cross me on the issue of "protecting children until they can fend for themselves" can speak to the issue of what I believe on that....)

I've asked a pediatrician..one that I know personally to be a HUGE advocate for children from birth onward...for an opinion on this issue, and she said she thought it was INSANE to remove a child from the parents on the basis of ANY name.

If there was other abuse than the name...that's a separate issue...a separate point of discussion.  Sticking only to this issue of the name "Adolph Hitler," at what point does the parent's right to name their own child end?  What's the limit?  Who decides...and if other than the parent, then...well, what right does the parent actually have?

(Another aside...it's ONLY because I respect, and admire, you guys that I am engaging in this discussion with you at all...I hope you understand that).

Nice try at a strawman there. 

Nobody is upset with them naming the guy "Adolf" (granted, it would be somewhat questionable if they did, but that's not the topic.)    People are upset that they named the kid "Adolf Hitler", somebody who's known for being the most hated man in history.   Even if they had named him "Joseph Stalin" instead of just the "Joseph" that your trying to make an argument for that name still doesn't carry the same weight that Adolf Hitler does.  There are more than just a few people that don't know anything about Stalin other than he's "some Russian tyrant" but EVERYBODY knows Adolf Hitler is a grade A scum of the earth. 

Now let me ask you a question.
Is there anything you don't think parents should be able to name children? 

"Be able" is the fundamental question.

A question you still haven't answered. 

Okay, fair enough.  I think the fundamental right belongs to the individual.  What to do you think?  That "be able" is a government...collective decision?

So, you'd have no problem with somebody being named Sackofs**t or n****r?  Because, to a good deal of people, that's more or less the same level as naming somebody Adolf Hitler.

What I think is that there are some things kids just shouldn't be named, and anybody that does name a kid these things has already proven that they don't have enough good judgement to raise a kid.

And yet...we support the right to play violent video games.   Wow.

No...no contradiction here at all...

If you can't tell the difference between letting a kid play a videogame and naming them Adolf Friggin' Hitler, then I don't see any point bothering to talk to you on this one.  Obviously, you're values are so different than mine that they might as well be alien for all the sense they make.

Again, I agree with you on principle. Adolf Hitler simply crosses the line. I think it is possible to cross certain lines. Adolf by itself is a name. Combined with Hitler it becomes a monster. Historical perspective have given us that much. I'm simply saying that there are some things you don't do.

And as Mofo pointed out, we don't know that this is simply over a name. There is no clear indication in that article or any others I've found about this news item. We're not supposed to know. It's a sensational story and we don't know everything.

All I'm saying is that naming a child Adolf Hitler can be considered as abuse. You don't think so, and that's your opinion. I'm saying it's up for consideration.

While I agree that parents have the right to name their children, I think Flick makes a valid point about some names throwing up a red flag. Naming a kid Adolf Hitler strongly associates the parents with certain extreme beliefs, organizations and activities that might be cause for legitimate concern. It's also suggests a great deal about the parents' personalities and attitudes. I certainly think it's appropriate to investigate for physical or psychological abuse based on that, and irresponsible to do otherwise. If all that is going on is some unconventional naming and maybe a few wacky political views, there are no grounds for further action. But if there is abuse going on, then children should be protected.

I'm inclined to believe that's what happened in this case. The name set off alarm bells, the family was investigated, and there was indeed more going on. In a sense, you could say the kid was removed because of the name, because that was what set events in motion, but it was not the reason in itself. Of course, nobody is going to discuss the details with the press, and it wouldn't make such a sensational story anyway. We get a few facts, twisted in the most interesting way.

Ah...someone else sees the need to relax the tension with a joke. Good on yer!