44 replies to this topic

[BurgundyTears]

Yup yup, my comment was directed at the thread in general, since some people are still kinda going on only the original post's info. Deciding which people those are though, would probably lead to another contro thread. XD

[Chikara Nadir]

Thanks, Burgy. At this point in my life, I'm used to people only reading the first couple of posts before responding - but I definitely appreciate the extra effort of anyone who does keep up with most of the responses!

That said, I would definitely not have a problem with someone naming their child Adolf - it might be German heritage, a family name, maybe even named after someone you really respect from having made a difference in your life (a teacher, family friend, etc). But it's just laughable that they would say that the names have nothing to do with Naziism, given that ALL of their kids are going to have difficulty living normal lives under their birth titles - even if their parents weren't mentally ill, uneducated, and indoctrinating them into some very bad stuff (including teaching them that sexism and violence are acceptable).

[arunma]

Chief Fire Storm, on 24 November 2011 - 08:08 PM, said:

I'm arguing that the names alone justify taking the kids away. If that was the case ot not doesn't matter to my argument.

Yeah, I think our discussion was somewhat separate from the specifics of the case.

As for the case itself, I read the MSNBC article, but it was a bit vague. There were claims of violence in the home, but I don't know if they were ever substantiated or not. Because if not, then but for the fact that we all hate Hitler, this case would make the state out to be a bunch of douchebags. Not saying I'm a fan of these parents at all; I just happen to like due process...

[canas is back]

Chikara Nadir, on 24 November 2011 - 09:15 PM, said:

Thanks, Burgy. At this point in my life, I'm used to people only reading the first couple of posts before responding - but I definitely appreciate the extra effort of anyone who does keep up with most of the responses!

That said, I would definitely not have a problem with someone naming their child Adolf - it might be German heritage, a family name, maybe even named after someone you really respect from having made a difference in your life (a teacher, family friend, etc). But it's just laughable that they would say that the names have nothing to do with Naziism, given that ALL of their kids are going to have difficulty living normal lives under their birth titles - even if their parents weren't mentally ill, uneducated, and indoctrinating them into some very bad stuff (including teaching them that sexism and violence are acceptable).

I actually know about 7 people who are named Adolf, not all are first names, but four of them are actually hispanic. Adolf is mostly weird in a english culture where the only person we really know of with that name IS Hitler

[Chief Fire Storm]

There's my problem. This kid's name isn't just Adolf. It's Adofl Hitler. Appearently the parents intended for everyone to know about it or they would ask for the name Adolf Hitler to be on the cake. If his name was just Adolf I wouldn't care.

[#AdV0k8]

Ah, I see now that I read through too quickly and missed some of the information given. My apologies. With everything that's surfaced from this case I believe it's pretty solid. These children are certainly being set up for a hard life, immediate removal from their parents...though also a potentially traumatic experience, would likely be most beneficial to them trying to lead a normal life. Are there any exceptions that could be made so that their names could be changed before they reach adulthood?

[Chief Fire Storm]

Removing the children was controversial enough. I don't think the courts can force a name change, and I don't know how legal guardianship rights fit in with this case.

[#AdV0k8]

Yea, I know...it's just a shame that they would have to grow up with that. The first 18 years of someone's life are very defining to the type of adult they become. Not to say that they couldn't rise above it, but I imagine it will get very discouraging after a while.

[Emiko]

If you want to go by the family history...

you still have to look at this..they pointed out that they parents are generally uneducated. Yes the mother told a neighbor that she was fearful for her life. Then again, she could have done this to spite her husband.

There is a lot to the story that I am sure is not told to the media. The fact that the two are still together doesn't prove anything.

I do think that the parents need therapy, and the older children as well. I don't think that the new baby should have been removed until the investigation was complete. Mainly since there was nothing said about violence to the children, or any other type of "abuse".

If you are pointing out Adolf's temper and how he treats his sister; I had a little cousin who called his sisters a bitch all the time when he was his age. They thought it was funny. I do think he even hit them once in a while too. Some people are just not smart in that area...

[Chikara Nadir]

Still, it's one thing if you have a kid who acts out because he has temper problems. It's another thing if the kid is being TAUGHT to act that way by their parents, rather than being reprimanded for acting out like that regularly.

And if there's a history of potential violence between the parents (and with the father's previous wife), that's still not healthy to have around the kids...even if we really should be thankful that there seems to be no signs that the kids themselves were abused, at least not physically.

[#AdV0k8]

Well I mean, of course there are things involved here that the media has not put out...that's with any story, that's throughout history. Still, the more I learn about this case, the less inclined I am to sympathize with the parents. If it can be done by the book, then the children would probably be better off not growing up in that kind of environment...that is of course assuming that the evidence of endangerment and grounds for such are as solid as they seem to be. And to add my personal opinion (not really for the sake of my argument), people's "rights" are violated all the time...wtf do I care if they have to violate these peoples alleged rights if it means those children's upbringing isn't dictated by the morons that gave them such condemning names to live up to...but again, that last part is just my personal feelings on the matter, Idk maybe it's a little farfetched...I'm certainly not arguing the law here, more like my objective thinking.

[Selena]

Quote

I don't think that the new baby should have been removed until the investigation was complete. Mainly since there was nothing said about violence to the children, or any other type of "abuse".

There's not enough details for any of us to make a proper decision on the case. That said, is it only "abuse" if the child is being beaten/starved/physically damaged? Does mentally shaping your child into a monster not count? If they're well-fed and looked after, then is it okay to plant seeds of hatred and evil in their mind? Leaving a child with mental scars is just as damaging as physical abuse. Perhaps even worse. The physical wounds heal faster than the mental ones, if the mental ones heal at all. And in the worst case scenario, kids may not even realize that they've been raised into violent, unacceptable people. That's how the cycle of hatred and ignorance continues. It's sad that a couple is denied visitation to their newborn. But humping and spitting out a baby does not make you a "parent."

Logically, it is unlikely that CPS would spend the time and resources to take away children based on names alone.

[Chief Fire Storm]

Selena, on 28 November 2011 - 09:47 AM, said:

There's not enough details for any of us to make a proper decision on the case. That said, is it only "abuse" if the child is being beaten/starved/physically damaged? Does mentally shaping your child into a monster not count? If they're well-fed and looked after, then is it okay to plant seeds of hatred and evil in their mind?

Going the opposite direct I have been going I would have to say yes to your last question. If they want to tell their kids other races are somehow inferior then that is their right.

[Selena]

I wasn't concerned so much about encouraging racism as I was about encouraging violent behavior, like the "threatened to kill sister" claim about one of the kids. Though it's difficult to tell if that's just typical sibling "I'LL KILL YOU " stuff, or a sign of violent tendencies. Since the father apparently has violent tendencies, even if not directed at the kids, I assumed the latter.

[Shekey the Green]

I know this is kind've an old topic with a new post, but there's a General Manager of a car repair shop here in town named "Adolf Kahn."

I think other than a few jokes about the name, it really depends on the child's motivation for a good resume and work ethic. Naming him Adolf Hitler doesn't mean that he will magically create a holocaust here in America.

Of course, if he is taught these habits and there is abuse...well, that's a different story. I don't think a name change is really necessary.

Edited by Shekey the Green, 04 December 2011 - 02:50 AM.