Wow Iceland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Do you support the rights of the government to ban names you don't find offensive? Or are you only OK with them banning names you personally find offensive?

---

I support the rights of the government to ban names that are likely to cause children a great deal of unnecessary grief. I support the rights of adults to change their names to any of a number of stupid names. I do not necessarily support their right to change their name to "Fukniggas Killjews" if it means they'll end up writing it on application forms, addresses, registers etc. defacing them with obscenity and hate speech without prior permission. They're welcome to write whatever they want on their own things of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Why would that matter? Its a simple question - are you OK with the government banning names that some people find offensive but you don't? I don't know what all you find offensive so throwing names out of a hat would be silly. But lets look at it from a religious angle. What if some people thought naming your kid Allah is offensive - should that name be banned? What about Jesus? Is that OK? I'm sure you find neither offensive but would you support the government banning it because some people find it offensive?

---

So long as the bar is set incredibly high (like in the UK and USA alike) then yes. I would not say either Allah or Jesus reach that bar. Now what about you?

Take my example of Fukniggas Killjews. Should that be allowed as a name yes or no?

Now it's worth noting in both our countries that incitement to murder is illegal so why would Killjews be allowed as a name, but suggesting it in free speech is illegal? Or do you think incitement to murder should be legalised?

Quote:

---

Ultimately I don't trust the government to decide what is offensive. Its far better not to allow the government to control something as basic as a name. Expanding from just naming a child what about adults who want to change their name? You would restrict someone's right to the name of their choosing? Simply because some bureaucrat decides its offensive? If you expect that to be OK then you have to prepare yourself that some names they find offensive would be names you won't find offensive. Would you still say the government is right?

---

Basically you agree with the premise of protecting children, it's just government is too powerful/conspiracy theory fears?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

So long as the bar is set incredibly high (like in the UK and USA alike) then yes. I would not say either Allah or Jesus reach that bar. Now what about you?

Take my example of Fukniggas Killjews. Should that be allowed as a name yes or no?

Now it's worth noting in both our countries that incitement to murder is illegal so why would Killjews be allowed as a name, but suggesting it in free speech is illegal? Or do you think incitement to murder should be legalised?

---

A name is not an incitement to murder.

So you would say Sweden goes too far?

http://www.thelocal.se/24024/20091223/#.UOnyIeRX2_c

Where is bar? You say make it incredibly high but I'm not seeing what the bar is. Is it something people find offensive? X% of the population will find it offensive? What makes "Killjews" different than Allah. In one society Allah would be far more offensive then another. I'm not seeing a logical consistency if your argument.

Yes I would. Especially with Michael Jackson being on that list. But that doesn't mean that a free for all should be ok.

I'll ask for a third time: Should parents be allowed to name a child Fukniggas Killjews?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes I would. Especially with Michael Jackson being on that list. But that doesn't mean that a free for all should be ok.

I'll ask for a third time: Should parents be allowed to name a child Fukniggas Killjews?

---

Yes. Should they do it? No. But you know parents shouldn't also spoil their kids but I don't supports laws against it. I wouldn't mind a bit closer eye being kept on parents who name their child something like that but I am not in favor of the government deciding what you get to name your child.

Should parents be allowed to punch their children and give them black eyes?

Deciding you can't name a child one thing in less than 0.01% of cases := deciding a child's name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Should parents be allowed to punch their children and give them black eyes?

Deciding you can't name a child one thing in less than 0.01% of cases := deciding a child's name.

---

Obviously you shouldn't be allowed to punch your child. I don't see how you see potentially life threatening action = to a name. A name can be changed. A nickname can be used.

If it's about protecting kids, do you guys object an adult changing his name to Fukniggas Killjews?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

If it's about protecting kids, do you guys object an adult changing his name to Fukniggas Killjews?

---

As long as he doesn't list his name on any public records or on any private records that he hasn't been given permission to deface and provided he understands his kids can't inherit his surname. In principle, I believe adults should have the right to change their names as long as they pay for the associated costs. I do not know how I feel about forcing others--eg. hospitals, insurance companies, banks, schools, etc--to accept deliberately offensive names.

Quote:

---

A name can be changed. A nickname can be used.

---

Not always, the parents insist on using the name they gave their child on their child. So it is known by the child's peers. Also there is a very strong chance of the child's real name getting out to their schoolmates. The teacher will know their real name, many will know, the parents may even use it... and if you think the parents are going to use a nick name or different name that child's entire childhood until they can decide for themselves not to be given a name that can cause real social outlash, I don't think they would've picked the outrageous name in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

As long as he doesn't list his name on any public records or on any private records that he hasn't been given permission to deface and provided he understands his kids can't inherit his surname. In principle, I believe adults should have the right to change their names as long as they pay for the associated costs. I do not know how I feel about forcing others--eg. hospitals, insurance companies, banks, schools, etc--to accept deliberately offensive names.

---

Because people don't have the right to not be offended. Going back to my Allah/Jesus example - you think those names are OK or should they be banned?

You can try to offend all you like, that doesn't mean anyone--whether it be government agencies or private institutions--is obligated to help you do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

You can try to offend all you like, that doesn't mean anyone--whether it be government agencies or private institutions--is obligated to help you do it.

---

How is the government helping you? Who needs to see your name? If you go to to a bank and open an account with an offensive name... guess what they don't have to do business with you! If your name is disruptive then you'll have issues - there isn't a need for the government to ban it. Now when it comes to kids - remember they can have their names changed eventually your not stuck with it forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

How is the government helping you? Who needs to see your name? If you go to to a bank and open an account with an offensive name... guess what they don't have to do business with you! If your name is disruptive then you'll have issues - there isn't a need for the government to ban it. Now when it comes to kids - remember they can have their names changed eventually your not stuck with it forever.

---

Yes I agree with you that it's okay to abuse kids because you can eventually stop abusing them. Re. the govt. and banks etc, like I said earlier:

Quote:

---

As long as he doesn't list his name on any public records or on any private records that he hasn't been given permission to deface and provided he understands his kids can't inherit his surname. In principle, I believe adults should have the right to change their names as long as they pay for the associated costs. I do not know how I feel about forcing others--eg. hospitals, insurance companies, banks, schools, etc--to accept deliberately offensive names.

---

This was in response to Flixy's question:

Quote:

---

If it's about protecting kids, do you guys object an adult changing his name to Fukniggas Killjews?

---

To summarise, I believe, in principle, that adults should be allowed to change their names to stupid or offensive ones (putting aside any problems that may arise to prevent their name from fulfilling whatever functions names are required by law to perform in their societies). I may or may not agree that Fukniggas Killjews should even be issued a driver's license and a passport.

https://www.google.com/search?q=deborah+heath+campbell

Likely there probably was child abuse - which incidentally would not have been uncovered if they hadn't been able to name their kids that way...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

You can try to offend all you like, that doesn't mean anyone--whether it be government agencies or private institutions--is obligated to help you do it.

---

That's preposterous. Government staying out of individual choices does not constitute the government "helping" people make bad choices.

Lewk is right, this may indeed reflect some level of difference in how one views government action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Off topic: Heiniger (spocken "Hi nigger") is a common Swiss last name :)

---

This is actually totally relevant and on topic. Having a list of "permitted names" (or forbidden names) for any reason will inevitably lead to some level of discrimination in any society that has immigrants or people with a different cultural/linguistic background. EG, a common Swiss last name sounds offensive in English. Should children born of Swiss parents in English-speaking countries be forbidden from passing-along their family name because it could offend an English speaker. I don't think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

If it's about protecting kids, do you guys object an adult changing his name to Fukniggas Killjews?

---

I have no objection, best of luck to them finding a job. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

That's preposterous. Government staying out of individual choices does not constitute the government "helping" people make bad choices:up:

---

If you read on you'll note that my proposal was to let the govt really stay out of their lives by eg. not writing "fukniggas killjews" in any public databases and refraining from forcing banks etc to acknowledge such a name. In that way the government refrains from helping you propagate the message of hate in written form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

This is not a persuasive argument to people who endorse child abuse whose names begin with L and end with Ewkowski.

---

It doesn't really persuade me either. That torment and taunting of the child is mostly from their peers, yes? Those little suckers can pull off the exact same effects with John Smith and will do so for the exact same reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

If you read on you'll note that my proposal was to let the govt really stay out of their lives by eg. not writing "fukniggas killjews" in any public databases and refraining from forcing banks etc to acknowledge such a name. In that way the government refrains from helping you propagate the message of hate in written form.

---

The government is obliged to put the name on official documentation such as the birth certificate which is a matter of public record. So that's not possible.

Its interesting to see some of the views on this. How its freedom that protects the parents in naming their children whatever they want, while still admitting that certain names are openly damaging to that child's well being and over all life. But its the parent's rights that come first and child is powerless unless he or she is of age to legally challenge stupidity. Not to mention the "meh" attitude thats its the responibility of the child to fix such things to begin with.

kind of reminds me of jesus and anti-gay camps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

This is actually totally relevant and on topic. Having a list of "permitted names" (or forbidden names) for any reason will inevitably lead to some level of discrimination in any society that has immigrants or people with a different cultural/linguistic background. EG, a common Swiss last name sounds offensive in English. Should children born of Swiss parents in English-speaking countries be forbidden from passing-along their family name because it could offend an English speaker. I don't think so.

---

Well doesn't any government in the world force immigrants to adapt their names to local language. It starts already there. Germans are sometimes disappointed that they have to change their names while immigrating to Switzerland (we don't have the ß here) if a Chinese immigrates to US he probably has to use the English alphabet as well.

If Lewk really want to be as free as he supposes, then Chinese written names would be allowed too.

Quote:

---

It doesn't really persuade me either. That torment and taunting of the child is mostly from their peers, yes? Those little suckers can pull off the exact same effects with John Smith and will do so for the exact same reasons.

---

Since it was my argument I feel obliged to reply. The difference I would like to submit here is that a given John Smith will recieve that tormert perhaps because his parents raised him poorly, perhaps because he's naturally shy, or perhaps he was arbritrarily disliked by some social leader in his class and they rallied people against him for petty amusement.

This may very well be true; however, every or with a high return rate of people named fuckniggas killjews, or Adolf hitler, in the US, (we need a place of context) will face such assault not even just by peers but by the default negative viewing of their teachers, and anyone they encounter and become known by that name.


To the Lewk or Minx counter argument that we'll make sure no one uses that name, if that's what we're doing, then why are we even having that name be the official name in the first place? (it just opens a disgusting window for the child)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

If you read on you'll note that my proposal was to let the govt really stay out of their lives by eg. not writing "fukniggas killjews" in any public databases and refraining from forcing banks etc to acknowledge such a name. In that way the government refrains from helping you propagate the message of hate in written form.

---

How in the heck did we get to this strawman-filled corner of someone wanting to name their kids something like that? This started by talking about someone of one gender wanting to use a name that is only "permitted" to be used by another gender.

What you're talking about is akin to saying gay marriage should be illegal because soon people will also agitate for incestrous marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Well doesn't any government in the world force immigrants to adapt their names to local language. It starts already there. Germans are sometimes disappointed that they have to change their names while immigrating to Switzerland (we don't have the ß here) if a Chinese immigrates to US he probably has to use the English alphabet as well.

If Lewk really want to be as free as he supposes, then Chinese written names would be allowed too.

---

I don't think alphabetical issues are really similar. A bureaucracy can't be expected to process documentation in every language under the sun, and it's entirely reasonable to demand spelling a name in a particular alphabet. But I see that as completely different than telling someone that their name is "invalid".

After all, in Hebrew one could call their child-

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...lBl7a4SaLSjvFw

And in our alphabet we call them "David". The kid has the same name pronounced the same way, but spelled differently.

At various times in the US, some immigrants had their names changed to "Americanize" them when they got their papers to live in the US (IE make them more Anglo-Saxon to sound more "American"). It was dehumanizing.

Quote:

---

At various times in the US, some immigrants had their names changed to "Americanize" them when they got their papers to live in the US (IE make them more Anglo-Saxon to sound more "American"). It was dehumanizing.

---

Those who did it knowingly and intentionally it was a smart social move on their part. However to force it upon random people, that is quiet disrespectful.

Beyond some sort of indexing, or mapping of a name from one culture to a spelling in ours, they shouldn't change the name (in the context we're talking about of immigrants). I can see cases where we have no ability to pronounce their given name, and no inkling of how it would be spelled, that something practical must be done, that can be understood by all parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

What you're talking about is akin to saying gay marriage should be illegal because soon people will also agitate for incestrous marriage.

---

No, my position may be closer to saying the govt. should perhaps have the authority to ban or not recognize some marriages, eg. incestuous ones or worse marriages with toys or animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Well doesn't any government in the world force immigrants to adapt their names to local language. It starts already there. Germans are sometimes disappointed that they have to change their names while immigrating to Switzerland (we don't have the ß here) if a Chinese immigrates to US he probably has to use the English alphabet as well.

If Lewk really want to be as free as he supposes, then Chinese written names would be allowed too.

---

I'm mostly OK with this as long as business isn't required to accommodate under equal rights bull shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

No, my position may be closer to saying the govt. should perhaps have the authority to ban or not recognize some marriages, eg. incestuous ones or worse marriages with toys or animals.

---

Whats wrong with marriage between siblings? Assuming they don't have kids (which would be a form of child abuse) isn't it just more morality based laws? Hmm maybe that should be a new thread. I'm assuming most people here (being relatively socially liberal) shouldn't have a problem with siblings getting married. But then again y'all tend to be fairly hypocritical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

No, my position may be closer to saying the govt. should perhaps have the authority to ban or not recognize some marriages, eg. incestuous ones or worse marriages with toys or animals.

---

I see. So the government should only allow people to live their lives with "approved" names, marriages, religions, etc. Everyone else who isn't on the list will be denied rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I see. So the government should only allow people to live their lives with "approved" names, marriages, religions, etc. Everyone else who isn't on the list will be denied rights.

---

See previous posts in this thread about whitelists vs blacklists. Also not sure where approved religions come into it, probably your usual braindead strawmanning, but you'll recall there are situations in which the govt restricts specific religious or cultural practices.

Do you think it's okay for an adult American to marry five children, in the US? Do you think it's okay to abuse children? Do you think it's okay to deliberately obstruct the activities of any govt agency you deem necessary for your society to function? If not, how do you propose to keep things in order?

You are missing the point, which is that your suggested way to avoid going off a slippery slope is actually a worse slippery slope.

Billions of people have names given to them by parents who never had to consult an official list of approved names. It would be more disturbing and oppressive if billions of parents were required to consult an official list of approved names.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

You are missing the point, which is that your suggested way to avoid going off a slippery slope is actually a worse slippery slope.

Billions of people have names given to them by parents who never had to consult an official list of approved names. It would be more disturbing and oppressive if billions of parents were required to consult an official list of approved names.

---

No kidding! Which is why you basically only see Iceland requiring parents to consult a list of approved names and why you see no-one in this thread suggesting that parents should be required to consult a list of approved names.Just go read the first page again and think about it

I did just reread and all I can find it you repeatedly calling Lewk a supporter of child abuse for no reason at all.

At first I thought this was because you disagreed with his position that governments shouldn't be able to veto someone's name. But now I think this is just another of your insane and irrational personal attacks against Lewk.

I think and hope that you are taking liberties with the phrase "i think". Moreover, I invite you to consider whether or not there were comments from other posters on page 1 of this thread that may have been relevant to the subject of this thread. After that feel free to explain the various brain farts that led to the remarks about incest, govt-approved religions, and the notion that anyone here or elsewhere is suggesting that parents should be required to consult a list of approved baby names. These are just suggestions but if you follow them we may be able to engage each other on things that have actually been said.

Re. child abuse, I don't think Lewk endorses child molestation but I have indeed gotten the impression that Lewk supports a society wherein things are permitted to occur that may by some be fairly argued to constitute child abuse or neglect, eg. spanking, humiliation, being called fukniggas, lopping off foreskins, even serious abuse because kids can be kept hidden away, etc. In the context of this discussion, the remarks are in reference to my view that his arguments and opinions re. the rights and obligations of parents and govts vis a vis kiddies may be problematic if we believe things like "child abuse is really bad", "slavery is wrong", etc. My phrasing is provocative, but not much more so than Lewk's own approach to engaging or talking at "liberals". You might say that's different because Lewk directs his baiting at a faceless group, but you have to understand that Lewk is kinda unique so my hands are tied because I can't pretend he's a faceless group.

If it helps, specifically consider RB's and Wiggin's posts re. the general principle of letting the govt refuse a small number of exceptionally inappropriate names. After that consider the total absence of people in this thread who believe parents should be required to pick names from a pre-approved list of baby names.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I think and hope that you are taking liberties with the phrase "i think". Moreover, I invite you to consider whether or not there were comments from other posters on page 1 of this thread that may have been relevant to the subject of this thread. After that feel free to explain the various brain farts that led to the remarks about incest, govt-approved religions, and the notion that anyone here or elsewhere is suggesting that parents should be required to consult a list of approved baby names. These are just suggestions but if you follow them we may be able to engage each other on things that have actually been said.

Re. child abuse, I don't think Lewk endorses child molestation but I have indeed gotten the impression that Lewk supports a society wherein things are permitted to occur that may by some be fairly argued to constitute child abuse or neglect, eg. spanking, humiliation, being called fukniggas, lopping off foreskins, even serious abuse because kids can be kept hidden away, etc. In the context of this discussion, the remarks are in reference to my view that his arguments and opinions re. the rights and obligations of parents and govts vis a vis kiddies may be problematic if we believe things like "child abuse is really bad", "slavery is wrong", etc. My phrasing is provocative, but not much more so than Lewk's own approach to engaging or talking at "liberals". You might say that's different because Lewk directs his baiting at a faceless group, but you have to understand that Lewk is kinda unique so my hands are tied because I can't pretend he's a faceless group.

---

By equating circumcision and spanking to child molestation you treat child molestation like a common everyday occurrence. That's not only sad but down right telling. It doesn't come as any surprise that you probably aren't in favor of execution for child molesters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Whats wrong with marriage between siblings? Assuming they don't have kids (which would be a form of child abuse) isn't it just more morality based laws? Hmm maybe that should be a new thread. I'm assuming most people here (being relatively socially liberal) shouldn't have a problem with siblings getting married. But then again y'all tend to be fairly hypocritical.

---

In principle I don't think there is anything wrong with marriages between siblings, but dread brought it up so I assumed he meant to use it as an example of something undesirable that was contrasted with something awesome like gay marriage. Barring any legal problems or risks to the children of such a union I have no issues with sibling incest. It's hot, esp when it's homosexual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

By equating circumcision and spanking to child molestation you treat child molestation like a common everyday occurrence. That's not only sad but down right telling. It doesn't come as any surprise that you probably aren't in favor of execution for child molesters.

---

I didn't equate them to child molestation. I contrasted them to child molestation so as to clarify that I don't think you really hate children even though you clearly want to be able to put them at the mercy of bad people and probably even want to be able to hit a couple of them yourself. It doesn't come as any surprise that you're still having difficulties reading. But it may be helpful to ask yourself whether or not "child molestation" is the only thing that can be placed in the category "child abuse". The correct answer is "no".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon

Since it was my argument I feel obliged argument. The difference I would like to submit here is that one John Smith will recieve that tormert perhaps because his parents raised him poorly, perhaps because he's naturally shy, perhaps he was arbritrarily disliked by some social leader in his class and they rallied people against him for petty amusement.

This may very well be true; however, every or with a high return rate of people named fuckniggas killjews, or Adolf hitler, in the US, (we need a place of context) will face such assault not even just by peers but by the default negative viewing of their teachers, and anyone they encounter and become known by that name.


To the Lewk or Minx counter argument that we'll make sure no one uses that name, if that's what we're doing, then why are we even having that name be the official name in the first place? (it just opens a disgusting window for the child)

---

Their peers don't know who Adolf Hitler is and don't care either. A girl named Shetaqua isn't getting teased because of her name. That's just a shallow excuse. She's getting teased because she's the new kid, because she was linked with a bad clique, because someone in a good clique didn't like the attention she was getting from a teacher, hell even because she's a black girl in rural Tennessee. She gets teased first because everyone gets teased and then gets teased constantly because she showed vulnerability.