Wow Iceland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

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".

---

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.

That statement draws an equivalency between the two. Its akin to saying "I'm not saying all Arabs are bad but you gotta admit that more Arabs are terrorists!" Simply by saying "I don't think he endorses X" and then going into a statement where you reference a couple of different items that wouldn't be considered child abuse by most rational adults doesn't excuse the connection you are trying to peddle.

Minx, clearly you think you're making sense, but it's -- what, 5:30AM in Sweden? You're not.

I was disagreeing with RB and Wiggin, on the idea that their stance (as you have articulated it) was still a substantial abrogation of people's rights. After all, how is the government going to prohibit people from being named certain things without some kind of dubious list?

Your multiple strings of strange posts conflating Lewk and child molestation and abuse and naming kids "fukniggas" don't really add up to anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Minx, clearly you think you're making sense, but it's -- what, 5:30AM in Sweden? You're not.

I was disagreeing with RB and Wiggin, on the idea that their stance (as you have articulated it) was still a substantial abrogation of people's rights. After all, how is the government going to prohibit people from being named certain things without some kind of dubious list?

Your multiple strings of strange posts conflating Lewk and child molestation and abuse and naming kids "fukniggas" don't really add up to anything.

---

How indeed. It's not as if several countries already manage it without resorting to a predefined list other than one consisting of old examples. And it's not as if children have any rights, so we only have to consider the abrogation of their parents' "rights" and never mind their obligations. Dread, you're simply not making any sense here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

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.

That statement draws an equivalency between the two. Its akin to saying "I'm not saying all Arabs are bad but you gotta admit that more Arabs are terrorists!" Simply by saying "I don't think he endorses X" and then going into a statement where you reference a couple of different items that wouldn't be considered child abuse by most rational adults doesn't excuse the connection you are trying to peddle.

---

What you're trying to say is that I'm saying that both child.molestation and spanking can fall into the category of "abuse" although they are different in degree and may be different in nature. I realise this is problematic for you because you don't do degrees so you see it as "child molestation=spanking". I can live with your handicap. But your attempt to monopolise "rationality" is ridiculous. I live right now in a country where a majority of rational adults believe that spanking is wrong, constitutes a form of abuse and should be prohibited. Or do you.mean to say only the US majority counts? Surely you can't believe that matters of right and wrong can be so easily defined as "what the majority believes in the US"? The country with the thing with the Indians and the slaves? Or do you mean "what the.majority of the world believes"?

Assuming we accept the idea of "the rational adult".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

What you're trying to say is that I'm saying that both child.molestation and spanking can fall into the category of "abuse" although they are different in degree and may be different in nature. I realise this is problematic for you because you don't do degrees so you see it as "child molestation=spanking". I can live with your handicap. But your attempt to monopolise "rationality" is ridiculous. I live right now in a country where a majority of rational adults believe that spanking is wrong, constitutes a form of abuse and should be prohibited. Or do you.mean to say only the US majority counts? Surely you can't believe that matters of right and wrong can be so easily defined as "what the majority believes in the US"? The country with the thing with the Indians and the slaves? Or do you mean "what the.majority of the world believes"?

---

You are equating multiple types of "abuse" to the abuse of child molestation. There are a ton of thing wrong with that including the fact that child molestation is a * especially* heinous. Littering and murder are both crimes but you wouldn't discuss them in the same breath. The majority of the people in the world don't consider spanking child abuse - though some think other methods are better there is a pretty clear bar for "abuse." Furthermore circumcision? Really? You're comparing that to child molestation?

And Indians? Slave? Yeah those are so recent. Bringing those up is akin to bringing up the Holocaust every time you debate someone from Germany. Only that's actually more recent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

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.

---

Because nobody in this thread, not one single person, has backed Iceland's situation.

Where we disagree is on the question of whether there should be a total free-for-all where you can use horrific names (which doesn't seem to be guaranteed to be the case anywhere even the US) or if there should be a very high bar that says the most extreme names are not OK on a case by case basis.

Quote:

---

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

---

No, its akin to saying that marriage in general should be legal but there should be protections to prevent extreme cases such as incest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I was disagreeing with RB and Wiggin, on the idea that their stance (as you have articulated it) was still a substantial abrogation of people's rights. After all, how is the government going to prohibit people from being named certain things without some kind of dubious list?

---

I have said all along that there should be neither a blacklist nor a whitelist. What I have said is I believe in the traditional British/American Common Law concept of the "reasonable person". The threshold should be set extremely high and there should be a right to appeal if necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

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.

---

kids can and do attack the name first. especially when all things are equal or when children all placed into new surrounds and they fumble for a pecking order. its an god damn target parents pant on their children when they give them shock names or unique spellings. A sink or swim lesson in "make it your own" when children are usually to young to understand such things. The bullying angle isn't the only way to look at this either, ethnic and shock names can influence how a child forms relationships in much the same way they influence the hiring process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

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.

---

That doesn't work for all names, the English alphabet is one of the more limiting, after all you don't have any accents at all. In many case you will have to adapt the pronunciation somehow.

Its called a shibboleth. They exist in just about every culture and dialect. Yes, it will fuck up people's names. Popular in wars to weed out spies. inglorious basterds uses one during the bar scene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

kids can and do attack the name first. especially when all things are equal or when children all placed into new surrounds and they fumble for a pecking order. its an god damn target parents pant on their children when they give them shock names or unique spellings. A sink or swim lesson in "make it your own" when children are usually to young to understand such things. The bullying angle isn't the only way to look at this either, ethnic and shock names can influence how a child forms relationships in much the same way they influence the hiring process.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

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.

---

You honestly think that a name like Adolf Hitler will not make your life substantially different any time you have to give your name anywhere?

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.

---

You may have read that almost everybody here (if not everybody) opposes that, just some people think there should be some "disapproved" names - which is quite different from a list of "approved" names, marriages, religions etc. I mean, the law also only says what is illegal- it's not like that limits what you are allowed to do to a small amount of sanctioned actions, it means a certain amount is not allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

kids can and do attack the name first.

---

Yes they do. I readily acknowledge it's one of the first tools in the arsenal. But they're not attacking because of the name and they can and will make a weapon from any name. About the only thing I can think of where the name can actually trigger the abuse is if it's flat-out hard to pronounce. Frustration can cause aggression. Now if a child is sensitive about their own name, that can trigger teasing as a second-order effect if and when other kids pick up on the sensitivity but in that case they're not reacting to the name, they're reacting to the display of vulnerability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

You honestly think that a name like Adolf Hitler will not make your life substantially different any time you have to give your name anywhere?

---

I'm saying it's not the trigger Leb thinks it is and the behavior he's referring to has deeper sociological roots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Yes they do. I readily acknowledge it's one of the first tools in the arsenal. But they're not attacking because of the name and they can and will make a weapon from any name. About the only thing I can think of where the name can actually trigger the abuse is if it's flat-out hard to pronounce. Frustration can cause aggression. Now if a child is sensitive about their own name, that can trigger teasing as a second-order effect if and when other kids pick up on the sensitivity but in that case they're not reacting to the name, they're reacting to the display of vulnerability.

---

However, it has been conclusively shown over here in Germany that certain names will have an adverse effect on their school grades.

I've already related the story of how the name "Kevin" sports some rather negative connotations in Germany.

That's because of him:
http://cineclub.de/images/1991/01/ke...-zu-haus-8.jpg

Wait...what's wrong with the name Kevin in Germany? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

However, it has been conclusively shown over here in Germany that certain names will have an adverse effect on their school grades.

I've already related the story of how the name "Kevin" sports some rather negative connotations in Germany.

---

Are you sure that's the right way round? I mean, generally speaking a certain group of parents will choose certain names for their kids, and kids of the same group of parents may do less good in school. For example, kids with more 'ghetto' names can be expected to come from a more ghetto background, and probably do less well in school. That doesn't mean it's because of the name, though.

*Facepalm at the kind of bureaucratic machinations/potential for discrimination in preventing kids from being given "unreasonable" names*

You can't legislate based on things that are merely bothersome or weird, folks. Once you've made that leap, it's only a matter of time before someone starts talking about how kids with the name "Mohammad" have a statistical likelihood of being poorer/bullied at school/don't get jobs and then you're doing something awful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

However, it has been conclusively shown over here in Germany that certain names will have an adverse effect on their school grades.

I've already related the story of how the name "Kevin" sports some rather negative connotations in Germany.

---

Tough shit. Kevin is not grossly offensive. If Kevin is where we're drawing the line then I'd switch my opinion to stand with Lewk.

I think however there's a reasonable middle-ground.

Quote:

---

Tough shit. Kevin is not grossly offensive. If Kevin is where we're drawing the line then I'd switch my opinion to stand with Lewk.

---

Location. Location. Location. Context is everything.

Obviously in some alternate reality of Earth, Fuckniggas killjews is a fine name, and so is Adolf Hitler (a much easier alternate reality to imagine). So context is everything. Perhaps in Germany Kevin is the name to ban, let them through studies and judgement decide that for themselves.

I do think that a bad name or a target name, we can call it, will make the initial hazing anyone recieves a bit tougher. Always recieving that really beats on the morale of the person. It is POSSIBLE to have a strong individual to overcome it and make it his own. No doubt. However, a higher percentage of people that may have been able to reach better social status within their classroom if their given a bad name like adolf hitler (just like if they were born with a huge scar across their face) it will make it that much harder, and a higher percentage of those kids with the scar or named adolf will be placed in the lower brackets of the classroom and treated worse than their equal counterparts.

And, Honestly for those who did slip into lower brackets for whatever reason does have a somewhat of a snowball affect, of them losing confidence, feeling outcasted, and having worse social skill as they don't get enough positive social interactions as they develop. Just makes them at that much more of a disadvantage next year or whatever new school they end up at. Worse social skills (less practice) and lower confidence again increases the chance to be in a outcast clique + they still have the scar on their face. It IS possible to overcome, no doubt. Your parents can and should (within some sort of reasonable judgement) give you the best start in life they can.

We shouldn't regulate that the name jordan be given for all males, because it polled better than matthew, tommy and jimmy this year or whatever. There are very clear cut outliers.

If the only reason to ban Kevin is it was popular with certain types of people then that is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-ffIDTaFzo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Personally, I'm more disturbed by laws in Kansas, that prohibit any household from having more than four cats. :bored:

---

:banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Wait...what's wrong with the name Kevin in Germany? :confused:

---

See my post, it's because of that movie. A lot of parents named their kids Kevin after seeing that movie. And those parents liked that movie so much that they called their kid Kevin.

Quote:

---

Tough shit. Kevin is not grossly offensive. If Kevin is where we're drawing the line then I'd switch my opinion to stand with Lewk.

---

Nobody want's to ban the name Kevin. Honestly don't overract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Nobody want's to ban the name Kevin. Honestly don't overract.

---

That was written in direct reply to a post suggesting names should be able to be banned as they can directly affect a kids grade - then using Kevin as an example.

Correlation := Causation anyway. It's more likely parenting affects the kids grade and parents choose the name. If a type of parent chooses a type of name they'll also have that type of influence on grades.

https://www.google.com/search?q=rosh...any+other+name

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That was written in direct reply to a post suggesting names should be able to be banned as they can directly affect a kids grade - then using Kevin as an example.

---

Kevin was used as example because it's the only name that we have an empiric study about. Just because we know that Kevin has a bad effect, it doesn't mean it should be banned. It depends on how bad the effect is.

eJ, would that correlation be because of the name, or as you said yourself, the type of parent who chooses the name? Banning a name gets rid if the name, but the parents are the same so that doesn't remove the cause, at all.

As the parents decided the name, the cause is there. I mean, what kind of parents want to have a child like Kevin Home Alone? :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That was written in direct reply to a post suggesting names should be able to be banned as they can directly affect a kids grade - then using Kevin as an example.

Correlation := Causation anyway. It's more likely parenting affects the kids grade and parents choose the name. If a type of parent chooses a type of name they'll also have that type of influence on grades.

---

Liar. Nowhere did I demand a ban on that name. Please show me where I asked for a ban on this name.

I replied to LittleFuzzy who doubted that a name in itself can have a negative effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

eJ, would that correlation be because of the name, or as you said yourself, the type of parent who chooses the name? Banning a name gets rid if the name, but the parents are the same so that doesn't remove the cause, at all.

---

The study being referenced attempted to examine teachers' associations to various first names and discovered a host of prejudices--good and bad--that the participating German teachers associated with various names. It was kinda disheartening and also extremely worrying concerning Germany's educational tracking system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Liar. Nowhere did I demand a ban on that name. Please show me where I asked for a ban on this name.

I replied to LittleFuzzy who doubted that a name in itself can have a negative effect.

---

I didn't lie. Everything I said was right.

You've not demonstrated that the name Kevin has any impact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

You've not demonstrated that the name Kevin has any impact.

---

http://www.spiegel.de/schulspiegel/w...-a-712948.html

I don't read German. Does that link deal with the fact correlation := causation?

http://www.thelocal.de/society/20090918-22019.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I don't read German.

---

Use google translate. You wont understand everything but it is a proof that Khen and me aren't making things up.

Quote:

---

Does that link deal with the fact correlation := causation?

---

The study is not about cause. It was not intended to do so.

The reason I stated why it is the name Kevin and not another name is not scientifically proofed.

I skimmed this thread and I am not sure why is everyone outraged in government trying to introduce some control in order to protect the children. I agree that children will find ways to ridicule one another no matter what but I am sure people with unusual names will get more then fare share of ridicule. A few years ago read of parents being denied naming their child R2D2 and I fully support that. Obviously its subjective and I don't think there is anything wrong with the name Kevin but don't tell me a girl stuck with "Easylay" or some variation thereof will not be profoundly impacted by that name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I didn't lie. Everything I said was right.

---

Oh yeah?

Quote:

---

That was written in direct reply to a post suggesting names should be able to be banned as they can directly affect a kids grade - then using Kevin as an example.

---

That's your lie right there. So, what, you've now lied twice with a straight face?

I'm interested in this particular tactic of yours. You tell a moronic lie, I tell you that I never said that and ask you to show me where I actually said that.

You then repeat your lie without being able to show me where I said that.

Maybe, just maybe, that's because you're wrong. Again, show me where I asked for a ban on the name "Kevin"?

That font color hurts my eyes Khen.