Wow Iceland

[Lebanese Dragon]

If a name is going to emotionally scar a child via his peers I think it's wise for us to say he can't be named that. If it's a clear case that the name will directly lead to that child's torment. It's a case of the parent right to name their children verses a child's right not to be intentionally put down a path of psychological trauma.

I do suspsect eventually the name Adolf will be lifted as a banned name, and maybe if the english language dies off then the name vagina head would be morally and legally allowable name.

All you have to do is ask yourselves these questions:

Should the state step in if parents are physically abusing their children?

Should the state step in if the parents are psychologically abusing their children?

If your answer is yes, now you understand the position of the posters above.

[Aimless]

If a name is going to emotionally scar a child via his peers I think it's wise for us to say he can't be named that. If it's a clear case that the name will directly lead to that child's torment. It's a case of the parent right to name their children verses a child's right not to be intentionally put down a path of psychological trauma.

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

[RandBlade]

Depressing. Still not as bad as Iceland but ugh, so disappointed in humanity.

Really? So since a parent can even make up new surnames if a parent wanted to name their child Fukniggas Killjews you'd be perfectly OK with that? It's their "right" is it? And the teacher should at school read out "Killjews, Fukniggas" at rollcall?

[earthJoker]

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

[Ominous Gamer]

Really? So since a parent can even make up new surnames if a parent wanted to name their child Fukniggas Killjews you'd be perfectly OK with that? It's their "right" is it? And the teacher should at school read out "Killjews, Fukniggas" at rollcall?

One of the conspiracies behind RFID tagging our students is so that parents stop bitching at teachers who bastardize the endless creation of those retarded urban names with their unique spellings.

[Lewkowski]

Really? So since a parent can even make up new surnames if a parent wanted to name their child Fukniggas Killjews you'd be perfectly OK with that? It's their "right" is it? And the teacher should at school read out "Killjews, Fukniggas" at rollcall?

You don't have the freedom to not be offended. If a rule is made that folks can't use a certain name in class the school can assign a new name or an abbreviation. I'd also argue that when the child reaches a certain age they can change their name without parental consent.

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?

[Aimless]

I agree with Lewk, parents should be allowed to abuse their children or expose them to significant and unnecessary risk of abuse. It's the govt. that's dangerous and can't be trusted. Parents care about their children and always have their best interests at heart and always have the best approach to serving their children's best interests by definition it's the bureaucrats we can't trust, the ones that arbitrarily and unilaterally decide in a complete vacuum that "Fukniggas Killjews" is probably not the most appropriate name for a kid. Because bureaucrats are stupid and it takes a frickin' genius to figure out that "Fukniggas Killjews" may be a problematic name to have in American society They are dumb and need to read more bible

[Lewkowski]

I agree with Lewk, parents should be allowed to abuse their children or expose them to significant and unnecessary risk of abuse. It's the govt. that's dangerous and can't be trusted. Parents care about their children and always have their best interests at heart and always have the best approach to serving their children's best interests by definition it's the bureaucrats we can't trust, the ones that arbitrarily and unilaterally decide in a complete vacuum that "Fukniggas Killjews" is probably not the most appropriate name for a kid. Because bureaucrats are stupid and it takes a frickin' genius to figure out that "Fukniggas Killjews" may be a problematic name to have in American society They are dumb and need to read more bible

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?

[RandBlade]

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?

Give examples.

[Lewkowski]

Give examples.

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?

[Aimless]

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.

[RandBlade]

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?

[Lebanese Dragon]

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?

[Lewkowski]

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.

[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?

[Lewkowski]

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.

[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.

[Lewkowski]

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.

[Flixy]

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

[Aimless]

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.

[Lebanese Dragon]

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.

[Lewkowski]

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?

[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.

[Lewkowski]

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.

[Aimless]

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:

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:

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.

[Aimless]

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

[Lewkowski]

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...

[Dreadnaught]

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.

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.

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.

[Aimless]

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

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.

[LittleFuzzy]

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.