Wow Iceland

[RandBlade]

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.

[Ominous Gamer]

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.

[earthJoker]

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.

[Lebanese Dragon]

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)

[Dreadnaught]

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.

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-



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.

[Lebanese Dragon]

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.

[Aimless]

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.

[Lewkowski]

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.

[Lewkowski]

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.

[Dreadnaught]

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.

[Aimless]

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?

[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.

[Aimless]

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

[Dreadnaught]

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.

[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.

[Aimless]

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.

[Lewkowski]

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.

[Aimless]

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.

[Aimless]

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".

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

[Lewkowski]

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.

[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.

[Aimless]

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.

[Aimless]

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"?

[Aimless]

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

[Lewkowski]

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.

[RandBlade]

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.

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.

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.

[Ominous Gamer]

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.

[earthJoker]

After all, in Hebrew one could call their child-



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.

[Ominous Gamer]

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.