Adolf Hitler's cake was taken away

[Tango]

So you guys that think taking the kid away because of his name would justify taking children named Osama? What about Hussien or Stalin?

[Masherbrum]

I think the parents of anyone having the stupidity of naming their child after Hitler, both deserve to be castrated AT THE MINIMUM.

[Anaxogoras]

So you guys that think taking the kid away because of his name would justify taking children named Osama? What about Hussien or Stalin?

this isn't about comparing murderers.  It's about whether the children's rights are respected.

[Tango]

this isn't about comparing murderers.  It's about whether the children's rights are respected.

So then if parents name thier son Sue, its violating that childs rights?

[warhed]

Slippery slope arguments are for lawyers without a case.  Do you think these parents are good parents Tango?  What would you think of your wife if she decided to name your child Adolph Hitler?

[Tango]

We don't know if they are, but baseing it on what they name the child ISN'T a reason to take them away, even if you don't agree with the name they gave them.

So back to my last question. Is naming a son Sue violating the childs rights? No it isn't. Its a bad choice of a name just as Hitler or Osama or Hussien etc., but not a reason to take them away if they are not being abusive to the child.

[warhed]

Adolph Hitler is worse than Sue.  And I don't think anyone has said the naming was the reason the children were taken away, it is however, about as large as a red flag you could put up. 

[Tango]

Adolph Hitler is worse than Sue.

I'm sure any boy named Sue would disagree with that, but then your probably too young to have even heard that pld Johnny Cash song.

[Anaxogoras]

Naming a boy Sue is reason for concern, but if they also decorated his room pink, dressed him in skirts, and gave him my little pony for his birthday, then yes, his rights would be violated.  We're not saying we have necessary and sufficient conditions for when a child's rights are violated, and we don't need to.  A house decorated with swastikas and children named after Nazis isn't worth debating.

[warhed]

I think the man who wrote that song would take issue with you calling it a Johnny Cash song 

[Tango]

Naming a boy Sue is reason for concern, but if they also decorated his room pink, dressed him in skirts, and gave him my little pony for his birthday, then yes, his rights would be violated.  We're not saying we have necessary and sufficient conditions for when a child's rights are violated, and we don't need to.  A house decorated with swastikas and children named after Nazis isn't worth debating.

Thats just it though, where does it start and stop? Should someone who believes in the worship of Satan and names thier son Lucifer have his child taken away? What about all the children that were named Osama after 911?

As for, "if they also decorated his room pink, dressed him in skirts, and gave him my little pony for his birthday, then yes, his rights would be violated", I think there would be a BIG uproar if the governemnt took him away from his parents.

[Tango]

I think the man who wrote that song would take issue with you calling it a Johnny Cash song 

Now your just trolling.

[Rich46yo]

If the name of the kid was the only basis for taking that kid away from his parents then I hope the parents sue the people involved and get awarded large settlements taken from whoever was behind the decision. Of course it wont happen that way. Right now you have millions of New Jersey livestock nodding their heads going, "oh yeah, thats terrible, take the kid away". Which means they wont say anything when a court awards millions of "their" tax dollars to these parents.

Its not my business, or the states business, or the Federal Govt.'s, business, what parents name their kid. Nor is it what they believe in, and I dont care how bad it is. Its not our business!

Ive seen kids returned to the worst parents you can imagine, "or I should I say mothers". I'm talking low life street 'hoes riding the rock that have already inflicted serious trauma to the minds, and maybe bodies, of their children. Yet everyone applauds when the kid is returned to a mother who is probably going to do the same thing again. And a new generation of gang killers and cold hearted/angry criminals will be loosed on the rest of us. But as long as they dont name the kid Adolf right?

But lets face it here. If these people had Mikey Jacksons dough they never would have had the kids taken away. Look at all that screwball has pulled and his $$ has kept his kids with him.

Frankly I smell a rat in all this. A Political rat! Some Politician must be pulling an angle to get their 15 mins over this. For some reason.

Any questions? see below.

[Anaxogoras]

Thats just it though, where does it start and stop? Should someone who believes in the worship of Satan and names thier son Lucifer have his child taken away? What about all the children that were named Osama after 911?

Or Joseph after the 1940s?  Again, I don't know where the line should be drawn, but keep in mind that the child's name, Adolf Hitler, was not the nail in the coffin that lead to state intervention.

As for, "if they also decorated his room pink, dressed him in skirts, and gave him my little pony for his birthday, then yes, his rights would be violated", I think there would be a BIG uproar if the governemnt took him away from his parents.

Sure there would be uproar, but rights-based justice is indifferent to that.

[Masherbrum]

Now your just trolling.

No.   It was written by Shel Silverstein.