Parents Lose Custody of Hitler

Orion said:

My faith in humanity in general is higher than my faith in government and politicians. Most people out there are just trying to live their lives from day to day and aren't involved in politics. They generally keep to themselves and just want to do good by their families and friends.

Click to expand...

Well that is certainly true. Howevre, it doesn't stop there like we would like it. Doing good by their families mean providing for them. And unless trades and certain agreements are kept between governments, they fail.

Orion said:

The idea of needing a permit or license to have a kid is not a world I want to be part of. I agree that we can do pretty much anything we want to. I see no reason or ability to limit reproductive rights in a way that is fair to everyone, and I don't trust government to ever implement such measures. The only time I would favor reproductive laws is if my nation's population numbers are reaching crisis levels and a reduction is necessary in order to restore some modicum of a living standard.

Click to expand...

Well that's small and local. I don't care either way. I just know that pieces of **** are likely to raise of pieces of ****. Why allow the obvious to do it out of fear for being labeled "immoral" by our own inhibited idealistic standards about what we wish they were? Because we are afraid that the smallest "right" decision means that we are Nazi Germany.

We are weak. And we will remain weak, which only ensures our own social conflicts and international struggles. Why say no to parents who are raising their children to be hateful and full of indoctrinated rage? What harm can it do?

MSgt said:

Well that is certainly true. Howevre, it doesn't stop there like we would like it. Doing good by their families mean providing for them. And unless trades and certain agreements are kept between governments, they fail.

Click to expand...

I wasn't really referring to economy, but anyway.

MSgt said:

Well that's small and local. I don't care either way. I just know that pieces of **** are likely to raise of pieces of ****. Why allow the obvious to do it out of fear for being labeled "immoral" by our own inhibited idealistic standards about what we wish they were? Because we are afraid that the smallest "right" decision means that we are Nazi Germany.

Click to expand...

Even though I dislike child services, I would rather they continue to determine who "unfit" parents are and remove already-born children rather than control who has the right to reproduce. I don't think eugenicists really follow through on their desires to control reproduction. How would you prevent people from breeding? Make them wear chastity belts?

It's no better than the anti-choice movement that wants women to have no control over aborting their pregnancies. It's just the opposite extreme.

Orion said:

I don't really buy the stated reasons for why the kids were taken away. The naming controversy is at the heart of this. Being a racist, neo-nazi asshole is not a psychological illness, but freedom of speech.

There are legitimate reasons for taking children away from their families but I find they are rare. Child services has too much power in our society.

As for reproductive rights... yeah, I agree that some people should not be parents, but I can't think of any kind of legal wording that could create a reasonable law, and if I could, I wouldn't want the government controlling who can have kids.

Click to expand...

I feel the parents should have been required to attend mandatory parenting classes and individual and family counseling in order to regain custody.
I feel that a child psychologist should sit down with them and talk to them about why such names could psychologically damage and socially cripple their children.
I think the parents should not regain custody until they give some indication that they understand and care, and that a good way to demonstrate this would be for them to legally change their children's names, on their own dime and of their own initiative..

I don't support the kids being taken away, but I do think the court should force the parents to change the kid's names and to leave the rest of the case to child services.

megaprogman said:

I don't support the kids being taken away, but I do think the court should force the parents to change the kid's names and to leave the rest of the case to child services.

Click to expand...

Personally I think that anyone who calls their kid Adolph Hitler, probably shouldn't be parents.

But I think megas argument is the one I'll go with.

danarhea said:

Jim Hogg, a former governor of Texas, named his daughter Ima. And no, contrary to urban legend, she did not have a sister named Ura.

In Grand Rapids, Michigan, Bill Lear named his daughter Chanda.

And, of course, we all know about the guy who was named Mike Hunt. LOL.

Click to expand...

I've been to were Jim Hogg plantation was, since my grandmother lives in Sweeney, Texas. Talk about your small town cough the biggest thing was when they got a walmart in West Columbia My dad told me about him naming his daughter Ima Hogg, but I did not know that Ura Hogg was not real.

I also really don't get why they would take the kids away, because of a name I did read they had metal problems, but what kind of metal problems were they serve enough to warranted the taken of the kid.

RyrineaHaruno said:

I been to were Jim Hogg plantation was, since my grandmother lives in Sweeney, Texas. Talk about your small town cough the biggest thing was when they got a walmart in West Columbia My dad told me about him naming his daughter Ima Hogg, but I did not know that Ura Hogg was not real.

Click to expand...

Ima's a rather well-known and respected figure in Texas, actually; probably better known than her father, he of the dubious sense of humor.

Ima Hogg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you ever come to the state capital building, they've got some nice portraits of her.

1069 said:

Ima's a rather well-known and respected figure in Texas, actually; probably better known than her father, he of the dubious sense of humor.

Ima Hogg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you ever come to the state capital building, they've got some nice portraits of her.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the infomation, I'll check thoese portraits out at the capital buliding. I only been their 3 times, since Austin is a long way from Humble. but my sisiter is going up their for college this year I might go to the capital buliding during our stay.

For some reason this song came to mind.

MSgt said:

I don't care either way. I just know that pieces of **** are likely to raise of pieces of ****. Why allow the obvious to do it out of fear for being labeled "immoral" by our own inhibited idealistic standards about what we wish they were? Because we are afraid that the smallest "right" decision means that we are Nazi Germany.

We are weak. And we will remain weak, which only ensures our own social conflicts and international struggles. Why say no to parents who are raising their children to be hateful and full of indoctrinated rage? What harm can it do?

Click to expand...

I'll give you the reason, and the harm it can do.

Personally? I think these people are scum, and I wish they weren't raising their children this way. Most people agree with that.

So what about we use that consensus to take the kids away? Well, now we've established the precedent on removing kids from their parents because we hate the parents political ideology.

So now that we've established the precedent that society has that power... what will you think, in 10 or 25 years if a political group comes to power who despises conservative ideology, or Christians, or monogamists, and thinks that is a good enough excuse to take the children away? The precedent on such intervention has been established, what constitutes adequate reason is merely a detail.

The slippery slope is not a fallacy, when the slope is greased and you're being pushed.

Or in other words, you'd better care that the other guy's ox is getting gored, because yours might be next.

Goshin said:

I'll give you the reason, and the harm it can do.

Personally? I think these people are scum, and I wish they weren't raising their children this way. Most people agree with that.

So what about we use that consensus to take the kids away? Well, now we've established the precedent on removing kids from their parents because we hate the parents political ideology.

So now that we've established the precedent that society has that power... what will you think, in 10 or 25 years if a political group comes to power who despises conservative ideology, or Christians, or monogamists, and thinks that is a good enough excuse to take the children away? The precedent on such intervention has been established, what constitutes adequate reason is merely a detail.

The slippery slope is not a fallacy, when the slope is greased and you're being pushed.

Or in other words, you'd better care that the other guy's ox is getting gored, because yours might be next.

Click to expand...

Rubbish. What you are talking about is the great fear to open doors because we don't know where it may lead. This too...is weakness. Do we not protect the unborn for fear of the slipperly slope? And where oh where will the slipperly slope of stem cell research get us? Better shelve that crap too because we don't know where it may lead. The slippery slope argument is for other civilizations, not ours, yet we use it out of fear because we don't know ourselves.

This idea that we are too weak to draw lines in accordance to our own ideas of good morality just doesn't work. We are the nation that sparked prohibition and then rejected it. We are the nation that decided to drop two atomic bombs and then spent the next 65 years refusing to drop another one. We are the nation that looked at the KKK and said enough of your freedom of speech. We are the nation that makes it hard for Nazi parties to become little more than a haven for rejects. We constantly opens doors and re-draw lines to suit the needs of the society and good morality.

To sprint from the idea that we should allow a parent to raise their children to hate and agress on others only harms the society. Why not raise them to be serial killers and call it political ideology? Why not name them Bundy or Manson or Ripper and indoctrinate them to their namesakes? "Oh well....that's our freedom?" I'm sure you heard about the court decision to reverse the baby name "vagina" and "penis" and forced the parents to use their imagination less sexually when they try again? We draw lines all the time. Slippery Slopes are a matter of weakness.

You know how I know when to stop mowing the yard? I come to the line. But if I do go over it, I damn well know where my yard is. I don't wind up slippery sloping my way across the neighborhood.

Jetboogieman said:

I would take the kids away just because they called their kids that.

Honestly i think anyone who would name their kids that are simply ****ed in the head, and shouldn't be near kids at all.

Click to expand...

As twisted as the names? You have no right to start removing children based on names alone. I hate that people name their kids after months of the year, cars, fruits, etc. but that does not give me the right to take their kids away cause I do not like it. We live in the U.S.A. and have somewhat freedom in reguards to what we name our babies.

In this case? The parents are sick and I am glad they lost custody. Their racism is not their core issues and they need some frigging help.

JohnWOlin said:

:lol: Sorry I know its horrible but when I read the names I was about in tears. There is crazy, and then there is bat**** insane.

But yeah, I think eventually we need to come up with a test to determine if people will be good parents or not, how you would do that I dunno, but some parents I just want to smack the **** out of.

Click to expand...

There was a couple a few years back that named their baby Satan.

Hail Satan

other said:

Sadly, it's actually good that these turds gave their kids those names...

The article doesn't mention any of the kids' ages, but I'd hope this was caught pretty early in their lives because of it.

Click to expand...

This is true. Those names need to be changed before those children are further victimized.

Kali said:

As twisted as the names? You have no right to start removing children based on names alone. I hate that people name their kids after months of the year, cars, fruits, etc. but that does not give me the right to take their kids away cause I do not like it. We live in the U.S.A. and have somewhat freedom in reguards to what we name our babies.

In this case? The parents are sick and I am glad they lost custody. Their racism is not their core issues and they need some frigging help.

Click to expand...

Just another excuse to pan to the offender at the expense of the victim. Whether or not kids are taken is not my heartache. What I don't like is that grown adult people in our society would rather spare the right of a parent to ruin a kids life instead of looking out for the helpless kid. Too often irresponsibility gets painted with the color of freedom. Somehow, a parent's inability to name their baby "vagina" or "Adolf Hitler" or "Satan" or whatever other name creeps into these people minds is supposed to translate over to the inability of others to name their babies "Charlie," "Bob," or "John." I guess that would be that slipperly slope people are always petrified of.

MSgt said:

Say's who?

The problem with this subject matter is that people associate responsible legislation to fascism. If we are to reach this "utopian" dream world people, especially the Left, have dreamed up, it takes dealing with the offender of good morality first. And these parents are of low morality. Of course, dealing with the offenders means more than a stern talking to, so leftists are usually stuck bitching and complaining about everything instead of actually being of use.

We can justly do anything. We just have to be bold enough to do what is right without turning into Nazis. It's our negativity and low expectation of humanity that has us afraid to even try.

Click to expand...

But who is gonna be the Morality Police? The Majority? The upgtight busybodies that decide to show up at the polls cause they wanna be up in others business? Who is gonna be the JUDGE of Low Morality? And how is that gonna work? Are there gonna be LAWS on low morality?

MSgt said:

Just another excuse to pan to the offender at the expense of the victim. Whether or not kids are taken is not my heartache. What I don't like is that grown adult people in our society would rather spare the right of a parent to ruin a kids life instead of looking out for the helpless kid. Too often irresponsibility gets painted with the color of freedom. Somehow, a parent's inability to name their baby "vagina" or "Adolf Hitler" or "Satan" or whatever other name creeps into these people minds is supposed to translate over to the inability of others to name their babies "Charlie," "Bob," or "John." I guess that would be that slipperly slope people are always petrified of.

Click to expand...

But if we started where would it end? I find the name Bob offensive because that is what most girls name their vibes. Where does it end? John? John is a term that is used for customers of hookers-so don't like that name either. You see where I am going with this? ANY single name you can think of to name your baby? I can find a reason to be all offended by it. So where would it end?

Exactly. When I knew that in the next town over, some asshat had named his kids Napoleon and Josephine (excuse me dude? You named your children after a married COUPLE. That's not at all insanely uncomfortable.) I was all agog. But this?! Major WTF moment.

JohnWOlin said:

:lol: Sorry I know its horrible but when I read the names I was about in tears. There is crazy, and then there is bat**** insane.

But yeah, I think eventually we need to come up with a test to determine if people will be good parents or not, how you would do that I dunno, but some parents I just want to smack the **** out of.

Click to expand...

That's a major stretch. You say Bob, half the world says "Yes?" - including me. You say Adolf Hitler and it's a whole new ballgame.

Kali said:

But if we started where would it end? I find the name Bob offensive because that is what most girls name their vibes. Where does it end? John? John is a term that is used for customers of hookers-so don't like that name either. You see where I am going with this? ANY single name you can think of to name your baby? I can find a reason to be all offended by it. So where would it end?

Click to expand...

Catz Part Deux said:

Adolf Hitler Campbell Taken From Parents




Some people should not be allowed to breed.

Click to expand...

How ironic that you say that in reference to these folks.

"Ironic"; I do not think that word means what him think it means.

apdst said:

How ironic that you say that in reference to these folks.

Click to expand...

BDBoop said:

"Ironic"; I do not think that word means what him think it means.

Click to expand...

Obviously my point went right over your head.

Let me help you: Hitler believed that some folks shouldn't be allowed to breed, too.

apdst said:

Obviously my point went right over your head.

Let me help you: Hitler believed that some folks shouldn't be allowed to breed, too.

Click to expand...

Right you are, apdst.
Wow, if irony were avocados, we'd all be eating a lot of guacamole right about now.

BDBoop said:

That's a major stretch. You say Bob, half the world says "Yes?" - including me. You say Adolf Hitler and it's a whole new ballgame.

Click to expand...

I do not care what half the world says.. Do you really wanna start telling parents how to name their born? I sure as hell don't. Where would it end?

I'm kind of new to debate. Is this what they refer to as a "slippery slope fallacy"?

Kali said:

I do not care what half the world says.. Do you really wanna start telling parents how to name their born? I sure as hell don't. Where would it end?

Click to expand...