Adolf Hitler is a great name... [Archive]

Philonious

12-17-2008, 11:56 AM

Reproduction's an inalienable right, even though these people should have chosen to to exercise it.

Really? Because if it is an inalienable human right, it shouldn't be. Should child-molesters be allowed to have children? What about those who beat/murder their kids? I'm all for requiring people to prove their competence PRIOR to having children rather than the current system of letting any idiot have a go at it. Hell, just have them take (and pass) a parenting course. Not everyone is competent, nor is everyone deserving.

Quebec actually has a government body whose responsibility it is to look over the names that people give their children... Once again someone has demonstrated why it is a necessity.

Voodoo

12-17-2008, 12:02 PM

So you'll punish your kids for other people's stupidity.
Ah, good point. I'll name them John, Simon and Matthew instead. With proper inflection, Simon could definitely be the daughter's name.

TheFlyingOrc

12-17-2008, 12:06 PM

Really? Because if it is an inalienable human right, it shouldn't be. Should child-molesters be allowed to have children? What about those who beat/murder their kids? I'm all for requiring people to prove their competence PRIOR to having children rather than the current system of letting any idiot have a go at it. Hell, just have them take (and pass) a parenting course. Not everyone is competent, nor is everyone deserving.

Right, and such practices would never be used to single out an unpopular group, oh no siree.

Who defines competence? Do we let poor people not have children as they can't feed them properly?

It's a right, and way moreso than owning a gun.

Voodoo

12-17-2008, 12:10 PM

Really? Because if it is an inalienable human right, it shouldn't be. Should child-molesters be allowed to have children? What about those who beat/murder their kids? I'm all for requiring people to prove their competence PRIOR to having children rather than the current system of letting any idiot have a go at it. Hell, just have them take (and pass) a parenting course. Not everyone is competent, nor is everyone deserving.

Interesting proposition. How would you like to enforce this?

LongStepMantis

12-17-2008, 12:25 PM

The parents insist they are not racist, although they don't believe in mingling the races.

Hahahahahaha! oh man, also...which one of the parents in that picture is which? They both look like fugly men.

cppcrusader

12-17-2008, 12:27 PM

At least he was given a real name. I think his sister got the worst of it. JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell?

Sandman

12-17-2008, 12:30 PM

There isn't even a name like Adolf that sounds normal that you can call yourself....Andy maybe? Andy Hitler? If I was that kid I'd grow a mustache early and learn how to fight.

TheFlyingOrc

12-17-2008, 12:30 PM

There isn't even a name like Adolf that sounds normal that you can call yourself....Andy maybe? Andy Hitler? If I was that kid I'd grow a mustache early and learn how to fight.

Growing a mustache is the opposite of what we're going for here.

pronounconnoun

12-17-2008, 12:47 PM

Voodoo

12-17-2008, 01:04 PM

Hahahahahaha! oh man, also...which one of the parents in that picture is which? They both look like fugly men.
And here I thought the woman was on the left...

...wow...

LongStepMantis

12-17-2008, 01:30 PM

Later in the same interview, Heath Campbell said, People seem to hate me wherever I go. It's so bizarre. I'm just goose stepping down the street, punching people in the face, screaming 'white power,' and minding my own business.

That's because they're intolerant.
Just because he names his children after nazis, decorates with swastikas, beams with pride over his official "worn by a real nazi" boots, and doesn't believe in mingling races, everyone assumes he's a nazi. Some guys just can't catch a break.

And here I thought the woman was on the left...

...wow...

Wait, the one on the left isn't the woman? Their children are going to be ugly as shit with those genes and named after nazis.

Cit Phil Cit

12-17-2008, 01:40 PM

It's a shame that an adult couple would choose to name their children with such deliberately provocative names to push their agenda. Should the children manage to develop any level of objectivity - I hope their parents are rich so they can be sued into oblivion for being so foolish.

pronounconnoun

12-17-2008, 01:47 PM

That's because they're intolerant.
Just because he names his children after nazis, decorates with swastikas, beams with pride over his official "worn by a real nazi" boots, and doesn't believe in mingling races, everyone assumes he's a nazi. Some guys just can't catch a break.

I agree. People need to be more tolerant of hate crimes.

Mdot

12-17-2008, 02:03 PM

Get these fools out of my state.

Philonious

12-17-2008, 02:04 PM

Right, and such practices would never be used to single out an unpopular group, oh no siree.

Anyone here have a problem with denying child molesters/abusers/murderers the right to have children? Do we prevent unpopular groups from driving? Passing high school? (Well, maybe a little, but at least it isn't formalized.)

Who defines competence?

Well most of us live in a democracy, I'm sure that we could sort SOMETHING out. Maybe the U.N. could step in. Hell, let Angelina Jolie decide the criteria.

Do we let poor people not have children as they can't feed them properly?

One or two? Sure. I'm all for government program to help out poor families/kids. Four or more... yeah, we actually should be stopping them from having kids.

It's a right, and way moreso than owning a gun.

I'm Canadian, so I DON'T think that owning a gun is a right. But I think that the least we can do is require that people take course is gun use and safety. Ditto for kids, cars, voting, etc. People generally assume that our parents teach us the skills and common sense to get through daily life. This assumption is wrong.

Mr. Murphy

12-17-2008, 02:06 PM

Anyone here have a problem with denying child molesters/abusers/murderers the right to have children?

I do. I have a problem with denying anybody the right to a natural biological process. If they find someone who wants to fuck them, I think it is a horrible horrible thing to take that away from them, no matter what atrocity they have committed.

Philonious

12-17-2008, 02:12 PM

I do. I have a problem with denying anybody the right to a natural biological process. If they find someone who wants to fuck them, I think it is a horrible horrible thing to take that away from them, no matter what atrocity they have committed.

So with full knowledge that a person will have a child only to eventually rape or murder them, you think that they should still have kids? Really? I think we'd be doing everyone a favor by sterilizing them instead.

Loki_09

12-17-2008, 02:14 PM

Get these fools out of my state.

Since when did you move to Jersey? I thought you were in CT?

Mr. Murphy

12-17-2008, 02:17 PM

So with full knowledge that a person will have a child only to eventually rape or murder them, you think that they should still have kids? Really? I think we'd be doing everyone a favor by sterilizing them instead.

Just because somebody did something in the past doesn't mean they are going to do it again. So your whole argument is fucked. And what about the inevitable situation where we've wrongly sterilized someone because we got the facts wrong? Your entire line-of-thought doesn't take into account 2000 years of human history where ideas very similar to yours have been tried over and over again, and they have always, always been abused.

We've settled on jail cells for a reason. You can let people out of them.

Mdot

12-17-2008, 02:18 PM

Since when did you move to Jersey? I thought you were in CT?

Nope, I've always been here.

QueQueg

12-17-2008, 02:19 PM

pronounconnoun

12-17-2008, 02:34 PM

Lucifer would actually be a kickass name. Comparing the names "Lucifer" to "Adolph Hitler" isn't even fair.

One is a fictional mythological boogie-man... the other murdered hundreds of thousands of people.

I'd say "Adolph Hitler" is a bit worse.

I never saw it that way.

Hitler > Lucifer

Actually, after reading Paradise Lost I have a man crush on Lucifer.

LongStepMantis

12-17-2008, 02:38 PM

I never saw it that way.

Hitler > Lucifer

Actually, after reading Paradise Lost I have a man crush on Lucifer.

I had a course on Milton this past semester, and we spent a lot of time on the whole "Satan is the hero" point of view. After all, if (according to the story) Satan hadn't turned against God, we would have never been created.

It's weird to think about.

Mr. Murphy

12-17-2008, 02:45 PM

I had a course on Milton this past semester, and we spent a lot of time on the whole "Satan is the hero" point of view. After all, if (according to the story) Satan hadn't turned against God, we would have never been created.

It's weird to think about.

Ever read Preacher? It's also interesting to think that Satan never had a choice and simply did what God created him to do. But I'm sure some sort of idea along those lines was introduced in class.

The Sandman comics offshoot Lucifer was a pretty fun read if you like the character.

pronounconnoun

12-17-2008, 02:46 PM

LongStepMantis

12-17-2008, 02:51 PM

Ever read Preacher? It's also interesting to think that Satan never had a choice and simply did what God created him to do. But I'm sure some sort of idea along those lines was introduced in class.

I've not read nor heard of this Preacher. But yes, it was highly suspect that God, who has control of all things, would give Lucifer the capacity to turn against him. Then God doesn't really prepare Adam and Eve very well for the deception that's coming, claiming he "already knew" that they would fail and become fallen...so why didn't he stop it?

It was interesting, but also very confusing. Then again, the story was crafted as an explanation of the situation we're seen as being in now by Milton...God didn't write it. :D

Agreed. I tend to like the more Romantic characters. He was the most noble.
True. Satan was the most life-like of the characters. He's angry, he's bitter, he sits on the sun and laments the fact he can never go back to heaven. You actually feel pretty bad for him.

Especially when you find out the bit about God creating us to show Satan that he didn't diminish his power at all. Satan comes off as decently likable, and God comes off as an asshole...weird book.

Mr. Murphy

12-17-2008, 02:53 PM

I've not read nor heard of this Preacher. But yes, it was highly suspect that God, who has control of all things, would give Lucifer the capacity to turn against him. Then God doesn't really prepare Adam and Eve very well for the deception that's coming, claiming he "already knew" that they would fail and become fallen...so why didn't he stop it?

It was interesting, but also very confusing. Then again, the story was crafted as an explanation of the situation we're seen as being in now by Milton...God didn't write it. :D

Do you like comic books? If you've ever enjoyed a single graphic novel in your life, go get yourself the first trade paperback of Preacher. You won't regret it, I promise. Especially given you have an interest in this kind of story already.

Man, I'm deadly serious, don't miss this chance to add something awesome into your life.

Gormanimal

12-17-2008, 02:55 PM

+++ for Preacher!

LongStepMantis

12-17-2008, 02:56 PM

Do you like comic books? If you've ever enjoyed a single graphic novel in your life, go get yourself the first trade paperback of Preacher. You won't regret it, I promise. Especially given you have an interest in this kind of story already.

Man, I'm deadly serious, don't miss this chance to add something awesome into your life.

Perhaps I will find it over Christmas as a present to myself! :D
I'll look into it, thanks.

pronounconnoun

12-17-2008, 02:58 PM

The Sandman comics offshoot Lucifer was a pretty fun read if you like the character.

Do you like comic books? If you've ever enjoyed a single graphic novel in your life, go get yourself the first trade paperback of Preacher. You won't regret it, I promise. Especially given you have an interest in this kind of story already.

I'll add these to my Christmas list.

Philonious

12-17-2008, 02:59 PM

Just because somebody did something in the past doesn't mean they are going to do it again. So your whole argument is fucked. And what about the inevitable situation where we've wrongly sterilized someone because we got the facts wrong? Your entire line-of-thought doesn't take into account 2000 years of human history where ideas very similar to yours have been tried over and over again, and they have always, always been abused.

We've settled on jail cells for a reason. You can let people out of them.

Child molesters don't go away forever, and I really don't think it is fair to their future children to stick them with parent who have a high probability of molesting them. And sterilization trumps the death penalty... Vasectomies ARE reversible. But that was an extreme example anyway. Mostly I just think that people should consider requiring that parents to be take parenting courses. You can easily encourage people to take the courses by paying them to do so... Or you know, teaching life-skills courses in high school.

Lucifer is a nice name... Of course so is Chlymidia.

pronounconnoun

12-17-2008, 03:04 PM

I'm going to name my daughter Chlamydia

Bad Buddha

12-17-2008, 03:06 PM

Lucifer is a nice name... Of course so is Chlymidia.
I'm going to name my daughter Chlamydia

RfTHio6WREc

Mr. Murphy

12-17-2008, 03:08 PM

Child molesters don't go away forever, and I really don't think it is fair to their future children to stick them with parent who have a high probability of molesting them. And sterilization trumps the death penalty... Vasectomies ARE reversible. But that was an extreme example anyway. Mostly I just think that people should consider requiring that parents to be take parenting courses. You can easily encourage people to take the courses by paying them to do so... Or you know, teaching life-skills courses in high school.

I get what you are saying, but now take your idea to it's next step. People failing people and denying them the right to have children because they are republican, or black haired, or some other reason. There has never been a situation where what you are proposing has worked out - but there have been plenty where it has failed. I'm not going to Godwin this thread, but if you think about it, I'm sure you can come up with a situation where one group tried to tell another group whether or not they could breed - and it wasn't a good thing. You can't trust people to be perfect because we all have a different idea of what perfect is, therefor you can't trust people to correctly determine who can have children and who can't.

In my opinion, if there are any inalienable rights in this world, it is the right to use your body the way it was intended to be used - the right to eat, to sleep, and to fuck. Physically altering human beings that don't conform to your idea of 'right' is a bad, bad path, no matter what your justification. It's opening a door that we don't want to open.

Mr. Murphy

12-17-2008, 03:10 PM

I'm going to name my daughter Chlamydia

Ulmh3A4lkm4

TheFlyingOrc

12-17-2008, 03:23 PM

I've not read nor heard of this Preacher. But yes, it was highly suspect that God, who has control of all things, would give Lucifer the capacity to turn against him.

That's actually one of the most main themes of non-Calvinistic thought - that for love to be love, it must be chosen, not willed, and that God must allow choice in order for true devotion to exist.

Philonious

12-17-2008, 03:35 PM

Ulmh3A4lkm4

Huh. Now I'm wondering if my friend stole the Chlamydia bit from somewhere else or if he came up with it independently.

In my opinion, if there are any inalienable rights in this world, it is the right to use your body the way it was intended to be used - the right to eat, to sleep, and to fuck.

I disagree. I just think that there comes a point when people can cross the line and prove that they simply do not deserve the rights that most people take for granted. I hem and haw about the death penalty, but if someone goes around hurting kids, they should lose the right to have kids of their own.

Physically altering human beings that don't conform to your idea of 'right' is a bad, bad path, no matter what your justification. It's opening a door that we don't want to open.

Agreed for the most part... But in my dreams of totalitarianism I am always a fair and just ruler, and I trust myself to use my powers responsibly. God forbid anyone else would get the kind of power I'm talking about.

pronounconnoun

12-17-2008, 04:00 PM

Huh. Now I'm wondering if my friend stole the Chlamydia bit from somewhere else or if he came up with it independently.

I don't know anybody who says it that didn't get it from this movie.

ClannerDelta

12-17-2008, 04:08 PM

I'm not going to Godwin this thread, but...

Anyone else find this funny considering the thread it's in?

MagGnome

12-17-2008, 05:37 PM

Oh. Its Jersey. That explains everything.

Purple Santa and Ms. Claus (ADDGirl) live in Jersey!

Wait a second.... :mad:

Disgustipated

12-17-2008, 05:43 PM

There isn't even a name like Adolf that sounds normal that you can call yourself....Andy maybe? Andy Hitler? If I was that kid I'd grow a mustache early and learn how to fight.

If his mustache is anything like yours, he'll add 30% to his lame factor.

12-17-2008, 07:33 PM

In my opinion, if there are any inalienable rights in this world, it is the right to use your body the way it was intended to be used - the right to eat, to sleep, and to fuck.
Doesn't this argument suggest that prisoners have an inalienable right to conjugal visits? Obviously any sanction, including imprisonment and the denial of sexual congress, can be abused and turned against innocents. But I'm not sure that means we can't use those sanctions for legitimate ends.

And if we can imprison your body, why can't we modify it? I'm not sure chemical castration is a more offensive sanction to human dignity than imprisonment is -- one is the deprivation of one life activity, the other is the deprivation of almost all life activity.

Generation ABXY

12-17-2008, 08:01 PM

Suddenly, this felt relevant again...

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn119/ClannerDelta/TodLer.jpg

Loki_09

12-18-2008, 08:08 AM

Purple Santa and Ms. Claus (ADDGirl) live in Jersey!

Wait a second.... :mad:

My point exactly :p

Ink Asylum

12-18-2008, 08:18 AM

In my opinion, if there are any inalienable rights in this world, it is the right to use your body the way it was intended to be used - the right to eat, to sleep, and to fuck. Physically altering human beings that don't conform to your idea of 'right' is a bad, bad path, no matter what your justification. It's opening a door that we don't want to open.

Yes, you have a right to use your body in the ways it was intended. However, as a society we draw the line where the use of your body affects another person. You can fuck all you want but you cannot fuck someone who doesn't want you to fuck them. In addition, if two people want to fuck they can also fuck all they want, until that affects a third person, in this case the potential child.

People who suggest that there be standards of limitations for childbearing aren't doing it to punish the parents but to protect potential children.

Our society takes kids away from parents for being bad parents, sadly often too late to avoid long-term damage to the child's physical or mental state, but we can't stop bad parents from having kids in the first place?

12-18-2008, 08:27 AM

People who suggest that there be standards of limitations for childbearing aren't doing it to punish the parents but to protect potential children.
You can't see a difference between protecting extant children and protecting theoretically possible children of the future? I mean, I'm pro-life, and even I wouldn't say that a child who might be conceived later tonight is exactly the same as a child running in the playground right now.

Not to mention the fact that your theory embodies a deeply disturbing view of the value of human life. You posit two possibilities for Future Baby Johnny: either (a) he's conceived, gestated, born, then abused or killed, or (b) he's never conceived. You suggest that (b) is preferable.

Isn't that fucking creepy and wrong? Most of us will eventually suffer terribly painful deaths. Lots of us will suffer horrific indignities along the way to our demise, including emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. All of us will suffer terribly in one way or another, and lots of us will never find true happiness or fulfillment in our short times on Earth. Do you think I'd prefer never to have been conceived over the short, painful life on Earth I have been granted? Do you think that's a conclusion you can draw for all people on Earth?

It's one thing to remove a child from her parents in the hopes of giving her a better life. It's another to decide on her behalf that oblivion is preferable to existence. I believe we can try to combat child abuse without degrading the value of human life ourselves.

zarathstra

12-18-2008, 08:32 AM

Man, I feel so bad for the guy. Can't a Nazi asshole catch a break these days?

And dude, I totally thought the one on the left was the woman...

Ink Asylum

12-18-2008, 10:37 AM

Not to mention the fact that your theory embodies a deeply disturbing view of the value of human life. You posit two possibilities for Future Baby Johnny: either (a) he's conceived, gestated, born, then abused or killed, or (b) he's never conceived. You suggest that (b) is preferable.

In some cases B is definitely preferable. Horrible, horrible thigns have been done to children from very early ages. Short, terrified lives with little to no joy to balance out the extreme abuse, depravity, and pain forced upon their innocence.

Following your logic, birth control itself is a crime against humanity because of all of the potential lives that will never come into being. A woman doing anything less than birthing another child every nine months from puberty until menopause is denying potential lives.

Responsible people take tests and get a license to do things that can harm others, like driving or owning a gun. Irresponsible people, particularly those that already misuse those tools, are denied the opportunity to do harm to others.

Responsible people think about the kind of life their child will have and postpone or decide against having kids if it will mean a poor life for the children. Yet irresponsible people are allowed to continue harming the most innocent because it's their right to give birth?

12-18-2008, 10:57 AM

In some cases B is definitely preferable. Horrible, horrible thigns have been done to children from very early ages. Short, terrified lives with little to no joy to balance out the extreme abuse, depravity, and pain forced upon their innocence.
So I take it you support euthanasia for small children with serious illnesses?

Following your logic, birth control itself is a crime against humanity because of all of the potential lives that will never come into being.
You're going to have to spell that out for me, because I don't see that logical chain at all. First, I already said I didn't see future potential children as fitting into the "human" category yet, so it's hard to see how any wrong committed against them is "a crime against humanity." Second, while I oppose birth control used as a method to prevent the child itself from suffering, that doesn't mean there aren't other justifications for using birth control or abstinence. I think there are circumstances under which it's justified to take an adult human's life; why would I not also say there are some circumstances justifying preventing a child from being conceived? I just don't think we should rationalize it as a kindness to the child.

Responsible people take tests and get a license to do things that can harm others, like driving or owning a gun.
Only for certain things. You don't have to take a test before you speak to me, even though you can cause me great emotional, social, economic, and even physical harm with your words. There's no general rule that says you have to pass some certification before engaging in some potentially dangerous activity, because almost all activities are potentially dangerous.

Responsible people think about the kind of life their child will have and postpone or decide against having kids if it will mean a poor life for the children. Yet irresponsible people are allowed to continue harming the most innocent because it's their right to give birth?
I'm not necessarily opposed to depriving people of the right to bear children. I just don't think you can justify it by saying the kid's better off never having been born. Find some other justification, such as retribution.

Johan

12-18-2008, 11:00 AM

Responsible people think about the kind of life their child will have and postpone or decide against having kids if it will mean a poor life for the children.

I agree with you. Part of being a loving parent is making a decision as to when to bring children into the world, not just whether to do so.

Ink Asylum

12-18-2008, 11:11 AM

I agree with you. Part of being a loving parent is making a decision as to when to bring children into the world, not just whether to do so.

Exactly my point. That's why I'm disgusted by people who talk about the "right to give birth" in parent-centric terms. Perhaps I react too strongly or too extremely when I argue my view, but I think we can all agree that the rights of a potential child should always be above the right of two people to give birth. We would never allow certain people and families to adopt a child, but no one can raise an objection to them just making their own?

Yeah, I don't have the perfect solution and I shouldn't be the one putting together the childbirth-license system, but that doesn't mean there's no way to do it that would help children be born more likely into healthy lives and less into harmful ones.

12-18-2008, 11:22 AM

Perhaps I react too strongly or too extremely when I argue my view, but I think we can all agree that the rights of a potential child should always be above the right of two people to give birth.
I hate, hate, hate to say "always," but I am sympathetic to this. You can sign me on board, I guess.
Yeah, I don't have the perfect solution and I shouldn't be the one putting together the childbirth-license system, but that doesn't mean there's no way to do it that would help children be born more likely into healthy lives and less into harmful ones.
Uhhh... is that what you're trying to do? This seems to theorize that there's a set of baby souls waiting in Heaven for mommies and daddies, and that, by preventing bad mommies and daddies from conceiving, we make it more likely those baby souls are born to good mommies and daddies. Is that how you're looking at it?

EDIT: To be clear: I don't mean to be derogatory about your theological views on this matter, but I think our stance toward conception is pretty tied up in what, exactly, we think a "potential child" is.

Johan

12-18-2008, 11:27 AM

We would never allow certain people and families to adopt a child, but no one can raise an objection to them just making their own?

Interesting point. Difficult to do anything proactive about it, too (but not impossible). Sad. :(

QueQueg

12-18-2008, 11:32 AM

I know (we all know) the father/mother in this particular story are racists.

Is it not also possible that they could be very loving parents, with broken/skewed world views.

In many ways, whats the difference between someone who wants to indoctrinate their young'ins into fundamentalist religions?

Should scientologists have the right to conceive? What about Mormons? Catholics? Who gets to decide?

Bad Buddha

12-18-2008, 11:33 AM

I agree with you. Part of being a loving parent is making a decision as to when to bring children into the world, not just whether to do so.
Nah! You just boink like bunnies and accept the consequences.

Ink Asylum

12-18-2008, 11:35 AM

Uhhh... is that what you're trying to do? This seems to theorize that there's a set of baby souls waiting in Heaven for mommies and daddies, and that, by preventing bad mommies and daddies from conceiving, we make it more likely those baby souls are born to good mommies and daddies. Is that how you're looking at it?

Souls don't have to enter into it for my statement to make sense. We should be decreasing the number of children born into bad lives and helping those who would provide good lives in their ability to support kids.

You're the one that said it's better for someone to be born, no matter how awful their life will be, than for them never to be born. Do you think there are souls waiting? If not, then a baby not being born when being born would mean a horrible life isn't that bad, because nothing will "miss" the chance at life.

Ink Asylum

12-18-2008, 11:39 AM

Interesting point. Difficult to do anything proactive about it, too (but not impossible). Sad. :(

Although I don't have all the answers, I think there are easier solutions than most people recognize. It's just such a third rail topic. No one wants to touch it because people react so strongly.

Just off the top of my head, a six month course for parents. An hour or couple hours a week about raising a young child, provided free by the government. That could do a whole lot of good that will save money in the long run for little up front cost.

Ink Asylum

12-18-2008, 11:41 AM

Is it not also possible that they could be very loving parents, with broken/skewed world views.

Loving parents don't name their child after recent history's greatest villain, knowing what that will mean for the kid while growing up and interacting with others until he gets to an age where he can change his own name.

QueQueg

12-18-2008, 11:41 AM

Although I don't have all the answers, I think there are easier solutions than most people recognize. It's just such a third rail topic. No one wants to touch it because people react so strongly.

Just off the top of my head, a six month course for parents. An hour or couple hours a week about raising a young child, provided free by the government. That could do a whole lot of good that will save money in the long run for little up front cost.

And if you don't take the course? No license to bear children? So say you get your license, then if you're brought on charges of neglect or abuse, is your license revoked?

What agency decides whether my license to bear children is valid? Can I trust the gov't with that decision?

Ink Asylum

12-18-2008, 11:44 AM

And if you don't take the course? No license to bear children? So say you get your license, then if you're brought on charges of neglect or abuse, is your license revoked?

What agency decides whether my license to bear children is valid? Can I trust the gov't with that decision?

I didn't say anything about a license in that idea. You can take the course or not and still have kids. Perhaps there would be other incentives, like a year of free day care or something for completing the course, for people who don't think the lessons will be worth enough.

QueQueg

12-18-2008, 11:44 AM

Loving parents don't name their child after recent history's greatest villain, knowing what that will mean for the kid while growing up and interacting with others until he gets to an age where he can change his own name.

What exactly do "loving parents" do? Is there a naughty/nice list somewhere?

This is an impossibly slippery slope that you're attempting to traverse. While you may think that it's common sense whether someone is capable of bearing/raising children, the fact is that no gov't agency should EVER have that manner of control over the populace.

QueQueg

12-18-2008, 11:45 AM

I didn't say anything about a license in that idea. You can take the course or not and still have kids. Perhaps there would be other incentives, like a year of free day care or something for completing the course, for people who don't think the lessons will be worth enough.

Parenting courses are already available. Many people take them. What good would that do for lil' Hitler or his racist parents?

Ink Asylum

12-18-2008, 11:51 AM

This is an impossibly slippery slope that you're attempting to traverse. While you may think that it's common sense whether someone is capable of bearing/raising children, the fact is that no gov't agency should EVER have that manner of control over the populace.

We already take kids away from "bad" parents. We have a set of standards already in place.

rinichanraar

12-18-2008, 11:52 AM

If I were those parents, I'd name my son the only name that makes sense: Bruce.

Ink Asylum

12-18-2008, 11:52 AM

Parenting courses are already available. Many people take them. What good would that do for lil' Hitler or his racist parents?

So because it won't help the worst case scenarios its worthless? There are millions of households where the lives of the kids within would be improved by a parenting course. And yes, I know they exist, the plan is to make them more available, free, or even incentivized.

QueQueg

12-18-2008, 12:05 PM

So because it won't help the worst case scenarios its worthless? There are millions of households where the lives of the kids within would be improved by a parenting course. And yes, I know they exist, the plan is to make them more available, free, or even incentivized.

I agree with you, parents need to be more edumacated. Parenting courses aren't what you were originally proposing, instead you'd referred to potentially preventing "bad" people from having kids. That's what I take exception to.

Ink Asylum

12-18-2008, 12:12 PM

I agree with you, parents need to be more edumacated. Parenting courses aren't what you were originally proposing, instead you'd referred to potentially preventing "bad" people from having kids. That's what I take exception to.

Well, that should be done to some degree. Do you support allowing absolutely anyone to have children, including people with a history of child abuse and molestation?

Loki_09

12-18-2008, 12:16 PM

If I were those parents, I'd name my son the only name that makes sense: Bruce.

+1 too short

12-18-2008, 12:18 PM

You're the one that said it's better for someone to be born, no matter how awful their life will be, than for them never to be born. Do you think there are souls waiting? If not, then a baby not being born when being born would mean a horrible life isn't that bad, because nothing will "miss" the chance at life.
If there's nothing "missing" its chance at life, I'm willing to agree it's not that bad for the nonexistent child. But you can't do a kindness to a null set. If you want to take a utilitarian view, then you have two options:
(1) Forbid procreation. In which case you have two entities -- the man and woman -- both of whom are unhappy.
(2) Permit procreation. In which you have three entities -- the man, woman, and abused child. The man and woman are happy because they bred, and the abused child is happier to be alive than to have never existed at all. Advantage: permit procreation.

Just off the top of my head, a six month course for parents. An hour or couple hours a week about raising a young child, provided free by the government. That could do a whole lot of good that will save money in the long run for little up front cost.
It's worth noting that some local US governments, not to mention the Catholic Church, mandate very similar courses for soon-to-be parents.

TheFlyingOrc

12-18-2008, 12:30 PM

(2) Permit procreation. In which you have three entities -- the man, woman, and abused child. The man and woman are happy because they bred, and the abused child is happier to be alive than to have never existed at all. Advantage: permit procreation.

The trick is to be a traditional middle-class-or-higher American relatively free from suffering, and therefore to feel that anyone who ever had to do anything different to be a miserable wretch who should want to end their own life.

See? Now you can think in the same manner!

Mr. Murphy

12-18-2008, 12:38 PM

Our society takes kids away from parents for being bad parents, sadly often too late to avoid long-term damage to the child's physical or mental state, but we can't stop bad parents from having kids in the first place?

One of those things is dealing with a thing that happened; a parent acted badly and so the child was removed from their presence. One of those things is dealing with a thing that MIGHT happen; a person did something bad in the past so we are assuming they are going to do something bad to a child in the future. The problem I see here is that you never know when a bad parent is going to become a good one, or when a bad childhood will result in a good person. I don't believe it's right to prevent a life from existing because someone else thinks that the situation that life will be in will be a bad thing.

Doesn't this argument suggest that prisoners have an inalienable right to conjugal visits? Obviously any sanction, including imprisonment and the denial of sexual congress, can be abused and turned against innocents. But I'm not sure that means we can't use those sanctions for legitimate ends.

They have the right to fuck, that doesn't mean we have the obligation to provide them with the right to fuck. If one prisoner is alone with another during free time and they want to touch pee-pees, I think they should be allowed.

And if we can imprison your body, why can't we modify it? I'm not sure chemical castration is a more offensive sanction to human dignity than imprisonment is -- one is the deprivation of one life activity, the other is the deprivation of almost all life activity.

Because you can undo imprisonment, you can't undo a body modification. I was under the impression that chemical castration was a voluntary procedure some sexual deviants chose to undergo in exchange for different imprisonment situations. I am not a law dude, however.

QueQueg

12-18-2008, 12:40 PM

Well, that should be done to some degree. Do you support allowing absolutely anyone to have children, including people with a history of child abuse and molestation?

It has nothing to do with who I think would be good/bad parents, or who are bad people. I don't trust any legislative body on the planet enough to give it the power to decide who gets to have kids.

Do you see the slipperiness of the slope?

Mr. Murphy

12-18-2008, 12:43 PM

I don't trust any legislative body on the planet enough to give it the power to decide who gets to have kids.

Do you see the slipperiness of the slope?

This is really a huge part of the argument I am trying to make as well.

JRR006

12-18-2008, 01:03 PM

Re: Paradise Lost, it really mucks up any theological education one might have had. Who wouldn't sympathize with Satan when he decides it's better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven? So human. I wonder how religion would look today if way back when, people had been reading Milton instead of the Bible...

Creepy Holocaust-denying people - how does someone knowingly marry and procreate with someone who doesn't believe the Holocaust happened? I think I'd run in the other direction. I think the kid might be able to get by with "Adolf" - we have a good family friend named Alfredo with a brother named Adolf (woo, Italy in the 40s). The first time we were introduced it was a bit... eh, jarring, but you get used to it like anything else. So, I hope the kid does all right for himself - too bad about his father being a fucking idiot.

About forced sterilization - the only remotely "fair" system would be to let blood relatives decide. If your own family (ideally, who loves you) thinks you're so completely wacko that you can't be trusted to have children, you don't get to. Not just the nuclear family, but aunts/cousins/etc - same genetics by and large, so it doesn't slide into some kind of eugenic nightmare scenario. Of course, this'll have its pitfalls too. There are some people I believe shouldn't have children, but there's no way to establish who is fit to procreate and who isn't, so personally I feel we're better off not even attempting to go there.

National Kato

12-18-2008, 01:07 PM

Naming your kid Adolf shouldn't be a problem. The name has a history, and there have been plenty of good Adolfs. Naming your kid Adolf Hitler is fucking stupid.

TheFlyingOrc

12-18-2008, 01:20 PM

By the way, my best friend's uncle is a Cuban man named Adolpho Hitler. This is not even close to a new thing.

Johan

12-18-2008, 01:25 PM

I would oppose any intervention on the part of the government into the procreation of individuals within society (except, of course, cases involving jail, where conjugal visits are limited for very obvious reasons, or involving assault or the intentional transmission of disease, knowingly).

I also think people should consider the set of consequences that accompany their behaviors, including sex. Even protected sex has risks.

Finally, I think as a society we just don't give enough of a shit about kids. They're not a big priority for us, because they're not "producing" anything of "value," and looking at them as an investment in the future is often a very foreign concept.

I wonder how religion would look today if way back when, people had been reading Milton instead of the Bible...

According to some students in English classes, it would look "boring as hell" and therefore "not much different."

:D

Ink Asylum

12-18-2008, 01:26 PM

One of those things is dealing with a thing that happened; a parent acted badly and so the child was removed from their presence. One of those things is dealing with a thing that MIGHT happen; a person did something bad in the past so we are assuming they are going to do something bad to a child in the future.

So you would let convicted child molesters who served their time have or adopt children after they are released? The slippery slope goes both ways.

Because you can undo imprisonment, you can't undo a body modification. I was under the impression that chemical castration was a voluntary procedure some sexual deviants chose to undergo in exchange for different imprisonment situations. I am not a law dude, however.

What if there were a medical sterilization that could be undone later?

Ink Asylum

12-18-2008, 01:27 PM

It has nothing to do with who I think would be good/bad parents, or who are bad people. I don't trust any legislative body on the planet enough to give it the power to decide who gets to have kids.

Do you see the slipperiness of the slope?

The slippery slope is a weak argument for the status quo. Don't do a small thing now because a big thing is bad.

TheFlyingOrc

12-18-2008, 01:31 PM

The slippery slope is a weak argument for the status quo. Don't do a small thing now because a big thing is bad.

Oh, shut up.

The slippery slope is not ALWAYS inaccurate. It's the entire reason we give racists freedom of speech.

You're smarter than to sling pre-boxed responses around like that.

TheDancinMan

12-18-2008, 01:36 PM

"Mr. Hitler makes exceedingly good cakes."

That's all I wanted to say here.

Johan

12-18-2008, 01:37 PM

If the slippery slope is greased with maple syrup, I'm happy. Let me slide!

LongStepMantis

12-18-2008, 01:44 PM

Should we let these people have kids? It's not up to us. I'm sure you could find a lot of people out there who would object to you having kids, for whatever reasons they hold. Maybe less glaringly obvious reasons, but all the same.

But should we let people name their kids Adolf Hitler? No. Unless Hitler was already their last name, absolutely not. Not because we don't like it or think it's in bad taste. Because the kid, with that name, would be doomed by society. Ask a girl on a date? No dice, Hitler. Job interview? We were looking for someone less of a...Hitler. Not to mention all of the people who would probably attack the kid for it. It puts the child in danger for no reason other than his parent wanted to name him after one of history's most prolific tyrants/madmen/killers.

TheFlyingOrc

12-18-2008, 01:46 PM

But should we let people name their kids Adolf Hitler? No. Unless Hitler was already their last name, absolutely not. Not because we don't like it or think it's in bad taste. Because the kid, with that name, would be doomed by society. Ask a girl on a date? No dice, Hitler. Job interview? We were looking for someone less of a...Hitler. Not to mention all of the people who would probably attack the kid for it. It puts the child in danger for no reason other than his parent wanted to name him after one of history's most prolific tyrants/madmen/killers.
Yeah, if you can't put in on your license tag, you probably shouldn't be able to put it on your kid.

edit: Like this http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b350/theflyingorc/a55-rgy.jpg

Ink Asylum

12-18-2008, 01:50 PM

Oh, shut up.

The slippery slope is not ALWAYS inaccurate. It's the entire reason we give racists freedom of speech.

You're smarter than to sling pre-boxed responses around like that.

It's still a weak, absurd argument that gets trotted out whenever someone can't argue against the immediate issue and instead needs to shout "boo" about some possible end outcome.

In real life we continually evaluate new situations that arrive from today's choices, we don't remain stagnant and unafraid of action because of what might happen.

If your only argument against a reasonable action like denying the right to have kids to proven child molesters and abusers is not that child molesters should have kids but that someone else in the future might have their right to breed taken away then you've lost the current argument.

There are very few situations in reality where we're firmly at one end or the other of an arguement. We're already on the slope no matter what the issue is and can slide either way. Killing? Ok. Killing is wrong. What about soldiers? Self-defense? State executions? Whoops! If we allow any of those we're on the slippery slope towards all murders are legal!

TheFlyingOrc

12-18-2008, 01:52 PM

There are very few situations in reality where we're firmly at one end or the other of an arguement. We're already on the slope no matter what the issue is and can slide either way. Murder? Ok. Murder is wrong. What about soldiers? Self-defense? State executions? Whoops! If we allow any of those we're on the slippery slope towards all murders are legal!
How 'bout you attempt to address my freedom of speech argument? The slippery slope argument is used poorly, but that doesn't mean its inaccurate. If we start denying anyone the right to procreate, it WILL be abused. Not might.

Heck, aren't you anti-death penalty because it will probably effect some people who aren't actually guilty?

Ink Asylum

12-18-2008, 02:05 PM

How 'bout you attempt to address my freedom of speech argument? The slippery slope argument is used poorly, but that doesn't mean its inaccurate. If we start denying anyone the right to procreate, it WILL be abused. Not might.

Heck, aren't you anti-death penalty because it will probably effect some people who aren't actually guilty?

Ok. Free speech is abridged. Even though racists have the right to spout their hate there are plenty of ways in which speech is curtailed and can be punished. Libel, slander, threats, emotional domestic abuse, perjury, lying to federal investigators, public obscenity, copyright laws, public campaign laws, etc. We're on the slope already and we evaluate any current decisions about the first amendment as they are, not because they might lead to worse decisions. Otherwise you should be able to say absolutely anything, even lie to a judge and jury or make threatening phone calls to your ex girlfriend, and you shouldn't be punished for it.

I object to the death penalty because when it does effect someone who isn't guilty then that decision can't be undone or made up for. I would also oppose cutting off someone's hand for stealing, someone's genitals for raping, or forcing permanent sterilization upon child abusers.

TheFlyingOrc

12-18-2008, 02:19 PM

Generation ABXY

12-18-2008, 02:20 PM

I’m another one who fears the slippery slope. I’m not sure it would be misused right away, or even during my lifetime, but there is a potential there. People like to say that power corrupts, but I tend to think that power just attracts the already corrupt, and it gives them an instrument with which to demonstrate it.

If you lay the foundation of tyranny, there are those who would use it to build up a prison around you.

Ink Asylum

12-18-2008, 02:25 PM

But no opinion is ever considered illegal, no matter how obviously wrong they are. You may hold and express any opinion because outlawing one would create a slippery slope, even if that one is "black people are animals". What you wrote up there is addressing something totally separate to my point.

So as long as you preface everything with "It's my opinion that" you're free and clear?

By saying that opinions are respected, being that opinions are just one form of speech, then you recognize that we have already slid down the slope from perfectly free speech and that we've also slid down the alternate slope from completely controlled speech. We've drawn the line at a certain place, but who says that line is in exactly the right spot? Who says moving it slightly to the left or the right won't make it better and more solid?

Slippery slope argues that we are on a perfectly stable peak and that any movement to the left or right threatens to slide us down to the extreme, ignoring the fact that no society has stayed in exactly the same spot since its creation, so we've never been on a solid, stable peak and instead have been moving up and down slopes all the time without spiralling into oblivion.

TheFlyingOrc

12-18-2008, 02:32 PM

Slippery slope argues that we are on a perfectly stable peak and that any movement to the left or right threatens to slide us down to the extreme, ignoring the fact that no society has stayed in exactly the same spot since its creation, so we've never been on a solid, stable peak and instead have been moving up and down slopes all the time without spiralling into oblivion.
Fine, I'll take one that I know you agree with: you think that we cannot wiretap our own citizens in the pursuit of terrorism because the government would expand that power into spying on all its citizens. Demonstrate how this situation is different.

QueQueg

12-18-2008, 02:38 PM

Slippery slope argues that we are on a perfectly stable peak and that any movement to the left or right threatens to slide us down to the extreme, ignoring the fact that no society has stayed in exactly the same spot since its creation, so we've never been on a solid, stable peak and instead have been moving up and down slopes all the time without spiralling into oblivion.

The stable peak is that at the moment any asshat can have kids.

The slippery slope is when you give some county social worker the ability to begin the process of having someone sterilized because they aren't raising their kids "right".

12-18-2008, 03:28 PM

Ok. Free speech is abridged. Even though racists have the right to spout their hate there are plenty of ways in which speech is curtailed and can be punished. Libel, slander, threats, emotional domestic abuse, perjury, lying to federal investigators, public obscenity, copyright laws, public campaign laws, etc. We're on the slope already and we evaluate any current decisions about the first amendment as they are, not because they might lead to worse decisions. Otherwise you should be able to say absolutely anything, even lie to a judge and jury or make threatening phone calls to your ex girlfriend, and you shouldn't be punished for it.
One thing about free speech restrictions is the importance courts place on the history of such restrictions. Our libel laws, for example, are sharply constrained by the historical experience of libel laws and which restrictions have been handed down by time immemorial. We use this inherent conservatism (in the sense of reluctance to innovate) to forestall slippery-slope arguments: we aren't as afraid our restrictions will get out of hand if we insist that all restrictions today have to be part of the category of restrictions we've always had.

In other words, we don't sit down and try to draft the perfect set of speech laws from scratch, because that would create serious slippery-slope problems: we look at which restrictions have existed for a long time, and say, "Okay, this far but no farther." There is a structural value to such a conservative attitude quite apart from whether those ancestral rules are good or bad: even if they suck, at least it might prevent even suckier innovations.

Restricting the right to breed, however, has no such ancestral limits. There aren't a lot of good historical examples of breeding restrictions we might want to emulate. We wander in a dark wood when crafting restrictions on breeding, unlike in speech where we can at least look back and say, "We ought to be at least as liberal as 1770 England." Consequently, the slippery-slope argument has more force in this arena than it does in speech restrictions (not to say that slippery-slope arguments don't have force in speech contexts too).

Philonious

12-18-2008, 08:49 PM

Mr. Murphy

12-19-2008, 05:07 AM

How is the slippery-slope argument ever a valid? Isn't it possible to take any point of view or rule to such an extreme that it becomes patently ridiculous? Being afraid of what 'might' happen at some point could also be used as an argument against any current law/rule/viewpoint.

It's valid because there are demonstratable precedents. It's called 'learning from our mistakes'. Those who can't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and history has taught us that there is no way to give people that kind of power over other people without it being abused.

So you would let convicted child molesters who served their time have or adopt children after they are released? The slippery slope goes both ways.

I certainly feel they have a right to have children. Adoption is a different situation. But if they'd been receiving and continued to receive counseling, and submitted to rigorous monitoring after demonstrating a change in their behavior, I might consider allowing them to adopt. I'd have to look more into recidivism rates and whatnot. (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?p=116361#post116361)

What if there were a medical sterilization that could be undone later?

But there isn't. We're talking about the real world, not some possible fantasy/sci-fi future. That's where some of you guys seem to be getting lost - we're not talking about the way things should be if we could change reality, we're talking about the way things should be in order to best deal with the reality we have.

QueQueg

12-19-2008, 06:42 AM

Words I agree with.

Agreement cat agrees.

Mr. Murphy

12-19-2008, 06:46 AM

Agreement cat agrees.

Glad to sass you, hoopy frood.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 08:28 AM

Fine, I'll take one that I know you agree with: you think that we cannot wiretap our own citizens in the pursuit of terrorism because the government would expand that power into spying on all its citizens. Demonstrate how this situation is different.

Except that's not my opinion either. I believe our government should be allowed to wiretap with laws about who can be spied upon, court orders, oversight and accountability, all of which have been ignored by the current Administration. If those things are in place then there is little worry about the government spying on all citizens because if they do they will be caught and punished.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 08:38 AM

The stable peak is that at the moment any asshat can have kids.

The slippery slope is when you give some county social worker the ability to begin the process of having someone sterilized because they aren't raising their kids "right".

Actually, we aren't at that stable peak. There are restrictions on people's ability to have kids with whoever they want. Try impregnating a minor, even if you don't do so through direct sexual contact, and see where that gets you.

Extreme? Sure, but it shows that we do have some cutoffs when it comes to who we allow to breed without consequences. There was a time when a post-pubescent woman of any age was considered fair game. We moved away from that and set a cutoff age (actually many different ages depending on where you live) that is not based on actual physical ability to breed.

We may only be inches down that slippery slope, but we're still on it. There are very very few areas where our society is completely at the extreme side of the spectrum, typically ones where people only effect themselves. When it comes to sex and childbirth you are clearly effecting other people and we do not have complete freedom.

Goronmon

12-19-2008, 08:40 AM

The bizarre names came to public attention after a local ShopRite declined to provide the Holland Township, N.J., family with a cake inscribed "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler."For some reason I just find this sentence hilarious.

zarathstra

12-19-2008, 08:42 AM

For some reason I just find this sentence hilarious.

It does sound like something out of The Producers...

Bad Buddha

12-19-2008, 08:46 AM

The bizarre names came to public attention after a local ShopRite declined to provide the Holland Township, N.J., family with a cake inscribed "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler."

The cake is a lie!

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 08:48 AM

It's valid because there are demonstratable precedents. It's called 'learning from our mistakes'. Those who can't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and history has taught us that there is no way to give people that kind of power over other people without it being abused.

But there isn't. We're talking about the real world, not some possible fantasy/sci-fi future. That's where some of you guys seem to be getting lost - we're not talking about the way things should be if we could change reality, we're talking about the way things should be in order to best deal with the reality we have.

Yet we already take children away from unfit parents. We make that determination, yet it unfortunately happens after damage has already been done. We may arguably have complete freedom of child bearing but we don't have complete freedom of child rearing.

Forget forced permanent sterilization. I oppose that and, as you point out, there currently isn't an option for safe, effective, temporary sterilization Since we already have standards under which we can take children away from parents we deem unfit, it isn't an extreme step to order those people not to have any further children until they have reached the standards we've set for parenthood. We currently can't force them not to breed, just like you can't force an unlicensed driver not to actually drive, but you can tell them that if they do the baby will be taken away upon birth and, as with unlicensed driving, there could be other penalties.

Telefrog

12-19-2008, 08:48 AM

For some reason I just find this sentence hilarious.

What's really amusing to me is that with all the moral outrage over naming a child Adolf Hitler and the debate about "procreation permits" here, I'm surprised that no one commented on ShopRite's decision to not make the cake. I certainly don't condone naming a child Hitler, but why should ShopRite get the editorial control to deny the cake message? There weren't any curse words or offensive language. The cake obviously wasn't meant to celebrate the historical Hitler's birthday.

I get that the baker didn't like the connotation, but suppose the girl behind the counter recently broke up with a guy that shared my first name? Would it be okay if she had denied my cake soley because of her dislike of the name? What if the name of the child was George W. Bush Campbell, and the baker was a staunch Democrat?

zarathstra

12-19-2008, 08:51 AM

What's really amusing to me is that with all the moral outrage over naming a child Adolf Hitler and the debate about "procreation permits" here, I'm surprised that no one commented on ShopRite's decision to not make the cake. I certainly don't condone naming a child Hitler, but why should ShopRite get the editorial control to deny the cake message? There weren't any curse words or offensive language. The cake obviously wasn't meant to celebrate the historical Hitler's birthday.

I get that the baker didn't like the connotation, but suppose the girl behind the counter recently broke up with a guy that shared my first name? Would it be okay if she had denied my cake soley because of her dislike of the name? What if the name of the child was George W. Bush Campbell, and the baker was a staunch Democrat?

Businesses have the right to deny service for any reason, even seemingly silly ones.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 08:52 AM

I get that the baker didn't like the connotation, but suppose the girl behind the counter recently broke up with a guy that shared my first name? Would it be okay if she had denied my cake soley because of her dislike of the name? What if the name of the child was George W. Bush Campbell, and the baker was a staunch Democrat?

Well, that gets us into a whole other controversial topic about an employee's right to refuse to fulfill their job's obligations because of their personal beliefs or conscience.

It's amusing when it's someone refusing to put Hitler on a cake, but what if it's a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for Plan B? Where do you draw the line?

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 08:53 AM

Businesses have the right to deny service for any reason, even seemingly silly ones.

Well, not ANY reason. I'd like to see that ShopRite refuse to make cakes for just black people.

Goronmon

12-19-2008, 08:56 AM

I guess I just think it's humorous that some employee working at some crappy grocery store decided to take a stand on cakes wishing Adolf Hitler a happy birthday.

Telefrog

12-19-2008, 08:56 AM

Businesses have the right to deny service for any reason, even seemingly silly ones.

Wrong. They actually don't have the right to refuse service "for any reason".

QueQueg

12-19-2008, 08:58 AM

Actually, we aren't at that stable peak. There are restrictions on people's ability to have kids with whoever they want. Try impregnating a minor, even if you don't do so through direct sexual contact, and see where that gets you.

Extreme? Sure, but it shows that we do have some cutoffs when it comes to who we allow to breed without consequences. There was a time when a post-pubescent woman of any age was considered fair game. We moved away from that and set a cutoff age (actually many different ages depending on where you live) that is not based on actual physical ability to breed.

We may only be inches down that slippery slope, but we're still on it. There are very very few areas where our society is completely at the extreme side of the spectrum, typically ones where people only effect themselves. When it comes to sex and childbirth you are clearly effecting other people and we do not have complete freedom.

Nope, not the same thing, at all. You're not talking about sterilization, you're talking about protecting people who already exist from predators. As long as you commit no felony in the act of procreation, the government has no business in it. If you and another person can agree that you want to create a life, that's it. Two people, no crimes, end-of-story.

Procreation is an inalienable right. It is the singular biological purpose of our species, and no government on earth is trust-worthy enough to dictate or mandate who is eligible.

After birth, governments have the responsibility to punish criminals and child-abusers.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 08:58 AM

I guess I just think it's humorous that some employee working at some crappy grocery store decided to take a stand on cakes wishing Adolf Hitler a happy birthday.

The linked article unfortunately doesn't go into detail about what level the decision was made. It could have been the employee tasked with making the cake, or their manager, or even higher up the chain. Although it probably did start with an employee either refusing or asking their superior what they should do, it's unclear where the final call was made.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 09:26 AM

Nope, not the same thing, at all. You're not talking about sterilization, you're talking about protecting people who already exist from predators. As long as you commit no felony in the act of procreation, the government has no business in it. If you and another person can agree that you want to create a life, that's it. Two people, no crimes, end-of-story.

Procreation is an inalienable right. It is the singular biological purpose of our species, and no government on earth is trust-worthy enough to dictate or mandate who is eligible.

After birth, governments have the responsibility to punish criminals and child-abusers.

If procreation were such an inalienable right and the singular biological purpose of our species then any post-pubescent person, regardless of age, should be considered fair game sexually and capable of giving consent. Those laws are standing in the way of our singular biological purpose.

And again, I am not talking about forced sterilization. That's an extreme opponents of regulating childbirth jump to as soon as it's brought up, because it's easy to argue against. That is not the only option when discussing "childbirth licenses." Sterilization is physically inhibiting someone from having kids. Licenses give someone the government recognized right to perform some action, and a punishment if they do so without such a license. If you don't have a gun license or a driver's license you are still physically capable of firing a gun or driving a car, but you will be punished in some manner if discovered. Typically the punishment is a fine or even jail time, but it doesn't have to be. A "childbirth license" violation could simply be punished by taking the child away from the parents, something we already do. Only instead of having that determination made after a child is born it's made before birth and therefore the prospective parents know before having kids that they do not meet the government standards (which we already have) and therefore are likely to have their kids taken away.

If we dealt with driving the way we currently deal with childbirth, then no one would need a license to drive and police would have to wait until you were either driving erratically or already caused an accident in order to administer a driving exam to determine if you should've been driving in the first place.

TheFlyingOrc

12-19-2008, 10:31 AM

Extreme? Sure, but it shows that we do have some cutoffs when it comes to who we allow to breed without consequences. There was a time when a post-pubescent woman of any age was considered fair game. We moved away from that and set a cutoff age (actually many different ages depending on where you live) that is not based on actual physical ability to breed.

There are no laws against getting a young girl pregnant, there are laws against having sex with her in the first place. the law is entirely about abusing someone sexually, not about reproductive rights. Stop saying stupid things.

TheFlyingOrc

12-19-2008, 10:33 AM

Forget forced permanent sterilization. I oppose that and, as you point out, there currently isn't an option for safe, effective, temporary sterilization Since we already have standards under which we can take children away from parents we deem unfit, it isn't an extreme step to order those people not to have any further children until they have reached the standards we've set for parenthood. We currently can't force them not to breed, just like you can't force an unlicensed driver not to actually drive, but you can tell them that if they do the baby will be taken away upon birth and, as with unlicensed driving, there could be other penalties.

The only reason we take away children is because they abuse the kids, not because of "potential abuse". You can't see how big a jump it is to stopping people because they might do horrible things instead of because they have done horrible things?

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 10:37 AM

There are no laws against getting a young girl pregnant, there are laws against having sex with her in the first place. the law is entirely about abusing someone sexually, not about reproductive rights. Stop saying stupid things.

So if an adult male helped a minor willingly impregnate herself with absolutely no sexual contact, that'd be kosher?

It still proves that sexual reproduction is not inviolable in our society. If it were, then we would allow post-pubescent minors to consent to sex for the purposes of procreation. So basically our laws make the process of gestation untouchable but instead place controls on the beginning and end of the process. They can't legislate pregnancy but they can legislate the sexual acts that cause pregnancy and the child that results from the pregnancy.

TheFlyingOrc

12-19-2008, 10:41 AM

So if an adult male helped a minor willingly impregnate herself with absolutely no sexual contact, that'd be kosher?

So what, in this hypothetical he's giving her a turkey baster full of sperm? I'd like you to demonstrate how you can definitely call this non-sexual.

I don't think we have restrictions on that specific case because that never happens ever.

It still proves that sexual reproduction is not inviolable in our society. If it were, then we would allow post-pubescent minors to consent to sex for the purposes of procreation. So basically our laws make the process of gestation untouchable but instead place controls on the beginning and end of the process. They can't legislate pregnancy but they can legislate the sexual acts that cause pregnancy and the child that results from the pregnancy.
No, it doesn't. Those laws are to prevent abusive sexual relationships. Nobody writes laws about people getting pregnant without sex because that's stupid. Stupid in the face, like your face, which is stupid. I'm pretty certain that in what the state considers a predatory relationship the father and mother are both treated normally as soon as the father gets out of jail.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 10:42 AM

The only reason we take away children is because they abuse the kids, not because of "potential abuse". You can't see how big a jump it is to stopping people because they might do horrible things instead of because they have done horrible things?

That's not the only reason. In many places if a minor gets pregnant and they cannot financially support the child and their legal guardian cannot either the child can be taken away from them and put up for adoption. That's stopping "potential abuse" by saying that person will not be able to provide for the child's needs therefore the child will be given to a family that can or kept in government care.

A license makes that determination before the birth occurs as a way to dissuade that person from going through with it only to have the child taken away. The lack of a license doesn't stop someone from having a kid.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 10:44 AM

So what, in this hypothetical he's giving her a turkey baster full of sperm? I'd like you to demonstrate how you can definitely call this non-sexual.

I don't think we have restrictions on that specific case because that never happens ever.

So my absurd extreme example is invalid but the slippery slope towards forced sterilization of large numbers of people isn't?

And nothing about how legislating the start and end of pregnancy isn't just a roundabout way to control procreation?

TheFlyingOrc

12-19-2008, 10:47 AM

So my absurd extreme example is invalid but the slippery slope towards forced sterilization of large numbers of people isn't?

You're correct. It is. If we were to enact state procreation control, it would occasionally be used unfairly. Thinking otherwise makes you naive to the highest degree. Asking something incredulously doesn't mean it isn't true.

And nothing about how legislating the start and end of pregnancy isn't just a roundabout way to control procreation?
No. No it is not. It is about using other people for sex who aren't old enough to consent. Pregnancy is considered because it can be the result, but it is not to control pregnancy.

National Kato

12-19-2008, 10:47 AM

So what, in this hypothetical he's giving her a turkey baster full of sperm?

And to think I had nothing to bring to Thanksgiving dinner this year...

QueQueg

12-19-2008, 10:50 AM

A license makes that determination before the birth occurs as a way to dissuade that person from going through with it only to have the child taken away. The lack of a license doesn't stop someone from having a kid.

So you're saying that unlicensed parents are subject to having their children taken away? But they can still have kids...?

So let's look at who would be ineligible for licenses... certainly sex offenders and convicted criminals (of what crimes?) Who decides what crimes warrant ineligibility to have a child-license?

What about folks with mental disabilities? If they can't care for their children, the state will have to, so they'd be off the list to, right? What about folks with AIDS? What about folks with AIDS, who are very wealthy? Or very poor? What about folks with a genetic disposition towards heart disease? What if they were very poor? If their kids are likely to develop heart disease, but they were very poor, certainly the burden would fall back to the state to pay for treatment?

What about someone who has a history of mental illness in the family? They might not be sick yet, but if Grand-dad had schizophrenia, then it's quite possible that it could afflict that person in the future. Should schizophrenic people be allowed to have kids?

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 11:00 AM

You're correct. It is. If we were to enact state procreation control, it would occasionally be used unfairly. Thinking otherwise makes you naive to the highest degree. Asking something incredulously doesn't mean it isn't true.

Childbirth licenses do not mean population control. They set no goal for reducing or increasing the number of pregnancies but trying to make certain that people who have children will not be abusing them or unable to provide for them. We do that already, often taking children out of homes before actual abuse or mistreatment has occurred. The license simply takes those standards we already have and uses them to evaluate parents BEFORE they have the kid, instead of after someone has complained. Address that instead of falling back on the easier argument against physical control of pregnancy.

Adoption agencies evaluate prospective parents before putting a child into their care, and government agencies have standards under which they can legally remove children from a household. If we don't physically prevent pregnancies, which I do not advocate currently because it cannot be done reliably, safely, and with failure-free reversal, then a current option is to evaluate parents using similar methods before they get pregnant so that they know if they do not meet the standards that already result in kids being taken from their parents. The benegit is that parents know what they need to do to improve their situation so they and the kid don't later go through the trauma of government separation.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 11:02 AM

So you're saying that unlicensed parents are subject to having their children taken away? But they can still have kids...?

So let's look at who would be ineligible for licenses...

In those situations the government already determines after the child has been born if it is not a suitable environment and thus remove the child from the person's care. Who decides all of those standards right now? The same people who would be giving out the licenses.

We trust them to take children away but not to provide a license, which essentially says if you couldn't pass the standards for getting a license we'll take your child away if you have any?

TheFlyingOrc

12-19-2008, 11:04 AM

Childbirth licenses do not mean population control.

You MIGHT want to reread what I wrote.

Adoption agencies evaluate prospective parents before putting a child into their care, and government agencies have standards under which they can legally remove children from a household. If we don't physically prevent pregnancies, which I do not advocate currently because it cannot be done reliably, safely, and with failure-free reversal, then a current option is to evaluate parents using similar methods before they get pregnant so that they know if they do not meet the standards that already result in kids being taken from their parents. The benegit is that parents know what they need to do to improve their situation so they and the kid don't later go through the trauma of government separation.
You are taken away from your parents when you abuse your child, not because you are poor or ugly or whatever.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 11:07 AM

You are taken away from your parents when you abuse your child, not because you are poor or ugly or whatever.

If you are so poor that you cannot provide the proper food/clothing/shelter for your children, we call that abuse and take the kids away, only after they've suffered for a while.

TheFlyingOrc

12-19-2008, 11:17 AM

If you are so poor that you cannot provide the proper food/clothing/shelter for your children, we call that abuse and take the kids away, only after they've suffered for a while.

Fine. So, understanding that people are too poor to take care of a child, your solution is to charge them money if they get knocked up and take the child immediately.

QueQueg

12-19-2008, 11:21 AM

This has become a ridiculous debate (I know, welcome to the internetz.)

The idea of licenses for procreation is moot, because it would be unenforcable. People will have sex and make babies.

You can argue all day about what you think the government "should" do, but that's just pixie dust and faerie farts.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 11:24 AM

Fine. So, understanding that people are too poor to take care of a child, your solution is to charge them money if they get knocked up and take the child immediately.

I see no need for a fine. Taking the child immediately works, though. Of course, if they improve their financial situation and can acquire a license by the time of birth or soon after they can get the child back, but this way they knew the risk they were taking.

As I pointed out before, my problem with the current setup is that it's very parent-centric. It's all about the parent's right to have kids without considering the kid's right to live in a suitable environment. That's secondary, and usually the kid has to suffer for a while, often long periods of time, before anything gets done to help them.

Under my proposal the rights of children come first, as the parents are warned ahead of time that their environment is unsuitable and will result in the removal of any children from their care, and allows for more prompt response if they go ahead anyway, because it is on file what their status is.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 11:26 AM

The idea of licenses for procreation is moot, because it would be unenforcable. People will have sex and make babies.

How are childbirth licenses unenforceable but drivers licenses aren't? Not having a license doesn't physically prevent someone from getting into a car and driving into traffic, and you can't spot an unlicensed driver until he does something wrong.

A license is a deterrent for doing something you are not considered capable of doing. It doesn't directly stop people except by letting them know if they do something anyway there are repercussions.

QueQueg

12-19-2008, 11:27 AM

QueQueg

12-19-2008, 11:28 AM

How are childbirth licenses unenforceable but drivers licenses aren't? Not having a license doesn't physically prevent someone from getting into a car and driving into traffic, and you can't spot an unlicensed driver until he does something wrong.

A license is a deterrent for doing something you are not considered capable of doing. It doesn't directly stop people except by letting them know if they do something anyway there are repercussions.

Realize... you're comparing someone's privilege to automotive transport to their INALIENABLE RIGHT to reproduce.

TheFlyingOrc

12-19-2008, 11:34 AM

A license is a deterrent for doing something you are not considered capable of doing. It doesn't directly stop people except by letting them know if they do something anyway there are repercussions.

No, it's a reason for people to not go to the hospital and attempt to never reveal they had a child to the government, so that they wont' get properly vaccinated and won't go to school ever. ALSO there's no possible situation where it won't be used unfairly.

You really do think bureaucrats are the most wonderful, well-motivated, intelligent people in the world, don't you?

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 11:45 AM

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 11:47 AM

Realize... you're comparing someone's privilege to automotive transport to their INALIENABLE RIGHT to reproduce.

Again with thinking it's some inalienable right to have a kid no matter how shitty or awful a parent you'd be. Rights only extend until they start impeding upon the rights of others. In this case, someone's right to reproduce directly impedes upon the rights of the future child to not be starved, beaten, or otherwise abused. More parent-centric thinking. What about the children?

QueQueg

12-19-2008, 11:48 AM

Why do you think it's a written test? How would it be any different than the evaluations and background checks that go into allowing people to adopt or be foster parents?

I guess we should just stop taking kids out of bad environments altogether! If their parents love them it's cool if they're freezing, starving, sick, or abused!

I can play that game too. If the government is so smart, why don't they dictate every detail of my life. Why not have government passes to be able to walk down certain roads? Are people trust-worthy enough to learn to read? Maybe the government should test people for that too!

If the government is so perfect and infallible, I'll just give all of my responsibility to it, sit at the house, and take my soma.

QueQueg

12-19-2008, 11:50 AM

Again with thinking it's some inalienable right to have a kid no matter how shitty or awful a parent you'd be. Rights only extend until they start impeding upon the rights of others. In this case, someone's right to reproduce directly impedes upon the rights of the future child to not be starved, beaten, or otherwise abused. More parent-centric thinking. What about the children?

But they haven't beaten, starved, or abused them at all yet. You can't punish people for something they haven't done yet.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 11:51 AM

No, it's a reason for people to not go to the hospital and attempt to never reveal they had a child to the government, so that they wont' get properly vaccinated and won't go to school ever. ALSO there's no possible situation where it won't be used unfairly.

Then I'm sure you're completely pro-choice, since any attempts to restrict abortion just lead to women getting them from coat hangers in back alleys. I guess we should base all our legislation on catering to people who would try to work around the rules.

You really do think bureaucrats are the most wonderful, well-motivated, intelligent people in the world, don't you?

No, I think when a child is involved, someone who cannot stand up for themselves, government damn well should have a hand in watching out for their best interests, since it's pretty well proven that individual parents can't always be trusted to do so.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 11:52 AM

I can play that game too. If the government is so smart, why don't they dictate every detail of my life. Why not have government passes to be able to walk down certain roads? Are people trust-worthy enough to learn to read? Maybe the government should test people for that too!

If the government is so perfect and infallible, I'll just give all of my responsibility to it, sit at the house, and take my soma.

Once again proving how the slippery slope is absolutely absurd. Why debate the actual proposal when you can just go to the EXTREME!

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 11:55 AM

But they haven't beaten, starved, or abused them at all yet. You can't punish people for something they haven't done yet.

Yeah, much better to just wait until the kid is beaten or starved first.

TheFlyingOrc

12-19-2008, 11:56 AM

Yeah, much better to just wait until the kid is beaten or starved first.

It's called innocent until proven guilty, perhaps you've heard of it?

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 11:58 AM

It's called innocent until proven guilty, perhaps you've heard of it?

I guess we should just open up orphanges to anyone who walks in off the street, then, no standards at all. Much better than letting them languish under state care.

QueQueg

12-19-2008, 11:59 AM

It's called taking something to it's logical conclusion. It's not extreme to think that governments abuse the power that we give them, because they do. This is where the cliche "give them an inch" comes from. I don't trust governments or bureaucracies to respect the rights of individuals, because they've proven in the past that they do not always respect the rights of individuals. This isn't my opinion, its demonstrable fact.

What you're advocating is the removal of the responsibility of the individual to decide whether s/he and his/her spouse have the faculties to manage a child. This is a fundamental point of responsibility in the human consciousness, whether one is capable of continuation of the species. This is probably the most important decision that anyone ever makes. The government has no place in that decision, period, for better or for worse.

QueQueg

12-19-2008, 12:01 PM

Yeah, much better to just wait until the kid is beaten or starved first.

I think you're going to hit your wife in the future. I do, I really do. Therefore you can't have your marriage license. What, my opinion of what you're going to do in the future isn't good enough?

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 12:01 PM

It's called taking something to it's logical conclusion. It's not extreme to think that governments abuse the power that we give them, because they do. This is where the cliche "give them an inch" comes from. I don't trust governments or bureaucracies to respect the rights of individuals, because they've proven in the past that they do not always respect the rights of individuals. This isn't my opinion, its demonstrable fact.

So, taking things to the logical conclusion we should have no government at all, since giving them absolutely any power means they will abuse it. Anarchy!

What you're advocating is the removal of the responsibility of the individual to decide whether s/he and his/her spouse have the faculties to manage a child. This is a fundamental point of responsibility in the human consciousness, whether one is capable of continuation of the species. This is probably the most important decision that anyone ever makes. The government has no place in that decision, period, for better or for worse.

So where does the child get a vote in this, since it's their life that is the most at risk? Sucks to be them, I guess.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 12:02 PM

I think you're going to hit your wife in the future. I do, I really do. Therefore you can't have your marriage license. What, my opinion of what you're going to do in the future isn't good enough?

Except that the wife getting married is making a choice. Children don't get to make that choice.

QueQueg

12-19-2008, 12:08 PM

The child doesn't exist yet. They don't get a vote because they don't exist yet.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 12:10 PM

The child doesn't exist yet. They don't get a vote because they don't exist yet.

Ok. So do they get a vote when they're born? Guess not, the parents make that vote and they could be the most awful, horrible parents ever, no one else gets to stand up for that kid, I guess.

QueQueg

12-19-2008, 12:11 PM

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 12:14 PM

Yup, that's the way it works. They don't get a vote until they're 18. The state starts monitoring them when mom and dad mess up and forget them in the back-seat of the SUV.

Sorry, but that's the way it works. I hope it doesn't upset the faeries and pixies living in your imaginary wonderland.

So you're admitting you care more about a parent's right to have kids than the kid's right to not be harmed? Good to know. Far better to let thousands of kids die before the abuse or malnutrition is discovered than thousands of adults not get to have kids.

Thanks for confirming that it's selfishness of parents that stands in the way of these kinds of protections for kids.

QueQueg

12-19-2008, 12:17 PM

Kid's that don't exist yet don't have rights. Do you understand the difference between existing and not existing?

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 12:19 PM

Kid's that don't exist yet don't have rights. Do you understand the difference between existing and not existing?

Talking about the kids that are born and suffer before the horrible situation they are in can be discovered. Putting prospective parents through a licensing process before pregnancy to evaluate their suitability, much like adoption agencies do, would lower that number.

But it's clear now that avoiding having kids in bad households it less important than making sure two adults can pop out babies.

QueQueg

12-19-2008, 12:23 PM

Yup. That's right. You can't infringe on a person's rights, in favor of the rights of something that doesn't exist yet.

I'm glad we agree.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 12:31 PM

Yup. That's right. You can't infringe on a person's rights, in favor of the rights of something that doesn't exist yet.

I'm glad we agree.

It's convenient how you ignore the kids that are suffering right now in bad households that could have been discovered through a licensing process. Far too intrusive to have anyone ask prospective parents whether they can actually afford to raise a child or might abuse it. How dare anyone question two random people who have never done anything to prove they can raise a kid properly outside of having genitals!?

Telefrog

12-19-2008, 12:36 PM

It's convenient how you ignore the kids that are suffering right now in bad households that could have been discovered through a licensing process. Far too intrusive to have anyone ask prospective parents whether they can actually afford to raise a child or might abuse it. How dare anyone question two random people who have never done anything to prove they can raise a kid properly outside of having genitals!?

I'm curious about your reasoning here. Current child welfare investigations (the ones that should be discovering cases of abuse and neglect) are mired in bureaucracy and routinely criticized for being woefully inadequate. How do you propose to fund and staff your process?

QueQueg

12-19-2008, 12:49 PM

In a world where everyone eats rainbows and poops butterflies, who needs budgets or staffing!?

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 12:51 PM

I'm curious about your reasoning here. Current child welfare investigations (the ones that should be discovering cases of abuse and neglect) are mired in bureaucracy and routinely criticized for being woefully inadequate. How do you propose to fund and staff your process?

That's sad, isn't it? So many people love to yell out about how we have to protect kids but are so unwilling to fund or fix the systems that do.

If we, as a society, actually devoted funds and manpower to putting our money where our mouth is, it would be much more affordable than a lot of the things we waste money on. It would be much cheaper than the recent bailouts and wars we've gone into the red for. You could do it for a fraction of what we spend on the military.

In the end, though, it's a process that pays for itself. Taking care of kids is the best investment possible, and saves money in the long run. Giving them health care when they're young and it's cheap saves much more than would be spent on them were they to grow up sick. Spending money to try to keep the lives of kids stable and unabused means a reduction to future abuse and keeps kids from becoming poorly adjusted and turning to lives of crime or other expensive problems. Preventive care is always cheaper than treating the end results.

And, if you want to be really cynical, it would be cheaper to license parents than it is to supplement the income of parents that have children they can't afford.

The money issue is negligible considering what the cost is to have children grow up in poor conditions.

Why do we pay for a DMV? Would it be cheaper to let just anyone behind the wheel of a car and just pay for the accidents that result?

Telefrog

12-19-2008, 01:01 PM

The money issue is negligible considering what the cost is to have children grow up in poor conditions.

Why do we pay for a DMV? Would it be cheaper to let just anyone behind the wheel of a car and just pay for the accidents that result?

I think your confusing taxpayers' willingness to pay for things that directly effect them, with things that fall under charity or altruism.

The kind of program you're talking about would literally cost billions. Just the additional funding and staffing of state-run orphanages or increased payouts to foster families to handle all the kids deemed to be living in "unsuitably poor or ignorant" conditions would be astronomical.

Putting this on a bill would be political suicide.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 01:11 PM

I think your confusing taxpayers' willingness to pay for things that directly effect them, with things that fall under charity or altruism.

The kind of program you're talking about would literally cost billions. Just the additional funding and staffing of state-run orphanages or increased payouts to foster families to handle all the kids deemed to be living in "unsuitably poor or ignorant" conditions would be astronomical.

Putting this on a bill would be political suicide.

Right now there are kids suffering in households they shouldn't be in. You're saying they should be left there to suffer and possibly die because it would cost too much to get them out. The suffering kids don't stop existing if we ignore the problem, they just go without help.

Besides, one of the benefits of a licensing system is that for the cost of an evaluation of prospective parents who end up falling below standards you can dissuade them from having kids or encourage them to improve their situation so that they can get the license. As a result less kids will need to eventually be removed from homes, the more expensive option.

We have a DMV that provides driver's licenses. That costs money, but it saves money in the long run by keeping people who shouldn't be driving off the roads, thus lowering the amount of accidents. Yes, people who can't get a license might still drive, but the number that would risk that is less than the number of dangerous drivers who would be driving if there were no DMV in the first place. The need for extra orphanges and foster homes would only result from people who are denied a license then decide to break the law by having kids anyway.

That's what preventive social spending is all about. The bill to prevent a problem is nearly always cheaper than the bill to treat a problem.

Telefrog

12-19-2008, 01:23 PM

Besides, one of the benefits of a licensing system is that for the cost of an evaluation of prospective parents who end up falling below standards you can dissuade them from having kids or encourage them to improve their situation so that they can get the license. As a result less kids will need to eventually be removed from homes, the more expensive option.

I see.

(Just as an aside, how did I get accused of being a rampant elitist in other P/R threads? :D)

So, rich people would automatically have an advantage in your system. That's nice. I get that your argument is that people in more stable financial situations are better equipped to handle the expense of parenting and providing for children, but your proposal seems to slant far too heavily in the other direction.

In fact, if I didn't know any better, your proposal is really to breed out the minorities.

TheFlyingOrc

12-19-2008, 01:39 PM

Right now there are kids suffering in households they shouldn't be in. You're saying they should be left there to suffer and possibly die because it would cost too much to get them out. The suffering kids don't stop existing if we ignore the problem, they just go without help.

You're calling people out on slippery slope and run to "but think of the children!!!"

Your cognitive dissonance in this thread is astounding.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 01:39 PM

I see.

(Just as an aside, how did I get accused of being a rampant elitist in other P/R threads? :D)

So, rich people would automatically have an advantage in your system. That's nice. I get that your argument is that people in more stable financial situations are better equipped to handle the expense of parenting and providing for children, but your proposal seems to slant far too heavily in the other direction.

In fact, if I didn't know any better, your proposal is really to breed out the minorities.

Rich people already have an advantage. They are less likely to have their kids taken away in our current system.

The system I propose takes away any ambiguity and allows families to plan better. If a poor family falls slightly below the standards it would encourage them to save up a little money first, or help streamline them into other childcare social services before just getting pregnant and finding out the hard way.

As for accusations of eugenics, a system that takes a preventive rather than a reactive hand in encouraging proper parenting means kids have more of a chance of being less poor in the future, and thus able to support more kids. Growing up poor makes people more likely to be poor when they start families, and the cycle continues.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 01:41 PM

You're calling people out on slippery slope and run to "but think of the children!!!"

Your cognitive dissonance in this thread is astounding.

When we're discussing keeping kids away from poverty and abuse I don't see why "Think of the children" is out of place. In fact, it seems pretty central to the debate. It was pretty much introduced pretty early in the thread and sparked this debate when someone suggested people like the Nazi lovers in the article shouldn't have been allowed to have kids in the first place.

If we're not going to think of the children then we might as well not be discussing this at all. I don't see how you could have this conversation and ignore that concern, unless all you care about is the right of people to spawn and don't care about what happens to the resulting kids.

Telefrog

12-19-2008, 01:58 PM

Rich people already have an advantage. They are less likely to have their kids taken away in our current system.

Of course they have an advantage. Hell, they have an advantage in all sectors of society. In fact, most would argue it's the most critical advantage.

I'm just pointing out that your system legally extends that advantage to preconception. It officially endorses "rich" and, by consequence white, as the preferred state of citizenship and voting.

The system I propose takes away any ambiguity and allows families to plan better. If a poor family falls slightly below the standards it would encourage them to save up a little money first, or help streamline them into other childcare social services before just getting pregnant and finding out the hard way.

As for accusations of eugenics, a system that takes a preventive rather than a reactive hand in encouraging proper parenting means kids have more of a chance of being less poor in the future, and thus able to support more kids. Growing up poor makes people more likely to be poor when they start families, and the cycle continues.

I know you're not technically saying this, (and I'm sure you don't mean it) but all I can think about is replacing the word "poor" with "black" and coming to the same conclusion.

Ink Asylum

12-19-2008, 02:10 PM

I know you're not technically saying this, (and I'm sure you don't mean it) but all I can think about is replacing the word "poor" with "black" and coming to the same conclusion.

Growing up black makes people more likely to be black?

Snark aside, I understand your concerns, but I don't believe this would lead to sharp reductions in the birthrates of minorities. On a purely financial level the bar is currently pretty damn low when it comes to removing kids from their families. I don't propose raising it, and actually favor additional social programs that help people just below the bar get above it. It's ignorance about where that bar is and just what the realities are of raising kids that helps perpetuate poverty. A poor mother that has a child she didn't realize she couldn't afford is now not just poor but less likely to climb out of poverty now that she has a young child.

Telefrog

12-19-2008, 02:12 PM

Growing up black makes people more likely to be black?

It would, wouldn't it? :D

JayVe

12-20-2008, 01:09 AM

What about subsidizing families who pass parenting exams? That would encourage parents to take an exam, and show that they are ready to be good parents. Maybe the hospital bills for delivery of the child, and prenatal classes would be free. Maybe day-care is subsidized.

This way, you aren't punishing people who decide to have kids outside the system, but you are encouraging proper planning, education, and family preparation. As a parent of a teen, I'd would have (and still sometimes need) some extra counseling and support.

Disgustipated

12-20-2008, 01:12 AM

JayVe

12-20-2008, 01:13 AM

That's a ridiculously neat idea. Where'd you steal it from?

Honestly, I just made it up.

In my job, I sit in interviews with organizations, listen to their problems, and toss out solutions.

This solution would end up creating a community of parents who all come together around the idea of WANTING to raise their children well. Think of it like a seal of approval for good parenting. You can join into the system, by taking classes, supporting other families, and helping plan a better future for not only your own kids, but all kids in the system.

12-20-2008, 09:42 PM

If we, as a society, actually devoted funds and manpower to putting our money where our mouth is, it would be much more affordable than a lot of the things we waste money on. It would be much cheaper than the recent bailouts and wars we've gone into the red for. You could do it for a fraction of what we spend on the military.
Honestly, this is just a parody of a liberal answer. "Throw money at the problem and it will be fixed!" That's not really how social services work.

Look, leave aside the issue of preventing abusers from becoming parents for a moment and look at reality. In reality, child abusers typically do not abuse their own children (although there are many detestable exceptions). What happens is that Mom and Dad split up, Mom shacks up with New Boyfriend, and New Boyfriend happens to be a Shithead Child Abuser. Very often, especially in the case of sexual assault, Mom calls the kid a liar when s/he accuses Shithead Boyfriend and tries to undercut the poor kid throughout the investigation and trial. These poor kids then may or may not be removed from the house, usually are given a course of counseling, and then shipped off for foster parenting -- foster parenting because no adoptive couple wants an 8-year-old sex abuse victim with severe emotional issues as their darling baby. Adoptive parents want their own babies to fuck up in their own way. So the kid goes off with a succession of foster parents, who might occasionally be good but are often mediocre if not abusive or neglectful themselves. Kid has a very poor chance of breaking out of the cycle.

Now, which aspect of this chain will either parenting licenses or more money help? Are you going to deny the right to procreate to couples who might get divorced? Are you going to pay the foster parents -- all too many of whom are just trying to collect as many state checks as possible -- more money? Do you really think a longer course of counseling will make everything OK? This is the real world, with real problems, and silly notions like we can solve it by promoting "family values" or that "underfunded social services" are the culprit are just that: silly. The thing about real-life problems is that there isn't a simple solution for them.

What about subsidizing families who pass parenting exams? That would encourage parents to take an exam, and show that they are ready to be good parents. Maybe the hospital bills for delivery of the child, and prenatal classes would be free.
The issue isn't usually one of ignorance. It's of indifference if not outright hostility. And how are you going to get the Shithead Boyfriends to show up for the classes? Offer checks to everyone who claims he fucks some bitch with shorties and completes a seminar?

ClannerDelta

12-21-2008, 07:02 AM

Ink, you seem to be arguing with the mindset that non-existence is better than living in a shitty home.

Sorry, but I have to wonder how many people you've known have had a life they felt was terrible at one point or another because of their parents. Do you think they would appreciate the sentiment that you feel they should have never existed at all?

Also the scope of literally preventing everyone from having kids until they are licensed is epic. Do you intend to issue chastity belts to all the women or anti-erection devices to the men? Because there's a HUGE difference between what it takes to drive and what it takes to fuck. The sheer amount of "unlicensed" babies from "accidents" would be astounding. What are you going to do to the parents who have unlicensed children aside from taking their child away? Fine them? Imprison them? Good idea, lower the living conditions of those already so low that you deem them unfit to continue their bloodline.

Let's also "think of the children", what do you intend to do about children born out of Regulated Reproduction that aren't caught by the system. What kind of exploitation would this class of the forlorn face?

It's just a bad idea. Socially, morally, and logistically it's just too complicated. This isn't Star Trek. Socialism isn't amazing. Captain Kirk isn't going to Falcon Punch all those evil non-licensed mothers.

Shrinn

12-21-2008, 07:33 AM

Yay, the little tykes get to grow up in a state-run orphanage. That's so much better than being with their poor parents who love them very much but weren't smart enough to pass a test.

I have an idea, with all these extra orphans, we could solve the food shortage!

What a modest proposal you have there. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

It's called innocent until proven guilty, perhaps you've heard of it?

This is the key.

The issue isn't usually one of ignorance. It's of indifference if not outright hostility. And how are you going to get the Shithead Boyfriends to show up for the classes? Offer checks to everyone who claims he fucks some bitch with shorties and completes a seminar?

The correct term usage is "getting with shawties".

Ox is right, it's not usually an issue and not knowing what to do. It's just an issue of not doing anything, not doing the right thing, and selfishness.

bapenguin

01-14-2009, 11:23 AM

So an update on this story. The state has taken the kids away from the parents pending a hearing to take place soon.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/today/index.ssf/2009/01/adolf_hitler_3_his_siblings_re.html

Hopefully this works out. It sucks they need to split up the family, but these people should not have spawned in the first place.

Disgustipated

01-14-2009, 11:28 AM

ShivaX

01-14-2009, 11:55 AM

This is great news. These kids deserve a normal life, not being forced to be some fucked up Neo-Nazi scum.

Er... but on what grounds?

Van Gilson said the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services last week took 3-year-old Adolf, 1-year-old JoyceLynn and Honszlynn, who will be 1 in April. He said no reports of abuse or neglect had been made to his office.

Being a "fucked up Neo-Nazi scum" isn't illegal. If anything its one of those things where our nation is strongest. They have every right to believe whatever they want. They shouldn't expect a warm welcome anywhere, but its their right.

I'm seeing this as a great chance for them to get filthy, stinking rich when they take this to court. I guess that will make life a little better for little Adolf in some respects, but he'll still be lucky to survive high school (literally).

LordDon

01-14-2009, 11:57 AM

I guess the question is, Is naming your kid Adolf Hitler akin to child abuse?

LongStepMantis

01-14-2009, 12:02 PM

I guess the question is, Is naming your kid Adolf Hitler akin to child abuse?

Yes. At least I believe it is. Kids get picked on and bullied for far less.

A kid named Adolf Hitler in our society is likely to end up getting killed by someone. There's freedom of expression, and there's endangerment. You can't name your kid after one of History's most prolific tyrants/killers and expect people to deal with it. In an ideal society, people could let it slide. Ours won't. No one would hire him, date him, or have anything to do with him...all because of his name. He would be a pariah.

ShivaX

01-14-2009, 12:03 PM

I guess the question is, Is naming your kid Adolf Hitler akin to child abuse?

I think a case could be made that it is, but thats pretty thin ice. Certainly not enough to take the kids away. Evidently the Chief of Police doesn't know anything about it. He got no complaints and has no idea where the kids are or why they were taken away. Barring something crazy the parents will pretty easily sue the crap out of somebody.

I mean odds are the kid will get abused by everyone in society, have no friends and never get a real job. Thats assuming someone doesn't just outright kill him before hes old enough to change his name on his own (assuming he wants to given what will be a pretty shitty upbringing). I can definately see the abuse angle, but legally I don't see it standing. I sure as heck don't see it allowing for the removal of the kids, especially considering how weak these departments tend to be in that area.

01-14-2009, 01:16 PM

Yes. At least I believe it is. Kids get picked on and bullied for far less.
Kids get picked on and bullied for wearing strange clothing, but I don't think that qualifies as child abuse.

A kid named Adolf Hitler in our society is likely to end up getting killed by someone.
Probably a lot less likely than a young black man growing up in a major city.
No one would hire him, date him, or have anything to do with him...all because of his name. He would be a pariah.
Which of these two men is more likely to get a date?
1. A nice fellow who was unfortunately saddled with the name, "Adolf Hitler."
2. A fellow who is so maladjusted that he would name his kid "Adolf Hitler."

I'd say Guy #1 has a much better shot, but we know that Guy #2 did actually find a soulmate. So it seems Guy #1 is better off than we might think, especially since it's possible for him to change his name.

It seems pretty clear that that parents' conduct is socially outrageous. Indeed, so outrageous that societal scorn for them will likely negatively impact the children's lives. But is anyone else concerned by the notion that belonging to a despised minority is in itself enough to consider you an unfit parent?

Johan

01-14-2009, 01:29 PM

It seems pretty clear that that parents' conduct is socially outrageous. Indeed, so outrageous that societal scorn for them will likely negatively impact the children's lives. But is anyone else concerned by the notion that belonging to a despised minority is in itself enough to consider you an unfit parent?

I certainly am, and before one applauds this, one must consider the precedent that is being set here.

It's absolutely RIDICULOUS that the state can take away your children because you're an idiot who names them in a way that society disapproves of. It's nuts. Beyond the pale. Insane.

Nanny state, indeed.

zarathstra

01-14-2009, 01:30 PM

If there's no reports of abuse, I don't see any reason to take the kids away.

Strike that, the fact that they're Neo-nazi douchebags is a great reason that they shouldn't raise a hamster, let alone kids, but its not a LEGAL one. People have a right to their opinions, idiotic as they may be.

Johan

01-14-2009, 01:32 PM

People have a right to their opinions, idiotic as they may be.

THAT is the key. Otherwise, we'll need a " Board of Approved Names and Opinions" that will, hopefully, have a cabinet position and lots of important people to get paid for working in it.

This is ridiculous. Sure, the parents are idiots and deserve scorn. Taking their kids away because of their stupid choice of a name? Nutso...

they have, however, proven a very clear point about freedom in America. A very sad point.

ShivaX

01-14-2009, 01:36 PM

they have, however, proven a very clear point about freedom in America. A very sad point.

Depends on how you look at it. That they can do these things just proves how free we actually are. Plus we're free to talk shit about these idiots and theres nothing they can really do about it.

Johan

01-14-2009, 01:42 PM

That they can do these things just proves how free we actually are.

Their kids were taken away. For a name. Admittedly a horrible name, but a name.

That's not freedom. They "did" this thing and lost their kids. They weren't "free" to choose a socially unacceptable name. That's really, truly inexcusable.

ShivaX

01-14-2009, 01:47 PM

Their kids were taken away. For a name. Admittedly a horrible name, but a name.

That's not freedom. They "did" this thing and lost their kids. They weren't "free" to choose a socially unacceptable name. That's really, truly inexcusable.

If thats what happened it wont stand up in court and they'll likely get a pile of money out of the deal. I don't see any legal scenario where the state wins with a case of "they named their kid wrong." Maybe I'm off base on that, I'll leave the legalese up to Ox, but I think I'm right for once.

Which brings me back to what I said originally. It seems I misunderstood your post when I quoted it, but you missed my post where I said theres no way in hell the state could just take their kids because of their name.

bapenguin

01-14-2009, 01:48 PM

Their kids were taken away. For a name. Admittedly a horrible name, but a name.

That's not freedom. They "did" this thing and lost their kids. They weren't "free" to choose a socially unacceptable name. That's really, truly inexcusable.

Come on, really? I mean, if there's not a law in place that says you can't name your kid "Bastard Child 1" - don't you think there should be?

I'm all for freedom of speech, but I'm not for freedom of stupidity.

ClannerDelta

01-14-2009, 01:50 PM

Depends on how you look at it. That they can do these things just proves how free we actually are. Plus we're free to talk shit about these idiots and theres nothing they can really do about it.

No, they were as "free" to name their kid Adolf Hitler as I am to shoot everyone I disagree with.

I CAN shoot anyone I disagree with, I will however face consequences. Just as they are facing consequences for the naming of their children. It's unacceptable that they are being punished for this with no reports of abuse.

*edit* posted before I saw your reply. So this is just noise. :p

ShivaX

01-14-2009, 01:51 PM

Come on, really? I mean, if there's not a law in place that says you can't name your kid "Bastard Child 1" - don't you think there should be?

I'm all for freedom of speech, but I'm not for freedom of stupidity.

That depends, I've heard some stupid names from people. Where do you draw the line on whats an "illegal name?" And who decides that? More importantly who decides that your name isn't good enough for you to keep your kids?

Thats an extremely slippery slope.

ShivaX

01-14-2009, 01:52 PM

No, they were as "free" to name their kid Adolf Hitler as I am to shoot everyone I disagree with.

I CAN shoot anyone I disagree with, I will however face consequences. Just as they are facing consequences for the naming of their children. It's unacceptable that they are being punished for this with no reports of abuse.

Extremely bad analogy. You can't shoot anyone you disagree with. I can name my kid any fucking thing I want. Naming is not a consequence. You can change your name. You can't un-shoot someone.

We agree on the last sentence, but not on the rest of it.

Edit: After your edit, I've just become confused.
wheeeeee

ClannerDelta

01-14-2009, 01:54 PM

Extremely bad analogy. You can't shoot anyone you disagree with. I can name my kid any fucking thing I want. Naming is not a consequence. You can change your name. You can't un-shoot someone.

We agree on the last sentence, but not on the rest of it.

I CAN shoot anyone I want. The punishment comes after. They DID name their kid something and the punishment came after. The severity of the crime is irrelevant so long as they are both treated as crimes.

ShivaX

01-14-2009, 01:56 PM

I CAN shoot anyone I want. The punishment comes after. They DID name their kid something and the punishment came after. The severity of the crime is irrelevant so long as they are both treated as crimes.

But naming your kid Adolf Hitler isn't a crime. Just like naming your kid after an STD isn't a crime.

You can make the case that its abuse of some form, but thats pretty shaky legally. Shooting someone isn't remotely questionable legally. That just brings us back to my point about who gets to decide whats a "bad name" in the end? The government?

National Kato

01-14-2009, 01:56 PM

So what? He uses the nickname 'Dolph' and everyone goes on about their business. Employers hire him, women date him, CoG members relax...generally, the world continues turning.

ShivaX

01-14-2009, 01:59 PM

So what? He uses the nickname 'Dolph' and everyone goes on about their business. Employers hire him, women date him, CoG members relax...generally, the world continues turning.

Well Dolph wont fly on his paycheck or anything else. He can just change it though. Plus I'm sure his parents are telling him what a great man Hitler was and how he should be proud to use it, etc, etc. Odds are he'll either love it or hate it. Given his genepool his hopes probably weren't all that high anyway.

bapenguin

01-14-2009, 01:59 PM

That depends, I've heard some stupid names from people. Where do you draw the line on whats an "illegal name?" And who decides that? More importantly who decides that your name isn't good enough for you to keep your kids?

Thats an extremely slippery slope.

Common sense.

ClannerDelta

01-14-2009, 02:00 PM

That just brings us back to my point about who gets to decide whats a "bad name" in the end? The government?

No one. Which is why this is a fucking terrible situation.

What name next? Hussein? Samantha? Madonna... well OK maybe that one.

Common sense.

If you can point me towards a community where Common Sense is common... I would love to move there.

ShivaX

01-14-2009, 02:02 PM

Common sense.

Legally that doesn't exist and you're making it a legal issue.

bapenguin

01-14-2009, 02:02 PM

Legally that doesn't exist and you're making it a legal issue.

Sure it does. It's the old "offensive material" argument.

violent

01-14-2009, 02:05 PM

Sure it does. It's the old "offensive material" argument.

Everything is offensive to someone. I say let them call their kid whatever they want and the inevitable ridicule is punishment enough. Balance and all that.

Johan

01-14-2009, 02:08 PM

I'm all for freedom of speech, but I'm not for freedom of stupidity.

If I'm on the "Committee for Acceptable Names that Won't Result in Your Child Being Taken Away by the State" then I'm all for it. (sarcasm: I'm still NOT for it)

Otherwise? Absolutely idiotic. That's the entire point; EVERYONE thinks they know which beliefs (or, in this case, names) are unacceptable and should be suppressed by the state. You want to live in that place?

I don't. That's not the America I want to be a part of.

If thats what happened it wont stand up in court

You have a surprising degree of faith in our crippled court system.

bapenguin

01-14-2009, 02:10 PM

Everything is offensive to someone. I say let them call their kid whatever they want and the inevitable ridicule is punishment enough. Balance and all that.

Of course. But the laws that are in place to "block" offensive material puts the responsibility in the hands of the content provider.

So in that case whoever sign the birth certificate or issued it should have said no. If the parents raised a stink, they challenge it in court. Then a group of whoever can decide if it's offensive enough to allow or disallow.

There is precedent for something like this.

It's simply not fair to the kids. You'll end up punishing them as much as the parents, and god knows how they'll turn out in society then.

violent

01-14-2009, 02:18 PM

It's simply not fair to the kids. You'll end up punishing them as much as the parents, and god knows how they'll turn out in society then.

This is true, unfortunately. The other unfortunate fact is that the child is theirs to raise. The question here is where do we allow the line to be drawn for us? People are not smart enough to make choices with others in mind yet it seems completely inhuman to not allow one to raise their own as they see fit. In itself not so difficult a quandary but once you realize everyones lines are drawn in different places then we lose the possibility of a uniformed method of control.

Therefore, the only resolution I could fathom is natural balance. Let the courts wipe their hands of the matter and allow the people judge the child as they see fit. Unfair to the child? Immensely. Such unfairness though would have come in one form or another. At least in this way, the fault lands solely on the parents. Let them deal with the error of their own ways and let them feel the repercussion of their ill-decisions.

EDIT: This is completely theoretical, obviously. While I am very open to suggestion on the matter, the only idea that makes me wary is the inclusion of government in matters of the home. I think people need to start learning to co-exist with eachother without any outside help.

Tron

01-14-2009, 02:32 PM

I'm all for laws that protect children from their idiot parents.

01-14-2009, 02:38 PM

Plus I'm sure his parents are telling him what a great man Hitler was and how he should be proud to use it, etc, etc.
That's a stronger basis upon which to remove the kids from the home, and it will likely be the grounds upon which the state tries to keep the kids. Child custody is governed by the "best interests of the child." If you're sitting there wondering, "Isn't that a pretty amorphous standard open to diverse interpretations?", you're absolutely right. For example, the decision to homeschool your kids can result in you losing custody to the other parent.

There is precedent for something like this.
In America? I'm not an expert on this stuff, so I'd be interested in seeing any American examples of state control over the naming of children.

Froghourt

01-14-2009, 03:39 PM

For example, the decision to homeschool your kids can result in you losing custody to the other parent.

Why?

messageisshortdude

01-14-2009, 03:43 PM

Because the judge believes, for whatever reason, that homeschooling is inferior to public schooling.

Froghourt

01-14-2009, 03:46 PM

Because the judge believes, for whatever reason, that homeschooling is inferior to public schooling.

Alright. Just seemed very strange to me. I mean, the only real advantage I can see for public schooling (as it is right now, anyway) is that you will meet other people and interact with them. Though that is a double-bladed sword, as you can encounter a lot of people not worth interacting with.

Other than that, I can't see why homeschooling couldn't be as good as anything they teach at public schools.

Tron

01-14-2009, 03:51 PM

Because the judge believes, for whatever reason, that homeschooling is inferior to public schooling.

Tim Tebow was home schooled so clearly the judge was an Oklahoma fan! ;)

(I have nothing else to offer this thread)

Johan

01-14-2009, 04:11 PM

Because the judge believes, for whatever reason, that homeschooling is inferior to public schooling.

Bullshit .

LongStepMantis

01-14-2009, 05:11 PM

Kids get picked on and bullied for wearing strange clothing, but I don't think that qualifies as child abuse.

I shortened your quote, but I'm not arguing against any of your points. My opinion is biased on this matter because of my own experiences.

I would highly doubt that the kid would be a nice guy if he stayed with his family. He would most likely grow up to be exactly like his parents and be named Hitler. I don't know if you've ever dealt with people like this first hand, and I'm not saying you haven't, but I have. Incoming story.

When I was in high school I was friends with another geeky kid who was pretty quiet most of the time. No big deal. One time he invited me to have dinner at his house. I walk in the door and his dad walks up and hands me a business card for the local KKK (I never knew they had business cards until then either), and tells me I should join. I was so shocked those few seconds seemed to last a year. Dinner was his dad, two brothers, their uncle and my soon to be ex-friend and myself...with a Nazi flag hanging in their dining room. They spent a solid 15 minutes talking about white power, how to wipe the blacks and jews off the planet, and how great the last Klan rally was (One brother beamed with pride talking about how he had handed out torches). I wanted to bolt, but I was terrified. These guys were psychos and everyone but my "friend" had a gun on them. I was simultaneously asking myself how the fuck I got into this, and how the fuck I was going to get out without having them chase me. My normally quiet "friend" was as happy and excited as I had ever seen him during all this. He really did enjoy it. I was fucking disgusted.
I felt like I was on some sort of candid camera version of America History X.

Sorry for the long story, but my overall point is that I had met his dad and brothers before, in public, and they seemed perfectly normal. I'd imagine it's the same with these people. If they're that big on Nazis, I really doubt they're not spewing the same shit in their home when no one is watching them. I could be wrong, but after having that experience first hand I can't allow myself to say "yeah, the kid will probably be alright."

Inspector Fowler

01-14-2009, 07:55 PM

I don't think this amounts to child abuse at all. How can anybody seriously say, "This creates the potential for somebody else, out of distaste, to treat this child unequally or even violently, therefore, it's illegal!"? Shit, if that's the criteria, stop having Jewish kids because the skinheads and KKK assholes are just going to fuck with them right?

I am serious, though, when I say they might as well get fingerprints and DNA on file from these kids because they're gonna grow up pretty fucked up. Might as well just sigh a big sigh and realize that the cops are going to be dealing with them in a few years. We all know what will happen to these kids, but it shouldn't be society's job to raise the little tykes.