Parents of Adolf Hitler Campbell lose custody
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 07:40
VIEWED: 6710
PAGE 2 of 10
Woodstock icon and counter-culture figure Wavy Gravy named his son 'Howdy Do-Good Gravy Tomahawk Truckstop Romney', and managed to keep him. Howdy later changed his name to Jordan.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Abuse? What the heck kind of definition of abuse is this? Locking your kid in a closet for years on end is abuse, starvation rations are abuse, chains are abuse, beating them black and blue is abuse, molesting them is abuse. Giving them a really bad name? That's like someone saying their parents were abusive because mommy didn't hug them enough.
People will make fun of perfectly good names, let alone awful names like these. The parents may really be Neo-Nazis (and it's kind of funny they're trying to deny it, "Aryan Nation?" Seriously?) and the scum of the Earth, but these nonsense names actually strike me as a free speech thing.
Someone names their kids Campbell End Corporate Corruption and Alicia Bring This Mother Down Joneson, you don't think there's a problem with the state taking away the kids for that?
In the very least, the kids living with those names and their dumbass parents would cause them to turn against their own parents' beliefs. But they get taken to an adoption shelter and told "We took you away from your parents because they were Neo-Nazis," what do you think these kids are gonna grow up into?
I'm calling shenanigans on this whole justification. "Making sure that people don't name their kids something stupid is not the worst idea I've ever heard. Might stop names like Kalel" is your selling point for a totalitarian nanny state? Come ON. I have a name I hate, but you don't see me out kidnapping babies 'cause of it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The parents were not neo nazis. That is the point, kind of. They just thought it would be a heck of a good idea to call their child after a reviled historical figure because.....who the hell knows?
You see abuse as being only physical, but the scars of emotional and pyschological abuse are very real as well and sometimes harder to deal with because people don't understand or believe in them like yourself.
And we don't know the full picture, but you might ask if naming their kids was any indication of the care they could give them, I'd say there could be a whole lot more to this story.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The parents were not neo nazis. That is the point, kind of. They just thought it would be a heck of a good idea to call their child after a reviled historical figure because.....who the hell knows?
You see abuse as being only physical, but the scars of emotional and pyschological abuse are very real as well and sometimes harder to deal with because people don't understand or believe in them like yourself.
And we don't know the full picture, but you might ask if naming their kids was any indication of the care they could give them, I'd say there could be a whole lot more to this story.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Standing ovation.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm calling shenanigans on this whole justification. "Making sure that people don't name their kids something stupid is not the worst idea I've ever heard. Might stop names like Kalel" is your selling point for a totalitarian nanny state? Come ON. I have a name I hate, but you don't see me out kidnapping babies 'cause of it.
You go, girl!
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That is heartbreaking.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Some stories don't have happy endings, people.
Sometimes I think I might crumple into a fetal position from all the injustice in the world.
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I didn't get that from Byte at all.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You see abuse as being only physical, but the scars of emotional and pyschological abuse are very real as well and sometimes harder to deal with because people don't understand or believe in them like yourself.
I hear her questioning 2 things. 1) Bad names are not good care, but do bad names alone constitute "abuse"? After all, "abuse" is a serious criminal allegation. 2) Even if bad names are emotional abuse to some extent, are there not less drastic interventions than taking custody of the children?
I agree with her that if the kids had other bad names, such as the lefty ones she suggested, the parents would not have likely lost custody. The kids could be encouraged to have counseling, use nicknames at school, etc. It sounds to me like they are punishing the parents for having the audacity to be offensive and stupid. It is a free speech issue.
I also don't think it is fair to assume that just because the parents chose offensive names, that they naturally would bad parents otherwise. So far, I saw no hard concrete evidence that abuse or neglect was occurring other than their horrible judgment in names. This is a case where the public presumes guilt until evidence of innocence because of ideological bias.
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't really see "these people are not competent enough parents to be trusted with a child" as "nanny-state." Social services takes kids away all the time. If there's neglect or mental instability leading to abuse, I don't think those types of people should be raising children.
If they hadn't named their child something weird, no one would be demanding answers before the agency is free to speak about specific reasons. (Most case specifics are kept quiet, in case there's a trial and the jury needs to be unbiased)
Why is it hard to believe that the parents might have some competence or stability issues that have led to their children being taken away? What if it's actually true that the children's names are not a prominent reason?
What if the parents are violent alcoholics or have borderline personality disorder? Would it still be a point of debate that they shouldn't have a fragile newborn infant in their care?
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As a side note: "Bring This Mother Down" as a middle name almost makes me want to have kids so I can name one that.
And then have them immediately taken away, because, yeah, no. I'm not motherly material.
Quote:
So far, I saw no hard concrete evidence that abuse or neglect was occurring other than their horrible judgment in names. This is a case where the public presumes guilt until evidence of innocence because of ideological bias.
This.
I believe in emotional abuse, but most of what people seem to think constitutes emotional abuse gets no where NEAR my definition. Any clueless parent can screw up a kid through a misunderstanding, underreaction, or overreaction that snowballs. It takes malice to commit abuse, otherwise it's just incompetence overlapping into "not fit to raise a child." And not fit to raise a child can only be demonstrated through evidence of harm, such as behavioural or more obvious signs.
I don't believe that a name is enough proof to demonstrate malice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
PR: same thing.
Quote:
I don't believe that a name is enough proof to demonstrate malice.
If it's incompetence or not fit to raise a child, CALL IT THAT. Don't lighten the concept of abuse by fitting in stuff that is not actually abuse. It is offensive to the abused, it diminishes their suffering.
And it's doubly offensive when kids are taken away from parents (or family that might be willing to take them) for spurious reasons and fed to a machine that WILL EAT THEM ALIVE.
I think that it's a messed up sign of the way the system works that CPS can't reveal their justifications for removing kids - they're trying to protect the kids and the privacy, but it ends up protecting the abusers (and potentially enabling it). If someone really deserves to have their children taken away, it should be on the grounds that competence is in question or that they can be charged with a crime. That's all CPS has to say on the matter. Instead, we hear nothing, and have no way of knowing if such removals are legitimate or some kind of political power-play.
CPS brings on such distrust on themselves.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME