Parents' right in naming their child

Discussion in 'Civil Liberties' started by reedak, Sep 20, 2013.

  1. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No I meant more generally, like why should parents be given this right. I agree with you, that would be over the top, but I dont think it would be over the top to restrict names in some cases, more than what is already done, for the sake of the child. I think for adults you should be allowed any name.
     
  2. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If the name is clearly insulting I can accept some government regulation. "Messiah" is none of the above and it is even a nice name. What that judge was thinking is beyond me, it was only a matter of time until the decision was overturned.

    Its all just a formality in an official paper anyway, in the end you can call your kid whatever you want.
     
  3. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yeah... there has to be a line somewhere. I'm not against Messiah, despite it being a name that will probably hurt this kid's future in some way shape or form.

    The problem with lines.... is my line may not be your line... obviously, Messiah crossed the line for the judge. Soon, even names like "bustedTrojan" will be acceptable.
     
  4. maxtor

    maxtor New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good question, I'm ignorant as to the answer. But my first inclination would be to say that it is a free speech issue or a 'life, liberty, happiness' issue. I have never heard of such a law AGAINST naming your child. I think its a better question to ask if the government has such a law.
    In any event, it appears that you can name your kid what you want but the agency recording that into public record may refuse to put it into public record.
     
  5. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I think we're more or less on the same page, I just think the line can be discerned fairly well. Better than personal opinion of judges would be legislation, such as that we have in Australia that has a list.
     
  6. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Fair enough. I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of the child rather than the adult.
     
  7. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    a list of acceptable names? well there is your line.... I have heard of no such list hear in the states. Who determines if a name makes the list? I'm sure it's legislators or judges....

    and whatever the list is, it's still subjective.... a name like ESPN in the 90's was probably not acceptable, but now, there are nearly 100 kids named that in the states....
     
  8. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Legislation, which is modified irregularly. If the legislature, ie the Parliamentary representatives of the people, create such a list I think its a reasonably developed one.

    Well depends what you mean by subjective. The inherent disgust or revulsion of the names is surely subjective and socially relative, however the social ramifications that find children bullied, socially isolated etc because of them having such names is certainly objective - children do suffer from them, that much is not subjective.

    As you point out, these names will change over time, hence why the list can be modified by the legislature, who will adapt it accordingly.
     
  9. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think there is an inherent danger to "government approved" names though... that's why we must be careful. Think of like Nazi Germany telling parents what were acceptable Arian, not Jewish, sounding names only. That's my fear. What if your leaders started banning names like Aiden, because it's "too American sounding" or in your country's case.... banned names because they were too Asian sounding.

    I know that sounds crazy now... but political winds shift and you open the door to govt, under the guise of safety, or protecting...


    I'm all for dumb-butts not naming their kids stupid names, even having govt interveen
    but I'm not for government approvals of names either.


    There HAS to be an in between point.
     
  10. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Sure, but hence why it be left in the hands of Parliament, ie the representatives of the people, or the Congress in your case, to ensure maximum possible accountability and reasonableness.

    You really think a democratic electorate would let it get that bad? I dont. Its an absurd fear.

    Then the leader would be unelected and replaced, along with their laws. Simple.

    Sure, but that's why you need an educated, and free to speak electorate to ensure people can make up their mind sensibly - this is necessary no matter the issue at hand and always a constant threat to responsible democracy.

    Government intervention REQUIRES its approval - they're the same thing, and it can be done.

    I have jsut said it. An extreme position would be an absolute list decided by an elite who are not accountable and their decision not reversible.
     
  11. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you do realize, Hitler was elected by the Germans don't you. I bet they didn't think it would be possible to get that bad, either. By the time they realized it was that bad... they couldn't just 'unelect' him....

    absolute lists never start out as absolute.... they start off as voted on lists, then govt suggestions, the official positions, then mandatory... then absolute....


    Castro was elected
    Hussein was elected...


    don't think a govt won't go to far because they can be un-elected. History shows you can't always undo a bad election.

    I know it sounds silly, but it has happened before....


    that still doesn't mean I don't think a parent should be allowed to name their kid "Asshat", but giving govt more control is probably worse than one little Asshat being allowed to keep his name.
     
  12. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And you realized he did not allow himself to get elected out of office, right? LOL You think that a President in the US could trump not only every institution in the US that attempts to safeguard the separation of powers but also convince Americans to give them unlimited coercive ability? Impossible.

    Sure, but not ever list goes that way and a democracy ensures it doesnt. Simple.

    LOL Castro took power ina revolution and Hussein used violence to get to office. Both used force and coercion to maintain their power and twisted their already weak democratic systems to ensure they had total rule. These examples have no bearing on modern developed democracies as they exist today.
    If you believe democracy so incapable of functioning such that it cant even make such a basic list, I suppose then you are an anarchist?

    Sure, but that is an irrelevant factor on this issue. It wouldnt matter if it were a list of names, or a law on cars - that is irrelevant to the possibility of people ILLEGALLY using FORCE to get what THEY WANT. You cant protect against that save a healthy police force and politically active populace.

    Its silly because you re using an extreme to make a self defeating argument. By your logic we should pass no laws at all because MAYBE some MIGHT take control and corrupt the entire process as it stands.

    Actually from what you have said it means you do think they should have that right. You never justified where such a right came from, though, in theory or law.

    I completely disagree. We give the government power all the time - and we have to. We give them power to regulate police forces, coordinate military forces. These powers immensely trump a list of names! But they are vital. Such power is necessary for any functioning society to be vested in a body that is accountable. That is what ensures a list works - accountability. Saying the police and armed forces can be accountable but a list created directly by the legislature cannot is inanely contradictory. The fact is that just because a government may be corrupted, a fear that will NEVER be rid of human institutions, does not mean the ENTIRE institution is useless - quite the opposite. You drive a car to work. You MAY be in an accident. Should you just give up going to work all together then? No, that's absurd. Not only because your example of totalitarian government never arose from a list of names (how ridiculous!) but also because Wiemar Germany looked nothing like modern democratic states, and Iraq and Cuba were hardly (if at all) democratic to begin with, hence their demise.

    No government has ever, will ever and can ever be based on all or nothing principles. I understand your fears, I'm a libertarian myself. Government power is usually a bad thing. But just because an initiative involves enhancing government power does not make it particularly risky. Every proposal must be analysed on its own merits. Referring to the rise of Nazism in the wake of the depression and socio-political collapse of Germany, and the dilapidated authoritarian state in Cuba that inspired a revolution that failed to bring about effective democratic change, and a third-world state run by an all-dominant Baath Party which was found controlled by one man through his rise in its ranks and referring to any other example such as these has little to no bearing on something as simple as proposing a list of outlawed names that is reviewed by a democratically elected, representative government.

    Your argument that "oh the government might go looney and destroy everything" isnt an argument against a list to ban inappropriate names - its an argument against EVERYTHING. To that end it is an argument against NOTHING. Why? Because this fear will exist with ANY law. Furthermore this law does nothing to promote such a massive change you suggest we should fear. Your entire arugment is an appeal to a vague and imagined possibility that one list of names to ban will topple every facet of democratic society - what a joke! Giving someone a list of names to ban, doesnt give them guns, or tanks or whatever to take over a whole country, or give someone the power to topple long standing institutions that separate and protect institutions of representative democracy. Your extremist argument is quite absurd and has little bearing on the REALITY of existing democratic systems in the countries we consider representative and stable.
     
  13. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it's hard... but Germany and Cuba have shown all it takes is instability and people will willingly give up their freedoms in exchange for safety. Castro, Hitler and Hussein all started off as benevolant... but when they didn't have to worry about elections.... it changed.

    Don't be naive.... understand history... learn from it.


    I'd go farther and say MOST don't go that way.... but all it takes is one list to go that way and you're finished. Ask a jew, ask a Shiite.


     
  14. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    But this is no evidence for why a list is particularly bad - how will the list cause a revolution, explain?

    I have a degree in history. I could cite ten different books I've read on Germany, Cuba, Iraq and Russia to explain their history. I know what I am talking about. Your argument is ahistorical - it's entirely fallacious.

    So we should have no laws?

    So why allow a military and not a list that bans haul names? Your logic is utterly nonsensical.


    Yes there is.

    But the abuse was through a lack if accountability - something NOT lacking through the legislature.

    Nazi references are not helping your case - they are showing your lack of understanding of history and your inability to critically reflect on your own argument.

    You have not stated why a list is bad except for making irrelevant accusations its going to cause a totalitarian revolution which is utterly ridiculous. Your entire argument is a non sequitur
     
  15. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have the same degree...
     
  16. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Amazing. Not in modern or middle eastern history I don't think. Anyway, just tell me how this list will create a totalitarian revolution, which is what you are asserting.
     
  17. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    well, if we're throwing out e-creditials that noone can verify.... I'm a double ph.d and masters holder in all history.... ;)


    it's simply a tool coupled with many other things.

    "when they came for the xxxx, I did not care because I was not xxx"
    "then they came for the xxxx, I still did not care because I was not xxxx either"
    "then they came for me, and noone could stand up for me because they were already gone"
     
  18. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And what did you seriously study? Ancient history? Medieval?

    Fair enough. My point though is that I know what I'm talking about and I find your arguments fallacious until or unless you can give some clear reasoning why things will turn out the way you describe.

    Yeah yeah keep going on about this rhetoric. Just answer the question: how will this list lead to a totalitarian revolution? Who does the list show the government is "coming for"?
     
  19. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    So, in your world, what names would be permitted? Offhand, I know an Elvis, a Rufus, a Joao, a Janilson, and an Immacula. I know a man named Joelle, a woman named Jeremy, a man named Dana, a man named Leslie, a woman named Randy, and four men named Tracy/Tracey.

    I know of a man who, for much of his life, used the name Shammgod Wells. However, in college, he began using his legal name: God Shammgod.
     
  20. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    all of the above... I'm a double Ph.D in all unverifiable e-claims....


    no, you have an opinion on what you're talking about, and so do I.


    translation - you made a good point and I can't defend my position

    I didn't say "lead to" I said, "a tool used during" I don't assert that Hitler or Stalin sat down and said... "I'm going to make a list of acceptable names so I can hunt down the ethnic sounding names I don't like easier" I think they simply used listings that were previously made.
     
  21. UnknownGause

    UnknownGause Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2013
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    What I find interesting in this case is the fact that the courts first disallowed the name "messiah" because it was an inference to Jesus Christ. Wtf, so Hispanics are allowed to name their kids Jesus but "messiah" is too close on the mark. This is just too much BS
     
  22. Alucard

    Alucard New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    7,828
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think parents, however, should be thinking of when the child starts school before giving their son or daughter an outrageous name in which classmates will ridicule the child.
     
  23. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    post count padding
     
  24. NMNeil

    NMNeil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2015
    Messages:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Didn't seem to be the case with Marion Robert Morrison

    [​IMG]
     
  25. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It should not be a parent right, if the name is ridiculous. It is child abuse, and parents should not only be prevented from retarded names, but should be fined for suggesting it.

    You hear me Shadeed, and Nikey, Shaniqua,
     

Share This Page