Support NeoGAF

[Freeza Under The Shower]

Nobody is defending the parents, which should be apparent by reading the thread.

You should probably do a quick google search and you'll see that this IS an issue. I realize you have a hard time accepting dissent, but realize you aren't the authority on this.

And I really do see your point of view, but I'm squimish about government involvement in matters like this. Plain and simple. Knock it off with the "you're either with us or against us" attitude because there is more at stake here than a crappy name for a child.

Until future research will show a significant rise in depression and suicide among these "well named" children, as 'K' would most likely have done once her friends found out her real name.

That, and a rise in child versus parent(s) lawsuits at later ages.

Being able to change your name at 18 is load of horseshit, since the current society standard is to have your official callingname present at nearly all times (even in playful areas like, geeh, the internet) meaning that there is no escape from the mental abuse non-empathic parents may force upon a developing personality.

 

[nyong]

No, because if a Judge went too far we would see a story like this on it. If 'Hussein' or 'Jesus' was banned, people would be upset and there would be an appeal.

However, the guidelines could easily just be made more stringent in the first place; eg names must be words, not sentences. I think the 'potential to offend' already covers Sex Fruit. That way it's still objective and not a matter of judgment.

It would be a simple matter to argue that Jesus is covered under "potential to offend." And it has been a deliberate effort by the media to NOT say Barack Hussein Obama because doing so undermines his chances of being elected. Whether you acknowledge it or not, the name does harm to his reputation.

As questionable as "Sex Fruit" is I doubt the parents meant harm by it. More likely they were hippy types who thought it had some deeper meaning. The word "sex" can be taken many ways, not all of which have to be vulgar in nature. For all the cries of potential child abuse, I have never (ever) heard of a case where the parents tried to choose a name to spite the child. Point one out and then we'll talk.

 

[Karakand]

The parents' mistake can be rectified by the child legally at a later date. Yes they possibly have to endure ridicule up until they are legally an adult, and in many places it is a pain in the ass to change your name legally, but the error is not permanent and irreversible. (Contrast with: circumcision.) [Editor's note: Do not turn this into a circumcision thread. Whether or not you agree with it, it is hard to really argue that is a fairly permanent process.]

Also I am very skeptical that the State would step in and stop people from giving their children retarded names if they were celebrities. (I mean Nick Cage named his kid Superman's Kyrptonian name and nobody really stopped him.) The law and State cease to be just when they apply their reign haphazardly and target those least able to defend themselves from their apparatuses.

Lastly while it is objectively certain a child will be ridiculed for having an unusual name in some environments, this is not behavior that we should encourage or tolerate. At the end of the day this just a name. The playground is one of the last great bastions of hate, prejudice and baseless cruelty in "civil" society and if we seek to truly eradicate all these things we should perhaps do more to combat them were they grow and develop most easily. (I say this as someone that was taunted incessantly for being a "four eyes" up until junior high or so.)

 

[Fisticuffs]

The parents' mistake can be rectified by the child legally at a later date. Yes they possibly have to endure ridicule up until they are legally an adult, and in many places it is a pain in the ass to change your name legally, but the error is not permanent and irreversible. (Contrast with: circumcision.) [Editor's note: Do not turn this into a circumcision thread. Whether or not you agree with it, it is hard to really argue that is a fairly permanent process.]

Also I am very skeptical that the State would step in and stop people from giving their children retarded names if they were celebrities. (I mean Nick Cage named his kid Superman's Kyrptonian name and nobody really stopped him.) The law and State cease to be just when they apply their reign haphazardly and target those least able to defend themselves from their apparatuses.

Lastly while it is objectively certain a child will be ridiculed for having an unusual name in some environments, this is not behavior that we should encourage or tolerate. At the end of the day this just a name. The playground is one of the last great bastions of hate, prejudice and baseless cruelty in "civil" society and if we seek to truly eradicate all these things we should perhaps do more to combat them were they grow and develop most easily. (I say this as someone that was taunted incessantly for being a "four eyes" up until junior high or so.)

so you're cool with me naming my child penis wrinkle? k. I mean no harm done, right? Sure he'll get picked on but i'm sure he'll grow up to be a mentally healthy child.

 

[Karakand]

The ridicule defense is specious. Outlawing things because people will be irrationally prejudiced against them instead of attacking irrational prejudice itself accomplishes nothing.

So yes, I would be cool with you naming your kid Penis Wrinkle. Worse comes to worse everyone can just call him Dick.

 

[Fisticuffs]

The ridicule defense is specious. Outlawing things because people will be irrationally prejudiced against them instead of attacking irrational prejudice itself accomplishes nothing.

So yes, I would be cool with you naming your kid Penis Wrinkle. Worse comes to worse everyone can just call him Dick.

Well, I can't really argue with you because you can't seem to explain logically WHY it's wrong for them to regulate the parent's ability to name their children crude/vulgar names. Seems like common sense to me.

 

["God's Beard!"]

hard to choose a side here. Though Sex Fruit and Talula... are definitely fucking awesome.

.

 

[Karakand]

Well, I can't really argue with you because you can't seem to explain logically WHY it's wrong for them to regulate the parent's ability to name their children crude/vulgar names. Seems like common sense to me.

Because it doesn't accomplish anything. A name's sole function is to be a personal identifier. Saying name X is "good" and name Y is "bad" (and thus worthy of ridicule) is an attempt to graft morality onto a concept that is beyond morality.

The State has an interest in prohibiting names that contain fighting words or themselves further irrational prejudice (e.g. calling your kid "Kill Kikes Now" or something) from a civil order perspective. You could make a case that names like "Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii" erode the State's ability to effectively manage since they expose the flaws in the traditional first name-middle name(s)-surname convention we use in the Western world. But prohibiting them because they are a social disability and a handicap? That is punishing people for the provinciality of others.

And you couldn't really argue with me because all you've done in this thread is hyperbolize people that disagree with you. I do it all the time on GAF myself too.

 

[Mash]

It is child abuse, it will cause the child hardship while growing up.

Don't. Be. Retarded. It is NOT child abuse, ridiculing someone is abuse. Like me calling you a retard. (Don't kill me).

 

[iapetus]

I'm not prepared to let the government decide (in this case) what's malice, ignorant, and/or insanity. I'm not defending the parents either. Idiot.

Well, since nyong is:

1) Starting to call other people idiots.
2) In favour of the rights of parents to inflict whatever name they choose on their children.
3) Clearly not a hypocrite, and willing to subject himself to the same standards.

I'm open to suggestions for his new username.

 

[nyong]

Well, since nyong is:

1) Starting to call other people idiots.
2) In favour of the rights of parents to inflict whatever name they choose on their children.
3) Clearly not a hypocrite, and willing to subject himself to the same standards.

I'm open to suggestions for his new username.

Read the quote I was responding to and you'll learn it was in response to being called an "idiot."

And utilize any search function on the internet and you'll learn there's more to this argument than a gut emotional response.

 

[iapetus]

Read the quote I was responding to and you'll learn it was in response to being called an "idiot."

Fair point. Points two and three still stand. As does point one, in fact, though I guess in this case it's justified.

And utilize any search function on the internet and you'll learn there's more to this argument than a gut emotional response.

What a bizarre statement. What ludicrously over-specific search terms am I expected to use for this? :\

 

[Gaborn]

My favorite story similar to that was when Mr. and Mrs. Peacock (yes, their actual last name) named their son Drew, and then took a while to realize why their friends were laughing at them.

 

[nyong]

What a bizarre statement. What ludicrously over-specific search terms am I expected to use for this? :\

Try anything relating to "personal freedom" or "government intervention." You could also try "Venezuela+baby names."

The government intervening in the naming of children has strangely been a non-issue in the U.S., despite countless kids no doubt walking around with names like "Douchebag" and "I Should Have Aborted You" and getting pummeled for their lunch money. Never fear though little Douchebag, the government will shortly enact laws that further interfere in our personal lives for the sake of what, has until now, been a non-issue.

And I'm going to need clarification on where I have been a hypocrite.

 

[ScientificNinja]

For all the cries of potential child abuse, I have never (ever) heard of a case where the parents tried to choose a name to spite the child. Point one out and then we'll talk.

In China, it was once common practice to give children an insulting, demeaning name to ward off bad spirits seeking to harm children with "good" names.

I've encountered quite a few people who's name translates into "shit hole", "latrene", "pig head" and the like... poor bastards...

 

[Flow]

And I really do see your point of view, but I'm squimish about government involvement in matters like this. Plain and simple.

If not the government, who else? In this case the child is unable to defend him or herself from their parents' stupidity. Such a situation is a prime example of where government intervention is justified. Plain and simple.

Well, since nyong is:

1) Starting to call other people idiots.
2) In favour of the rights of parents to inflict whatever name they choose on their children.
3) Clearly not a hypocrite, and willing to subject himself to the same standards.

I'm open to suggestions for his new username.

I nominate "Sex Fruit".

 

[sprsk]

I move to have nyong's new username be "Monkey Dong Hussein"

 

[Shins]

If you don't like the name your parents gave you, give yourself a new one. Push it through as a nickname/common use until you're of an age where you can take the appropriate legal steps.

Unless your name is Major Major Major and you get drafted. Then you're fucked.

 

[nyong]

Man, you guys really don't tolerate dissent in these here parts do you?

 

[Gaborn]

Although I really don't want to get into this, I do think Nyong has a point. Content based speech restrictions are always something that people should be cautious of embracing. I think the parents are complete idiots but in truth very few people would know the girl's real name and I've got NO doubt that when she was old enough she'd change it to something more appropriate and less humiliating. I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to have that name appear on a wedding invitation. Until then she could go by Talula and claim her parents were fans of Ms. Bankhead's

ScientificNinja - For example, here

 

[Flow]

Content based speech restrictions

It's amazing you can call it that with a straight face. This isn't a book or a dog they're naming. It's another human being with their own rights.

I think the parents are complete idiots but in truth very few people would know the girl's real name and I've got NO doubt that when she was old enough she'd change it to something more appropriate and less humiliating. I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to have that name appear on a wedding invitation. Until then she could go by Talula and claim her parents were fans of Ms. Bankhead's

But why should she be forced to bear that name against her will? As a Libertarian, you of all people should appreciate her personal liberties.

Oh wait, she's under 18, it's okay to deny rights to those people just so long as the parents can get their kicks.

 

[Gaborn]

But why should she be forced to bear that name against her will? As a Libertarian, you of all people should appreciate her personal liberties.

Oh wait, she's under 18, it's okay to deny rights to those people just so long as the parents can get their kicks.

Until society establishes more rights for minors, yes. Parents have rights over their children, and that's one of them. Meanwhile, the government has no inherent right to determine the worth of a 9 year old's name.

Also, exactly what rights does a nine year old have?

 

[Freshmaker]

Don't. Be. Retarded. It is NOT child abuse, ridiculing someone is abuse. Like me calling you a retard. (Don't kill me).

So if you name a kid Retard Donglefiddler Thurston III...

That's better than you calling someone a retard once or twice?

 

[Flow]

Until society establishes more rights for minors, yes. Parents have rights over their children, and that's one of them.

It's funny how you find this status quo perfectly acceptable, but if homosexuals were involved you would be up in arms demanding change.

Then again, selective-Libertarianism seems to be the new hot thing on the internet.

 

[Shins]

But why should she be forced to bear that name against her will?

Why should I be forced to bear mine? I don't care for it. I use my middle name most anywhere to get away from using my first name. I deal with it. If it was a real bother as this one seemed to be, I support altering the process for legally changing your name to accommodate the girl's desire for something more run-of-the-mill, but the judge doesn't need to, and shouldn't, step in directly.

It creates an unnecessary headache of a precedent that could easily be avoided with different actions.

 

[Gaborn]

It's funny how you find this status quo perfectly acceptable, but if homosexuals were involved you would be up in arms demanding change.

Then again, selective-Libertarianism seems to be the new hot thing on the internet.

If it was a 9 year old homosexual? No, I wouldn't be up in arms about it (with the exception of reparative therapy which demonstrably increases suicide risk and is opposed by the APA and other accredited organizations, unlike unfortunate names).

Nice that you're trying to make it a gay thing though, really classy.

 

[Flow]

If it was a 9 year old homosexual?

Deliberately misinterpreting posts is childish.

Nice that you're trying to make it a gay thing though, really classy.

Now you're the only one trying to turn it into a "gay thing". I'm making a very pointed observation that you apply your philosophy and arguments selectively.

You make the argument that one group being denied rights and protection is A-OK because they have little to begin with. Yet you turn around an argue that another group should be offered more rights and protection, for the same reason.

That is bizzare and incredibly hypocritical.

 

[legend166]

Well, since nyong is:

1) Starting to call other people idiots.
2) In favour of the rights of parents to inflict whatever name they choose on their children.
3) Clearly not a hypocrite, and willing to subject himself to the same standards.

I'm open to suggestions for his new username.

Talulu does the Hula in Hawaii.

 

[Gaborn]

Deliberately misinterpreting posts is childish.

I really didn't think you had a point. My issue is that the child is 9 years old, if she was 18 she'd have a legal right to change her name. This wasn't a gay issue but you decided to bring my sexual orientation into the debate. I think adults should have the same legal protections as other adults but I don't think the same thing should apply to children. That's not exactly controversial and that's not exactly unusual.

Now you're the only trying to turn it into a "gay thing". I'm making a very pointed observation that you apply your philosophy selectively. You make the argument that one group being denied rights and protection is A-OK because they have little to begin with. Yet you turn around an argue that another group should be offered more rights and protection, for the same reason.

Adults are not the same as children. Homosexuals are denied rights because of the sex they are attracted to, not because society deems them incapable of consenting to a major change such as changing their legally accepted name.

That is bizzare and incredibly hypocritical.

In what way?

 

[LuCkymoON]

Talulu does the Hula in Hawaii.

yes !:lol

 

[Karakand]

Why should I be forced to bear mine? I don't care for it. I use my middle name most anywhere to get away from using my first name.

Because your name is "good" and abides by arbitrary temporal mores (assumption) while other examples offered in this thread are "bad" and thus abusive to thrust upon a child without their approval even though nobody asked you for yours too.

 

[Flow]

This wasn't a gay issue but you decided to bring my sexual orientation into the debate.

I didn't even know what your orientation was. I just noticed you applying the same arguments you're now arguing against. However I think the analogy is pretty valid so let's run with it.

that's not exactly unusual.

Neither is homophobia in the United States. And I think you'd find yourself in the minority if you asked the average person if the government should prevent parents from naming their children things like Sex Fruit.

Adults are not the same as children.

Gay is not the same as straight. What's your point?

Homosexuals are denied rights because of the sex they are attracted to, not because society deems them incapable of consenting to a major change such as changing their legally accepted name.

Homosexuals are denied rights because society deems them a number of things which they are not. Same applies to the child in this case, who certainly is capable of recognizing that their name is humiliating and embarrassing.

 

[nyong]

Although I really don't want to get into this, I do think Nyong has a point. Content based speech restrictions are always something that people should be cautious of embracing. I think the parents are complete idiots but in truth very few people would know the girl's real name and I've got NO doubt that when she was old enough she'd change it to something more appropriate and less humiliating. I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to have that name appear on a wedding invitation. Until then she could go by Talula and claim her parents were fans of Ms. Bankhead's

ScientificNinja - For example, here

I just wanted to say Thanks, Good Luck and God-Speed.

And I would proudly wear the tag "Sex Fruit" to show my solidarity with this brave young girl for taking one for the team.

 

[Shins]

Because your name is "good" and abides by arbitrary temporal mores (assumption) while other examples offered in this thread are "bad" and thus abusive to thrust upon a child without their approval even though nobody asked you for yours too.

In the hands of children, any name can be made cruel and used to inflict abuse. It depends as much on your own reaction/stigma to the name. I knew kids with some fucking amazing names (a girl named Ju'wana Chezburg, for fuck's sake) that took it in stride. Not a care in the world over their seemingly distressing names. They were extroverted and loved it. I always hated my first name for whatever reason, and hid it. Kids picked up on that, and when it came to bullying, that was a weak spot for them to pick at.

Its not so clear-cut. Again, I fully support looking into revising the system that's in place for legally changing your name, both as a minor and as an adult, but simply having a judge throw down a ruling like this does more harm than help in the overall scheme.

 

[Flow]

simply having a judge throw down a ruling like this does more harm than help in the overall scheme.

The legal context was that the child was made a ward of the state because of a custody dispute, and then the name was changed. That's perfectly by the books, and the child probably appreciates it.

What some people are arguing is that the parents have some innate right to inflict any name they want on their unwilling children for a minimum of 18 years, and that the child innately lacks the capacity to have a say in the matter.

 

[Gaborn]

I didn't even know what your orientation was. I just noticed you applying the same arguments you're now arguing against. However I think the analogy is pretty valid so let's run with it.

One of these days I'm going to ask an admin to make my tag a rainbow like Nick's so no one is going to think I'm straight :lol

Neither is homophobia in the United States. And I think you'd find yourself in the minority if you asked the average person if the government should prevent parents from naming their children things like Sex Fruit.

So? What's you're point? A majority of people in the US voted for George Bush and don't accept evolutionary theory, the average American is not your gold standard for making an argument.

Gay is not the same as straight. What's your point?

That sexual orientation involves discrimination against consenting adults that could form a legally recognized relationship with adults other than each other but for arbitrary moral standards are denied legal recognition by the federal government and 48 states, and this is a whole heck of a lot less defensible than discriminating against people under 18 generally because as a group they're not considered legally capable of consent or the ability to agree to contracts?

Homosexuals are denied rights because society deems them a number of things which they are not. Same applies to the child in this case, who certainly is capable of recognizing that their name is humiliating and embarrassing.

Homosexuals want to form consenting, legally recognized relationships with adults. That's a lot different than opposing a minor's ability to override their parent's wishes when they've gone 9 years with a name that hardly anybody knew in the first place.

nyong - my pleasure.

 

[JayDubya]

It's funny how you find this status quo perfectly acceptable, but if homosexuals were involved you would be up in arms demanding change.

Then again, selective-Libertarianism seems to be the new hot thing on the internet.

Um. Did you miss the part we're talking about minors? Are we supposed to support the abolition of the concept of an "age of majority," too? Cuz I don't.

 

[Freshmaker]

The legal context was that the child was made a ward of the state because of a custody dispute, and then the name was changed. That's perfectly by the books, and the child probably appreciates it.

What some people are arguing is that the parents have some innate right to inflict any name they want on their unwilling children for a minimum of 18 years, and that the child innately lacks the capacity to have a say in the matter.

They also seem to be implying that a judge keeping a parent from naming their girl "Hungry Cock Magnet" instantly sets precedent for judges to take a dislike to the name Dennis etc, and once down that slippery slope, who knows what Wapner's going to decide all kids should be named?

 

[Flow]

So? What's you're point? A majority of people in the US voted for George Bush and don't accept evolutionary theory, the average American is not you gold standard for making an argument.

Wait wait wait wait, you were the first to use the argument that your position is "not exactly unusual". I was pointing out that that's a poor argument to make. I'm glad that we agree.

That sexual orientation involves discrimination against consenting adults that could form a legally recognized relationship with adults other than each other but for arbitrary moral standards are denied legal recognition by the federal government and 48 states, and this is a whole heck of a lot less defensible than discriminating against people under 18 generally because as a group they're not considered legally capable of consent or the ability to agree to contracts?

Your argument here is that a 17 year old does not have...what, the mental capacity? To have any say in their name? Frankly I think that's an insulting argument and just as misguided as those who think that homosexuals are mentally challenged.

Homosexuals want to form consenting, legally recognized relationships with adults. That's a lot different than opposing a minor's ability to override their parent's wishes when they've gone 9 years with a name that hardly anybody knew in the first place.

If the minor is not allowed to defend or represent themself, then it falls to the government's responsibility to protect the child from irresponsible parents. This is nothing new and has plenty of precedent. In fact, when you register a legal name with the government, you'll find that there are restrictions and you can be denied.

You seem to think that this violates the parents' rights. But the child is not an object, it is not property. There is a reason the government is the one to register names. Sometimes, children need to be protected from the irresponsibility of their parents.

 

[FLEABttn]

Also, exactly what rights does a nine year old have?

The same negative rights that any other person has. Making arbitrary differences of earning negative rights based on age is a positive right.

 

[Gaborn]

Wait wait wait wait, you were the first to use the argument that your position is "not exactly unusual". I was pointing out that that's a poor argument to make. I'm glad that we agree.

Well, what I said if you'd notice was

I think adults should have the same legal protections as other adults but I don't think the same thing should apply to children. That's not exactly controversial and that's not exactly unusual.

In other words, I was specifically addressing your asinine comparison between minors and gays, and your description of my view that minors shouldn't have the same rights as an adult to change a legal document as hypocritical because I support gay rights.

You're right, it's possible some people would agree with your position on the specific issue of naming a child, but it's also probable that most people would agree with my statement. People don't believe in general children should have the same rights as adults. You might think in this case it's appropriate, I don't.

Your argument here is that a 17 year old does not have...what, the mental capacity? To have any say in their name? Frankly I think that's an insulting argument and just as misguided as those who think that homosexuals are mentally challenged.

Even though I will concede the line for determining an age of majority is arbitrary and could be more nuanced and even lowered I know of no one other than NAMBLA that would argue it should be 9.

If the minor is not allowed to defend or represent themself, then it falls to the government's responsibility to protect the child from irresponsible parents. This is nothing new and has plenty of precedent. In fact, when you register a legal name with the government, you'll find that there are restrictions and you can be denied.

Except the girl is NINE. Obviously the name got through and she's survived. It's a lot different to reject a proposed name before it becomes legal and to take a child from a parent because someone approved a name 9 years ago that you now find objectionable.

You seem to think that this violates the parents' rights. But the child is not an object, it is not property. There is a reason the government is the one to register names.

Right, and the name was legally registered, nine years ago. Just because some judge has a problem with it does not mean the parents did anything wrong.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

from the other thread:

Tell me the government of Singapore has some kind of medal it can award this guy's parents.

 

[Flow]

your asinine comparison between minors and gays

What I find asinine is your eagerness to support withholding rights and/or protection for another group despite knowing what it's like to be denied them yourself. What's more, your arguments all lead back to either it being the status quo, or the other group somehow lacking the mental capacity to deserve those rights - both are arguments that gays have faced themselves.

People don't believe in general children should have the same rights as adults. You might think in this case it's appropriate, I don't.

In this case I'm not even saying that the children should have the same adult rights. I'm saying that because they're denied those rights which would normally allow them to protect themselves, the government has a responsibility to protect them instead.

Even though I will concede the line for determining an age of majority is arbitrary and could be more nuanced and even lowered

Right.

Except the girl is NINE. Obviously the name got through and she's survived.

I'm not sure if you really mean what you're saying here, but just because someone has endured (according to the article, she's not pleased with the name) doesn't mean that they should be made to continue to do so.

Right, and the name was legally registered, nine years ago. Just because some judge has a problem with it does not mean the parents did anything wrong.

Bureaucracy makes mistakes, things slip through that should not have. If you're accepting that the government should screen names, and that it does have a responsibility to protect children from irresponsible parents, then really we're down to arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Gaborn]

What I find asinine is your eagerness to support withholding rights and/or protection for another group despite knowing what it's like to be denied them yourself. What's more, your arguments all lead back to either it being the status quo, or the other group somehow lacking the mental capacity to deserve those rights - both are arguments that gays have faced themselves.

You're right, I accept an age of majority. Wow, I'm a terrible bigot.

In this case I'm not even saying that the children should have the same adult rights. I'm saying that because they're denied those rights which would normally allow them to protect themselves, the government has a responsibility to protect them instead.

But why NOW? One judge had a problem with it, obviously for 9 years New Zealand didn't care about the situation, and then one judge got in in his head he didn't like a kid's name. That's a terrible precedent to start setting especially after such a length of time.

I'm not sure if you really mean what you're saying here, but just because someone has endured (according to the article, she's not pleased with the name) doesn't mean that they should be made to continue to do so.

Lots of people go through life with names they'd rather forget, often because it's a family name (I knew a guy named Hilary for example. Yeah... got beat up a lot). Even sometimes people will "hide" an embarrassing name in their middle name. It's just a part of life, her friends probably know her more as Talula, and that should be enough for them (the "K" reference is just bizarre, I can't imagine a teacher on the first day of a new year using it). When she turned 18 she could've changed her name on her own, until then it's not hard to have people call her something else.

Bureaucracy makes mistakes, things slip through that should not have. If you're accepting that the government should screen names, and that it does have a responsibility to protect children from irresponsible parents, then really we're down to arguing for the sake of arguing.

Not at all, what I'm saying is that there are reasonable methods for correcting a name and forcing parents to give up the child to the state to be renamed (rather than something more nuanced, say, forcing them to pick a new name and go through the process again?) seems excessive to me.

 

[Flow]

But why NOW? One judge had a problem with it, obviously for 9 years New Zealand didn't care about the situation, and then one judge got in in his head he didn't like a kid's name. That's a terrible precedent to start setting especially after such a length of time.

The terrible precedent is nothing was done sooner. But I'm glad it was done at all.

Not at all, what I'm saying is that there are reasonable methods for correcting a name and forcing parents to give up the child to the state to be renamed (rather than something more nuanced, say, forcing them to pick a new name and go through the process again?) seems excessive to me.

I agree completely.

 

[Gaborn]

I agree completely.

Then you agree the judge totally overstepped? The big problem here, the HUGE problem is that New Zealand took the children and renamed them against the parents will. You don't do that, you should NEVER do that. If the judge (after NINE YEARS) has a problem with the name he should've done no more than ask them to choose a different name for her, and if they refused then he'd back up his government powers like all government fools do, with the force his office implies.

 

[Flow]

Then you agree the judge totally overstepped? The big problem here, the HUGE problem is that New Zealand took the children and renamed them against the parents will. You don't do that, you should NEVER do that. If the judge (after NINE YEARS) has a problem with the name he should've done no more than ask them to choose a different name for her, and if they refused then he'd back up his government powers like all government fools do, with the force his office implies.

The circumstances of the child being taken were a bit more nuanced than her name. But if the name were the sole reason why the judge took custody of the child (and it's likely there were other reasons, custody battles have a way of providing those) then yes, that was overkill.

Like you suggested, there should be a way for the government to order the parents to simply pick a new name, if there is not already.

 

[Kusagari]

Don't. Be. Retarded. It is NOT child abuse, ridiculing someone is abuse. Like me calling you a retard. (Don't kill me).

You have no idea what child abuse is. It IS child abuse. If a kid is named fucking Sex Fruit it will impair his learning ability because he'll be treated like a joke his entire life. Also a kid having that name at nine and then later on as a teenager will make it even worse. Chances are they'll commit suicide by 15.

 

[Flow]

Now that we're all in happy agreement, can we go back to voting on nyong's new name?

 

[ScientificNinja]

Except in cases of physical abuse, I am against the idea of the government being able to regulate how we raise our children. First we can't spank them, then we can't given them certain names, then we can't teach them certain things, next we probably won't be able to feed them certain foods or whatever.

As stupid as some of these kids' names are, it's ultimately not for any of us to judge. It's not our kid, and it's not happening to us. I'd like to think the parents always have the child's best interests at heart. The only tragedy here is that the child is a reflection of how idiotic the parents are.