SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Jan 15 2009 01:40 pm

While I understand that it sets a bad precident, I think it's terrible to claim that this wasn't unfit conditions for the children and there lives weren't going to be slowly (or quickly) ruined by living there

Syd Lexia wrote:

Also, your parents do not dictate who you are. Look at the two sons of President Reagan, Michael and Ron. Michael Reagan is a conservative icon who wholeheartedly embraced his father's teachings; Ron is a joke.

Is this meant as an intelligent argument? Would you like to explain WHY Ron is a joke?

Posted: Jan 15 2009 01:47 pm

Kids live are going to be "ruined" living in lots of places. We can't simply start taking kids away from their parents because society deems the parents too ignorant, too racist, or too poor to raise their own children.

Posted: Jan 15 2009 01:48 pm

Would the world be better if we could? This is also a relatively severe case.

And no one takes away kids for being too poor, they just give them our tax money

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Syd Lexia wrote:

Kids live are going to be "ruined" living in lots of places. We can't simply start taking kids away from their parents because society deems the parents too ignorant, too racist, or too poor to raise their own children.

Yes they are, that is why we have social workers and foster homes.

Syd, you know damn well that those kids are going to be little terrorists if they continue down the path they are on. The choice to be fucktards should be theirs and not their parents.

Joined: Sep 17 2007 Location: The Opium Trail Posts: 3475

GPFontaine wrote:

Syd, you know damn well that those kids are going to be little terrorists if they continue down the path they are on. The choice to be fucktards should be theirs and not their parents.

Fucking how? All you know about is their name! You don't know how they were being raised. The fact that people here are passing judgement over these parents because of simple names is frightening to me.

HEIL HITLA!

Joined: Jun 20 2008 Location: Michigan Posts: 802

SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL!

No... just no.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

Would you like to explain WHY Ron is a joke?

Well, he was into ballet as a youth, that certainly does seem like a joke. Wink

Seriously though, I think Syd is referring more to him living up to the legacy of Reagan and what the name represents. Michael may be adopted, but his beliefs and personality are waaaaay more similar to Reagan than Ron. Ron seems like a totally different type of person.

Back on topic (somewhat), were you ever on a debate team Syd? The devil's advocate position you're taking here (which is defensible in terms of individual liberties), makes it seem like you have that sort of experience.

Posted: Jan 15 2009 02:14 pm

You know I kinda forgot or never really realized Ron being Ronald Reagan's son. Read up on him a little since he has been mentioned, seems like a decent guy. Now I don't know a lot about him, but then again I'm not a big Reagan fan either. I do like how he came out against Bush and his regime, even going into how though an extension of his father's work in the 80's that it is far over reaching. I don't know if that is exactly how it is or isn't, but I also like that it seems he is his own person, not following his father. I too am very much nothing like my father, who is quite the bastard for any number of reasons that regardless of your political or social views you would agree, but I digress.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

JRA wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

Syd, you know damn well that those kids are going to be little terrorists if they continue down the path they are on. The choice to be fucktards should be theirs and not their parents.

Fucking how? All you know about is their name! You don't know how they were being raised. The fact that people here are passing judgement over these parents because of simple names is frightening to me.

HEIL HITLA!

I could give two fucks about the names. It is the other things that matter. Read the articles and you will see it isn't limited to the names.

Posted: Jan 15 2009 02:36 pm

Cattivo wrote:

Seriously though, I think Syd is referring more to him living up to the legacy of Reagan and what the name represents. Michael may be adopted, but his beliefs and personality are waaaaay more similar to Reagan than Ron. Ron seems like a totally different type of person.

Indeed. He is not a terrible guy, and his eulogy of his father was actually quite good. I thought I recalled him making some sarcastic comments about his father on I Love The 80s, but IMDB doesn't list him as having appeared on any incarnation of it.

As for debate team, my high school, to my knowledge, did not have one, and I never pursued the endeavour in the college I attended that did have one, as I didn't want to compete against private school graduates who already four years of experience over me. I wish I would have had an opportunity to get into debate, because my oratory skills are not quite as sharp as my writing skills.

Posted: Jan 15 2009 02:39 pm

GPFontaine wrote:

I could give two fucks about the names. It is the other things that matter. Read the articles and you will see it isn't limited to the names.

Um... what other things?

From the article: "No reason was given for why the children were removed, however, and Holland Township police chief David Van Gilson told the site they had not received any reports of abuse or negligence."

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Syd Lexia wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

I could give two fucks about the names. It is the other things that matter. Read the articles and you will see it isn't limited to the names.

Um... what other things?

From the article: "No reason was given for why the children were removed, however, and Holland Township police chief David Van Gilson told the site they had not received any reports of abuse or negligence."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/13/2009-01-13_report_child_named_adolf_hitler_removed_.html

Quote:

However, Heath reportedly denies the Holocaust and their home is decorated with swastikas.

Posted: Jan 15 2009 02:55 pm

So you're saying we should persecute people for their personal beliefs?

I wish I could think of an ironic historical example of someone else who did that...

Posted: Jan 15 2009 03:19 pm

While I could sit here and discuss the supression of free speech, the boundary overstepping of the government by taking away the kids for something that's not technically illegal, or on the other side of the fence, irrational, stupid hatred in the form of racism, I have another spin to put on it that I find equally as despicable.

I live in the deep south. I find my politics running center, but leaning more in agreement to the left, which means I'm in a minority in the middle of the Bible Belt. I've heard no less than three people on talk radio today say that if a name is an objectionable offense, aka this Adolf Hitler kid, then why are we putting into office a man named Barack Hussein Obama?

I'd love to combat ignorance, but unless I develop mutant powers (and believe me, I've tried, but developing melanoma instead of heat vision after rolling in the toxic waste dump) I don't think it'll ever be solved.

Now, I don't think it was right of the government to flat out take the children away, and I don't feel like it's right that you apparently can't name your child whatever the hell you want (Hollywood children and parents are in trouble if that becomes a precident), there should be some common sense in these matters. I can totally see the child abuse angle, not from the name itself, but from those who'd be offended by it.

Or, how many other kids are going to beat the shit out of an Adolf Hitler come middle school? And this is directly the parent's fault.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Syd Lexia wrote:

So you're saying we should persecute people for their personal beliefs?

I wish I could think of an ironic historical example of someone else who did that...

I am all for everyone having their own beliefs as long as they don't preach violence, hatred, and intolerance.

Those negative types of speech lead to physical violence, segregation, and destruction. The right to free speech is everyone's right as long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of others. And I would argue that a room decorated with Swastikas in a house where the children are named after Nazi shit is enough proof that the rights of those children were being violated.

The pure free speech people will argue that you can't have the freedom for the good without the bad... I guess I'm anti-American then. I think people who preach hatred should lose the right to open their fucking mouths, especially to children.

Is this a soar spot for me? Yes. Yes it is.

My family survived the pogroms by escaping to America. My wife's family survived concentration camps by escaping to America. I had to deal with antisemitism on my high school sports team.

This type of thing is definitely on my list of shit to argue about.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Holocaust denial, while incredibly stupid, is not illegal (unless you live in Germany).

Syd Lexia wrote:

As for debate team, my high school, to my knowledge, did not have one, and I never pursued the endeavour in the college I attended that did have one, as I didn't want to compete against private school graduates who already four years of experience over me. I wish I would have had an opportunity to get into debate, because my oratory skills are not quite as sharp as my writing skills.

Exact same situation for me, on all counts.

Posted: Jan 15 2009 03:41 pm

GPFontaine wrote:

Syd Lexia wrote:

So you're saying we should persecute people for their personal beliefs?

I wish I could think of an ironic historical example of someone else who did that...

I am all for everyone having their own beliefs as long as they don't preach violence, hatred, and intolerance.
.

So you're saying we shouldn't tolerate intolerance? Have these parents been convicted of any violent crimes in the past? Appalling ideals doesn't necessarily mean they act out violently towards others. They are horrible people, no doubt, but I am a take the good with the bad when it comes to freedom of speech.

There are a lot of religions that oppress women. Are you saying those people shouldn't be allowed their right to freedom of religion? You think the war on Iraq was justified then?

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Burt Reynolds wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

Syd Lexia wrote:

So you're saying we should persecute people for their personal beliefs?

I wish I could think of an ironic historical example of someone else who did that...

I am all for everyone having their own beliefs as long as they don't preach violence, hatred, and intolerance.
.

So you're saying we shouldn't tolerate intolerance? Have these parents been convicted of any violent crimes in the past? Appalling ideals doesn't necessarily mean they act out violently towards others. They are horrible people, no doubt, but I am a take the good with the bad when it comes to freedom of speech.

There are a lot of religions that oppress women. Are you saying those people shouldn't be allowed their right to freedom of religion? You think the war on Iraq was justified then?

Too many issues to handle quickly in a post. But to sum it up, I don't think that a violent act is the point where violence begins.

As for religious oppression, I am against it, even within my own religion. Orthodox Jews believe that the men and women are not equal in several ways, I would say they are full of shit.

As far as foreign policy is concerned... I do think we should be intervening sometimes, but we shouldn't be right now. We have too many domestic issues to worry about how fucked up things are in other countries. Once we fix ourselves, then focusing on helping the oppressed world out seems like a good idea.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

GPFontaine wrote:

But to sum it up, I don't think that a violent act is the point where violence begins.

So, I'm guessing you really liked the movie, Minority Report?

GPFontaine wrote:

Once we fix ourselves, then focusing on helping the oppressed world out seems like a good idea.

We'll always have problems, which means, we would always be putting off helping others. Politics aside, that attitude is way too selfish.

The same argument has been made regarding space travel, ignoring the benefits that could be gained from researching the appropriate means, and the knowledge and resources we can find elsewhere. This also ignores how civilizations have historically multitasked - what would have happened if Europe never bothered with the New World, and decided to "get everything straight at home first"? The Eastern Hemisphere might have not even discovered the western hemisphere by now.

Posted: Jan 15 2009 05:43 pm

I've been lurking for a while now (big fan), but had to throw in my two cents here.

I'm rather with Syd on the personal freedom thing. For better or worse our laws allow us the right to be dicks to other people, including our kids, unless there is serious, active abuse going on. And as distasteful and nasty as it is, giving your kid a name like that and surrounding them with Nazi shit doesn't quite qualify in my book (although, from what the article says, its sure skirting the borderline.)

One thing we should take into consideration though is that this story got the attention of CPS and started an investigation--which would be quite reasonable imho. While they can't take the children away just because the parents are (literal) Nazis, it could be that their investigation turned up more serious signs of abuse (which I doubt would shock any of us here), and that THAT warranted taking them into custody. That's my best guess as to what happened.

Posted: Jan 15 2009 06:08 pm

GP, So you think that Orthodox Jews should have their children taken away?

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Burt Reynolds wrote:

GP, So you think that Orthodox Jews should have their children taken away?

I think what you are asking me is how does one draw "the line" between acceptable and unacceptable?

I'll do my best to clarify, but I think on paper it is easy to defeat my argument, but perhaps in spirit it carries more weight.

I think that anyone who teaches their children that hatred, violence, and intolerance are expected values should have their children taken away until they have proper counseling and understand why what they are doing is wrong. This is ONLY in the US.

I do not think that Orthodox Jews should have their children taken away unless they preach the things discussed in the previous paragraph. In America, Orthodox Jewish women are only oppressed within religious activities (as far as I know). Also there are different divorce laws within the religious group. None of these things hold up in a court of law, but the communities would shun women who didn't act in certain ways. I hope I kinda explained it a little better.

Posted: Jan 16 2009 02:04 am

dont they say 'it takes a village to raise a child'

Posted: Jan 16 2009 09:08 am

username wrote:

dont they say 'it takes a village to raise a child'

No, but they say a chicken in the hand is worth two in the coop.

Posted: Jan 17 2009 07:41 pm

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

username wrote:

dont they say 'it takes a village to raise a child'

No, but they say a chicken in the hand is worth two in the coop.

that sounds like something a pornstar would say