’)Morons in the news…
The mother of a 3-year-old named Adolf Hitler has broken a court-ordered silence, saying she and her husband would never abuse their Nazi-named son or daughters.
‘My husband and I would never abuse our children, and he would never harm anybody,’ Deborah Campbell told the Express Times of Easton, Pa.
On Jan. 9, the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services took away Adolf Hitler and his sisters JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, 23 months, and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell, 9 months, from their Holland Township, N.J., home.
I think they made a terrible choice in names. Whatever their political beliefs, they’re stupid or delusional if they think being named Adolf Hitler Campbell isn’t going to cause their child problems as he grows. IMHO, a loving parent would not intentionally do something they know is going to cause problems for their child.
But, they do have the right to name their child what they want. And the child will have the right to get it legally changed if he wants.
In the meantime, their landlord wants to evict them and their children are taken because someone alleges child and spousal abuse. I suspect there are folks out there who don’t think they should be free to name their child as they wish.
LOL Republicans.
Actually, according to the FEC, no Heath Campbell in NJ made any tracked donations to any politcal thingys, and the only two Deborah Campbells from NJ to make a donation were to the DNC and to Obama’s campaign. Of course, they’re not the same Deborah Campbell as this one so it’s actually moot. I’m curious where you got their party affiliation Jaim? I’ve never been able to find a freely accessible party registration database.
I’m curious where you got their party affiliation Jaim?
We’ve been thru this already. The Hitler dude was bitching about Welfare Queens and States’ Rights and “The Queers” and “Wetbacks” and “Non-English Speakers” and Politically Correctness” and George Soros’s background if you know what I mean (and of course you do). You should get out more SFC B. Maybe head up to rural Idaho for a spell. You might find some like-minded folks there. Maybe you could form some sort of club or something.
ed: We’ve been thru this already. The Hitler dude was bitching about _____ and _____ and _____ and _____ and _____ and _____ and ____.
None of which answers the question “How do you know he’s a registered Republican?”
None of which answers the question “How do you know he’s a registered Republican?”
Riiiiggggghhhttttt. Suuuuurrrrrreeee it doesn’t. {wink wink}. Uh-huh. Nothing to see here. No siree.
Oh, wait. Registered. Yeah, well, maybe not registered. Officially.
Why do we only hear about the atrocities committed by the Germans but very little about the mass exterminations committed by the Soviets.
Would anyone care if the child was called Lazar Kaganovich? Of course not because the media hides the Soviet crimes.
Another piont is that Hitler is the childs middle name. How many people do you know use their middle name? Does Obama use his middle name often?
Either way, DYFS is just plain evil for what they do, and they act like Soviets. Do the Campbells lose their children on rumor, or random complaints? Or by people with a grudge? Do they get to see their accusors?
Either way welcome to Soviet America where anonymous calls to DYFYS get’s your children taken away.
ed: Riiiiggggghhhttttt. Suuuuurrrrrreeee it doesn’t. {wink wink}. Uh-huh. Nothing to see here. No siree.
Oh, wait. Registered. Yeah, well, maybe not registered. Officially.
Ah, I see. We’re to determine what party someone clearly must belong to based not on, you know, actually checking and providing facts but instead on what someone just thinks they must belong to based on how they act.
So lemme see here. ed makes a claim, refuses to provide any supporting evidence for it, still insists says he knows what is true (“wink, wink”) and then when he realizes he’s wrong says that doesn’t matter anyway.
ed, clearly you are a Republican!
ed, clearly you are a Republican!
Riiiiggggghhhttttt. Suuuuurrrrrreeee I am. {wink wink}. Uh-huh.
LOL Republicans. Part deux.
“Another piont that Hitler is the child’s only name. How many people do you know use their middle name?”
I’m with you that the middle name bestowed upon the child by his parents is not reason enough to take him away from his parents, but are you actually suggesting here that the parents shouldn’t even be criticized AT ALL for this choice? That’s a pretty silly attitude, IMHO. Taken into account the rest of your post surrounding the above quote would you really not feel that parents who give their child the middle name “communism” deserve to be criticized for this decision?
“I’m with you that the middle name bestowed upon the child by his parents is not reason enough to take him away from his parents,”
I think if the name is sufficiently heinous should be grounds for charges of emotional abuse. What if you named your kid Unwanted?
“but are you actually suggesting here that the parents shouldn’t even be criticized AT ALL for this choice?”
Calling your kid Apple, Trig, or Moon Unit is reason for criticism. Calling your kid Adolf Hitler is reason for investigation. And I’m sure the investigation came up with a real reason to take away the kids.
Why is that a reason for the state to investigate someone?
And pray tell, who will be responsible for determining if a name is sufficiently heinous? To my knowledge no state in the US restricts what parents can name their children. Something about a First Amendment. Young Adolph’s parents are racist fucktwits, despite hopes of some, that alone doesn’t make them bad parents.
I’d said before in an earlier thread on this topic. Are poor people with unpopular opinions really a group which Democrats think should have their kids taken from?
Because the guy who hates the wetbacks was probably a huge McCain supporter.
Seriously though, if they are Republicans, does that make it alright for DYFS to take their kids because of their opinions? If that really the sort of precedent you want set?
CSS: Calling your kid Apple, Trig, or Moon Unit is reason for criticism. Calling your kid Adolf Hitler is reason for investigation.
It is? On what grounds? Who gets to decide? Would Genghis Kahn Martin not pass your smell test? Should you be subject to investigation solely because you named you kid Joseph Mengele Strowbridge?
Seriously, is that where you want to go?
SDN: ed, clearly you are a Republican!
ed: Riiiiggggghhhttttt. Suuuuurrrrrreeee I am. {wink wink}. Uh-huh.
My point exactly. Given what we know, it’s as accurate to say it about you as about Campbell. I.e., not at all.
The Republican party “knows pornography when we see it” but can’t spot psychological child abuse when it’s named Hitler.
This is an abuse of power period. Stupid parent does not equal child abuse. What would be the reaction here if a child was named joseph stalin walters? Governments change as does their ideological imprint. The parents are racist idiots, but to make a leap to emotional abuse means we may get to a point where any children of racist parents, whatever their name, may be removed because subjected to racism is a form of emotional abuse right?
My view on this is that this kid is not Adolph Hitler and has not actually DONE anything. Adolph Campbell might change his middle name to Klaus and grow to up cure cancer, eh? As has been pointed out above, it’s not the name – which is just a label – but the attitudes of the parents. But we’re not removing children named John or Jane from racist households, are we?
My point exactly. Given what we know, it’s as accurate to say it about you as about Campbell. I.e., not at all.
Wow dude, that’s heavy. What do you think my point was? Think hard. Don’t answer right away.
Jay–sus!!
You’ve got to be kidding me! Was this not one of the most evil men of all time. This poor child is going to be tormented throughout his life. Imagine learning of who Hitler really was and having your name as a reminder. What about when you apply for jobs and yoru name is why your resume ends up in the circular filing bin.
ed: What do you think my point was? Think hard.
OK, let’s review. We’ll take it in small steps so you can follow.
SFC B points out that there is nor record of political donations from the Campbells and asks “where [Jaim] got their party affiliation” as being Republican.
You reply with non-responsive “Well, they have a lot of right wing views so clearly they must be”-type comment.
I point out that nothing in your post answered the question asked.
You reply with Monty Python-esque “wink wink” drivel and an admission that they aren’t actually registered as Republicans and then a dismissal of that truth as irrelevant.
I point out that we’re to claim someone actually belongs to a particular group not because they actually do but only because we think they act like we think members of that group act, then by that standard you’re acting like a Republican.
To which you only reply with more “wink wink” nonsense.
So, no, I don’t get your point. Perhaps if you actually made one?
I TOLD YOU NOT TO ANSWER RIGHT AWAY!! Now take some time. Think hard! You can do it!
Look, we still don’t know all the facts about why they were removed from the home. I would certainly hope that DCF (as we call it here) would have a better reason than “they’re names are offensive to some.”
As Ed has pointed out, the father/sperm donor has some pretty caustic views that would indicate to me he’s pretty angry about stupid stuff. That could easily translate into spousal and/or child abuse.
Yeah, the kids should get their names changed. Not only do I blame the parents for making such head-banging errors in judgment, but I also blame the grandparents (the parents’ parents) for not taking a stand.
Nobody hate on Dolph Lundgren, now do they?
ed: I TOLD YOU NOT TO ANSWER RIGHT AWAY!! Now take some time. Think hard! You can do it!
Translation: Yeah. I got no point.
DAMMIT, COULD YOU WAIT AT LEAST A DAY (24 HOURS). IS THAT ASKING TOO MUCH? SHEESH.
(sorry for the CAPS, but you really need to learn how to follow instruction)
Me: “Calling your kid Adolf Hitler is reason for investigation.”
SFC B: “Why is that a reason for the state to investigate someone?”
Gee, I think I explained that. Not surprised you and Sean are too fucking stupid to understand.
IT IS EMOTIONAL ABUSE.
You are not allowed to emotionally abuse your kids.
Me: “I think if the name is sufficiently heinous should be grounds for charges of emotional abuse.”
SFC B: “And pray tell, who will be responsible for determining if a name is sufficiently heinous?”
If only there was a government agency in charge of protecting the rights of children. Oh wait, there is.
Fucking ‘tard.
“I’d said before in an earlier thread on this topic. Are poor people with unpopular opinions really a group which Democrats think should have their kids taken from?”
And as I’ve said before in an unrelated thread, you are a fucking liar.
No one is saying this. No one is even hinting at this.
You don’t know why the kids were taken away. For all you know, the father could be beating them.
But without facts, you are willing to defend him over the kids.
SFC B: “I’d said before in an earlier thread on this topic. Are poor people with unpopular opinions really a group which Democrats think should have their kids taken from?”
By the way, if I were to treat you the way you treat others, I would use your argument here to claim you don’t think the government should take away the children of abusive parents. Therefore, you must be abusing your kids. Therefore, you are raping your children.
This is typical of the lies you tell.
Are poor people with unpopular opinions really a group which Democrats think should have their kids taken from?
No.
Glad we cleared that up.
ed: IS THAT ASKING TOO MUCH?
Yes. Now how about you answer my question? Or is that asking too much.
CSS: Gee, I think I explained that. Not surprised you and Sean are too fucking stupid to understand.
IT IS EMOTIONAL ABUSE.
Which you seem to be quite familiar with.
But I repeat: Who gets to decide? Would Genghis Kahn Martin not pass your smell test? Should you be subject to investigation solely because you named you kid Joseph Mengele Strowbridge?
Now how about you answer my question?
Not until you learn how to follow instruction.
There, I answered. Happy now?
People?
Unless something has changed recently, we don’t know the basis for the complaint against the parents. If anyone has read somewhere that social services took the kids just because of the names they were given, I’d like to see that.
If anyone has read somewhere that social services took the kids just because of the names they were given, I’d like to see that.
THANK you. That’s what I’ve been saying since this started.
Qiab: Unless something has changed recently, we don’t know the basis for the complaint against the parents. If anyone has read somewhere that social services took the kids just because of the names they were given, I’d like to see that.
I don’t think anyone here has suggested that the child’s name is the reason the kids were taken. Well, CSS does think parental name choice is sufficient cause for an investigation. But even he didn’t say that is the reason the kids were taken.
But the closest anyone has come to suggesting that might be the case was probably me: “their children are taken because someone alleges child and spousal abuse. I suspect there are folks out there who don’t think they should be free to name their child as they wish.”
But I wasn’t suggesting the Child Services took them because someone complained about the name. Rather that who ever filed the abuse report might have actually been motivated by the name but knew that wouldn’t be considered a legitimate reason so made up a different complaint of abuse.
Rather that who ever filed the abuse report might have actually been motivated by the name but knew that wouldn’t be considered a legitimate reason so made up a different complaint of abuse.
What makes you think so?
QiaB: What makes you think so?
I’m not saying that is so. I was just noting the possibility that some folks (like their landlord and whoever filed the complaint) may feel the Campbells are fair game and it is OK to pile on them because of what they named their kid.
“In the meantime, their landlord wants to evict them and their children are taken because someone alleges child and spousal abuse. I suspect there are folks out there who don’t think they should be free to name their child as they wish.”
CSS graciously provided proof of the letter sentence.
“But I repeat: Who gets to decide?”
There are fucking government agencies set up to decide this shit.
“I don’t think anyone here has suggested that the child’s name is the reason the kids were taken. Well, CSS does think parental name choice is sufficient cause for an investigation. But even he didn’t say that is the reason the kids were taken.”
Yes. I think if you name your kid “Unwanted”, then you should be investigated for potential child abuse. I don’t think this is a controversial statement.
I’m not talking about unusual names. I’m talking about names that could cause the kid real problems later in life. Adolf Hitler qualifies. If a kid’s name is Adolf Hitler, he’s going to get his ass kicked at least once because of that. Unwanted is going to cause the kid emotional distress.
Parental rights are not absolute, because there are other human beings involved.
Sean: “Rather that who ever filed the abuse report might have actually been motivated by the name but knew that wouldn’t be considered a legitimate reason so made up a different complaint of abuse.”
Quaker in a Basement: “What makes you think so?”
I too would like to see what evidence he has to support that.
CSS: I too would like to see what evidence he has to support that.
I’d like to see where I actually said it was the case.
I was clear that I was speculating (“might have”). My speculation is based on familiarity with human nature.
CSS, so, naming your child something many consider evil or dumb is evidence of emotional abuse. What about parents who dress their children in ugly clothes? They’re exposing them to the possibility to ridiclue by their peers. That’s emotionally abusive. Should parents with poor fashion taste be at risk of having their kids taken away because they exposed them to such scarring abuse?
Heck, what about parents who send their children to religious schools where they learn about the possibility they might be facing an eternity of damnation if they’re not meeting some defition of “good”. How damaging could it be for a young child to have to face the possibilty of forever in Hell? Could that be a reason to take children from their parents? Could Michael Newdow get his ex-wife charged with child abuse because she takes their child to churh? Heck, could Michael Newbow face abuse charges because, in his campaign against religion, he’s exposed his child to harassment, to the point where she can’t stay with him?
“..in his campaign against religion,…”
I know this is OT, but I don’t want to let the above quote pass. Mr. Newdow is not leading a “campaign against religion” but a “campaign” in favor the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (which was violated when “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954).
SFC B: Heck, could Michael Newbow face abuse charges because, in his campaign against religion, he’s exposed his child to harassment, to the point where she can’t stay with him?
To join daniel in being off topic for a moment, regarding Michael Newbow I have to wonder who are all these wonderful folks who would harass a child for the father’s attempts to support the Constitution.
SFC B, would I be safe to assume that you support Newbow’s efforts since you “DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.” ??
SFC B says:…
Could you please stop lying about what I say? It is pointless to talk to you if you can’t be honest in this debate.
CSS: Could you please stop lying about what I say? It is pointless to talk to you if you can’t be honest in this debate.
SFC B has made a grand total of three posts to this thread and only refers to you in the latter two. In both of those he you’re quoted directly and then asked some questions. Where’s the lying about what you’re saying?
Or is this just your way of not having to answer? Claim the other guy is lying so you can make a hasty exit.
Sean: “SFC B has made a grand total of three posts to this thread…”
Surprisingly, this is not the first thread we’ve debated it.
SFC B called me racist in another thread, because I mentioned genocide as a reason for going into the former Yugoslavia. However, when I mentioned that, I failed to mention the unrelated genocide in Rwanda, so he said I didn’t think killing black people was worth stopping. This is clearly lying.
He’s doing the same thing here, only less extreme.
For instance, he said…
SFC B: “I’d said before in an earlier thread on this topic. Are poor people with unpopular opinions really a group which Democrats think should have their kids taken from?”
No one said this. No one even hinted at this.
He took what was said, twisted it (i.e. lied) and accused the other side (including me) of saying something we did not say.
Got it?
Sean: “I was clear that I was speculating (”might have”). My speculation is based on familiarity with human nature.”
So you are allowed to speculate without any direct evidence, but naming a kid Unwanted would not be enough to warrant further investigation.
That is a serious question, not a Cavuto. I want to make sure I have your position clear.
Also a serious question, do you not think being name Adolf Hitler is going to cause this child problems later in life? I can see him being beaten up as a direct result of this name.
CSS: So you are allowed to speculate without any direct evidence
Yeah, I am.
Look, human nature is such that when someone has been designated by the crowd as being outcast folks tend to feel it is okay to then further dump on them. When everyone points and says “We don’t want you in our neighborhood” someone will feel it’s okay to throw rocks through windows.
Have I got any direct evidence that whoever accused the Campbells of abuse really did it because they didn’t like what they’d named their kid? Of course not, and I never said otherwise. I speculated that it’s a possiblity.
CSS: That is a serious question, not a Cavuto [A what?? - SDM]. I want to make sure I have your position clear.
Also a serious question, do you not think being name Adolf Hitler is going to cause this child problems later in life? I can see him being beaten up as a direct result of this name.
Yes, I think it will. Obviously it already has. But I don’t think it’s something that alone should prompt and investigation of the parents.
CSS: “So you are allowed to speculate without any direct evidence…
Sean: “Yeah, I am.”
You are a liar.
You just cut a statement in half, and responded as if the second half didn’t exist. Therefore, your intent was to convey the impression the second half never exists. Therefore, you lied.
My question wasn’t whether or not you are allowed to speculate, it was whether were applying the similar burdens in similar situations.
CSS: “That is a serious question, not a Cavuto [A what?? - SDM].”
A Cavuto, named after Neil Cavuto of Fox News. It’s what you call it when someone asks a question not to gain information, but to make an accusation without being held accountable.
It’s another way of lying, or to be more specific, a way of setting up a lie, much like weasel words. (‘I didn’t actually say that, I was merely asking a question.’)
“Yes, I think it will. Obviously it already has. But I don’t think it’s something that alone should prompt and investigation of the parents.”
There we disagree.
The burden of evidence for starting an investigation like this is rather low, and it should be, because the consequences of investigating and finding nothing are far smaller than not investing when you should have.
CSS: You are a liar.
You just cut a statement in half, and responded as if the second half didn’t exist. Therefore, your intent was to convey the impression the second half never exists. Therefore, you lied.
Oh, please. This is a typical tactic when you find you’ve been caught on even a minor item. Claim the person is lying, that you were quoted out of context, that the person intended (I’m going to start keeping a record of the number of times you’ve told me what was in my mind. I just keep forgetting that you know what I’m thinking better than I am.) to give a false impression.
By your apparent standard I should call you a liar because you referred to the second “half” when it was actually 13 words of a 23 word sentence.
I quoted the relevant part. Your question as to whether I should be allowed to speculate without any direct evidence. My reply was specifically to that. That speculation, by definition, is done without direct evidence.