My Irony Meter Just Disintergrated

[chozo_hybrid]

If the abuse thing there really is the case etc, then he may lose them. But like you have said and I agree, if he has done nothing wrong/illegal, then nobody has the right to take his kids from him.

I'm conflicted about this. Even if there was no abuse, these children would be much better off with a quick name change and foster care. Some people shouldn't be raising children.

I know, I am conflicted, but very few have the right to take a child away from their parents. If the law says he gets to keep them, then that's how it is, freedom of choice/beleif etc is a big thing in America, to deny someone their right to it and their family and its values (as horrid as we think they are) would go against the basic rights of people in the US. Deny it because we don't like it is what it kind of boils down to...

It makes my skin crawl to defend it, but I feel it has to be said. This is from someone outside the US though, so I may miss something.

 

[Caiphus]

If the abuse thing there really is the case etc, then he may lose them. But like you have said and I agree, if he has done nothing wrong/illegal, then nobody has the right to take his kids from him.

I'm conflicted about this. Even if there was no abuse, these children would be much better off with a quick name change and foster care. Some people shouldn't be raising children.

I know, I am conflicted, but very few have the right to take a child away from their parents. If the law says he gets to keep them, then that's how it is, freedom of choice/beleif etc is a big thing in America, to deny someone their right to it and their family and its values (as horrid as we think they are) would go against the basic rights of people in the US. Deny it because we don't like it is what it kind of boils down to...

It makes my skin crawl to defend it, but I feel it has to be said. This is from someone outside the US though, so I may miss something.

I just checked your profile, and, yay, another New Zealander.

Freedom of choice and belief is one thing. In this case though, I care very little about the possible hurt feelings of the parents. If they were
a) Not prepared to question their own stupid beliefs when it caused them no small amount of ridicule and the loss of their children and;
b) convinced that the most famous perpetrator of genocide in history is a good namesake for their children

Then they shouldn't be raising children. It's a shame that they might lose their kids, but it's also a shame that they decided to have kids. And again I don't really care about how they feel. I care about how the kids feel, and they will be much better off without their biological parents.

And there you have my opinion.

Anyway, I'm only twenty. Maybe if I ever have children I will think differently about this.

 

[ShipofFools]

Sometimes the world is damn funny, in a horrible kind of way.

How can you not laugh at this?
Oh right, the children...

pffff....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Playful Pony]

"JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell"

Oh for the love of fucking GOD.

A first I laughed, but then I remembered some poor girl actually has this name!

Please, somebody PLEASE rename those kids! The amounts of beatings they will recieve in school simply cannot be expressed in words... I never thought I'd say this without a hint of sarcasm, but SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

 

[Joccaren]

I agree with him that if the judges are good people that they will not be phased by his Nazi uniform, and look at him as a person. Yeah, its kinda ironic, but IDC. Its still true.

As to whether he should be allowed to raise his kids like that?
No. Their names should be changed to names that will not earn them the ire of half the world's population, or offend a rather significant number of people.
If he were to try and enforce aryan ideals upon his children, and have them adopt the Nazi doctrine, then someone should step in, but from what has been said in the OP of this thread [Don't click secondary links when I'm meant to be studying sorry] that may or may not be the case.

Basically, yes, judge him as a person and not by the uniform he chooses to wear. If he's also a bad person, then punish him, but his statement is correct - he should be judged by who he is inside, not what he looks like outside.

 

[repeating integers]

I'll tell you what makes my irony meter disintegrate - the comments on this article [http://twitchy.com/2013/06/02/the-straw-man-is-strong-in-this-one/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter].

The level of idiocy and blind adherence to talking points on the Left is frightening. I dare any of them to try and have an independent thought.

Pffffff

They simply do not believe in the Constitution. They view it as an archaic relic, best discarded for the sake of the greater good. In fact, I wish more of them would just come out and say that, so we could finally have an honest debate.

Pffffff

Wish I could have all my opinions and values formed by emotion and not logic and reason. Imagine how much easier life would be.

PffffffHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ahhhh, American politics.

Anyway, yes - why do you expect intelligence and basic cognition from a Neo-Nazi? This guy is clearly far too stupid and self-centred to see the irony of his situation - but that's not surprising at all, considering that he named his son Adolf Hitler.

 

[Garen Truscott]

"We've looked within you past the Nazi regalia and seen that you are a man with terrible judgement."

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Snip.

Aye, I hail from Wellington

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your thoughts completely, I also didn't consider the name thing in itself as a kind of abuse as you made me realize. A child has to live with the name given to them, at least until they pay to change it.

I think your point on caring about how the kids themselves feel is a great one, I guess I find myself torn between two ideals. Their rights under the law and removing their kids possibly being a breach of that, and the kids well being as a result of growing up under the ways their parents teach them, only to have harm brought to them due to that... On the other hand, part of this also seems to be a case of "We don't like/agree with it, that makes it wrong." it's just that the subject matter here, the whole Nazi thing, is considered almost universally evil.

Trouble is, if started at a young enough age, the children will believe what their parents teach over many other things. They have that kind of power and influence over their children, like all parents.

[small]I'm not the best at wording things so I hope I'm making sense.[/small]

 

[Edhellen]

To play Devil's Advocate for a moment: Is it really right to take kids away from their parents due to the parent's beliefs?

What this ultimately amounts to is the government using its power to prevent an ideology from being instilled into the younger generation. In this particular case, we have a strong consensus that the ideology being discriminated against is vile and wrong. But would it be so right for the state to use this power in cases where the consensus is not so strong?

How would you feel if, say, atheists were declared unfit to raise children and had their kids taken away to be raised in god-fearing, Christian households?

 

[Madgamer13]

From looking at the various links supplied in this thread, I think the issue is less about this man's nazi beliefs, but moreso with the fine details of his care for his children. Notice a history of abuse in this case and how authorities found the children when they investigated him.

We really should read further into the details than just 'neo-nazi has children taken away for belief' I know demonising the judicial and social care systems as some sort of regime can suit many of us in some prideful way, but there are some people in this particular case that do not have a say in their treatment. I'd rather see the children involved being handled by a system that absolutely will not, by law, mistreat them.

If there is serious doubt that this man and his wife cannot care for their children, regardless for belief, then this case must be heard.

 

[Caiphus]

Aye, I hail from Wellington

On the other hand, part of this also seems to be a case of "We don't like/agree with it, that makes it wrong." it's just that the subject matter here, the whole Nazi thing, is considered almost universally evil.

Trouble is, if started at a young enough age, the children will believe what their parents teach over many other things. They have that kind of power and influence over their children, like all parents.

[small]I'm not the best at wording things so I hope I'm making sense.[/small]

Very nice, I grew up in Wellington before my dad's work moved us around. My mother's family is Italian, and there's a lot of them down there.

In any case, sure. As the man above me pointed out, there are probably a lot of people who think atheists shouldn't raise kids. You can't take kids away because you disagree with the parents.

So it's always going to be difficult to work something out like this. I don't think you could make a law for it, you'd have to work through it on a case-by-case basis.

A more analogous case would be the one of that extreme right-wing raised kid who made the news a few months ago singing about how all "fags are going to hell" or something. I don't know if this is the same kid but:


It's just so tragic that this poor boy has been brought up like this. This kid hasn't been taken from his parents. Maybe he shouldn't be, it's much closer to the borderline than the Nazi family in this thread. I still wouldn't be totally against having the kid moved into foster care though, just because, well look at him for goodness' sake.

EDIT:

Universal Declaration of Rights of the Child:

Article 10:
The child shall be protected from practices which may foster racial, religious and any other form of discrimination . He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men.

However:
Article 6:
The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding . He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents , and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security; a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances , be separated from his mother. Society and the public authorities shall have the duty to extend particular care to children without a family and to those without adequate means of support. Payment of State and other assistance towards the maintenance of children of large families is desirable.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Snip.

Yeah, a case by case example is the only way it could be done.

That video was hard to watch, because I know what that church is like through a lot of what I have read and seen about them, but to actually see a child, acting the way he did. Wow.

I would have to say you make a convincing argument for that side of it, and like I said earlier. I see both sides, all I know is, I will never be like that to any kids I eventually have.

 

[Caiphus]

Snip.

Yeah, a case by case example is the only way it could be done.

That video was hard to watch, because I know what that church is like through a lot of what I have read and seen about them, but to actually see a child, acting the way he did. Wow.

I would have to say you make a convincing argument for that side of it, and like I said earlier. I see both sides, all I know is, I will never be like that to any kids I eventually have.

And that's, frankly, all you can do unless you're a legislator or a judge in the US.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

I bet this is the same guy who made a stink about how a bakery wouldn't write his son's name his birthday cake a few years back.

"If they're good judges and they're good people, they'll look within, not what's on the outside."

Spoiler: I do love it when you can make a rebuttal with a single image

How do these people not join the dots? It could be an example used in 'logical contradictions 101'.

Oh god... that was beautiful,

and the irony wasn't bad either.
see what I did there?

It is that same guy, it mentions it in the article. Why have the kids names not been changed.... Aryan Nation as a middle name...

 

[Hawk of Battle]

Aren't there laws to protect kids being named things that might cause them to be abused, mistreated or otherwise ostracised years later? I thought that was a thing? And if not, why not?

At the very least he should be forced to change their names.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Aren't there laws to protect kids being named things that might cause them to be abused, mistreated or otherwise ostracised years later? I thought that was a thing? And if not, why not?

At the very least he should be forced to change their names.

I should bloody well hope so.

How was the child even allowed to leave the hospital with a name like that is beyond me.

 

[CrystalShadow]

As to whether he should be allowed to raise his kids like that?
No. Their names should be changed to names that will not earn them the ire of half the world's population, or offend a rather significant number of people.

There's nothing wrong with being called Adolf really, (but... You know, association and all), but if he's really called one of his children 'Adolf Hitler', then he's clearly asking for trouble.

Incedentally, one of my primary school teachers was called Dolf, which is a close variant of Adolf. It's still a common name in certain countries, despite it's historical implications these days.

Also unfortunate that the 'hitler moustache' was actually made popular by Charlie Chaplin... One bad person can ruin a lot of things...

 

[Joccaren]

There's nothing wrong with being called Adolf really, (but... You know, association and all), but if he's really called one of his children 'Adolf Hitler', then he's clearly asking for trouble.

Incedentally, one of my primary school teachers was called Dolf, which is a close variant of Adolf. It's still a common name in certain countries, despite it's historical implications these days.

Also unfortunate that the 'hitler moustache' was actually made popular by Charlie Chaplin... One bad person can ruin a lot of things...

Oh, of course. I have nothing against the name Adolf. Its the fact that he's put the Hitler on the end of it that messes it up. Adolf on its own? Fine. Hitler on its own? Should be fine, though some might take offence. Adolf Hitler? Yeah... No.

 

[Thaluikhain]

To play Devil's Advocate for a moment: Is it really right to take kids away from their parents due to the parent's beliefs?

What this ultimately amounts to is the government using its power to prevent an ideology from being instilled into the younger generation. In this particular case, we have a strong consensus that the ideology being discriminated against is vile and wrong. But would it be so right for the state to use this power in cases where the consensus is not so strong?

How would you feel if, say, atheists were declared unfit to raise children and had their kids taken away to be raised in god-fearing, Christian households?

Surely they aren't being taken away for their beliefs, but what they've done to the kids?

Imagine what kind of shitty life you would have had if your parents had named you "Mengele was a top bloke".

 

[MrMan999]

I'm conflicted on this. One one hand, he is a colossial idiot. On the other hand. None of what he's done so far is illegal, he has the right to name his kids what he wants and he has a right to wear a nazi uniform. I genuinely hope the kids are able to have a normal life after all this is through.