With all the crap names all the movie stars give their kids, you wonder if Child Protective Services would remove them from THEIR homes? Granted that naming your kids after Nazis is not exactly the most INTELLIGENT thing to do....but where do you draw the line? What if someone names their kid "Jihad"?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
That Nazi father looks so much like the hillbilly dad in The Simpsons. "Hay Brandine! Whut's for supper?"
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
It is ironic that a neo-Nazi type is claiming his civil rights are being violated. I mean try living in Nazi Germany and calling your kids Abraham and Moses and see where that gets you. Still, in a free country I don't think there should be any rules prohibiting what you can and cannot name your children. No matter how stupid, offensive or just plain weird.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Nim: His name is Cletus. Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokeeeeeeeeel!
Rev: What if you named your kid something truly offensive like "Fucking Jews Must Die"? Even if you claim free speech on that, the kid would still get the crap kicked out of him, so the courts would maybe want to deny that name on the basis of what's good for the child. So, I think there *is* a line, but defining it is a problem.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
That's exactly the problem. That and who gets to decide what's "acceptable" and what isn't. Very dodgy ground. Bottom line though; in a free country, you can't outlaw stupidity. As for anyone offended by a name (I include myself in this), I suggest they read a little Shakespeare, bite their tongue and deal with it.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Well, they did say that it wasn't the names that got the children taken away, but it was definately a warning sign. I can't imagine what kind of home life that could be where the parents would think 'Aryan Nation' is appropriate for a child's name.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Probably a warm loving one, but one that taught racist values instead of egalitarian ones.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
On the original topic, I move that, instead of calling fish "sea kittens", we call cats "land carp".
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I won't be going to your sushi restaurant then, you sack of wine.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Cats are "roof rabbit".
You know, someone should make a group called People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants and go around assualting PETA members by throwing wheatgrass smoothies on them while screaming Eating plants is murder!" We would, of course, need to be wearing all leather (possibly latex too) clothes for effect....maybe with fur trim.
Toss a smoothie right on that dim bim spokeswoman of theirs.
Here is a wacky website a casual Google search dredged up.
And Wiki has this tidbit:
quote:PETA was criticized in 2005 when police discovered that over the course of a month, at least 80 animals had been euthanized and left in area dumpsters. Two PETA employees approached a dumpster in a van registered to PETA and left behind 18 dead animals. Thirteen more were found inside the van. The animals had been euthanized by the PETA employees immediately after taking them from shelters in Northampton and Bertie counties.[98] In a 2005 column in the San Francisco Chronicle, PETA’s director of the Domestic Animals Issues stated that PETA began euthanizing animals in some rural North Carolina shelters by injection after it found that the shelters were killing unwanted animals with rifles and dilapidated gas chambers, both of which they claim are inhumane ways to kill animals.[99] Officials from both counties said they were under the impression that the animals would be euthanized only if a home could not be found for them, and after being fully evaluated by a veterinarian. Both counties suspended their agreements with PETA after the incident.
Man, what's the world coming to when even the fanatics are total hypocrites.
PETA says that even if animal testing led to a cure to AIDS they'd be against it. I'd bet real money that if admitted to an emergency room with trauma no PETA member would refrain from painkilers (despite their having been extensivly tested on animals).
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Why give them the choice? Ask "are you a PETA member?" and if they say yes don't give them drugs that have been tested on animals. Make sure you do it eating some veal and wearing leather trousers and a fir jacket. Then euthenise them.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: Why give them the choice? Ask "are you a PETA member?" and if they say yes don't give them drugs that have been tested on animals. Make sure you do it eating some veal and wearing leather trousers and a fir jacket. Then euthenise them.
Better yet, tell them that they will be achieving their highest goal. A lab test animal would be released and they would become the substitute test subject. Seriously I know that there are some real jerks out there who actually NEED to be stopped from doing cruel things simply because they can. But these people are now drinking too deeply of the Kool-aid.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...a fir jacket."
That sounds painful. The splinters alone...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
For example, would a PETA member refuse the medication Humeria if they developed Ruhamatoid arthritis (Humeria being derived from mouse hormones)?
I'd bet "no" in almost all cases.
It's sooo easy for people to be high and mighty if it only affects someone else.