You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Child Services Strike Again
YES! You are the man jorge76. Louis C.K owns. Lucky Louie was the shit.
Yeah, Lucky Louie was awesome, but like most everything else I end up liking they stopped making it.
That bit was the first thing I thought of when I saw this story on the news.
Actually, I thought that, and Keanu Reeves from "Parenthood"- “You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they’ll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father.”
Re: Child Services Strike Again
Taking away children from their parents should not be done with 'probable cause.' They should know for sure that those kids are being abused before removing them from their home. If those parents are two loving parents and care for their kids and their kids' safety, then there is no way the children should be subjected to foster care. Especially with how young they are, it could mess them up even more.
This is bullshit as far as i'm concerned. Unless they have sound reasoning for doing what they did.
Re: Child Services Strike Again
Saikin wrote:This is bullshit as far as i'm concerned. Unless they have sound reasoning for doing what they did.
They named their kid "ADOLF HITLER".
Maybe its the jew in me, but I find this reason enough.
I find it reason enough too...
Re: Child Services Strike Again
Saikin wrote:This is bullshit as far as i'm concerned. Unless they have sound reasoning for doing what they did.
They named their kid "ADOLF HITLER".
Maybe its the jew in me, but I find this reason enough.
And your point is? Naming their child that does not mean they are horrible and abusive parents and their children need to be taken away. Unless they had sound proof the children were being abused, they had no right to break up that family.
I'd find it offensive if someone named their child Paris Hilton Campbell, but that doesn't mean the child needs to be taken away just because the person he/she was named after is an awful excuse for a human being. 
And i know it's a jump to compare Hitler and Paris, but the same principles apply. There will always be people in this world that hate other groups of people, by all accounts these parents fall in that category, but that doesn't make them unfit parents.
Re: Child Services Strike Again
Tommie wrote:Saikin wrote:This is bullshit as far as i'm concerned. Unless they have sound reasoning for doing what they did.
They named their kid "ADOLF HITLER".
Maybe its the jew in me, but I find this reason enough.
And your point is? Naming their child that does not mean they are horrible and abusive parents and their children need to be taken away. Unless they had sound proof the children were being abused, they had no right to break up that family.
I'd find it offensive if someone named their child Paris Hilton Campbell, but that doesn't mean the child needs to be taken away just because the person he/she was named after is an awful excuse for a human being.
And i know it's a jump to compare Hitler and Paris, but the same principles apply. There will always be people in this world that hate other groups of people, by all accounts these parents fall in that category, but that doesn't make them unfit parents.
And what's your point? these people with good intentions go into the child welfare business...and they're damned if they do and damned if the don't.
Imagine six years from now when the parents are given this kid a swastika (sp?) tatoo...and you'd be saying...where was child services?
or...six years from now they're perfectly normal...with wonderful social skills and socially stigmatized names...
You all have the benefit of hindsight bias and arm-chair quarterbacking up difficult decisions...I think erring on the side of caution in this case was the way to go...
Re: Child Services Strike Again
Saikin wrote:Tommie wrote:They named their kid "ADOLF HITLER".
Maybe its the jew in me, but I find this reason enough.
And your point is? Naming their child that does not mean they are horrible and abusive parents and their children need to be taken away. Unless they had sound proof the children were being abused, they had no right to break up that family.
I'd find it offensive if someone named their child Paris Hilton Campbell, but that doesn't mean the child needs to be taken away just because the person he/she was named after is an awful excuse for a human being.
And i know it's a jump to compare Hitler and Paris, but the same principles apply. There will always be people in this world that hate other groups of people, by all accounts these parents fall in that category, but that doesn't make them unfit parents.
And what's your point? these people with good intentions go into the child welfare business...and they're damned if they do and damned if the don't.
Imagine six years from now when the parents are given this kid a swastika (sp?) tatoo...and you'd be saying...where was child services?
or...six years from now they're perfectly normal...with wonderful social skills and socially stigmatized names...
You all have the benefit of hindsight bias and arm-chair quarterbacking up difficult decisions...I think erring on the side of caution in this case was the way to go...
Very good points so far.
What does it say about the parents state of mind when they name their kid Adolf Hitler? What kind of parenting skills do they have when they are already making the child an outcast?
Could these type of people be trusted to take care of their kind day in day out when they cant even name him correctly? And don't give me that shit about whats a bad name to me may not be a bad name to someone else. The only people who would enjoy having that name are neo-nazi's and antisemites.
It is more than a hop skip and a jump to compare Paris Hilton to Hitler. She may be annoying as all hell, but she was never responsible for a genocide.
