It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US court denies parents custody of Hitler and sisters

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sheol
 

reply to post by Sheol
 


Where is your cry for people naming their kids John, Thomas or George? See hypocrisy won't help you anyway.

Tomorrow I will ask everyone I see what they think of when I say the above names. I will then do the same with the name Adolf.

I'll also maybe ask people I meet who they would have most likely picked on when they were at school, the kid called John Evans or the kid called Adolf Hitler.




posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizen smith

Originally posted by and14263
It's a horrible thing to say but I guess these people should be vetted or something right wing like that!


You need a licence to prove you are fit to own a gun, drive a car, even own a dog, yet any halfwit can drop their pants and make a child.



and all of these are trampling on your liberty.

Naming your child Hitler is stupid, but not unlawful and not indicating a need to seize ones children.

I suspect that the real reason has to do with physical and mental deficiencies on the part of the parents and children, all going untreated, and all causing imminent harm to the children.

I would also suspect that they may not be allowed to own pets (i have seen it before).

I don't know...i don't like the idea of taking kids away from people. It is contrary to the concept of Liberty.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Okay I am opening up myself for flames BUT here it goes .

I agree the naming of a child Adolf Hitler is a poor choice of names .

But If that is really the ONLY reason they were removed from the home that is treading on a very thin ice onwhat government could do and should do or shouldn't do .

I don't think any governmental official has any right to impose a rule system on what names are acceptable to use or not. A name is very subjective depending on the groups hearing the name .

Genghis Khan in Mongolia is a revered name where it is hated and despised in China and a few other countries. Mohammad is revered in many areas of the world but even here it is heard with suspicion.

If a child was named Abraham Lincoln or Albert Einstein no one would bat a eye . But Adolf Hitler people scream .

I think the name choices were poor but it is their RIGHT !

Unless there is some verifiable true psychosis or other psychological ailments that would endanger the children then the government OVER STEPPED ITS BOUNDS !

Name alone dont cut it !



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Well first the court didn't remove the kids because of their names, read this again...



The panel found that the parents, who both suffer from unspecified physical and psychological disabilities, had "recklessly created a risk of serious injury to their children by failing to protect the children from harm and failing to acknowledge and treat their disabilities".


Nothing in there about names, but lots about the parents can not take care of the kids. I'm sure the kids will keep their names until the time they choose to change them.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by and14263

Originally posted by tonypazzo
um, you should be able to name your kids whatever you want. you made them. also, to the guy who said "letting your kids get fat" is child abuse is absurd.

Tonypazzo... if you let your kids get fat you are exposing them to bad health and shortening their lives. Being FAT is unhealthy. Letting your kids eat crap and get fat is disgusting behavior, the fact that you can't see this makes me believe... .... no, I won't go there.

I will add that the fat kid can't do a lot of things other kids can... sport, games etc

If you can't see that son then you need to give your head a shake.


You should tell that to every single football teams offensive line!
Im sure they will laugh!



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Verd_Vhett

Originally posted by and14263

Originally posted by tonypazzo
um, you should be able to name your kids whatever you want. you made them. also, to the guy who said "letting your kids get fat" is child abuse is absurd.

Tonypazzo... if you let your kids get fat you are exposing them to bad health and shortening their lives. Being FAT is unhealthy. Letting your kids eat crap and get fat is disgusting behavior, the fact that you can't see this makes me believe... .... no, I won't go there.

I will add that the fat kid can't do a lot of things other kids can... sport, games etc

If you can't see that son then you need to give your head a shake.


You should tell that to every single football teams offensive line!
Im sure they will laugh!


My freshman year i was 6' tall, 285 lbs. I could also do the splits.

By the time i was a senior i was an all state offensive lineman, champion powerlifter, could run a 5.1 in the 40, and weighed about 330lbs.

i am fat (check out my name). My youngest son is just like me. I actually prefer what most would call a fat woman (the fertility goddess is a beautiful shape to me).

To see the prior user use the word "disgusting" to describe fat people is what is actually disgusting. it is disgusting to see such bigotry expressed openly on ATS. One wonders what other "kinds" of people he finds disgusting?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Those who are 'fat' in certain Latin and Asian Cultures are actually considered to be very successful and respectable people, because they can afford to eat that much!

In Asian Buddhist countries because Buddha is ‘fat’, the heavy set are additionally revered and ‘fat’ Western tourists often find that the locals have an almost uncontrollable desire and need to touch and rub their stomachs for luck.

Likewise most enforcers for the motorcycle clubs like the Hells Angels, and Pagans are extremely heavyset too, and they never have any trouble getting skinny women or people calling them fat.

Some would say fat is where it’s at, while others would say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Here is an idea for everyone, stop worrying about what I name my kid, and try to keep yours from running around and screaming in the restaurant. Stop insisting everyone else needs to clean up their backyard, while your weeds are blocking out my sun! Judge not lest you be judged, and above all stop reacting to Zionist propaganda.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

In Asian Buddhist countries because Buddha is ‘fat’, the heavy set are additionally revered and ‘fat’ Western tourists often find that the locals have an almost uncontrollable desire and need to touch and rub their stomachs for luck.



The fat "buddha" of statues is not really the Buddha. He is the "Laughing monk."

en.wikipedia.org...


Amongst Westerners new to Buddhism, Budai is often confused with the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama. However, the two are visually very distinct. Gautama is commonly depicted as being tall and slender in appearance (although since no images of him from his lifetime exist, this depiction of him is unverifiable and possibly idealized); Budai is short and overweight. (Buddha means "one who has achieved a state of perfect enlightenment" and there are several people who have been given the title.)


But you are right that in some cultures being overweight was at one time considered to be a sign of status. Hawaii is one such.

Today, however, we do know that overweight children are at risk for a lot of serious illnesses that they will have to deal with for the rest of their lives if their weight is not controlled. It is not just a matter of "beauty" but health. If it were solely a matter of attractiveness, it would not be the parents responsibility to keep their children from being obese. But, much like parents are not allowed to give their children alcohol or drugs, when physical harm is likely, they cross a line.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I find the unnamed psychological illnesses or disabilities as being questionable .

Here are reasons I have seen in the news over the years of CPS to take action as in remove children from a home .

Ear piercing of a 5 yo .

Resisting a schools recommendation for riddlen when a change of diet worked to calm hyper activity .

Got bucked off a horse and the DR and CPS said it was child abuse ignoring the child and friends story of the incident and ignoring the ambulance ride from a riding arena .

Cats and dogs near a bed ridden sick child .

Being of a religion who avoids vaccinations.

Parents being wheel chair bound .

Parents being mildly retarded but still able to function in society .

Home schooled and not receiving enough group play times .

most of these were returned to the parents but it happened non the less. Just watch the news . You see it time and again .

Spell it out for us .

Like one is manic depressive and wont take the medication and is psychotic with out it . Both are delusional and a danger to them selves real proof of child abuse . So few facts of the case leaves me questioning it because of the vague references of disabilities .



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
You guys need to read the story a bit more. The names are not why they were taken from the parents. It's just the excuse the parents are giving. If the names were the cause the kids would have been removed when they were born and given the names. It's likely these kids are being neglected in some way or abused.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Those who are 'fat' in certain Latin and Asian Cultures are actually considered to be very successful and respectable people, because they can afford to eat that much!


This is also true in some North/North-West African countries; the women in some parts of these countries are actively ''plumped up'' due to the culture, because the men apparently dig that well-fed look.

Interestingly, in the island(s) that form the great nation of Malta, this ''trend'' has apparently been in the culture for a few hundred years, at least.

Although it's not politically correctly to say it; many Maltese women are from the ''large'' side of the physical spectrum, due to historical culture, sexual selection and genetic isolation !

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


To see the prior user use the word "disgusting" to describe fat people is what is actually disgusting. it is disgusting to see such bigotry expressed openly on ATS. One wonders what other "kinds" of people he finds disgusting?

I said letting your kids become fat and letting them eat crap is disgusting behaviour, read it again, you'll see


Do I find fat people disgusting? No not really. I find parents who are willing to shorten their children's lives by feeding them crap and not promoting healthy lives disgusting.... it leads to diabetes, thyroid problems. Parents who feed the kids crap and park them infront of the TV are disgusting.

Who else do I find disgusting? Weird question, unsure what you're getting at here. It's like you posting in the Aliens & UFO forum that you don't beleiev in aliens and me asking "Hmmm, I wonder what else he doesn't believe?"
Bit odd mate.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
MODs forgive me for the infraction, but it is the premise of my arguement.


Originally posted by and14263

Originally posted by Say_It_Already
The parent(s) can name their child or children whichever name(s) they choose to. I personally find it distasteful to name children after genocidal dictators. However, it is a parental right of the parent(s). The government, at any jurisdictional level, has no right to impede on this issue.

Would you agree that one person has the right to inflict negativity, damage and pain on someone's life? Didn't think so. Therefore just because they are parents it doesn't give them the right to inflict such crap onto the lives of others.

You could reply that these are just names but let's be honest, they are painful labels that will lead to potentially devastating results.


"Did you meet any new friends at schools today Jimmy?"

"No, but at recess we all made fun of #head and Retard."

"What did you say?! Where did you hear those words from. What kind of school is this?!"

"No mommy, That's their names, #head Jones and Retard Ed Redneck."
..

I actually think anyone can name their kids or themselves anything they want (I'm Tempest Gdammit!), but if society does not accept them, they will be called something else no matter what. Adolf Hitler will be that boys name until and if he wishes to change it later on, but most people will probably never know because society stuck him with the name Al or Addie, or Jeff.

..

On a side note: If I met someone who says his name was Adolf Hitler, I would ask how he got the name (like possibly everyone else has asked of him), and if he seems like a swell guy, without a dirty upper lip, I'd shrug it off and call him Adolf.

Tempest. The name I wear on my shoulder.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



It is not the govt.'s role to say "you can't name your kids this".


Do you people even read articles before commenting on them anymore?

All of the following comes from that link you SHOULD HAVE READ before commenting:


The judges also noted that Deborah Campbell had recently passed a letter to a neighbour saying her husband had threatened "to have me killed or kill me himself".



both suffer from unspecified physical and psychological disabilities, had "recklessly created a risk of serious injury to their children by failing to protect the children from harm and failing to acknowledge and treat their disabilities".


Their atrocious NAMES are just a byproduct of the fact that these two individuals are clearly not fit, mentally or physically, to be parents.

I feel so sorry for those children & their futures. Not only are their parents total whack balls, but they share their own parents DNA.

In this case, thats' like being born with a terminal disease.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
A child's name affects his or her position in society more than a little. If your name is Adolph Hitler or Jennifer Aryan Nation you will probably find your friends only among motorcycle gangs, the KKK and/or the prison gang called the Aryan Nation. You will have been pre-selected to fit in with these groups.

You are not, for example, likely to be befriended by many African Americans, Jews, children from progressive families or descendants of World War II veterans.

You are unlikely to be named chairman of the board of a multi-national corporation, be elected to public office, be admitted to Harvard or run for president of the United States.

Your whole future and socio-economic status are greatly affected by a name that is considered socially unacceptable. There are some other names which would also probably stigmatize you for life, like Charlie Manson or Pol Pot or Ted Bundy, or as someone has already noted, Judas.

You can argue that a name is "just a name" and it carries no connotations for large segments of the population, but that's just not true. I personally consider the names just as harmful as the physical and emotional damage that apparently has also been inflicted on these children by their parents.

I do not think it should be illegal to name a child whatever a parent chooses, though I do think social pressure alone can, should, and does affect what a child is called.

It is just silly to imagine that the outside world is always going to be "objective" about one's name and ignore the social and political connotations that name implies.

I also read the source as saying the children have suffered abuse above and beyond their names, and that this is the probable reason for the removal of the children from their parents.

The names are harmful in and of themselves, but should probably not be the sole reason for removal of a child from their home. Otherwise, there could be all sorts of political pressures applied to parents, like taking custody of children whose names are Karl Marx or Rush Limbaugh for example.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Tempest333
 

In that case Mr Tempest, let's just hope that everybody in the world is as understanding as you.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Adolph is just not a popular name.
But some people of German decent perhaps have an uncle or two
named Adolph.
There is a great conditioning of the mind set with Hitler or just
plain secrecy of the elite.
Perhaps a pack of lies about Hitler have conditioned us to hate Adolph
whereas he might have been a front man for industrial espionage
that landed top Nazis positions in US warfare departments.
If Hitler was slaughtered then the top men would have run in fear.
This perhaps the reasoning for Hitler remaining alive at the end of WWII
as perhaps Lyne may have suggested this and perhaps others.
We know they did not run in fear of being US captives.
Just as a reminder, the suspect saucer and other technology of Tesla
is thought to be transferred to the winning countries in WWII.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I don't like the kids dumbass names.
But i even more dislike this provocative and dangerous coarse that the gov has taken. IT is more deadly in the long term to chain a human mind.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
The least intrusive solution should be used. I agree there's a problem, and the state has a right to fix it.

Order the parents to change the children's names. If the parents do not comply, have the state assign new legal names to them. Done.

This is far less intrusive than removing children from the home. We are far too willing to remove children from homes. It seems like they look for opportunities to do that, rather than avoiding it, and that is deeply wrong.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TaxpayersUnleashed
I don't like the kids dumbass names.
But i even more dislike this provocative and dangerous coarse that the gov has taken. IT is more deadly in the long term to chain a human mind.




Has the government chained the human mind.
It sure has by not protecting us.
Its not hard to figure out.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join