redball
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6849
Location: Northern New Jersey |
...and if there actually is abuse in this case then it does nothing to harm those other households.
There is nothing wrong with the actions of DYFS unless they were purely motivated by the kids names. |
Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:58 pm |
|
|
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6245
Location: airstrip one |
I think in this one case I'd have no problem with DYFS taking the kids away due to their names alone. The ridiculous amount of abuse this kid is going to get because of his name can solely be attributed to his parents.
Reminds me of Die Hard With a Vengeance where the antagonist forces McClane to walk into Harlem with an "I Hate Niggers" sign. |
|
Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:28 pm |
|
|
icarus502
kung-pwn master
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11276
Location: ann arbor |
|
|
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:24 am |
|
|
redball
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6849
Location: Northern New Jersey |
Is it any wonder they went back to the media? |
|
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:53 am |
|
|
firefly
Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3989
Location: Montreal |
They don't even seem all that upset. They look more happy that a bunch of cameras are in their house.
And that Aunt man ... what a piece of shit that woman is. |
|
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:34 am |
|
|
CriticalTheory_Breakfast
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 1379
Location: NYC/Rochester |
After watching that, I feel even more like I don't want that lady to have kids, but also that her reasoning only proves that she ain't much dumber than plenty of other parents who don't name their kid Adolf Hitler. The husband likes the art of the swastika? That's it?
I think they are dumb parents, and clearly are (and doing a weak job) pretending they aren't tied to Nazi ideology, but if there is no abuse going on then they need to have their kids back. Their kids are more likely to get abused in school and end up a little fucked up, but there are plenty of kids with parents just as wacko who don't get media attention for their idiocy. I want to punch the parents in the face, but unfortunately, they are kinda right. |
|
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:50 am |
|
|
redball
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6849
Location: Northern New Jersey |
What the fuck are you talking about? A fucking interview with the parents proves nothing. Abusive parents do not necessarily break down and admit fault when social workers show up. In fact, that's the least like reaction. The most likely is flat out denial and pleas to anyone who will listen to get their kids back.
You can't take the parents claims at face value. I don't see why you would when they obviously aren't grounded in reality in the first place. They aren't right as far as we know. Wait and see if this is still in the news once the investigation is completed. I bet after all this crap that DYFS will release a statement about their findings.
Also, I wouldn't say that they are acting like they don't care. I would say that they're emotionally drained yet indignant that they are right. They're playing the media, and by the time you reach that point you're normally pretty calm. The mother's strain is written all over her face. |
|
Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:20 am |
|
|
CriticalTheory_Breakfast
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 1379
Location: NYC/Rochester |
But if there ISNT abuse, then shouldn't she get her kids back? She is catastrophically dumb and unbelievably oblivious, but I know plenty of parents who are a hitler-baby-name away from being these people. It is so unfortunate for all of the kids who have to deal with it, but this is amurrrica. Fucked up is our middle name. I don't think anyone here is refusing to entertain the possibility of abuse, but the question is "what if" the findings don't show anything substantial? Nobody said the interview PROVED anything, however it did shed light onto who the hell these people are. |
|
Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:01 pm |
|
|
redball
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6849
Location: Northern New Jersey |
|
 |
|
Yes, if there isn't abuse they should return the kids. I have every faith that they will do that. I also have serious doubts, as I've detailed previously, that DYFS took the kids based on that alone.
But there was very very little in that interview that we can say the parents were right about. The only sentiment they would be right about is that they should get their kids back if there wasn't abuse. Well, duh. Except they claim that there was no abuse with basically no evidence to the contrary. They make stupid assertions about their own beliefs, which are obvious lies. They pretend to speak for DYFS, accusing them of taking the kids based solely on their names. None of this is right. There's simply no reason to say that they are right. There's no reason to assume DYFS is wrong.
Contrary to popular belief, it is not easy to remove children. Social workers don't enjoy it. They try not to do it for bad reasons or based on flimsy evidence. Cases like those Mormons in Texas are rare. It's far more common that they are unable to act and kids end up being abused for years or end up dead. |
|
Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:21 pm |
|
|
DeadAwake
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 504
Location: Aus. |
jakethesnake wrote:
The kid isn't going to even make it to the age where he can kill his parents because someone is going to beat him to death before that.
How sad. |
|
Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:36 am |
|
|
Lants
Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 2207
|
Hitler doesn't deserve cake. |
|
Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:48 pm |
|
|
Bring that Beat Back
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 850
|
Is that kid holding a big bottle of coke? These parents (and that aunt) are all kinds of fail but i'd still like to hear the entire rational from the agency for removing the kids. |
|
Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:18 pm |
|
|
medicineman
HALFLING
Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Posts: 1393
Location: Iowa City |
i want to name my kid Antiochus Epiphanes. |
|
Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:15 am |
|
|
jamkar
Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Posts: 27
|
I'm thinking the kids were probably removed on some sort of grounds of psychological abuse. If you listen to the family's reasoning for.. the names, the swastika tattoos, the nazi memorabilia around their house, and stuff like that, it's an awful lot of really poor rationalizations, which indicates to me that they are actually white supremacist fucktards.
I may be alone in this, but I think that kind of thing is grounds for taking the kids away. Bringing kids up with that kind of philosophy is a genuine form of psychological/intellectual abuse in my book. |
|
Sun Jan 25, 2009 6:44 am |
|
|
Charlie Foxtrot
Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY |
|
|
|
Boys With Unpopular Names More Likely to Break Law
livescience.com – 2 hrs 4 mins ago
Boys in the United States with common names like Michael and David are less likely to commit crimes than those named Ernest or Ivan.
David E. Kalist and Daniel Y. Lee of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania compared the first names of male juvenile delinquents to the first names of male juveniles in the population. The researchers constructed a popularity-name index (PNI) for each name. For example, the PNI for Michael is 100, the most frequently given name during the period. The PNI for David is 50, a name given half as frequently as Michael. The PNI is approximately 1 for names such as Alec, Ernest, Ivan, Kareem, and Malcolm.
Results show that, regardless of race, juveniles with unpopular names are more likely to engage in criminal activity. The least popular names were associated with juvenile delinquency among both blacks and whites.
The findings, announced today, are detailed in the journal Social Science Quarterly.
While the names are likely not the cause of crime, the researchers argue that "they are connected to factors that increase the tendency to commit crime, such as a disadvantaged home environment, residence in a county with low socioeconomic status, and households run by one parent."
"Also, adolescents with unpopular names may be more prone to crime because they are treated differently by their peers, making it more difficult for them to form relationships," according to a statement released by the journal's publisher. "Juveniles with unpopular names may also act out because they consciously or unconsciously dislike their names."
The findings could help officials " identify individuals at high risk of committing or recommitting crime, leading to more effective and targeted intervention programs," the authors conclude. |
|
Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:27 pm |
|
|
 
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours. The time now is Fri May 24, 2013 10:18 am
|
|
|
|
| |
