Profile
Search
Register
Log in
No cake for Hitler kid
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6870
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

...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.
Post Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:58 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6290
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

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.
Post Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:28 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
icarus502
kung-pwn master


Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11288
Location: ann arbor
 Reply with quote  

Post Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:24 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6870
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

Is it any wonder they went back to the media?
Post Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:53 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

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.
Post Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:34 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
CriticalTheory_Breakfast



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 1399
Location: NYC/Rochester
 Reply with quote  

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.
Post Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:50 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6870
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

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.
Post Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:20 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CriticalTheory_Breakfast



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 1399
Location: NYC/Rochester
 Reply with quote  

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.
Post Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:01 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6870
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

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.
Post Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:21 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DeadAwake



Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 562
Location: Aus.
 Reply with quote  

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.
Post Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:36 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Lants



Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 2234
 Reply with quote  

Hitler doesn't deserve cake.
Post Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:48 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Bring that Beat Back



Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 853
 Reply with quote  

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.
Post Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:18 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
medicineman
HALFLING


Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Posts: 1393
Location: Iowa City
 Reply with quote  

i want to name my kid Antiochus Epiphanes.
Post Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:15 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
jamkar



Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Posts: 27
 Reply with quote  

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.
Post Sun Jan 25, 2009 6:44 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Charlie Foxtrot



Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY
 Reply with quote  

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.
Post Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:54 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon