Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It would help with idiots naming their child after every member of their favorite football team having 10-15 middlenames cant be good

 filbert wrote:
Reading what some other people have named their kids is an excellent example of why some people should not be allowed to breed.

That a supposedly grown and mature adult could think it acceptable to (allegedly) name a child 'Ferrus Manus' is mind boggling.

I have grown up with a non-normal first name and I know from deep personal experience what an absolute hell it can be.

I was kidding about my Handsome Jack/Borderlands reference. Actually, I plan to name my firstborn male Nathan Alexander (Cable's and Havoc's first names). But with my last name, it actually sounds like a nice, legitimate name. Only somebody like me would recognize it as a comic book naming setup.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I am starting to think you're just trolling me...

No, I'm absolutely serious. You seem to think that allowing the government to regulate this thing that you personally don't agree with will mean that said government will go power-mad and regulate everything.

Which is patently not the case. Governments (including yours) regulate all sorts of things. That's a part of their job. But their power to do so ultimately starts and ends with those who elect them.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I am starting to think you're just trolling me...

No, I'm absolutely serious. You seem to think that allowing the government to regulate this thing that you personally don't agree with will mean that said government will go power-mad and regulate everything.

Which is patently not the case. Governments (including yours) regulate all sorts of things. That's a part of their job. But their power to do so ultimately starts and ends with those who elect them.

I don't think that at all. I don't even know how you're getting that from what I've written.

I think there is the potential for them to apply ridiculous standards or reasoning to the decisions, which the Moroccan and French examples clearly show. I can see a reason for the laws, but I'm legitimately mystified at the fact that these laws are allowed to be applied in this fashion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait. Think I found it. You seemed to get offended when I said this was an unreasonable level of government control. I wasn't saying this would lead to other intrusions, it that's what you're taking from that.

But to say "you can't give your child a name with a phonetic resemblance to a word or phase that could potentially be used to make fun of them" (France) or "your child's name must reflect the heritage of this nation" (Morocco) seems unreasonable.

(Sorry for all the edits. First smart phone, and autocorrect is killing me!)

 Jimsolo wrote:
I don't think that at all. I don't even know how you're getting that from what I've written.

You don't see how:

 Jimsolo wrote:
(And I'm also wondering: once you give that power to a government, then where does it end?)

...might be taken as a suggestion that you wonder where it ends if you grant this power to a government?

I think there is the potential for them to apply ridiculous standards or reasoning to the decisions,...

Of course there is. There's also a potential for a government that is in control of highways to change the speed limit to 3mph. That doesn't mean it will actually happen.

Wait. Think I found it. You seemed to get offended when I said this was an unreasonable level of government control.

Not offended. Just bemused.

But to say "you can't give your child a name with a phonetic resemblance to a word or phase that could potentially be used to make fun of them" (France) or "your child's name must reflect the heritage of this nation" (Morocco) seems unreasonable.

To you.

To the people of Morocco or France, apparently not so much... or the laws would have been changed.


Some countries have a very firm grip on their cultural identity. Having names of cultural significance, or at least having names that 'fit' can be a part of that. So long as the citizens of those countries are content with that arrangement, there's no issue... although I can see how that idea might seem foreign to someone from a country where the cultural identity is so firmly tied to personal freedoms above all other considerations.

Living in a multi-cultural, post colonial society like the USA it might seem strange that a government would regulate names to fit with a cultural identity. However places like Morocco are largely culturally homogeneous so this isn't really an issue.

Also I believe giving a child a name that could be used to make fun of them is child abuse and I've got no issue with countries stopping parents from silly names.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I am starting to think you're just trolling me...

No, I'm absolutely serious. You seem to think that allowing the government to regulate this thing that you personally don't agree with will mean that said government will go power-mad and regulate everything.

Which is patently not the case. Governments (including yours) regulate all sorts of things. That's a part of their job. But their power to do so ultimately starts and ends with those who elect them.

That would only be true if they were accountable to those electing them in a meaningful way.

The way it actually works is that if some elected official does something you dont like, in theory you can opt not to vote for them, in theory this might hurt their chances of being elected.

Even if it does result in them not being elected, there is no way you voting in someone else will result in the offensive law being rescinded or changed.

Its at the point where you can literally have candidates campaign on things like closing gitmo for example, then they simply do not make good on the promise (plenty of examples from both sides doing this), and jon q public has zero meaningful recourse.

Governments have the job of regulating things, this is true, but the performing of needless regulation isnt in line with the goals or mandate of that job much in the same way a cabbies job is to drive you somewhere but if they just circle around a few extra times its considered superfluous and not performing their job properly . If the regulations are out of line with public interest, or are just a waste of time, or simply dont make sense, then the
""they are just doing their job" argument, is a non sequitur because that is not the point, they are doing their job poorly.


That being said, I think we should allow any names we want, if only to point out who the stupid parents are.

There are a lot of laws protecting children from the idiocy of their parents. Why not here too?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
There are a lot of laws protecting children from the idiocy of their parents. Why not here too?

Legislating morality and stupidity doesn't always work out well.

Its a bit odd to hear naming babies being called out as an issue worth regulating, when things like cutting off part of a baby's penis is still allowed.

Every argument against silly names I can also make against cutting off parts of the child's body and then some.

 easysauce wrote:
Governments have the job of regulating things, this is true, but the performing of needless regulation isnt in line with the goals or mandate of that job ...

Which ultimately comes down to where you draw the line between necessary and unecessary regulation.

For those countries that feel strongly about maintaining their cultural heritage, or who feel that allowing parents to give their children stupid names is not in the childrens' best interests and that parents simply can't always be trusted to act like adults on this matter, this counts as necessary regulation.

That being said, I think we should allow any names we want, if only to point out who the stupid parents are.

If the only harm done was to the parents, that might be acceptable.

Unfortunately, the parents who chose to name their child 'Strawberry' don't wind up being the butt of the majority of the ridicule...

 easysauce wrote:
Every argument against silly names I can also make against cutting off parts of the child's body and then some.

Can you, however, provide an accepted medical reason for allowing a child to be given a silly name?

In Russia, everyone is by law required to have three names. Having more or less than three names is illegal.
Russian first names are pretty complicated. I don't know if there are any laws on what you can name your child, but in practice parents always pick from a stock list of traditional names. And if you ask me, that is good. There was a time after the Revolution when parents began to show more creativity in naming their children, and it led to this: http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=34446

insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I don't think that at all. I don't even know how you're getting that from what I've written.

You don't see how:

 Jimsolo wrote:
(And I'm also wondering: once you give that power to a government, then where does it end?)

...might be taken as a suggestion that you wonder where it ends if you grant this power to a government?

I don't see how wondering what the extent of that law is equates to thinking the government is "going to go power mad and regulate everything," no. I'm wondering what the extent of their purview is regarding names. Since the only person who has posted here about the legal parameters indicated that the definitions were very nebulous, I think it's a reasonable question to ask.

I think there is the potential for them to apply ridiculous standards or reasoning to the decisions,...

Of course there is. There's also a potential for a government that is in control of highways to change the speed limit to 3mph. That doesn't mean it will actually happen.

Except that something equally silly has happened. The French example is pretty much just as silly.

But to say "you can't give your child a name with a phonetic resemblance to a word or phase that could potentially be used to make fun of them" (France) or "your child's name must reflect the heritage of this nation" (Morocco) seems unreasonable.

To you.

To the people of Morocco or France, apparently not so much... or the laws would have been changed.


Some countries have a very firm grip on their cultural identity. Having names of cultural significance, or at least having names that 'fit' can be a part of that. So long as the citizens of those countries are content with that arrangement, there's no issue... although I can see how that idea might seem foreign to someone from a country where the cultural identity is so firmly tied to personal freedoms above all other considerations.

So strong a grip that you have to legislate the cultural origin of baby names seems weird to me, yes. It seems equally weird to me that the folks from Europe and Australia don't find it weird, too. Personal freedom being very highly regarded in those places (in general) as well.

insaniak wrote:
If the only harm done was to the parents, that might be acceptable.

Unfortunately, the parents who chose to name their child 'Strawberry' don't wind up being the butt of the majority of the ridicule...

The only ridicule from that name was in the judge's head! That's the problem. He didn't restrict it because he thought Strawberry was a silly name. If we banned every name that children could say a slightly different way to make fun of the bearer, there'd be precious few names left.

 Jimsolo wrote:
So strong a grip that you have to legislate the cultural origin of baby names seems weird to me, yes. It seems equally weird to me that the folks from Europe and Australia don't find it weird, too. Personal freedom being very highly regarded in those places (in general) as well.

Can't speak for Europe, but in general Australians are fairly ok with sacrificing a little personal freedom where there's a demonstratable good reason for it.

People seriously wanting to name their children things like 'Moon Unit' and 'Strawberry' is a fairly well demonstrated reason.

The only ridicule from that name was in the judge's head!

Yes... because he chose to veto the name.

Had it gone ahead, I could pretty much guarantee that poor kid would have been asking people to call her 'Lisa' by the time she was halfway through primary school.

 easysauce wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
There are a lot of laws protecting children from the idiocy of their parents. Why not here too?

Legislating morality and stupidity doesn't always work out well.

Its a bit odd to hear naming babies being called out as an issue worth regulating, when things like cutting off part of a baby's penis is still allowed.

Every argument against silly names I can also make against cutting off parts of the child's body and then some.

As mentioned beforehand laws like this protect the child from having to live with a stupid name. I don't think you would want to be named "Abstinence" or "Khaleesi" especially when no one gets the later reference. And that Khaleesi isn't even her name.

The thing is, Kids will pick on names no matter what.
My name was made fun of so much, and it is arguably common.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
There are a lot of laws protecting children from the idiocy of their parents. Why not here too?

Legislating morality and stupidity doesn't always work out well.

Its a bit odd to hear naming babies being called out as an issue worth regulating, when things like cutting off part of a baby's penis is still allowed.

Every argument against silly names I can also make against cutting off parts of the child's body and then some.

As mentioned beforehand laws like this protect the child from having to live with a stupid name. I don't think you would want to be named "Abstinence" or "Khaleesi" especially when no one gets the later reference. And that Khaleesi isn't even her name.

IDK, Khaleesi probably won't be too bad once the GoT era ends. Its pretty and unusual, but not difficult to say or super weird(like some other examples we've seen). Its got some possible nicknames which are fairly normal sounding like Kali.

Or Kali MA.

 easysauce wrote:

Every argument against silly names I can also make against cutting off parts of the child's body and then some.

There are legitimate medical reasons for male circumcision, in addition to any religious reasons. And its not like the kids gonna remember it or have reason to regret it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

Every argument against silly names I can also make against cutting off parts of the child's body and then some.

There are legitimate medical reasons for male circumcision, in addition to any religious reasons. And its not like the kids gonna remember it or have reason to regret it.

Ehhhhh,
There are some people out there who feel loss of sensation in the head and Mid-shaft area from circumcision. and seek surgery to repair.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The thing is, Kids will pick on names no matter what. .

That's no reason to make it easy for them.

Kids pick on things that are different. Sure, if you've got a more normal name, they'll still find something to rhyme it with, or change it to something rude, or whatever, because that's what kids do.

But the kid whose parents thought it was a good idea to name him Circumcision Spinach (Both on the list of presented baby names that were rejected in Australia this year) is going to have a far harder time of it than you will. He's going to face a lifetime of people judging him as a result of his parents being fethwits.

But, then to governement can arguably make it a habit of regulating parenting.
Lets say I want to raise a gender neutral child, like pink and blue, or Dolls and GI joe.
He will have a hard time in school. Knowing that, should the GOVT come in and say "No, your sun likes Trucks"

 filbert wrote:
Reading what some other people have named their kids is an excellent example of why some people should not be allowed to breed.

That a supposedly grown and mature adult could think it acceptable to (allegedly) name a child 'Ferrus Manus' is mind boggling.

I have grown up with a non-normal first name and I know from deep personal experience what an absolute hell it can be.

Is your name actually filbert?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But, then to governement can arguably make it a habit of regulating parenting.

Good. They can start by drug-testing both parents before they're allowed custody of the child, and go from there.


Edit - Of course, that's overlooking the fact that governments already regulate parenting. It's just the extent to which they do so that varies from country to country.

Lets say I want to raise a gender neutral child, like pink and blue, or Dolls and GI joe.
He will have a hard time in school. Knowing that, should the GOVT come in and say "No, your sun likes Trucks"

No, they should go to all those other parents and tell them to stop forcing gender-based stereotypes on their children.

Boys for the most part only think playing with dolls is for girls because their parents told them it was so. Left to their own devices, kids will play with whatever appeals to them at the time.

I played with dolls all the time when I was a kid

 jhe90 wrote:
Well there's sanity.

If you call your kid Adolf in Germany, Poland, Russia, or Israel. for example it may not pass and be kinder to have another name.

Ferrus manus, well they could have chose worse in game names....

Though a list of banned names than a list of approved seems a better system.

Adolf historically was a common German name. Not nearly as cool as Willy though. I always thought Willy Messerschmidt was an awesome name, and someone who would be voted most likely to get drunk in the bar and end up safely landing a plane in a barn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The thing is, Kids will pick on names no matter what.
My name was made fun of so much, and it is arguably common.

Further, teenagers seem to go through a period where they rename themselves among their cohorts. Most of GC's comrades have given themselves different names. one reason The Wife is the Cool Mom is she goes with it and remembers them.

One's given name is Bella. She calls her self Luna. My brain connects Bella Luna together and I have a mad desire to paddle around Venice belting out horribly accented made up Italian songs.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Frank Zappa named his son Dweezil and his daughter Moon Unit.

Yes, Yer'onour, please submit as exhibit A 'Why drugs are bad, m'kay?'

I'm pretty sure Frank Zappa wasn't that into drugs.

I am absolutely sure good ol' Zappa wasn't into drugs. He called people on drugs "donkey-caves in action" and wasn't too happy about the Mother's reputation as a great band to freak out (do drugs) to.

He named his kids stupid names because he was a legendary iconoclast and rabidly anti-authoritarian, not because he was into drugs and thought it was, like, far out, man.

Moon Unit has dropped the Unit part of her name and is just Moon (kinda nice IMO). Dweezil is still Dweezil and if GRRM had invented that word there would be dozens of Dweezils running around too.

Should people be free to call their kids what they want, sure. But an elected government of the people should equally be able to say "that's not a name and we refuse to recognise it in our dealings with you" So put William on your birth certificate and call the kid Billythepumpkinhead all you want in private. Problem solved.

Someone wrote earlier that their niece? was named Isis. I always liked that name but my wife never did. Lucky as it turns out as if my kid had been a few years earlier and she had said yes I to may have had an Isis.

But it gets worse, I also like the idea as Boom as a name for a boy, Its a bit weird but not Pepsi weird. Imagine if I had had twin boy and girl 5 years ago and got my own way naming them..... that would have been awkward at the play ground.

Someone said names without written vowels can't be pronounced. I think YHWH and anyone that speaks Hebrew would disagree.

 Bangbangboom wrote:

Someone said names without written vowels can't be pronounced.

No they didn't.

They said that names just made up of consonants are unpronounceable.

Hebrew has vowels, they're just not written down.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

Every argument against silly names I can also make against cutting off parts of the child's body and then some.

There are legitimate medical reasons for male circumcision, in addition to any religious reasons. And its not like the kids gonna remember it or have reason to regret it.

There isn't, actually, any compelling medical reason for circumcision to be the norm. There are reasons for it in certain circumstances (pun entirely intended) and, actually, yes, there *are* reasons to regret being circumcised.

Which is probably as far as we need to go with that particular discussion in this thread...