Messiah Will Now Be Called Martin

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

knothead wrote:

Nekochan wrote:The judge was out of line.

But what if it were the name "Satan" or something like that?  That might be a kind of child abuse?

*********************************************************

You are being judgmental neko . . . . . . it's not your business and it's not mine . . . . what difference does it make, please! It's like the gay marriage thing . . . . do I like it? Not really but when I ask myself the question 'What business of this belongs to me or what does it matter' I am left with the same answer . . . . it's none of my business, period! The same analogy applies here.

Really?  You're not ever judgmental?  You never look at people's actions or words and make a judgement?    

I asked it as a question because I'm  undecided about if the court should ever step in.  But IF it is child abuse (I said IF), then it is society's business.

Anyway,  I certainly am free to speak my opinion and I think it would be very wrong to name a baby "Satan" and you can call that judgmental or whatever. As far as if the court should step in and change a name like "Satan", that is a different thing than just me not liking the name or me being judgmental.

How on earth do you reconcile the belief that it is perfectly OK to feed a child garbage - on par with dog or cat food - that has been shown to lead to all sorts of long term health consequences with this new found idea that naming a kid "Satan" - something that has zero long term consequences and can be easily changed by the child at the age of 18 - is bordering on some form of child abuse that may need government intervention?   Really interested in hearing your explanation for that.

I'm not surprised that you don't understand.  A child can eat a happy meal once in a while and it's not going to hurt him, but he's going to be called by his name, Satan, dozens of times a day, every day, 7 days a week, for years.

Nekochan wrote:I'm not surprised that you don't understand.  A child can eat a happy meal once in a while and it's not going to hurt him...

What if the child is obese from fast food - which, today many are? You see no need for government intervention into a scenario in which a child is being fed so poorly that they are obese, and will likely suffer all sorts of long term health consequences...that is perfectly fine? But name a kid "satan", something that can easily be changed, and then you see a need for the government to stand in?

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:I'm not surprised that you don't understand.  A child can eat a happy meal once in a while and it's not going to hurt him...

What if the child is obese from fast food - which, today many are?  You see no need for government intervention into a scenario in which a child is being fed so poorly that they are obese, and will likely suffer all sorts of long term health consequences...that is perfectly fine?  But name a kid "satan", something that can easily be changed, and then you see a need for the government to stand in?

An 18 year old can change his eating habits too.  

But now are you changing your argument from banning happy meals to just targeting parents of obese kids?  

I don't see fast food as being the only culprit.  I see a combination of things, including kids not getting outside and getting the exercise they should be getting.   Kids used to spend a lot more time outside than they do today.  Also, you seem to see doing away with McDonald's as being the answer to all health and obesity problems.  Kids can become obese from foods bought in any supermarket.

Finally, I didn't say that anything is "perfectly fine".  There are a lot of things that wouldn't be perfectly fine for my kids to do but other people allow their kids to do those things.

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:I'm not surprised that you don't understand.  A child can eat a happy meal once in a while and it's not going to hurt him...

What if the child is obese from fast food - which, today many are?  You see no need for government intervention into a scenario in which a child is being fed so poorly that they are obese, and will likely suffer all sorts of long term health consequences...that is perfectly fine?  But name a kid "satan", something that can easily be changed, and then you see a need for the government to stand in?

An 18 year old can change his eating habits too.  

But now are you changing your argument from banning happy meals to just targeting parents of obese kids?  

I don't see fast food as being the only culprit.  I see a combination of things, including kids not getting outside and getting the exercise they should be getting.   Kids used to spend a lot more time outside than they do today.  Also, you seem to see doing away with McDonald's as being the answer to all health and obesity problems.  Kids can become obese from foods bought in any supermarket.

Finally, I didn't say that anything is "perfectly fine".  There are a lot of things that wouldn't be perfectly fine for my kids to do but other people allow their kids to do those things.

By "perfectly fine" I obviously mean "doesn't require government intervention".  You feel one scenario doesn't require government intervention while another does.

And, sure, an 18 year old can change their eating habits.  You got me there.

"OK, little Johnny.  Now that you are morbidly obese, have diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure, go on out there and be somebody!"

That's confusing to me too. It seems to me that if it has to do with enforcing the Christian religion, conservatives don't have any problem with government intervention.
Kids that are raised on food stamps are often obese because a hot dog and a box of macaroni are cheaper to buy than fresh lettuce for salads, lean meat, and healthy types of bread. Conservatives only want to make it difficult on those families to raise healthy kids by cutting back on food stamps, but they yell like crazy if somebody names their child something that conflicts with their religion.
It could be called hypocrisy, but they'd never admit it.

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:I'm not surprised that you don't understand.  A child can eat a happy meal once in a while and it's not going to hurt him...

What if the child is obese from fast food - which, today many are?  You see no need for government intervention into a scenario in which a child is being fed so poorly that they are obese, and will likely suffer all sorts of long term health consequences...that is perfectly fine?  But name a kid "satan", something that can easily be changed, and then you see a need for the government to stand in?

An 18 year old can change his eating habits too.  

But now are you changing your argument from banning happy meals to just targeting parents of obese kids?  

I don't see fast food as being the only culprit.  I see a combination of things, including kids not getting outside and getting the exercise they should be getting.   Kids used to spend a lot more time outside than they do today.  Also, you seem to see doing away with McDonald's as being the answer to all health and obesity problems.  Kids can become obese from foods bought in any supermarket.

Finally, I didn't say that anything is "perfectly fine".  There are a lot of things that wouldn't be perfectly fine for my kids to do but other people allow their kids to do those things.

By "perfectly fine" I obviously mean "doesn't require government intervention".  You feel one scenario doesn't require government intervention while another does.

But, sure, an 18 year old can change their eating habits.  

"OK, little Johnny.  Now that you are morbidly obese, have diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure, go on out there and be somebody!"

You haven't read my posts then. I said that I do not like the idea of government intervention. As to naming a baby "Satan" I am undecided as to whether there should be intervention because I am generally opposed to the government telling people how to raise their kids. My original question was if naming a baby something such as "Satan" is a type of child abuse?

I do NOT think that taking a kid to McDonald's occasionally even slightly borders on child abuse. So while you think that taking a kid to McDonald's is just horrible parenting that the government should intervene but that naming a kid something such as "Satan" is perfectly fine...well, you and I just completely and totally disagree as to what is most harmful to children. I say that naming a child "Satan" is so many, many times more detrimental to a kid's future and to his overall well being than it would be to take the child to McDonald's once in a while. So we just have to disagree and I can tell you that I find your line of thinking just as confusing as you find mine.

bluemoon wrote:That's confusing to me too. It seems to me that if it has to do with enforcing the Christian religion, conservatives don't have any problem with government intervention.
Kids that are raised on food stamps are often obese because a hot dog and a box of macaroni are cheaper to buy than fresh lettuce for salads, lean meat, and healthy types of bread. Conservatives only want to make it difficult on those families to raise healthy kids by cutting back on food stamps, but they yell like crazy if somebody names their child something that conflicts with their religion.
It could be called hypocrisy, but they'd never admit it.

My viewpoint on the name "Satan" has nothing to do with me thinking that the Christian religion should be forced on parents. It's not what I think at all.

I guess I would rather be called messiah or satan than other names I've heard... I met a lady named latrina recently.

As for food prohibition... I wish the govt could force progressives to mind their own fucking business. Nudge that.

But Satan is only a name that Christians would object to. It's not a part of many other religions around the world. Other religions have their own names for their self-imposed demons.

At any rate, the thread was about Messiah,which is certainly a positive term in the Christian religion, unlike Satan.

It's not a matter of who objects to the name, it's the effect that the name has on the child in a particular society. The name "Adolf Hitler" would be a cruel name for a child. The name "Retarded One" would be a cruel name for a child. "Satan" came to my mind because of the case involved (Messiah), not because I think Satan is the only really cruel name that can be given to a baby.

PkrBum wrote:I guess I would rather be called messiah or satan than other names I've heard... I met a lady named latrina recently.

As for food prohibition... I wish the govt could force progressives to mind their own fucking business. Nudge that.

Satan is better than Latrina?....hmmmm, that is a very tough call!