IntenseDebate

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - An Apple by any other ... · 0 replies · +1 points

I find the parents are the ones screwing with someone else's lives, not the government.

So I gather you're in favor of having no rules. Let's just allow people do whatever they feel it's acceptable. Good plan, let's see how long humanity would resist.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - An Apple by any other ... · 3 replies · +1 points

If it's just a handful that get affected by these restrictions I don't see how this is an intrusion.

For instance, I would never call my son 4Real, Yahoo, Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 and so on. So if I lived in any of these countries and had not read this article, I might never know that the government is intruding on anyone's life.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - An Apple by any other ... · 2 replies · +3 points

Empowering bureaucrats is only deemed necessary because of the existence of a number of foolish people. Don't blame the government. Blame it on the people who makes it necessary to have rules like that.

Also, the rules are not arbitrary, they have a number of requirements/criteria. It's not like if you apply from one registrar will you get a different outcome than if you had tried in a different one.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - An Apple by any other ... · 5 replies · -1 points

Why not given a "government acceptable name" to the child and have the child adopt his/her lovely parent's original chosen name as a nickname just at home and among friends if they wish?

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - An Apple by any other ... · 1 reply · +2 points

Well if the name request is truly earnest, then the new parents would in fact be thankful if someone - be a friend or a registrar official, informed them of the potential ridicule their child would suffer in the future.

If the parents are informed of the likelihood, even if small, that their child would suffer alienation, ridicule or hardship due to his/her name and decides to go ahead with the chosen name, is in itself a measure of earnestness.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - An Apple by any other ... · 11 replies · +2 points

I couldn't disagree more. So if the parents are abusing their children, because they themselves were abused as children, and think this is normal behaviour, the government should not intervene because it cannot cure ignorance?

A bad name is a form of abuse. Children can be very very cruel, by the time the poor child becomes an adult, and is able to change the name, serious damage would have been made to the self esteem and what kind of opportunities in life this person will have.

Some opportunities you never get back. The person may have reached adulthood without a single meaningful relationship. We're not talking names with weird spellings. There are parents that are sick enough to call their son Ben Dover. Seriously. If anything, I find that parents that try to name their children with ridiculous or offensive names should have their names instead changed to the name in question immediately at registrar officials.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - An Apple by any other ... · 4 replies · +2 points

I guess it needs to be noted as well that there is a difference between threatening legal action and just not allowing someone to do something stupid.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - An Apple by any other ... · 3 replies · +2 points

You do realize the poster said a joke name, right? Not "something that falls outside of the traditional Anglo-saxon / Biblical naming convention".

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Inside the dangerously... · 0 replies · +1 points

>>The title alone of this article had me hooked, as a 16 year old girl; I fit right into the demographic that is supposed to be more anxious then a mental patient. But I don’t. Yeah, I drink, and yeah, I smoke, and yes, I’ve done some really bad things that I regret doing. But that doesn’t, under any circumstances mean that I’m at risk of “anorexia of the soul.”

The author of this article, while he did hit on some major points, missed the boat a little. The idea that social networking sites like Facebook are ruining the lives of teenagers is, for lack of a better word, bull. Having Facebook or Twitter or a cell phone means there is always someone there when you need them. It means you don’t have to be alone.<<

When he speaks of "anorexia of the soul" he explains that this is the term he uses when "the girl is wasting away on the inside", he describes low self-esteem. You spoke of drinking, smoking, having done things you regret and of having Facebook/Twitter/Cellphone so that you never feel alone. This is what he's talking about. My comment is not meant as a criticism or attack, but I hope you are able to see through it.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Inside the dangerously... · 0 replies · +2 points

"sexual favours are so common that kids are posting the latest escapades on Facebook after parties. I know many of the parents of these girls, and they are not, to my knowledge, neglecting their daughters, nor is there any lack of love in their homes."

If they are not around to know that this is happening, then they are neglecting their children. Not to say they are bad people, but they are not doing good job as parents. I know a lot of good people who do terrible job as parents. Children need parents who are involved in their lives and they need discipline. I see far too many parents worried their children will hate them, and so allow them to do whatever they want. Communication is important, but sometimes parents need to do more than being available to talk. If they see their children engaged in self-destructive behaviour and talking doesn't resolve the issue, then the next step is limiting their access to internet, cellphone, setting curfews, or whatever it takes to protect them.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with beta1

People I'm following

beta1