People like this shouldn't be able to breed

Posted:
in AppleOutsider edited January 2014
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) -- New Zealand authorities have blocked a couple's bid to officially name their new son "4real," saying numerals are not allowed.



Pat and Sheena Wheaton said they decided to name their new baby "4real" shortly after having an ultrasound and being struck by the reality of his impending arrival.



"For most of us, when we try to figure out what our names mean, we have to look it up in a babies book and ... there's no direct link between the meaning and the name," Pat Wheaton told TV One on Wednesday. "With this name, everyone knows what it means."



http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc....ap/index.html

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 8
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    People who decide that your 'name' must conform to a legal requirement shouldn't be allowed to breed
  • Reply 2 of 8
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,224moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post


    People who decide that your 'name' must conform to a legal requirement shouldn't be allowed to breed



    I'm all for freedom of expression but there are boundaries. What if someone named their kid F*ck-U Jones? Or 0110001001001? It's just not practical and it's in the best interests of the child not the parents.



    "Clarke said the rules are designed to prevent names that are "likely to cause offense to a reasonable person." Satan and Adolf Hitler were proposed names that have been declined, he said."



    I think they should have settled on feral as that will probably relate closest to the child's upbringing.
  • Reply 3 of 8
    burningwheelburningwheel Posts: 1,827member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post


    People who decide that your 'name' must conform to a legal requirement shouldn't be allowed to breed



    come on Marc, you know the name is just too stupid. besides there has been a recent study that if you have an unusual anme, your resume tends to get over looked, so you aren't doing your kids any favors by giving them a "different" name just to impress your friends
  • Reply 4 of 8
    bergermeisterbergermeister Posts: 6,784member
    Is this for real, or 4real or maybe his younger brother, GetReal?



    The abuse this kid will receive is indisputable. Whether he would survive it is another story.



    Is this move by the parents for real or are they just joking around? I hope they consider their kid's future before having a kid; this is crazy.



    In the US, when I was a kid, you could be tormented simply because you had a foreign-sounding name; it is pretty amazing how low the average kid (and some "adults") will stoop just to make fun of someone else. Unless NZ is any different, this kid will have to survive hell before he enters college.
  • Reply 5 of 8
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    "Clarke said the rules are designed to prevent names that are "likely to cause offense to a reasonable person." Satan and Adolf Hitler were proposed names that have been declined, he said."



    If people can give their kids the name "Jesus", as many do, then they should also be able to give the kid the name "Satan".



    BTW... This is the subject of one of the many jokes that Dane Cook has blatantly stolen from Louis CK...



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz3_ZYYE9II



    At 2:00....



    Dane Cook is f*cking hack.
  • Reply 6 of 8
    100mph100mph Posts: 256member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by burningwheel View Post


    shouldn't be able to breed ...









    Compulsory sterilization



    Survivors Of Forced Sterilization Programs Attempting To Require States To Recognize Extent Of Involvement



    "...



    About 65,000 people, most of whom were women, were involuntarily sterilized in the U.S. from the 1920s through the 1970s, according to Paul Lombardo, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. Thirty-three states had established eugenics programs, and California, Oregon, South Carolina and Virginia have conceded involvement in such programs -- which claimed that sterilizations could lead to the elimination of mental illness and genetic defects (Glanton, Chicago Tribune/Wichita Eagle, 9/11). North Carolina sterilized more than 7,600 people as part of its eugenics movement from 1929 through 1974.



    ..."



    Cheers!!!
  • Reply 7 of 8
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 100mph View Post


    [IMG]



    About 65,000 people, most of whom were women, were involuntarily sterilized in the U.S. from the 1920s through the 1970s, according to Paul Lombardo, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. Thirty-three states had established eugenics programs, and California, Oregon, South Carolina and Virginia have conceded involvement in such programs -- which claimed that sterilizations could lead to the elimination of mental illness and genetic defects (Glanton, Chicago Tribune/Wichita Eagle, 9/11). North Carolina sterilized more than 7,600 people as part of its eugenics movement from 1929 through 1974.



    ..."



    Cheers!!!



    You never have to go far to find out who's involved in the nastiest stuff of recent history. This is standard historical fare; Americans (and the rest of the world) should be aware of the mindset that infests the current administration.



    It's hardly a wonder that ex President G.H.W. Bush once (allegedly) said: "If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us" ... but it was unclear about which dastardly deed he was referring.
  • Reply 8 of 8
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,080member
    Null.
Sign In or Register to comment.