3 ms·
That's silly. If you're arguing for individualism, then children aren't property, so how is it any better to have parents naming their kids "Ima Hoare"? Societ
by JabavuAdams 14y ago
That's silly. If you're arguing for individualism, then children aren't property, so how is it any better to have parents naming their kids "Ima Hoare"?
Society has a duty to protect children from their parents if those parents are abusive.
- guard-of-terra 14y agoSometimes society thinks that parents have children for society to get them. That's a nice package: you spend your health and money on children but you don't get to decide how to raise them: society does. That's your part in it then? Why bother at all? How does society expects to reproduce if they discourage parents from having children by making parents have all work and no play?
- JabavuAdams 14y agoWhat say, if any, should society have when parents name their kids something offensive or demeaning, like "Ima Hoare"?
- guard-of-terra 14y agoWhere is this line which the society will never pass in their quest of telling parents what to do? Just draw it now, please.
- JabavuAdams 14y agoPerhaps English is not your first language. "Ima Hoare" means "I am a whore". Do you believe in parents' unassailable right to name their children in this fashion? You're speaking in generalities, and I'm asking for specifics. If you keep dodging the issue, I'll just assume you're trolling.
- theorique 14y agoI think it's a balance. Stupid parents shouldn't name their kids "Ima Hoare" Stupid governments shouldn't have a "permitted list" of 150 names and require an exception outside of that list. Everyone should do the smart thing and not the stupid thing (also, I want a unicorn...)
- JabavuAdams 14y agoI agree.