Nicholas Cage names son after Superman

[The Kai]

No the name is sue. It's the tale of the boy named sue, when he gets old enough he goes to find the son of a **** who gave the name. Find his dad. Gets to fighting and in the Mud and the blood. His daddy says that I knew I won't be there to help you grow up/so i named you sue so you would become strong on your own. Johhny Cash ain't country, they used to play him on the local Punk Rock radio shows around here
RIP-the man in Black:bow:

 

[shesulsa]

Well, since I wont have to worry about naming kids, its kinda a moot point (it takes two to make em, I am told)

But I always said if I had some, I would name them "Stupid" and "Ugly"...

That way, when they wrote their names on tests, Last Name First, First Name Last... it would read:

Boyer Ugly,

and

Boyer Stupid.

You'd be getting a lot of notes home for that!! LOLOL!!!!

 

[Navarre]

I knew of a woman who actually named her kids Orangjella and Lemonjella after seeing orange Jello and lemon Jello boxes in the store. ... Some ppl shouldn't breed.

My wife knows of a girl named Vagina, pronounced in the regular way too, not "Vuh-Geena". ... Yep, some ppl just shouldn't breed.

 

[shesulsa]

I knew of a woman who actually named her kids Orangjella and Lemonjella after seeing orange Jello and lemon Jello boxes in the store. ... Some ppl shouldn't breed.

My wife knows of a girl named Vagina, pronounced in the regular way too, not "Vuh-Geena". ... Yep, some ppl just shouldn't breed.

Wow. Too bad egg and sperm viability don't have an IQ prerequisite.

 

[Cryozombie]

Johhny Cash ain't country, they used to play him on the local Punk Rock radio shows around here

Johnny Cash was indeed Country... he was just cool enough to trancend the boundries of the musical sets.

 

[Navarre]

I honestly believe that prospective parents be given several mental and psychological evaluations before being allowed to have children. That may seem utilitarian but I think it is legitimate.

We have laws for all sorts of things like driving, voting, drinking, tobacco use, etc. Yet we have no restrictions on procreation.

Creating a child is the single greatest responsibility in ones life. It also creates the greatest drain on all available resources as the population grows exponentially. Yet we can breed freely, with no limitations beyond our own desires.

I am not suggesting that impoverished or mentally challenged or homosexual couples can't make good parents. I am, however, saying that couples shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they can exhibit a degree of psychological stability and perspective that is conducive to child-rearing.

That is a difficult statement because I feel that I have "grown" into becoming a good father from a stage in my evolution where I did not want children. However, I obviously had the capability of reaching this level or I would not be a good father today.

I am sure this will be a controversial post; way too long (as Gemini would point out) and certainly worthy of another thread. Still, it is my current thought so it gets posted.

Discuss amongst yourselves, class.

 

[arnisador]

when you're named dweezil it sure is nice to be be born a multi-millionaire.

I had the same thought!

 

[Kenpodoc]

I honestly believe that prospective parents be given several mental and psychological evaluations before being allowed to have children. That may seem utilitarian but I think it is legitimate.

We have laws for all sorts of things like driving, voting, drinking, tobacco use, etc. Yet we have no restrictions on procreation.

Creating a child is the single greatest responsibility in ones life. It also creates the greatest drain on all available resources as the population grows exponentially. Yet we can breed freely, with no limitations beyond our own desires.

I am not suggesting that impoverished or mentally challenged or homosexual couples can't make good parents. I am, however, saying that couples shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they can exhibit a degree of psychological stability and perspective that is conducive to child-rearing.

That is a difficult statement because I feel that I have "grown" into becoming a good father from a stage in my evolution where I did not want children. However, I obviously had the capability of reaching this level or I would not be a good father today.

I am sure this will be a controversial post; way too long (as Gemini would point out) and certainly worthy of another thread. Still, it is my current thought so it gets posted.

Discuss amongst yourselves, class.

Of course the problem remains as to who will decide who is a good parent and what parenting style is best. I am convinced that testing and comittees remain the worse way to determine who is best to do any job.

Jeff

 

[Navarre]

Yes, I certainly have no disagreement with that statement either, Jeff. And thus does the dilemma arise.

No one government, person, or organization could truly be qualified to ascertain such parental prospects' right to procreate. The margin for error would mean that some couples would be wrongly denied permission to have children, which would be as devastating as anything I could imagine.

Still, we have decided on a society where we do indeed appoint group (senators, congressmen, and other organizations) to dictate to us what we can and cannot do. I don't agree with all laws but I abide by every one of them.

I think as much, if not more, work should go into the process of collecting and maintaining this organization as there is in conducting its operations. We aren't talking about whether you can have a drink at 20; we're talking about one of the fundamental primal forces of all mankind.

But overpopulation is a determinable factor in almost every problem I can think of. The population has to be controlled for the sake of everyone. Coupled with the fact that so many children are denied the benefit of quality parents, scarring them and the society they touch, I still assert that such parental skills testing needs to be done.

 

[Kenpodoc]

Yes, I certainly have no disagreement with that statement either, Jeff. And thus does the dilemma arise.

No one government, person, or organization could truly be qualified to ascertain such parental prospects' right to procreate. The margin for error would mean that some couples would be wrongly denied permission to have children, which would be as devastating as anything I could imagine.

Still, we have decided on a society where we do indeed appoint group (senators, congressmen, and other organizations) to dictate to us what we can and cannot do. I don't agree with all laws but I abide by every one of them.

I think as much, if not more, work should go into the process of collecting and maintaining this organization as there is in conducting its operations. We aren't talking about whether you can have a drink at 20; we're talking about one of the fundamental primal forces of all mankind.

But overpopulation is a determinable factor in almost every problem I can think of. The population has to be controlled for the sake of everyone. Coupled with the fact that so many children are denied the benefit of quality parents, scarring them and the society they touch, I still assert that such parental skills testing needs to be done.

I generally abide by laws but I tend to think of speed limits more as guide lines. I still assert that parental testing is not possible. Immature kids can become terrific parents and mature educated and otherwise reasonable people can make terrible parents. Kids can survive adversity. Any testing system will be inevitably culturally biased, limited and misused by those in power. (One could argue that the Soviet Union was formed for betterment of everyone but it sure was misused and abused.)

A more efficient means of controlling numbers of children and parenting skills seems to be attention to the root causes of poverty and community support for young parents.

Jeff

 

[Navarre]

It's certainly true that ppl can grow to become good parents. As I mentioned, I myself did not want children andstruggled for some time with my new parental role. However, at this point I feel Iam a good father and am extremely grateful for all my children bring to my world.

I don't think it has much to do with education or even emotional maturity. I do think that certain tests could present a fairly accurate representation of how one would react to various parenting challenges. But, as you stated, the results of any given test don't allow for the opportunity of growth.

I also agree that there are other factors that need to be addressed. Funny you mention poverty. Part of my disgruntled stance is because I work in the same building as a Headstart (for low-income parents).

I see these poor, grubby kids arrive in brand new Mustangs and SUVs without seatbelts, surrounded in a fog of their parent's cigarette smoke. I can guarantee almost every single parent in on Medicaid, collecting more money from our taxes based on the number of children they can produce.

I continue to assert that these people do not have the right to have children, evidenced by their continuing conduct that will continue to be reinforced by the Medicaid system. It isn't solely because they are poor or largely uneducated.

I grew up so poor we could only afford to go to the store once a month and I would wear clothes I'd outgrown or torn for as long as I could manage. But I would never have treated my child the way I see these little kids treated. Something has to change.

 

[arnisador]

Eh, this parental testing discussion is too close to eugenics for my taste...

 

[Navarre]

Honestly, it worries me too, Arnisador. We aren't going to create a better society by limiting individual freedom.

Still, the problem remains and will not be resolved by lack of positive action. I simply don't know the answer to the problem.

I also am not sure how I managed to turn this thread away from Nicholas Cage. That was unintentional. I get aggravated when threads meander off their original topic and it's my fault in this case. I won't do it again.

... So, what do y'all think about the right of monkeys to fling their own poo in public? Be sure to post all your answers here!

 

[Gin-Gin]

Yeah, let's get back to the names people give their kids - any more thoughts on that? I knew a girl in Jr. High named (I kid you not) "Happy Holiday." Her brother was named Jimmie, & I'm sure he was relieved to get the less noticeable name.

One of my former bosses told me he knew a guy named "Thomas Thomas." Now, is that cute or just lack of imagination? :rofl:

 

[arnisador]

I knew a William W. Wilhelm. He was a military officer, and it somehow seemed very fitting! I also knew another officer, Major Miner (yes, not Major Minor).

 

[Navarre]

Coincidentally, VH1 had a special on last night titles "Wacky Celebrity Baby Names". I don't recall all of them but the ones we've mentioned were there along with such names as Puma, Koko, Jermajesty (as in "her majesty"), God'iss, Tu Morrow, and others.

*cerebral cortex implodes*

 

[arnisador]

What did Michael Jackson name his kids? Prince was one, right?

 

[Navarre]

Their names are Prince Michael I, Paris, and Prince Michael II. The latter child is the one he also called "Blanket" because he always had a blanket over him.

I can't say anything at all about "Paris" though since that's the name of my daughter. Any connection to Jackson or Paris Hilton is coincidental.

*loads mouthguard and waits for someone to take the cheap shot at my daughter's name*

 

[arnisador]

Nah, no cheap shots.

The wedding of Paris and Paris would've been...amusing.

I wonder what Ashton and Demi will name their kids?

 

[Navarre]

Well, Demi's children so far are Rumour, Scout, and Telula so it's hard to tell.

I think she'll tell him the baby was born with three arms and then say, "You've just been Punked!"