New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] good point (m)
in reply to a message by -=A=-
As an European, I've always found the argument that naming laws are "anti-democratic" somewhat irksome.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
How is such an argument irksome?
1
because Europeans value democracy and freedom just as much as Americans
1
I'm sure most do.....
but that doesn't change the fact that European countries were not originally founded upon those ideals, while the USA was. Nor does it change the fact that this inevitably leads to subtle cultural differences. Nor does it invalidate my argument.
but that doesn't change the fact that European countries were not originally founded upon those ideals, while the USA was. Nor does it change the fact that this inevitably leads to subtle cultural differences. Nor does it invalidate my argument.
1
Mmm, I was under the impression that democracy was first established in ancient Greece, and that Americans inherited their founding values from Europe, since that's were they came from originally. And that most European nations have in their histories a founding momemt of emancipation from an internal or foreign tyranny that may be compared to the US becoming independent from Britain.
Anyway, I really don't want to cause pointless and OT controversy. What you don't seem to realize that what is at stake here is a difference in mentality, not of historical values at some deep level. There's a slightly different perception of individualism, and relations with state institutions, in the US and Europe. I'm sure that, if I had bee raised in the US, there's a strong chance I'd consider naming laws, amongst with various other regulations, unfair and limiting. I don't want to persuade any American here that America should have naming laws, though I am in favour of them and I'm glad my country has them. But a lot of these values are relative, and people of this forum come from a variety of different nationalities and cultures.
Anyway, I really don't want to cause pointless and OT controversy. What you don't seem to realize that what is at stake here is a difference in mentality, not of historical values at some deep level. There's a slightly different perception of individualism, and relations with state institutions, in the US and Europe. I'm sure that, if I had bee raised in the US, there's a strong chance I'd consider naming laws, amongst with various other regulations, unfair and limiting. I don't want to persuade any American here that America should have naming laws, though I am in favour of them and I'm glad my country has them. But a lot of these values are relative, and people of this forum come from a variety of different nationalities and cultures.
1
Well...
Well, in an abstract sense, some people abuse the democratic ideal to justify their cruelty toward others. For example, Fred Phelps and Shirtley Phelps-Roper spreading their unfounded hateful defamation all over America on the grounds that it is free speech and protected under the first amdendment.
This idea could also be applied to Americans who are ignorant of the consequences of choosing a distasteful name for their child. Now, while I think many names are terrible, I generally see very few that I'd personally censor as a judge (though really I'd like to name ALL new babies myself), but there are also MANY examples that could cross that line (e.g. Dreamz Cum-Tru, Her'mahjusztee da Bomb, Pryncess Perfekt, Shouting Star, etc.) that are just plainly cruel to their recipients' well-being in society. There is a line one can cross where you're no longer covered by democratic principles--though it may be difficult to cross--people seem to be straddling it more and more.
Personally, I think putting Dreamz Cum-Tru on a birth certificate should be grounds for a horse-whipping (though it MAY be a glittery horsewhip with an acryllic airbrushed carnival design on it so the punishment is more tailored to the offence).
Well, in an abstract sense, some people abuse the democratic ideal to justify their cruelty toward others. For example, Fred Phelps and Shirtley Phelps-Roper spreading their unfounded hateful defamation all over America on the grounds that it is free speech and protected under the first amdendment.
This idea could also be applied to Americans who are ignorant of the consequences of choosing a distasteful name for their child. Now, while I think many names are terrible, I generally see very few that I'd personally censor as a judge (though really I'd like to name ALL new babies myself), but there are also MANY examples that could cross that line (e.g. Dreamz Cum-Tru, Her'mahjusztee da Bomb, Pryncess Perfekt, Shouting Star, etc.) that are just plainly cruel to their recipients' well-being in society. There is a line one can cross where you're no longer covered by democratic principles--though it may be difficult to cross--people seem to be straddling it more and more.
Personally, I think putting Dreamz Cum-Tru on a birth certificate should be grounds for a horse-whipping (though it MAY be a glittery horsewhip with an acryllic airbrushed carnival design on it so the punishment is more tailored to the offence).
This message was edited 4/3/2008, 5:50 PM
1