What are some names that were rejected?
The curious, three-person committee in Iceland that approves and rejects names
21–25 of 25 posts
Re: The curious, three-person committee in Iceland that approves and rejects names
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why have the list? What's the point?
Cousin comments have explained the point at length. There are apparently over 65'000 names on the sure-to-be-approved list, and parents can argue for their own. There were 86'000 births last year, and I'm pretty sure names follow a Zipfish law, so I bet there's a long tail of approved names that weren't even used. (top 200 names account for 21'000 boys and 16'000 girls) Some freedoms I can think of off the top of my…
No, they haven't. They've plastered over the obvious fact that, aside from sticking their nose where nobody wants it, they accomplish nothing (witness your example) positive.
And what-about-isms are hardly helpful. Thanks for a patriotic recitation of rights you enjoy - all very nice. But for the life of me I can't figure what that has to do with a bureaucratic committee that imagines that interfering with naming children is accomplishing something useful?
Re: The curious, three-person committee in Iceland that approves and rejects names
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cousin comments have explained the point at length. There are apparently over 65'000 names on the sure-to-be-approved list, and parents can argue for their own. There were 86'000 births last year, and I'm pretty sure names follow a Zipfish law, so I bet there's a long tail of approved names that weren't even used. (top 200 names account for 21'000 boys and 16'000 girls) Some freedoms I can think of off the top of my…
No, they haven't. They've plastered over the obvious fact that, aside from sticking their nose where nobody wants it, they accomplish nothing (witness your example) positive. And what-about-isms are hardly helpful. Thanks for a patriotic recitation of rights you enjoy - all very nice. But for the life of me I can't figure what that has to do with a bureaucratic committee that imagines that interfering with naming chi…
Speaking of sticking noses in, I propose the following:
For my part, I will faithfully, should my government wish to interfere with your freedom to name your children anything, do my utmost to dissuade them.
In return, could you please attempt do something about your government's (and your corporations', respectively) current interference with my constitutional freedom from nosey parkers?
"Art. 13 Right to privacy
1 Every person has the right to privacy in their private and family life and in their home, and in relation to their mail and telecommunications.
2 Every person has the right to be protected against the misuse of their personal data."
Deal?
Re: The curious, three-person committee in Iceland that approves and rejects names
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here you're talking about parents naming their children, so it's not your own name, it's someone else's name. In Europe children are individuals with their own rights, they're not property of the parents. Some parents do stupid things with names. In the UK you can call your children almost anything, but sometimes the state gets involved. Here's a case where a mentally ill woman (who had previously had 3 children remo…
Strawmen notwithstanding, the principle of states interfering in ordinary parental decisions is surely to be condemned.
> the principle of states interfering in ordinary parental decisions is surely to be condemned.
Why? Children are humans and humans have rights and it's important that the rights of the child are upheld and these rights will sometimes be in conflict with what a parent wants to do.
Children are not property of their parent.
From UNCRC article 3:
> In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions,courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
Re: The curious, three-person committee in Iceland that approves and rejects names
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they haven't. They've plastered over the obvious fact that, aside from sticking their nose where nobody wants it, they accomplish nothing (witness your example) positive. And what-about-isms are hardly helpful. Thanks for a patriotic recitation of rights you enjoy - all very nice. But for the life of me I can't figure what that has to do with a bureaucratic committee that imagines that interfering with naming chi…
Speaking of sticking noses in, I propose the following: For my part, I will faithfully, should my government wish to interfere with your freedom to name your children anything, do my utmost to dissuade them. In return, could you please attempt do something about your government's (and your corporations', respectively) current interference with my constitutional freedom from nosey parkers? "Art. 13 Right to privacy 1…
Not that simple? The corporations are collected data from people that offer it - facebook etc is a sign-up service. It's voluntary.
Sure we need some rules about what's reasonable to record. In fact, we're getting them. But reigning in corporations is harder than making a rule. Because there's money at stake, it's hard to get a ravenous corporation to change behavior with a little fine or whatever.
So sure, I'm on the side of privacy, as should have been obvious. But not sure I can fix this, sorry.