Anti-Child Society

[Brandon237]

Brat bans? Really?

To be honest, that sounds absolutely pathetic.

Imagine scenario:
You have just paid for yourself and your date to go to an expensive restaurant (not some family restaurant), you have paid plenty for your food and drinks and then a family comes in. They have a small child / baby. No problem. But within 5 minutes, it starts screaming and crying, the parents try to shut it up, it is two tables away, you can hear it clearly. The parents attempts are futile, as they normally are. They stay there for the duration of the rest of your date. You listen to screaming that entire time. Would you be happy with the management of this classy restaurant for allowing this?

Same idea goes for first class on trains and planes.

I'm a pretty patient person. I realize that parents may be new parents and might not be sure what to do and how to properly handle that situation. If the baby keeps crying and crying without stopping, then all the parents need to do is take the baby outside until it's quiet enough to bring back in.

For trains, there isn't and outside to go to, so you can take it into the bathroom or somewhere else where there isn't many people. (I've never been on a train so I don't know what's on them)

For planes, suck it up princess. The parents aren't asking the baby to cry and they can only do their best to make it stop.

I would rather parents sorted their child out straight away as opposed to banning them from classier places, but the fact is that many parents don't even bother, and many who do don't succeed, and since that is only getting worse, I see this as the next best option.

I only want them out of Classy, expensive areas. I fully understand the noise at a family restaurant or second class seating, but DO NOT bring that screaming baby near people who are paying larger amounts of money for a quality experience, because you are then ruining that for them, which is selfish and bad for business. With first class et cetera, you are paying partly for the luxury and experience, not just the trip. A crying baby in your cabin / restaurant completely ruins said luxury and experience. I can handle them as distant background noise, or if I am having a quick, cheap meal / trip et cetera, but in the same restaurant that charges double for service and and luxury, will lead to explosively bad results.

In classy restaurants the manager won't let you sit there with a crying baby for very long. He/She realizes that it isn't good for business and will ask you to take the child outside.

When you're on a plane just put on some headphones and listen to music or watch one of the movies they play. A crying baby really shouldn't bother you too much if you do that.

I have explained that often the manager is not there, or too busy with other matters. And it can still lead to a good 10 minutes of earache before the manager does come through to see the problem.

And headphones are often not efficient as magical blockers of all sound, no matter how high-pitched, loud and close to you.

Maybe yes, the restaurants can be done on a case by case basis, so long as it is strictly enforced that you get out with the child until it is quiet, but that cannot happen in first class, there is not the space, and most babies will be crying for a while at some point or other on a long flight.

Well, it doesn't have to be the manager. They could always make a rule regarding crying babies. Something where if a baby is crying for a certain amount of time a waiter can ask the customer to take the baby outside. It isn't very hard, and it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to make a ban to keep them out entirely.

Headphones will be good enough to keep your mind on your music rather than concentrating on the crying. I do it all the time when flying between home and university.

A rule on letting in and taking outside I can agree with, but I still think that for FIRST class only seating in a closed cabin, babies should be kept out. If you are spending the money for that peace and luxury on what is normally an uncomfortable endeavour, then it is simply not fair to have that money go to waste when a child cries and ruins that.

I think on that point we are going to have to agree to disagree though.

 

[blaqknoise]

Brat bans? Really?

To be honest, that sounds absolutely pathetic.

Imagine scenario:
You have just paid for yourself and your date to go to an expensive restaurant (not some family restaurant), you have paid plenty for your food and drinks and then a family comes in. They have a small child / baby. No problem. But within 5 minutes, it starts screaming and crying, the parents try to shut it up, it is two tables away, you can hear it clearly. The parents attempts are futile, as they normally are. They stay there for the duration of the rest of your date. You listen to screaming that entire time. Would you be happy with the management of this classy restaurant for allowing this?

Same idea goes for first class on trains and planes.

I'm a pretty patient person. I realize that parents may be new parents and might not be sure what to do and how to properly handle that situation. If the baby keeps crying and crying without stopping, then all the parents need to do is take the baby outside until it's quiet enough to bring back in.

For trains, there isn't and outside to go to, so you can take it into the bathroom or somewhere else where there isn't many people. (I've never been on a train so I don't know what's on them)

For planes, suck it up princess. The parents aren't asking the baby to cry and they can only do their best to make it stop.

I would rather parents sorted their child out straight away as opposed to banning them from classier places, but the fact is that many parents don't even bother, and many who do don't succeed, and since that is only getting worse, I see this as the next best option.

I only want them out of Classy, expensive areas. I fully understand the noise at a family restaurant or second class seating, but DO NOT bring that screaming baby near people who are paying larger amounts of money for a quality experience, because you are then ruining that for them, which is selfish and bad for business. With first class et cetera, you are paying partly for the luxury and experience, not just the trip. A crying baby in your cabin / restaurant completely ruins said luxury and experience. I can handle them as distant background noise, or if I am having a quick, cheap meal / trip et cetera, but in the same restaurant that charges double for service and and luxury, will lead to explosively bad results.

In classy restaurants the manager won't let you sit there with a crying baby for very long. He/She realizes that it isn't good for business and will ask you to take the child outside.

When you're on a plane just put on some headphones and listen to music or watch one of the movies they play. A crying baby really shouldn't bother you too much if you do that.

I have explained that often the manager is not there, or too busy with other matters. And it can still lead to a good 10 minutes of earache before the manager does come through to see the problem.

And headphones are often not efficient as magical blockers of all sound, no matter how high-pitched, loud and close to you.

Maybe yes, the restaurants can be done on a case by case basis, so long as it is strictly enforced that you get out with the child until it is quiet, but that cannot happen in first class, there is not the space, and most babies will be crying for a while at some point or other on a long flight.

Well, it doesn't have to be the manager. They could always make a rule regarding crying babies. Something where if a baby is crying for a certain amount of time a waiter can ask the customer to take the baby outside. It isn't very hard, and it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to make a ban to keep them out entirely.

Headphones will be good enough to keep your mind on your music rather than concentrating on the crying. I do it all the time when flying between home and university.

A rule on letting in and taking outside I can agree with, but I still think that for FIRST class only seating in a closed cabin, babies should be kept out. If you are spending the money for that peace and luxury on what is normally an uncomfortable endeavour, then it is simply not fair to have that money go to waste when a child cries and ruins that.

I think on that point we are going to have to agree to disagree though.

Yep, I think so too.

 

[Ken Sapp]

over population is only a problem in places like Africa, India and China, places like japan are having the opposite problem. and in a very many places that over population is a problem it's ofter a cultural thing, like how in both china and India males are preferred to females, so in china families might try to get rid of baby after baby until they get a son, and in India they JUST KEEP HAVING KIDS until they get a son, things would even out if each couple only had 1-2 children, but you could easily have a couple having 3-6 which is a problem when every other couple is having 3-6 kids as well.

The areas you point out are also places that are mostly still changing from third world agricultural societies to more industrialized societies where people live longer. Infant mortality rates are falling with the introduction of modern medicine and education. It often takes a couple generations before they are able to shed the mindset of an agricultural society where every child is an extra pair of hands to work on the family farm, most of whom do not live to adulthood.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I think it's kind of weird when they say that birthrates are low because I know many people who are just having kids and they are roughly the same age as me (mid 20s). Not to mention all those children born out of wedlock and young teen mothers.

Unless it refers to less children per household (i.e. 1 or 2 children per couple), then yes, I can see why. To go as far as to say that we are headed towards an anti-child society is a bit of a stretch. There are now two age groups in which people consciously decide (or not) to have children: the young and the mature.

They young (ages 15 - 23) are usually the most sexually active and often conceive out of wedlock. Many tie the not to ensure that their child(ren) has two committed parents and others chose to raise their offspring as individuals. Many have one or two children and settle down, but others continue to have unprotected sexual interplay and have more children.

The mature (ages between late 20s - early 40s) had a more career and goal oriented life and are now confident that they can bring children into the world and provide for them. Since they are very integrated into their work, however, they will have a max of 3 children only.

Still, to say that "brat bans" should be enforced is just idiotic. How can laws for obese adults be more of a concern than children? Or prison inmates for that matter? If children are not nurtured and cared for, they will grow up to be a burden to society than a solution. All those adult for "brat bans" will die off, leaving a society of misfit adults to fend for themselves.

 

[GigaHz]

And you know how often that is not the case?
I have had the same scenario many times. And generally there are 1 of 2 outcomes, what you mentioned happens, they come back in, in 5 minutes the baby is crying again. The baby doesn't understand, it isn't going to a lot of the time.
Second scenario, management does nothing. They are too busy / lazy / not present. The child screams, too many parents don't bother to take child outside, blood boils and I want to see a child-shaped soccer ball.

And on an aeroplane for first class, there isn't an "outside" to take the screaming child to.

If they don't care that a child is disrupting their customers, they are probably not a very fancy restaurant. The ones I've been to are very strict about dress code and behaviour and would not tolerate noise, as they know it would affect their business. They don't outright ban it, they have people deal with it. If their kid continued to make noise, I'm sure they would have been kicked out eventually. Besides, do you know how loud other adults are? Actively listen next time you are in a restaurant, people are LOUD. As I was saying about background noise, unless the restaurant is nearly empty, sometimes even loud children are masked by loud adults talking casually.

If somehow you go to a reputable restaurant and they don't take care of the noise, it is well within your right to go to the manager and make a complaint. If they don't take your complaint seriously, don't eat there again. It's incredibly simple. And as for noisy kids on a plane or any cramped space where they can't leave, purchase some headphones. Whether or not you're interested in whats playing, the headphones will dampen the noise. Or, if you don't feel like doing that, you could approach the parent yourself and ask them nicely to control their child. Hell, you could even ask the stewardess for you if you're too lazy/intimidated by confrontation. Don't pretend as if there is nothing that you can do if you're put in these situations because that's simply not true.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

You know, you seem to have a habit of making short, logical and interesting posts that get almost completely ignored in threads... Also, good point.

Danke. Just comes from stepping back and not rushing forward.

 

[Kayevcee]

It's sort of alarming to see how many people in this thread are continuing to say "less children is good because the planet is overpopulated" despite the number of determined posters pointing to articles and reports stating that our current population boom is down to people living longer and more oldies, not having too many kids. As many others have said, North America, Europe, China and Japan (and others) are not having enough children to sustain their populations and soon these countries are going to have a massive surplus of elderly people that they don't have enough young people to take care of, never mind support.

So... fewer children in developed countries is generally bad news, because we don't have enough. If you don't want to have kids, fair play, but if you do... don't be shy

-Nick

 

[Nikolaz72]

I think you are wrong, Although your view is shared by many on this website, this website's crowd is a minority in the real world. You are merely having this view of being in a world full of people who oppose children because of the Escapist. Bad company for parents and kids alike honestly.

Now dont take this as too much of a personal attack, even though I must admit it is a bit. I think there should be a ban on people who wants to ban kids from public places. Mainly because they tend to suck more than the kids could ever. Cynical, obnoxious. Arrogant. The children are just Ignorant and sometimes loud. Cant beat the Child-haters.

I hear a child screaming and crying? I can take it, if I couldnt i'd be a sissy.

I see a man behind me stand up from his table, and have a go at the parents at the table next to him with said Child. Im tempted to go hit him.. Just for good meassure.

Thats violent. And violence isnt quite me. But sometimes its just warranted. And when kids are loud and obnoxious I can take it. When adults act that way, I cant. They cannot be excused for it. The kid can. If they cant excuse the kid for being loud, they dont deserve to be excused for anything at all.

I love kids (awaiting the FBI now), and don't see how anyone could truly hate them. Kids are the most important people on the planet and it's our responsibility to see to it that the world they inherit is worthwhile and make sure they grow up to be happy. But American families not having as many kids is nothing to worry about. Back in the day, people died a lot more so having more kids was necessary. Today, not so much, and society's attitude towards having kids reflects that.

Do you mean that it is "our" responsibility meaning parents' responsibility? Or "our" responsibility meaning society's burden? I would agree with the first one but not the second one. Someone else's kid is not my problem and I consider no child to be my obligation. And I'd hardly call kids the most important people. I don't think there truly is a most important people.

(I really don't mean this to sound nasty towards you. Those are just my feelings.)

Of course it is not your responsibility to raise someone else's child (unless you want to), but as they say: Children are the future. They absorb information like a sponge and everything they see you do is reflected in the way they behave as adults. You don't know if this kid will be the next president or the guy who gives you your medicine when you're old and feeble. It's just something I hope you keep in mind when you interact with kids.

Or that kid could become the next Jeffrey Dahmer or Ed Gein or Mao Zedong. Just because you hope and think the brats will become good helpful members of society does not mean they will.

Personally I am glad the country is seeing less and less kids. They are a nuisance and I personally can not express in words the amount of loathing I have towards kids and the people that have more than 1.

This man just attacked my parents verbally behind their back. And serves as a perfect example of the people I want to hit usually. He even put his letters in red to symbolize how to be loud and obnouxious and arrogant. Even without being able to use your voice!

 

[Mr Pantomime]

-snip-

I have to say youve struck a cord, saying you loathe children. Its a point im coming back to more and more, but id hate to see a society that feels the way you do about children. Can you imagine a childhood where you are looked upon in distain simply because of your age? A minor annoyance to your parents and society at large, shunned from public places like a dog at a park. Locked in societys basement until some mesure of months and years determine them to be human.

I keep coming back to this point, but people dont seem to get it. Children are people, and you and I are no better than them.

 

[WanderingFool]

In regards to the declining birth rate, its called equalibrium.

In regards to the brat ban, some of the stupidest shit I ever heard...

 

[Kuroneko97]

Honestly, at first I thought this "Child Ban" thing wouldn't go too far.

Oh, my ignorance.

I'd love to use this opportunity to describe my niece, who's about 5 months old.. She only cries really when she's hungry or uncomfortable. The rest of the time she's making cute noises in an attempt to talk. She's not a brat, so why should she be banned?

The thing is, we're doing the same to kids that we've done to minorities in the past: we're banning them for the comfort of the rest. Not all kids are brats, and as someone pointed out the brats come from bad parents.

That doesn't mean all bad parents raise brats. My poor second cousin is being raised by some careless mother who tried to drop her kid on my sister-in-law and brother THE DAY OF THEIR BABY SHOWER. And my second cousin is so shy and well-behaved. Poor thing.

The problem isn't kids. It's the parents. It's all these complaining parents who want to be rid of their kids. If you don't want them, you should have decided that before you had them.

 

[ckam]

MovieBob talked about this in his overthinker episodes. But personally speaking, I don't really think we should discriminate against children on such things like plane rides, but I do support the decreasing birth rate of people. Overpopulation and all that.

 

[Kodachi]

To all these "overpopulation" arguments, I hope you understand that even a noticeable reversal in birth rates will have an enormous negative impact on things you're going to rely on. Government pensions, social security, health care... All these things cost money which we rely on a later generation to help pay for. If our current generation has way more people than our next, a lot of those things are going to be ineffective when we need them if not gone completely.

You want brat bans, fine but you better be ready to to die upon retirement.

 

[Zakarath]

Good. There's already way too many people in the world. (No, I don't mean overpopulation in the traditional sense, that the Earth can't sustain the human population. It can. I just don't think it should need to. The global human population is approaching 7 billion, and why? Our survival is already practically ensured unless we have a nuclear war. They're isn't really any reason to continue expanding our population, and several reasons not to.)

"Growth for the sake of growth is the mentality of a cancer cell."

And personally, it irritates me that every time I look out on the landscape from a mountain or whatever, there's always roads and buildings everywhere, cutting across the Earth's face like scars.

Also, kids annoy me. So there's that, too.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Go build your own perfect society where people don't have children. Then watch me laugh deeply from the sideline as it dies after one generation and so do your ideas.

So long as the average birth rate per couple floats around 2 and thus the population is relatively stable I don't care. Children may be annoying but we were all annoying kids once. You were that annoying baby and yet nobody complained about you. As for this Stigma nonesense, I can only imagine that this is either regional or a hold out from the 1950s since I have never really seen this kind of stigma. On top of that, not wanting kinds is not a universal thing, some people actually do want kids (I know crazy, not every kid was an accident).

 

[Kopikatsu]

I thought overpopulation was a problem? I mean, I could do with less people around. Gods know most people around me are idiots.

Like literally 98-ish% of the world's births happen in third world countries where disease and malnutrition are rampant. The reason given was, 'No contraceptives, lack of education, and having more children means more hands to help out, which means more money/resources/whatever.'

Not sure if I agree with that though.

1. Don't have sex unless you want children. PROBLEM SOLVED.

2. Not sure why being more educated means less births. I think it just ties back to the contraceptive thing. Just have less sex. Jesus. Third world countries are usually flooded with STDs and crap, too. It's just not a good idea.

3. Children are a drain on sanity and resources for a long while until they're capable of 'giving back', so I'm not sure why that's a reason.

But I got off topic. Point is, it doesn't matter of all developed nations had their birth rates drop to nothing. Overpopulation will still remain a major issue until the third world countries have something done with them.

 

[excentric22]

People who support brat bans are the type of narcissistic douche bags I usually deplore. My issue isnt with the kids who dont know any better, but the parents who cant parent them.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I'm seeing a lot of bad thinking from both sides of this argument. On one side, you have the "I hate kids and nobody should have them, or at least make sure they never come near me" argument; this is selfish in the extreme- wanting an entire soceity to change its ways simply because the byproducts annoy you. On the other hand, there's the "You're selfish if you don't have a child" and "You'll understand when you get older" types. Yeah, I'm 35 and still not looking to have a child. This makes me selfish? How selfish would I have to be to bring a life into this world when I truly don't want to? "Oh, you'll change your mind once you see your baby." And if I don't? I can't put the kid back where it came from. Damning a child to a suboptimal childhood just to fulfill your self-righteous busybody impulses... who's the selfish one?

When I worked in a pet store, I very often had to deal with kids and their... let's politely call it "uninformed" views. But one day, a kid who couldn't have been a day over twelve asked me a surprisingly complex question about pet adoption that expressed a view I didn't agree with. I gave him my heartfelt opinion, to which he replied: "Oh... I guess that makes sense if you look at it that way." Then he thanked me for talking to him.

Proof that children are not inherently "monsters". The problem is parenting. Between the fall of coporal punishment (say what you will about it, but I know my mother did not shy from beating my ass when it needed it, and I'm not a quivering wreck), the advent of "touchy-feely" parenting and "let's reward everyone" interaction, and an entire legion of parents who are too busy indulging their own inner children to keep track of their actual offspring, there are unforunately a lot of kids out there who haven't been shown how to act. (And this is a social liberal saying this.) "Brat bans" and outright ostracizing children is not the answer- how is this going to help children understand the world as they grow? Instead, society needs to ridicule and disparage lazy parents who won't keep their kids on the "straight and narrow". It's not always easy and there are some kids that will just be hellions no matter what... but if you're not going to put in your best efforts, then maybe you should just keep your pants on.

 

[Kolby Jack]

I love kids (awaiting the FBI now), and don't see how anyone could truly hate them. Kids are the most important people on the planet and it's our responsibility to see to it that the world they inherit is worthwhile and make sure they grow up to be happy. But American families not having as many kids is nothing to worry about. Back in the day, people died a lot more so having more kids was necessary. Today, not so much, and society's attitude towards having kids reflects that.

Do you mean that it is "our" responsibility meaning parents' responsibility? Or "our" responsibility meaning society's burden? I would agree with the first one but not the second one. Someone else's kid is not my problem and I consider no child to be my obligation. And I'd hardly call kids the most important people. I don't think there truly is a most important people.

(I really don't mean this to sound nasty towards you. Those are just my feelings.)

Of course it is not your responsibility to raise someone else's child (unless you want to), but as they say: Children are the future. They absorb information like a sponge and everything they see you do is reflected in the way they behave as adults. You don't know if this kid will be the next president or the guy who gives you your medicine when you're old and feeble. It's just something I hope you keep in mind when you interact with kids.

Or that kid could become the next Jeffrey Dahmer or Ed Gein or Mao Zedong. Just because you hope and think the brats will become good helpful members of society does not mean they will.

Personally I am glad the country is seeing less and less kids. They are a nuisance and I personally can not express in words the amount of loathing I have towards kids and the people that have more than 1.

How do you think they got that way? Bad parenting and abusive people around them. They probably wouldn't have done those things if they had good role models and people who actually cared for them. They at least would have been noticed by someone and put away to get help. Hoping and thinking won't solve anything, you are right about that, but I never said that, or anything close to it.

And it's totally fine that you don't like spending time with kids too. That's your choice. Though the amount of hate you expressed towards them is disconcerting. What happened? Did children kill your dog or something?

 

[BlueMage]

I'm seeing a lot of bad thinking from both sides of this argument. On one side, you have the "I hate kids and nobody should have them, or at least make sure they never come near me" argument; this is selfish in the extreme- wanting an entire soceity to change its ways simply because the byproducts annoy you. On the other hand, there's the "You're selfish if you don't have a child" and "You'll understand when you get older" types. Yeah, I'm 35 and still not looking to have a child. This makes me selfish? How selfish would I have to be to bring a life into this world when I truly don't want to? "Oh, you'll change your mind once you see your baby." And if I don't? I can't put the kid back where it came from. Damning a child to a suboptimal childhood just to fulfill your self-righteous busybody impulses... who's the selfish one?

When I worked in a pet store, I very often had to deal with kids and their... let's politely call it "uninformed" views. But one day, a kid who couldn't have been a day over twelve asked me a surprisingly complex question about pet adoption that expressed a view I didn't agree with. I gave him my heartfelt opinion, to which he replied: "Oh... I guess that makes sense if you look at it that way." Then he thanked me for talking to him.

Proof that children are not inherently "monsters". The problem is parenting. Between the fall of coporal punishment (say what you will about it, but I know my mother did not shy from beating my ass when it needed it, and I'm not a quivering wreck), the advent of "touchy-feely" parenting and "let's reward everyone" interaction, and an entire legion of parents who are too busy indulging their own inner children to keep track of their actual offspring, there are unforunately a lot of kids out there who haven't been shown how to act. (And this is a social liberal saying this.) "Brat bans" and outright ostracizing children is not the answer- how is this going to help children understand the world as they grow? Instead, society needs to ridicule and disparage lazy parents who won't keep their kids on the "straight and narrow". It's not always easy and there are some kids that will just be hellions no matter what... but if you're not going to put in your best efforts, then maybe you should just keep your pants on.

I love you. Someone who finally made sense.