Poll: No-kids-allowed movement. Yay or nay?

[Sansha]

I like how America says its against discrimination, then when it suits them they are all for it. There is no difference between racism, sexism and agisim. In all cases there is a demographic you are excluding, and just because children do not get a vote or a say in matters does not mean that they should be discriminated against.

This isn't about discrimination - if a person is making an immature, loud, irritating nuisance of themselves, I'm going to want them far away from me, no what age, race or mental capacity they may be.

The only good reason to be screaming in public is if you've just been dealt a horrific injury.

That sounds like an awful idea, if you can't put up with a kid then maybe you should be the one to leave.

You need to be locked in a room with 5-6 screaming crying whining children. I would love to see how long you last before snapping

Heh, welcome to my house, fact of the matter is it's blatant segregation, justified by the argument of 'they're kids, they don't know their own rights'.

Segregation that benefits a lot of people by reducing the amount of stress they have to deal with. Its positive segregation.

Because nothing says progress as a species like massive intolerance based on generalizations totally out of their control, am I right?

This is a health issue, both physical and mental. Would you rather have people's health suffer or would you rather eliminate the problem?

Children are a fact of life, if you can't handle them you can just go home.

You aren't taking into consideration the mental and physical toll it has on the kids themselves if they're forced out of sight until they reach a certain age. Not to mention the burden it puts on parents.

Better idea: Keep your children to yourself and don't bring them to places where they may cause a problem. You chose to have kids, I did not, I shouldn't have to deal with what you made.

Well said. I don't agree with a flat-out 'No kids' ban on everything. Expensive, adult establishments like high-class restaurants, clubs and spas for sure - it really depends on the kind of atmosphere - but a business proprietor should (and usually does) reserve the right to evict anyone - REGARDLESS OF AGE - who is causing discomfort to his other patrons.

 

[Vern]

This sounds like a good compromise, IMHO. But again, what about places where children obviously shouldn't be, but are brought in with their parents (thinking about that rated-R movie example up there)?

If it's an R-rated movie then I think it's up the parents to decide if it's appropriate. As long as the children behave I see no problem with it. It's a fictional story, if their kids can sit still and not scream then that's fine. That's parents discretion and if the children bother other people they should be asked to leave. The only restriction I would place on it is say, bars and strip clubs, where you have to be 21 to enter, and children could be exposed to actual real world events that could affect them. Children are fine as long as they behave in their environment, but they should not be exposed to public areas of real world vice when they are underage.

And apparently Manilla makes life easy.

 

[DarthSka]

Personally, I'm for a different sort of legislation. If someone brings a loud kid in, boot 'em. So long as the kid behaves, they're welcome in my book... but too many people don't raise their kids anymore, they just give their kids whatever they want in early development, teaching the kid that tantrums get them their desired results.
I say boot failed parents and their squalling brats to the curb, let 'em take their noise pollution on home... but banning all kids isn't the answer.

Like so many others have said, this seems to be the best course to take. Like I said on the previous thread, I've never really had an experience where a kid was so annoying that it ruined my experience, and I go out plenty. Honestly, I've had worse experiences around teenagers and people in their 20's (my age group). So basically, anyone (not just kids) being a loud, obnoxious jerk and not cutting it out is warned. If it doesn't stop, bye-bye.

 

[Sansha]

That sounds like an awful idea, if you can't put up with a kid then maybe you should be the one to leave.

Yeah I'm not going to walk out of a movie or restaurant I paid for because someone else's worm is making a little shit out of themselves, don't be absurd.

Responsibility ultimately lies with the parents. They should know the deal when they have a kid - that your life isn't yours anymore, that parenting is a full-time job and if you want a break, you pay for a sitter.

My sister is just now learning this with her first son, but she's adapting well.

A lot of parents say they can't afford a sitter. To this, I reply:

"If you can afford a $10-20 movie and/or $40 - $80 meal, you can sure as hell afford a sitter."

I do find it kind of funny that you imply selfishness on the part of the parents when you're perfectly willing to force them to pay for a sitter (Not cheap) just to make yourself more comfortable.

This whole thread reeks of hypocrisy.

If you can afford to eat out, you can afford a sitter. There's really no excuse for it.

You think I'm being selfish? You'd willingly take your squealing piggies out to an enclosed, public environment where people have paid to be and enjoy themselves, and force them to have their evening ruined by noise because you can't or simply won't control your little mistakes because you can afford to be there, but not shell out to cover your own responsibilities?

On what planet do you spend the majority of your time?

 

[Beautiful End]

That sounds like an awful idea, if you can't put up with a kid then maybe you should be the one to leave.

Yeah I'm not going to walk out of a movie or restaurant I paid for because someone else's worm is making a little shit out of themselves, don't be absurd.

Responsibility ultimately lies with the parents. They should know the deal when they have a kid - that your life isn't yours anymore, that parenting is a full-time job and if you want a break, you pay for a sitter.

My sister is just now learning this with her first son, but she's adapting well.

A lot of parents say they can't afford a sitter. To this, I reply:

"If you can afford a $10-20 movie and/or $40 - $80 meal, you can sure as hell afford a sitter."

I do find it kind of funny that you imply selfishness on the part of the parents when you're perfectly willing to force them to pay for a sitter (Not cheap) just to make yourself more comfortable.

This whole thread reeks of hypocrisy.

If you ask me, I think it's more selfish out of the parents to bring their kid to wherever they're going for the night; knowing that the kid will either get bored, hungry or sleepy and will eventually throw a tantrum.

Look, let's say I wanna go to the opera. Let's assume I have a kid. So my choices are:

-Miss the event. Sorry, it sucks, but I'm a parent now. Can't go around doing stuff I'd do if I was single. I have a kid now that depends on me.
-Find a babysitter. Yeah, kinda expensive. But it's the opera and it's just one night. Could be worth it. How about asking a friend to watch over my kid? If I really wanna go to the opera, then staying one night away from my kid won't be the end of the world. Thus, I'll be doing the kid a favor by leaving him home and allowing him to sleep, play or whatever while I also have fun. Hey, I need a night out too!
-Bring the kid to the opera with me. Now, I know that if I do, my kid will start talking and asking questions because he's a kid. Then he might get tired and he'll start crying because he wants to home (Not his fault). Then people will start staring at me, but I can't leave because it's the final act. If only I can endure this for 5 more minutes. Then someone will ask me to leave the building. I'll have to stand up all embarrassed, take my kid and leave. I won't even see the end of the show. On top of that, my kid is too tired, the poor thing.


So I don't see how asking their parents to refrain from taking their kid to SOME places is selfish. Some parents do this. Why can't all parents do this?

I'm not saying kids should belong in a cage, of course not. And I'm not saying parents should jump through hoops just to keep strangers happy. But it's common courtesy. It's the same reason why I don't talk on the phone while I'm at the movies or why I try not to yell while I'm having dinner with my friends; because it would suck if someone did the same to me so I won't do it to others.

Imagine a couple that goes to a fancy place and the guy is about to propose. And as he's speaking those words, you hear a kid crying and bellowing at his mom. Wow, what a romantic evening!
Now imagine the same couple doing the same kid. Except the kid on the next table is minding his own business, perhaps talking to his parents and having fun too. I'm unaware of him and likewise.

It's just common courtesy.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Hell yes, I have a kid and I taught her manners, teach yours some too

 

[CodeOrange]

I disapprove of this movement purely because I wasn't a little shit when I was a child.

Wait, does this mean that children are completely not allowed to enter certain venues, or does this mean that other patrons and customers have the right to complain, and employees and employers have the right to evict said annoying children?

There should be a counter-movement to this, where parenthood is no longer a right, but a privilege only given to those who have proven to be a capable parent (parent school, anyone?). Awfully Fascist, so I doubt this will ever happen.

 

[luclin92]

i wont go for a ban of children in any particular place since that would kinda stop a part of the income of those places. i would rather have a family only areas in restaurants, airplanes and other similar events. with this families can go do what they want without people getting annoyed. i work at a grocery store and have to deal with crying children almost daily, and i dont find that a problem (most of the kids there are either nice, or doing something funny).

 

[xmbts]

That sounds like an awful idea, if you can't put up with a kid then maybe you should be the one to leave.

Yeah I'm not going to walk out of a movie or restaurant I paid for because someone else's worm is making a little shit out of themselves, don't be absurd.

Responsibility ultimately lies with the parents. They should know the deal when they have a kid - that your life isn't yours anymore, that parenting is a full-time job and if you want a break, you pay for a sitter.

My sister is just now learning this with her first son, but she's adapting well.

A lot of parents say they can't afford a sitter. To this, I reply:

"If you can afford a $10-20 movie and/or $40 - $80 meal, you can sure as hell afford a sitter."

I do find it kind of funny that you imply selfishness on the part of the parents when you're perfectly willing to force them to pay for a sitter (Not cheap) just to make yourself more comfortable.

This whole thread reeks of hypocrisy.

If you can afford to eat out, you can afford a sitter. There's really no excuse for it.

You think I'm being selfish? You'd willingly take your squealing piggies out to an enclosed, public environment where people have paid to be and enjoy themselves, and force them to have their evening ruined by noise because you can't control your little mistakes?

On what planet do you spend the majority of your time?

Inconveniencing others for the benefit of yourself, yes that's what I'm saying. If you can afford to eat out and you don't have children I think you can afford to walk out.

Not a fan of that idea then why don't you tough it out and deal with it just like the parents have to every waking minute of their lives.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

I'd like all against (and for) this to consider the following.

Let's exchange the word 'kid' with the word 'dog' and 'parent' with 'dog owner'. Does the proposition still sound like discrimination? I can't think of a single restaurant where you can take your dog inside. Why? Because they are a liability. Sure, some of them will be properly trained and will keep quite and not harass others, but we still not allow them because of the liability of them ruining someone's night out.


EDIT:

Inconveniencing others for the benefit of yourself, yes that's what I'm saying. If you can afford to eat out and you don't have children I think you can afford to walk out.

Not a fan of that idea then why don't you tough it out and deal with it just like the parents have to every waking minute of their lives.

We didn't choose to have children. Don't see why we should have to face the consequences of your decision.


EDIT 2:

There should be a counter-movement to this, where parenthood is no longer a right, but a privilege only given to those who have proven to be a capable parent (parent school, anyone?). Awfully Fascist, so I doubt this will ever happen.

Actually, that'd be a movement pretty much in the same tone as this one. I'd be all for it, by the way (I've been bloody saying this for nearly five years now...).

 

[Chibz]

Spoons:
-Do you agree with this rule?
-Do you hate this rule/does this rule affect you?
-Do you think this is absurd or necessary?
-Do you wish to see this movement gain more support? Or not?
-Etc?

1. I just checked, and it would be exceedingly illegal where I live. Discrimination based on age.
2. I neither love nor hate it. Except for the fact that my child-nephew is actually more mature than I am. Yet he'd be barred, yet I wouldn't.
3. It's a little absurd.
4. No. It's really quite silly.
5. Pizza with anchovies, banana peppers, extra cheese and mushrooms. With delicious guacamole sauce instead of bland tomato paste. Yum yum.

 

[Gladiateher]

It depends entirely on the venue for me. I'll try to elaborate.

-Resteraunts: I agree, if your eating out than your paying more than usual, if you can afford to do so than you can afford a baby sitter.

-Fast food: I disagree, It's fast food ffs who would expect to have a nice meal here anyway. If kids bother you take that shit to go man.

-Hotels: I disagree entirely. Of course people with children still need to travel and take vacations. To think otherwise is purely nonsensical.

-Coach Airplane Seating: I disagree again. Seriously a plane at it's core is just a flying room full of people and when you volunteer to enter a room full of people you can bet your scrawny ass there's going to be noise. If it bothers you so much listen to music or watch a movie. You probably planned on doing so anyway.

-Business or First class Seating: I agree, Kids have nothing to do with business... First class is meant to be luxurious, people pay out the ass for that kind of comfort and they deserve it. Sometimes

-Spas: Spas? really? I totally agree, and as a side note who the hell brings their kids to a spa?

There's a thousand others but here's what i'm willing to cover.

 

[xmbts]

Snip

I get that, what I'm saying is an outright ban on children is kind of a massive step backwards in human rights.

I'd like all against (and for) this to consider the following.

Let's exchange the word 'kid' with the word 'dog' and 'parent' with 'dog owner'. Does the proposition still sound like discrimination? I can't think of a single restaurant where you can take your dog inside. Why? Because they are a liability. Sure, some of them will be properly trained and will keep quite and not harass others, but we still not allow them because of the liability of them ruining someone's night out.


EDIT:

Inconveniencing others for the benefit of yourself, yes that's what I'm saying. If you can afford to eat out and you don't have children I think you can afford to walk out.

Not a fan of that idea then why don't you tough it out and deal with it just like the parents have to every waking minute of their lives.

We didn't choose to have children. Don't see why we should have to face the consequences of your decision.

Kids aren't dogs...

Also "We didn't choose to have children. Don't see why we should have to face the consequences of your decision" is a very frail argument as it can easily be turned since such a ban is forcing people to deal with your own decision.

 

[CodeOrange]

I'd like all against (and for) this to consider the following.

Let's exchange the word 'kid' with the word 'dog' and 'parent' with 'dog owner'. Does the proposition still sound like discrimination? I can't think of a single restaurant where you can take your dog inside. Why? Because they are a liability. Sure, some of them will be properly trained and will keep quite and not harass others, but we still not allow them because of the liability of them ruining someone's night out.

Your logic is awfully childish, I'm afraid.

I kid, really. Pun intended. Instead, there should be a, at lack of a better word, "dog" license that parents make their "pets" take, and if their "dog" is "disobedient", they therefore fail the test and the "dog owner" is restricted on where they can bring their "animals". However if this child proves capable of self-control, then their parents will receive a license which allows them to bring their child in.

Of course, fines will be provided against discriminatory stores, and incompetent "pet owners" will have their "dog's" license evoked, having to take supplementary "dog-training sessions", in order to re-obtain said license.

 

[justnotcricket]

I'm a bit eh, but mostly I don't agree. Some of my earliest and fondest memories are of going out with my grandparents and parents. My Grandparents in particular used to take me to this restaurant that had children's meals that had containers shaped like policeman-dogs and cat-burglars, and so every lunchtime my granddad would tell me stories using these lunches. If I knew that someone was trying to or had managed to deprive me or another child of those sorts of memories (my grandparents died before I was ten, some of these memories are literally all I remember of them) then I would be so far beyond pissed at those people.

But then again, even at age five or six (and my parents insist even younger than that) I was apparently a quiet and polite child who understood that a restaurant was for your indoor voice, and not running around in either. I think that the problem here is not the children, but parents who can't control or haven't taught their children properly, and I don't think it's fair to deny children the chance to understand what it means to be an adult, and to 'feel grown-up,' as my parents used to say, just because some idiot parents don't understand about proper child rearing.

SO in short, no, I don't agree, and I think that the only people who genuinely agree with this are actually the selfish ones in this equation.

In principle, I agree with what you're saying - I had essentially a similar experience as you - I was a fairly quiet child, who was taught how to behave in restaurants (etc), and that made going to them a special treat, and I have fond memories of many family celebrations.

However, I don't think it's unreasonable for there to be an openly stated rule at an establishment that states that, say, only children over a certain age are allowed, or that if complaints are received, the people in question will be politely asked to either remove themselves, or actually make an attempt to keep the child in line.

I think if this is openly and fairly stated, then people might just think twice about bringing a child to somewhere that they aren't ready for, or perhaps about educating their child a little as to what is expected of them in a 'grown-up' situation. I agree that children should have the opportunity to experience 'grown-up' situations, but if their parents haven't explained the gravity of the situation to them, they're not really having a grown up experience, are they? They're just behaving like it's any other family dinner, with all the chaos that that might entail.

 

[Astoria]

I'm all for it. Not in movies or anything like that but in fancy restaurants, first class and such where you pay extra to get a better experience then definitely. If you've paid the money then you deserve a nice peaceful time not filled with annoying kids. I can never understand why kids are taken to fancy restaurants in the first place. They won't like any of the food and will get bored in 5 minutes. Take them to a pub or something and if you want the better food be considerate of others and leave the kids with a baby sitter. The best solution of course would be parents actually disciplining their kids when they're running around but we all know that won't happen.

 

[Saulkar]

I can actually agree with your idea, a warning system instead of a complete ban. Something that I said earlier in a reply went like this.

loc978:
Personally, I'm for a different sort of legislation. If someone brings a loud kid in, boot 'em. So long as the kid behaves, they're welcome in my book... but too many people don't raise their kids anymore, they just give their kids whatever they want in early development, teaching the kid that tantrums get them their desired results.
I say boot failed parents and their squalling brats to the curb, let 'em take their noise pollution on home... but banning all kids isn't the answer.

I whole heartedly agree with your statement. Additionally if you do not put a child in scenarios where they need to learn to develop maturity and self restraint (assuming they have a responsible parent(s)), where will they get it? They do not simply pull it out of their ass when they turn 20. A kid needs to learn and the parents need to learn as well when their childs behaviour is their own fault.

 

[Bebus]

There is absolutely no reason to make either choice the be-all and end-all of the discussion.

Restaurants should be able to have 2-3 days per week with a 'no under 18s' rule.

Cinemas should be able to alternate showings between 'anybody allowed' and 'no kids'

Airlines should be able to charge extra for specialist (no kids!) flights.

 

[Sansha]

That sounds like an awful idea, if you can't put up with a kid then maybe you should be the one to leave.

Yeah I'm not going to walk out of a movie or restaurant I paid for because someone else's worm is making a little shit out of themselves, don't be absurd.

Responsibility ultimately lies with the parents. They should know the deal when they have a kid - that your life isn't yours anymore, that parenting is a full-time job and if you want a break, you pay for a sitter.

My sister is just now learning this with her first son, but she's adapting well.

A lot of parents say they can't afford a sitter. To this, I reply:

"If you can afford a $10-20 movie and/or $40 - $80 meal, you can sure as hell afford a sitter."

I do find it kind of funny that you imply selfishness on the part of the parents when you're perfectly willing to force them to pay for a sitter (Not cheap) just to make yourself more comfortable.

This whole thread reeks of hypocrisy.

If you can afford to eat out, you can afford a sitter. There's really no excuse for it.

You think I'm being selfish? You'd willingly take your squealing piggies out to an enclosed, public environment where people have paid to be and enjoy themselves, and force them to have their evening ruined by noise because you can't control your little mistakes?

On what planet do you spend the majority of your time?

Inconveniencing others for the benefit of yourself, yes that's what I'm saying. If you can afford to eat out and you don't have children I think you can afford to walk out.

Not a fan of that idea then why don't you tough it out and deal with it just like the parents have to every waking minute of their lives.

Let me make it totally clear that you can absolutely go to hell if you think I'm walking out from something I paid for because someone else is causing a problem.

Sorry, but you knew the deal when you signed up to have kids in the first place. It's hard, but if you couldn't handle it, you shouldn't have had them.

You wanna go out and have fun? Tough fucking luck, you have someone who depends on you now. Time to suck it up and actually deal with your little mistake, and stop thinking of only yourself.

Here's the reality about having children:
Your life isn't your own anymore.
Having a child is a huge responsibility. You have a human being who relies on you for everything - food, shelter, attention, learning about life. Whatever you want to do, it has to fit in with the child's schedule. In fact, sounds to me like you had a mistake or two and are just bitter about how you fucked your life up.

Ain't life a *****?

 

[Jeff Loper]

As a former retail employee, ten years, I must say that I've had my fill of supermarket tantrums.