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

[Bat Vader]

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.

The way I see it is that if a child starts to cry, scream, or misbehave and the parent can't or won't get their child to calm down. I think the management or whomever is in charge at the time should be able to ask or tell the person to leave. If a misbehaving or crying child is interrupting my enjoyment of a film at a theater or dinner at a restaurant. I won't hesitate to talk to the manager and report the parent and child.

 

[arsenicCatnip]

I have the solution to all your problems:

Now proceed with telling me what a horrible person I am. If I have kids, and dispite my best efforts parenting, they will not behave, I fully intent to leash/gag them.

I'm totally not telling you you're horrible, lol! My dad had a leash for me when I was a kid! It looked more like this though:

 

[Alleged_Alec]

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.

I never said they were. I said it was a similar situation. And I disagree on your second standpoint. It's not so much forcing people to live with my decision as it is forcing them to live with their own ones. Example: I smoke. That doesn't mean I hate anti-smoking laws, in fact: I rather like them. I like my diners in a smoke-free room, thankyouverymuch. And no, this does not inhibit my freedom in any significant way. I can leave my cigarettes at home, or if I am really, really stressed, go outside to smoke one, where I do not bother people with it.

 

[Eggsnham]

Little kids, yes.

I don't want to hear your screaming kids, get a babysitter, or better yet, pass their burden onto a family member while you go and do whatever.

 

[MoeTheMonk]

I can definitely support a no kids policy when it comes to places like movie theaters, airplane's first-class sections, and fancier restaurants. However, I think things like grocery stores and big-box stores are bit a much, especially since most are big places where you can move away from it or finish your business quickly, as opposed to other locations where you couldn't.

Though I think the biggest problem today is parents and discipline. You know what would stop a tantrum being thrown by that brat over there? A spanking. Or a slap on the head. But no, that's pretty much child abuse nowadays. I'd be scared to do anything like that to my kid in public these days, for fear of some overly-concerned bystander calling the police because I'm abusing a child.

Not in the long run. Corporal punishment is a short-term solution. The child does not learn that what he did was wrong, but that it is wrong if he does it in your presence. However, he does learn that hitting others is appropriate if you disagree with their behavior. Time-outs are more effective because they are a natural consequence of displaying poor group dynamics. In other words, if you bother other members of a group, then they will expel you from said group and, moreover, you will not be welcomed back until you are willing to cooperate and make amends. Parents are responsible from removing children from public when they start to annoy others. Parents unwilling to fulfill this role have no business bringing their children in public.

I totally agree that other such punishments like time-outs can be very effective and in lots of cases, preferable to physical punishment. However, I do believe there most definitely is a place for corporal punishment. I for one, was disciplined physically growing up, it was uncommon, but enough to know what might happen if I did something wrong. And that did not teach me that hitting others was an appropriate response to disagreements, and I doubt most kids would learn that as a result of spankings either.
Physical punishments reinforce the idea that bad deeds are punished, and if you want to avoid being punished, don't be bad. Especially at younger ages, physical punishments like spankings, combined with an explanation of why what they did was wrong, get the point across much quicker, much easier, and much clearer than time-outs do.

 

[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.

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.

Ain't life a *****?

Kids are part of society, more then that they're people, this ban is dehumanizing.

If you think there is some possibility that people can go out and be absolutely stress free and not rub each other the wrong way you're delusional. If you honestly can't deal with annoying kids then you're the one causing a problem.

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.

I never said they were. I said it was a similar situation. And I disagree on your second standpoint. It's not so much forcing people to live with my decision as it is forcing them to live with their own ones. Example: I smoke. That doesn't mean I hate anti-smoking laws, in fact: I rather like them. I like my diners in a smoke-free room, thankyouverymuch. And no, this does not inhibit my freedom in any significant way. I can leave my cigarettes at home, or if I am really, really stressed, go outside to smoke one, where I do not bother people with it.

Kids aren't cigarettes either, as stated above, they're people, you can't lock them away just because they get on your nerves.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

I honestly don't care, really. I don't have a problem with kids, loud or not. I can block it out easily. Just as long as they're not directly targeting me (like kicking my seat in an airplane) then I'm fine.
However... not ALL kids are shitheads. So its a dick move to the ones that aren't little fuckers, imo.

 

[blase]

Oh god YES! There are so many entitled parents who think that they deserve pity, support and forgiveness all at once just for having kids.

It's outrageous that people who pay the price of a compact car for a First Class ticket to enjoy a peaceful intercontinental flight can end up in a freaking kindergarten instead. Screaming brats should be banned or kicked out everywhere. Not immediately but as soon as it's obvious that parents can't control them.

 

[Mild_en_Snakz]

As much as I'd love to say yes to this rule, I can't because I think it'd be too selfish of me. Believe me, I'd love nothing less than to have one less thing driving me half-crazy at work or at restaurants or any other place where kids scream and cry. But it's not about what I want, it's easier on the parents not to have to worry about where they can take their kids. I think people like myself will just have to live with it, unfortunately.

 

[Bat Vader]

I have the solution to all your problems:

Now proceed with telling me what a horrible person I am. If I have kids, and dispite my best efforts parenting, they will not behave, I fully intent to leash/gag them.

I'm totally not telling you you're horrible, lol! My dad had a leash for me when I was a kid! It looked more like this though:

That child in the photo looks like he is about to assassinate somebody. I think it is funny.

 

[SwagLordYoloson]

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.

Yes it is about discrimination, not all children are immature, loud, irritating nuisances and to ban all of them for the actions of a few is both lazy and discriminatory. Should children not have the right to be able to go to a restaurant or ride a plane with their parent and not be judged because of their age? I assure you, not all children are 'devils'.

The following is not really targeted at you, but more so towards american society as I perceive being a foreigner.

In reference to the article, I don't know about American children, but where I grew up children behave when out in public, it is very seldom you will find a child misbehaving in public.

Also addressing this apparent 'American Issue with Children', should it not be the parent's responsibility in the first place. After all they are the ones in control of their children, and if they aren't why are they letting their 6 year old out on the town?

 

[JET1971]

When I was growing up there was 2 sections to near everyplace we would go to. smoking and non-smoking sections. I should think that restraunts could divide the tables again but children and non-children sections.

 

[Cazza]

I can see why people want this. It's also selfish. What about parents? How can they explain that the kid is banned from some many places. It would kill so many holiday opyions. Planes to hotels then actives.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Kids aren't cigarettes either, as stated above, they're people, you can't lock them away just because they get on your nerves.

I never said they should be locked away. I think there's no need for them to enter certain establishments. This would include the more 'classy' restaurants, and I certainly wouldn't mind to pay a bit extra to have a kid-free space in the plane.

 

[stvncpr236]

I don't think this should pertain to just young kids, Ive seen older kids and hell even adults (witch isn't such a big deal cause you can hit an adult.) Who are just as if not more annoying than young children. I simply think that we should leave it to the staff to crack down more on nuisances, I've done it at work a few times.

Captcha : Otforade Power, I'm assuming its some sort of ancient middle eastern sports drink.

 

[SinisterGehe]

Unless they provide a service which parents can use to keep their kids while they attend a service that has banned children.
Also this is pure form of age discrimination and far as I understand against human rights.
No! I do not support this rule, unless the service is clearly set for people over the age of 16,18 like some restaurant are. Discriminating people who get children, because they have children, is retarted! But it is not my job to tell people who will lose money because of this decision that they will loose money, for example grocery- store that children are not allowed in? You think families with children are going to come there? The biggest spending force of any western nation...

I do not support this rule, I understand the base of it, but complete discrimination by age is wrong! Restaurants and such services can "ban" children after certain clock hours, usually when the bar opens, otherwise no.
If Air-lines ban children from 1sat class cabins, then they have to provide seats specifically for families with children.

At the same time could we ban drunk people from restaurants/bars/ships/airplanes.
I agree with removing children who don't behave, but discriminating them is wrong, discriminating anyone is wrong. Like Can I ban old people from bars meant for young people?

 

[Sprinal]

God yes. Especially on airplanes.

Although I do agree that Kids under the age of 6 should be banned from some areas of the world (cinemas etc). I was a good baby on aircraft. I simply went to sleep on a flight from Sydney to LA. THis is what I allways did. So why not simply have a small area that is sound proofed for parents with loud babies to have to sit. And if the baby is not making a noise the parent and baby can sit in the normal seats. But if they cry/annoy others then they get chucked in there.


Wow that was a long reply... Sorry I just hate the sad tale of "the rotten apple spoiled the whole barrel."

 

[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.

Ain't life a *****?

Kids are part of society, more then that they're people, this ban is dehumanizing.

If you think there is some possibility that people can go out and be absolutely stress free and not rub each other the wrong way you're delusional. If you honestly can't deal with annoying kids then you're the one causing a problem.

If people can't function in society, they shouldn't be a part of it, age be damned.

I can't believe that you'd be so arrogant as to put yourself so aggressively above others and actually demand THEY alter their plans just so you and your hellspawns can be happy. If the little shit is screaming, he's not happy - and by you putting them through that, you're a bad parent.

I hate people like you - who think the rules and common courtesy don't apply to them, and are more determined to live their own lives than raise their children properly.

A business owner has the right to evict anyone they choose from their place of business for any or no reason... so really this 'ban' is inconsequential.

If you walked into my restaurant, I'd welcome you like anyone else. But if your child starts squealing, and I can hear it from my office, you can bet you're on the street in 30 seconds flat.