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

[Kl4pp5tuhl]

We need a "Little Lamplight" where we drop them off until they are 18.

An Island would be nice. Or an enhanced version of the Kindergarten.

Yes, I do hate kids, why are you asking?

 

[xmbts]

Or how about people quit whining and just enjoy their damn meal?

How about I park my car in front of your window at 2am blasting "Baby Got Back" at full volume. And then tell you to stop whinging.

You're missing a step here, most of those other things you listed as banned are harmful, what we're talking about is people being too short tempered and socially inept to just be able to put up with an obnoxious child.

Yeah, it's the people who are being disturbed by a screaming child who are socially inept, not the mother who's too bloody incompetent to keep her kid quiet.

Let me guess, you're a mother of a hateful little sprog.

And the misogyny returns.

If a parent brings their child out to eat they have just as much right to be there as you yourself. If it bothers you that much and they don't feel like stepping out you have two very simple choices.

1: Deal with it.

2: Leave.

Imposing your will on others is immoral.

 

[Stephanos132]

Or how about people quit whining and just enjoy their damn meal?

How about I park my car in front of your window at 2am blasting "Baby Got Back" at full volume. And then tell you to stop whinging.

There's a fundamental difference between spending time with your family and being a ****. Also, I'm pretty sure that comes under breaking the law, whereas taking your kids out and about is perfectly legal.

You're missing a step here, most of those other things you listed as banned are harmful, what we're talking about is people being too short tempered and socially inept to just be able to put up with an obnoxious child.

Yeah, it's the people who are being disturbed by a screaming child who are socially inept, not the mother who's too bloody incompetent to keep her kid quiet.

Let me guess, you're a mother of a hateful little sprog.

Not a presumptuous little man are you?

 

[galeofceres]

Eh!
I was a troublesome child but when I make too much noise my parents had SOLUTIONS to the problem:
Baby- lemon wedges+baby=seen but not heard, very useful in nice restaurants
Rugrat- dragged out to the parking lot for applications from the hand of learning to the seat of knowledge (bare seat or not depending upon the gravity of the infraction)

There are irresponsible parents out there and sometimes it seems like the numbers are growing. The truth is that the numbers ARE growing due to the irresponsible parents who raised a bunch of brats, including the newly-minted irresponsible parents who are raising yet MORE brats.
It is not really the child's fault that their parent is irresponsible, so I think that instead of keeping the kid out, merely RE-ASSIGN said kid to a responsible adult for the duration of the ride/movie/dining experience/etc... If that means that more places have to start offering a child-care option to keep the disinterested tykes out of my hair, I'm sure they can make plenty of money off of the happy parents who would otherwise have trouble finding a babysitter on such short notice. If that means there is a sound-proof baby section on the plane, complete with changing tables, I'm sure the other passengers would not mind traveling in slightly smaller spaces in order to avoid listening to a screaming child because baby does not like the pressure changes on his/her ears. If that means that restaurants run out of lemons early so I can't have one in my drink, I think I'll live if they're all going to the angry baby down the way. If the smoking section is replaced with the child-friendly section, I'm sure the smokers won't mind going outside in exchange for a quiet, enjoyable dinner.

Of course within our current society in the USA, someone would have to start off on these ideas and make a LOT of money/a marked increase in business before it would catch on. So next time you're in the nice restaurant with the screaming baby, you may want to calmly ask the frazzled parents if they've ever tried lemon wedges.
Good luck?

 

[xmbts]

And the misogyny returns.

If a parent brings their child out to eat they have just as much right to be there as you yourself. If it bothers you that much and they don't feel like stepping out you have two very simple choices.

1: Deal with it.

2: Leave.

Imposing your will on others is immoral.

Okay, now I know that you're not very bright.

Also, three things that are seriously wrong with your reasoning.

1: The parents, who pay for their meal, have a right to be there. The child does not.

2: Why must I leave? Is it physically impossible for parents with a screaming child to leave a room?

3: Who's imposing on the other? One party is saying, literally, in your case, "don't like my screaming brat ruining your evening? DEAL WITH IT OR GTFO!" That's the very definition of imposing your will on others.

But I see that reason is wasted on you. For God's sake, I hope that you NEVER have offspring. I've never met anybody so obtuse and so unfit to be a parent.

So children have no right to eat with their parents? I worry for you.

You can't force people to leave, if they want to stay they can stay. the only person you can evict is yourself and that decision is entirely up to you.

By putting a ban in place that is imposing your will on families everywhere. That much is self evident.

And please stop insulting me in such a way, it's making you look immature and that is just embarrassing given your case.

Keep it civil friend.

 

[targren]

If a parent brings their child out to eat they have just as much right to be there as you yourself. If it bothers you that much and they don't feel like stepping out you have two very simple choices.

1: Deal with it.

2: Leave.

Removing the kids from the equation: if a fully grown man was to stand beside you while you were trying to eat, screeching in your ear, pulling your hair, and trying to take food off your plate, would you "Deal with it or just leave?"

Imposing your will on others is immoral.

Tell that to the parents that think that common courtesy needn't concern them simply because they "willed" to squirt out a tax benefit.

You can't force people to leave, if they want to stay they can stay. the only person you can evict is yourself and that decision is entirely up to you.

False. This movement is largely made up of business owners (airlines, restaurants, movie theatres, etc...) A business owner absolutely has the right to remove you from his premises, as long as it's not for one of the sacred reasons (sex, race, religion). "Being a self-centered, inconsiderate cretin" is, while a popular pastime, NOT one of those sacred reasons.

 

[xmbts]

Adults do have more rights than children. If you don't believe me try bringing a child to a strip club or asking the child to buy you alcohol. Yes that does make us unequal.

Kind of irrelevant seeing as this isn't about booze or sex, it's about people throwing a tantrum because kids throw tantrums and frankly it's embarrassing that they call themselves more mature.

I don't see tantrums I see restaurants and planes forbidding kids and not making a huge fuss over it.

Hehe, given the reactions people are giving me you may understand why I respectfully disagree.

If a parent brings their child out to eat they have just as much right to be there as you yourself. If it bothers you that much and they don't feel like stepping out you have two very simple choices.

1: Deal with it.

2: Leave.

Removing the kids from the equation: if a fully grown man was to stand beside you while you were trying to eat, screeching in your ear, pulling your hair, and trying to take food off your plate, would you "Deal with it or just leave?"

Imposing your will on others is immoral.

Tell that to the parents that think that common courtesy needn't concern them simply because they "willed" to squirt out a tax benefit.

Yeah actually, people suck, get used to it or get out.

Also I'm fairly certain only complete morons have kids for financial reasons. Parenthood doesn't work like that.

 

[Stephanos132]

There's a fundamental difference between spending time with your family and being a ****. Also, I'm pretty sure that comes under breaking the law, whereas taking your kids out and about is perfectly legal.

Which is the point of this thread. It shouldn't be, because if you're the kind of person who feels the need to take a screaming infant to a restaurant, your kid's gonna be a horrid little bastard and disturb others.

What you and the silly person are saying is that the obnoxiousness of a few is a right that should be protected, while the peace and quiet of many is not.

That's perverse.

No less perverse than the intolerant few who demand that nothing disturb their perfectly quiet world, and that their rights take precedence over others as well. Would you so willingly turn away, say, the second coming of Christ just because he was a child? Let the businesses decide. If they choose to serve kids too, then so be it. The rest of us will have to lump it (and really, is a loud child so terrible a thing that the steak you ordered is irrevocably ruined?)

Not a presumptuous little man are you?

It's either that, or a troll. Plus, I don't take kindly to being patronised by people who, after the third time that I tell them that children do not enjoy full civil rights, keeps blathering on about how everybody has the same rights.

They have a right to exist and be about in this world. That's enough for most of us, why not you?

 

[targren]

Also I'm fairly certain only complete morons have kids for financial reasons. Parenthood doesn't work like that.

Judging by the whining going on by people who are more important than everyone else in the place, and the pattern of behavior that caused it, it's almost conceivable that only complete morons have kids, period.

 

[Pinstar]

Why do we need sweeping rules? Let places of business decide their own rules and let them reap the positive/negative consequences of choosing that rule.

 

[targren]

Why do we need sweeping rules? Let places of business decide their own rules and let them reap the positive/negative consequences of choosing that rule.

That *is* what's going on. Individual businesses are moving, more and more, to banning or limiting children, and people are getting their panties in a bunch about it.

 

[xmbts]

Or how about people quit whining and just enjoy their damn meal?

How about the parents quit whining and hire a sitter? That seems far easier then getting strangers to put up with kids throwing a tantrum.

I'm not sure how I feel about this but that's got to be the worst argument I've heard so far.

Sitters are expensive, maybe they want to have a nice family night out?

You ask why you have to put up with them because they feel like going out, I ask why they have to put up with you making thing even more complicated for them.

Also I'm fairly certain only complete morons have kids for financial reasons. Parenthood doesn't work like that.

Judging by the whining going on by people who are more important than everyone else in the place, and the pattern of behavior that caused it, it's almost conceivable that only complete morons have kids, period.

You are aware you just insulted every person in existence, correct?

You don't have to understand someone's thought process to not be tolerant.

 

[galeofceres]

@targren
I cite my earlier post for this problem. Since they're doing away with the smoking sections, why not replace them with child-friendly sections?

 

[chocolate pickles]

I can see the movement's point, but i dont agree with it. As a kid, i didnt ruin a movie for everyone else by talking through it or anything like that: I was quiet and watched the film. I think it seem's unfair to not give the kid's a chance to prove they can behave.

 

[JCBFGD]

-snip-

With the system you propose (sneakily banning all kids), instead of having just the annoying parents bitching at you for keeping them out, you'll be facing lawsuits (or at least more bitching) from the parents of the well-behaved kids. Why piss off all parents when you can only piss off those who deserve it? You imply that all parents brought "this" ("this" being banned from evarywhar) on themselves by "spawning"...that's kinda messed up. First off, implying that they're inhuman creatures that spawn is just ignorant, but second of all, only the bad parents/kids deserve this. So just chill; having kids isn't the end of the world and it's not one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

Oh, also, I'm only 16, I don't have any kids, much to my chagrin.

 

[Stephanos132]

They have a right to exist and be about in this world. That's enough for most of us, why not you?

It's hilarious that you presume to speak for the majority when your viewpoint is losing in a bloody landslide.

It's hilarious that you think this is a majority opinion based on a vote involving one overriding 'group' of people (gamers), on which not all of them have put an opinion. Silence does not translate to a yes.

Plus, I don't know if you've ventured out lately, but I have, I've eaten in nice restaurants, and yes there were kids and yet no-one was tearing their hair out in frustration. Maybe it's just you and a very vocal minority today, as it typically is with blanket bans.

 

[xmbts]

Adults do have more rights than children. If you don't believe me try bringing a child to a strip club or asking the child to buy you alcohol. Yes that does make us unequal.

Kind of irrelevant seeing as this isn't about booze or sex, it's about people throwing a tantrum because kids throw tantrums and frankly it's embarrassing that they call themselves more mature.

You said kids have the same rights as adults.

Any lawyer in the country will tell you that that's not true.

Booze and porn are some of the rights adults have that minors do not.

...Kay?

I wouldn't call those rights so much as allowances, I'm talking about rights, such as the right to speak freely, or to go somewhere without people discouraging you for silly reasons.

 

[6_Qubed]

On one hand, I adore my nieces and nephew, even the younger ones, and hate to see them kept out of a place because of someone else's lax parenting.

On the other hand, I can't stand it when someone brings their screaming grabby brat into a place where I'm trying to relax and do some thinking in peace and quiet and maybe grab a few refills on my Diet Coke while I'm at it. This is but one of the myriad reasons why my headphones and MP3 player might as well be surgically attached.

As long as the volume isn't so loud that it, you know, disturbs people who try to relax and have some peace and quiet.

'Course not.

They can't hear me over their screaming kids.

 

[targren]

Sitters are expensive, maybe they want to have a nice family night out?

Economical concerns are part of being a parent. They decided to have a kid, that's their problem. And if they want to have a "nice family night out," then they can go to one of the many businesses who will doubtlessly continue to welcome children. The kids would probably have a better time at Chuck-E-Cheeze than at a steakhouse anyway.

You ask why you have to put up with them because they feel like going out, I ask why they have to put up with you making thing even more complicated for them.

Read my posts. They did it to themselves. Crappy parenting leading to misbehaving kids annoying people in planes, movies, and restaurants have been a staple of stand-up comedy for 50+ years. Now some businesses are finally deciding that they don't have to put up with having their customers run off by these people.

Also I'm fairly certain only complete morons have kids for financial reasons. Parenthood doesn't work like that.

Judging by the whining going on by people who are more important than everyone else in the place, and the pattern of behavior that caused it, it's almost conceivable that only complete morons have kids, period.

You are aware you just insulted every person in existence, correct?

Correction: I just insulted the parents of every person in existence. Anyone who is a leaf (mathematically speaking) on their family tree isn't in the set.

You don't have to understand someone's thought process to not be tolerant.

I'm not sure if this is meant to be some kind of passive-aggressive insult, or just a non-sequitur that was stuck in the buffer or something, but "intolerance" is not automatically a bad thing.

If a judge doesn't tolerate corruption among his staff, that's intolerance.
If a (good) parent doesn't tolerate her child beating up on the smaller kids, that's intolerance.

And it's the same with business owners who are learning that they don't have to tolerate rude, insensitive people ruining their relationships with their other customers. No one is entitled to special treatment just because they decided to reproduce. These are private businesses, not the government.

 

[Qitz]

I don't see any problem with this. It's the same with Smoking in the restaurant / bar. If management wants it like that, you can either deal with it or move on.