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

[Stephanos132]

Misogyny noted.

Overly sensitive political correctness noted right back!

As you said, life isn't fair, if you can't deal with a kid then perhaps you should be the bigger person and leave? Or deal with it like a reasonable person.

Reason? I am the one showing you examples of how you're constantly wrong with your "kids have the same rights as you!!!" tirade, and you ask me to be reasonable. You're a riot.

I'll tell you what's reasonable: that when I am a patron of a fine dining establishment, paying for good food and a classy ambience, I, the paying customer, have more rights than some sprog screaming like stupid and pulling people's hair - and not paying anything. I paid. They didn't. guess who should leave.

It's called capitalism. It's the economic model of most advanced nations.

Kids aren't some other lifeform, you may forget that a few years ago you were one.

I'm 32 years old, thank you very much. Me and the fiancée are thinking about getting married and starting a family next year. And you know what I'll do? Educate my kids not to act like entitled shits raised by entitled permissive morons, to be courteous and respectful, and to defer to their elders.

You're quick to attack others and infringe on their rights but I imagine you'd find it a great travesty to see this happen to yourself. Try sympathizing with people once in a while, it's good for you.

When I am with a playground with my fiancée's nieces, I love kids laughing and running and playing. When I am watching a football match at the pub, I love drunken blokes singing loud songs. When I am at a movie theatre or a fine restaurant, I can't bloody stand either.

Do you see the difference, or are you gonna keep up your "kids should have the rights to piss on your shoes while you're having a $100 dinner, and if you don't like it, YOU should leave, because kids can't ever, evereverever be held accountable!" routine? I mean, by all means, do so; I'm calling over my friends to point and laugh at your posts' quaint idealism.

You've been going to some very odd places if all you get is kids pissing on your shoes and pulling your hair. Some folk would pay for that treatment.

 

[xmbts]

Misogyny noted.

Overly sensitive political correctness noted right back!

As you said, life isn't fair, if you can't deal with a kid then perhaps you should be the bigger person and leave? Or deal with it like a reasonable person.

Reason? I am the one showing you examples of how you're constantly wrong with your "kids have the same rights as you!!!" tirade, and you ask me to be reasonable. You're a riot.

I'll tell you what's reasonable: that when I am a patron of a fine dining establishment, paying for good food and a classy ambience, I, the paying customer, have more rights than some sprog screaming like stupid and pulling people's hair - and not paying anything. I paid. They didn't. guess who should leave.

It's called capitalism. It's the economic model of most advanced nations.

Kids aren't some other lifeform, you may forget that a few years ago you were one.

I'm 32 years old, thank you very much. Me and the fiancée are thinking about getting married and starting a family next year. And you know what I'll do? Educate my kids not to act like entitled shits raised by entitled permissive morons, to be courteous and respectful, and to defer to their elders.

You're quick to attack others and infringe on their rights but I imagine you'd find it a great travesty to see this happen to yourself. Try sympathizing with people once in a while, it's good for you.

When I am with a playground with my fiancée's nieces, I love kids laughing and running and playing. When I am watching a football match at the pub, I love drunken blokes singing loud songs. When I am at a movie theatre or a fine restaurant, I can't bloody stand either.

Do you see the difference, or are you gonna keep up your "kids should have the rights to piss on your shoes while you're having a $100 dinner, and if you don't like it, YOU should leave, because kids can't ever, evereverever be held accountable!" routine? I mean, by all means, do so; I'm calling over my friends to point and laugh at your posts' quaint idealism.

You have no more rights then anyone else, hence equality.

And that sounds like a good parenting plan, if you'd read any of my posts you'd see that that's what I encourage. And good luck to you raising your children in a world where people will refer to them as "self entitled little shits" no matter what you do.

Kids cry and freak out on occasion, no parent can avoid that unless the child is an utter sociopath.

Side-note: Your jeering is quite childish if I do say so myself. It makes the hypocrisy that much more delicious.

 

[Thelonesun]

Fancy resturants should have an age limit of ten or so, considering from what I've seen, kids below about that age don't have volume control. In places like movies, there should not be kids allowed in 13+ theaters, period.

 

[martin's a madman]

Why don't establishments set up separate areas for square families and hip young swingers? Perhaps a wall and a door between the two sections. If there are tables available, a non-family party can elect to sit in the section with the families, but it can't work the opposite way.

 

[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.

 

[martin's a madman]

Why don't establishments set up separate areas for square families and hip young swingers? Perhaps a wall and a door between the two sections. If there are tables available, a non-family party can elect to sit in the section with the families, but it can't work the opposite way.

I would think a non-family could only sit in the family section if the non-family section is completely full.

Yeah, that's what I meant or, what I meant to say rather, probably should have made that more clear.

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

The only problem with that is that the places will lose money simply because they're excluding a certain portion of their consumers.

NOW

You can usually PAY to not be annoyed by kids etc, but people don't generally look at it that way.

Hate sitting next to brats on the plane? Go first class or find a better airline.

Hate bad families at restaurants? Go to a posher place where they WILL kick people like that out.

I for one don't really care for the most part, and since I'm a student go for the money saving option.

If push really comes to shove, I'll invest in a pair of earplugs rather than paying through the nose for a fine dining service.


Spoons:

I do not agree with this rule for every occasion as it will increase the cost of standard things and make life more difficult for those that already find it difficult. There are very bad exceptions, but not all families try to be bad and generally in my view a blanket ban like this is more often than not a very bad idea (for more than one reason).

Don't really hate it, but I'm weary, and it would directly affect me if I was bothered, as it stands I don't really care enough to argue/parade/protest for someone either way.

Absurd? Possibly. Necessary? Not really. Something people are willing to pay for? Definitely. Future: a slight overall increase in awareness and "kid free" area/times... as well as prices.

In the end I don't care if it gains support. I'm more worried about other things in life. I just like to point stuff out in a light that someone might not have seen it in before. That or post my general musings or deep contemplation results to the world, and see what they make of it.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Goddamnit. Has no one seen the Simpsons episode about this? The one when Springfield banned child from virtually all public facilities under the tagline, "Children are people, too...worthless, incomplete people."

And you know what? Some kids are annoying. I'll freely admit that. But Jesus Christ, people, banning all kids because you had a bad experience with a few?

Personally, I agree with this ban. There are just some places where there shouldn't be any kids, some of the ones that come to mind are restaurants (With the exception of fast food places and kids' dinners) and the movies.

What kinds of bizarro logic are you working under? Apparently children aren't allowed to eat out, or go to, say, children's movies. You know, all those things Pixar's been churning out that end up appealing to a wide adult audience? Just because we end up liking them doesn't mean we should ban their intended audience so we can enjoy them more.

I recall going to Olive Garden a while back to celebrate my mother's birthday. it was all pleasant and fun until a family sat behind us. The kid kept yelling and banging the table and even pulled my mother's hair once. What did the mom do? She just wiggled her winger, muttered an apology and continued to allow the kid to do whatever he wanted.

And...how old was this kid? Like, an infant, or in the four/five range? If the former, only the infinite power of Christ would be able to stop it from doing whatever it wanted. If the latter, blame the parent for not being able to control her kid.

Same thing with the movies: I was having fun watching Pirates, immersed in the movie and having some popcorn when a kid started crying. He cried and cried and cried and the mother finally got the hint and...patted the kid on the back. Surprisingly enough, that didn't work! She didn't step out or anything, no. God forbid she misses 5 minutes off the movie for bringing her kid to a movie that they wouldn't enjoy/understand/care for.

Again, parent making poor choices.

So I say yay to this rule. There are just some places that annoying kids shouldn't be allowed to go. Notice the keyword: annoying. I don't hate kids. Hell, I was one once. But what really pisses me off is annoying children and their dumb mothers who don't know how to handle their child. And sadly, those are multiplying by the minute. So my rules is: When your kid starts annoying someone else other than you (Parents), then it becomes a problem. My problem. So don't get all moody if I attempt to take matters into my hands.

Oh, such delicious lies. That clearly isn't your rule. Your rule is "I had a bad experience with someone who looked similar to you. Therefore, I forbid anyone with your appearance from being in public places so I can fully enjoy myself." In all honesty, I've seen more movies disrupted by talkative adults/teens than by infants. Anecdotal, yes, but my previous points stand.

I'm slightly worried that this ban will go as far as to ban kids off public places (I don't want kids invading my home's privacy but I also don't think they should be caged or something).

...what? "Invading [your] home's privacy"? When was that ever an issue? It's like you think if we let families with children eat at mid-tier restaurants, the next thing you know, they'll be breaking and entering with no consequences.

But I don't think people would allow that. I do see controversy in the horizon regarding this, though.

Well, you've already advocated banning them from movie theaters and all eateries except for those specifically designed to cater to children and children only. You're worried about crossing a line that you crossed a long, long time ago.

Spoons:
-Do you agree with this rule?

No.

-Do you hate this rule/does this rule affect you?

It doesn't affect me specifically because I don't have children, but I can acknowledge that it's a terrible idea. The "They came for X, but I was not an X, so I did not speak out. Then they came for Y, but I was not a Y, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out" quotation comes to mind.

-Do you think this is absurd or necessary?

Absurd, for reasons listed above.

-Do you wish to see this movement gain more support? Or not?

No, again, for reasons listed above. No need to re-list them here.

 

[Spygon]

I am for this but only in the most obvious not good places for children.Like two weeks ago i was in a pub that me and my friend visit often as it has a very nice atmosphere and everybody there know what to expect.When suddenly a family turn up this at around 9.30pm on a friday night in a old fashioned pub.

They first start complaining that the pubs kitchen closed and the chef had gone home at 8pm because their children were hungry this pub is not in the middle of no where its in the middle of town.The landlord even mention that there is a chinese open across the road but they totally ignore him.This is at the same time the parents are ignoring their children that are climbing all over the chairs and screaming there heads off ruining everybody elses night.This including a few people downing there drink and leaving the pub.

When suddenly after 10 minutes of screaming kids running around my friend swears in the middle of conversation most of the table actually missed it as we could hardly hear each other speak due to the screaming.When the mother turns around in a really pissed of voice shouting at him to not swear in front of her kids.

Also i would pay extra to be on a no kids plane as plane flights are hard enough as it is.

 

[Conn1496]

I have to admit young kids are annoying, but they shouldn't be pushed out of society, it's stupid thinking that you're not allowed to take your kid somewhere decent without it being a "liability" to others. Some places should really have this sort of rule though, purely because noisy childeren can kinda ruin the atmosphere. Cinemas for example should stop childeren entering, purely because they disrupt the thing people paid for, and I would even get pissed at that. Restaurants should allow kids though, because no matter how much you admit it, you don't really go to a restaurant to eat in quiet, and if you do, it's probably because you're taking out someone to dinner, and in that case you probably don't have kids, or can afford a babysitter.

[Note]: Oh, and if you want to eat quietly, stop talking in restaurants. Hypocrits.

 

[JDB15]

I'm for it only because parents NEVER EVER do anything to stop the kid from misbehaving. Man when I was a kid and I acted it I get spanked, now these weak parents won't do anything but say "That's not nice"

No. Absolutely not. It's, just an unnecessary hindrance for families with children.

It should be a ban if the parent won't shut the child up. It's not fair that you can't enjoy your time because

A.The parent won't get a sitter
B.The parent won't do their job and get their kid to behave.

My thoughts exactly. I say that this ban should be allowed, but give the parents a chance to try to shut their kid/kids up, but if they don't, kicked out.

(I have a feeling that most of the people who do not agree with this ban are parents; I will still feel this way, even if I was a parent.)

 

[108Stitches]

I am for this but only in the most obvious not good places for children.Like two weeks ago i was in a pub that me and my friend visit often as it has a very nice atmosphere and everybody there know what to expect.When suddenly a family turn up this at around 9.30pm on a friday night in a old fashioned pub.

Most "pubs" in the US have a rule stating "no children after 9pm" regardless of who they are with. This is a good rule. Does not BAN the children from the place, just keeps them out when things generally are not kid friendly. I often take my 2 yr old out to just such a place on Saturday afternoons to watch baseball...it's fine.

Regarding movies, you don't want to be bothered by kids in the theater, go to a later showing. This is why the matinees are typically cheaper, so that a FAMILY can afford to go. If you're trying to save money and want all of the perks of the midnight showing, that's on you.

This is a stupid idea, and obviously one poised by someone that has never bothered raising children. I would like to ban teenagers from frequenting the local malls because I am offended by seeing their underwear!

Kid bugging you out in a public setting? Most effective way to get that kid to clammer up...TALK TO THE KID. Do not yell at him, merely talk to him. Kids are generally shy, and when a stranger says anything to them, they will get bashful and quiet, even if they have been screaming their lungs out. Kid crying in front of you on the plane, reach over the seat and introduce yourself. Kid behind you on a plane kicking your seat, look back and introduce yourself.

If you act politely to the children, it will make the kid clam up and make the parent realize you are "the nice man that little Johnny should leave alone".

You yell at my kid or at me about my kid...yeah, I'm telling him it is completely fine to whip it out and piss on your other shoe.

 

[Yorkshire_matt]

There should be places set aside for those without kids, even if its only a separate area of a venue. A total blanket ban would be wrong though

 

[an874]

No. Parents have a difficult enough time trying to get out of the house already without having to find and pay for a sitter. Also, your whole annoying child only tactic doesn't seem like it could practically work, as it would be difficult to determine what constitutes as "annoying".

Since private business have the fight to refuse service, it's up to them to determine what's annoying, so what we think doesn't and shouldn't matter. That said, I, personally, don't care how difficult things can get for kids' parents. When they're young, kids have a strong talent for being annoying (not their fault, it's just how they're built, and it's just because they haven't matured enough). Not all parents take enough responsibility for their kids in public, and I'm glad businesses are taking steps to keep other people from being bothered by them. Having kids was the parents' decision (or in some unfortunate cases, their mistake), nobody, but them should have to deal with it.

 

[Sparrow]

Seems a bit extreme. Kids not being allowed to visit cinemas? Kids live for that shit! You may as well just tell them Santa isn't real and be done with it.