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

[JoeThree]

Idealistically I'm a firm believer in the "run-your-business-however-you-like-and-let-the-customers-determine-your-fate" philosophy.

As a customer, I'd like no kids in certain places, like nice restaurants for example, and so I voted that way, and would further vote as such in the way it really matters - with my money.

 

[Canid117]

Kids shouldn't be allowed into PG13 and R rated movies regardless of parental supervision if they are under the age of 13. Maybe that way I will never hear a six year old talking loudly behind me while I am trying to watch Predators.

So, kids under the age of 13 shouldn't be allowed into moves rated 'Parental Guidance for Children under 13'

Bullocks.

Go to later showings where kids are less likely to be.

Toddlers should not be watching the Dark Knight.

Is there a particular reason you feel it's your business to decide that for people?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlerax1116nu5ji
And for more examples
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/tales.php?trope=TroperTales.Ptitlerax1116nu5ji

 

[targren]

If you're going to force them to employ sitters that isn't exactly their fault now is it?

Yes. Yes it is ENTIRELY their fault. They chose to have kids. Just like they have to pay for medical care, food, clothing, school supplies, etc... Child care is part of the package.

Why should the billions of good parents suffer hardship because some people just can't handle a crying kid?

Why should billions of innocent people have to deal with a crying kid because too many parents can't be bothered to be basically courteous. Parents are not special simply because they are parents.

No matter how much various groups, organizations, churches, and governments might want to gloss over it, there is one simple fact: There are consequences to having children.

Deal with it.

You can say it's about punishing bad parents all you want but it's mostly motivated by people who would rather impose a ridiculous ban then bring themselves to cope with someone inadvertently annoying them. For all the complaints against kids does anybody here really lose sleep over such a trivial encounter?

You're still ignoring the salient point here: it's the businesses doing the bannings. They are looking out for the many (the people annoyed by these people) over what they consider the few. Going to a different restaurant or movie theater isn't a "hardship" any more than not being able to do exactly what you want in life is a "punishment."

Look at this guy. He gets it.

Idealistically I'm a firm believer in the "run-your-business-however-you-like-and-let-the-customers-determine-your-fate" philosophy.

As a customer, I'd like no kids in certain places, like nice restaurants for example, and so I voted that way, and would further vote as such in the way it really matters - with my money.

 

[renegade7]

just classify consistently annoying kids as a public disturbance. That way no one suffers for having well-behaved children.

 

[targren]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlerax1116nu5ji
And for more examples
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/tales.php?trope=TroperTales.Ptitlerax1116nu5ji

Unrelated, but you're going to burn for linking TV Tropes.

*sigh* And I had work to do, too..

 

[xmbts]

If you're going to force them to employ sitters that isn't exactly their fault now is it?

Yes. Yes it is ENTIRELY their fault. They chose to have kids. Just like they have to pay for medical care, food, clothing, school supplies, etc... Child care is part of the package.

Why should the billions of good parents suffer hardship because some people just can't handle a crying kid?

Why should billions of innocent people have to deal with a crying kid because too many parents can't be bothered to be basically courteous. Parents are not special simply because they are parents.

No matter how much various groups, organizations, churches, and governments might want to gloss over it, there is one simple fact: There are consequences to having children.

Deal with it.

You can say it's about punishing bad parents all you want but it's mostly motivated by people who would rather impose a ridiculous ban then bring themselves to cope with someone inadvertently annoying them. For all the complaints against kids does anybody here really lose sleep over such a trivial encounter?

You're still ignoring the salient point here: it's the businesses doing the bannings. They are looking out for the many (the people annoyed by these people) over what they consider the few. Going to a different restaurant or movie theater isn't a "hardship" any more than not being able to do exactly what you want in life is a "punishment."

Look at this guy. He gets it.

Idealistically I'm a firm believer in the "run-your-business-however-you-like-and-let-the-customers-determine-your-fate" philosophy.

As a customer, I'd like no kids in certain places, like nice restaurants for example, and so I voted that way, and would further vote as such in the way it really matters - with my money.

How are children and parents the few? Parents make up the vast majority of the population, seeing as they continue the species and all that.

I'm not saying they should get special treatment, I'm saying they shouldn't get stepped on for your comfort. If you have a problem with them it's your problem, not theirs.

 

[THE_NAMSU]

I voted nay but i think i should have voted eh...
If I must be honest, in my mind I feel "yay" to this rule. I, like many others, hate kids with a passion, but banning them from certain places will just make it difficult for the parents won't it? They wiull have to pay for baby sitting or if not, have to just stay at home!
I think that the airplane ban is good (even though it is only for the first class people), but the restaurant one should not happen.
There should be some balance reached
Edit Extra Info: + we should not really be discouraging couples to have children (in the west), because the population is slowly going into decline which is going into stage 5 of the DTM and not sustainable.

 

[Alpha Maeko]

You have to be this tall to get on the ride.

You have to be this old to get in my store.

 

[targren]

How are children and parents the few? Parents make up the vast majority of the population, seeing as they continue the species and all that.

Not in the economic sense. Statistically, adults without children have more disposable income, and tend to go out more. This can be confirmed by talking to just about any parent for long enough, until they says something like "We used to do that a lot more often, before the baby came."

I'm not saying they should get special treatment, I'm saying they shouldn't get stepped on for your comfort.

So you're saying that everyone else (me, other customers, business owners, employees) should be stepped on for theirs. No, that's not special treatment at all.

If you have a problem with them it's your problem, not theirs.

At this point, I can only assume you're being obtuse.

When one person has a problem with something, yes, it's his problem.

When one million people have a problem with something, you kind of have to stop for a second and consider for a moment. Otherwise, you turn into the people that made this whole movement necessary in the first place.

 

[Liquid Paradox]

The answer is simple. One warning, then if the annoying behavior persists, the parent is asked to leave. Zero tolerance once the parent has been warned.

I love kids. however, I also love going to the movies, but sometimes, some doofus parent will bring a screaming child into a theater, and I have to pay to listen to screaming for 1.5 to up to 4.5 hours. Similarly, when I go to Frankie Tomoto's, I shouldn't have some 5 or 6 year old kid throwing food at me, then throwing a fit when I say something, and the patrons/manager all looking at me as if I am some sort of child-hating asshole. (All I asked was "can you PLEASE ask your child not to throw food at me?" and waggled my finger a little. true story.)

 

[JCBFGD]

-snip-

Whoa, buddy, chill out...didn't mean to offend you, but I guess you're overly sensitive. Whatever. That's alright.

Anyways, before you go all conspiracy theorist on me, just know that I generally always snip quotes so that I don't take up too much space. I even put my longer replies in spoiler tags.

As for the "sneaky" bit, you did advocate sneaky by advocating a "blanket ban"...thought someone so old and wise as yourself would've caught that. Wait a minute...when you say, "blanket ban", do you mean banning blankets, or putting a blanketed ban on kids? That's important. A blanketed ban is discriminatory and will result in lawsuits, and banning blankets is ineffective. Oh well, either way, it's sneaky and doesn't work. Onto "evarywhar"...that's an expression. I'm very surprised that someone so aged, and by default, sagacious as yourself would've caught onto that, too. I am so shocked and surprised.

The problem with your "reverse the policy" idea is that no parent in their right mind would go to a place that used to ban children. They're people with offspring, not retards.

Oh, you're an ageist, eh? Then I have a surprise for you! A country that holds ageism in the highest regard: China! So if you're an ageist, why don't you move there? You'll get all the respect you deserve!

 

[xmbts]

snip

It's perfectly fine to be made uncomfortable by it, it's a bit mental to try and enact a law to ban them from your presence.

I keep saying this: Kids are people, you can't treat them the same as most other irritants, such actions are dehumanizing and abhorrent.

snip

So people with more money should be treated better?

I'm not interested in economics, it's about the morality of blindly banning people from a place out of a misguided sense of convenience.

 

[JCBFGD]

WTF double post...stupid lag =/

 

[mrdude2010]

i say children under 8 are incapable of understanding the importance of shutting the fuck up in some situations so i support the whole thing as a conditional basis- if your kid stays quiet, fine. if they start being noisy and unpleasant, boot them

 

[targren]

-Nothing of Value-

Congratulations. Your reading comprehension is rivaled only by your cleverness.

It's perfectly fine to be made uncomfortable by it, it's a bit mental to try and enact a law to ban them from your presence.

Where do you keep getting the "law" crap from? Do you just not get it? No one is talking about a "law."

So people with more money should be treated better?

Strawman. That's not what I said, and they are not being treated badly. The parents of said children are still welcome in the Kid-Free zones. They're just not allowed to bring their kids.

I'm not interested in economics, it's about the morality of blindly banning people from a place out of a misguided sense of convenience.

Too bad. This issue is about businesses making business decisions, in which economics plays a factor. You can't simply ignore it because it doesn't suit your position.

You're clearly not interested in morality either, since your position has no moral high ground here. You advocate people forcing themselves into a place where they are not wanted, regardless of the wishes of others(Any place that wanted them would simply not have this policy) instead of going somewhere else, completely ignorant to the fact that, if more people agree with you, as you seem to think, that the businesses enacting this sort of policy would shrivel up and die as they lost their customer base.

 

[CastIronWin]

i don't think any of you are taking this far enough i say!

we should have a one time cull of all children under the age of 7, that'll teach all those little brats to be irritating!

 

[Gene O]

How many of you, as kids, would have understood being banned because some (to the kids view) self centered and whiny adults don't want you around? After we tell kids that they are undesirables, how then do we socialize them to become well behaved adults? How many of you who support the ban are confident that a ban that applies to you wouldn't be next?