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

[Delicious Anathema]

I agree with the measure, some people need to learn to not take their kids every single place.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

I really can't say, I'd rather ban everyone. xD I fraking hate crowds at stores... taking 12 minutes to get my thing purchased or taking half an hour because I'm stuck behind old people.

Anyways, their should be not so much a ban, but a requirement that the kid and parents must leave if he/she is making a disturbance.

 

[NickCooley]

not so much old grouches as younger, self entitled, internet tough guys who were probably worse then the kids they complain about as children judging about how they still whine like baby's as adults.

I expect children to cry, scream and shout. It's what they do. When adults do it, especially in threads like these where they mask it by pretending to be intellectual, a little bit more of me is consumed by rage. Not to mention the sheer over-blown ego required to actually think you deserve some kind of say on where children can or can't be. Unless it's specifically adult orientated (strip clubs, liquor stores etc.) kid's can go wherever their parents let/take them.

 

[meticadpa]

How do you define kids?

A 12-year-old's unlikely to kick up a fuss in a situation like that (at least a semi-mature one), but a 4-year-old will. I'm technically a child at 16, and I certainly wouldn't appreciate being banned because of my age.

 

[VanTesla]

I don't think kids should be outright-banned, but some changes are needed. Honestly I think the restaurant, bar, theatre, and etc should only be able to say who can do what in their establishment. I hate smoking and in my world it would be banned, but I still believe that the business should have the final say and not the Gov't. In my opinion, no children should be in bars or theatres pass 8:00pm, but that is for the owners to decide. If a child becomes a nuisance, then the establishment has the right to kick them out. I hate most children personally, but I know a few that are surprisingly mature beyond their age and see no problem with taking them anywhere. Some children will be a problem even if they have good parents for different reasons and so it's not always the parents falt sometimes...

 

[Best of the 3]

You know Pirate Kitty was banned right? And then joined and was banned a second time?

Sort of my point. The MO seems pretty similar to me. There was a discussion on Twilight once where Pirate Kitty did some class-A trolling, stating that it must be good because it was so popular... Me, naive and inexperienced back then, fell right into it (along with some other blokes) and got myself suspended for my troubles. Good times.

The whole passive-aggressive thing just reminds me of ol' PK, is all. Not saying that it IS Pirate Kitty, just eerily similar.

Right, was a litle hard to tell with you sayingstuff like...

"Bye, Pirate_Kitty. Have fun trolling other threads."

You know, not saying it was PK at all...

 

[targren]

Honestly I think the restaurant, bar, theatre, and etc should only be able to say who can do what in their establishment. I hate smoking and in my world it would be banned, but I still believe that the business should have the final say and not the Gov't. In my opinion, no children should be in bars or theatres pass 8:00pm, but that is for the owners to decide.

Exactly. And contrary to what some of the people here are saying, that's exactly what's happening. The only way the government is involved in this is if they step in and take that right AWAY (which they probably will, since they rarely do anything right, AFAIC).

 

[xmbts]

The 'Facts' you're referring to are your opinions, as I said before in this neither one of us is right or wrong here.

Actually, they're facts that you ignored while stating your opinion. Like this isn't a matter of law, but of individual business decisions. Like it's not discriminating against parents any more than any other not-child-appropriate business is. Like people being rude and inconsiderate for decades are finally feeling some pushback, and you're out of line for insulting the victims. Like sometimes not being able to do whatever you want is one of those 'sacrifices' parents have to make when they become parents.

I'm sorry victim, I didn't know life was so difficult, with all these kids you aren't responsible for running about giving you an eyesore and an earache. Clearly of all the wrongdoings in the world this is the most grievous one.

Yep, full-on troll. First, piss people off by stating an outrageously stupid opinion, then, neglect everything they say, never respond to any points, and finally, insult them in a disgustingly smarmy, passive-aggressive fashion.

I came here and stated my opinion, you instigated every response I've given, I dare say you're the troll here, unless you really are that arrogant and self absorbed.

Bah this is a ridiculous mudsling, send me a PM if you really care that much otherwise leave me be and quit making a spectacle out of this.

Nighty night 'widdle man.

*pinches cheek*

 

[tanithwolf]

snip

2: This is about children's rights and claiming someone's argument is a losing one, without being able to even give a reason why is silly, either expand or retract.

3: This movement doesn't enforce good behaviour it bans any chance for kids to learn it. It's fair enough to tell someone they're no longer welcome at your restaurant if their child can't behave, it is something else to tell them they cannot bring their child because the last child there misbehaved.

3.5: That's what you say, some others would say differently.

RE: Comment: I apologise for my assumption that you were trying to insult others. But you must also understand not all kids are orignally born out of carefull planning, or are born into familys that suddenly find themselves in financial crisis.

 

[pretentiousname01]

Can I vote for a forced parenting class? Cause most of these problems are the parents not the kids.

 

[Craorach]

2: This is about children's rights and claiming someone's argument is a losing one, without being able to even give a reason why is silly, either expand or retract.

It is also about the right of a business owner to decide who and what sort of business he wants to serve, a right that is being eroded more and more.

3: This movement doesn't enforce good behaviour it bans any chance for kids to learn it. It's fair enough to tell someone they're no longer welcome at your restaurant if their child can't behave, it is something else to tell them they cannot bring their child because the last child there misbehaved.

Would you like to try doing what you just asked business owners to do? Parents are often rather self-righteous, and the parents of badly behaving children are almost always of the opinion that their behaviour is fine. I have genuinely been told that I should "f off before you get a beating" by a parent for asking them to stop their children standing on tables.

RE: Comment: I apologise for my assumption that you were trying to insult others. But you must also understand not all kids are orignally born out of carefull planning, or are born into familys that suddenly find themselves in financial crisis.

My stepson was not born out of planning.. that doesn't remove the responsibility of parents (and in my case step-parent) to ensure he behaves in public or isn't taken to situations where he will disrupt others.

As for financial issues.. well.. I literally grew up wearing thrift store clothing, that didn't stop my parents knowing how I should behave and enforcing it, and accepting that there were places that I shouldn't be. Anywhere adults were trying to enjoy a quiet time away from their troubles was one of those places until I understood to shut up.

 

[Sigma Van Lockheart]

I think people are going about awnsering this wrong. See before you say anything you should think if this first. At some point in your life you are going to have kids ( you may not but thats very slim) would you still be in favor of this if you did have children? if you still think this is a good idea then im afraid you will be a bad parent and you should then not have children.

 

[Craorach]

I think people are going about awnsering this wrong. See before you say anything you should think if this first. At some point in your life you are going to have kids ( you may not but thats very slim) would you still be in favor of this if you did have children? if you still think this is a good idea then im afraid you will be a bad parent and you should then not have children.

You're right, that's how people should be thinking about it.

Could you enlighten me as to why you think that people who agree with this would be bad parents?

 

[targren]

snip

2: This is about children's rights and claiming someone's argument is a losing one, without being able to even give a reason why is silly, either expand or retract.

In spite of your demanding tone, I will do so. It is a matter of law (in the U.S. I cannot nor do I claim to speak for anywhere else), decided by the highest court in the land (The Supreme Court of the United States, cka SCOTUS) that children do not enjoy the same full range of rights as adults, including freedom of expression and association. Right or wrong, it's an already answered question.

3: This movement doesn't enforce good behaviour it bans any chance for kids to learn it. It's fair enough to tell someone they're no longer welcome at your restaurant if their child can't behave, it is something else to tell them they cannot bring their child because the last child there misbehaved.

The movement is not about enforcing good behavior. That has been tried and failed, which is evidenced by the fact that the bad behavior still happens just as much now as it did 50 years ago. Enforcing good behavior doesn't work, so now it's about simply keeping the bad behavior from disturbing the other customers. Is it heavy handed? Absolutely. That doesn't make it wrong, and I've pointed out before that simply asking the bad ones to leave would be ideal, but in reality, it's got its own share of problems.

3.5: That's what you say, some others would say differently.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'm going to assume you mean the 2nd part of my response to 3: the comment about the fancy restaurant. Contrary to what a lot of you guys seem to say about the people who agree with this, I *do* remember being a kid. And what do I remember? (In a "Get off my Lawn!" moment, I will point out that these memories pre-date even the original Game Boy)

A) Fancy restaurants were boring as hell. They wouldn't let you draw on the placemats or even give you crayons. The food took a long time to get there and you had to leave Optimus Prime in the car. The music sucked. Mom and Dad seemed to take their sweet damn time eating. The desserts were good, though, but honestly? I would have rather gone to McDonald's.

B) No matter how bored stiff I was because of "A", if I acted up, hoo boy. Mom was the Don and Pop was the Hammer, and you didn't want to be anywhere NEAR that mess.

RE: Comment: I apologise for my assumption that you were trying to insult others. But you must also understand not all kids are orignally born out of carefull planning, or are born into familys that suddenly find themselves in financial crisis.

Well, accidents happen, but can be avoided by being smart. Not saying that an "Oops" makes you an idiot (though being an idiot does seem to contribute to the probability), but it IS avoidable. I've been sexually active for *mumble* years now and still managed to avoid any little Targrens running around.

As for financial straits that go bad, I lived through that too. Sucked, but if it's at the point where a babysitter is a crushing expense, they probably shouldn't be eating in fancy restaurants anyway, no?

 

[Epona]

Can I vote for a forced parenting class? Cause most of these problems are the parents not the kids.

As long as you have to take them too. You can't judge parents without having training in parenting.

 

[tanithwolf]

snip

2: I never said I agree that children should be allowed to run around screaming in restaurants, I believe if a child wants to be there they shoud behave. And don't try using such weak arguments, it is just as easy to ban people from restaurants alltogether claiming that there is a risk people could catch some disease from improperly prepared food.

3: You do realise confining a parents choice on where they can go to eat to only child friendly places is completely unfair on both the parents and the children. And doing so is attempting to make them second class citizens.

Comment: I have already replied regarding my comment, your's however is extremely insulting.

 

[pretentiousname01]

Can I vote for a forced parenting class? Cause most of these problems are the parents not the kids.

As long as you have to take them too. You can't judge parents without having training in parenting.

if/when I have kids I will gladly take them.

And I can judge whomever I want. People in this day and age tend to not think of anyone but themselves. That is a big problem.

 

[targren]

snip

3: You do realise confining a parents choice on where they can go to eat to only child friendly places is completely unfair on both the parents and the children. And doing so is attempting to make them second class citizens.

It's also not what's happening here. It's only limiting on where they can go to eat WITH THE KIDS.

 

[Sigma Van Lockheart]

I think people are going about awnsering this wrong. See before you say anything you should think if this first. At some point in your life you are going to have kids ( you may not but thats very slim) would you still be in favor of this if you did have children? if you still think this is a good idea then im afraid you will be a bad parent and you should then not have children.

You're right, that's how people should be thinking about it.

Could you enlighten me as to why you think that people who agree with this would be bad parents?

Yes I can. My reason for thinking this is that they are more or less saying that there think their own children are equivalent to that of second hand smoking. If you don?t know what I mean I suggest you read the article.

 

[targren]

Yes I can. My reason for thinking this is that they are more or less saying that there think their own children are equivalent to that of second hand smoking. If you don?t know what I mean I suggest you read the article.

First, The smoking ban is not the same thing. It SHOULD be the same thing, but the government decided to butt in and remove the decision from the hand of the business owners. This is not a government action.

Secondly, your logic doesn't hold. Someone who agrees with this might be a fine parent and just agree that it's the business owners' right to make that decision, or that things have gotten out of hand and, even though it might not affect them, or even might adversely affect them, it's still a good thing.