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

[OutforEC]

As long as the policies are not illegal, I believe it should be up to the owner of an establishment as to what they ask their customers to adhere to. Just as it should be up to the customers to take their money elsewhere if they don't agree.

As for the specific policy of 'No Kids Allowed', I believe a better policy would be to ban people of any age who are incapable/unwilling when it comes to following the rules of an establishment.

 

[InsipidMadness]

This doesn't sound like a ban on kids. This sounds like a ban on irresponsible and stupid parents. If you can't raise your kids to understand the co-culture of a social setting that requires you to NOT behave like a child, then essentially you are banned from this area. Kids want to go to a McDonald's play-place and go nuts? Have at it. Kids want to do the same in a movie theater or restaurant? I'm sorry I'm going to have to ask you to leave.

Essentially, I agree with

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.

Last I checked, if you're not qualified at a job, you get replaced; so if you're not qualified at parenting, you might want to get that straightened out before people around you start parenting in your place. Also, last I checked, evil conquers good. Just because a few parents are screw-ups, all of us have to pay for it? Yes. When you were a kid riding the school bus and everyone was behaving, chewing gum, having a good time. There was always that one kid that stuck gum under the seat. The bus driver being tired of this enforces that no one can chew gum. So one screw-up equals punishment for all? Yea it's always been that way.

Bottom line, I think it's a fantastic idea. But like with all fantastic ideas, the execution is usually flawed. Perma-ban on all kids 6 and under, doesn't fly to well in how that would work on a global scale. Having a warning system that's understood as well as social unspoken rules would work better. Scenario: kid starts causing a problem, parent refuses to parent, manager steps in and asks them to leave, parent pulls the classic American argument of "I'm always right" (I'm an American, I know), manager simply asks the people around the area of disturbance if they see a problem, they say yes and parent + child get escorted out peacefully.

Also the territory of execution would need rewriting. I can understand movie theaters and restaurants. That could be argued up and down and how it should be settled but I think it's unanimous that annoyances there have the least amount of tolerance and therefore should be dealt with. Airplanes however, tough. Some people need to go see family and bring their newborn baby, that's life. Planes are not meant to be comfortable, have you seen the size of those seats? Plane rides are meant to get you from A to B in the fastest way possible, and you should be responsible for how you deal with it: sleep, earphones, books, etc.

(I Always hate putting this, but meh) TLR
The only people to blame for this movement are NOT the dual income no child families who can spend the extra money on campaigning peace during their pleasure, or the kids for that matter. The only people to blame here are the parents who never learned to be parents. There's no mandatory class that has us deal with children or try to be a parent growing up (unless you're an older sibling). Plus with a lot of the screwy economy and piss poor education going around these days, it's all about having the sex and not practicing on dealing with the outcome. I may have been a child raised with a bad attitude, but I never let that affect my behavior in a social setting- maintaining the beauty of silence during a movie or fancy dinner, and the fun of yelling and running at a playground or a place with a ton of kids already doing the same.

 

[v3n0mat3]

It's unfair to those kids who do behave. If they don't behave, ask them to leave. That's all. There shouldn't be a ban on kids anywhere. Chrissakes! It makes me think about when my brother and I were kids. We never acted up in movies, we never got rowdy in restaurants. Sure, we ran around in a supermarket, but we never were loud or bothersome to others (besides, It's a supermarket. Come on, you kinda can't blame us). I know that there are other kids like that out there. Our family is full of them! So I say while they are in their right to say no to children, in the end, It's not fair, nor is it smart in a business sense. I mean, denying families in a restaurant...? That's a large portion of money lost!

 

[silversnake4133]

Yes, totally. I'm all for this rule. Granted I really want kids someday, whether biologically or adoption, but I can't deny that this would be a great rule enforcement and might actually help to cut down on all of the constant screaming I hear whenever I go out to get groceries. I actually have a few friends who were completely put off by some restaurants/theaters because of the high kid count. In fact when my boyfriend, some of our friends, and myself went to see a children's movie (Kung-Fu Panda 2), we had hoped that we could dodge the parents with the little toddlers (Thursday matinee screening). Granted it failed and half of the theater was crawling with the little buggers, and for a moment we were actually considering skipping to the next time slot.

I'm usually a very tolerant person, but I can't help but feel that meals/trips to the store/flights can easily be ruined by some bored kid who forgot to bring his or her gameboy/toy therefore he or she wanted to rub it in his or her parents' faces (either that or if they have similar aged siblings they'd fight to no ends with each other). Also, I've been seeing a lot of comments that state "enforcing this rule would deprave children of wonderful memories". No it wouldn't! Apparently memories can no longer be made in the home...come on people, do you really need a restaurant or a theater to make great memories with your folks? Hell, my family never really had the money to go anywhere exclusive save for a few trips down to the beach every summer. And most of the memories I still treasure today were made at home. I'd rather spend time relaxing with my family than blowing money at a restaurant any day.

And I think that might be a not-so-visible plus for this rule.

 

[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.

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.

Yes you can judge whomever you want but if you want to judge parents and then, based on that judgement, claim that parenting classes are needed... then you need to take those classes to be qualified to judge. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass.

Yes, you're right, many people tend to think only of themselves. Especially those who think that parents and kids should change to suit them.

 

[Sigma Van Lockheart]

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.

Well when I referred to the smoking I was talking about banning children from being in outside public places. Yes I do believe that it is a business owners right to remove children from their business when a child becomes a problem such as disturbing other customers but not to ban them from entering when they could behave and cause no disruption.

 

[tanithwolf]

snip

2: A business owner has the right to refuse service, but if they refused service based on skin colour you would call them racist, this is ageism, it's about age.

3: As already stated they have the right to refuse service, it is up to them to enforce it, not customers.

Comment: I believe we were talking about financial issues impacting on familys rather then behaviour of children. Regarding manners and good behaviour, that is indeed up to the parents or similar instuctional figure to teach children.

 

[Beliyal]

19 pages, huh. Well, I voted for "Eh!" because I'm not really for some extreme laws and bans. However, I lean towards the "yay". I wouldn't ban small children from any establishment at any given time, but I'd be in favour of bans after a certain hour or at certain days for example. Also, I'd implement a "You or your child makes a mess; you're going out" norm, so, you can bring your kids and if they behave, it's okay. If they start making a fuss, yelling, screaming and generally being annoying to other customers, you'd be kindly asked to leave the establishment. It's only polite, isn't it? That should especially be implemented in movie theatres.

Should kids been banned from local movie theaters, like they were at a recent adults-only Harry Potter screening?

Oh God, I would so like if they did this in my local theatre. I went to see the last movie (part 1) in the theatre and there was a gruesome amount of children too young to watch that movie. And they didn't calm down during the entire screening. At one point, even their parents didn't act like normal people, but they kept standing up and blocking the way to the screen. My mother was pissed like never before; she paid the ticket to go watch the movie and instead, we were tortured for two hours and were unable to even see the screen at certain points. When we got home, my mother called the theatre to ask what was that shit all about, and they told her that it was some kid's birthday and that they apologize. What kind of an idiot sends 30 10-year-old children that obviously lack the basic knowledge about how to behave in theatres and are unable to stay focused and watch the movie that is above their power of understanding and is most definitely not interesting to them is beyond me. I mean, sure, ban is really a "too much" option, but some regulations are necessary. At least make screenings for brats and normal people separated. I'd gladly pay more for the ticket if that guaranteed me that I will watch the movie in peace.

I generally don't like kids, but I have nothing against people taking them anywhere. However, if you can't control your kid or they can't control themselves and they are behaving like wild animals, you have a problem; a problem that I do not want to be a part of. Solve the problem and you can take your kid wherever you want. Recently at the airport, there was a mother with a baby and I immediately thought I'd spend 2 hours of waiting for the plane listening to screaming. However, the baby was quiet and behaved normally. Didn't say a word. Stared at me for a while, I made a funny face, and the baby smiled. It was a nice experience. And I wouldn't ban that baby from any establishment. It's not really the kids' fault. Mostly, I blame the parents that are too biased to see the problem they have, and they continue acting like nothing is wrong. As we should all just tolerate that because it's just a kid. But obviously, some kids behave properly and bother no one; if yours is troublesome, sort that shit out before going in a public place, especially a place where silence is required. In the street, I don't really care, but theatres and restaurants are a different story.

Also, I've seen a lot of people talking about baby-sitters. Sitters are almost completely non-existent in my country. We are usually taken care of by grandparents when we're little. I know I spent most of my time with my grandparents whenever my parents worked or had to go somewhere alone. However, I understand that some people don't have that option. If that's the case and they can't afford baby-sitters, they just need to realize that their life cannot be the same as before children and will have to spend much time in educating their children to be polite and how to behave properly in the society (which should be done anyway). I'm sure they should have known that when they decided to get a child. However, banning kids unquestionably is not going to solve those problems really, so I'd vote for something moderate. Separate screenings at theatres or separate restaurant halls, different day = different regime, no kids after 8 pm for example and so on (when necessary, of course). There are many solutions to this without really going into the extreme.

 

[Epona]

Let's look at the smoking bans real quick. It got ridiculous and this could too.

It started with banning smoking on planes, then in theaters and then it spread to private business (even in bars) and from there to public (as in tax payer funded) areas. They raised taxes for smokers while at the same time telling them they could not smoke in tax payer funded areas. The hate for smokers grew to a point where even smokers hated themselves, a very unhealthy view to have of oneself.

Today I look outside and see people leaving their own home to go outside in a blizzard to smoke because they were conditioned to believe that smoking is so dangerous, that they shouldn't smoke anywhere but outside. They have been defeated, completely. Sooner or later cigarettes will be completely banned (or so expensive that only the rich can afford them) because so many people whined and complained and eventually got their way.

Will we see kids banned almost everywhere? Will parents be taxed more via the cost of diapers or some other kid only products? Will people be conditioned to believe that having kids should be a punishable offense? Will it reduce birth rates to a dangerous point? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

Well, when the smoking bans first began, I remember people speaking of the reality today and being told they were on a slippery slope. I say the next witchhunt has begun and with alot of support from non parents.

 

[targren]

Will we see kids banned almost everywhere? Will parents be taxed more via the cost of diapers or some other kid only products? Will people be conditioned to believe that having kids should be a punishable offense? Will it reduce birth rates to a dangerous point? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

Well, when the smoking bans first began, I remember people speaking of the reality today and being told they were on a slippery slope. I say the next witchhunt has begun and with alot of support from non parents.

None of that applies here. The smoking crap (and it is crap, you're right about that) was done by the government. This is not. Apples and oranges.

 

[Drummah]

No kids on any city transit. Ever.

I wish.

At least ban the retards with the strollers that think they own the 30 foot diameter around them just because they have a legion of drunken midgets that need to go back to wherest they once were grow'd.

Edit: I think My problem is the parents that LET their kids act like asses and have reams of unwarranted self importance.

 

[Epona]

Will we see kids banned almost everywhere? Will parents be taxed more via the cost of diapers or some other kid only products? Will people be conditioned to believe that having kids should be a punishable offense? Will it reduce birth rates to a dangerous point? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

Well, when the smoking bans first began, I remember people speaking of the reality today and being told they were on a slippery slope. I say the next witchhunt has begun and with alot of support from non parents.

None of that applies here. The smoking crap (and it is crap, you're right about that) was done by the government. This is not. Apples and oranges.

They both started with whiners and from there spread to more draconian measures. What, you think these social movements can't be destructive more than once? They will always follow the same pattern.

I kringe when people say things like "you should need a license to be a parent" because enough whining and that may become reality.

 

[targren]

They both started with whiners and from there spread to more draconian measures. What, you think these social movements can't be destructive more than once? They will always follow the same pattern.

No, you have to be insane to think the government would do anything of the sort. IF they get involved at all, it will be to interfere by BANNING these policies, not codifying them. To say otherwise is to be completely out of touch with reality

 

[Epona]

They both started with whiners and from there spread to more draconian measures. What, you think these social movements can't be destructive more than once? They will always follow the same pattern.

No, you have to be insane to think the government would do anything of the sort. IF they get involved at all, it will be to interfere by BANNING these policies, not codifying them. To say otherwise is to be completely out of touch with reality

Really, and what was their reason for banning smoking?

 

[targren]

They both started with whiners and from there spread to more draconian measures. What, you think these social movements can't be destructive more than once? They will always follow the same pattern.

No, you have to be insane to think the government would do anything of the sort. IF they get involved at all, it will be to interfere by BANNING these policies, not codifying them. To say otherwise is to be completely out of touch with reality

Really, and what was their reason for banning smoking?

Mostly the "Think of the Children" imbiciles.

Pissing off smokers is not political suicide. Being in the same zip code as Anti-children is.

 

[Epona]

They both started with whiners and from there spread to more draconian measures. What, you think these social movements can't be destructive more than once? They will always follow the same pattern.

No, you have to be insane to think the government would do anything of the sort. IF they get involved at all, it will be to interfere by BANNING these policies, not codifying them. To say otherwise is to be completely out of touch with reality

Really, and what was their reason for banning smoking?

Mostly the "Think of the Children" imbiciles.

Pissing off smokers is not political suicide. Being in the same zip code as Anti-children is.

Exactly, the smoking BS was pushed to ridiculous measures by the government because so many people whined about it. From what I have seen on this thread and another one I found on another site, there is more support for this than against it. Blows my mind how many people dislike children.

If enough people whine, government will get involved and it will be to suit the whiners, not to suit the parents. Politicians need votes.

 

[targren]

Exactly, the smoking BS was pushed to ridiculous measures by the government because so many people whined about it. From what I have seen on this thread and another one I found on another site, there is more support for this than against it. Blows my mind how many people dislike children.

If enough people whine, government will get involved and it will be to suit the whiners, not to suit the parents. Politicians need votes.

Respectfully, you're crazy. You're ignoring too many factors, including selection bias and political realities. The Smoking mess wasn't because of people whining, it was because of massive political pressure from SIGs and the Healthcare lobby, and because it was an easy demon to slay safely.

Why would any politician, much less enough needed to make this a law, bother with it? Even if they agree with it, all they have to do is do nothing. It's not illegal, so by not MAKING it illegal, it leaves the decision where it should be, and doesn't cost them any political capital.

The government is a huge, corrupt, ineffective mess of scumbags, sure, but even they're not stupid enough to do what you suggest.

 

[Epona]

Exactly, the smoking BS was pushed to ridiculous measures by the government because so many people whined about it. From what I have seen on this thread and another one I found on another site, there is more support for this than against it. Blows my mind how many people dislike children.

If enough people whine, government will get involved and it will be to suit the whiners, not to suit the parents. Politicians need votes.

Respectfully, you're crazy. You're ignoring too many factors, including selection bias and political realities. The Smoking mess wasn't because of people whining, it was because of massive political pressure from SIGs and the Healthcare lobby, and because it was an easy demon to slay safely.

Why would any politician, much less enough needed to make this a law, bother with it? Even if they agree with it, all they have to do is do nothing. It's not illegal, so by not MAKING it illegal, it leaves the decision where it should be, and doesn't cost them any political capital.

The government is a huge, corrupt, ineffective mess of scumbags, sure, but even they're not stupid enough to do what you suggest.

I guess we'll see how it plays out but we have seen social movements change alot. One could argue that the reason we are even talking about this is because of the rising of single motherhood (which some may argue is why kids misbehave so badly today) which was pushed by another very power social movement, feminism.

Don't underestimate the power of a social movement. Social movements affect everything from big business to politicians and usually both.

Oh and the government is indeed stupid enough to bankrupt us with non stop borrowing for non stop wars and pass all kinds of unconstitutional laws. Let our manufacturing jobs go overseas while letting wall street completely destroy the economy. They are stupid enough.

 

[targren]

I guess we'll see how it plays out but we have seen social movements change alot. One could argue that the reason we are even talking about this is because of the rising of single motherhood (which some may argue is why kids misbehave so badly today) which was pushed by another very power social movement, feminism.

Don't underestimate the power of a social movement. Social movements affect everything from big business to politicians and usually both.

No, we're talking about this because a handful of places have enacted this policy and said parents are getting their panties in a bunch because how dare other people want to relax and enjoy themselves without their little crotch fruit running around the place.

Tempest in a teapot.

 

[tanithwolf]

snip

2: I do not see it as demanding that someone request clarification on a point someone else is trying to make. While I cannot pretend to understand the American Rights system, unless you can show me the full list of rights or something that specifically says that children do not have such rights, I have a hard time believing you.

3: As I have said this stops kids from learning the proper behaviour. It is an unfair assumption based on the actions of others.

3.5: Well that's your opinion, personally I loved every time I got to go out to restaurants with my family and friends. I never ran around and screamed I'd just sit and talk with everyone and have a great time.

Comment: You were the one who brought up that kids cost money not me.