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

[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.

 

[Epona]

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.

Feminism started with a few women sitting around talking about how controlling men are.

Crotch fruit? Really. Ok we're done.

 

[tanithwolf]

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.

And there should be no reason that parents can't go out to dinner with their kids and go somewhere nice, rather then mcdonalds.

 

[targren]

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.

Google is your friend.

Morse v. Frederick
Bethel School District v. Fraser
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

And those are only the school-based ones (the schools being both government organizations and in loco parentis.

Further research is your responsibility.

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

And as I pointed out, it's not the business' problem to teach the kids to act properly. That's the parents' responsibility, and if they weren't constantly failing so spectacularly, this wouldn't even be happening. And honestly, life's not fair.

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.

If you were there with "friends" and "talking" then either you're not talking about the same age or the same restaurants.

And there should be no reason that parents can't go out to dinner with their kids and go somewhere nice, rather then mcdonalds.

That's right. There shouldn't be. In an ideal world, parents would keep their kids in line, take them out to age-and-time appropriate places, and have consideration for the other people sharing the restaurant with them.

Since that's not the case, though, should plays little part in reality.

 

[Epona]

If so many parents are so bad at parenting, who taught them these bad parenting tips?

 

[Beautiful End]

~Snippidy doo~

This. All this. That's exactly what I've been trying to say.

It seems a lot of people are misunderstanding where I stand, at least. I'm all up for it in specific places, such as R Rated movies and maybe some restaurants.*

But I also think it would be unfair for some kids who are well behaved, especially because I've noticed they get the short end of the stick. When I was in middle school, the teacher would tell us that no one would go home until everyone stayed quiet. I would obey the teacher, two kids didn't because they thought it was hilarious. So we all ended up paying because of those two jackasses who had no life. And I hated that.

Limitations, yes. Like I said, perhaps a "low tolerance" rule would be more adequate. If your kid starts misbehaving, you get one warning. If he keeps at it and people start complaining, you're out. With this rule in place, parents would know what they're getting into and they would think twice before going to a place like this. Either that or at least they might not argue that their booting from the premises was unfair.
At the end, yes, parents are to blame for all this. Kids will be kids; sometimes, they just don't know any better. And why? Because of bad parenting. I hate to be the guy who casts judgment on people I barely know but that's the impression that I get when I see parents allowing or not caring about what their kid does.

So I'm not saying kids should be banned from places everywhere. But some places do well in embracing this rule. And it's not like it's just a ban-kids rule. I've seen movie theaters that also have something like that "zero-tolerance" rule I mentioned, going as far as kicking adults out for texting during a movie.


*It's nice to have the choice to go to restaurants where you know the place will be as quiet and tranquil as a pond, if you will. You know, perhaps places where the food isn't too kid-friendly and it's more aimed towards adults. And it's also nice to have the choice of going to some other place as a family with kids and all. I'm just saying: Some restaurants with this rule are okay, not all of them. Because choices are good.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

This is part of the management's goddamn job. A blanket ban is just a way of letting them avoid having to do their job at the expense of a huge number of completely reasonable families.

You've apparently never dealt with a member of the... shall we call them 'earthy?'... portions of the populations in this role? More often than not, bad kids come from bad parents and I've actually seen the father of one of the little monsters take a swing at the zit-faced minimum-wage kid who was trying to 'do his goddamn job.'

I've lived in one of the "earthiest" places in California (if not the US) for most of my life. I assure you, I'm very familiar with this sort of person.

To begin, the notion that "little monsters" come from bad parents is foolish. First, you have no idea if this is a specific incident or the child is generally unruly - all children act that way sometimes. Second, there are plenty of great parents with very difficult children and I would not be even remotely willing to make such a hasty generalization about the overall trends in parenting and child behavior.

More importantly, I'm not talking about the minimum-wage summer job kid. If you want someone to leave, you have the manager ask them, not some random low-level employee. And if a customer tries to hit an employee? That's someone's job too. The manager calls the police (if the guy leaves, they take down his plate), and they report the incident.

All of these "rules" and "bans" are a convenience that prevents anyone from ever having to actually do anything. It's just a matter of avoiding situations that make people uncomfortable. The real solution is that people need to grow the fuck up and report shit like this (annoyed patrons to the management and the management to the police if necessary) instead of complaining about how they don't like these situations to strangers on the internet. It's like people complaining about the outcomes of elections they didn't vote in - except even worse because in most of these cases a single person actually can decide how the situation unfolds.

These sort of bans are nothing more than nonconfrontational, selfish laziness.

 

[DrDude12472]

I'm not in favour of this, mainly because it's making a generalisation about children, basing your impression on a vocal minority. What's more, it'd be difficult to determine how old is old enough to go to movies, restaurants etc. Perhaps stricter rules about what a restauarant or theater can eject you for, but not a blanket ban.

 

[Wedgetail122]

WE CANT BAN CHILDREN ON DOMESTIC NOR INNTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS - becuase they are still a citezn and they have rights, we can ban them from some places, but think about it, if you ban children from theaters, well there goes the animation industry..... it will work in some areas but not in all

Yes, we can. "Rights" don't mean that you can't deem a service "unsuitable" for people below a certain age. It's your business, you run it, you set the safety/liability rules. It also depends on the type of the public place in question.

For example a fast food place is busy and chaotic by definition. Comfort and peace isn't implied or considered an essential part of the service. First Class on a plane on the other hand.. There's a reason some places are "bars" while others are called "restaurants".

Ok now you say 'ban from first class' oh thats fine, but if you ban from the plane altogether, well, people need to get somewhere, and many have children, yeah I do see what you mean, also when it comes to international flights, well, there are complications from country to country, but yeah, when its applied with in reason, it could be a good thing