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

[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

 

[Jazzeki]

snip

Ugh, this is getting rather boring, and you refuse to understand what I'm trying to say despite me putting it as bluntly as possible.

A movement that inconveniences others who have done no wrong, just because they don't particularly care for them is a selfish one, end of.

so following this logic parrents in this discussion are selfish?
i have not done them anything yet they bring their anoying uncontrolable children to places i try to enjoy and make me unable to. thus they are a movement that inconvince others that have done them no wrong.
allright movement might not be aplicabel but that's hardly an excuse.
what people fail to understand is that this is not about parents not being alowed to bring kids anywhere. it's about people being alowed to enjoy certain places without being inconvininced by children.

If that annoys you to the point of being such an inconvenience I'm afraid you may have bigger issues then some loud kids.

...Actually maybe I'm looking at that the wrong way, if that's such a big inconvenience to you then maybe you just have so few other problems. Enviable indeed.

yes ofcourse how unreasonable of me. since when should i be alowed to actually enjoy the movie i payed to see? why it's completly unreasonable of me to expect that other people respect that i have payed a lot of money to the point i actually expect to be able to hear what's being said in the movie. it's obviously unreasonable of me to expect that i should have a chance to go somewhere and not have to listen to a crying baby whille i try to enjoy a nice QUITE meal with friends without haveing to yell at the top of my lungs just to be able to have a converstaion.
again i'm not sugesting that children should not be alowed around. just that i should be alowed to have places i can go and be sure that no matter what kids is not going to ruin my evening.
actually let's look at it another way. i did not chose to have kids. i chose specificly to not have them because i do not like kids.
but i like deathmetal. so obviously if i find it to be nice i should be alowed to have gethoblaster on full volume with deathmetal blasting and if you find it anoying it's you who have problems right? because i should be alowed to do what ever the fuck i want without considering how others react to it right? that's THEIR problem and fuck them right?

 

[Jazzeki]

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.

on the off chance i would ever have kids i would STILL be in favor of this. even more so in fact. why? because when the night i do finally get a sitter to have nice night out i wanna be 100% sure i'm not gonna be seated next to someone elses anoying brat ruining my evening.

 

[tanithwolf]

snip

2: Congratulations you have indeed proven that children in school do not enjoy the full rights of freedom of speech. However that is not what I was looking for you to prove, we were talking about their right to not be banned from certain places based solely on their age. Finally no, it is not my responsibility to do further research here, it is in fact yours. The reason it is yours is that you originally referenced Supreme Court rulings, it is your point, you must prove it.

3: As I have said it is up to the children?s parents to enforce good behaviour. However businesses retain the right to refuse service to people who are actively disturbing other customers.

3.5: If you mean we are not talking about the same age or same restaurants, I cannot confirm or deny unless you give me specifics.

No, that is your ideal world and luckily enough, we do not live in your ideal world. I hope you notice the irony that in all your talk of consideration to other people, you are being completely inconsiderate to others. Also I do not understand your comment you seem to be agreeing that parents with kids should not be forced to go to only select places and continue on to say that they should only go to select places.

Also I saw your comment to Crono1973 and I would like to point out that it was absolutely disgusting, and you should try working on your behaviour before commenting on that of others.

 

[Stephanos132]

No, I understand all too well. I also understand that 60% of, what, 1% of a total population means fuck all in real terms. That's .6% who are all 'ban this sick filth'. That's nothing, and it will measure up accordingly. A few businesses will try a ban, most won't, people like you will continue to ***** and moan. Rinse and repeat.

And if you felt insulted by that, you truly are very weak-skinned. If you really wanted an insult I could make a crack about how germans are used to the idea of limiting other peoples freedoms and treating them as second class citizens. But that would be just as childish as banning all children just because some wail a bit. That's the key word here. Some. Not all. Seeing as you carefully ignored my query about banning even Christ if he were a child, it's no stretch of the imagination to assume you would happily live back in something akin to the victorian era, where children should be seen and not heard, and god forbid if they should oppose that decree. This is where the issue lies, punishing a vast group of people just because some act up. Should we propose a ban on, say, religion, because some nutcases think it's a very good idea to strap bombs to themselves and take out a market full of people?

What is so bad with giving kids time to be kids, running around somewhere screaming and laughing, happily carefree. Why should we begrudge them that? Why do we pile exams, life lessons and paranoia on them from the cradle onwards, whilst tying the hands of those we expect to control and guide them? Small wonder they grow up with various complexes and act up. Cue snotty replies about how you'd rather not have them near you because you're a miserable bastard who fancies himself special.

Yeah, I think that calling fellow escapists "bastards" is frowned upon here. Especially since that miserable bastard has posted repeatedly things like:

Thus speaketh the fellow who accuses people of having various mental/emotional afflictions and otherwise making bizarre character judgements just because they dare to disagree. I think that's frowned upon too, oddly enough. Yet, here we both still are.

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 smoking cigarettes and singing loud songs.

When I am at a movie theatre or a fine restaurant, I can't bloody stand either.

These theatres and restaurants are hardly fine if their clientele include kids dressed for outside and

Or that kids should yell and laugh to their hearts' content at kiddie matinees, at family friendly restaurants, you know, places for kids. Do I demand that 30something academics should be accepted into play dates and sandboxes? Should 200-pound men be allowed to get on bouncing castles with 30-pound kids? Should death metal screamers be allowed to screech during a children's recital?

No. And yet, all you glean from that is that I somehow hate children, when my point is that there are plenty of places for kids, places for families with kids, and places for adults.
What I am saying is that the latter should censure irresponsible parents for bringing screaming infants into a university library, an upscale restaurant, a theatre at nighttime or other places where adults congregate to enjoy themselves and have some adult fun, just like adults should be censured for messing up children's fun. Why force one group into a setting clearly designed for another?


See? Rational, pragmatic objectivity. Which, from the viewpoint of an absolutist extremist such as yourself, is obviously nothing but crazy talk.

Hardly rational (or indeed moral) to say certain people belong in certain places, when it's not really for you to decide. Certainly not objective either, because you're still saying children are unworthy of libraries, restaurants, theatres and what not, just because a few squeak. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean a thing. You would also preclude adults certain joys because of their age too. This busybody, ageist mindset is hardly becoming of an allegedly upstanding 30something year old.

You also seem to have confused the issue. An obese man bouncing with children is disallowed because of potential harm more than minor inconvenience, and anyone who deliberately seeks to interrupt someone elses performance is just being a knob. Would you ban the guy with a gut from sitting on the castle because he does not conform to the standard human size or the gothic parent from a recital just because they enjoy screechy music (seriously though, who the fuck shouts and screams during a childs recital?)? This is the root cause of the opposal. Not supporting those who make a noise, supporting those who don't but suffer anyway because people like you are massively intolerant of anything you do not like. Asking disruptive people to leave is fine. Telling non-disruptive people they can't come in because they are like the disrupters is not.

But, this obviously won't move you. You say you love children, but you're still making unfair judgements and therefore demaning penalties upon them and their families because of a few who make a noise. Now I suspect you're either a liar or can't see past the end of his own nose (all kids are shits except your own, right?)

 

[Beautiful End]

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.

on the off chance i would ever have kids i would STILL be in favor of this. even more so in fact. why? because when the night i do finally get a sitter to have nice night out i wanna be 100% sure i'm not gonna be seated next to someone elses anoying brat ruining my evening.

Exactly. If this rule goes into effect, I would also favor it even if I had as many kids as the lady living inside the giant boot.

Why? Because my children would be raised properly. They would know not to throw a fit whenever they wanted to. They would know there's a time and place for yelling and screaming. They would know about respecting others and common courtesy. So my kids would never be in danger of being banned. Hell, even if I had a 1 year old crying in my lap while I'm having dinner, I would have the decency to step out of the building and try to calm my kid down before coming back. It would be a hassle? Yeah, but whatever. I have a kid. I know what I'm getting into. And hey, it's worth it. I'm not gonna be as irresponsible as to let my kid do whatever they want or just plain ignore him because I feel like being lazy or I just don't have the energy to do it. Like they say, parenting is a full time job.

It does seem people are misunderstanding this. We're talking about a ban from certain places, not everywhere. Banning kids everywhere would be insane in so many levels. No, it's not like that. But I still think it would be nice to have the choice to go to either a place for families or a place where there are no ill-behaved kids allowed.
Believe me, some big corporations would not be allowed to enforce this rule. They just can't. So it's not like every single franchise out there will adopt the rule. perhaps just small businesses. And hey, I'm fine with that. I like having choices.

Look, I'm not blaming the kids. I'm blaming the parents who cannot control their kid. Who try to take the easy way out. Who truly don't know a thing about parenting.
I was sitting at church one time and there was this kid behind me who kept banging on the seats. People would stare at him and his mom but the mother pretended to be too interested in what the priest was saying to try and stop the kid. Then the kid started running up and down the place. The priest nicely pretended he didn't mind but people continued staring. Then the kid got tired and started crying. The mother simply patter his back twice and ignored him. Obviously, the priest's words were drowned out considering the kid was right behind me.

So now I wonder: Why should I suffer because of this dumb mother? It's not the kid's fault, it's the mother's fault for not telling the kid to stop playing with everything, for not stepping out if only for 5 minutes to try and calm their kid down, for being inconsiderate enough for allowing his kid to disturb everyone else. It is in such instances that I support this rule.

Like I said, I support it partially. Personally, I would just want a kids-banned rule that would just kick annoying families out, not all kids. Because not all kids are ill-behaved, it wouldn't be fair.

Off topic: DISH network captcha?! Oh, snap! I am sold! I am getting DISH network right this instant! [/sarcasm]

 

[Jazzeki]

Hardly rational (or indeed moral) to say certain people belong in certain places, when it's not really for you to decide. Certainly not objective either, because you're still saying children are unworthy of libraries, restaurants, theatres and what not, just because a few squeak. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean a thing. You would also preclude adults certain joys because of their age too. This busybody, ageist mindset is hardly becoming of an allegedly upstanding 30something year old.

You also seem to have confused the issue. An obese man bouncing with children is disallowed because of potential harm more than minor inconvenience, and anyone who deliberately seeks to interrupt someone elses performance is just being a knob. Would you ban the guy with a gut from sitting on the castle because he does not conform to the standard human size or the gothic parent from a recital just because they enjoy screechy music (seriously though, who the fuck shouts and screams during a childs recital?)? This is the root cause of the opposal. Not supporting those who make a noise, supporting those who don't but suffer anyway because people like you are massively intolerant of anything you do not like. Asking disruptive people to leave is fine. Telling non-disruptive people they can't come in because they are like the disrupters is not.

But, this obviously won't move you. You say you love children, but you're still making unfair judgements and therefore demaning penalties upon them and their families because of a few who make a noise. Now I suspect you're either a liar or can't see past the end of his own nose (all kids are shits except your own, right?)

yes we would exclude anyone from joys if their right to joy excludes others right to enjoy the same thing. you seem to be of the belif that wether or not others can enjoy it is not important whatso ever parents should be alowed to bring thwir hellspwan anywhere for any reason. and i'm not alowed to say no. but if i wanna do stuff I like i should be cencored because "think of the kids".
oh and nobody is "delberately ruining" anything. we just only enjoy music if we are screaming at the top of our lungs so obviously we should be alowed to do that childrens recitals because you shut the fuck up we are just enjoying the music and the fact that you can't enjoy it now is not OUR problem.
nobody is saying this is a perfect solution. but it's also not a perfect world. if we could just say "leave" when the disruption occurs then that would be great but in most cases doing so would result in a far greater disruptance and so preemting it is sometimes smarter.
why should adults not be alowed a concious decision that "tonight i want a nice night out WITHOUT the chance of being anoyed by kids"?
again parents and children do not losse anything expect a choice to go to those specfic places. similar options would still be available unless they turn out to be such a horrible clientel that nobody can survive on them.
allso all kids includeing our own are shits. doesn't mean we can't like them. i too like kids. but not when i'm out. when i'm out i want peace and quite. and i'd like to be able to chose a place where peace and quite can be expected. if children are freely alowed i can not expect that.

 

[Titan Buttons]

That is a very good example of a terrbile parent. One example does not mean that every parent is terrbile at raising children and that all children these days are. Why should all families be punished for what a few have done?

Because the rights of paying customers trump the rights of diaper-crapping infants? As a restaurant owner, you're trying to make money. If your place is one where shit parents take loud and obnxious kids to, you're gonna lose paying customers, the vast majority of which have the good sense not to bring little children.

Smokers can't smoke on planes and in restaurants. Nudists can't go to a movie theatre naked. Children aren't allowed to drive cars. A neighbourhood kid will take, what, 25 bucks to sit on your couch and watch TV? How about you spend that much money on top of a $100 meal at a restaurant, huh?

Oh, and before anyone says that passive smoking endangers the health of other patrons: sure, it does. But imagine having a first date or a business dinner at a restaurant, and some brat kicking your fellow diner's shin and such. Hypertension kills people too.

I do believe the parents of the children would be paying customer, as well as, those without. Also a family is more likely to spend more money then a couple or a few individuals as kids eat a lot are far more likely to order extras such as deserets. There is no scene in not bring kids to a restaurant, especially to a restaurant owner as they are another mouth to feed, it is whether or not they are well behaved enough to act properly at restaurant.

You actually said children are a public health issue and should be removed from day to day life. Wow that's just stupid. What the hell are you talking about with this neighbourhood kid stuff? If a kid is given moeny they spend it buying sweets and toys or things they like. I have, the last time I did the meal was great and the two faimlies on either side of me had such wonderfully well behaved children. I find your sheer arrogance that I would be incapable of understanding the value of money and how enjoyable a quiet meal can be, because of my age, to be untterly pathetic.

Ok you provide an example of a single person getting hypertension because a kid ruined their night at a restaurant and I'll actually take that comparison as anything more then a hyperbole.