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

[the spud]

No. Parents have a difficult enough time trying to get out of the house already without having to find and pay for a sitter. Also, your whole annoying child only tactic doesn't seem like it could practically work, as it would be difficult to determine what constitutes as "annoying".

When your little larva starts making a nuisance of himself for others discomfort and irritation, do you actually do anything or do you just tone it out?

I'm told by a lot of parents that they can tell when a child is complaining for no reason, and they just tone it out to ignore it... which only makes it worse because the little shit is being ignored.

I don't hate children - I hate shitty parents.

I don't have a little larvae, but if I did, they would have to work pretty damn hard to piss me off. I grew up with 2 twin sisters, both of which were very loud and annoying.

 

[Svenparty]

I routed for the child catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang based on every single encounter on a plane or a restaurant which should end in mass violence and shouting but in reality...I just leave(even on planes)

People with children often have a very self entitlement complex that is embodied paticularly in some British women who think "Being a mum is enough" as if it's a great excuse to shovel crisps and watch Jeremy Kyle.

TLR : BAN THEM THROW THE BLAGGERTS OUT

 

[SwagLordYoloson]

I like how America says its against discrimination, then when it suits them they are all for it. There is no difference between racism, sexism and agisim. In all cases there is a demographic you are excluding, and just because children do not get a vote or a say in matters does not mean that they should be discriminated against.

 

[Xan Krieger]

That sounds like an awful idea, if you can't put up with a kid then maybe you should be the one to leave.

You need to be locked in a room with 5-6 screaming crying whining children. I would love to see how long you last before snapping

Heh, welcome to my house, fact of the matter is it's blatant segregation, justified by the argument of 'they're kids, they don't know their own rights'.

Segregation that benefits a lot of people by reducing the amount of stress they have to deal with. Its positive segregation.

Because nothing says progress as a species like massive intolerance based on generalizations totally out of their control, am I right?

This is a health issue, both physical and mental. Would you rather have people's health suffer or would you rather eliminate the problem?

Children are a fact of life, if you can't handle them you can just go home.

You aren't taking into consideration the mental and physical toll it has on the kids themselves if they're forced out of sight until they reach a certain age. Not to mention the burden it puts on parents.

Better idea: Keep your children to yourself and don't bring them to places where they may cause a problem. You chose to have kids, I did not, I shouldn't have to deal with what you made.

 

[xmbts]

That sounds like an awful idea, if you can't put up with a kid then maybe you should be the one to leave.

Yeah I'm not going to walk out of a movie or restaurant I paid for because someone else's worm is making a little shit out of themselves, don't be absurd.

Responsibility ultimately lies with the parents. They should know the deal when they have a kid - that your life isn't yours anymore, that parenting is a full-time job and if you want a break, you pay for a sitter.

My sister is just now learning this with her first son, but she's adapting well.

A lot of parents say they can't afford a sitter. To this, I reply:

"If you can afford a $10-20 movie and/or $40 - $80 meal, you can sure as hell afford a sitter."

I do find it kind of funny that you imply selfishness on the part of the parents when you're perfectly willing to force them to pay for a sitter (Not cheap) just to make yourself more comfortable.

This whole thread reeks of hypocrisy.

 

[Beautiful End]

What about places where children obviously shouldn't be, but are brought in with their parents (thinking about that rated-R movie example up there)?

In this case, I'd say there would be a lot of people to blame for it. First, the people who work at the movies. I've noticed that a kid could easily sneak into an R rated movie. Maybe 3 out of 10 children might catch someone's attention. Other than that, I've seen my fair share of kids crying while watching some R rated movie because *LE GASP* it's too scary for the kid! I make a living by selling video games to everyone and I know as a fact that no matter how lame or not my co-workers are, we would never sell an M rated game to a kid. So why can't other media be as strict as the video game industry? (You'd think they wouldn't hate on video games that much because of this...)

Second, the parents, obviously. I think they should be punished in some sort of way. Let's face it; some parents only learn the same way kids learn, through crime and punishment. The punishment would be left to the theater's manager to decide or something. But at least they would think twice next time they decide to be lazy and bring their kid to the movies with them instead of skipping on that one movie they wanna watch.

 

[Mr.Numbers]

I fly about 10 times a year almost and I have to say there is no experience I've had worse, not even root canal, than being stuck for more than two hours in a flying pressurized tin can with something louder than a jackhammer in your ear and more awful to listen to.

 

[Radelaide]

In certain situations, yes. While I'm all for having kids at a resteraunt, can you keep them in family appropriate places? My boyfriend and I are having a date at an Darby St place where it's classy and low-key and the last thing I want to hear is some brat screaming his head off.

In places you can't avoid kids (public transport, public place like malls and such) for gods sake, keep your children in line. Them running around endangers them and people around them.

 

[xmbts]

That sounds like an awful idea, if you can't put up with a kid then maybe you should be the one to leave.

You need to be locked in a room with 5-6 screaming crying whining children. I would love to see how long you last before snapping

Heh, welcome to my house, fact of the matter is it's blatant segregation, justified by the argument of 'they're kids, they don't know their own rights'.

Segregation that benefits a lot of people by reducing the amount of stress they have to deal with. Its positive segregation.

Because nothing says progress as a species like massive intolerance based on generalizations totally out of their control, am I right?

This is a health issue, both physical and mental. Would you rather have people's health suffer or would you rather eliminate the problem?

Children are a fact of life, if you can't handle them you can just go home.

You aren't taking into consideration the mental and physical toll it has on the kids themselves if they're forced out of sight until they reach a certain age. Not to mention the burden it puts on parents.

Better idea: Keep your children to yourself and don't bring them to places where they may cause a problem. You chose to have kids, I did not, I shouldn't have to deal with what you made.

Actually you should have to deal with it, the kids of today are going to run your life tomorrow, may be worth it to get to know them and not irreparably damage their childhoods.

Food for thought.

 

[Sansha]

I like how America says its against discrimination, then when it suits them they are all for it. There is no difference between racism, sexism and agisim. In all cases there is a demographic you are excluding, and just because children do not get a vote or a say in matters does not mean that they should be discriminated against.

This isn't about discrimination - if a person is making an immature, loud, irritating nuisance of themselves, I'm going to want them far away from me, no what age, race or mental capacity they may be.

The only good reason to be screaming in public is if you've just been dealt a horrific injury.

That sounds like an awful idea, if you can't put up with a kid then maybe you should be the one to leave.

You need to be locked in a room with 5-6 screaming crying whining children. I would love to see how long you last before snapping

Heh, welcome to my house, fact of the matter is it's blatant segregation, justified by the argument of 'they're kids, they don't know their own rights'.

Segregation that benefits a lot of people by reducing the amount of stress they have to deal with. Its positive segregation.

Because nothing says progress as a species like massive intolerance based on generalizations totally out of their control, am I right?

This is a health issue, both physical and mental. Would you rather have people's health suffer or would you rather eliminate the problem?

Children are a fact of life, if you can't handle them you can just go home.

You aren't taking into consideration the mental and physical toll it has on the kids themselves if they're forced out of sight until they reach a certain age. Not to mention the burden it puts on parents.

Better idea: Keep your children to yourself and don't bring them to places where they may cause a problem. You chose to have kids, I did not, I shouldn't have to deal with what you made.

Well said. I don't agree with a flat-out 'No kids' ban on everything. Expensive, adult establishments like high-class restaurants, clubs and spas for sure - it really depends on the kind of atmosphere - but a business proprietor should (and usually does) reserve the right to evict anyone - REGARDLESS OF AGE - who is causing discomfort to his other patrons.

 

[Vern]

This sounds like a good compromise, IMHO. But again, what about places where children obviously shouldn't be, but are brought in with their parents (thinking about that rated-R movie example up there)?

If it's an R-rated movie then I think it's up the parents to decide if it's appropriate. As long as the children behave I see no problem with it. It's a fictional story, if their kids can sit still and not scream then that's fine. That's parents discretion and if the children bother other people they should be asked to leave. The only restriction I would place on it is say, bars and strip clubs, where you have to be 21 to enter, and children could be exposed to actual real world events that could affect them. Children are fine as long as they behave in their environment, but they should not be exposed to public areas of real world vice when they are underage.

And apparently Manilla makes life easy.

 

[DarthSka]

Personally, I'm for a different sort of legislation. If someone brings a loud kid in, boot 'em. So long as the kid behaves, they're welcome in my book... but too many people don't raise their kids anymore, they just give their kids whatever they want in early development, teaching the kid that tantrums get them their desired results.
I say boot failed parents and their squalling brats to the curb, let 'em take their noise pollution on home... but banning all kids isn't the answer.

Like so many others have said, this seems to be the best course to take. Like I said on the previous thread, I've never really had an experience where a kid was so annoying that it ruined my experience, and I go out plenty. Honestly, I've had worse experiences around teenagers and people in their 20's (my age group). So basically, anyone (not just kids) being a loud, obnoxious jerk and not cutting it out is warned. If it doesn't stop, bye-bye.

 

[Sansha]

That sounds like an awful idea, if you can't put up with a kid then maybe you should be the one to leave.

Yeah I'm not going to walk out of a movie or restaurant I paid for because someone else's worm is making a little shit out of themselves, don't be absurd.

Responsibility ultimately lies with the parents. They should know the deal when they have a kid - that your life isn't yours anymore, that parenting is a full-time job and if you want a break, you pay for a sitter.

My sister is just now learning this with her first son, but she's adapting well.

A lot of parents say they can't afford a sitter. To this, I reply:

"If you can afford a $10-20 movie and/or $40 - $80 meal, you can sure as hell afford a sitter."

I do find it kind of funny that you imply selfishness on the part of the parents when you're perfectly willing to force them to pay for a sitter (Not cheap) just to make yourself more comfortable.

This whole thread reeks of hypocrisy.

If you can afford to eat out, you can afford a sitter. There's really no excuse for it.

You think I'm being selfish? You'd willingly take your squealing piggies out to an enclosed, public environment where people have paid to be and enjoy themselves, and force them to have their evening ruined by noise because you can't or simply won't control your little mistakes because you can afford to be there, but not shell out to cover your own responsibilities?

On what planet do you spend the majority of your time?

 

[Beautiful End]

That sounds like an awful idea, if you can't put up with a kid then maybe you should be the one to leave.

Yeah I'm not going to walk out of a movie or restaurant I paid for because someone else's worm is making a little shit out of themselves, don't be absurd.

Responsibility ultimately lies with the parents. They should know the deal when they have a kid - that your life isn't yours anymore, that parenting is a full-time job and if you want a break, you pay for a sitter.

My sister is just now learning this with her first son, but she's adapting well.

A lot of parents say they can't afford a sitter. To this, I reply:

"If you can afford a $10-20 movie and/or $40 - $80 meal, you can sure as hell afford a sitter."

I do find it kind of funny that you imply selfishness on the part of the parents when you're perfectly willing to force them to pay for a sitter (Not cheap) just to make yourself more comfortable.

This whole thread reeks of hypocrisy.

If you ask me, I think it's more selfish out of the parents to bring their kid to wherever they're going for the night; knowing that the kid will either get bored, hungry or sleepy and will eventually throw a tantrum.

Look, let's say I wanna go to the opera. Let's assume I have a kid. So my choices are:

-Miss the event. Sorry, it sucks, but I'm a parent now. Can't go around doing stuff I'd do if I was single. I have a kid now that depends on me.
-Find a babysitter. Yeah, kinda expensive. But it's the opera and it's just one night. Could be worth it. How about asking a friend to watch over my kid? If I really wanna go to the opera, then staying one night away from my kid won't be the end of the world. Thus, I'll be doing the kid a favor by leaving him home and allowing him to sleep, play or whatever while I also have fun. Hey, I need a night out too!
-Bring the kid to the opera with me. Now, I know that if I do, my kid will start talking and asking questions because he's a kid. Then he might get tired and he'll start crying because he wants to home (Not his fault). Then people will start staring at me, but I can't leave because it's the final act. If only I can endure this for 5 more minutes. Then someone will ask me to leave the building. I'll have to stand up all embarrassed, take my kid and leave. I won't even see the end of the show. On top of that, my kid is too tired, the poor thing.


So I don't see how asking their parents to refrain from taking their kid to SOME places is selfish. Some parents do this. Why can't all parents do this?

I'm not saying kids should belong in a cage, of course not. And I'm not saying parents should jump through hoops just to keep strangers happy. But it's common courtesy. It's the same reason why I don't talk on the phone while I'm at the movies or why I try not to yell while I'm having dinner with my friends; because it would suck if someone did the same to me so I won't do it to others.

Imagine a couple that goes to a fancy place and the guy is about to propose. And as he's speaking those words, you hear a kid crying and bellowing at his mom. Wow, what a romantic evening!
Now imagine the same couple doing the same kid. Except the kid on the next table is minding his own business, perhaps talking to his parents and having fun too. I'm unaware of him and likewise.

It's just common courtesy.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Hell yes, I have a kid and I taught her manners, teach yours some too

 

[CodeOrange]

I disapprove of this movement purely because I wasn't a little shit when I was a child.

Wait, does this mean that children are completely not allowed to enter certain venues, or does this mean that other patrons and customers have the right to complain, and employees and employers have the right to evict said annoying children?

There should be a counter-movement to this, where parenthood is no longer a right, but a privilege only given to those who have proven to be a capable parent (parent school, anyone?). Awfully Fascist, so I doubt this will ever happen.

 

[luclin92]

i wont go for a ban of children in any particular place since that would kinda stop a part of the income of those places. i would rather have a family only areas in restaurants, airplanes and other similar events. with this families can go do what they want without people getting annoyed. i work at a grocery store and have to deal with crying children almost daily, and i dont find that a problem (most of the kids there are either nice, or doing something funny).

 

[xmbts]

That sounds like an awful idea, if you can't put up with a kid then maybe you should be the one to leave.

Yeah I'm not going to walk out of a movie or restaurant I paid for because someone else's worm is making a little shit out of themselves, don't be absurd.

Responsibility ultimately lies with the parents. They should know the deal when they have a kid - that your life isn't yours anymore, that parenting is a full-time job and if you want a break, you pay for a sitter.

My sister is just now learning this with her first son, but she's adapting well.

A lot of parents say they can't afford a sitter. To this, I reply:

"If you can afford a $10-20 movie and/or $40 - $80 meal, you can sure as hell afford a sitter."

I do find it kind of funny that you imply selfishness on the part of the parents when you're perfectly willing to force them to pay for a sitter (Not cheap) just to make yourself more comfortable.

This whole thread reeks of hypocrisy.

If you can afford to eat out, you can afford a sitter. There's really no excuse for it.

You think I'm being selfish? You'd willingly take your squealing piggies out to an enclosed, public environment where people have paid to be and enjoy themselves, and force them to have their evening ruined by noise because you can't control your little mistakes?

On what planet do you spend the majority of your time?

Inconveniencing others for the benefit of yourself, yes that's what I'm saying. If you can afford to eat out and you don't have children I think you can afford to walk out.

Not a fan of that idea then why don't you tough it out and deal with it just like the parents have to every waking minute of their lives.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

I'd like all against (and for) this to consider the following.

Let's exchange the word 'kid' with the word 'dog' and 'parent' with 'dog owner'. Does the proposition still sound like discrimination? I can't think of a single restaurant where you can take your dog inside. Why? Because they are a liability. Sure, some of them will be properly trained and will keep quite and not harass others, but we still not allow them because of the liability of them ruining someone's night out.


EDIT:

Inconveniencing others for the benefit of yourself, yes that's what I'm saying. If you can afford to eat out and you don't have children I think you can afford to walk out.

Not a fan of that idea then why don't you tough it out and deal with it just like the parents have to every waking minute of their lives.

We didn't choose to have children. Don't see why we should have to face the consequences of your decision.


EDIT 2:

There should be a counter-movement to this, where parenthood is no longer a right, but a privilege only given to those who have proven to be a capable parent (parent school, anyone?). Awfully Fascist, so I doubt this will ever happen.

Actually, that'd be a movement pretty much in the same tone as this one. I'd be all for it, by the way (I've been bloody saying this for nearly five years now...).

 

[Chibz]

Spoons:
-Do you agree with this rule?
-Do you hate this rule/does this rule affect you?
-Do you think this is absurd or necessary?
-Do you wish to see this movement gain more support? Or not?
-Etc?

1. I just checked, and it would be exceedingly illegal where I live. Discrimination based on age.
2. I neither love nor hate it. Except for the fact that my child-nephew is actually more mature than I am. Yet he'd be barred, yet I wouldn't.
3. It's a little absurd.
4. No. It's really quite silly.
5. Pizza with anchovies, banana peppers, extra cheese and mushrooms. With delicious guacamole sauce instead of bland tomato paste. Yum yum.