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

Xan Krieger

Completely insane
Feb 11, 2009
2,918
0
0
xmbts said:
Treaos Serrare said:
xmbts said:
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.
 

xmbts

Still Approved by Shock
Legacy
May 30, 2010
20,796
34
23
Country
United States
Xan Krieger said:
xmbts said:
Treaos Serrare said:
xmbts said:
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?
 

Whateveralot

New member
Oct 25, 2010
953
0
0
I disagree with the movement, but I'd agree with it if it had a little bit more nuance to it.

I believe annoying kids should be banned from places that annoyance causes obvious discomfort for other people. I really don't mind kids screaming in grocery stores as much as in an airplane where the kid is behind me and kicking the back of my seat constantly. Seriously, those kids should be thrown off the airplane..
 

Xan Krieger

Completely insane
Feb 11, 2009
2,918
0
0
xmbts said:
Xan Krieger said:
xmbts said:
Treaos Serrare said:
xmbts said:
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?
 

Cobalt180

New member
Jun 15, 2010
54
0
0
The biggest flaw in this rule or potential idea is that how do you determine how 'annoying' a child is? If something doesn't happen until the middle of something, and they've been acting good up to that point, then suddenly the rule for being annoying suddenly applies.

I can understand the first example well, a FAMILY that doesn't act respectfully towards other people certainly isn't pleasant, but a crying child in a movie? I can understand that far easier, as a person who's really immersed or interested or mesmerized won't notice something until it registers, it happens to everyone.

I'd say as a rule, it's not easily enforced, and really only can be applied in one instance at points only where it manifests itself as being a true problem. However, some places and institutions have hired people to deal with folks who are not acting in a way that makes any given activity fun for anyone or everyone else in the room. Sometimes the most you can do is to grin and bear it.
 

the spud

New member
May 2, 2011
1,408
0
0
octafish said:
the spud said:
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".
Thank you, it is really hard to get out of the house sometimes. My kids aren't badly behaved (in public) and my daughter loves eating out in restaurants. I can't wait for you kids to deal with your kids in public. (Oh I'm never having kids, yeah right, good one.)
I don't have kids or a spouse, nor do I plan on ever obtaining either. I feel that I have better things to devote my life to. I just think that the people who do have children deserve a break every now and then.
 

bakan

New member
Jun 17, 2011
472
0
0
So much hate for children, it's unbelievable and in fact it should be hate for bad parents.
Most children I encounter in public are well-behaved - when I was younger I knew when to behave in a restaurant, I knew I should be quiet in a movie and nowadays I have to say that your average 13-17 years old is more annoying in a movie than younger kids going into a kids movie.

It's all about bad parenting and there shouldn't be a ban just because of a few exceptions - just case by case if it really goes out of hand and the parents can't handle the situation.
 

xmbts

Still Approved by Shock
Legacy
May 30, 2010
20,796
34
23
Country
United States
Xan Krieger said:
xmbts said:
Xan Krieger said:
xmbts said:
Treaos Serrare said:
xmbts said:
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.
 

Sansha

There's a principle in business
Nov 16, 2008
1,726
0
0
the spud said:
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.
 

Wolvaroo

New member
Jan 1, 2008
397
0
0
I have the solution to all your problems:



Now proceed with telling me what a horrible person I am. If I have kids, and dispite my best efforts parenting, they will not behave, I fully intent to leash/gag them.
 

Sansha

There's a principle in business
Nov 16, 2008
1,726
0
0
xmbts said:
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."
 

the spud

New member
May 2, 2011
1,408
0
0
Sansha said:
the spud said:
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

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,346
0
0
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.

TL:DR : BAN THEM THROW THE BLAGGERTS OUT
 

SwagLordYoloson

New member
Jul 21, 2010
784
0
0
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

Completely insane
Feb 11, 2009
2,918
0
0
xmbts said:
Xan Krieger said:
xmbts said:
Xan Krieger said:
xmbts said:
Treaos Serrare said:
xmbts said:
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

Still Approved by Shock
Legacy
May 30, 2010
20,796
34
23
Country
United States
Sansha said:
xmbts said:
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

New member
Feb 15, 2011
1,755
0
0
arsenicCatnip said:
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

New member
Jan 15, 2011
383
0
0
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

New member
May 15, 2008
2,503
0
0
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

Still Approved by Shock
Legacy
May 30, 2010
20,796
34
23
Country
United States
Xan Krieger said:
xmbts said:
Xan Krieger said:
xmbts said:
Xan Krieger said:
xmbts said:
Treaos Serrare said:
xmbts said:
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.