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

[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'.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

eh it really depends on the place, and it depends on how the parents are raising the child/reacting to the situation.

jesus by the looks of people in this thread i would swear none of you have dealt with children in your life...nor do you have any patience at all, unless you are ALL talking about in the most extreme cases, which even then your making it sound like walking death, when it's just a damn child.


we were all children once too...

 

[Canadamus Prime]

While I do agree that children can be a nuisance, esp when screaming, crying etc., but I think this is insane.

 

[Tim_Buoy]

No to infinity and beyond. Grow a thicker skin. I deal with annoying kids on a daily basis. Hell it is a lot more expensive for me when a kid knocks over $80 worth of blue berries or keeps screaming at the top of his lungs when his mother is try to ask me where a particular item is. At the movies, the movie is the distraction. At the restaurant, the crying part adds atmosphere, the hair pulling, you get the restaurant manager.

Everybody here voting Yay obviously cannot remember being a child and the already seamingly suffocating restrictions already placed upon them, multiple times moreso than 60 years ago. A person like me who had above average intelegence, independence, and maturity for my age as a child felt life to be excruciating.

i would have to disagree with you when i was a child i was well behaved when in public places. my parents taught me that there was a time and place to act crazy and to be polite and quiet
OT i voted yay but i favor a warning system like if your in a restaurant and your kid starts acting up you get a warning to calm him down and if you dont after that you get booted .
but even with that there are extenuating circumstances such as my 4 year old autistic cousin. most of the time hes well behaved but he can also throe a random tantrum when he becomes frustrated

 

[marscentral]

I'm totally for it. I hate kids in pubs. If you're not old enough to get a round in, get out.

I'm sure parents are less responsible than when I was a kid though. We rarely went anywhere that wasn't aimed at kids and if we stepped out of line, our parents punished us.

 

[The Stonker]

-Snip-

So you were watching a pornographic movie and there was a child there?!
WTF.
Anywho, I would've smacked the kid and told him to stop, and also, does that mean I can't bring my kid to a strip club?

BUT HIS MOTHER WORKS THERE!

 

[Vern]

I'm a bit eh, but mostly I don't agree. Some of my earliest and fondest memories are of going out with my grandparents and parents. My Grandparents in particular used to take me to this restaurant that had children's meals that had containers shaped like policeman-dogs and cat-burglars, and so every lunchtime my granddad would tell me stories using these lunches. If I knew that someone was trying to or had managed to deprive me or another child of those sorts of memories (my grandparents died before I was ten, some of these memories are literally all I remember of them) then I would be so far beyond pissed at those people.

But then again, even at age five or six (and my parents insist even younger than that) I was apparently a quiet and polite child who understood that a restaurant was for your indoor voice, and not running around in either. I think that the problem here is not the children, but parents who can't control or haven't taught their children properly, and I don't think it's fair to deny children the chance to understand what it means to be an adult, and to 'feel grown-up,' as my parents used to say, just because some idiot parents don't understand about proper child rearing.

SO in short, no, I don't agree, and I think that the only people who genuinely agree with this are actually the selfish ones in this equation.

After thinking about it, I agree with your viewpoint. The problem isn't with the children, or with establishments banning children from their premises. The problem is with parents who can't control their children. I do indeed have fond memories from the years of 4-10 going with my grandparents to have dinner, get donuts, cinnamon rolls, what have you. The thing is that we were told to behave, and if we didn't they would take us home.

I would say the best option is to have a policy that says that parents who can't control their children will be evicted from the premises. It's not laying blame on the kids, it's laying it where it belongs, on the parents who can't control their kids and who haven't instilled decent values and manners into them.

 

[arsenicCatnip]

After thinking about it, I agree with your viewpoint. The problem isn't with the children, or with establishments banning children from their premises. The problem is with parents who can't control their children. I do indeed have fond memories from the years of 4-10 going with my grandparents to have dinner, get donuts, cinnamon rolls, what have you. The thing is that we were told to behave, and if we didn't they would take us home.

I would say the best option is to have a policy that says that parents who can't control their children will be evicted from the premises. It's not laying blame on the kids, it's laying it where it belongs, on the parents who can't control their kids and who haven't instilled decent values and manners into them.

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)?

 

[Stormcloud23]

Absolute bullshit. They're treating the symptoms instead of the problem. If the kid is acting up smack him around, he'll quiet up fast. Banning them entirely is ridiculous.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[Whateveralot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."