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

floobie

New member
Sep 10, 2010
188
0
0
I don't think this should be law. I do think that any establishment should have free reign regarding this decision, though.

In my opinion, too many people take having children far too lightly, and expect society to bend over backwards to accommodate them. I absolutely refuse to have a child until I can basically devote my life to it. I would know and understand well in advance that having kids is a massive responsibility, and that they will always come first. My social life, my desire to have fun, my hobbies, my desire to eat at a fancy restaurant or fly for 15 hours to someplace... none of that matters. Kid comes first. Always. No exceptions. Obviously, as the kid matures, those sacrifices on my part would become less necessary. But, really, I'm pretty peeved that parents don't operate this way. Young children are generally just not mature enough to tag along in many of these situations. If/when they are, no problem. I don't have an irrational hatred of children. Until then, be a parent and realize that your decision to reproduce comes with a tonne of responsibility and sacrifice on your part. Don't bring your kid to inappropriate places. It's not good for the kid, and the people around you definitely don't appreciate it either.

Edit: Thought about it a bit more. Made changes.
 

Drunkfather

New member
Oct 7, 2009
7
0
0
I will agree to this as long as the same public places ban all ignorant teenagers trying to show off in public so their friends think they are cool. I agree with tc about children can be annoying. Which makes your evening, that you spend hard earned money on,less enjoyable. However so do the 12 - 17 crowd that decide to be loud and boisterous in the movie theater, mall, or public in general. In most cases, I would rather a child ruin my movie date night than some annoying rude teenager.
 

Hipsy_Gypsy

New member
Jun 2, 2011
329
0
0
Yes and no but mostly yes. Certain hours sound good but at the same time, other people shouldn't have to feel like they can only go into/not go into a public place at certain times to escape annoying children.
Not all children are annoying and most of the time it is to do with poor parenting. However, I find it unfair to ban babies because they genuinely don't know any better plus crying is the only way they can communicate to their mothers when they genuinely need something, regardless of how annoying it may be.

But my God. This reminds me. I was in Tesco in Knocknagoney on Friday there buying food etc for the Saturday as I was having people over then and this child was CONSTANTLY squeaking this little squeaky toy and you could hear it throughout the ENTIRE store! If it was squeaked once or twice, then it would have been easily brushed off, however, this was once every few seconds. I could hear the actual child every now and again but the parent/guardian was doing NOTHING to stop the child.
I'm sure the kid was really, really young and only wanted to play but, God... you should have heard how loud it was.

x
 

simply_simple

New member
Aug 28, 2008
43
0
0
What's with the child hate? Being a parent is hard work and you want to ban kids from grocery stores? That's impractical. I can see the argument for having separate no-kids classes on airlines but a total ban will cause people to lose a much needed family holiday. (Also I'm sure places like Disney land would get less business).

The problem is discipline. If a parent isn't bothering to control their child, then yes they are being a weak parent but if you punish ALL parents just to stop the bad ones then tyhat isn't being fair at all.
 

Burck

New member
Aug 9, 2009
308
0
0
I have one concern with this.

These bans should not be allowed, in regards to any vital services, discriminate against parents who cannot afford child care/babysitting.

In the OP's article, Whole Foods in Missouri have compromised as to satisfy both parties: "This summer Whole Foods stores in Missouri are offering child-free shopping hours (kids are allowed inside but childcare service is available for parents who want to shop kid-free.)" Such a policy will allow parents to shop without having to worry about taking on additional child care expenses.

However, other policies such as one proposed at a Florida Condominium have taken a stronger, one sided approach: "Meanwhile in Florida, a controversy brews over whether kids can be banned from a condominium's outdoor area. That's right, some people don't even want kids outdoors." In a time when parents are often scolded for letting their children watch too much TV, taking away an outdoor location from youth seems counterproductive. Perhaps in this case, restricting certain hours would be the better choice.

As an extension of what I've said, I think any place that can be described as "luxury" should have the right to make restrictions on children. This kind of policy, of course, would need to be legally refined.
 

Kl4pp5tuhl

New member
Apr 15, 2009
136
0
0
We need a "Little Lamplight" where we drop them off until they are 18.

An Island would be nice. Or an enhanced version of the Kindergarten.

Yes, I do hate kids, why are you asking?
 

xmbts

Still Approved by Shock
Legacy
May 30, 2010
20,800
37
53
Country
United States
Archangel357 said:
xmbts said:
Or how about people quit whining and just enjoy their damn meal?
How about I park my car in front of your window at 2am blasting "Baby Got Back" at full volume. And then tell you to stop whinging.

You're missing a step here, most of those other things you listed as banned are harmful, what we're talking about is people being too short tempered and socially inept to just be able to put up with an obnoxious child.
Yeah, it's the people who are being disturbed by a screaming child who are socially inept, not the mother who's too bloody incompetent to keep her kid quiet.

Let me guess, you're a mother of a hateful little sprog.
And the misogyny returns.

If a parent brings their child out to eat they have just as much right to be there as you yourself. If it bothers you that much and they don't feel like stepping out you have two very simple choices.

1: Deal with it.

2: Leave.

Imposing your will on others is immoral.
 

Stephanos132

New member
Sep 7, 2009
287
0
0
Archangel357 said:
xmbts said:
Or how about people quit whining and just enjoy their damn meal?
How about I park my car in front of your window at 2am blasting "Baby Got Back" at full volume. And then tell you to stop whinging.
There's a fundamental difference between spending time with your family and being a ****. Also, I'm pretty sure that comes under breaking the law, whereas taking your kids out and about is perfectly legal.

You're missing a step here, most of those other things you listed as banned are harmful, what we're talking about is people being too short tempered and socially inept to just be able to put up with an obnoxious child.
Yeah, it's the people who are being disturbed by a screaming child who are socially inept, not the mother who's too bloody incompetent to keep her kid quiet.

Let me guess, you're a mother of a hateful little sprog.
Not a presumptuous little man are you?
 

galeofceres

New member
Jun 2, 2011
5
0
0
Eh!
I was a troublesome child but when I make too much noise my parents had SOLUTIONS to the problem:
Baby- lemon wedges+baby=seen but not heard, very useful in nice restaurants
Rugrat- dragged out to the parking lot for applications from the hand of learning to the seat of knowledge (bare seat or not depending upon the gravity of the infraction)

There are irresponsible parents out there and sometimes it seems like the numbers are growing. The truth is that the numbers ARE growing due to the irresponsible parents who raised a bunch of brats, including the newly-minted irresponsible parents who are raising yet MORE brats.
It is not really the child's fault that their parent is irresponsible, so I think that instead of keeping the kid out, merely RE-ASSIGN said kid to a responsible adult for the duration of the ride/movie/dining experience/etc... If that means that more places have to start offering a child-care option to keep the disinterested tykes out of my hair, I'm sure they can make plenty of money off of the happy parents who would otherwise have trouble finding a babysitter on such short notice. If that means there is a sound-proof baby section on the plane, complete with changing tables, I'm sure the other passengers would not mind traveling in slightly smaller spaces in order to avoid listening to a screaming child because baby does not like the pressure changes on his/her ears. If that means that restaurants run out of lemons early so I can't have one in my drink, I think I'll live if they're all going to the angry baby down the way. If the smoking section is replaced with the child-friendly section, I'm sure the smokers won't mind going outside in exchange for a quiet, enjoyable dinner.

Of course within our current society in the USA, someone would have to start off on these ideas and make a LOT of money/a marked increase in business before it would catch on. So next time you're in the nice restaurant with the screaming baby, you may want to calmly ask the frazzled parents if they've ever tried lemon wedges. ;)
Good luck?
 

xmbts

Still Approved by Shock
Legacy
May 30, 2010
20,800
37
53
Country
United States
Archangel357 said:
xmbts said:
And the misogyny returns.

If a parent brings their child out to eat they have just as much right to be there as you yourself. If it bothers you that much and they don't feel like stepping out you have two very simple choices.

1: Deal with it.

2: Leave.

Imposing your will on others is immoral.
Okay, now I know that you're not very bright.

Also, three things that are seriously wrong with your reasoning.

1: The parents, who pay for their meal, have a right to be there. The child does not.

2: Why must I leave? Is it physically impossible for parents with a screaming child to leave a room?

3: Who's imposing on the other? One party is saying, literally, in your case, "don't like my screaming brat ruining your evening? DEAL WITH IT OR GTFO!" That's the very definition of imposing your will on others.

But I see that reason is wasted on you. For God's sake, I hope that you NEVER have offspring. I've never met anybody so obtuse and so unfit to be a parent.
So children have no right to eat with their parents? I worry for you.

You can't force people to leave, if they want to stay they can stay. the only person you can evict is yourself and that decision is entirely up to you.

By putting a ban in place that is imposing your will on families everywhere. That much is self evident.

And please stop insulting me in such a way, it's making you look immature and that is just embarrassing given your case.

Keep it civil friend.
 

targren

New member
May 13, 2009
1,314
0
0
xmbts said:
If a parent brings their child out to eat they have just as much right to be there as you yourself. If it bothers you that much and they don't feel like stepping out you have two very simple choices.

1: Deal with it.

2: Leave.
Removing the kids from the equation: if a fully grown man was to stand beside you while you were trying to eat, screeching in your ear, pulling your hair, and trying to take food off your plate, would you "Deal with it or just leave?"

Imposing your will on others is immoral.
Tell that to the parents that think that common courtesy needn't concern them simply because they "willed" to squirt out a tax benefit.

You can't force people to leave, if they want to stay they can stay. the only person you can evict is yourself and that decision is entirely up to you.
False. This movement is largely made up of business owners (airlines, restaurants, movie theatres, etc...) A business owner absolutely has the right to remove you from his premises, as long as it's not for one of the sacred reasons (sex, race, religion). "Being a self-centered, inconsiderate cretin" is, while a popular pastime, NOT one of those sacred reasons.
 

xmbts

Still Approved by Shock
Legacy
May 30, 2010
20,800
37
53
Country
United States
Father Time said:
xmbts said:
Father Time said:
Adults do have more rights than children. If you don't believe me try bringing a child to a strip club or asking the child to buy you alcohol. Yes that does make us unequal.
Kind of irrelevant seeing as this isn't about booze or sex, it's about people throwing a tantrum because kids throw tantrums and frankly it's embarrassing that they call themselves more mature.
I don't see tantrums I see restaurants and planes forbidding kids and not making a huge fuss over it.
Hehe, given the reactions people are giving me you may understand why I respectfully disagree.

targren said:
xmbts said:
If a parent brings their child out to eat they have just as much right to be there as you yourself. If it bothers you that much and they don't feel like stepping out you have two very simple choices.

1: Deal with it.

2: Leave.
Removing the kids from the equation: if a fully grown man was to stand beside you while you were trying to eat, screeching in your ear, pulling your hair, and trying to take food off your plate, would you "Deal with it or just leave?"

Imposing your will on others is immoral.
Tell that to the parents that think that common courtesy needn't concern them simply because they "willed" to squirt out a tax benefit.
Yeah actually, people suck, get used to it or get out.

Also I'm fairly certain only complete morons have kids for financial reasons. Parenthood doesn't work like that.