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

[GigaHz]

I agree with the Brat ban... but there needs to be more to it.

What about the well behaved kids? They can't just cut out every kid under a certain age, assuming all kids are loud and uncontrollable. Maybe if it were changed to 'Control your kid, or you risk getting kicked from the restaurant'. Let the kid cross the line first, then enforce the ban.

 

[targren]

How many of you, as kids, would have understood being banned because some (to the kids view) self centered and whiny adults don't want you around? After we tell kids that they are undesirables, how then do we socialize them to become well behaved adults? How many of you who support the ban are confident that a ban that applies to you wouldn't be next?

Just a minor nit, but if they were being socialized to be well-behaved, this wouldn't even be a problem. But setting that utopian concept aside for the moment...

More importantly, how many kids would CARE that they can't go to the boring old steakhouse that doesn't have chicken fingers or placemats they can color on, instead of to Chuck-E-Cheeze where they could actually have fun.

If you want a night out with the kids, take them some place appropriate for kids. If you want a night out for adults, hire a damn sitter.

I agree with the Brat ban... but there needs to be more to it.

What about the well behaved kids? They can't just cut out every kid under a certain age, assuming all kids are loud and uncontrollable. Maybe if it were changed to 'Control your kid, or you risk getting kicked from the restaurant'. Let the kid cross the line first, then enforce the ban.

I wrote about that earlier in this mess. Ideally, yes, that is the best option. The problem is that badly behaved kids usually spew forth from badly behaved adults, resulting in more of a loud, obnoxious scene when they're told that they need to leave. It's kind of obvious when you think about it: if they had any sense of decorum, they wouldn't have been sitting there impotently while their precious little loinfruit knocked over someone else's table.

 

[xmbts]

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.

 

[Stephanos132]

They have a right to exist and be about in this world. That's enough for most of us, why not you?

It's hilarious that you presume to speak for the majority when your viewpoint is losing in a bloody landslide.

It's hilarious that you think this is a majority opinion based on a vote involving one overriding 'group' of people (gamers), on which not all of them have put an opinion. Silence does not translate to a yes.

Plus, I don't know if you've ventured out lately, but I have, I've eaten in nice restaurants, and yes there were kids and yet no-one was tearing their hair out in frustration. Maybe it's just you and a very vocal minority today, as it typically is with blanket bans.

Okay, so you do not understand how polls work. Cool. Also, really feeble attempt at an implicit insult.

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.

 

[Mad1Cow]

There should be Adult only venues, such as cinema, restaurants, etc. Actually I'm more for a code of conduct area. This means that if you aren't up to scratch you will be asked to leave the premises. I dunno, maybe I'm just more suited for higher class venues, but I went to a nice old english pub restaurant a few weeks back and while there was this family of kids who would not shut up, there was also a group of 25 year olds who were absolutely inconsiderate to everyone else, even going so far to smuggling toilet roll out of the loos and throwing them across the table.

I've seen well behaved kids, they're fine, they actually make me sorta happy that there are competant people in the world. I just dislike it when a brat ruins my experience and I can't do anything to the annoyance because so many parents have adopted a no discipline parenting root. I shouted at one kid that kept kicking me in the shins for no reason while I was out at a venue (I think it was bowling...I didn't scream profanities, just yelled at him to leave me alone) and the parent was right next to me and started yelling "YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO DO THAT, I'LL PARENT THE KID HOW I WANT YA HEAR!?!"...THAT needs irradicating from society...

 

[pandorum]

only in a perfect world would this work

 

[JCBFGD]

-snip-

Congratulations. Your argument was disproved (apparently successfully) by someone you claim to be, by default, smarter than.

Would you like to actually make an attempt to counter my counter-points, or are you just gonna go ahead and admit that I successfully fought your points? I sincerely hope it's the former, because I just love to debate.

Man, wouldn't it suck if an ageist lost a debate with someone younger than them? It'd be the ultimate example of irony, and a great way to prove that ageism is just ridiculous.

 

[targren]

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 then you advocate that DUI should no longer be illegal, because many people have driven drunk and never even gotten a speeding ticket while doing so? Or selling handguns to 7 year-olds? Most of them haven't ever killed anyone, after all.

And before you counter that the risk warrants making it illegal, and that's different, don't bother. I am aware of that. However, your reasoning, it seems, is not. You could simply have said that you disagree. Instead, you played the morality card, which doesn't hold up against the facts of the situation.

No business wants to lose customers. Businesses are to make money, and losing customers is losing money. If a business is considering a policy like this, it means they are working on the assumption that more people are being driven off by badly behaved kids, than they would drive off with the policy.

If they're right, then more people who previously wouldn't patronize their business because of lousy kids will do so, and your claims about the problem being with "everyone else" just prove my point made earlier. If they're wrong, then they will NOT gain the increase in customers, PLUS they will lose the customers they already had who brought the kids in.

Economically, it's a risk. Morally, it's a push. Anyone's right to patronize a business is not more important than the business owners right to set its policies.

 

[BeinDraug]

I am highly sportive of this motive how ever i do agree with other posters who suggest let the good kids stay i distinctly remember when i was 4-5 attempting a tantrum in a shop and having my mother just walk of and leave me as such i never did it again.
And to those of you who say your just punishing children for being children by not allowing them no by doing this we are merely doign what there parents failed to do and teach them that such behaviour is not acceptable in public places and this also teaches the parents isf you want to go to nice restaurants/movies/theaters with your kid be a good parent and teach them how to behave this would not only reduce the number of bad children but the number of bad parents if someone dosnt want to go to the trouble of teaching there child manners then they obviously arent ready to have a child

 

[Harlief]

In the town where I live, cinemas usually have "Cry baby" sessions. It's not banning kids, it's providing a special (usually cheaper) session for all the people with crying children to go and see a movie drawing them away from the other sessions.
Having a ban is just plain rude, but there are other options.

 

[furmaster3000]

Non of the nay yellers here will miss making funny faces to a baby in a strolling-carriage, while your waiting in line for your hotwings?
I make em giggle everytime ^^

 

[Beautiful End]

-Sniiiip-

No, it's not that I hate kids for no reason at all. And I know; if I'm ever a parent, I will have to deal with the same thing. I don't expect kids to stop being kids just because it annoys me. But like I said, I would like others to mind my presence and be respectful just like I am respectful to others.

Do not misunderstand; I'm not saying everyone needs to stay off my path just because I'm me, no. Nor am I saying that children need to stay away from me. Children are alright. What bothers me is parents and children equally who are inconsiderate towards others. If a kid is crying and the mother is being irresponsible enough to not care about it, why should I suffer for it? I can only try and be polite for so long. Ignoring a kid works for a while, a couple of days, maybe weeks. But everyone has a boiling point.

I know one thing: if I ever have children, they will be well behaved, I know that much. When I was a kid, my mother would have never allowed me to throw a fit in public, let alone disrespect her. She wasn't a tyrant, she was just a good parent. It's as simple as this: if I don't want people to do something to me, I should start by not doing that to others. If that's not the case, then I should just go to the mall and start yelling at the top of my lungs. I mean, I might be an undiscovered singer! If people can't learn to ignore me and allow me to find my true calling, then I don't know what the world is coming to.

I suppose I don't blame children. Children cry and throw tantrums if they can. It's up to the parents to teach their children about common courtesy.

Yes, that's what it is: Common courtesy. It's the same reason why I don't go around slapping everyone who annoys me or calling people names. I respect others and I expect everyone to respect me too, not because I'm "awesome" or something, but because it's the nice thing to do.

 

[xmbts]

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 then you advocate that DUI should no longer be illegal, because many people have driven drunk and never even gotten a speeding ticket while doing so? Or selling handguns to 7 year-olds? Most of them haven't ever killed anyone, after all.

And before you counter that the risk warrants making it illegal, and that's different, don't bother. I am aware of that. However, your reasoning, it seems, is not. You could simply have said that you disagree. Instead, you played the morality card, which doesn't hold up against the facts of the situation.

No business wants to lose customers. Businesses are to make money, and losing customers is losing money. If a business is considering a policy like this, it means they are working on the assumption that more people are being driven off by badly behaved kids, than they would drive off with the policy.

If they're right, then more people who previously wouldn't patronize their business because of lousy kids will do so, and your claims about the problem being with "everyone else" just prove my point made earlier. If they're wrong, then they will NOT gain the increase in customers, PLUS they will lose the customers they already had who brought the kids in.

Economically, it's a risk. Morally, it's a push. Anyone's right to patronize a business is not more important than the business owners right to set its policies.

If you're aware of it don't write it out, waste of precious time on a moot point.

And I did say I disagree, you people keep insistently quoting me and acting as if I'm some sort of moron for thinking "Hey, being a parent is tough, why make it even harder?"

 

[targren]

Congratulations. Your argument was disproved (apparently successfully) by someone you claim to be, by default, smarter than.

Would you like to actually make an attempt to counter my counter-points, or are you just gonna go ahead and admit that I successfully fought your points? I sincerely hope it's the former, because I just love to debate.

What the hell. I'll bite. It wouldn't be an internet argument without someone to feed the trolls.

I'll be happy to answer any counterpoints you make, as soon as you make one. As it was, your post was only a semi-coherent rant mixed with some sort of semantic drivel that might seem clever to someone who thinks Xanth novels are witty. The rest had nothing to do with anything I've said.

See, you can't actually counter any of my points until you know what they are. So if you'd like to actually go back and read my posts, and make counter points to something I've actually said, then I'd be more than happy to answer. Though your rhetorical tactics don't speak highly to any hopes of getting anything insightful from you.

Protip: Getting the last word doesn't mean you win.

Man, wouldn't it suck if an ageist lost a debate with someone younger than them? It'd be the ultimate example of irony, and a great way to prove that ageism is just ridiculous.

Actually, that statement is the irony, considering that you fell smack into the middle of the sarchasm and completely missed the point.

 

[Skizle]

hey look its an age discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen. Also people that say no because they hate kids I think forget they were once one.

 

[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.

 

[NickCooley]

I'm sure everyone in this thread drove their parents to distraction on some occasion or another or cried in public as a baby or made too much noise etc. You annoyed everyone around you then and now in turn you have to suffer the new generation.

How self entitled are you people?

 

[xmbts]

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.

 

[Beautiful End]

I'd like to point out, btw, that there should be special sections for children on public transport. I don't know how many times I've had a child kick the back of my seat. Obviously, I turn around and tell the brat to stop, and the kid's poor parents will apologise and hope that their brat won't do it again. But they always do. Without fail.

Yes, but this, I could definitely see people complaining about it. It would be kind of like segregating. Remember African American segregation where they had special seating on buses and such? People would compare it to this and they would be kinda right.

I don't HATE all children, just the annoying ones because it shows they're not raised well. If a mother allows a kid to cry relentlessly, it shows she can't really control her kid. What kind of parent is that? I'm not expecting them to have a leash on their kid and I know kids cry when they're hungry, when they're sleepy, when they're bored, etc. But a good mom can calm their kid out and make them understand that crying won't accomplish anything, no matter the age. Or at least they'll be considerate enough to deal with their kid privately rather than to give a free show to everyone around them.

At any rate, I think there should be a rule where called "Little-tolerance-towards-kids" or something. This means that kids are allowed to be kids and have fun. But the moment they start stepping into someone's boundaries, they should be called out. Everyone is entitled to have fun and enjoy their privacy. And if someone doesn't understand/respect that rule, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to be with other people, at least until they understand to be respectful towards others.

 

[Shadowseraph]

Children should be abolished. Period. Yes, I AM for the extinction of mankind.