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

[xmbts]

Kids aren't cigarettes either, as stated above, they're people, you can't lock them away just because they get on your nerves.

I never said they should be locked away. I think there's no need for them to enter certain establishments. This would include the more 'classy' restaurants, and I certainly wouldn't mind to pay a bit extra to have a kid-free space in the plane.

Sounds reasonable, I just get kind of nauseated of the idea of forcing them out, they have just as much right to be there as anybody else. As well as adding another hardship onto parents. As if societal, and financial, and emotional pressure wasn't enough.

 

[Sansha]

Kids aren't cigarettes either, as stated above, they're people, you can't lock them away just because they get on your nerves.

I never said they should be locked away. I think there's no need for them to enter certain establishments. This would include the more 'classy' restaurants, and I certainly wouldn't mind to pay a bit extra to have a kid-free space in the plane.

Sounds reasonable, I just get kind of nauseated of the idea of forcing them out, they have just as much right to be there as anybody else. As well as adding another hardship onto parents. As if societal, and financial, and emotional pressure wasn't enough.

(I think we're misunderstanding each other)
Look, let me go back to being civil for a moment.

Like I said, I don't think there should be a flat-out ban on children going out in public. I don't know where you got the idea of caging them at home until xx age. That's a huge extreme, and indeed a violation of human rights.

I'm saying children shouldn't be where they don't belong, like high-class establishments or the business class of airlines... that's what you pay for with more expensive flights - no children.

And example I want to cite is my sister - her baby is quite the squealer, and as a result she doesn't take him to places of atmosphere like theaters or eating establishments. She just doesn't take him to those kinds of places. Even so, she's a hell of a strict parent, and indeed swiftly responds to misbehavior.

 

[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.

Let me make it totally clear that you can absolutely go to hell if you think I'm walking out from something I paid for because someone else is causing a problem.

Sorry, but you knew the deal when you signed up to have kids in the first place. It's hard, but if you couldn't handle it, you shouldn't have had them.

You wanna go out and have fun? Tough fucking luck, you have someone who depends on you now. Time to suck it up and actually deal with your little mistake, and stop thinking of only yourself.

Here's the reality about having children:
Your life isn't your own anymore.
Having a child is a huge responsibility. You have a human being who relies on you for everything - food, shelter, attention, learning about life. Whatever you want to do, it has to fit in with the child's schedule.

Ain't life a *****?

Kids are part of society, more then that they're people, this ban is dehumanizing.

If you think there is some possibility that people can go out and be absolutely stress free and not rub each other the wrong way you're delusional. If you honestly can't deal with annoying kids then you're the one causing a problem.

If people can't function in society, they shouldn't be a part of it, age be damned.

I can't believe that you'd be so arrogant as to put yourself so aggressively above others and actually demand THEY alter their plans just so you and your hellspawns can be happy. If the little shit is screaming, he's not happy - and by you putting them through that, you're a bad parent.

I hate people like you - who think the rules and common courtesy don't apply to them, and are more determined to live their own lives than raise their children properly.

A business owner has the right to evict anyone they choose from their place of business for any or no reason... so really this 'ban' is inconsequential.

If you walked into my restaurant, I'd welcome you like anyone else. But if your child starts squealing, and I can hear it from my office, you can bet you're on the street in 30 seconds flat.

"If people can't function in society, they shouldn't be a part of it, age be damned."

How are they supposed to figure out how if they aren't allowed in?


"I can't believe that you'd be so arrogant as to put yourself so aggressively above others and actually demand THEY alter their plans just so you and your hellspawns can be happy. If the little shit is screaming, he's not happy - and by you putting them through that, you're a bad parent."

You're doing the exact same thing here. just replace 'hellspawns' with yourself.

"I hate people like you - who think the rules and common courtesy don't apply to them, and are more determined to live their own lives than raise their children properly."

Common courtesy definitely applies here, I do believe it's widely accepted to not bar somebody from an establishment before first knowing their person.

"If you walked into my restaurant, I'd welcome you like anyone else. But if your child starts squealing, and I can hear it from my office, you can bet you're on the street in 30 seconds flat."

Well in that scenario it's certainly your business, I'm talking about them being kept out before they even have an opportunity to get in.

 

[JochemDude]

If you can't raise your kids, your not allowed in. I like that one, as long as we aren't going to ban them on general principle I'm oke with it.

 

[Angry Camel]

Definite yes to this rule. There should be certain places where children just aren't allowed. Hotels with noisy children in the next room are terrible. My family stayed in a dual cabin once. When the couple with younger children came next door, we kept hearing screaming and the floors shook as they jumped up and down.

That said, we could adapt this situation to work for parents, too. If an establishment allows children, they should be forced to provide better facilities to cater for the kids.

If possible (but not expecting much support), force parents to take parenting classes that teach disciplinary skills. Some children will just go stupid and parents have no control over that. However, since they can control how they deal with it, the blame should fall more to them.

 

[xmbts]

(I think we're misunderstanding each other)
Look, let me go back to being civil for a moment.

Like I said, I don't think there should be a flat-out ban on children going out in public. I don't know where you got the idea of caging them at home until xx age. That's a huge extreme, and indeed a violation of human rights.

I'm saying children shouldn't be where they don't belong, like high-class establishments or the business class of airlines... that's what you pay for with more expensive flights - no children.

And example I want to cite is my sister - her baby is quite the squealer, and as a result she doesn't take him to places of atmosphere like theaters or eating establishments. She just doesn't take him to those kinds of places. Even so, she's a hell of a strict parent, and indeed swiftly responds to misbehavior.

Hmm, I think I see, I'm not implying that children shouldn't be brought up to respect their surroundings. I'm just saying that being a parent is one of the most difficult things one can take part in, kids can get out of hand at times.

All of this Children=Spawn of Satan sentiment kind of makes it hard to tell where you stand on the argument.

 

[Saviordd1]

GOOD IDEA, while were at it lets just chain the children in a cell from the beginning and we can eliminate them learning how to behave and annoying us all together! /sarcasm

 

[FuktLogik]

It would be difficult to determine what constitutes as "annoying".

No it wouldn't. Cops do it all the time for adults when it comes to "disturbing the peace".

Kids should definitely be banned from certain places, or their parents should be held responsible when they cause disturbances.

 

[MazdaXR]

Letting kids go to places like this is socialisation, children need it to know how to act in public, if you don't let kids do it when they are little they just become socially awkward teens and adults. Yeah it may be annoying but the chances are you were that annoying little brat at some point too. However I think that parents should make their kids behave and not run riot. Why does everything have to always be an extreme, there is a middle ground available.

 

[Nikolaz72]

The only men who can really support this are either singles or dont care for going out. Or maybe both. The hate on kids on this forum in particular disgusts me. If you replaced everything they said about parents and kids with say, muslims or black people or women. They'd at least left with a warning. But insulting some of the largest groups of people on Earth. They get away with it scott-free. Im not particulary against the ban of 6yearolds from a restaurant who decides to do so. But im against it being on all restaurants. And im against the way some escapists act/talk about/to kids and their parents. Talk about kids and their parents. And their opinions on kids and parents.

And to everyone who says they chose not to have kids so they would not have to deal with them. Well, the world and your country needs kids to take care of your arse when you get old.

And if you are fine with a world that has no kids, im all for porting you to a desolate island where you can live out your days childrenfree, with all the kidfree restaurants you would ever want. The only catch being that you cannot have children oh and, you will die out at some point.

"- Yes, I do agree with this rule.
- No, as I said, I do agree with it. It doesn't affect me in any way as I don't have kids.
- Yes, I'd like to see this movement have international support (as I don't live in the US).
- I just don't like kids. People should have common courtesy regarding where they take their children, seriously, who takes a baby to the movies? THEY WILL NOT UNDERSTAND ANY OF IT AND WILL MAKE EVERYONE'S TIME MISERABLE:" - Wuggy

This guy here, one of many. Proves my point. They should ban Wuggy from the movies, not the well behaved kids.

On this point 4chan is more civil than the escapist. On this point, Escapees start to look like WBC (Yes I made that comparison) God hates Kids. Thank god for Abortion. Etc etc.

 

[SangRahl]

One rule that I wish was actually used once in a while is the "The proprietor has the right to refuse or bar a customer from patrionage." Or simply: we reserve the right to eject customers that are interfering with the enjoyment of other patrons. Bars enforce this with a religeous zeal; movie theaters, less so... restaurants, who we kidding?

If my son or daughter is making a fuss, I carry their whiny *ss out of the building and give 'em a stern talking-to. If I have to spend the dinner in the car with little miss/mister prickly-britches, then so be it. I wouldn't want to have to eat my meal with some crying or loud kid a table over, and I shouldn't force that on someone else.

As for going to the movies... not a chance until BOTH of them can sit through a movie without the need to get up and run around. If they can't sit still for 90min, how could I expect them to BE QUIET for just as long? And if I see an infant/toddler at an obviously inappropriate movie, I can barely contain my desire to ask the parent what the hell they're thinking... The last occurance was at Harry Potter 7.2: Mother with a <1yr-old. You KNOW there's going to be loud scenes of chaos and explosions, yet you bring a baby that will undoubtedly take offence to the noise. What, exactly, are you thinking? (To her credit, at least she was seated at the far end of the theater, directly next to the exit. And she DID get up and leave when the explosions roused the little tyke from his reverie.)

 

[Wuggy]

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?

- Yes, I do agree with this rule.
- No, as I said, I do agree with it. It doesn't affect me in any way as I don't have kids.
- Yes, I'd like to see this movement have international support (as I don't live in the US).
- I just don't like kids. People should have common courtesy regarding where they take their children, seriously, who takes a baby to the movies? THEY WILL NOT UNDERSTAND ANY OF IT AND WILL MAKE EVERYONE'S TIME MISERABLE:

 

[Hawgh]

Nay! You can't ban people (or proto-people) just because you find some members of their demographic disagreeable on occasion. It's enormously ridiculous. Not to mention that parents probably have a hard enough time bringing the little buggers places where they can both be entertained.

 

[Sansha]

(I think we're misunderstanding each other)
Look, let me go back to being civil for a moment.

Like I said, I don't think there should be a flat-out ban on children going out in public. I don't know where you got the idea of caging them at home until xx age. That's a huge extreme, and indeed a violation of human rights.

I'm saying children shouldn't be where they don't belong, like high-class establishments or the business class of airlines... that's what you pay for with more expensive flights - no children.

And example I want to cite is my sister - her baby is quite the squealer, and as a result she doesn't take him to places of atmosphere like theaters or eating establishments. She just doesn't take him to those kinds of places. Even so, she's a hell of a strict parent, and indeed swiftly responds to misbehavior.

Hmm, I think I see, I'm not implying that children shouldn't be brought up to respect their surroundings. I'm just saying that being a parent is one of the most difficult things one can take part in, kids can get out of hand at times.

All of this Children=Spawn of Satan sentiment kind of makes it hard to tell where you stand on the argument.

I will never, god as my witness, be a parent. I don't like children, but I love my nephew. I see my sister as a model parent, and don't understand why all parents can't be as hardass on their kids. I don't mean vindictive, just strict.

I don't think every place should have a sign on the door saying 'NO CHILDREN' and thus ban families. Some of the best times I remember as a kid were going out with my parents. But we never went anywhere high-class, just family places were kids are expected. That's all I'm asking - take kids where the facilities cater for them.

Hell, I remember a restaurant that had a 'nap zone' - a quiet area where kids could be away from the noise and confusion of a restaurant and wind down, instead of going nuts. In another part, a small games room. Kids don't scream and make a fuss for no reason, rather they're discomforted... or they could be brats. From a stranger's perspective, it's difficult to tell.

Some people just want a nice evening out to cool off from their day, and a squealing kid can really drive ruin that and make people feel worse. I can see why people would support this ban, because it really is grating having one's time ruined by someone else's child, but I don't think it's fair to just ban all children from all places, but for parents to take swift action... and management if not.

 

[funksobeefy]

The problem is, you only notice the annoying ones. The hundreds of good tempered ones/strict parents get forgotten because they did their job of making sure the rest of the world didnt know it happened.

 

[Nickolai77]

Can't say screaming children have ever bothered me- i can't think of the last time my meal or enjoyment of a film was ruined by young children. So, i don't really "get" this rule but i agree with the sentiments expressed by one of the other posters whom said that managers should use the "we have a right to refuse service" clause.

 

[xmbts]

(I think we're misunderstanding each other)
Look, let me go back to being civil for a moment.

Like I said, I don't think there should be a flat-out ban on children going out in public. I don't know where you got the idea of caging them at home until xx age. That's a huge extreme, and indeed a violation of human rights.

I'm saying children shouldn't be where they don't belong, like high-class establishments or the business class of airlines... that's what you pay for with more expensive flights - no children.

And example I want to cite is my sister - her baby is quite the squealer, and as a result she doesn't take him to places of atmosphere like theaters or eating establishments. She just doesn't take him to those kinds of places. Even so, she's a hell of a strict parent, and indeed swiftly responds to misbehavior.

Hmm, I think I see, I'm not implying that children shouldn't be brought up to respect their surroundings. I'm just saying that being a parent is one of the most difficult things one can take part in, kids can get out of hand at times.

All of this Children=Spawn of Satan sentiment kind of makes it hard to tell where you stand on the argument.

I will never, god as my witness, be a parent. I don't like children, but I love my nephew. I see my sister as a model parent, and don't understand why all parents can't be as hardass on their kids. I don't mean vindictive, just strict.

I don't think every place should have a sign on the door saying 'NO CHILDREN' and thus ban families. Some of the best times I remember as a kid were going out with my parents. But we never went anywhere high-class, just family places were kids are expected. That's all I'm asking - take kids where the facilities cater for them.

Hell, I remember a restaurant that had a 'nap zone' - a quiet area where kids could be away from the noise and confusion of a restaurant and wind down, instead of going nuts. In another part, a small games room. Kids don't scream and make a fuss for no reason, rather they're discomforted... or they could be brats. From a stranger's perspective, it's difficult to tell.

Some people just want a nice evening out to cool off from their day, and a squealing kid can really drive ruin that and make people feel worse. I can see why people would support this ban, because it really is grating having one's time ruined by someone else's child, but I don't think it's fair to just ban all children from all places, but for parents to take swift action... and management if not.

Yeah I've been arguing against an actual ban on kids at these places. what you're talking about is parents making a sound logical choice which is perfectly reasonable.

So now that we've cleared that discrepancy up this whole argument seems rather pointless.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

The problem is, you only notice the annoying ones. The hundreds of good tempered ones/strict parents get forgotten because they did their job of making sure the rest of the world didnt know it happened.

That's basically the main issue here: it just takes one bad couple/child to ruin an entire restaurant's evening. The rest of the children there could be mother Theresas in the making, but that doesn't matter, because as single one can ruin everything.

So yeah, I applaud those who can keep their kids in line, but it's not that we only notice the annoying ones. Even if it is a small percentage, like 5% of the kids, your evening will still be ruined a huge portion of the time.

 

[Sansha]

The problem is, you only notice the annoying ones. The hundreds of good tempered ones/strict parents get forgotten because they did their job of making sure the rest of the world didnt know it happened.

That's basically the main issue here: it just takes one bad couple/child to ruin an entire restaurant's evening. The rest of the children there could be mother Theresas in the making, but that doesn't matter, because as single one can ruin everything.

So yeah, I applaud those who can keep their kids in line, but it's not that we only notice the annoying ones. Even if it is a small percentage, like 5% of the kids, your evening will still be ruined a huge portion of the time.

The people who attract the most attention are the loudest, not the smartest or most interesting.