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

[sindremaster]

I agree 100% with the post above
Don't blame the kids, they should ban the bad parents. If your in a restaurant and someone's kids are bothering you the parents should do something or be thrown out.

 

[Aedrial]

I'd rather we banned annoying people in general. Kids are just kids.

 

[mrmostlymittens]

YAY! Loud kids piss me off

 

[mageroel]

God yes. Especially on airplanes.

I don't give a jolly shit if you paid full price to go to Malibu for the weekend, take a fucking train or boat there and stop making me more jet-lagged and bad-tempered than I normally am when I airtravel.

This, times 91827398172!! Stupid screaming children.

 

[Dogstile]

Take one theater room and make it a kid free zone. Charge an extra fiver for it. All the people who want to go watch "The A Team" without kids screaming over it (yeah, my experience, it sucked) can go see that and in an ideal world they can use the extra money to have dedicated rooms for people with kids.
ITS GENIUS I SAY.

except I think and extra $5 on top of a $10 movie ticket is outrageous and believe this simple rule "if they don't look old enough for the movie don't let them in" seriously if it's rated R and kids look too young to handle don't let them in

Eh, price was an example. Its not like i'm saying "charge this, only this and nothing else, just this!". And in my example the film was apparently fine for kids. However some people would have loved to see it without all the screaming.

 

[joetalbot1]

This has inspired me to offer free babysitting services to parents in my neighborhood who cannot figure out how to raise their children. However, if said child is above the age of 12, my services stop being free, but stay affordable. "I mix crap and silver to make gold", that's my motto. And if you don't get it, silence is golden, duct tape is silver, and bratty little punks are crap. Connect the dots.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

No, I think we'd do better to educate bad parents.

 

[FamoFunk]

I think the rule is stupid. A child ha just as much right to travel as anyone.

It would effect me, if I actually flew, but I don't.

When it comes to places like family pubs etc. if a child does start screaming or playing up, I do think the parent should remove the child from the facility until they're under control, as it is polite to do so.
That goes for anywhere children are allowed and can be removed from easily (not so easily on a plane, though)

 

[faranar]

I think some of you are missing the point. I don't hate kids! Someday I want to have some!
BUT taking your kids under the age of... lets say 4-6 to the movies or to a restaurant is god damned stupid. Kids are noisy and easily distracted on principle. There's no way it will appreciate the movie (and you must be out of your mind if you take your toddler to a PG13+
movie - it will start screaming at the first explosion scene). As for the restaurants(and I don't mean those family restaurants or the atrocities like McDonalds and such), it just doesn't belong there. I can't have a business meeting in a place where five year olds run around the tables and scream. F*ck, I can't even go on a date without running into idiot parents who can't manage their children.
Also in parks the bans that apply to dogs should apply to little kids as well. I'm not saying that kids should be banned from parks, just that there should be dogs-free and kids-free places where I can have my picnic in peace.
And how can you even consider taking your baby on a 12 hour night flight. This should be banned by law! It's stressful for the kid and it's f*cking enraging for the rest of us. And for regular 1-5 hour flights if I pay extra money for a first class ticket I expect not having to deal with your noisy, smelly and attention demanding problem.

Take one theater room and make it a kid free zone. Charge an extra fiver for it. All the people who want to go watch "The A Team" without kids screaming over it (yeah, my experience, it sucked) can go see that and in an ideal world they can use the extra money to have dedicated rooms for people with kids.
ITS GENIUS I SAY.

except I think and extra $5 on top of a $10 movie ticket is outrageous and believe this simple rule "if they don't look old enough for the movie don't let them in" seriously if it's rated R and kids look too young to handle don't let them in

Eh, price was an example. Its not like i'm saying "charge this, only this and nothing else, just this!". And in my example the film was apparently fine for kids. However some people would have loved to see it without all the screaming.

"The A Team" is not a kid friendly movie. And the extra fiver should be paid by the irresponsible parents, not the other way around.

 

[Canid117]

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.

The quiet people who had the foresight to either wear a condom or leave their kids at home with a responsible baby sitter should not be punished for the actions of a few jerkish asshats. If someone talks on their phone in the middle of the movie theater the management can tell them to piss off and if a kid is screaming and making life uncomfortable for the fifty people in the restaurant trying to be respectful then the manager can tell the family of three to piss off for hurting his business. When the majority is being quiet and respecting the atmosphere then they should not be punished because a couple of idiots cant think ahead to control their kids. The needs of the many trump the wants of the few in this case.

 

[Bat Vader]

I vote no, hell no with a side of fuck you everybody who voted yes.

The majority of kids are well behaved and the majority of parents will control them if they get out of line, I certainly do with my kid. Children benefit from going to restaurants, events etc where THEY LEARN HOW TO BEHAVE CORRECTLY.

Discriminating against the most vulnerable people in case they make a little noise over and above the level you arbitrarily set for your optimum enjoyment? Fuck you again, shame on all of you.

99% of the posts on this topic can be summarised "boo hoo a kid made a noise once when I was trying to eat or watch a film, keep them away from me".

What you fascist fuckers going to ban next? people with coughs? tourettes sufferers? someone once ran over my foot by accident with their wheelchair shall we force them to stay indoors in case they ruin my fun for half a second?

I'll take a theatre full of screaming 2 year olds over watching a movie with any of you.

I don't mind if a kid or somebody else makes a noise like coughing or sneezing. When a child won't stop crying or screaming and the parents can't or won't calm their child down. That is when it interrupts my enjoyment of a film or dinner at a restaurant. I don't agree with banning children from a theater or restaurant. I do agree with kicking the child and the parents out if the child will not behave itself.

 

[A Distant Star]

I'm on the side of parents here. Their lives already conform around the wants and needs of their children. You don't have to boot them out of a god-forsaken MOVIE THEATER for the one time they get out of the house for recreational purposes a MONTH.

If other customers are being hindered in their enjoyment? Yes, they should have to be kicked out. If you can't control your kids, don't go out with them to places where they hinder others. Get a babysitter, for fuck's sake. Your neighbour's teen is not expensive, you can probably hire her for a night for thirty bucks to look after that brat.

And I see points of both sides: it takes just one couple who don't control their kids. In a restaurant with enough space for 40 people? That already has a big chance of going wrong. In a plane with a few hundred? Even more so. But yeah, if you can control your kid, it is somewhat unfair to say you can't do all of that. On the other hand: most of the current age regulations are unfair anyhow, and somehow people seem to be in favour of those.

EDIT: Most important thing: THEY CHOSE TO BE PARENTS. If they're not prepared to face the consequences of that, they should've used a rubber or something. And yes, those consequences may include measures like this.


EDIT 2:

In short, if you have a problem with kids sharing a restaurant with you, I think you should grow up and stop being such a whinny little baby.

I go to a restaurant to have a nice dinner in a calm environment with friends or (grown up) family members. I have a problem with noisy kids whose parents won't correct them and no, that doesn't make me a whiny little baby (nice ad hominem, by the way).

Holding parents with misbehaving or disruptive children to a higher standard is a whole different conversation. As I said, if your child is running amok in my store, chances are I am going to kick you out. But that's a small minority of my clients.

Also its not an ad hominem. Ad hominem is when I insult or otherwise defame you in a way that has nothing to do with the argument at hand as a counter to your argument. Calling people who complain about kids whiny babies wasn't my counter. The whole two paragraphs I posted before where.

 

[sdfasdfhfgfgjtyisdgdfdfj]

I guess in certain situations it's a good idea. When travelling in the silent compartment of the train, I -hate- small children crying and making noise in general. In cinema I just want to enjoy my film. I can imagine a lot of other places where this rule would be absurd though, public area's being one.

 

[Moromillas]

The place of business is theirs, and they have every right to run it however they please, and do whatever they damn well want with it. That is where this garbage should end. I in turn, don't have to buy any of their shit, and don't have to associate or have anything to do with them when they don't really deserve my business, at all.

Shouldn't something like this be on The Onion? Ban the kiddies! They make me feel bad... Sure! But why stop there! Lets ban people that are too tall, or maybe too fat. Or we could ban women, they sure are annoying sometimes, and so very difficult to understand, ban them I say! Oh and those bloody disabled persons, taking those chairs on wheels with them that takes up so much space, that and they have their own parking spaces dedicated to them. Why can't I park there? Just ban them I rekon. See where I'm going with this.

 

[Bugerion]

Not all kids are like that so maybe if it only aplied to some because I know perfectly calm kids and also me and my brother were always calm when we were kids

 

[Zeema]

im having a meal and i hate it when someone's kid is crying the whole time and the parents just sit there
I hate it kids talk all the way through movies
I HATE IT when kids are taken to a place like a cafe and the kids is doing whatever it wants touching other people's food and such and alll the parent says to him 'No that is bad' [in a calmly voice]

so yes im FOR this ban

 

[O maestre]

if a such a ban should be in place, it should be the expensive alternative and not the norm or standard.


for example a "child-free" movie ticket should be more expensive than a regular ticket...

 

[faranar]

Not all kids are like that so maybe if it only aplied to some because I know perfectly calm kids and also me and my brother were always calm when we were kids

You can't ban only noisy kids because you can't determine if they are well behaved beforehand.
It's like the ban on drinking for minors. You don't know if they'll drink responsibly so you deny them the opportunity.

if a such a ban should be in place, it should be the expensive alternative and not the norm or standard.

for example a "child-free" movie ticket should be more expensive than a regular ticket...

And why is that? If it's a kids movie I might agree, but why should I pay more for a kids-free ticket if the movie is PG13+. Kids shouldn't be watching this and if their parent exclusively wants them to, they should pay the extra bucks.

 

[are.you.the.god.its.me.vader]

As much as I hate the idea of kids ruining my experience, I don't want to ruin someone else's good times just because they have a kid. Why not just use a system like restaurants used in the 90s, the smoking tables! Where the restaurant would ask "smoking or non-smoking", then taking you to the part of the restaurant that is specifically for people that smoke, thus not pissing off non-smokers.....

 

[LordFisheh]

A blanket ban on anything is usually a bad idea.

Far better to allow, even force, owners to immediately remove disruptive children from the restaurant/whatever.

That way the silent majority doesn't have to suffer for a few idiots. I notice that concepts like 'ban games, they cause violence' aren't well received here. Well how about 'ban kids, they're all annoying'? That has popular support according to the poll; popular support for a blanket solution that affects the reasonable majority just as badly as the handful of problem cases.

Perhaps it doesn't matter; they're only children? Well before you impose some kind of supposedly objective inferiority on children, try turning the situation back on yourself. Gamers don't matter as they don't interact with reality anyway.

Do we only oppose game bans because we're gamers, or do we actually have a non-hypocritical support for the concepts behind opposing such bans? The decent majority should not be punished alongside the actual problems simply because it provides an easy solution where nobody actually has to think about or deal with anything other than 'is x older than y years?'