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

[DoctorFrankenStein]

I view children in the same way I view smoking. You can go ahead and do it, by all means that is your choice, but keep it away from me. I shouldn't have to pay for your choices.

On a side note, my mother would kick my little ass if I acted up in public. So, I knew if I acted up pain would be coming. So... I didn't act up. But we're not allowed to hit our children anymore. If I knew my mother couldn't hit me, I would have been a little terror.

I shall quote Bender here "And so I ask you this one question. Have you ever tried simply turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?"

No one WANTS to be parents anymore. They want to live their own lives and be their kids' friends, not their mother and father. Yet they still have children because of either stupidity, lack of self control, or social pressure. Social pressure. Seriously. Have you ever told a parent that you yourself never want children? They start treating you like you are a child who doesn't know what's best for you or a monster. I'm sorry, but every time your child throws a tantrum I want to throw it out a window. No amount of chiding and cooing over how I don't understand is going to change the fact that I HATE children.

And now comes a random parent to admonish me for my views and how THEIR child has brought so much joy and love to their lives. If I want joy and love in my life, I buy a puppy. Same damn thing.

This, a thousand times this. I hate being on the receiving end of someones ire when I tell them I do not like or want children. I'm 33 and by now I think I'm old enough to decide that I don't want to be a parent without someone treating me like I'm some kind of delusional freak with a horrible personality defect.
That said, I do think the parents are the problem here. Kids are having kids either by accident or because they want too, and they're just not ready to be parents. It would be better for the human species as a whole if homo sapiens still hit puberty in the teens but couldn't actually breed until their mid-20's at least.

As to the thread specifically- children making a ruckus should be asked to leave. Full stop.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Who else can't wait for flash clones?

 

[Nicolairigel]

Very simple: young children who are acting out and are not dealt with by their parents should be forced to leave. Honestly, the same should be said for Incredibly obnoxious ADULTS who talk and shout during movies. Granted, those are rare but I have encountered them before. I was a good quiet kid, at least from what I remember, so to me telling ALL young children families to screw off is a bit harsh and unfair.

Parks, on the other, were places pretty much designed to let kids go off and get all their bratiness out of their system, so I think they should be allowed in those.

 

[feather240]

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.

For starters, you can't say it denies people potential memories, people have fond memories of the weirdest events. By letting them in you could be taking away some bonding moment two people had while walking home.

It would be selfish to force "good" children out, but it would also be selfish to let parents be annoyed because a certain negligent someones sweet little darling can't shut their trap.

I think the important thing to remember here is that there's a very big difference between a law and a rule. A law is enforced by the state and is mandatory. A rule is up to the owners discretion. So why shouldn't some places have a rule?

Risk of a lawsuit for discrimination (And there will be a lawyer to take that case).

You're right, ultimately it will come down to whether or not outing annoying little kids makes more money than it loses from law suits.

 

[Koroviev]

I can definitely support a no kids policy when it comes to places like movie theaters, airplane's first-class sections, and fancier restaurants. However, I think things like grocery stores and big-box stores are bit a much, especially since most are big places where you can move away from it or finish your business quickly, as opposed to other locations where you couldn't.

Though I think the biggest problem today is parents and discipline. You know what would stop a tantrum being thrown by that brat over there? A spanking. Or a slap on the head. But no, that's pretty much child abuse nowadays. I'd be scared to do anything like that to my kid in public these days, for fear of some overly-concerned bystander calling the police because I'm abusing a child.

Not in the long run. Corporal punishment is a short-term solution. The child does not learn that what he did was wrong, but that it is wrong if he does it in your presence. However, he does learn that hitting others is appropriate if you disagree with their behavior. Time-outs are more effective because they are a natural consequence of displaying poor group dynamics. In other words, if you bother other members of a group, then they will expel you from said group and, moreover, you will not be welcomed back until you are willing to cooperate and make amends. Parents are responsible from removing children from public when they start to annoy others. Parents unwilling to fulfill this role have no business bringing their children in public.

 

[feather240]

I also vote that you have to be 18 before posting on the internet. I also vote that anyone who speaks in ebonics shouldn't be allowed in stores. I also feel if you you don't get A's in school and go to college you shouldn't be allowed to own a car since you aren't smart enough to drive. Also, this topic annoys me, you shouldn't be allowed to post on this forum anymore.

See how dumb this idea is?

Well shit, I didn't know you owned the internet, all the stores in the world, all the governments in the world, all the cars in the world, and the Escapist. What did you invest in?

 

[Matt Dellar]

-snip-

-snip-

You do realize that was sarcasm... I was thinking the next paragraph starting with "Seriously" would be a huge clue. Then to continue on to point out complaining about anyone that distracts from your enjoyment would be a further clue as to the first paragraph being sarcastic... But hey, you got to be offended, all is fair here... Enjoy.

Please note: I never actually said I was offended.

Please note #2: There's no such thing as "tone of voice" on the Internet, and sarcasm is best used with [/sarcasm] or the like, even though that ruins the point of sarcasm.

Please note #3: I'm still not offended. There's a reason, though, that I either take everything in a post seriously or sarcastically based on a) the opening paragraph, b) what I know about the poster, and c) the [/sarcasm] disclaimer or a "JK" or something of the like.

Please no--aw, screw it. Anyway, I'm not trying to start an argument, but I just felt I should point out why I said what I said.

 

[espada1311]

In the words of great men before me; "Deal with it"

As someone who works with kids regularly (and i mean kids, from 3 - 12 years old) I can kind of see what you're getting at (and i see some of the worst ones, hell, I've taught judo to a sociopath), but honestly? You want to ban kids from places because they ANNOY you? They haven't hit, stolen, caused trouble or anything like that, but you're ANNOYED therefore you gain the inherent right to ban a child from an area? If you are SO... DAMN... ANNOYED by a kid's screaming, then by all means, buy an earplug or listen to some music or, if you want to be the stalwart hero of the land, go and calm the kid yourself. A few jokes, some acting and a little sarcasm for the older ones can go a very long way, and i guarantee the parents won't dislike you for it. Just deal with your shit and move on. It's hard enough to raise a kid, harder to raise them properly, and people who can only complain at the slightest inconvenience do not make it any easier.

 

[kickyourass]

I'm all for it (within reason of course), I can't count the number of movie and restaurant experiences I've had ruined because someone refused to get their little hell spawn to behave. If I acted even half as badly in public as I've seen kids act recently, my parents would've taken me home immediately and grounded my ass for 3 days.
Yes, I am aware that raising a child is difficult, I know, I used to be one of those shrieking monkeys, but taking 5 minutes to leave the restaurant/movie/whatever and calming them down will make it alot easier since you won't have 50+ people pissed off at you and your kid.

 

[William Dickbringer]

depends on the places: first class on planes? Sure. A hotel all together? Err no how about specific rooms designated for families (I hope that's what they meant). Fancy restaurants? Sure. Every restaurants (including fast food)? no. Movie theaters? what this guy said

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

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

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".

Then ban all kids under the age limit.

The problem with this idea is that not all 8 year-olds are created equally. For example, one set of nephews of mine are super well-behaved and nice, while some of my other nephews who are the same age make me think 40th trimester abortions should be legalized.

I've got a 7 month-old son and I know not to bring him to movies, fancy restaurants, etc. because he has a decent chance of being distracting, if nothing else. He's a pretty chill baby and doesn't throw tantrums in public, but can get cranky on occasion.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I don't think there should be an all out ban on children in certain public places BUT I do feel that more places should be encouraged to offer a non-children option as part of their regular service instead of being regarded as evil kid hating monsters when they do.

 

[teebeeohh]

no.
the vast majority of kids behave or their parents know how to deal with them(at least where i live) and just because the few that don't are very obnoxious doesn't mean they should all be banned. And separating people with children with special restaurants or their own first class in airplanes is just wrong, people who have children don't want to be reduced to just being parents.

 

[Rule Britannia]

Airplanes.
Children under the age of 6 should not be allowed on airplanes ¬.¬. Dumb parents bringing them on the plane ruining journeys....
I was not brought on a plane until I was 8, I didn't kick up a fuss when the plane took off or landed.

 

[Veloxe]

I think it depends on the situation. Obviously you can't just ban all kids from all areas all the time. But in certain situations, like at higher quality restaurants for example, then the management should be able to remove people who are ruining the atmosphere for others. That's not limited to kids though, get rid of those exceptionally noisy adults who apparently never learned what an inside voice was as well.

 

[Stammer]

Honestly I just wish people could f***ing control their kids. Parents can't so much as tell their kids to be quiet anymore without being sent to prison for three consecutive life sentences.

But since they're probably not going to let parents parent their kids anytime in the near future I'm completely in favor for this rule.

 

[Android2137]

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.

Now that's not fair. Both take longer and both have clients too. If you complain about them in the air, others are going to complain on the ground and over water and they would have to deal with them longer (not to mention seasickness).

 

[brunothepig]

I'm all for it. I agree with people saying it would be better if instead the policy was kick out noisy children, but that opens up it's own problems. You'd have people demanding refunds because they couldn't watch the whole movie, or finish their meal. No matter how many warning signs you put up, there will be people complaining. A blanket ban on children is a better option for the business. Hey, they own the place they can make the rules. As for it being unfair on the children, either they're allowed in and it's unfair on all the people who have their experience ruined by crying babies, or it's unfair on children too young to really care all that much. I know when I was a kid I didn't care where we went. MacDonald's was as good to me as a proper restaraunt. Hell, at Macca's I got toys!

 

[Pakkie]

Erm, I think Americans have a bigger problem with parenting than Australians, usually if those were the situations (movies/restaurant) the parent is expected to move the child somewhere else until they calm down, if not they would be asked to leave anyway.

If there is a crying baby in the movies, someone will come in and tell him/her to leave with the child....

I think the answer is just not banning all kids, because the well behaved ones miss out (and thus so does the family) maybe a better answer is just encouraging these places to tell parents to leave if their actions are effecting out customers.