# A 3-year-old at Casino Royale!?



## Chaldfont (Nov 20, 2006)

My viewing of this awesome movie was nearly ruined by the fact that someone had brought their little daughter, no older than three years old. The father and mother passed her back and forth, trying to cover her eyes during the violence and torture scenes.

I was enraged! I wanted to say something, even though I HATE it when people try to tell other people how to raise their children.

I have a three-year-old and a four-month old. Someday, I hope to play violent video games with them. I hope to discuss edgy literature with them. I'm sure someday they will listen and laugh at Dad's hip-hop collection with its foul language.

But not when they are little kids! Damn, people! Be responsible parents!

Am I over-reacting?


----------



## megamania (Nov 20, 2006)

nope.


What I am hoping is the parents didn't listen to the reviews beyond "Best new Bond."

This Bond is not campy and goofy.  It is a solid in your face movie.   I am guessing they brought the kid expecting the campy bond vs the new more true to Fleming bond.


Bum luck for you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 20, 2006)

Is the film rated "R"?  If so, toddlers really shouldn't be taken to see it.

I'm sympathetic in that the parents may have wanted a night out, but that wasn't the night out they should have chosen.  Either rent the DVD later, or get a babysitter.


----------



## waterdhavian (Nov 20, 2006)

Parents who bring their infant children to theaters expecting them to sit quietly for more than 2 hours are most likely missing a portion of their brain.  I have not seen a movie on opening night in ages.  I can't do it anymore, it seems that either people don't mind their kids crying/screaming/running around or they can't control them.  I don't blame the kids, they're kids.  Thats what they do. 

The hordes of young teens that are dropped off by their parents and see movies on opening night just cause its opening night is another story all together.  Last time I think I saw a film opening night was "Kingdom of Heaven" and the crowd there must have thought that it was going to be a date movie and couples sat there chatting through the entire film.  I saw atleast 6 people get up and leave during the film.

I say research what your seeing before you shell out $10.00 a ticket, and if you got young kids who won't enjoy themselves in the theater drop em off at the grandparents or get a babysitter.


----------



## Tewligan (Nov 20, 2006)

Maybe the parents are trying to teach their daughter to be a spy.


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 20, 2006)

You're not overreacting; those people are EEDEEOTS.

Danny's likely right; odds are that the parents were not thinking that the child would enjoy the movie, but that this was a cheaper / easier alternative than getting a babysitter.

I frequently see itty-bitties at PG-13 and R movies; it's really sad.  I remember being at the premiere of Revenge of the Sith last year, and seeing lots of 3- and 4-year-olds in the audience.  In that case, I suspect the parents were assuming the movie would be as kid-friendly as other SW movies had been, and had *not* read (or cared about) the reviews or the MPAA rating that said otherwise.


----------



## Tewligan (Nov 20, 2006)

waterdhavian said:
			
		

> Last time I think I saw a film opening night was "Kingdom of Heaven" and the crowd there must have thought that it was going to be a date movie and couples sat there chatting through the entire film.  I saw atleast 6 people get up and leave during the film.



Maybe they left because the movie sucked? I know that's why I wanted to leave when I saw it...


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 20, 2006)

Chaldfont said:
			
		

> Am I over-reacting?



As a parent, no.

HOWEVER, the movie's R rating only suggest (strongly) that no one under 17 is allowed to watch the film without parent or adult supervision. The theater personnel can't forbid paying customers, especially when they want them to go in and buy their expensive snacks.

Just because you're a parent, doesn't mean you have gain greater wisdom. Remember, the child doesn't come with an owner's manual.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Nov 20, 2006)

I don't know what I would be more pissed at:

- The fact that 2 parents thought it was suitable to take their toddler to a movie like that.

- The fact that they were so inconsiderate of the other people that wanted to see the movie.

Did they really think that their toddler would sit still for 2 hours?  Does any toddler sit still for 2 hours?  It sounds like they were just too cheap to hire a babysitter.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## bento (Nov 20, 2006)

I have the same problem with kids and PG-13.  Last year my wife and I went to see "The Fantastic Four" and there was a birthday party in the theater for a child that must have been around 8 or 9.  When the previews came on and the first two were for horror/slasher movies, you can bet that some of the kids probably saw some things that would give them nightmares for a night or two.

Anything we want to see nowadays we wait for NetFlix to get it, or make sure its so boring/ adult that people would make sure to leave the kids at home!

I say you should have left early and demanded your money back.


----------



## Marchen (Nov 20, 2006)

It happens. It's not your problem, really. We all have bad theater experiences, but it's no use pressing the matter.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 21, 2006)

Movie tickets are _much_ cheaper than baby sitters.


----------



## Wereserpent (Nov 21, 2006)

I was allowed to see whatever I wanted when I was little and I turned out fine.  

But I do understand your concern and annoyance.


----------



## Aurora (Nov 21, 2006)

Galeros said:
			
		

> I was allowed to see whatever I wanted when I was little and I turned out fine.



It's not really so much a question of them "turning out fine".

The worst case of this I have ever seen is when the last Hellraiser movie came out. I think it was #4 or 5? I believe it was back in '96. Anyways, my boyfriend drug me to go see it. It was a midnight showing and a couple was there with their three kids. Approx ages 2, 4, and maybe 8. _That's right. Hellraiser._They screamed and cried through the whole thing, and honestly I can't blame them. 
I find such actions to be highly irresponsible. A child that age can't sit through a movie like that. It is rude to the other patrons who paid to go see it. And that's not even starting the debate about whether or not kids should be there.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 21, 2006)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> Did they really think that their toddler would sit still for 2 hours?  Does any toddler sit still for 2 hours?  It sounds like they were just too cheap to hire a babysitter.



Or babysitter won't take food stamp.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 21, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Movie tickets are _much_ cheaper than baby sitters.



Oh, yeah, especially when the ticket price is $1 and is showing [used] summer movies (like _PotCMC_) in November.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 21, 2006)

Sometimes parents drive me crazy because of their stupidity. I saw a couple bring their three little girls to see Basic Instinct. I cringed the film is full of violence, nudity, and graphic sex. The credits open with a couple having sex then the man be knifed to death. 

What parent in their right mind would expose young kids to that.  When my son was little I missed a lot of movies because I didn't have a babysitter and video stores were not around yet. So missing a movie really meant missing it until it came on TV.

Now a days you don't have to wait that long for it to come out on DVD so I have even less sympthy for these moronic parents.


----------



## delericho (Nov 21, 2006)

In the UK, film certificates are a legal limit - regardless of the parents' wishes a child under 15 cannot get into a film rated '15', and a child under 18 cannot get into a film rated '18' (in theory, anyway). We recently had our '12' certificate changed to '12A' so that parents could give permission to their under-age kids. (The film that caused that shift was 'Spiderman'.) Oh, and films are never shown in an 'Unrated' version in cinemas.

Likewise, all DVDs are rated using the same system. (Occasionally, a film's rating on DVD will be different from the rating in the cinema, as was the case with "Starship Troopers". For a while, there was also a rule that two different DVD versions of the same film had to have the same rating, but that rule might have been relaxed. There are no 'Unrated' DVDs.)

Most films that are PG-13 over in the US are rated 12A here, and most films that are rated R seem to be rated 15 here. The 18 rating seems to get a lot less use here than it used to. (However, our rating body generally offer studios a choice - make some cuts for a 15, or accept the 18. Most studios make the cuts, which annoys me a bit.)

All of which is a long way of saying we don't really have this particular problem to deal with. Giggling teens and annoying mobile phones, on the other hand...


----------



## Jesus_marley (Nov 21, 2006)

just throw milk duds at the offenders until they leave...


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Nov 21, 2006)

Galeros said:
			
		

> I was allowed to see whatever I wanted when I was little and I turned out fine.
> 
> But I do understand your concern and annoyance.




I, on the other hand, was not. We only saw up to PG level movies until we were much older then it went up to PG-13. No R movies until we could go on our own. After then, they figured we were old enough to make our own choices. Mostly haven't had bad experiences with other people acting like jerks.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Nov 21, 2006)

Jesus_marley said:
			
		

> just throw milk duds at the offenders until they leave...




Those are EXPENSIVE milk duds you're talking about!!!


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> - The fact that they were so inconsiderate of the other people that wanted to see the movie.



 That's about half the movie theater.  It's the main reason I just don't go to the theater anymore.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 21, 2006)

As the father of an almost 2-year-old, I haven't been out to the movies in ...oh... almost 2 years.  Have some sympathy for these parents, they're very likely to be in the same boat.  And they probably didn't expect graphic violence and torture in a Bond movie (the last torture scene I remember in a Bond film had a giant laser in it... hardly unwatchable).

There comes a point in every kid's life where you have to say: "Okay, what is this child going to do if we try X like normal human beings."  X may be going to a restaurant, going to see a movie, or whatever.  It may very well be that these people had no idea how their kid was going to react.

Taking a toddler to an R-rated movie is probably a bit extreme for me, but I do have every intention of raising my kid on the films I loved as a kid.  Good, old fashioned sci-fi and horror flicks.  I had a Dracula/Frankenstein/Wolfman lunchbox in elementary school.  I watched Aliens in the theater when I was 8.  When one of my friends told me that their parents only let them watch G-rated movies, I felt nothing but pity for them.

Personally, I think it's a bigger crime to only allow a child to be exposed to talking animals and feel-good christmas movies than it is to let them watch a good horror movie now and then.

Now Hellraiser... maybe they should be a little older for that one.


----------



## Harmon (Nov 21, 2006)

Taking a child into a none children movie is rude.  Rude to those that got a sitter and did not bring their kid.

I have spoken to people in the theater about it, most of the time the people take their kids out of the theater so as not to be rude, but some see the world in the light that- "hay, this is my world and you should be thankful that I am here to make it exist."


----------



## BOZ (Nov 21, 2006)

we just watched Saw 3 on Friday, and someone brought their kid(s).  what's worse was when someone brought their kid to Dawn of the Dead a couple years ago... the kid was crying loudly after that first scene with the little girl, and they had to leave.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 21, 2006)

sadly i see this type of thing all the time. The last time I was in line to see saw 3 at 11:20 at night and a lady had her two kids with her. they couldnt have been no more than 7 or 8 years old. Parents wonder why we're breeding the generation we are.


----------



## jaerdaph (Nov 21, 2006)

It's too bad the drive-ins are a thing of the past. You could take the kids, and not disturb the other patrons. I remember falling asleep in the back of the car while my parents watched The Fantastic Voyage - it's one of my first memories.


----------



## Aeson (Nov 21, 2006)

Kill them and take their stuff. 


Seriously, I don't think your overreacting. I would have been upset. There was a couple with 2 small brats when I went to see Superman Returns. The mom at one point left with the infant. That's right they had an infant that would not stop crying at the movies. I can't blame the kids for their parents stupidity. I'd still kill them and take their stuff.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 21, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> sadly i see this type of thing all the time. The last time I was in line to see saw 3 at 11:20 at night and a lady had her two kids with her. they couldnt have been no more than 7 or 8 years old. Parents wonder why we're breeding the generation we are.




Yes, yes...  We've been breeding the generation that is going to cause the utter downfall of society.  Oh, woe is us.  How stupid we were to let children listen to rock and roll, watch violent movies, play D&D, listen to hip-hop, play violent video games, and go on the MySpace.  I expect there will be no doctors or lawyers in this generation.  No scientists or librarians.  They're all too stupid, too lazy, and too foul.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 21, 2006)

Harmon said:
			
		

> Taking a child into a none children movie is rude.  Rude to those that got a sitter and did not bring their kid.
> 
> I have spoken to people in the theater about it, most of the time the people take their kids out of the theater so as not to be rude, but some see the world in the light that- "hay, this is my world and you should be thankful that I am here to make it exist."




Yes, taking a child to a movie theater is rude.  I'm willing to bet, however, that virtually everyone here has been taken to a movie theater as a child.  So who are you to complain, having been in that child's shoes?

Taking a child on an airplane is even ruder, but when you have a small child whose grandparents are far away, you have to occasionally do it.

Having a child is a very rude thing to do in general.  They scream, they stink, and they're covered in snot.  Everyone would be happier if they just weren't around to mess things up.  

I find much more of a "Hey, this is my world" attitude in those who demand silence from children and hermitage from parents, than in those trying to show their kids a good time.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 21, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Yes, taking a child to a movie theater is rude.  I'm willing to bet, however, that virtually everyone here has been taken to a movie theater as a child.  So who are you to complain, having been in that child's shoes?
> 
> Taking a child on an airplane is even ruder, but when you have a small child whose grandparents are far away, you have to occasionally do it.
> 
> ...



Sorry, my parents were responsible enough to A. take me to the movies during the day and B. take me to age appropriate movies. There's no escuse for taking your 6 year old to the 10:30 showing of Saw III because "you an't miss it".


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 21, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Sorry, my parents were responsible enough to A. take me to the movies during the day and B. take me to age appropriate movies. There's no escuse for taking your 6 year old to the 10:30 showing of Saw III because "you an't miss it".




I have no disagreement with you on either of those points.  Those parents were ruder than they had to be.  I'm not sure why they thought Saw III would be good for their six-year-old.  

The time of the movie only really matters in that later movies typically have more patrons (It won't kill a child to stay up late now and then).  So an earlier showing probably would have been better.

Some people on this thread are saying "No children at higher rated movies ever!"
I'm just arguing that that's a silly thing, and that parents should *minimize* their rudeness as they can, but take their children to what they know their children can handle and enjoy.  Regardless of what the government or the other theater patrons say otherwise.


----------



## grimwell (Nov 21, 2006)

There is a thing sociologists call a 'social norm' by which  they mean an unwritten law that the larger pool of society's members adhere to. One of those norms is that you don't take young children to movies that aren't for young children. If you do this, you may well be within your legal rights and personal choice, but you are outside the norm. You are violating the rules of polite society.

Happens a lot these days. People have become more self-centered and the net result is that it's a lot less pleasant to be in public. 

I have three children, ages 10, 6, and 4. The only time my wife and I see 'adult' movies is when we can get a babysitter. For years that was about twice a year. We watched DVD's instead. Once you get over the 'falling into the hype of seeing it at release' mentality, it's actually nice.

I can pause the movie at home if my kids get out of bed. I can watch it over a span of days if needed. Most importantly, there aren't jerks on their cell phones or screaming kids.

I do feel the pain that some have when they don't have babysitters, but that's no excuse. Good common sense and courtesy mandate that you don't do certain things with your kids, or you remove your kids if the act up. You don't make others suffer for your own game.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 21, 2006)

grimwell said:
			
		

> There is a thing sociologists call a 'social norm' by which  they mean an unwritten law that the larger pool of society's members adhere to. One of those norms is that you don't take young children to movies that aren't for young children. If you do this, you may well be within your legal rights and personal choice, but you are outside the norm. You are violating the rules of polite society.
> 
> Happens a lot these days. People have become more self-centered and the net result is that it's a lot less pleasant to be in public.




Then I guess I'm a rebel.  I'll lather and I'll rinse, but I'll never repeat!
Just because something is a societal norm, doesn't make it right.  The public is the public and if people are so imposed upon by it, perhaps it is they who should stay home.

I'll go during the day, when the theater is as empty as it can be.  I'll give my kid food to stuff his face with (and keep the words from coming out).  I'll take my kid out of a theater if he's screaming or running up and down the hall, but short of that...  Too bad.

Reminds me of an old quote: "No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I'm willing to bet, however, that virtually everyone here has been taken to a movie theater as a child.  So who are you to complain, having been in that child's shoes?



 So, you're argument is that since it happened to you as a child, you should feel okay to do it to your own children?  I don't think you realize how nonsensical your point is.


			
				grimwell said:
			
		

> Once you get over the 'falling into the hype of seeing it at release' mentality, it's actually nice.



 QFT.  I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford a very expensive HTS, so I do not even have the motivation to go to the theater for the theater-like quality.  I have it, and probably better, at home.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 21, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> So, you're argument is that since it happened to you as a child, you should feel okay to do it to your own children?  I don't think you realize how nonsensical your point is.




My argument is that it's something I have wildly fond memories of.  Going to see movies with my dad was one of the ways I connected with him.  Movie-going was practically a family ritual for me.  It made me appreciate not just movies, but storytelling in general.  It exposed me to deeper insights than the bland garbage pushed as literature at school.

So, yes, I hope to expose my child to that sort of experience too.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 21, 2006)

Let me put it this way.  How do you feel about going to see The Santa Claus 3 or RV in the theater?  Oh wouldn't you love to go out and see yet another shlocky G-rated non-funny "family" movie.  

Your kid might want to go see it.  If your kid was raised on crap movies.  

Or, if you have shown your child what real movies are about, they'll hold the same disdain for those films that you do.  And then you can quit pretending to love going out to see these same stupid movies over and over again, and go see something with meat in it.


----------



## Jesus_marley (Nov 21, 2006)

The problem is not people who take their kids to the movies. The problem is people who take their children to the movies (or any other social gathering) and then are surprised when other people complain about the poor behaviour of the child. 
People have an expectation (and a quite reasonable one) to not have to deal with a child  in a designated adult situation or arena (an R rated movie for example). If you want to take your child to an R rated film, go ahead. I will have no objections as long as your child behaves. But if I am there, and that child starts to make noise, run the aisles, talk or cry, I will surely expect you to deal with the problem by removing the child immediately. The main thing you have to remember is that there are 300 other people who paid 10 dollars to see the movie too.

It is simply a question of courtesy. Of which far too many people seem to be lacking these days.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Nov 21, 2006)

Jesus_marley said:
			
		

> The problem is not people who take their kids to the movies. The problem is people who take their children to the movies (or any other social gathering) and then are surprised when other people complain about the poor behaviour of the child.
> People have an expectation (and a quite reasonable one) to not have to deal with a child  in a designated adult situation or arena (an R rated movie for example). If you want to take your child to an R rated film, go ahead. I will have no objections as long as your child behaves. But if I am there, and that child starts to make noise, run the aisles, talk or cry, I will surely expect you to deal with the problem by removing the child immediately. The main thing you have to remember is that there are 300 other people who paid 10 dollars to see the movie too.
> 
> It is simply a question of courtesy. Of which far too many people seem to be lacking these days.




That pretty much sums up my thoughts.  It isn't so much about not taking your kids to the movies.  If they sit there and happily watch the movie I don't have a problem with it (provided it's not a 5 year old watching Basic Instinct or something like that).  The problem is when the kid gets bored and starts talking, crying, running around, etc., and the parent doesn't deal with them.  Why should everyone else at the cinema have to put up with that?

In summary, well behaved children at the cinema, no problems.  Annoying children who whose parents won't do anything about them, big problem.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 21, 2006)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Those are EXPENSIVE milk duds you're talking about!!!



Not unless you sneaked them in. I know, I know, it's rude to smuggle in affordable snack and eating it in front of theater patrons who chose to buy them at concession standard for $5 per tiny (8-ounce) box. Suckas.

I'm a cheap SOB, and I approved this message.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 21, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Not unless you sneaked them in. I know, I know, it's rude to smuggle in affordable snack and eating it in front of theater patrons who chose to buy them at concession standard for $5 per tiny (8-ounce) box. Suckas.
> 
> I'm a cheap SOB, and I approved this message.




There's a reason they're called "concession stands."  Because you concede the right to eat anything but overpriced food if you want to maintain that Lawful alignment.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Nov 22, 2006)

Marchen said:
			
		

> It happens. It's not your problem, really. We all have bad theater experiences, but it's no use pressing the matter.




Actually it really is his problem.  He can't enjoy a movie with screaming brats running around - who can (except the brain dead parents whom I have *no sympathy* for.  Hire a ing babysitter fer gawds sake.  they aren't that rare are they?

I've pretty much had it with theaters anyway.  Pay the same price for 2 tickets that the DVd will cost you in 6 months or rent it for 1/5 that price?  Crazy.  Also I've never really enjoyed the theater "experience".  Sticky floors, noisy people, cellphones, kids....gah this is just pissing me off now.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Yes, yes...  We've been breeding the generation that is going to cause the utter downfall of society.  Oh, woe is us.  How stupid we were to let children listen to rock and roll, watch violent movies, play D&D, listen to hip-hop, play violent video games, and go on the MySpace.  I expect there will be no doctors or lawyers in this generation.  No scientists or librarians.  They're all too stupid, too lazy, and too foul.



And thus the type of thought pattern that helps lead to America as a society becoming a dumber, lazier and more violent society. 

Sorry, take a look around, this society is lagging behind a ton of others farther than any point in time. We're wondering where the violence comes from, the stupidity and the lack of motivation. I need not bring out the studies that show that negative hip hop music, video games and violent movies all play apart in breeding a dumber and less inteligent society. We're degrading the middle and low class families thus increasing the hierchy of the country. Thus less of those doctors and lawyers are coming from low and middle income families. 

Sadly I dont know what it is we'll do to combat attitudes like yours.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Yes, yes...  We've been breeding the generation that is going to cause the utter downfall of society.  Oh, woe is us.  How stupid we were to let children listen to rock and roll, watch violent movies, play D&D, listen to hip-hop, play violent video games, and go on the MySpace.  I expect there will be no doctors or lawyers in this generation.  No scientists or librarians.  They're all too stupid, too lazy, and too foul.



btw, don't compare the beatles to songs that exploit women, degrade my culture and tell me how to properly kill someone.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> There's a reason they're called "concession stands."  Because you concede the right to eat anything but overpriced food if you want to maintain that Lawful alignment.



Really? Never thought the average joes in our typical communities would be anything but Neutral (defined by 3.5e).


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 22, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> btw, don't compare the beatles to songs that exploit women, degrade my culture and tell me how to properly kill someone.



Actually, when you play Eminem's tune backward, it has an angelic message.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> And thus the type of thought pattern that helps lead to America as a society becoming a dumber, lazier and more violent society.
> 
> Sorry, take a look around, this society is lagging behind a ton of others farther than any point in time. We're wondering where the violence comes from, the stupidity and the lack of motivation. I need not bring out the studies that show that negative hip hop music, video games and violent movies all play apart in breeding a dumber and less inteligent society. We're degrading the middle and low class families thus increasing the hierchy of the country. Thus less of those doctors and lawyers are coming from low and middle income families.
> 
> Sadly I dont know what it is we'll do to combat attitudes like yours.






			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> btw, don't compare the beatles to songs that exploit women, degrade my culture and tell me how to properly kill someone.




Hey, I think the Beatles are great.  And I also think that most hip-hop lately is pretty terrible.  But there's plenty of diamonds in the rough that redeem the genre.  Look in the right places, and you'll find political commentary far more cutting than the Beatles ever were.  Just because no one remembers the crappy Elton John and Jackson 5 rock songs doesn't make it a superior form of music.

You can bring out those studies if you like.  They are not that solid for a variety of reasons.  The crime rate in the U.S. is currently at an all-time low (though it has very recently started to climb again).  Funny how that happens in a society where everyone has become hyperviolent.  

Also, many of the studies measure the effect of violent videogames by looking at "violent behavior" as defined by the studier...  punching dolls... hitting buttons harder...  but strangely they tend not to have children getting into fist fights.  Usually researches aren't going to get parents to allow that.

Finally, most of the "scientists" in charge of these studies don't seem to understand the difference between correlation and causality.  No one should argue that violent videogames and violent people share a correlation.  Violent people seek out violent videogames.  But the videogames don't necessarily cause violence, and in fact, by occupying the time of violent people can usually be shown to decrease levels of actual violence in society.

There are better references, but off the top of my head:
http://www.videogamevoters.org/gamesnotviolence/

As for class differences...  That gets into politics. There's bigger problems there than the entertainment industry.  But off-limits for this forum, I think.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Really? Never thought the average joes in our typical communities would be anything but Neutral (defined by 3.5e).




Not again...    

Well, clearly our society is sliding from its formerly Lawful Good pinnacle into a Chaotic Neutral grab-fest.  In the old days, law-abiding greasers used to drive their hot-rods at the legally approved speed limit.  There certainly wasn't any alcohol involved.  And the only gang wars involved people breaking out into song...  "When you're a Jet, you're a Jet..."


----------



## Steve Jung (Nov 22, 2006)

My girlfriend and I went to a 2 PM matinee of Phantom of the Opera this past weekend. There were several kids in the audience. Right behind us was a couple with their young daughter. The girl kept asking what was going on, until my girlfriend asked her if she'd keep talking throughout the show. In front of us there was a woman and her young son. Near the end of the first act, the boy started saying he was tired. They left during intermission and didn't return. Phantom is not a show for young kids., so I wonder why anyone would pay nearly a hundred dollars to bring them.


----------



## Chaldfont (Nov 22, 2006)

To clarify: It wasn't so much the kid's behavior that was disruptive. I have two kids, I have a high tolerance for it. And I expect some disruption going to the theatre--its part of the experience. I like the crowd's reactions and I love it when somone's cell phone rings and some other guy swears at them for it.

It was the fact that this poor kid, who has no choice in the matter, was dragged to this clearly age-unappropriate movie and expected to sit through it. Yeah that kids gonna see a lot worse over the years. But right now, she doesn't have a choice. Not even during the torture scenes did the parents admit their mistake and remove the kid from the theatre. I kept thinking of my own child and just how wrong that would be.

And I do want to comment on sneaking food and drink into a theatre. I'm all for it. Its part of the magic of movies. I once smuggled six cans of soda in big jacket. My dad once snuck in a Big Mac and smiled when someone smelled it out. In college one of my friends accidently knocked over an empty beer bottle during a quiet tense moment in Stargate and the damn thing rolled all the way down the sloped floor to the front of the theatre.

Great stuff. I love the movies. But there are some savages out there that need a taste of the Gom Jabbar to see if they are human.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Yes, taking a child to a movie theater is rude.  I'm willing to bet, however, that virtually everyone here has been taken to a movie theater as a child.  So who are you to complain, having been in that child's shoes?
> 
> Taking a child on an airplane is even ruder, but when you have a small child whose grandparents are far away, you have to occasionally do it.
> 
> ...





This is just so much BS. Taking your child on an airplane is not rude. Since there are no adult flight VS Kids flights then you can't blame parents for having to travel with a child. No one but an complete selfish person would give parents a hard time for traveling with a child.

I will admit no one really enjoys a flight with a miserable crying child not even the child parents. But sometimes flying is the only way to get somewhere.

Flying with a child is not the same as taken a child to an adult movie you don't have to see the movie you can wait until it comes out on DVD. Or you can get a sitter.

I did my time as a parent of a small child and I am sick of having my movie experience ruined by a screaming baby. I choose to see adult fims in the evening so I don't have to deal with children. And it pisses me off when a parent brings a child in and it screams or runs around and ruins my movie experience. Now if the child is quiet then I don't give a crap though I do question why a child is being exposed to material of an adult nature.

It is totally selfish of these parents who bring a small child to adult movies and to adult fancy resturants. And then sit on their butts while these children run around screaming.

I never complain about a child making noise at a family style resturant or a PG 13 film. 

When my son was little I took him to one movie when he was little The Empire Strikes Back he was fine until the popcorn ran out then he was bored so I kept taking him out to the lobby. I made the decision never to put either one of us through that again and only took him to kids movies until he was old enough to sit through a movie.

it was the same at resturants he got bored quickly so we went to places like Denny's or I Hop, Pizza Hut places that got the food out fast. 

The other night a friend took me out to celebrate getting a promotion we went to a very expensive french resturant. The table behind us had a family with two small children who were bored hungry and cranky. They cried threw tantrums it was bad. A table over a man had planned a romantic dinner to ask his girlfriend to marry him but these selfish parents ruined everyone's mood.

And I call them selfish because when your kids throws himself down and starts kicking and screaming you pick the child up and take him outside to your car until he settles down. That's what I used to do you don't sit there and ignore it and keep eating.

The owner of the resturant finally came over and aksed the parents to leave he had their food packed and did not charge them. And they were rude and complained all the way out.

When I was a kid my parents never took me to the movies in the evening and my brothers and I knew that when went to a resturant we had better behave otherwise we would be sitting in the car until everyone else finished.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Not again...
> 
> Well, clearly our society is sliding from its formerly Lawful Good pinnacle into a Chaotic Neutral grab-fest.  In the old days, law-abiding greasers used to drive their hot-rods at the legally approved speed limit.  There certainly wasn't any alcohol involved.  And the only gang wars involved people breaking out into song...  "When you're a Jet, you're a Jet..."




Our society is sliding into chaotic selfish. People have all these entiltlement issues they feel as if they and their demonseeds can behave anyway they want to and they get upset if anyone confronts them on their or their offsprings unacceptable behavior.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> My argument is that it's something I have wildly fond memories of.  Going to see movies with my dad was one of the ways I connected with him.  Movie-going was practically a family ritual for me.  It made me appreciate not just movies, but storytelling in general.  It exposed me to deeper insights than the bland garbage pushed as literature at school.
> 
> So, yes, I hope to expose my child to that sort of experience too.



 That's all fine and dandy, but I fail to see how (a) Hellraiser is "storytelling", and (b) why your Dad taking you to see Hellraiser, or the Omen at the age of 3 justifies the same negligence for your children.  If you didn't mean to imply this, then just say so, but you implied this is the post I previously quoted.


----------



## Knightfall (Nov 22, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Is the film rated "R"?  If so, toddlers really shouldn't be taken to see it.




Here, in Alberta, it's rating is 14A.

*Alberta / NWT*
Rating: 14A - Adult accomp. under 14
Advisory: Violence. Mature Theme.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> That's all fine and dandy, but I fail to see how (a) Hellraiser is "storytelling", and (b) why your Dad taking you to see Hellraiser, or the Omen at the age of 3 justifies the same negligence for your children.  If you didn't mean to imply this, then just say so, but you implied this is the post I previously quoted.




Hellraiser *is* fine storytelling.  Sure the SEQUELS suck, but the original was quite good as such movies go.  There's a reason it spawned a long series of sequels, and there's a reason Clive Barker is a successful author.  It presented a twist on the typical religious horror films like the Exorcist.  No, I didn't see Hellraiser at 3 or the Omen at 3.  I didn't imply it, and I wouldn't take my 3-year-old to see such a movie.  I probably wouldn't take a 10-year old to see Hellraiser just because it is such a twisted movie.

I probably saw the Omen around the age of 10 or so, but I don't really know at this point.  And other than that one scene where the guy gets his head sliced off...  That movie was really kind of tame compared to some of the gore in many horror movies.  

As for question (b), we just share a different view of the world.  What you consider negligence, I do not.  You probably see no value in horror films whatsoever.  That's fine, but I disagree and so does Alfred Hitchcock.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> When my son was little I took him to one movie when he was little The Empire Strikes Back he was fine until the popcorn ran out then he was bored so I kept taking him out to the lobby. I made the decision never to put either one of us through that again and only took him to kids movies until he was old enough to sit through a movie.
> 
> it was the same at resturants he got bored quickly so we went to places like Denny's or I Hop, Pizza Hut places that got the food out fast.
> 
> The other night a friend took me out to celebrate getting a promotion we went to a very expensive french resturant. The table behind us had a family with two small children who were bored hungry and cranky. They cried threw tantrums it was bad. A table over a man had planned a romantic dinner to ask his girlfriend to marry him but these selfish parents ruined everyone's mood.




Gee, so you tried to take your kid out to the theater, and it didn't work.  And that makes you morally superior how?  I, at least, haven't even done it yet.  Of course if your kid is causing a ruckus and disturbing the other patrons you get out of Dodge.  I'm not saying be stupid about it.

I suspect, however, that the mythical parent who lets his children set fire to the theater/restaurant while they blissfully sit doesn't exist.

I was *waiting* for the restaurant example to come up, as that is yet another place children are apparently not welcome in the "societal norm".  I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who whine about children in restaurants.  Sorry.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Not again...
> 
> Well, clearly our society is sliding from its formerly Lawful Good pinnacle...



When in the last 37 years has this society been Lawful Good?


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I suspect, however, that the mythical parent who lets his children set fire to the theater/restaurant while they blissfully sit doesn't exist.
> 
> I was *waiting* for the restaurant example to come up, as that is yet another place children are apparently not welcome in the "societal norm".  I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who whine about children in restaurants.  Sorry.




You, sir, are full of .  Sorry.

I've been at fancy restaurants where tired, cranky children have blown up, and their parents have done nothing but ineffectually tried to "shush" them.  (Unfortunately, in more than one case, it was my friends who did the ineffectual shushing.)

Societal norms, alas, have changed.  A generation ago, you simply didn't see children brought to "adult" venues (fancy restaurants, late-night movies, etc.)  Parents either got babysitters, or stayed home.

What's changed is that many adults have decided that they are going to do what they want to do, and just bring the kids along.


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 22, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> When in the last 37 years has this society been Lawful Good?




Probably not in that timeframe.  If you went back to the 50s, you could certainly argue that mainstream American society was LG.


----------



## WmRAllen67 (Nov 22, 2006)

I had the same experience last year at _King Kong_, and started a similar thread then...

I agree that there are some movies that are inappropriate to take small children to-- _King Kong_ is not appropriate for children that are not mentally mature enough to deal with the violence, the horrific worms and bugs in the canyon, or the emotional content associated with the death of Kong at the end. If the child is a "babe in arms", if you have to keep explaining the movie or urging your child to sit and watch the movie, if your child reacts poorly to strong emotional content, then you shouldn't take them. _Saw 2_, _Hellraiser_, the new Bond-- these are not movies that I would take the nephews (3 and 5 years) to...

And, they are not movies that my brother and his wife would take their children to, either-- in fact, I don't think that the nephews have been to the movies yet-- they're not quite to the point that they can carry their involvement over that sort of timespan... when they do start to go to movies, I'm sure that for the first few years, the movies will be _Curious George_, _Madagascar_, _Cars_, or others like that-- movies that were produced with that audience in mind...

On the other hand, we have taken them to "fine" restaurants on family outings-- and they've been fine. In fact we had a lot of fun taking pictures of all the family with Uncle Bill's camera (and also pictures of the table, the ceiling, the salad, people's foreheads). Otherwise, they sat and ate, made friends with the waitstaff, and if they were getting a bit rambunctious, one or other of us took them out into the hotel lobby and tried out all the couches, or stood at the door of the ballroom and watched the dancers at the marriage reception... and they got to go to Nana's 70th birthday, which was important to everyone...

They go out to regular restaurants as well-- and know that if Mommy or Daddy start to count to three, then they better shape up, or they will be going out to the lobby for a "time out"...

I think the point I'm trying to make is that it is the attitude of the parents that determines the behavior of the children-- you have to make the choice to raise your spawn to be respectful and polite, and you have to make that choice every day, over and over again... that some parents are not willing, or able to commit to that sort of involvement is unfortunate, but not necessarily new...

Has personal rudeness in public increased? Perhaps, but in what way are you expecting people to act as if they were in your  living room at the movie, as opposed to acting as if they were in their own? (If that makes any sense...)

Not sure where else I was going to go with this-- it's early and I need more coffee...


----------



## Jesus_marley (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I was *waiting* for the restaurant example to come up, as that is yet another place children are apparently not welcome in the "societal norm".  I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who whine about children in restaurants.  Sorry.




WADR, you are incorrect. Children who can behave themselves are more than welcome. I, and I am sure, many others, would not care if there was a child in an expensive restaurant as long as that child was able to behave properly. 

Like it or not, different arenas have different standards for behaviour. A rambunctious child in a McDonald's restaurant is to be expected. and frankly I would look like a fool if I were to complain about it. However, place that same child in a 5 star restaurant and I would probably kill it and eat it.... and I would be applauded for the act. The same goes for adults as well.

The fact of it is plain and very easy to see... if you or your child cannot behave in a manner that is not disruptive to the other people in the gathering, then you or your child have no business being there in the first place.


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 22, 2006)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=i30c4WHuaIg

My wife and I have, in the past, taken our children to movies that push the limmit of what's appropriate for them.  We've done this because, as Simplicity said above, there's a lot of movies that are crap and we'd rather have them see movies that are actually worth watching.

Now, that said, we've been fairly sensitive to how our kids act in public.  When we take our kids out to a store, or a restaurant, or a show, we expect them to behave themselves...  And simply because of that expectation they did and still do, for the most part.  Of course, they are kids, and get antsy sometimes.  That's to be expected.   But we've never just stood by and let them unceasingly cry or scream or complain or run about. I don't let my children act like like at home, and there's no reason for them to act like that in public.  I can't stand it when other people let their kids do that, I'd be a hypocrite if I allowed mine to.

In fact, in the last year or so, I've caught my kids complaining about other people's kids when we go to the theater...  "Dad, that boy's too loud.  I can't hear the movie."

At any rate...  My wife and I are going to see Casino Royale tonight.  Our 7 and 8 year old kids will not be coming along.  Instead, we are double-dating with another couple, that we recently became friends with, who have a teenaged daughter who will be babysitting them.  It's the first time in several years that my wife and I have gone on a "date" without the kids, and the first time in several years that my wife and I have seen what we term "a not kid friendly" movie in the theater.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Hey, I think the Beatles are great.  And I also think that most hip-hop lately is pretty terrible.  But there's plenty of diamonds in the rough that redeem the genre.  Look in the right places, and you'll find political commentary far more cutting than the Beatles ever were.  Just because no one remembers the crappy Elton John and Jackson 5 rock songs doesn't make it a superior form of music.
> 
> You can bring out those studies if you like.  They are not that solid for a variety of reasons.  The crime rate in the U.S. is currently at an all-time low (though it has very recently started to climb again).  Funny how that happens in a society where everyone has become hyperviolent.
> 
> ...



I'll be honest, screw the studies. I do like that they back up my claim but I can ride around my old neighborhood, look at my schools and watch the degratiion of my culture. Sure upper class families and societies are usually unscathed by the influence, but the lower theclass level the more influential the media that the child is exposed too. that's why i get so irk when I read or see this kind of stuff, because I get to witness its results first hand. If you surround someone with violence, they are going to think violence is the norm. 

For some reason parents just don't realize that there are some places children should not be. Thats why we put the little rs and ms on things. They hide behind this superiority that its not going ot happen to "their child".


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 22, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Our society is sliding into chaotic selfish. People have all these entiltlement issues they feel as if they and their demonseeds can behave anyway they want to and they get upset if anyone confronts them on their or their offsprings unacceptable behavior.



In my expereince these people are matched if not exceeded in number by selfish people with entitlement issues who feel as if the very existance of a child being, you know, *awake* in their area and actually making some sounds is an infringement on their rights.  :\  People keep saying parents can wait and rent the DVD. Hey, people who want to watch a movie all by themselves can do that too. I would say that the responisibility of parents to keep their kids from making noise is exactly the same as the responsibility of a person with a bad cold to either skip the movie or dose up enough not to hack on the back of my head all through the film - and my responsibility to accept that I'm going out in public and the public has just as much of a right to be there as I do.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 22, 2006)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> You, sir, are full of .  Sorry.





If you have to apologize for it, you probably should never have said it.

Similarly, if we see the smilies, we know you intended something bad, and that's not a good sign.

The irony of seeing this in a discussion that largely hinges on when and how folks should be polite to each other is pretty darned thick, but it isn't amusing.

So, to everyone in the thread, one and only one warning - be respectful of your fellow posters.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> When in the last 37 years has this society been Lawful Good?




Well, what about the 80's?  No one did any drugs, and cocaine use was especially low.  Racial inequality was completely eliminated.  There were black doctors and lawyers everywhere, and all the black children got adopted into rich white families.  Whenever a knife fight broke out because someone didn't beat it, people broke out into song.

Breaking out into song is an important part of the Lawful Good alignment, I think.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 22, 2006)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> In my expereince these people are matched if not exceeded in number by selfish people with entitlement issues who feel as if the very existance of a child being, you know, *awake* in their area and actually making some sounds is an infringement on their rights.  :\  People keep saying parents can wait and rent the DVD. Hey, people who want to watch a movie all by themselves can do that too. I would say that the responisibility of parents to keep their kids from making noise is exactly the same as the responsibility of a person with a bad cold to either skip the movie or dose up enough not to hack on the back of my head all through the film - and my responsibility to accept that I'm going out in public and the public has just as much of a right to be there as I do.



All Im saying is be mindful and get a babysitter. If you can't afford a babysitter you probably shouldnt be shelling out 20 bucks to see a movie. Most movie theaters have a policy against kids after a certain hour anyway,, From now on I plan on going to these. 

But like someone said this goes beyond movies. Its a society that don't have respect for their own children let alone thy neighbor.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> Probably not in that timeframe.  If you went back to the 50s, you could certainly argue that mainstream American society was LG.




The 50s was not all beer and Skittles.

US Homicide rate 1950: 4.6 per 100,000
US Homicide rate 2000: 5.5 per 100,000

The 50's also included quite a bit of organized crime (the Teamsters, for example) and lynchings (the Klu Klux Klan, for example).


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I'll be honest, screw the studies. I do like that they back up my claim but I can ride around my old neighborhood, look at my schools and watch the degratiion of my culture. Sure upper class families and societies are usually unscathed by the influence, but the lower theclass level the more influential the media that the child is exposed too. that's why i get so irk when I read or see this kind of stuff, because I get to witness its results first hand. If you surround someone with violence, they are going to think violence is the norm.




Again, I think if you're looking to media for the explanation of why the lower class is doing poorly, you're looking in the wrong place.  

Can I present one of a myriad of alternative hypotheses?  All families have become 2 income families now, and while the wealthier can afford daycare, those with less money cannot.  In addition, where there was once a gap between the rich and the poor, people are tending to marry within their own financial level more these days.  So, that gap has increased.
A larger poor immigrant population is also placing a burden on our schools, which are very badly underfunded because no one ever is willing to pay more taxes to support schools.

In no way does any of this have anything to do with children attending R-rated movies.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> All Im saying is be mindful and get a babysitter...
> 
> But like someone said this goes beyond movies. Its a society that don't have respect for their own children let alone thy neighbor.




And all I'm saying is that my child is not a "demonseed", he's a person with impulse issues.
If I choose to take my family to a fancy restaurant, I have a right to take my whole family.
I have a right to take my child to an environment that tests his limits, where I can teach him to be well-behaved.  Yes, he's going to throw a spoon on the floor.  If you have a problem with that, too bad.  

Leaving your child at home with the babysitter is not a sign of respect towards the child.  I'm not saying you don't do it anyways, because there are some situations a kid is just not going to be able to handle.  But you should not be required to do it anytime you go out someplace that is not family-oriented.  Children deserve to be included in society's activities, where they can reasonably participate.


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 22, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> If you have to apologize for it, you probably should never have said it.




Honestly, I put the "sorry" in there in response to this:



			
				Simplicty said:
			
		

> I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who whine about children in restaurants. Sorry.




And, I knew that the censor would bleep out what I wrote anyway.

Still, point taken.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Again, I think if you're looking to media for the explanation of why the lower class is doing poorly, you're looking in the wrong place.
> 
> Can I present one of a myriad of alternative hypotheses?  All families have become 2 income families now, and while the wealthier can afford daycare, those with less money cannot.  In addition, where there was once a gap between the rich and the poor, people are tending to marry within their own financial level more these days.  So, that gap has increased.
> A larger poor immigrant population is also placing a burden on our schools, which are very badly underfunded because no one ever is willing to pay more taxes to support schools.
> ...



No not an explanation, but the violent surroundings certainly adds to it. and whereas you have hypothesis i have witnesses it with my own eyes. I don't contradict everything you've said, and certainly they add to the blight, but I"m speaking of things that are I've seen. 



> nd all I'm saying is that my child is not a "demonseed", he's a person with impulse issues.
> If I choose to take my family to a fancy restaurant, I have a right to take my whole family.
> I have a right to take my child to an environment that tests his limits, where I can teach him to be well-behaved. Yes, he's going to throw a spoon on the floor. If you have a problem with that, too bad.
> 
> Leaving your child at home with the babysitter is not a sign of respect towards the child. I'm not saying you don't do it anyways, because there are some situations a kid is just not going to be able to handle. But you should not be required to do it anytime you go out someplace that is not family-oriented. Children deserve to be included in society's activities, where they can reasonably participate.



You know if you have a bad kid or not. I'm not a fan of these scientific terms for children, they either need correcting or they don't. But if you think that your family should all be together when you go out, why not take them to family oriented places and movies? Or at the very least at a reasonable time.


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Yes, he's going to throw a spoon on the floor.  If you have a problem with that, too bad.




If you discipline him when he misbehaves, and if you remove him from the situation entirely when it's clear that normal discipline isn't cutting it, then I, generally, don't have an issue.

As myself and others have argued, there are people (whom you believe are mythical) who just don't do that.



			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> you should not be required to do it anytime you go out someplace that is not family-oriented.  Children deserve to be included in society's activities, where they can reasonably participate.




OTOH, there's also something to be said for letting kids be kids, and not trying to prematurely make them into miniature adults.  Kids grow up way too quickly today as it is.

When I was a kid, did we occasionally go to fancy restaurants?  Yes, occasionally, for special occasions.  Was it the norm?  No.  If we hadn't behaved when we did so, would we have gone again?  Heck, no.


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> The 50s was not all beer and Skittles.




Didn't, for a moment, say or mean to imply that it was.  LG =/= utopian.

What it was was, largely, very structured, with most people understanding the concept of the greater good.

OTOH, if you were someone who didn't fit into the extremely rigid societal norms of that time (blacks, Communists, rock-and-rollers, to name a few), you would have had a very difficult time of it.

Is it a good thing that our society is more diverse today and (generally) more accepting of that diversity?  I think so.  The converse of that, however, is that some people have lost that sense of the greater good, and are incredibly self-focused.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> Honestly, I put the "sorry" in there in response to this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I certainly wasn't offended or anything.  Spiced banter goodness.
We can agree to disagree.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> If you discipline him when he misbehaves, and if you remove him from the situation entirely when it's clear that normal discipline isn't cutting it, then I, generally, don't have an issue.
> 
> As myself and others have argued, there are people (whom you believe are mythical) who just don't do that.




That's fine, and I agree with it.  But half of my responses here are in response to those who just believe children don't belong at some restaurants/movies at all.  That not getting a babysitter is a sign of my entitlement issues and disrespect for my neighbor. And that by providing my child with potato pancakes and/or movies, I'm contributing to the downfall of Western civilization.

Oh. And as for the letting kids be kids...  I certainly agree there too.  Though it does come into conflict with keeping them under control in "adult" places.  Children require a certain amount of tolerance, and it's in the wiggle room there that neighbors get upset and parents do not.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> That's fine, and I agree with it.  But half of my responses here are in response to those who just believe children don't belong at some restaurants/movies at all.  That not getting a babysitter is a sign of my entitlement issues and disrespect for my neighbor. And that by providing my child with potato pancakes and/or movies, I'm contributing to the downfall of Western civilization.



They don't. If you and the wife are going to the XXX theater or pub  are you taking little johnny with you? 
There are places meant for adults and those meant for famlilies. There are few places meant for families after 10 p.m.. 

If you want to go to an upscale restaurant(that doesnt even have a kids menu) or go see an r rated movie, either go in the daytime or get a babysitter. I just think thats apart of being a resposnible parent.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> They don't. If you and the wife are going to the XXX theater or pub  are you taking little johnny with you?
> There are places meant for adults and those meant for famlilies. There are few places meant for families after 10 p.m..
> 
> If you want to go to an upscale restaurant(that doesnt even have a kids menu) or go see an r rated movie, either go in the daytime or get a babysitter. I just think thats apart of being a resposnible parent.




As I said, there are some situations that I wouldn't take my son to because I don't think he's ready for them.  But *I'm* the one who gets to decide that.  Not my neighbors and not societal norms.  Personally, by the time he's 15, I know he's going to have seen plenty more than they will ever show at a XXX theater.  There is this thing called the Internet now.  I wouldn't take him there because I don't go to XXX theaters, and because there are legal issues involved at that point.  I'm certainly more worried about violence in the media than I am about sex in the media (And I've already expressed my views on violence).

As for the pub, they wouldn't allow him in anyways so it's a moot point.  Would I take him if he were allowed?  Probably not.  But then I don't drink that much, and it's no fun to go to a pub if you can't drink because you're watching your kid.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> As I said, there are some situations that I wouldn't take my son to because I don't think he's ready for them.  But *I'm* the one who gets to decide that.  Not my neighbors and not societal norms.  Personally, by the time he's 15, I know he's going to have seen plenty more than they will ever show at a XXX theater.  There is this thing called the Internet now.  I wouldn't take him there because I don't go to XXX theaters, and because there are legal issues involved at that point.  I'm certainly more worried about violence in the media than I am about sex in the media (And I've already expressed my views on violence).
> 
> As for the pub, they wouldn't allow him in anyways so it's a moot point.  Would I take him if he were allowed?  Probably not.  But then I don't drink that much, and it's no fun to go to a pub if you can drink because you're watching your kid.



YOu've touched on a couple of things. First I"m talking about young children, and I think the majority of htis forum is talkinga bout young children. By the age of 13 a child should know how to take care of himself. If there weren't laws are you sayiing you'd take an 8 year old to adult movies, theaters and restaurants at all hours of the night.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> YOu've touched on a couple of things. First I"m talking about young children, and I think the majority of htis forum is talkinga bout young children. By the age of 13 a child should know how to take care of himself. If there weren't laws are you sayiing you'd take an 8 year old to adult movies, theaters and restaurants at all hours of the night.




I'm not sure what your issue is with the time of day thing.  I have no problem taking an 8-year-old out to a movie or restaurant late at night, other than the fact that it may be disturbing to other theater patrons.  And I wouldn't do it on a night when we had school the next day.  But late on a friday or saturday night if I knew he was going to behave himself?  Sure, I'd do it every now and then.  He can sleep in the next day.

Just as I would let an 8-year-old stay up on New Years to celebrate.

I wouldn't take an 8-year-old to an XXX-rated movie.  That's just creepy.  But then I wouldn't GO to a XXX-rated movie.  There's nothing in a XXX-rated movie that I would feel the urge to share with a kid.  

There's plenty of stuff in PG-13 and R-rated movies that an 8-year-old can appreciate.


----------



## delericho (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> But *I'm* the one who gets to decide that.  Not my neighbors and not societal norms.




Now, just why is that? Why does every restaurant and every movie theatre (or even every screen within the multiplex) have to be open to kids? Why can't those of us who don't want to risk having our evenings ruined by those parents who won't or can't control their kids have that choice?

See, I'm quite sure _your_ kids aren't a problem. But you surely must concede that there are kids who _are_ a problem, and there are parents who will let the enjoyment of others be ruined by their kids. Now, since kids are (often) predisposed to such behaviours, and since it's impossible to tell the 'good' kids from the 'bad' kids, why should there not be areas set aside that are simply barred to children?


----------



## Umbran (Nov 22, 2006)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> What it was was, largely, very structured, with most people understanding the concept of the greater good.




Yes, they understood a "greater good" that was pretty harmful to women, minorities, and the young.  There's reasons why early rock and roll has a whole lot of songs about abusive boyfriends, how coold the bad boys are, and suicide by automobile...

Just sayin', that's a bit of an odd definition of "good".  Sounds a whole lot more LN to me.  And that's assuming that the Lawful part applies to the real people, as opposed to the media representation of the middle and upper class, who were probably not the majority.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

Double post.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Now, just why is that? Why does every restaurant and every movie theatre (or even every screen within the multiplex) have to be open to kids? Why can't those of us who don't want to risk having our evenings ruined by those parents who won't or can't control their kids have that choice?
> 
> See, I'm quite sure _your_ kids aren't a problem. But you surely must concede that there are kids who _are_ a problem, and there are parents who will let the enjoyment of others be ruined by their kids. Now, since kids are (often) predisposed to such behaviours, and since it's impossible to tell the 'good' kids from the 'bad' kids, why should there not be areas set aside that are simply barred to children?




Because everyone was once a child, and children are people who deserve respect even if they can't always act like adults.  As with any person, part of respecting them means that their mere presence is not a disturbance of the peace.

I conceed that there are problem kids.  I also conceed that there are problem people.  Problem kids probably outnumber the problem people.  But kids are kids.

Some restaurants do bar children from entering.  Or at least they say they're going to get you a seat... but then they mysteriously don't.  And you sit for a hour waiting for a table, and they never talk to you again.  

Why not bar cell phone users from restaurants?  Why not bar the ugly from bars?


----------



## delericho (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Because everyone was once a child, and children are people who deserve respect even if they can't always act like adults.




That doesn't grant them a free pass to any establishment their parents choose, any more than I have a right to demand entrance to a women-only gym.



> But kids are kids.




I believe that that's the crux of my point. Because kids are kids, they cannot be relied on to not cause a disturbance. True, adults can't either, but the numbers are such that the vast majority of adults won't cause a disturbance, and a sizeable minority (if not an outright majority) of kids will if expected to sit through a film that's too adult for them for two hours.

And, in the right circumstances, it just takes on disturbance at the wrong time to ruin the whole. The example was given earlier of a man who was trying to propose to his girlfriend when a kid ruined the mood. Similarly, an outburst at just the wrong point in a film can destroy it for everyone, even if it is the only incident in the whole evening, and even if it is silenced almost immediately.

I see no good reason why cinemas cannot designate some showings as adult-only, and let the customer decide. But, the moment they do that, they have a barrage of complaints against them from parents determined to boycott all showings because their little angels are barred from some showings.



> Why not bar cell phone users from restaurants?




Actually, I support the use of cell phone blockers in cinemas wholeheartedly. I'm torn on their use in restaurants, where the noise is less disruptive. However, I have no problem with their use, if the restaurant has a sign saying as much in a visible place. I might even favour such an establishment over one without.



> Why not bar the ugly from bars?




Ugly people are routinely barred from nightclubs. The poor are routinely barred from many places, by virtue of the prices involved if in no other more overt way.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

Actually, I don't think women-only gyms are a good idea...  But whatever.  The management can make clear who they intend to serve and who they don't.  If theaters choose not to take the money of parents/children...  That's their decision.  But it seems their decision was already made.

If one disturbance ruins a movie or meal for you... that sounds like a personal problem.  It's unusual to sit through a movie without hearing something from the audience.  I feel a little sad for the marriage proposal ruining.  But, then again... it sounds like an great time to reconsider the consequences of marriage.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Ugly people are routinely barred from nightclubs. The poor are routinely barred from many places, by virtue of the prices involved if in no other more overt way.




So they are, but is it right?


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Because everyone was once a child, and children are people who deserve respect even if they can't always act like adults.  As with any person, part of respecting them means that their mere presence is not a disturbance of the peace.




Right...  But at the same time, a child, like any other person, has to earn the respect that they deserve.  And it is the parent's responsibility to teach their children how to act in public so that their mere prescence is not a disturbance of the peace, and thereby earn the respect of those around them.  (EDIT: Actually, I think that's what you just said...    )

After all, how can a child learn to handle particular social situations without teaching them through example and experience?

Anyway, I think you'll agree, Simplicity, that while children are children and should be given considerable leeway in regards to public behavior, you've still got to draw the line somewhere.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> After all, how can a child learn to handle particular social situations without teaching them through example and experience?
> 
> Anyway, I think you'll agree, Simplicity, that while children are children and should be given considerable leeway in regards to public behavior, you've still got to draw the line somewhere.




That is exactly what I'm trying to say.  I'm not saying you should let the kids run up to you, pull your hair, and kick you in the shins.  Just cut them a break, and don't glare at the parents for bringing them in the first place.


----------



## delericho (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> If one disturbance ruins a movie or meal for you... that sounds like a personal problem.




It's not that it _would_ destroy the film. But time it right, and it could. Imagine the effect of walking into a screening of "Empire Strikes Back" in 1980 and shouting "Vader is Luke's father!"


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

Well, with a kid who doesn't know the movie it's more likely to go like this:

Vader: I AM your father.

Kid: OH NO!

Luke: NOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo!


----------



## Aeson (Nov 22, 2006)

Help control the people population have your children spayed or neutered.


----------



## delericho (Nov 22, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Well, with a kid who doesn't know the movie it's more likely to go like this:
> 
> Vader: I AM your father.
> 
> ...




Sorry, that wasn't what I meant. Imagine if _you_ walked into a movie theatre at the start of "Empire Strikes Back" in 1980, with an audience who didn't know the big secret. Now, imagine you shouted out "Vader is Luke's father!"

You can see how that one disturbance would have a disproportionate effect on the movie experience for the rest of the audience?

So it is with kids making a noise in the theatre - 99+% of the time it's a non-issue (unless they keep making lots of noise). Indeed, sometimes it's a good thing (wouldn't want to see the likes of "Cars" in a theatre without the appropriate audience). But, there's also the possibility that the kid makes just the wrong noise at just the wrong time, and that could be a problem.

So, yes, if offered a choice, I would always choose to see adult-oriented films in a kid-free environment.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 22, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> I see no good reason why cinemas cannot designate some showings as adult-only, and let the customer decide.



Such adult-only cinemas are located in the red-light district of your neighborhood.


----------



## Aeson (Nov 22, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Such adult-only cinemas are located in the red-light district of your neighborhood.



Depends on where you live. If I wanted to go to an adult oriented cinema I would have to travel a long way. My county does not allow such things. 

Maybe having a adult-only viewing of movies isn't so bad. 

I heard of a chain of theaters that had shows for parents with brats I mean children. The kids were allowed to run around and make noise. They even let the parents change diapers in there instead of going to the restroom. Granted these were kid movies in the middle of the afternoon but it was kid friendly.

I say have an adult only time with beer and wine sales.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 22, 2006)

That reminds me.

I went to London once and their theaters perplexed me.  In the UK, you can drink a beer in the theater.  You can buy beer at the theater and then take your beer in with you to watch the movie.  Then when you're IN the theater, everybody tries to get the seats in the back.
All the seats which in the US are considered "good" are totally empty.    

It's like watching movies in the Bizzaro universe or something.


----------



## Jesus_marley (Nov 23, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> All the seats which in the US are considered "good" are totally empty.
> 
> It's like watching movies in the Bizzaro universe or something.




Now you're just starting a whole new argument. What exactly are the good seats? what if *MY* good seat isn't yours? Hmmm??? well? what's your answer?


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Nov 23, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> That reminds me.
> 
> I went to London once and their theaters perplexed me.  In the UK, you can drink a beer in the theater.  You can buy beer at the theater and then take your beer in with you to watch the movie.  Then when you're IN the theater, everybody tries to get the seats in the back.
> All the seats which in the US are considered "good" are totally empty.
> ...




What do you consider the "good" seats to be?  And are US cinema seats elvated so that ones at the back are higher than row in front of them, which are in turn higher than the one in front of them?  Seems like a stupid question but then I am one of the people who likes sitting near the back of the cinema.  Must be due to the time when my aunty too me to see "Big" at the cinema when I was a kid and we had to sit in the front row!      He sure was big and the front row sure did seem a little too close to the screen.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Harmon (Nov 23, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Yes, taking a child to a movie theater is rude.  I'm willing to bet, however, that virtually everyone here has been taken to a movie theater as a child.  So who are you to complain, having been in that child's shoes?




Nope- when I was a kid I was taken only to drive ins.  My drunk ass drug addicted parents were conscious enough of the world that they refuses to take us to the theater until we were old enough to sit in front of them in the theater (where our heads could be thumped for making noise, and we could be shushed without a problem).  I recall hearing a man compliment my parents on how good we (my elder brother and I) were during the course of the movie we had just seen- I was like seven and it was my first theater movie.

My 42 week old daughter has kept my wife and I from the theater, and will keep us (as a couple) out of the theater until such time as we have reliable sitters or until she is old enough to behave.

Peace all and find thanks for something in your life tomorrow.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 23, 2006)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> What do you consider the "good" seats to be?  And are US cinema seats elvated so that ones at the back are higher than row in front of them, which are in turn higher than the one in front of them?  Seems like a stupid question but then I am one of the people who likes sitting near the back of the cinema.  Must be due to the time when my aunty too me to see "Big" at the cinema when I was a kid and we had to sit in the front row!      He sure was big and the front row sure did seem a little too close to the screen.
> 
> Olaf the Stout




The optimal seat in any movie theater is five rows from the front and dead center.  And I will brook no argument!      Well, except for maybe at Big Newport.  There you could live being a couple of rows further back than that.

Most US cinemas have some amount of slant to the theater. Some are elevated such that each row is above the row in front of it (though that's much more rare), but most have just a gentle slope.  Either way, it doesn't matter.  Frontish and center is where it's at.

Oh...  But if it's an elevated theater, you want the front center seat above the middle walkway (because there's almost always a walkway between the lower half of seats and the upper half).


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 23, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> That reminds me.
> 
> I went to London once and their theaters perplexed me.  In the UK, you can drink a beer in the theater.  You can buy beer at the theater and then take your beer in with you to watch the movie.  Then when you're IN the theater, everybody tries to get the seats in the back.
> All the seats which in the US are considered "good" are totally empty.



Word of advice: If you take the seat in the front, don't plant your feet on the floor. And wear a hooded poncho.

FWIW, at least the restroom is much cleaner than the theater room.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 23, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> The optimal seat in any movie theater is five rows from the front and dead center.  And I will brook no argument!      Well, except for maybe at Big Newport.  There you could live being a couple of rows further back than that.
> 
> Most US cinemas have some amount of slant to the theater. Some are elevated such that each row is above the row in front of it (though that's much more rare), but most have just a gentle slope.  Either way, it doesn't matter.  Frontish and center is where it's at.
> 
> Oh...  But if it's an elevated theater, you want the front center seat above the middle walkway (because there's almost always a walkway between the lower half of seats and the upper half).



If the theater has stadium seating, I prefer the center seat that is third or fourth row from the top. That allows me to look down and over the other patrons' head. That also keep me awake, as opposed to being reclined into the seat in an air-conditioned room. *Snores*


----------



## Jesus_marley (Nov 23, 2006)

Myself, I prefer the 4th or 5th row from the front and dead centre. I find that at that spot the screen fills my entire forward facing vision (leaving my peripheral vision free for allowing me to see and duck incoming milk duds). I don't have to scan across to see the entire screen. it is almost like a full immersion VR experience. any farther back and it just seems like I am watching a big television.


----------



## delericho (Nov 23, 2006)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> What do you consider the "good" seats to be?




Six rows from the front, dead centre.

It doesn't matter so much with elevated seating, though.


----------



## Joker (Nov 23, 2006)

If the theater has a proper speaker setup then dead center*.  That's the "sweet-spot."


*Of the theater, not necessarily the seats.  Sometimes you have a large space in front of the front seats.


----------



## Fat Daddy (Nov 23, 2006)

I have really enjoyed reading this thread this morning.  It has been very enlightening to see both sides argued so well.  I am not sure I can add anything new, but I am going to put in my 2 cents anyway.  I think that most of _simplicity's_ arguments state my general view.  I am not going to let societal _norms_, or governmental guidelines dictate how I raise my kids (I have a 2 year old and another due any day now).  
I haven't taken my 2 year old to the movies, because she is not ready for it.  Why?  Because _I_ say she's not ready.  When I feel she is ready, I will take her to what _I_ deem to be appropriate for her, not what Joe Random thinks is appropriate.  If she misbehaves, I will (and do in other venues) correct her.  If it becomes a repeated/ongoing problem, we will leave.
Don't get me wrong, I think taking a toddler to ANY 'R' rated movie is inappropriate (heck I don't even watch the news when my toddler is in the room).  But as I stated I refuse to let others dictate how I raise my kids and will therefore not try and dictate to others.

I think the following summarizes my outlook fairly well.


			
				WmRAllen67 said:
			
		

> I think the point I'm trying to make is that it is the attitude of the parents that determines the behavior of the children-- you have to make the choice to raise your spawn to be respectful and polite, and you have to make that choice every day, over and over again... that some parents are not willing, or able to commit to that sort of involvement is unfortunate, but not necessarily new...



And that is exactly what my wife and I attempt to do.  My daughter refers to adults as Mr. or Ms. (as in Mr. Bob or Ms Katie), she says 'please', 'thank you' , 'I would like that please' instead of 'I need that' or 'gimme that'.  Granted, sometimes she forgets (she's 2) and we remind her with a 'is that how we ask' or 'use your manners please'.  She knows that if she acts up innappropriately she will get a warning and then if it continues a spank on the bottom (in public or no).
That being said, we let her run around and play all she wants in the appropriate venues.  However, I don't think that the kid only theater or family oriented restaurant is the answer.  As parents how are we to teach our children to act properly in a theater if the only theater they are allowed in has kids running around screaming?  Or the only restaurant is a Chucky Cheese style?  The answer is, we can't.  We need to take them to other, more adult type venues to be able to teach them how to act in those venues.

So to those opposed to children in these places I say, if the parents are correcting the children and not ignoring any problems/outbursts, please cut us and the the kids some slack.

Edit: Sorry for the long winded post, it's been a long night...


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 23, 2006)

Fat Daddy said:
			
		

> I have really enjoyed reading this thread this morning.  It has been very enlightening to see both sides argued so well.  I am not sure I can add anything new, but I am going to put in my 2 cents anyway.  I think that most of _simplicity's_ arguments state my general view.  I am not going to let societal _norms_, or governmental guidelines dictate how I raise my kids (I have a 2 year old and another due any day now).
> I haven't taken my 2 year old to the movies, because she is not ready for it.  Why?  Because _I_ say she's not ready.  When I feel she is ready, I will take her to what _I_ deem to be appropriate for her, not what Joe Random thinks is appropriate.  If she misbehaves, I will (and do in other venues) correct her.  If it becomes a repeated/ongoing problem, we will leave.
> Don't get me wrong, I think taking a toddler to ANY 'R' rated movie is inappropriate (heck I don't even watch the news when my toddler is in the room).  But as I stated I refuse to let others dictate how I raise my kids and will therefore not try and dictate to others.
> 
> ...



It just seems that these arguments are fairly selfish. The kid isn't getting anything out of it. Most of these restaurants don't have kids menus and the movies that are r rated either have  plots far outside the reach of the kid or put violent and sexual images in the kids head. 

The public in the restaurant or theater aren't getting anything but a waste of their enjoyment from their dollar. It seems the only one who benefits are the people whom can say that they control their kids; fight the power. This is very close to the lady who got kicked off a plane recently after the flight attendant asked her to conceal her nursing.  I don't think that restaurants and movie theaters should make rules for this, I think humans should be naturally courteous of one another.


----------



## Sidekick (Nov 23, 2006)

Meh I'm not too bothered by kids in cinemas - provided its an appropriate film/time.

If I go to a film between the hours of 6 and 9 then there are going to be youngere people in it of course.

Its the incessent screaming that gets me (but thankfully that rarely happens).

I don't think that parents and their kids should be barred from the cinema but I do think that ratings shoudl be enforceble. If its an R young kids (heck possibly even those under 15) shouldn't be allowed in. Nice and simple.

Back home in little ole NZ and R16 is precisely that. An R16, If you can't prove that your 16 then they won't let you in. 

I'd also like to say that Casino Royale is hardly kid-friendly film.

but it did kick some serious a55. Daniel Craig was a very good bond in my opinion.

These ramblings brought to you by the letters D, B and the number 0.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 23, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Gee, so you tried to take your kid out to the theater, and it didn't work.  And that makes you morally superior how?  I, at least, haven't even done it yet.  Of course if your kid is causing a ruckus and disturbing the other patrons you get out of Dodge.  I'm not saying be stupid about it.
> 
> I suspect, however, that the mythical parent who lets his children set fire to the theater/restaurant while they blissfully sit doesn't exist.
> 
> I was *waiting* for the restaurant example to come up, as that is yet another place children are apparently not welcome in the "societal norm".  I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who whine about children in restaurants.  Sorry.




I don't hink I am morally superior I just can't tolerate lazy parents. If you bring a child into this world then you have to expected that your life changes and that for awhile you have to give up some freedoms. If you have a child that can sit quietly through a movie at an early age then by all means bring that child to the movies as long as the content of the movie is not something that your child can't handle. The  same goes with nice resturants my aunt used to take me to places like that when I was a child because I was quiet child who get sit still and did not get bored. My brothers on the other hand had a much higher energy level and so no way. The same with my son he could get bored to easily.

It is not fair to a child to  put them into situations that they are not ready to handle.

I have seen kids running around resturants and nearly causing the wait staff to trip over them, I have seen kids yelling and throwing tantrums while mommy and daddy sit there ignoring them and all the hostile glares.  When your kids misbehaves get off your butt and do something.

And it is rude to bring a child that can't sit still to a resturant that is not meant for kids. Why should my 75.00 dinner be ruined because you can't leave the child at home with a sitter. There are times when as an adult I really don't wish to be around screaming kids and I think other adults feel the same way. Some of them are parents who paid for a sitter to get away and be adults for the evening.

Like I said before I don't mind kids at family style resturants but I draw the line at resturants meant for adults.


----------



## Chimera (Nov 23, 2006)

The problem really isn't the kid, it's the stupid parent.

I sincerely believe that parents of small children, especially the mothers, are the most self-absorbed, arrogant and unaware people on the planet.  Their entire world revolves around their children and everyone else must be forced to bow down before their progeny and tolerate anything they or their parents want to do.

I was crouching down on the floor of a drug store, looking over the books on the lower rack of the magazine/book aisle.  A woman coralled her two small children around me to yell at them.  One on either side of me, the woman bending over me, YELLING at them, right in my ear.  I stood up slowly enough so that she wouldn't get struck in the face by my head (as she would have if I'd shot upright), then turned to face her.  She was mortified and rightly so.  My opinion of her is unprintable.

Unfortunately, that sort of thing has happened more than once.

Can't tell you how many times I;ve been lectured or yelled at by mothers of small children, because they either couldn't control their children, or were completely unwilling to do so.

For my job, I stood in a lobby of a major public building with over $200,000 in cash and coins for nearly 10 minutes, because a woman thought it ever so much fun to take her handicapped child for a ride up and down the elevator, while refusing to allow anyone else on.  I finally forced my way on, only to have her attempt to shove her child's wheelchair THROUGH my two-wheeler loaded with oh, about 200 pounds of coins, when she wanted to get off before me at the next stop.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 23, 2006)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> In my expereince these people are matched if not exceeded in number by selfish people with entitlement issues who feel as if the very existance of a child being, you know, *awake* in their area and actually making some sounds is an infringement on their rights.  :\  People keep saying parents can wait and rent the DVD. Hey, people who want to watch a movie all by themselves can do that too. I would say that the responisibility of parents to keep their kids from making noise is exactly the same as the responsibility of a person with a bad cold to either skip the movie or dose up enough not to hack on the back of my head all through the film - and my responsibility to accept that I'm going out in public and the public has just as much of a right to be there as I do.




I totally agree with this. When I saw Casino Royale I had to turn and tell the middle age couple behind me to shut up three times because they were talking about the movie as if they were in their living room at home. 

It is not just kids making noise and behaving rudely at the movies.

I know you are a parent of a small child so I think you are being a tad oversenstive in my experience I have never seen people complain about well behaved children in places. I saw a movie last week and the couple next to me had a small a baby that slept through the movie so I had no problem with that. I just got home from Cracker Barrel where I joined some frinds for breakfast there was a family sitting next to us and the kids were full of energy and laughing and talking a little loudly like kids sometimes do. Again no problem they were not behaving badly and when the got a little to loud the parent s brought the noise level down again. And it was a family style resturant so I expected kids to be there and I think anyone who would complain about kids in a place like that are just morons.

Kids make noise they talk and laugh and they are in the process of learning what is the right behavior in public. I think most of us understand that and cut the kids some slack.

But there is a big difference between that and a child screaming in anger or a tired cranky child that needs a nap. I am parent I have a sympthy for parents dealing with a misbehaving child in public I have been in their shoes.  But I think what angers people is that it seems that a lot of parents are not dealing with the screaming child they eihter ignore it or try to shush it. We have all heard the parent say if you don't stop so and so is going to happen and it never does.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 23, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> And all I'm saying is that my child is not a "demonseed", he's a person with impulse issues.
> If I choose to take my family to a fancy restaurant, I have a right to take my whole family.
> I have a right to take my child to an environment that tests his limits, where I can teach him to be well-behaved.  Yes, he's going to throw a spoon on the floor.  If you have a problem with that, too bad.
> 
> Leaving your child at home with the babysitter is not a sign of respect towards the child.  I'm not saying you don't do it anyways, because there are some situations a kid is just not going to be able to handle.  But you should not be required to do it anytime you go out someplace that is not family-oriented.  Children deserve to be included in society's activities, where they can reasonably participate.





I think you are not hearing what we are saying. A child throwing a spoon on the floor once is not the problem. A child throwing a spoon on the floor over and over again and then kicking the booth so the people who are sitting in the next booth are being distrubed and made uncomfertable is another.

If you take your child to a fancy resturant and that child can't behave then you the parent need to remove the child from the resturant before the managment has to ask you to.

You do see the difference don't you? 

And leaving your child with a sitter is not a bad thing is teaches the chikd that will be okay away from mom and dad for short periods of time and it gives mom and dad a chance to be someone other than mom and dad for awhile.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 24, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I think you are not hearing what we are saying. A child throwing a spoon on the floor once is not the problem. A child throwing a spoon on the floor over and over again and then kicking the booth so the people who are sitting in the next booth are being distrubed and made uncomfertable is another.
> 
> If you take your child to a fancy resturant and that child can't behave then you the parent need to remove the child from the resturant before the managment has to ask you to.
> 
> ...




I've already agreed with this on this thread.  Parents need to control their children's behavior in public, or remove them so that they don't cause a disturbance.  But behaving well for a small child and behaving well for an adult are two different types of behavior.  

I've heard hundreds and hundreds of stories about how somebody's movie was ruined by an loud kid.  I've never heard the ending that goes: "and then the parent removed the kid."  Because nobody cares or remembers that.

I'm okay with leaving my child with a sitter.  I'm just not okay with people who demand that I do so.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 24, 2006)

I can remember many incidents when kids get removed from public venues- usually restaraunts or Church.  Occasionally, those kids have been my cousins.  Occasionally, I've been the adult who did the removing.

Heck, my mom once removed my youngest cousin from a movie...and sat outside the theatre with him for 30 minutes.  I say sat- in reality, it was a wrestling match as he tried to get away and chase after his daddy who had gone for refreshments.

I silently commend those parents & guardians who realize that disruptive kids need to be given rapid and fair discipline.  Usually, mere removal is enough- kids generally understand  the loss of a privilege...but occasionally?

I'm in favor of gator pits at all public venues.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 24, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I've already agreed with this on this thread.  Parents need to control their children's behavior in public, or remove them so that they don't cause a disturbance.  But behaving well for a small child and behaving well for an adult are two different types of behavior.
> 
> I've heard hundreds and hundreds of stories about how somebody's movie was ruined by an loud kid.  I've never heard the ending that goes: "and then the parent removed the kid."  Because nobody cares or remembers that.
> 
> I'm okay with leaving my child with a sitter.  I'm just not okay with people who demand that I do so.



But why bring the public in on the diabloical experiment. Kids are always a wild card, even the most behaved ones are. Why test the level at the 11 oclock showing of texas chain saw massacre?


----------



## Scotley (Nov 24, 2006)

As the parent of a 2 and a third year old I can sympathize with parents who want to go out, but some thought has to go into it. I really want to see Casino Royale, but I went to Flushed Away instead. Only to discover that it held virtually no interest for my little one.  He did focus on popcorn and other goodies and so other than asking several questions of the 'who's that' 'what's he doing' variety he was pretty good. He did move from seat to lap and back to seat a few times. He seemed do better at Cars--at least for the first 1 hour and 50 min then he got restless and we took him out for a bit. Anyway, he's a little young, but he is learning. We do take him out to eat frequently. He enjoys it and is generally very well behaved. We don't generally go any place that doesn't have a kids menu and booster seats. We live in the 'Burbs and most places expect families. We never let him run around the resturant and on those rare occations when his behavior gets to the point that it might disturb others we take him out. Usually, his behavior only starts to deteriorate at times when any patron might get upset. He takes it very personally when the food is wrong or the service is very slow. 

I appologise to anyone out there who might have been distrubed by my son's behavior. We try to be good parents and not take him where he isn't welcome, but we don't plan to keep him home  until he's 18.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 24, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I've already agreed with this on this thread.  Parents need to control their children's behavior in public, or remove them so that they don't cause a disturbance.  But behaving well for a small child and behaving well for an adult are two different types of behavior.
> 
> I've heard hundreds and hundreds of stories about how somebody's movie was ruined by an loud kid.  I've never heard the ending that goes: "and then the parent removed the kid."  Because nobody cares or remembers that.
> 
> I'm okay with leaving my child with a sitter.  I'm just not okay with people who demand that I do so.




You know why you don't hear the ending "then the parent removed the kid" because most people don't feel the need to complain when a parent is doing their job. 

The times that stand out in your mind are the times when your movie experience is ruined because you are distrubered through most of the movie by a screaming kid or noisy adults or what have you.

It's not the one time a cell phone goes off and the person quickly shuts it off and leaves the theatre to return the call that ruins the movie its the person who answers then has a ten minute conversation. It's the same with kids.

I am not a child hater I don't expect kids to be left at home until they are teens. I like kids a lot I enjoy them. Some of my friends have small children and they know that when I plan a birthday lunch  for example the kids are always welcome if they can't find a sitter or they wish to bring them. 

One of the best memories I have of seeing Return of the King is a small voice shouting out when Frodo is making Sam leave on the stairs " Don't be mean to Sam" the entire audience cracked up.  

I don't demand that a parent get a sitter what I demand is that a parent show some common courtsey for the other patrons.  

That is one of the things that I think is causing problems in our society today and that is people are not willing to show others a little courtsey.


----------



## bodhi (Nov 24, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I've heard hundreds and hundreds of stories about how somebody's movie was ruined by an loud kid.  I've never heard the ending that goes: "and then the parent removed the kid."  Because nobody cares or remembers that.



If the parent removed the kid, then the movie wouldn't be ruined. The ruination comes when the parents either ignore the child being a problem or, worse, contribute to the disruption. You don't hear stories that end "and then the waiter brought my food", either. People don't care when someone does their job, unless they do it very (*very*) well, or very poorly.



			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> I'm okay with leaving my child with a sitter.  I'm just not okay with people who demand that I do so.



If your child is well-behaved, that'll shut up about 90% of us. And if you're not taking a pre-teen to a cinematic gorefest or live sex show, that'll pretty much shut up the rest of us.

The complaints that I've seen, in this thread and in others, have been about parents failing to discipline their _disruptive_ children, or parents taking their children to events which are clearly inappropriate (usually due to content).


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 25, 2006)

I remember dragging my dad and my little brother and sister to see Ghostbusters at the theatres 4 times.  '84, so I was 8 at the time.  My sister was 6 and my brother was 4.  I wouldn't want to give up those memories.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 25, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> One of the best memories I have of seeing Return of the King is a small voice shouting out when Frodo is making Sam leave on the stairs " Don't be mean to Sam" the entire audience cracked up.




You know, that just makes me smile


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 25, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> I remember dragging my dad and my little brother and sister to see Ghostbusters at the theatres 4 times.  '84, so I was 8 at the time.  My sister was 6 and my brother was 4.  I wouldn't want to give up those memories.





 One of the best memories I have of childhhood is being about 7 and my mom taking me to see Gone With the Wind when it came around like it sometimes does. I was just blown away by the movie. My dad was amazed that I sat through such a long movie.


----------



## megamania (Nov 25, 2006)

When I was 8 I sorta saw Alien.   I remember screams and darkness (hands over my eyes or looking at the floor).

I vaguely remember seeing several Debbie does... movies at the age of 4 at the drive in.



Man that is twisted..... as am I.


----------



## Aurora (Nov 25, 2006)

megamania said:
			
		

> When I was 8 I sorta saw Alien.   I remember screams and darkness (hands over my eyes or looking at the floor).
> 
> I vaguely remember seeing several Debbie does... movies at the age of 4 at the drive in.
> 
> ...



I was 4 (and at home) the first time I saw Alien. My mom told me (years ago) that I watched the movie intently and held a pillow in front of _her_ face during the scary parts


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 25, 2006)

Aurora said:
			
		

> I was 4 (and at home) the first time I saw Alien. My mom told me (years ago) that I watched the movie intently and held a pillow in front of _her_ face during the scary parts




I saw Alien when I was pregnant with my son and then last year he and I went to see it together when they released the director's cut. 

There were several times when we both jumped in our seats and I had to laugh because I remembered that he was very active in my womb when I saw it the first time and he kept kicking me in the side during some of the scary scenes. At one point he kicked so hard I jumped and spilled soda on myself well as an adult he jumped knocking my arm and I sloshed water down my shirt. So I guess the more things change the more they stay the same.


----------



## Fat Daddy (Nov 29, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> It just seems that these arguments are fairly selfish. The kid isn't getting anything out of it. Most of these restaurants don't have kids menus and the movies that are r rated either have  plots far outside the reach of the kid or put violent and sexual images in the kids head.
> 
> The public in the restaurant or theater aren't getting anything but a waste of their enjoyment from their dollar. It seems the only one who benefits are the people whom can say that they control their kids; fight the power. This is very close to the lady who got kicked off a plane recently after the flight attendant asked her to conceal her nursing.  I don't think that restaurants and movie theaters should make rules for this, I think humans should be naturally courteous of one another.



It's interesting that you say that my arguments seem rather selfish.  I was thinking the same thing when reading the arguments against allowing kids in restaurants and theaters.  I see a lot of people saying, "MY time was ruined because someone didn't act according to how I wanted them to act."  
I think we are talking about different kinds of restaurants and movies.  I don't bring my toddler to "fancy" restaurants that don't have kids menus and I definitely don't take her to see 'r' rated movies.  As for restaurants, I am saying that, as a parent, I am not restricted to 'kid oriented' restaurants such as _Chuck E. Cheese_.  I should be able to take my wife and kids out for a nice meal at _Chili's_ or _Outback_ or something similar without someone giving me the evil eye if my kids act up a little (and I correct them).  This is not about being able to say that 'we control our kids' or 'fighting the power'.  It is about being a parent and enjoying time with our families and teaching our kids the difference between good behavior and bad behavior.  I get really frustrated because it seems that many people complain that kids are even allowed out in public at all.
As for the movies, I won't take my kids to see 'r' rated movies for many many years.  Does that mean I can't take a child to see a 'PG'?  No, there are plotlines and elements in PG rated movies that a child can appreciate and enjoy.  Still, some will complain if they hear a child in a movie that is not rated 'G'.  
As for the nursing on the plane thing.  Do I think a woman should have right to nurse in public?  Yes.  Do I think she needs to be discreet and cover? Yes.
I agree with you that as humans we should be courteous of one another.  However, unlike a lot of folks, I think that the courteous behavior should also be extended TO parents and children and not just expected FROM them.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 29, 2006)

Fat Daddy said:
			
		

> It's interesting that you say that my arguments seem rather selfish.  I was thinking the same thing when reading the arguments against allowing kids in restaurants and theaters.  I see a lot of people saying, "MY time was ruined because someone didn't act according to how I wanted them to act."
> I think we are talking about different kinds of restaurants and movies.  I don't bring my toddler to "fancy" restaurants that don't have kids menus and I definitely don't take her to see 'r' rated movies.  As for restaurants, I am saying that, as a parent, I am not restricted to 'kid oriented' restaurants such as _Chuck E. Cheese_.  I should be able to take my wife and kids out for a nice meal at _Chili's_ or _Outback_ or something similar without someone giving me the evil eye if my kids act up a little (and I correct them).  This is not about being able to say that 'we control our kids' or 'fighting the power'.  It is about being a parent and enjoying time with our families and teaching our kids the difference between good behavior and bad behavior.  I get really frustrated because it seems that many people complain that kids are even allowed out in public at all.
> As for the movies, I won't take my kids to see 'r' rated movies for many many years.  Does that mean I can't take a child to see a 'PG'?  No, there are plotlines and elements in PG rated movies that a child can appreciate and enjoy.  Still, some will complain if they hear a child in a movie that is not rated 'G'.
> As for the nursing on the plane thing.  Do I think a woman should have right to nurse in public?  Yes.  Do I think she needs to be discreet and cover? Yes.
> I agree with you that as humans we should be courteous of one another.  However, unlike a lot of folks, I think that the courteous behavior should also be extended TO parents and children and not just expected FROM them.




I am one of the people talking about kids at resturants and movies. I agree with a lot of what you said. The resturants I was talking about were not chains like you mentioned I consider those family resturants. They have a kids menu.

I was talking about 5 star adult no kids menu style resturants it drives me crazy when parents brings children to these and the kids can't behave. I love kids bit there are times when I just don't want to listen to a kid scream.

The same with movies I don't mind PG 13 movies wirh kids in them I expect it but I also expect the parents to take the kids out if they misbehave.

As for nursing mothers people need to get a grip I have never once seen a mom just let it all hang out I am begining to think this is an urban myth. As for the mom on that flight give me a break she was on that plane for three hours it was a small plane I am sure it was hot on it as only a plane sitting on a tarmac can get. She was sitting in the back row in the window seat with her husband next to her. I don't blame her for not wanting a blanket over her or the baby. It was to hot. And I read an interview with her and she had on a nursing bra and a lose shirt all that could be seen was the top of her brest less than you often see in Victoria Secrets commercials on TV less than you see in drawings of chicks in chain mail in gaming books.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 29, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> HOWEVER, the movie's R rating only suggest (strongly) that no one under 17 is allowed to watch the film without parent or adult supervision. The theater personnel can't forbid paying customers, especially when they want them to go in and buy their expensive snacks.




They can and do; as far as I know, any business can refuse service to you for any reason. The Rave theater (which is the only good theater in the city) has a printed policy on their ticket window that even states how many R-rated tickets you can purchase at one time, even if you're older (apparently they didn't like one parent or 18-year-old sibling coming in and buying ten tickets for their younger friends and then letting them disperse into the whatever show they wanted). 

I have no idea if they _enforce _ that or not, or if it's just there as a sop to parents. When I was much younger, I went to many R-rated movies underage and they said absolutely nothing to me. They did send an usher one time to take one of our friends out of Friday the 13th because he looked 13 when he was 16.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 29, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I've heard hundreds and hundreds of stories about how somebody's movie was ruined by an loud kid.  I've never heard the ending that goes: "and then the parent removed the kid."  Because nobody cares or remembers that.




I have and do. I've been in more than a couple movies where the parents had young children, and a few times they've simply removed the child from the theater themselves. The kid would start out being perfectly behaved, then something would happen and he'd become unruly. So he may have been right at that stage where he can sit through a long film, and just didn't make it this time, or.. whatever, something happened.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 29, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> They can and do; as far as I know, any business can refuse service to you for any reason. The Rave theater (which is the only good theater in the city) has a printed policy on their ticket window that even states how many R-rated tickets you can purchase at one time, even if you're older (apparently they didn't like one parent or 18-year-old sibling coming in and buying ten tickets for their younger friends and then letting them disperse into the whatever show they wanted).
> 
> I have no idea if they _enforce _ that or not, or if it's just there as a sop to parents. When I was much younger, I went to many R-rated movies underage and they said absolutely nothing to me. They did send an usher one time to take one of our friends out of Friday the 13th because he looked 13 when he was 16.



At the higher end theaters around Detroit, they refuse to allow anyone under 16 into r rated movies after 6 accompanied by an adult or not.


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 29, 2006)

Tens years ago, when I was still in college, I used to get carded all the time when buying movies tickets to R rated movies.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 29, 2006)

The kids down here are smart they buy tickets for a PG 13  show on the right side of the theatre and then just walk into the R film.  The person taking the tickets is donw at the entrance of the wing and can't keep track of where they go.

There is a nice theatre here that has balcony seats. The whole upstairs is a resturant and a bar. Its wonderful you buy assinged seats they are huge with a comfertable arm rest big enough to hold a tray of food. And you have to be 21 to sit up there. Oh and there is free valet parking.

They are aslo have a good sound system so even if a kids are screaming down below you can't hear them.

Its more expense but sometimes worth it. I choose to see the new Pirates of the Carribean film there because I knew there would be a lot of kids going to see it. And this way I got to enjoy my depraved lusting after a man one year older than my son without being distrubed by kids.


----------



## Aurora (Nov 29, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> And this way I got to enjoy my depraved lusting after a man one year older than my son without being distrubed by kids.



 

I would totally pay more to sit in theatre seats like that.


----------



## Scotley (Nov 29, 2006)

Aurora said:
			
		

> I would totally pay more to sit in theatre seats like that.




I never knew there was a depraved lusting section in theaters...


----------



## bodhi (Nov 30, 2006)

Scotley said:
			
		

> I never knew there was a depraved lusting section in theaters...



It's _all_ the depraved lusting section.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 30, 2006)

Scotley said:
			
		

> I never knew there was a depraved lusting section in theaters...




You just have not found the right movie theatres.


----------



## Aurora (Nov 30, 2006)

Actually I was referring to the restaurant and bar section (guess I should have quoted the whole post), but this is a lot funnier.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 30, 2006)

Aurora said:
			
		

> Actually I was referring to the restaurant and bar section (guess I should have quoted the whole post), but this is a lot funnier.




LOL 

it is nice you go early and have a nice dinner and then go into the movies you can your fod in to movie if you want but most people like to eat first. They also give free soda and popcorn all you want.

I like this better than the old pub style movie house we had because it was hard to watch the movie with waitress bringing food to the tables.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 1, 2006)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Tens years ago, when I was still in college, I used to get carded all the time when buying movies tickets to R rated movies.





Hell, I _still_ get carded for just about everything.  Cigarettes, drinks, almost everything.  And I'm 30.  

Everyone thinks I'm younger than my brother whose 26.  

A friend of mine once told me I just have an innocent face and look really young.  Even she couldn't believe that I was 4 years older than my brother.


Er, sorry for the off topicness...


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 1, 2006)

How about we let the parents - I dunno, do their job and decide on an individual basis what is appropriate for their kids?  Now, if yer bitching about whiny kids in a theatre, I totally agree with you.


----------



## Aurora (Dec 1, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> How about we let the parents - I dunno, do their job and decide on an individual basis what is appropriate for their kids?  Now, if yer bitching about whiny kids in a theatre, I totally agree with you.



For the most part I agree with you. I hate new laws that take away my civil rights and my choices. I am a good parent and I think I make good decisions where it comes to my daughter and will continue to do so. On the other hand though, I have met some REALLY STUPID people. Who honestly, shouldn't even BE parents, let alone decide what things a kid should be exposed to since what they are exposed to helps shape what they will become. 

This has spiraled into a truly "touchy" subject at times on this thread. LOL


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 1, 2006)

Aurora said:
			
		

> For the most part I agree with you. I hate new laws that take away my civil rights and my choices. I am a good parent and I think I make good decisions where it comes to my daughter and will continue to do so. On the other hand though, I have met some REALLY STUPID people. Who honestly, shouldn't even BE parents, let alone decide what things a kid should be exposed to since what they are exposed to helps shape what they will become.
> 
> This has spiraled into a truly "touchy" subject at times on this thread. LOL




I don't think you really believe that any government should decide which people get to have kids, and how those who do have children should raise them.  Either everyone has the right to raise their children as they wish, or no one does.  And I'm hoping it's the former.


----------



## DonTadow (Dec 1, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I don't think you really believe that any government should decide which people get to have kids, and how those who do have children should raise them.  Either everyone has the right to raise their children as they wish, or no one does.  And I'm hoping it's the former.



I do. I'd love there to be some type of mandatory test of some kind. Trust me, some of these parents don't need kids. OF course this is my utopia idea of the extreme. 

BTW, we do live in that society. The government has the power to take away your parental rights. I have a friend right now whom can never have children. She's had two since they took away her parental rights and they immediately had to realise them into the fathers custody. Did she deserve it. Yes. THe father of her first four kids was very abusive and broke 14 bones in the babies body while she looked away.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 1, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I do. I'd love there to be some type of mandatory test of some kind. Trust me, some of these parents don't need kids. OF course this is my utopia idea of the extreme.
> 
> BTW, we do live in that society. The government has the power to take away your parental rights. I have a friend right now whom can never have children. She's had two since they took away her parental rights and they immediately had to realise them into the fathers custody. Did she deserve it. Yes. THe father of her first four kids was very abusive and broke 14 bones in the babies body while she looked away.




Yes, but I already know that I don't agree with you on many things.

But now you are touching on a tender spot for me.

I agree that there has to be some protection for physically abused and neglected children.
That's a whole different world from stupid parents raising poorly behaved children.  And it's certainly not letting your kids play video games or late movies.

I do believe that it is too easy to lose parental rights in the US.  THAT became immediately apparent to me after my son was born prematurely, and I had to deal with child services.  It's frightening to see how quickly you can lose parental rights when your child is in an ICU.  The doctor knows what's best, and the insurance knows what they're going to pay for.  Your new baby gets locked in a room, and you are given visitation rights a few hours each day.  And you have little to no say about how the child is cared for.  I once asked my "advocate" case manager (who worked for the insurance company) whether they would ever tell me if the insurance company and the doctor disagreed about a treatment.  She said no, she wouldn't.  Great advocate, huh?  God forbid if you ever wanted to refuse treatment for something or switch to some other hospital.  I think they'd taser you.

Meanwhile there's a social worker who just comes by to CHAT.  You're in the hospital having a kid, and up comes the social worker who's there to make sure you're having a SUPER time.  Hey, how's it going!  Let's be friends and see if you get to keep your child!  And when your kid is developmentally delayed, you get to talk to them again.  Social workers ask the same questions over and over.  You mean both parents work?  Yes.  So he's in daycare?  Yes.  Do you have family nearby?  Somewhat.  Do they watch him?  No.  Do you have friends to watch him?  No.  Both full-time jobs then?  Yes.  Are one of you going to quit?  No.

My son is fine now.  A little physical therapy cleared everything up nicely.  But what a nightmare.  Please don't tell me that's the way it should be.


----------



## Aurora (Dec 1, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> But now you are touching on a tender spot for me.
> <snip>



I completely agree with you and do not think that anyone should tell someone else they shouldn't have kids or tell them how to raise them. Of course, there are some people that I wish wouldn't add to the gene pool  That sucks about the problems you had with the hospital/insurance/childrens services. It is sad that the services that we do have set up to try and help kids, go after the wrong people a lot of the time. It's good that your son is fine now. 

They have optional (birth) classes that a person can attend, but honestly I don't think they do jack sh*t for teaching someone what being a parent is going to be like or what you should and shouldn't do care wise for a baby/child. I wonder what the answer is to getting new parents to understand things like "Dont''t shake your effing baby!" If people were actually forced to learn this sh*t, maybe so many kids wouldn't get hurt like my nephew who ended up in the hospital at 6 weeks old with a boken leg, 2 broken ribs and shaken baby syndrome. Let me tell you about a child services nightmare for my poor sister-in-law. If her boyfriend wasn't thrown in jail before my husband got a chance to get to him, I don't think he would be alive. But then again, maybe education wouldn't have prevented it. I wish I knew the answer.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 1, 2006)

On the one hand, I wouldn't mind a required class in high school that teaches the basics of child care.  Something more than: here take this egg and try not to smash it.  See how it makes your life miserable?  Now you understand parenting.  Well, no.  Not really.  

I mean something like: here's how you bundle, burp, and bathe.  Handling thrush, pinkeye, ear infections, vomitting, diarrhea, and fevers.  How to change diapers.  The differences between diaper rash, heat rash, and viral exanthum.  Not shaking.  

On the other hand, it would become the same stupid political football that sex-ed class has become.


----------



## bodhi (Dec 1, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Something more than: here take this egg and try not to smash it.



There's an episode of Buffy where they do that. Xander toughens up his progeny by hard-boiling it.


----------



## DonTadow (Dec 2, 2006)

Aurora said:
			
		

> I completely agree with you and do not think that anyone should tell someone else they shouldn't have kids or tell them how to raise them. Of course, there are some people that I wish wouldn't add to the gene pool  That sucks about the problems you had with the hospital/insurance/childrens services. It is sad that the services that we do have set up to try and help kids, go after the wrong people a lot of the time. It's good that your son is fine now.
> 
> They have optional (birth) classes that a person can attend, but honestly I don't think they do jack sh*t for teaching someone what being a parent is going to be like or what you should and shouldn't do care wise for a baby/child. I wonder what the answer is to getting new parents to understand things like "Dont''t shake your effing baby!" If people were actually forced to learn this sh*t, maybe so many kids wouldn't get hurt like my nephew who ended up in the hospital at 6 weeks old with a boken leg, 2 broken ribs and shaken baby syndrome. Let me tell you about a child services nightmare for my poor sister-in-law. If her boyfriend wasn't thrown in jail before my husband got a chance to get to him, I don't think he would be alive. But then again, maybe education wouldn't have prevented it. I wish I knew the answer.



But the parents who need the classes aren't going to them voluntarily. As a matter of fact those whom need them aren't going to them unless they are forced to by court order and by then it is too late. 

I would hate the government to inact these rules on their own. But I'm a fan of a village to raise a child and if the community decides as a whole that there should be laws like this, it isnt the government. Its up to the community to protect itself. Why should the community pay for the end product by building prisons and juvenile halls instead of nipping it in the bud from the beginning.


----------



## Aurora (Dec 2, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> But the parents who need the classes aren't going to them voluntarily. As a matter of fact those whom need them aren't going to them unless they are forced to by court order and by then it is too late.
> 
> I would hate the government to inact these rules on their own. But I'm a fan of a village to raise a child and if the community decides as a whole that there should be laws like this, it isnt the government. Its up to the community to protect itself. Why should the community pay for the end product by building prisons and juvenile halls instead of nipping it in the bud from the beginning.



If you think about it, it is mandatory to  have a car seat in order to take your baby home. (They actually come out and check). That is for a child's safety. So why not a class for a child's safety? How about mandatory, in hospital - parent classes. And I _don't_ mean make it a law. I think hospitals should start it. "If you have a baby here, you are required to spend 1 hour learning this". Heck you are stuck there for a couple days anyways. Or maybe hospitals should just have a nurse take some time with the parents and run over a few basics? Something would be better than nothing. I have no idea, but something has got to be better than the nothing that we are doing. Even if it saves 1 child from dying needlessly at the hands of some moron parent.


----------



## DonTadow (Dec 2, 2006)

Aurora said:
			
		

> If you think about it, it is mandatory to  have a car seat in order to take your baby home. (They actually come out and check). That is for a child's safety. So why not a class for a child's safety? How about mandatory, in hospital - parent classes. And I _don't_ mean make it a law. I think hospitals should start it. "If you have a baby here, you are required to spend 1 hour learning this". Heck you are stuck there for a couple days anyways. Or maybe hospitals should just have a nurse take some time with the parents and run over a few basics? Something would be better than nothing. I have no idea, but something has got to be better than the nothing that we are doing. Even if it saves 1 child from dying needlessly at the hands of some moron parent.



I don't want to sound like the guy whose for big brother govt i'm not. I"m a fan on giving the gov't back to the people. 

Sadly, a lot of people won't do something unless there is a law or unless they are forced and even then they still don't. I know people whom would ride with their 1 year old on their lap or in the front seat if it wasn't against the law. Heck, my brother-in-law asked us once to drive my newphew home while he sat on his lap. When i asked for the childseat he waved it off and said that there arent any cops out on the holidays. (sorry brother in law is an idiot). 

I don't think a class is going to do it, I think there should be a series of classes. maybe up to a month before the baby's born. Heck you're going to the hospital (or should be) for check up s anyway. The problem is if this isn't a law, lower income families on medcare won't want to fit the billfor something extra unless they have to. And that is primarily where a lot of problem children and households are coming.


----------



## Aurora (Dec 2, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I don't want to sound like the guy whose for big brother govt i'm not. I"m a fan on giving the gov't back to the people.
> 
> Sadly, a lot of people won't do something unless there is a law or unless they are forced and even then they still don't. I know people whom would ride with their 1 year old on their lap or in the front seat if it wasn't against the law. Heck, my brother-in-law asked us once to drive my newphew home while he sat on his lap. When i asked for the childseat he waved it off and said that there arent any cops out on the holidays. (sorry brother in law is an idiot).
> 
> I don't think a class is going to do it, I think there should be a series of classes. maybe up to a month before the baby's born. Heck you're going to the hospital (or should be) for check up s anyway. The problem is if this isn't a law, lower income families on medcare won't want to fit the billfor something extra unless they have to. And that is primarily where a lot of problem children and households are coming.



I see your point. I think it is a shame that everyone would have to go through such rigamarole for a few stupid people. Unfortunately, though that is why many laws come about. Not that I would be against such laws persay because they would help, I just hate to invent  new ways for the gov't to control us more than they already do. It's just one step closer to them running our lives for us.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 2, 2006)

Aurora said:
			
		

> If you think about it, it is mandatory to  have a car seat in order to take your baby home. (They actually come out and check). That is for a child's safety. So why not a class for a child's safety? How about mandatory, in hospital - parent classes. And I _don't_ mean make it a law. I think hospitals should start it. "If you have a baby here, you are required to spend 1 hour learning this". Heck you are stuck there for a couple days anyways. Or maybe hospitals should just have a nurse take some time with the parents and run over a few basics? Something would be better than nothing. I have no idea, but something has got to be better than the nothing that we are doing. Even if it saves 1 child from dying needlessly at the hands of some moron parent.




The book Freakonomics has an interesting section on carseat safety.  It turns out that pretty much all of the safety gained from a carseat for children (other than infants) is gained by putting the child in the backseat.  The carseat itself really doesn't do all that much.  Add to that the fact that 90% of people with carseats don't install them correctly, and there might actually be dangers in having carseats. But now that carseats have become a required product for parents, we'll pretty much be forced to buy them until the end of time.

As for nurses, I think most hospitals do already have nurses explain some basics to parents at birth.  I know I learned most of what I know from the ICU nurses.


----------



## DonTadow (Dec 3, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> The book Freakonomics has an interesting section on carseat safety.  It turns out that pretty much all of the safety gained from a carseat for children (other than infants) is gained by putting the child in the backseat.  The carseat itself really doesn't do all that much.  Add to that the fact that 90% of people with carseats don't install them correctly, and there might actually be dangers in having carseats. But now that carseats have become a required product for parents, we'll pretty much be forced to buy them until the end of time.
> 
> As for nurses, I think most hospitals do already have nurses explain some basics to parents at birth.  I know I learned most of what I know from the ICU nurses.



I wouldn't hold those studies to water, at least not with my experience. MY wife, a legal secretary, processes crime scene photos and has seen her share of baby bombs (what the legal people call babies thrown through windows when they are only secured with aseatbelt (or nothing) in the backseat. 

Not pretty.


----------



## Aurora (Dec 3, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> As for nurses, I think most hospitals do already have nurses explain some basics to parents at birth.  I know I learned most of what I know from the ICU nurses.



Ah, but NCU nurses are much different than the regular ones in my experience.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 4, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I wouldn't hold those studies to water, at least not with my experience. MY wife, a legal secretary, processes crime scene photos and has seen her share of baby bombs (what the legal people call babies thrown through windows when they are only secured with aseatbelt (or nothing) in the backseat.
> 
> Not pretty.




Again.  Not talking about infants.  It's clear that without some sort of special restraint, an infant would just become a projectile in a crash.


----------



## DonTadow (Dec 5, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Again.  Not talking about infants.  It's clear that without some sort of special restraint, an infant would just become a projectile in a crash.



Whether its infants, toddler or kids if their below a certain height they can easily come out the safety belt.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 5, 2006)

Look, I'm not saying that it's not a debateable point.  But I am saying that the data is not necessarily pointing in the direction everyone tends to think it is.  Your evidence is anecdotal, and this is not.

Short: http://www.nd.edu/~jwarlick/documents/Seat_beltLevitt.pdf
Long: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/doyle-levitt car seat injuries.pdf

Am I going to put my kid in a carseat?  Of course I am.  Is it in the best interest of my child?  Who knows?

The entire point of the Freakonomics book was that if people actually spent the time to analyze the data, they'd come up with all sorts of unintuitive results.  Carseats are not necessarily safer; a swimming pool at home is far more dangerous than a gun at home; etc.


----------



## DonTadow (Dec 5, 2006)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Look, I'm not saying that it's not a debateable point.  But I am saying that the data is not necessarily pointing in the direction everyone tends to think it is.  Your evidence is anecdotal, and this is not.
> 
> Short: http://www.nd.edu/~jwarlick/documents/Seat_beltLevitt.pdf
> Long: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/doyle-levitt car seat injuries.pdf
> ...




And thus theproblem when reports are created to specifically disprove something. Both the govn'ts data and big three's data (even the data you present) say that car seats are safer. 

I could care less if the numbers say 54 percent or 100 percent if it is safer its safer, which is what both of those reports say. Bottom line is that they are safer. 

Thats factual. Now, if you want to play the numbers game with your children to prove "the man" is trying to control your life too much go right ahead. But most concerned parents don't gamble like that.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 6, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> And thus theproblem when reports are created to specifically disprove something. Both the govn'ts data and big three's data (even the data you present) say that car seats are safer.
> 
> I could care less if the numbers say 54 percent or 100 percent if it is safer its safer, which is what both of those reports say. Bottom line is that they are safer.
> 
> Thats factual. Now, if you want to play the numbers game with your children to prove "the man" is trying to control your life too much go right ahead. But most concerned parents don't gamble like that.




Maybe you should read that article a little closer before declaring "facts".  Carseats are 54% safer than not restraining your child AT ALL.  They're 54% safer than no seatbelt whatsoever.  It doesn't take a genius to figure that carseats are safer than nothing.  The point of the paper is that once you account for putting the kid in the backseat and putting them into a seatbelt...  Carseats aren't really any safer for children over 2.  And seatbelts aren't costing us $300 million a year.

The authors are economists, who if nothing else are extremely good at looking at statistical correlation.  It's what they do.  It's not like they have a major stake in disproving the efficacy of car seats.  This doesn't come from the car-seat haters of America.  In fact the authors themselves are trying to determine why the margin is so small given that other studies using other survey methods seem to show different results.

The paper was using government data (plus insurance industry data) of hundreds of thousands of car crashes.  So saying that the government data proves it safer is not entirely accurate, it is?  

If "the man" constitutes statistics, then yes.  The man is out to get you.

I think I'm going to let this thread die its lonely death now.  Feel free to have the last word, if you like.


----------

