# Businesses saying keep the rowdy children at home.



## frankthedm (Nov 10, 2005)

About damn time.  



> November 9, 2005
> At Center of a Clash, Rowdy Children in Coffee Shops
> By JODI WILGOREN
> CHICAGO, Nov. 8 - Bridget Dehl shushed her 21-month-old son, Gavin, then clapped a hand over his mouth to squelch his tiny screams amid the Sunday brunch bustle. When Gavin kept yelping "yeah, yeah, yeah," Ms. Dehl whisked him from his highchair and out the door.
> ...


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Nov 10, 2005)

I have a 23 month old daughter and I don't have a problem with this.

A diner who has paid for a meal has paid for the ambiance of the restaurant as well.  

Personally, I'd like to see more no-child places.  When I take the wife out on a date it's no fun sitting next to a family with a screaming kid.  I just shelled out $50 for a babysitter and I still have to put up with a toddler?  No thanks.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 10, 2005)

> Mr. McCauley, 44, said the protesting parents were "former cheerleaders and beauty queens" who "have a very strong sense of entitlement." In an open letter he handed out at the bakery, he warned of an "epidemic" of antisocial behavior.



 Too true.

Too bad he then went on to talk about some kind of positive energy vibes or something like that.  That diluted his credibility as someone with something meaningful to say.


----------



## Belen (Nov 10, 2005)

My wife and I were at Friday's one evening and this couple let their kid run around the aisles.  The kid would scream when they made even an attempt to have him sit down.  It was not until I asked the waitress "loudly" about receiving a free meal because of the severe discomfort that the father gave me a nasty look and took the kid outside.

Discipline the brat or stay at home!


----------



## spatha (Nov 10, 2005)

What I find funny is the parents complaining that they want to go to a cafe to relax. Well so do I and my idea of relaxation doesn't include running and screaming children. As a child the rule was if I act up we go home no matter where we were if we were out of the house. Even at a relatives. It is called respect. More people need to teach it to their children.


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 10, 2005)

Obviously, there's the subset of parents out there who simply ignore their kids' behavior entirely (as illustrated in the original article by the kid lying on the floor blocking the coffee line, and the kids hurling themselves against the display cases).  Yet, when these restaurants make these policies, it seems like it's the *other* parents with kids (the ones who *do* try to keep their kids well-behaved...but little kids are little kids, and perfect behavior just may not be possible) are the ones who get all upset.  I suspect that the really boorish parents (the first group) are oblivious to it all.

This is all part of a big change that our society has undergone in the past 30-40 years.  When I was a kid, we rarely went to nicer, sit-down restaurants.  Those places were generally "adult" locations, where there was no need to police kid behavior, because kids were rarely there (the only time we ever went was for special occasions).  

This generation of parents has no interest in stopping doing the things that they used to do before they had kids, just because they have kids.  So, if they used to go to the coffee house to relax before, they'll still do it, bringing the kids along.  As a result, unless you're talking about the very fanciest of restaurants or stores, there's no way to get away from having kids there.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 10, 2005)

Interesting article.

Indeed, the sense of entitlement of some parents is shocking. I found the quotes from the "psychologist and corporate coach" and that "Laura Brauer" to be particularly amusing.

You had kids - face it, your lifestyle is going to change, sparky.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2005)

I thought discriminating was illegal.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 10, 2005)

I don't believe there's any law that protects parents from discrimination.

Besides, calling this discrimination is pretty disingenious, IMO.


----------



## JimAde (Nov 10, 2005)

<soapbox>
I have two children (ages 7 and 3) and we take them to all sorts of restaurants.  The most out-of-hand either has ever gotten is that the 3-year-old likes to go under the table from bench to bench when we sit at a booth.  No yelling, no screaming, certainly no running around (though I've _walked_ around a big restaurant with him to keep him entertained when the service was especially slow).

Either I have Stepford Children or people really need to get a handle on their kids.

</soapbox>


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 10, 2005)

JimAde said:
			
		

> Either I have Stepford Children or people really need to get a handle on their kids.



The latter.  I was pretty amused by all the complaints of "that's what kids do."  Really?  Mine don't, at least not when they're out.  I have a funny feeling that these same complainers sure didn't get to act like that if they were out when they were kids either.


----------



## spatha (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I thought discriminating was illegal.



How is a sign stating "children of all ages have to behave and use their indoor voices when coming to A Taste of Heaven"  discrimination?


----------



## Black Pharaoh (Nov 10, 2005)

my son is generally well behaved when we take him out. THe worst thing he does is stand on the bencha nd try to talk to the people in the next booth, who usually talk back to him.
My wife will not tolerate him acting up and he usually gets one warning and then a trip to the car, he knows she isn't kidding and usually straightens right up. At home he even knows to go to his room on his own when he is having a tantrum.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2005)

spatha said:
			
		

> How is a sign stating "children of all ages have to behave and use their indoor voices when coming to A Taste of Heaven"  discrimination?




Because you are allowing in these kids but not these kids


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Because you are allowing in these kids but not these kids




It'd be the same if a guy was being loud and obnoxious and bothering other customers, right?


----------



## JimAde (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Because you are allowing in these kids but not these kids



 I don't think requiring a certain level of behavior is discrimination.  That's like saying it's discriminatory to throw loud, obnoxious drunks out of a bar while the quiet, friendly drunks can stay as long as they want.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> It'd be the same if a guy was being loud and obnoxious and bothering other customers, right?




From my experience though those people are allowed in places.


----------



## spatha (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Because you are allowing in these kids but not these kids



No he isn't, he is allowing all kids. But to be in there they have to behave. Just like in school it is expected in class you have to shut up and behave or you are sent to the office. For this store if you don't shut up and behave you'll be asked to leave.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2005)

spatha said:
			
		

> No he isn't, he is allowing all kids. But to be in there they have to behave. Just like in school it is expected in class you have to shut up and behave or you are sent to the office. For this store if you don't shut up and behave you'll be asked to leave.




well, schools and places of business are treated very differently and have different rules.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 10, 2005)

Now can we have the 'no kid' theater, please?


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Because you are allowing in these kids but not these kids



C'mon, Crothian, it's not discrimination to not allow disruptive "customers" into your place of business.  Surely you didn't think that was illegal?

Are you trolling?

EDIT:  See BG's post.  Maybe it's the region I grew up in, but yeah, disruptive people were thrown out of stores pretty regularly.  Otherwise, you're discriminating against the non-disruptive customers.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> From my experience though those people are allowed in places.




True.  But if they act up, they're expected to leave.  

We have different standards for kids.  I don't think anyone expects a toddler to remain sedate for an extended period of time.  It isn't a waiter's job to discipline my kid, it's my job and I should take that as a responsibility. 

The policy isn't really against the kids, it's against the parents.  No kid is going to want to go into a hip coffehouse or swanky restaurant.  The rule is really against the parents and it's the same rule that applies to obnoxious and loud people.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 10, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Now can we have the 'no kid' theater, please?




I would pay an extra dollar for that.


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 10, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Now can we have the 'no kid' theater, please?




No kidding.  What I can't believe is the *little* kids that I see dragged along to violent movies...I'm talking about 3- and 4-year-olds at movies like Lord of the Rings, Revenge of the Sith, the Matrix, etc.  When I went to see RotS, there were a whole bunch of little kids there...and, at the end, there was a lot of little kids crying, and undoubtedly going to have nightmares.  (Though, at least, they'll have a healthy fear / respect for lava.)

I swear, there are too many parents out there who just don't think.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> C'mon, Crothian, it's not discrimination to not allow disruptive "customers" into your place of business.  Surely you didn't think that was illegal?




Who's not allowing disruptive people in their places?  You have people on cell phones talking loud, some places you have drunks, you have guys hanging around hitting on people....

Disruptive people are allowed in businesses all the time.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> From my experience though those people are allowed in places.




Only by businesses who either don't want to bother with it, or employees who don't care or don't want to get involved. Most businesses have the right to refuse service to whomever they want as long as race or gender is not involved. "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" is a perfect example of this. I don't want to see someone's hairy back or smell their stinking feet when I sit down to eat, so there's no reason I should have to put up with their screaming misbehaving kids either.

I'm not talking about the occassional raised voice, but kids that play in the aisles by running and acting like they are on a playground, or a kid having a full-blown screaming temper tantrum. Usually they'll be dealt with by being taken to the bathroom and paddled or maybe a quick couple of pops at the table - really young kids usually just get taken outside for the duration since there _is _ no shutting them up. But for every four that do that, there will be the one set of parents that act as if nothing at all unusual is happening and continue to dine or talk with their friends as normal while their kid screams or throws things or runs around with a toy, or whatever. 

I have seen businesses, rarely, ask someone to leave. Our theater has done that at least a couple of times with roudy theater-hoppers and that has won them my undying loyalty.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Otherwise, you're discriminating against the non-disruptive customers.




How, they are being allowed in.


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Who's not allowing disruptive people in their places?  You have people on cell phones talking loud, some places you have drunks, you have guys hanging around hitting on people....
> 
> Disruptive people are allowed in businesses all the time.




That just means that the management of said businesses aren't doing anything about it.  Businesses *do* have the right to refuse service to people.  I've seen loud drunks asked to leave restaurants and ballparks, people asked to take their cell phones out of the theater, etc.  Unfortunately, it just doesn't happen frequently enough.

Society's just completely lost its spine about enforcing any kind of social contract regarding rude behavior.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2005)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> That just means that the management of said businesses aren't doing anything about it.  Businesses *do* have the right to refuse service to people.  I've seen loud drunks asked to leave restaurants and ballparks, people asked to take their cell phones out of the theater, etc.  Unfortunately, it just doesn't happen frequently enough.
> 
> Society's just completely lost its spine about enforcing any kind of social contract regarding rude behavior.




Exactly, so now you have mothers and kids being picked on becasue this guy feels he can bully them.  But the big bad drunks people don't do much about.

I'm not saying its a bad rule, I'm saying that as long as it is not being enforced equaly it is discrimination.


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Exactly, so now you have mothers and kids being picked on becasue this guy feels he can bully them.  But the big bad drunks people don't do much about.




I bet you a dollar that the cafe owner in the article would throw a loud drunk out, too.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Who's not allowing disruptive people in their places?  You have people on cell phones talking loud, some places you have drunks, you have guys hanging around hitting on people....
> 
> Disruptive people are allowed in businesses all the time.



I've seen all of the above thrown out of businesses.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Exactly, so now you have mothers and kids being picked on becasue this guy feels he can bully them.  But the big bad drunks people don't do much about.



C'mon, Crothian.  Big bad drunks don't go to cute little coffee houses in trendy neighborhoods.  And how do you know he hasn't thrown them out?


			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> I'm not saying its a bad rule, I'm saying that as long as it is not being enforced equaly it is discrimination.



Not in the legal sense.  Which I presume is what you are arguing.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> How, they are being allowed in.



Because they don't go to coffee houses to listen to screaming kids.  They aren't being served with the ambience that is one of the main reasons they go there.  Denial of service is also discrimination.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Exactly, so now you have mothers and kids being picked on becasue this guy feels he can bully them.  But the big bad drunks people don't do much about.




I doubt that he gets many "Big Bad Drunks" at his Positve-Energy Scone Shoppe 

The guy also doesn't seem to be banning arsonists, but I suspect that he would object to someone lighting fires in his place.

I think he's dealing with problems that have already come up. 



> I'm not saying its a bad rule, I'm saying that as long as it is not being enforced equaly it is discrimination.




it's being enforced equally. 

The rule applies to uncontrolled children. All uncontrolled children are barred from the place.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 10, 2005)

I have an 18 month old and I certainly do not take him out to restaurants and expect it to be relaxing.  We went to a local restaurant for my B-day this week and it's a little nicer than what we typically take him to.  He was not in the best of moods, but we tried to feed him as quickly as we could and then my wife took him home (my family was present).  He was being too whiny and we did not feel it was appropriate to keep him there.  I have no problem with what this restaurant owner has done.

Also, I worked entertainment/retail management for about 4.5 years and I threw customers out left and right at the different stores I worked at.  Called the cops more than once.


----------



## spatha (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> well, schools and places of business are treated very differently and have different rules.



Really let me see.
School must be quiet, must behave, must not act up and fool around

Rules for my son and me when a child when out in a public place like a restaraunt, theater, mall etc. must be quiet, must behave, must not act up and fool around


So how are there different rules. I really am not following you as I thought society as a whole expected cetain things when in public from people of all ages and that is to act respctfully and not be distruptive to others.


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 10, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> But for every four that do that, there will be the one set of parents that act as if nothing at all unusual is happening and continue to dine or talk with their friends as normal while their kid screams or throws things or runs around with a toy, or whatever.




I'm not sure but the term that is coming to mind is "passive aggressive."


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2005)

spatha said:
			
		

> So how are there different rules. I really am not following you as I thought society as a whole expected cetain things when in public from people of all ages and that is to act respctfully and not be distruptive to others.




If you don't realize how a school and a resturant are different, then let me just start with there are laws that say people have to goto school.  rResturants are not like that  Schools are not a public place like a resturant is. In ohio I can carry a concealed weapon in resuturants.  I'm pretty sure I can't do that at a school.  That is just a few of the many differences.  

But I guess its just not good for one person to try to have a different opinion around here.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 10, 2005)

I like how everyone is focusing on the bad kids and ignoring the people harrassed or made to feel unwelcome because their kids *gasp* made noise. 


> Ms. Miller said that one day when her son, then 4 months old, was fussing, a staff member rolled her eyes and announced for all to hear, "We've got a screamer!"
> 
> Kim Cavitt recalled having coffee and a cookie one afternoon with her boisterous 2-year-old when "someone came over and said you just need to keep her quiet or you need to leave."




If you want your perfect child free environment, stay home. Out in the world, there are these other people, some have kids, some kids make noise, or move or otherwise make their existance known. Once in a long while, you run into someone who is truely rude, but most of this fuss is just people who can't stand to share. 

and this:







> Mr. McCauley, 44, said the protesting parents were "former cheerleaders and beauty queens" who "have a very strong sense of entitlement."



Removes this guy permanently from the list of people I have any respect for. If all you have is mindless insults, keep it to yourself. He's the real world version of an internet troll.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Nov 10, 2005)

As a parent of two (ages 6 and 3), I can see both sides of this.  They can post their rules, and they have every right to, and I would probably not take a chance of going there as some days my kids do act up.   Do I let them run rampant?  No.  But some days they are going to push the limits of parental tolerance as far as they can.  Oh, and I probably wouldn't waste my time and $$$ with a place like this even when I don't have the kids.

And to the restaurant operators out there - if you have a family with kids in your place, make sure the service is responsive.  Most of the times where my kids have gotten out of control, a huge part of the problem was waiting a freakin' long time to get a server to take our order, bring out our food, and/or get the check.  

I completely support the idea of a "no kids" section in any restaurant.  It should be located close to the bar.  "Kids allowed" sections should be close to the restrooms.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 10, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Because they don't go to coffee houses to listen to screaming kids.  They aren't being served with the ambience that is one of the main reasons they go there.  Denial of service is also discrimination.



*snicker* denial of ambiance. Thats a new one.


----------



## der_kluge (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I thought discriminating was illegal.




Companies can refuse to take business from anyone if they so desire.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2005)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Companies can refuse to take business from anyone if they so desire.




That's not true.  I can't refuse people that are blue in color in a business I won.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 10, 2005)

JimAde said:
			
		

> <soapbox>
> I have two children (ages 7 and 3) and we take them to all sorts of restaurants.  The most out-of-hand either has ever gotten is that the 3-year-old likes to go under the table from bench to bench when we sit at a booth.  No yelling, no screaming, certainly no running around (though I've _walked_ around a big restaurant with him to keep him entertained when the service was especially slow).
> 
> Either I have Stepford Children or people really need to get a handle on their kids.
> ...



or you are looking at a spoiled antichild reaction that defines movement as "running around", and normal infant/toddler fussing as "screaming." 

I did a lot of eating out and going places over my vacation, and I saw not one parent who didn't have a handle on their kids. The kids did things such as move or make noise, shocking as that may be, but I'm not buying the strawman thats supposedly being reacted to here.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 10, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> ...If you want your perfect child free environment, stay home. Out in the world, there are these other people, some have kids, some kids make noise, or move or otherwise make their existance known. Once in a long while, you run into someone who is truely rude, but most of this fuss is just people who can't stand to share...




Uh, no. Why should I stay home rather than those making the disturbance.

Check this out

This guy has staked his business on the notion that he is providing a service that people would like to patronize. One thatinvolves not having children around. 

None of these parents or their supporters seems to be denying that kids can be pains in the ass. What they do seem to be denying is that _they are not responsible for it in ay way_

If a business owner doesn't want children around because his clients (or he) finds them annoying, then I see it as nothing different than banning smoking, banning ghetto blasters, or  banning cell phones. If he is willing to take an economic hit (or just target his market elsewhere) then more power to him

It's his business. If the "Entitled Moms" don't wish to patronize his business anymore, then more power to them...it seems like a meeting of minds: they aren't welcome at his placeof business and they don't want to be there. Agreement.

But to say somehting like "..If you want your perfect child free environment, stay home. Out in the world, there are these other people, some have kids, some kids make noise, or move or otherwise make their existance known..."

Well, that's just _ignorant_. If you feel that it's somehow your right to inflct _your_ difficult choices on the unwitting public (childrearing) then you are really, truly the selfish person in this equation.

There are amillion "Family restaurants" in North America. 

Patronize those.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 10, 2005)

Just think, people. Children and fat people are the only two groups we can still discriminate against, and at least fat people get to vote.

I say, universal suffrage! We'll let the children vote on whether they think this coffee shop owner is violating their civil rights. And then we'll elect Britney Spears as the next president of the United States, abolish all homework, and mandate sending all old people to Florida because they're stinky poo-poo heads.



The litmus test is, 'Are you being rude?' Letting your children be loud and irritating in a normal restaurant is rude. Letting them be loud and irritating in a family restaurant is fine. 

Telling parents, "Please quiet your children down," is fine. If they then can't quiet their children down, asking them, "Could you please take your children outside? They're disrupting the other customers," is fine. Try to be polite, and maybe offer the kid a cookie or something to calm him down while the waiter puts the parents' food in a to-go box, but be clear that the restaurant is not a kid's place, and you would appreciate if they not bring their children anymore, unless they're better behaved.

On the other hand, telling parents, "God! Could you shut up your stupid kid? Why do people like you not use birth control?!" is a bit rude.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 10, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *snicker* denial of ambiance. Thats a new one.




You don't think Ambiance is a selling point at a restaurant?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> If a business owner doesn't want children around because his clients (or he) finds them annoying, then I see it as nothing different than banning smoking, banning ghetto blasters, or  banning cell phones. If he is willing to take an economic hit (or just target his market elsewhere) then more power to him




Banning people and banning cell phones are way different.  Children are a type of people.  Now if he wants to make the establishment truely adult in nature he can and make it proivate, and serve alchohol and then kids won't be alloud in.  But since that is obviously not the case, then he has to deal with the kids.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 10, 2005)

No, Crothian, he doesn't.

The thing is, he's disciminating based on behavior, not on appearance, sex, or belief. I don't see that as a negative thing. I see it as responsibility.

I mean, it's not like there are only two types of businesses -- family and adult. There are gradients. Chuckee-Cheeze is different from a Chinese Buffet is different from Starbucks is different from Olive Garden is different from The Abbey (a $50 a person romantic restaurant in Atlanta). And all those are different from The Pink Pony (take a wild guess what kind of place _that_ is).

In a perfect world, he wouldn't _have_ to say it, but basically all he's doing is putting up a sign for the morons who don't realize, "Hey, the social norms of our culture indicate this restaurant is a place for mature relaxation, not for loud kids. Don't be surprised if, when you break the social contract, I ask you to leave."


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> No, Crothian, he doesn't.




Yes he does.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Yes he does.




Nuh uh!


----------



## fett527 (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Yes he does.



He can refuse to serve any particular individual in his store he wants to.  he cannot discrimiante against anyone based on color, creed or religion.  If he doesn't want whiny kids in his store he can ask the parents to leave. He can even call the cops when they refuse.


----------



## buzzard (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> If you don't realize how a school and a resturant are different, then let me just start with there are laws that say people have to goto school.  rResturants are not like that  Schools are not a public place like a resturant is. In ohio I can carry a concealed weapon in resuturants.  I'm pretty sure I can't do that at a school.  That is just a few of the many differences.




And it is covered within the scope of the concealed carry law that if the establisment posts that they don't want concealed weapons, it is illegal to bring them inside. You know a condition for service, rather akin to "Keep your children in line", though with substancially more forceful backing than the child sign. 



> But I guess its just not good for one person to try to have a different opinion around here.




Ah yes, you poor martyr being set upon while you stand up for the opressed. Spare us please. 

Excluding behavior is not discrimination. The sign does not ban all kids, it bans misbehaving kids. If that distiction is too much for you, then I suspect we might as well be arguing with a brick wall.

buzzard


----------



## spatha (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Banning people and banning cell phones are way different.  Children are a type of people.  Now if he wants to make the establishment truely adult in nature he can and make it proivate, and serve alchohol and then kids won't be alloud in.  But since that is obviously not the case, then he has to deal with the kids.



He is not banning people. He is asking people with kids to keep them quiet and under control. That is something expected of kids in any public place I have been in. The unfortunate part is too many parents out there don't control their kids, this ruins the enjoyment of the other people around them.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Banning people and banning cell phones are way different.  Children are a type of people.



Once again, you completely miss the point, Crothian.  Kids aren't banned, only behavior is.  That's not discrimination.


----------



## werk (Nov 10, 2005)

I have fresh memories of having a toddler sitting behind me on a completely full airplane.  He would kick the back of my seat, his tray, very hard and frequently.  After several looks at the mother, and a brief discussion where she told me she had absolutely no control over the child and no desire to discipline him, the flight attendant asked, "what are we supposed to do?"  I asked what they would do if I started screaming and kicking the seat in front of me and wouldn't listen to anyone...maybe they should try that.  I sat the whole flight in the upright and locked position with a blanket drapped over the back of my seat (sometimes you gotta create your own solutions).

I love children, truly I do, there's just no excusing rude behavior.  I compare it to someone going shopping with a 10' pole on their shoulder.  It knocks stuff over, makes noise, and just generally imposes on anyone near that person.  Now the person with the pole says, "What am I supposed to do? I got this big pole on my shoulder?  What am I supposed to do?"  Answer, don't go out, or go to places where everyone has a 10' pole on their shoulder so no one cares.


----------



## buzzard (Nov 10, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I like how everyone is focusing on the bad kids and ignoring the people harrassed or made to feel unwelcome because their kids *gasp* made noise.




Do you fail to understand the difference between a child making noise and being disruptive? Children running into display cases or screaming at the top of their lungs are not merely "making noise". 

This is like saying that the cops arresting a drunk for pissing on a doorstep are harassing him. That's plain rubbish. 

The quote in question is very likely a biased account. It is plainly evident than the "put upon" parents in the article think they are incapable of doing wrong. 



> If you want your perfect child free environment, stay home. Out in the world, there are these other people, some have kids, some kids make noise, or move or otherwise make their existance known. Once in a long while, you run into someone who is truely rude, but most of this fuss is just people who can't stand to share.




Yes, of course, I'm the one causing trouble by sitting quietly eating my meal while the brat at the next table sees if he can shatter the windows like an opera singer. Silly me. 

When I was a kid and was taken to a nice restaurant, I was quiet or the trip ended quickly.  



> and this:
> Removes this guy permanently from the list of people I have any respect for. If all you have is mindless insults, keep it to yourself. He's the real world version of an internet troll.




Somehow I doubt he will be broken hearted to lose your business. 

buzzard


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Banning people and banning cell phones are way different.  Children are a type of people.  Now if he wants to make the establishment truely adult in nature he can and make it proivate, and serve alchohol and then kids won't be alloud in.  But since that is obviously not the case, then he has to deal with the kids.




What the...?

You're saying that only if he starts selling alcohol should he be able to "reserve the right to refuse service"?

That's nonsensical.

Children are denied all mannner of rights accorded to adults until the age of majorty. they can't vote, they can't sign contracts, they can't drive, they are largely _not_ responsible for their actions (thus the "Young Offenders" provisions in most western law).

As such, they are largely considered property of their parents. Specialized property to be sure--they must be cared for, provided for and educated--but they are not what are classically defined as "citizens"

As such, their parents are repsonisble for their behaviour. 

If a 30 year old woman began to shriek in the restaurant because she was "tired" and "fussy" or is a 40 year old man spent the time waiting for his meal running up and down the aisles of my restaurant...I'd ask them to leave.

Now, f their charges (children)--for whose behaviour they are responsible--did the same, I would ask their Handlers to get them under control or, yes,...leave.

There's nothing wrong with that. It is the very situation which csued the rise of "Family Restaurants". Now if the "Entitled Moms" don't like fmaily restaurants, then there is no need to patronize them. Patronize whatever place you like that is welcoming of your shrieking kids.

But when you are asked to leave becasue your kid is ruining the ambiance--yes, ambiance--of a restaurant that _doesn't_ wish to be a "Family Restaurant" then have the common decency to clear out.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 10, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> or you are looking at a spoiled antichild reaction that defines movement as "running around", and normal infant/toddler fussing as "screaming."








Speaking of strawman... yeah, why don't you make up some point that no one has made yet and argue against that some more?  


			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I did a lot of eating out and going places over my vacation, and I saw not one parent who didn't have a handle on their kids. The kids did things such as move or make noise, shocking as that may be, but I'm not buying the strawman thats supposedly being reacted to here.



Speaking of strawman... again...

Nobody is saying "don't take your kids out," they're saying that there are certain places where certain behavior is unacceptable.  If you or your kids can't handle that, you may be asked to leave, and if you have any respect for anyone other than yourself, you'll probably not take them there in the first place.

I don't pretend to have perfect kids everytime we go out in public.  Then again, I don't take my kids everywhere I go either.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2005)

buzzard said:
			
		

> Ah yes, you poor martyr being set upon while you stand up for the opressed. Spare us please.




If you want spered leave the thread   :\ 

I just made the comment since some people were being rude and cannot even see how someone might disagree with them


----------



## buzzard (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> If you want spered leave the thread   :\
> 
> I just made the comment since some people were being rude and cannot even see how someone might disagree with them




No, I think being are dubfounded at how an otherwise rational person (you) can posit such a preposterous position (banning misbehaving children is discrimination). 

People can understand disagreement. They have trouble with arguments which lack reasoning. 

buzzard


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Nov 10, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> If a business owner doesn't want children around because his clients (or he) finds them annoying, then I see it as nothing different than banning smoking, banning ghetto blasters, or  banning cell phones. If he is willing to take an economic hit (or just target his market elsewhere) then more power to him
> 
> It's his business. If the "Entitled Moms" don't wish to patronize his business anymore, then more power to them...it seems like a meeting of minds: they aren't welcome at his placeof business and they don't want to be there. Agreement.



Exactly correct.  If they are decent about how they treat people with kids who start to act up, I might go there myself when I want an evening with just my wife.  If they are a-holes about it, I wouldn't bother. 



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> Banning people and banning cell phones are way different. Children are a type of people. Now if he wants to make the establishment truely adult in nature he can and make it proivate, and serve alchohol and then kids won't be alloud in. But since that is obviously not the case, then he has to deal with the kids.




Sorry Crothian, but I can't agree with you.  All kids are permitted to enter the place and as long as they follow the rules they can stay.  If he said no latino children permitted, _that_ would be discrimination.  There is no discrimination because he has not denied service to a particular group until they break the rules.  If he does not apply the rules equally to all children, then there may be a case for discrimination.  And if he did not kick out an adult who was running around, being loud and obnoxious, then maybe there also might be a case.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 10, 2005)

buzzard said:
			
		

> No, I think being are dubfounded at how an otherwise rational person (you) can posit such a preposterous position (banning misbehaving children is discrimination).
> 
> People can understand disagreement. They have trouble with arguments which lack reasoning.



yeah, if you're referring to me, that's exactly what I'm thinking, Crothian.  You're on a really slippery slope there, too.  Your (apparent) definition of discrimination is little more than "anyone who doesn't give me whatever I want is discriminating against me."

Hmmm... I wonder if there's an angle for more sex in there somewhere...


----------



## Eridanis (Nov 10, 2005)

C'mon, folks. Let's keep a thread about incivility from turning uncivil. Back to your corners, please.


----------



## spatha (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> If you want spered leave the thread   :\
> 
> I just made the comment since some people were being rude and cannot even see how someone might disagree with them



No that isn't what is happening. You are claiming discrimination when none is happening. Many people have pointed this out to you and you have ignored them.  Here is the definition of the word: *Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit*; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners. 

Not the bolded part. That is the key here. These kids aren't being targeted based on age they are being targeted based on action which  would fall under individual merit hence not discrimination. If he said no kids allowed I'd give you your discrimination argument. But he isn't.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 10, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> That's nonsensical.




Jeff . . . I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to ask ya to leave. Or at least to start serving alcohol. If I were drunk, I'd have more of a tolerance for this conversation.

Basically, I think we've reached the point where no one is going to change anyone's mind. Let's end the discussion, shall we, and be adult about it.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian, you cannot legally discriminate against people based on certain *protected categories.*  For instance, you cannot (in the U.S.) discriminate based on color, religion, gender, etc.  Behavior isn't a protected category.  The sign even implicitly applies to adults equally as to kids.  The owner isn't saying, "Kids A B and C can't come in, but kids D, E and F can."  He's saying, "Well, kid A is being disruptive today, so he has to leave.  If he's good tomorrow, he can come back."  The problem is, some parents are saying, "My kid doesn't have to be good at all!"


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2005)

buzzard said:
			
		

> No, I think being are dubfounded at how an otherwise rational person (you) can posit such a preposterous position (banning misbehaving children is discrimination).




The problem is the definition of misbehaving.  Misbehaving according to who and enforced by who?  I think people read this and see it being enforced perfectly fairly, but I don't.  I think it will be a differnet defintion of behavor different days and the guy is already hating these moms he feels are spoiled so I see him targeting their kids specifically.  So, its the start of a slippery sloap.


----------



## buzzard (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The problem is the definition of misbehaving.  Misbehaving according to who and enforced by who?  I think people read this and see it being enforced perfectly fairly, but I don't.  I think it will be a differnet defintion of behavor different days and the guy is already hating these moms he feels are spoiled so I see him targeting their kids specifically.  So, its the start of a slippery sloap.




So you have cast the business owner as the villain, and because of this any effort to control unruly children is a bad thing? 

Why don't you just say that the business owner is a stupid git and has something against certain types of women?

In any case, it's not like the business provides a lifegiving service. That's the beauty of the free market, people can decide they don't like a proprietor's attitude and go to a different business. Only the vendor suffers for being a git. 

It would seem to me that the general sentiment expressed here is that most people would like to see more public places require parents to actually keep their kids in line. Whether or not this particular businessman is a git or not is only tangential. 

buzzard


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The problem is the definition of misbehaving.  Misbehaving according to who and enforced by who?  I think people read this and see it being enforced perfectly fairly, but I don't.  I think it will be a differnet defintion of behavor different days and the guy is already hating these moms he feels are spoiled so I see him targeting their kids specifically.  So, its the start of a slippery sloap.




Which, as the owner of the business in question, he's perfectly allowed to do.  If people don't like it (as you clearly don't), they're allowed to vote with their wallets.  If he's made a bad business decision, then he'll suffer the consequences.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2005)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> Which, as the owner of the business in question, he's perfectly allowed to do.  If people don't like it (as you clearly don't), they're allowed to vote with their wallets.  If he's made a bad business decision, then he'll suffer the consequences.




Trust me, I plan on never doing any business with this place every again


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2005)

buzzard said:
			
		

> So you have cast the business owner as the villain, and because of this any effort to control unruly children is a bad thing?




No, I cast him as a villian since he cast the women as a villian.  Personally, I could care less about the whole thing.


----------



## werk (Nov 10, 2005)

the Jester said:
			
		

> The problem is, some parents are saying, "My kid doesn't have to be good at all!"




And those parents will be rewarded...in time.


----------



## Fenris (Nov 10, 2005)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> No kidding.  What I can't believe is the *little* kids that I see dragged along to violent movies...I'm talking about 3- and 4-year-olds at movies like Lord of the Rings, Revenge of the Sith, the Matrix, etc.  When I went to see RotS, there were a whole bunch of little kids there...and, at the end, there was a lot of little kids crying, and undoubtedly going to have nightmares.  (Though, at least, they'll have a healthy fear / respect for lava.)
> 
> I swear, there are too many parents out there who just don't think.




When my wife and I went to see The Two Towers (we played hookey so the kids were in day care) we could believe how many young kids there were there. We were making all the comments to ourselves. Then the movies started. It was the Thornberrys. We were in the wrong theatre   

Of course when we got to the right theatre, there were still too many young kids but they weren't so small.


----------



## JoeBlank (Nov 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> But I guess its just not good for one person to try to have a different opinion around here.




Come on, man. No one said you can't have a different opinion. But if you opinion differs from that of others then they just might like to discuss it with you. That is all I see here, people discussing opinions on the subject. 

There was one post asking if you were trolling, but I think it was a genuine question, not meant as an accusation.


----------



## StupidSmurf (Nov 10, 2005)

People, please!!! All this mean bickering is giving me a big case of ambiance denial!   

OK, anyways....for what it's worth, here's my opinion/reactions. Bear in mind I'm a dad/grizzled veteran of four kids....current ages 18-10.

1. I can pay money at a batting cage and swing a baseball bat around to my heart's content. I cannot expect to swing a baseball bat in a restaurant, even if I am a paying customer. There's a place for everything. If I go to a nice restaurant, I expect a relaxing, enjoyable time without screeching noises, flying food, and prone child bodies in the aisles. I'll be disappointed in anything less. If I go to Chuck E Cheese's, I expect a day of living screaming kid Hell, with numerous audio/visual assaults. I'd be disappointed in anything less   

2. I for one have been MORTIFIED and EMBARRASSED if my kids have acted rudely in a restaurant or movie theater. If a verbal demand for quiet hasn't been complied with, I've dragged the kid away from the public area, so as not to bother others. Finding a quieter, out of the way private place, I would then be free to administer discipline (or justice...or vengeance...you make the call!).

3. What?? You mean, as a parent, we're expected to make some sacrifices? Our price to pay, so to speak, for reproducing? Damn straight we do! After work today, there's nothing my wife and I would like more than hit Chili's, get a few beers, then check into a hotel and have red-hot weasel sex for 5 hours. As it happens, instead we have to dash out of work and pick up the youngest at her after-school care program, go home, make dinner, and then I have to go pick up my youngest son from someplace else. Sucks to be us, huh? But those are the things you gotta do when you're a parent. We suck up and deal. Why punish those who haven't made the same choices we have?

4. I've seen too many fellow parents who have this bizarre sense of entitlement, almost as if they're taking the whole "We need to get on that lifeboat...we have children!" mentality and applying it with a fire hose to every other situation in life. Hey, parents who have this bizarre sense of entitlement...cut it out, eh? You're making the rest of us look bad, you hosers!

5. Oh, so a staff person complaining to a parent about their unruly child is disturbing the relaxation of the parent? Gee whiz. What about the poor schlub who's paid for his/her meal and just wants an hour of enjoying their food in peace, and instead is subjected to the collateral splash-effects of thrown lettuce, while being serenaded with the 5678th rendering of SpongeBob Squarepants? Where's THEIR relaxation?

6. I'm sure that positive-vibe guy lost some customers because of his policy. But I'll bet you anything that he GAINED some too!

7. This may be preaching to some parts of the choir, but...raising kids is HARD WORK. And that sometimes means making the hard choices, or recognizing your limitations. That means getting off your lazy arse and disciplinging your larvae. Or at least realizing that, unless you have made arrangements, some places simply aren't for you at the present time.

8. Two words: Baby Sitter

9. And yes, while I agree that those unruly undisciplined kids will eventually "pay" their parents back, what do we do in the meantime? Some nebulous future payback that I won't see is scarce consolation for the fact that my dinner's getting ruined because Mrs Baby Factory and Mr DNA Donor can't control their own intimate byproducts.

10. As for kicking out unruly drunks or l*oudly* talking cel phone weenies, I pray that they're next, especially the latter.


----------



## JoeBlank (Nov 10, 2005)

I have BEEN an obnoxious drunk throw out of a bar. Physically, on my ass. And I deserved it. I had paid a cover charge to see a band too. It was some time ago, but I don't blame the bar at all, and actually I didn't blame them at the time.

I have also taken my sons outside of a restaurant to calm them down and remind them of the way to behave when they are in a public place, and a guest of someone else. My sons know the threat of being "taken to the van," and they are generally well behaved.


----------



## was (Nov 10, 2005)

-I don't want to jump on the bandwagon here, but I have been to several nice restaurants and movies where I have had the experience ruined by screaming, unruly children.
-That being said, I seriously do not believe it's the majority of parents who allow their children to behave this way, but it is the few that do who ruin it for those parents who teach their children what respect and manners are.
-The problem is, that when the parents of unruly children are confronted, they scream about their rights to raise their children anyway they wish.  They excuse the unruly behavior with the excuse that it's just 'kids being kids.' They then organize with others, many of whom have not been to the establishment, under the banner of 'concerned' parenthood.  They then rant continuously, telling others that this person or place is despicable and generally not family-friendly.
-I am of the belief that common courtesy means that one should not impose themselves, or their children, on others. When this courtesy is not extended, I believe that establishments have the right to take "reasonable' actions to ensure the comfort of their clients.


----------



## Zappo (Nov 10, 2005)

Hot damn. I can't describe how astonished I felt reading that people would boycott a place for instituing a rule which ought to be obvious. For some people, the world is really "me, myself and I" and the rights are "my rights". The day I see with my eyes a restaurant owner throwing out an annoying kid and all of his family, is the day I've found my new favorite place.

If and when I have kids, I'll be sure to either keep them quiet, keep them at home, or only bring them to places where customers don't expect quiet. That ought to be common courtesy. Kids being kids? They can "be kids" damn near everywhere, give me a single place where I can eat in peace, I don't think I'm asking for much.







			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Now can we have the 'no kid' theater, please?



I'd pay 50c more for that. And I'd pay 1€ more if the theater had a cellphone jammer and bouncers throwing out anyone who speaks loudly during projection. Families, drunks, and people who go to the theater to socialize already have several thousand establishments from which to choose.

And, of course, the same goes for restaurants.


----------



## Rel (Nov 10, 2005)

I was under the impression that if you were a private business you could determine who your clientelle was based on any criteria that you desire.  Like for example you could exclude women from belonging to your golf course and that way you could get a big bunch of protesters on your lawn and stuff.  If, on the other hand, you were a government facility, you had to take all comers.


----------



## Zappo (Nov 11, 2005)

I don't know about specific laws, but I know of places that _will_ throw you out if you are obnoxious and refuse to behave, without being private clubs (which have a lot more freedom in the way of throwing out people). It's a pity that they are a bit out of my financial league, though not so much that I can't go there every now and then. I just wish there was a cinema and a pizza restaurant with the same kind of good manners enforcement. Probably not economically advantageous I guess.


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 11, 2005)

It looks to me like no laws are being broken.  Cafe owner puts up rules for his establishment, parents who object boycott said establishment.  Everyone seems to be operating within the law (and thankfully, the media is available to fan the flames on both sides of the argument)...


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 11, 2005)

No, no laws are being broken.

That's why I was "jumping on" Crothian (sorry, Croth, if you felt put upon) because by implying that this was illegal discrimination, he was ratcheting up the drama unnecessarily.  If you don't agree with him doing that, that's one thing, but to imply that he was doing something illegal, or at least horribly wrong, on the other hand, wasn't going anywhere good.


----------



## Lobo Lurker (Nov 11, 2005)

Eh, kids will be kids... My daughter is a year and 2 months old. While she's well behaved, we do hear an occasional outburst (especially when she's tired or very happy). I wouldn't classify her a loud or obnoxious and would be offended if someone asked me to leave thier restaurant because of her.

BUT, she's not the type that goes running around all over the place screaming and crying. And when she _IS_ like that, we simply don't go out to nice restaurants.

I'm rambling now but my point is, Kids will be kids. They're not mature and they don't possess the self-control that adults (supposedly) possess. You can control them and teach them what they need to do in public places, but they're not dogs. If they decide to throw a tantrum then there will be wailing and screaming. As a contientious parent one should remove the child from the evironment that's causing thier distress; Both to calm the child and spare others in the area from having to deal with your child's noise.

Establishing 'no-kids' areas is just as fine as no-smoking areas, I guess. The problem with that is it's only a short jump from 'no-kids' to 'no-jews' or 'no-colored'. IMHO, this is a lawsuit just waiting to happen.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 11, 2005)

Lobo Lurker said:
			
		

> Establishing 'no-kids' areas is just as fine as no-smoking areas, I guess. The problem with that is it's only a short jump from 'no-kids' to 'no-jews' or 'no-colored'. IMHO, this is a lawsuit just waiting to happen.



I don't see it.  The reasoning and motivation for the two scenarios are two completely different attitudes, and have little to nothing in common.

I also don't see how any lawsuit could actually go anywhere with this.


----------



## Rel (Nov 11, 2005)

Lobo Lurker said:
			
		

> Eh, kids will be kids... My daughter is a year and 2 months old. While she's well behaved, we do hear an occasional outburst (especially when she's tired or very happy). I wouldn't classify her a loud or obnoxious and would be offended if someone asked me to leave thier restaurant because of her.




But I don't really think this rule is aimed at kids like yours (or mine) who have an "occasional outburst".  I've never been outraged at a child letting out a scream or squeal of delight and I doubt most others have either.  It's when they scream non-stop or barge around the restaurant uncontrolled for minutes at a time and the parents don't seem to be willing or able to get them under control that they are having a significant negative impact on the enjoyment of others.

Some parents take the position that they have a right to enjoy a meal somewhere regardless of if their kid is screaming the whole time and causing misery for everybody else within earshot.  This place is just putting up a sign that says, "No you don't."


----------



## StupidSmurf (Nov 11, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I don't see it.  The reasoning and motivation for the two scenarios are two completely different attitudes, and have little to nothing in common.
> 
> I also don't see how any lawsuit could actually go anywhere with this.




I agree, JD.
The "No-kids" thing, IMO, is based on common sense experience...kids as a rule make noise and haven't quite learned how to behave, and unfortunately not all parents consider it important that they learn this. Kids by their very nature are immature...that's why they're kids. Some parents make attempts at exercising control and restraint, others don't, and in my opinion that latter group ruins it for everyone. The "no kids" thing is a sad concession to the whole "some ruin it for all".

The concept of "no blacks" or "no Jews" or whatever is based on no actual evidence, but rather simply on the basis of race, color, or religion. Thus, there's NO grounds for exclusion that would hold up.

There's no lawsuit potential here.

I also agree with Rel's post. It's not the occasional loud noise, outburst, or wandering away. It's the CONSTANT offenses...I've seen these parents in action (or should that be, in inaction???). Their kids pretty much run loose like a bunch of little savages, and they just sit there, blithely. Because, hey, they paid for their meal, dammit, and they have the right to enjoy it in peace!

Yeah, well so does everyone else in the joint...and our peace is being threatened by those little uncontrolled monsters.

Kids will be kids. As I said, I'm a dad of four, so I know it first hand. But's incumbent upon the parents to gradually push their kids away from childish things and point them towards growing up. Parents who refuse to do so aren't fit company.


----------



## ssampier (Nov 11, 2005)

From a personal (and possibly legal) standpoint, the signs are nothing more than the signs at movie theaters to turn off your cell phone or the "Be quiet" signs of libraries of old. 



			
				StupidSmurf said:
			
		

> I also agree with Rel's post. It's not the occasional loud noise, outburst, or wandering away. It's the CONSTANT offenses...I've seen these parents in action (or should that be, in inaction???). Their kids pretty much run loose like a bunch of little savages, and they just sit there, blithely. Because, hey, they paid for their meal, dammit, and they have the right to enjoy it in peace!




I agree. As a single person with no children, I can tolerate the ocassional upset or crying baby/toddler. It's the contant offenses that annoy me, especially when the parents don't even try to calm their child. It's almost like they took the "takes a village to raise a child" way too literally, and it's everyone's problem to monitor their behavior.

In my mind, the children are going to act like children, it is up to you as the adult to teach them proper respect and manners (even if means leaving a theatre early or having to come back for your double-latte frappacino). After all, who's going to teach it to them? It's not like children reach an age and magically know proper conduct, rules, and behavior.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 11, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> But I don't really think this rule is aimed at kids like yours (or mine) who have an "occasional outburst".  I've never been outraged at a child letting out a scream or squeal of delight and I doubt most others have either.  It's when they scream non-stop or barge around the restaurant uncontrolled for minutes at a time and the parents don't seem to be willing or able to get them under control that they are having a significant negative impact on the enjoyment of others.
> 
> Some parents take the position that they have a right to enjoy a meal somewhere regardless of if their kid is screaming the whole time and causing misery for everybody else within earshot.  This place is just putting up a sign that says, "No you don't."




The problem is, those signs, even if not targetted at regularly behaving kids, chill the atmosphere. Other patrons or staff may be emboldened to tell parents to leave for that occasional outburst even if the child, in the main, is behaving just fine or at least within socially acceptible parameters.

Quite frankly, people don't always behave responsibily on either side of the coin either before or after policies like that go up. I'm rather stunned that a retail clerk at a feminist bookstore would ask a woman to stop breast-feeding, myself. Aside from plenty of cities having ordinances stating that breasts can be at work anywhere public, to think that a feminist bookstore wouldn't be a safe haven for that in the first place is bizarre.

And it's not right to lump all parents who feel that chill as feeling overly "entitled". That's a gross generalization. It's about as gross as saying that people who want to be free of the sound of children anywhere are feeling overly entitled as well.

Now, does anyone else think it's curious that McCauley also has a criterium to hire people who live close enough to walk to work? I'm starting to wonder if he's just some kind of control freak.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2005)

From http://selfknowledge.com/26993.htm:




> Discrimination (Dis*crim`i*na"tion) (?), n.
> [L. discrimination the contrasting of opposite thoughts.]
> 
> 1. The act of discriminating, distinguishing, or noting and marking differences. "To make an anxious discrimination between the miracle absolute and providential." Trench.
> ...





It should be fairly clear why discrimination has, generally, been considered a *good* thing throughout most of human history in most of its definitions.  What is a bad thing is definition 3:  *arbitrary* discrimination.  

Arbitrary discrimination can be illegal (for example, when one discriminates on the basis of race, colour, or creed) or legal (for example, when one prefers Skippy to Jiff).  What we are looking at here, though, is not a case of arbitrary discrimination.

What we are looking at here is a case of noting and marking differences; a case of judgment.  Where etiquette is concerned, a little more clearness and discernment would generally be better for us all.  Unfortunately, we live in a society where we see our "rights" much more clearly than the "responsibilities" that those rights entail.

Simply put, no one has a "right" to service in an establishment wherein they refuse to take "responsibility" for their behaviour.  Think you have no responsiblity for your children's behaviour?  Think again.  When a child runs into the display case _*and it finally shatters*_ who is going to be responsible for damages?  How about for the resultant injury and/or death?  

We live in a society where the answer is, all too often, the cafe owner.  

How could one then also claim that the cafe owner doesn't have the right to demand that the parents be responsible for their children *while in the cafe*?  Sorry, but that's just insane.


RC


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Nov 11, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> From my experience though those people are allowed in places.




They are till the owner/manager decides enough is enough, restaurant/cafes/bakerys/etc are *Prive Property* and the boorish and obnoxious customer can be removed and/or trespassed w/o any recoyrse.


----------



## Gnarlo (Nov 11, 2005)

Even in places you'd think were as common sense as hospitals you run into this; on my floor we've had to have the patient rep and security come and talk to no less than 4 different families in the last month to explain to them that 'yes, we know that that is your mother/father/child who is the patient in room X, but you will ask your seventeen family members to wait in the waiting room and not in the hall/turn off the cell phones around the medical equipment/keep your children from running up and down screaming in the halls or you WILL be removed from the hospital and not allowed to come back.' We do everything we can short of this to put a damper on the situation because of having a loved on in the hospital being a stressful situation, but damn if some folks ain't as thick as a post or get on the 'we're paying your salary' kick. Way too many people a) have never been taught manners and so can't use them or pass them on, and b) believe in the customer is always right myth, unfortunately.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Nov 11, 2005)

So far we've hammered on obnoxious kids, cell phones and boorish drunks.  I'd like to propose our next target of public scorn: text message phone users at the movies.  These people (usually teenage girls from what I've seen) have replaced loud children as my new least favorite theater-goer.  I go to a later show to avoid the screaming kids and now I get these airheads, with their glowing screen right in my line of sight and muffled giggles.


----------



## Rel (Nov 11, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> The problem is, those signs, even if not targetted at regularly behaving kids, chill the atmosphere. Other patrons or staff may be emboldened to tell parents to leave for that occasional outburst even if the child, in the main, is behaving just fine or at least within socially acceptible parameters.




So what?

This isn't the town well where everybody has to go draw their daily water from.  It's one snooty coffee shop!

If parents go in there with their kids and get the stinkeye, even if Jr. isn't acting up then they won't come back.  They may even tell their friends about it.  That might cause the business to fail.  Or maybe it will become known as the sort of place where you don't have to worry about kids screaming while you sip your Skinny Half-Caf Latte and will thrive on that segment of the market.

Either way, nobody is forcing you to go there.  The business can succeed or fail on its own merits.  Where's the big panty-twist here?


----------



## Dark Jezter (Nov 11, 2005)

I like kids, but few things are more annoying than trying to enjoy a nice meal in a resturant or a movie in a theater while a nearby toddler is screaming their head off and running around while the parents do absolutely nothing about it.

I'm 100% in favor of businesses being able to ask parents to leave if they can't control their kids.


----------



## JLXC (Nov 12, 2005)

I am actually shocked from  reading this thread.  The initial post made sense, the man who posted the sign was not only in the right, but would have my business in a heartbeat, it's the defending the "Stupid People" that blew me away.

If your kid is misbehaving in a place where people are paying to do something, and ruining their night, you should have to pay for their meals/movie/whatever.  If you don't like it, either control your children or LEAVE.  This should be law.  I have a child, she's never done any of the things listed under the initial post because the one time she started acting up (It was in a movie theater) I immediately took her out, sat in the car with her, and waited.  I tried to take her back in and she acted up again, we spent the rest of the movie in the car waiting for mom to finish.  I didn't like it, but too bad, it worked.  She was 4 and we never had to do anything like that again.  Being a parent is hard sometimes because you HAVE to teach your kid what is and is not ok to do, and sometimes it inconveniences you.  WAHH.  Don't have kids if you can't be a parent.  It's not your right to allow your spawn to screw up everyone elses night so you can ignore them and "relax".  This is an Evil attitude, pure selfish Evil.

Also the idea that posting a sign asking kids (or anyone for that matter) to behave is Discrimination, is insanity.  It shows a complete loss of touch with reality to think this.  Only a lawyer could argue that asking people to behave is discrimination against those who want to misbehave.  Of course I'd argue something that stupid for 150 an hour, and drag it out for years, but that's beside the point.


----------



## jgbrowning (Nov 12, 2005)

No shoes, no shirt, no quiet kids, no service.

joe b.


----------



## ssampier (Nov 13, 2005)

JLXC said:
			
		

> Don't have kids if you can't be a parent.  It's not your right to allow your spawn to screw up everyone elses night so you can ignore them and "relax".  This is an Evil attitude, pure selfish Evil.




Best quote evar.

You, sir, are my hero. I would bet you're a great dad.


----------



## mojo1701 (Nov 13, 2005)

ssampier said:
			
		

> Best quote evar.
> 
> You, sir, are my hero. I would bet you're a great dad.




Maybe he WILL be.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 13, 2005)

JoeBlank said:
			
		

> My sons know the threat of being "taken to the van," and they are generally well behaved.




That isn't like 'going to the cornfield' is it?


----------



## Psionicist (Nov 13, 2005)

If you encounter a noisy kid in a cafe, movie theatre or restaurant (or other partially public place without a "manager") the trick to make the screaming stop is _not_ to directly tell the parent or kid to be quite, but to adress the whole area/room to show what everyone's thinking.  For example, tell the parent(s) so everyone can hear "I think I speak for all of us the screaming is annoying". Now when you got everyones attention, look (direct eye contact) at all the males in the room. Every single time I've done this almost all of the males will nod in acceptance. If you have handled this correctly, it will now be very clear to the parents what everyones thinking and the parents with the annoying kid will hopefully leave the place.

I've only done this three times though, but it always works and all three times someone thanked me afterwards.


----------



## Parlan (Nov 14, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> If you encounter a noisy kid in a cafe, movie theatre or restaurant (or other partially public place without a "manager") the trick to make the screaming stop is _not_ to directly tell the parent or kid to be quite, but to adress the whole area/room to show what everyone's thinking.  For example, tell the parent(s) so everyone can hear "I think I speak for all of us the screaming is annoying". Now when you got everyones attention, look (direct eye contact) at all the males in the room. Every single time I've done this almost all of the males will nod in acceptance. If you have handled this correctly, it will now be very clear to the parents what everyones thinking and the parents with the annoying kid will hopefully leave the place.
> 
> I've only done this three times though, but it always works and all three times someone thanked me afterwards.




I'm going to have to remember this one!!


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 14, 2005)

There were two columns in Sunday's Chicago Tribune on the topic.  The NY Times article seems to have garnered a lot of attention, and most of it appears to be falling on the side of the cafe owner:



			
				John Kass said:
			
		

> Mr. Belvedere would tame those brats
> 
> I can't say if Dan McCauley, a North Side restaurant owner, is America's new Mr. Belvedere, though clearly there is a Belvederian yearning in our culture these days. And McCauley may be the man for the job.
> 
> ...






			
				Eric Zorn said:
			
		

> Big helping of thanks for cafe's tiny sign
> 
> In a five-minute conversation Friday morning, Andersonville cafe owner Dan McCauley put me on hold three times to accept congratulatory calls from strangers around the country, then signed off graciously because Geraldo Rivera's crew was waiting to tape an interview.
> 
> ...


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Nov 14, 2005)

Nice columns.  

I bet every establishment wishes they could get boycotted like this.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 14, 2005)

There's definitely an amount of bias in this article, no doubt.

It's not really a matter of "no kids," though the article makes it out to be that way.  And perhaps some of the staff at this place have taken it a bit too far, and that's unfortunate.

I'd like to think that everyone would understand that outbursts do happen, and that can't be controlled.  However, it seems to me to be simply good manners that if your child starts having a tantrum or the like, you remove him from a public place until it blows over.  No one should be faulted for that happening, because kids are not remote controlled robots.  It just happens, it's part of child-rearing.

Basically, it seems to me that the entire thing has escalated out of control.


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 14, 2005)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> I'd like to think that everyone would understand that outbursts do happen, and that can't be controlled.  However, it seems to me to be simply good manners that if your child starts having a tantrum or the like, you remove him from a public place until it blows over.  No one should be faulted for that happening, because kids are not remote controlled robots.  It just happens, it's part of child-rearing.




I don't think any of us (well, at least, most of us) are debating that, LightPhoenix.  Kids get grumpy, kids don't always behave...and I think we all get that, and aren't suggesting otherwise.  What you propose is what any intelligent, courteous parent would do.

The reason for the sign at the cafe, and the reason for many of the posts here, is that we've all seen too many situations in which a child is carrying on / misbehaving / out of control, and the parents do *nothing* about it, being unwilling to sacrifice their own enjoyment in order to take care of their responsibilities as parents.


----------



## wingsandsword (Nov 14, 2005)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> The reason for the sign at the cafe, and the reason for many of the posts here, is that we've all seen too many situations in which a child is carrying on / misbehaving / out of control, and the parents do *nothing* about it, being unwilling to sacrifice their own enjoyment in order to take care of their responsibilities as parents.



Exactly.

There is a real problem in society, of parents who let their kids do whatever they want, and are utterly afraid of saying "No" to them, ever.  Like the parents in those articles who were utterly indignant that somebody would tell them to not have their children running around, screaming and crying, climbing over things and rolling around all the time, in a little coffeehouse.  

Too many times I've gone into a restaraunt and there was a screaming, crying child there, throwing a tantrum, with the parents just sitting there ignoring him (or worse, giving him whatever he wants, he wants dessert, his parents say no, he cries and throws a fit, then gets a dessert).  Not trying to silence him, not removing him from the room, just ignoring the little brat who is filling the entire dining room with loud screams for minutes.  Or you will go into a store where kids are rolling around in the aisles, playing tag or running around.  The problem is kids that act like every place they go is a playground, screaming, running around, climbing on everything, and their parents never try and stop them or discipline them.  If you're taking offense to polite signs asking that children use inside voices and behave, ask yourself if your children how they are acting and how other people would feel about that.  Do you really think your kids are best off never being told "no" and acting however they want?

When I go to a resturaunt, I always request a table away from any disorderly children.  I know that kids are kids, and they've got to run and play, and they'll act up, so don't take infants to nice resturaunts and movie theaters (sorry, you've got kids now, get a babysitter or wait a few years), and if they act up, remove them from the area if they remain disorderly and discipline them if neccesary.  I don't get upset until I see that the parents aren't doing anything to deal with the situation other than ignore it (or worse, encourage them).

Kids who find out that they can act however they want in public, especially those who find that their whining and crying can get them somewhere, grow up into people with no sense of decorum who are used to using whining and griping as ways of getting what they want.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 14, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> There is a real problem in society, of parents who let their kids do whatever they want, and are utterly afraid of saying "No" to them, ever.





Any correlation, do you think, to this thread?  http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=146835


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Nov 15, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I like how everyone is focusing on the bad kids and ignoring the people harrassed or made to feel unwelcome because their kids *gasp* made noise.
> 
> 
> If you want your perfect child free environment, stay home. Out in the world, there are these other people, some have kids, some kids make noise, or move or otherwise make their existance known. Once in a long while, you run into someone who is truely rude, but most of this fuss is just people who can't stand to share.





But if parents would take the time to raise their kids properly, then we wouldn't have this. Too many seem to not care about how their kids act in public. We had some woman with 2 kids running around the store. I made a comment about the "zoo out there" and she gave me a dirty look, for which I just stared back at her. If you can't control behavior like that, then the zoo should stay at home. Sure kids are gonna yell some but I don't care for them running around, making a nuisance out of themselves. That just shows poor discipline, IMO. People just don't seem to care enough to take time to actually take care of their children. And it shows. With all the unsupervised brats running around, parents looking the other way while they do so, not caring about the inconvenience of the other patrons who have to deal with their unruly brats. If you can't take care of your kids, DON'T HAVE THEM!!


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Nov 15, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Uh, no. Why should I stay home rather than those making the disturbance.
> 
> Check this out
> 
> ...




What's scary is that I agree with TB on this.


----------



## Xath (Nov 15, 2005)

I think that the problem is that too many people are taking this as a "no kids allowed" sign, rather than a "please behave appropriately" sign.  Ladies and Gentlemen, there is a difference between childish exhuberence and uncontrollable demon-screamers.  Allow me to demonstrate with several true examples from my retail and restaraunt experience.  

1.  CE - Child gets excited and lets out a yelp. 
2.  DS - Child screams at the top of lungs for (timed) 45 minutes.

1.  CE - Child bounces up and down in chair
2.  DS - Child runs around restaraunt, tripping waiter into dropping 5 entrees onto the floor.

1.  CE - Child has dirty diaper, parents change it.  
2.  DS - Child removes fecal matter from diaper, throws it onto floor in various places all over the store, and then steps on it to really grind it into the carpet.  Angry retail employee forced to clean it with a mop and a sponge.  


Keep your fecal throwing demon screamers at home.  I'm all for childish exhuberence, but there's a difference between that and bad parenting.


----------



## Rel (Nov 15, 2005)

Xath said:
			
		

> Keep your fecal throwing demon screamers at home.




Thanks for the new .sig.


----------



## Harmon (Nov 15, 2005)

My wife and I are expecting in a few months, we have no intention of going to the theater with our little one until she can behave.  Should she act up during then out we go.  Why should we screw up someone elses evening out?

Cafes and resturants are no different- kids are acting up, then leave.  Someone else is trying to relax.

People pay sitters so they don't have to listen to screaming kids where they go to relax, so why do they have to listen to someone elses?

If you take offense to this line of thinking and say "he'll find out," ya, I will, but I will do my dammedest to apologize and get my screaming kid out of everyone elses area of relaxation.


----------



## Xath (Nov 15, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> Thanks for the new .sig.




*gasp*  I feel special!


----------



## Rel (Nov 15, 2005)

Xath said:
			
		

> *gasp*  I feel special!




You *are* special!  Remember that you're "all that and a bag of dice".


----------



## StupidSmurf (Nov 15, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> You *are* special!  Remember that you're "all that and a bag of dice".





Just remember, you're a unique and special person, just like everyone else!


----------



## Dark Jezter (Nov 15, 2005)

Xath said:
			
		

> Keep your fecal throwing demon screamers at home.




I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.


----------



## jaerdaph (Nov 15, 2005)

I can't wait to some of you have children of your own someday. Boy will you be in for a shock.


----------



## Rel (Nov 15, 2005)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> I can't wait to some of you have children of your own someday. Boy will you be in for a shock.




Are you suggesting that people who take the position that kids shouldn't be allowed to scream or run out of control in private stores and restaurants can't be familiar with how children tend to behave?  Because I can assure you that this isn't the case.


----------



## jaerdaph (Nov 15, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that people who take the position that kids shouldn't be allowed to scream or run out of control in private stores and restaurants can't be familiar with how children tend to behave?  Because I can assure you that this isn't the case.




Lighten up, it was a joke. 

Edit: No personal offense intended, Rel.


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 15, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> My wife and I are expecting in a few months, we have no intention of going to the theater with our little one until she can behave.




Meet ya at the theater in, what, 2023?


----------



## StupidSmurf (Nov 15, 2005)

Personally, I lump the parents who won't lift a finger to at least try and control their spawn in the same category as people who:

Park in handicap spaces
Cut in line very deliberately
Block an entire lane of traffic so they can talk to a friend of theirs who's standing at the curb
People who bring a full, and I mean a FULL, shopping cart into the 10 items or less line
People who talk loudly on their cel phones in a movie theater

It's called a lack of consideration for others. It's called being rude, selfish, and believing that the universe revolves around them. It's people feeling that they are somewhat above the rules of polite behavior.

My personal philosophy is, try to make my choices/flaws/idiosyncracies as unintrusive on others as I reasonably can. The exception to that being online forums.   

I don't always succeed, but at least I try. And as I've heard say once, "It's the effort that exalts us." If people see that you're at least trying to be considerate, they'll cut you a break.

I consider making an attempt at restraining your loud kids to be a good thing, and if I see a fellow parent at least making an effort, I tend to be sympathetic, as opposed to the arrogant turds who just sit there and let junior piss in your souffle.

And I tend to think that, considering all that I've read here, people are more appalled at parental indifference and uncaring, as opposed to being angry at the kids themselves.


----------



## BSF (Nov 15, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> From my experience though those people are allowed in places.



I'm sorry to hear that.  I have seen people be politely asked to leave all sorts of businesses.  As well, I have seen people be escorted out with the help of the police.  All for disruptive behavior.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Nov 15, 2005)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> I'm sorry to hear that.  I have seen people be politely asked to leave all sorts of businesses.  As well, I have seen people be escorted out with the help of the police.  All for disruptive behavior.




Yup. Seen that before. And it's usually ADULTS who get told to leave for acting like a jerk.


----------



## BSF (Nov 15, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> The latter.  I was pretty amused by all the complaints of "that's what kids do."  Really?  Mine don't, at least not when they're out.  I have a funny feeling that these same complainers sure didn't get to act like that if they were out when they were kids either.




A few years ago we were having a big family dinner gathering.  You know the type, where your wife's parents invite your family, your wife's sister's family, and your wife's brother's family and you all have a big dinner etc.  

Anyway, one of my nephews decides he is going to stand up on one of the chairs and start yelling.  We are talking a 5 year old or so doing this on his grandmother's nice, new furniture.  In my family, that sort of thing was a big no-no.  It is disrespectful and somewhat dangerous to boot.  In my wife's family, that was a big no-no.  Yet, my brother-in-law and his wife didn't even make my nephew stop.  His grandparents had to finally establish the rule that he couldn't stand on the chairs before my sister-in-law reluctantly picked him up and set him down.  

WTF?  I was appalled.  Especially since I didn't want my son to decide he could pull the same stunt.  (Seriously, when we go home, we had a talk with my son about why his cousin's behavior was wrong and unacceptable.)  Later that evening, we were discussing children's behavior and my sister-in-law said "Well, at home he just jumps up and down on the couch even though I tell him not to.  He's a kid, what can you do?"  I had to bite my tongue rather than administer a tongue lashing about being a parent.  Yes, she deserved it, but not in front of her husband's entire family.  As well, my wife's parents didn't need that type of strife in their home on an occassion when they invited the entire family over.  

Yes, it is called respect.  It is taught to children and practiced by adults.  That is part of what parenting is about.  

When we are in public with my children, they know what the expectations are.  If they misbehave, they can expect to be punished for it.  They know better because my wife and I have taught them that.  Quite frankly, more parents need to practie good parenting.  The slackers are making every other parent look bad.


----------



## Rel (Nov 15, 2005)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> Lighten up, it was a joke.
> 
> Edit: No personal offense intended, Rel.




None taken.  I couldn't tell if you were making a point in the ongoing debate so that's why I asked the question.  Sorry if I was joking impaired this morning.


----------



## Rel (Nov 15, 2005)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> WTF?  I was appalled.  Especially since I didn't want my son to decide he could pull the same stunt.  (Seriously, when we go home, we had a talk with my son about why his cousin's behavior was wrong and unacceptable.)  Later that evening, we were discussing children's behavior and my sister-in-law said "Well, at home he just jumps up and down on the couch even though I tell him not to.  He's a kid, what can you do?"  I had to bite my tongue rather than administer a tongue lashing about being a parent.  Yes, she deserved it, but not in front of her husband's entire family.  As well, my wife's parents didn't need that type of strife in their home on an occassion when they invited the entire family over.




I JUST had a very similar experience.  We went to visit my wife's family in Memphis and her cousin's child came over to her grandmother's house (where we were staying) to visit for the weekend.  This girl was awful!  And she totally brought out the worst in our child too.

I love my wife's grandmother but she is a grandma who is used to indulging this child while she visits, not disciplining her.  As the only other two adults there, my wife and I wound up having to parent this kid all weekend.  It certainly made an otherwise pleasant vacation more stressful than it needed to be.

 :\


----------



## Legildur (Nov 15, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> I have a 23 month old daughter and I don't have a problem with this.



And same here.  I have an angelic 8 year old daughter whom my wife and I take everywhere without even a moment's hesitation.  But my 2 year old demonic boy?  Let's just say that our parenting skills were no where near as successful with him and we stopped going out for dinner because of his behaviour.  He's not really demonic, but won't sit still and get's under feet and all sorts of bother.  So, rather than inflict that on other people who have paid good money, we decline to dine out until (if) he improves.

I don't want kids and mobile phones going mad, so I won't inflict that on other people.

And sounds like a business opportunity for someone to open up a kid friendly coffee shop....


----------



## sniffles (Nov 15, 2005)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> So far we've hammered on obnoxious kids, cell phones and boorish drunks.  I'd like to propose our next target of public scorn: text message phone users at the movies.  These people (usually teenage girls from what I've seen) have replaced loud children as my new least favorite theater-goer.  I go to a later show to avoid the screaming kids and now I get these airheads, with their glowing screen right in my line of sight and muffled giggles.



Deciding to totally avoid the topic of the thread, I totally agree with you on this!! Most people nowadays do seem to turn off their cell phone ringers in theatres, which is great, but they seem to think that makes it okay for them to text message during the movie, and they get annoyed if asked to turn the darned thing off and stop blinding the people sitting behind them. If you're not an on-call physician, I can't think of any good reason you should need to make or receive a phone call while you're at the movies. What is it with our society that has made us think we need to be in constant verbal contact with everyone we know every minute of the day?  :\


----------



## Harmon (Nov 16, 2005)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> Meet ya at the theater in, what, 2023?




That would make her about 17.... emm, close, maybe another year.    

Course we do have the intention of using sitters and the few members of our family that want to help out, so we might be there sooner then that.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 16, 2005)

I am the mother of a 26 year old so I don't have to worry about him acting up in public  

When he was little I often took him to resturants and he behaved because he knew if he didn't he would have to go sit in the car. This rule was enforced regardless of where we were a nice resturant or Wendy's.

I tried to take him to the movies when he was three he was fine until the popcorn and M&Ms ran out. He got bored so I spent the rest of the movie in the lobby with him waiting or my husband and friends to come out. We didn't go back again until he was around six and he did fine then.

He also had a bedtime of 7:30 which meant even if Wal-mart had been opened 24 hours he would not have been there.

A lot of parents today make me crazy with how they ignore their child's bad behavior there is a difference between a child talking loudy and having a tantrum while the parents just sit there and ignore it.  Get off your lazy butt and pick the child up and go outside until he calms down.

I know a lot of people use the term brats but it is not really the kids fault it is the parents. When you see a screaming whiny child running around at 10:00PM its not that the kid is behaving badly it is that the dumb parents have no business having a child up that late. I have heard all the excuses that they work and this is the only time to shop. BS I worked and did not keep my child out so late. It is silly that so many kids are sleep deprived.

Now on the other hand I get annoyed with people who get so eaily bent out of shape over normal noise a child makes. Kids are louder than a lot of adults so they sometimes yell happily or say no rather loud. This does not bother me as long as the parent does not let it get out of hand. Remind the child to use their public voice. I used to do that with my son. How else are they supposed to learn proper behavor?

Also sometimes babies fuss. Again I can ignore it as long as it does not become 20 minutes of screaming. In that case the baby is obviously in some kind of discomfort take the baby home so you can deal with it.

So much of this is just comman sense.


----------



## jgbrowning (Nov 16, 2005)

StupidSmurf said:
			
		

> Personally, I lump the parents who won't lift a finger to at least try and control their spawn in the same category as people who:
> 
> Park in handicap spaces
> Cut in line very deliberately
> ...




For me it's worse 'cause the kid's being hurt as well. Albeit subtly. I don't like to watch.



> And I tend to think that, considering all that I've read here, people are more appalled at parental indifference and uncaring, as opposed to being angry at the kids themselves.




Of course. Obviously the kid doesn't know any better because the adult's let 'em down in that department. The kid can't do what's appropriate if not ever taught.

joe b.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Nov 16, 2005)

I'll do whatever the heck I please!


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 16, 2005)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> I can't wait to some of you have children of your own someday. Boy will you be in for a shock.




I have two girls already. It's not exactly a shock anymore.

My comments stand.


----------



## Xath (Nov 16, 2005)

I brought this up in my ethics class yesterday.  The general consensus was that in order to make the rule ethical, he'd have to extend it to all rowdy people, not just kids.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 16, 2005)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> I can't wait to some of you have children of your own someday. Boy will you be in for a shock.



Everybody is in shock the first time they have kids, I think.  Probably the second too--going from one to two is a major change.  Going from two to three is tough too--that's when your parenting has to switch from man-to-man to zone defense.

Going from three to four, though--that wasn't a big deal for us.

You do know, I hope, that many of us who have chimed in on this thread do indeed have kids already, and are thereby long past the shock phase?


----------



## Zappo (Nov 16, 2005)

Xath said:
			
		

> I brought this up in my ethics class yesterday.  The general consensus was that in order to make the rule ethical, he'd have to extend it to all rowdy people, not just kids.



I think that most store owners would throw out an adult that runs around screaming and bangs his head over the counter.

Actually, the whole _point_ is that the owner is extending to rowdy children the rules that normally are implicit when dealing with rowdy adults.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 16, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> I have a 23 month old daughter and I don't have a problem with this.
> 
> A diner who has paid for a meal has paid for the ambiance of the restaurant as well.
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see more no-child places.  When I take the wife out on a date it's no fun sitting next to a family with a screaming kid.  I just shelled out $50 for a babysitter and I still have to put up with a toddler?  No thanks.




Perhaps, but the guy who tried to get a woman to stop breast-feeding ought to be tarred and feathered.


----------



## StupidSmurf (Nov 16, 2005)

Parents who don't teach respect and cultivate discipline are doing their children a grave disservice. As I've told my youngest, we (her mom and I) come down on her for her bad behavior for a number of reasons, and one of them is that it's better to have people who love and care for you be the ones criticising you, as opposed to having a stranger who doesn't care about you personally, and may in fact actually dislike you, doing it.

Because, let's face it, even though most people will simply roll their eyes and/or click their tongues in disgust at a teenager or young adult openly practicing antisocial public behavior, odds are there will eventually be SOMEONE who brings a more, shall we say, confrontational reaction to the table...either verbally or physically. And I can see the chastened/beaten/whatever obnoxious kid sitting (lying?) there, going "Why didn't anyone give me a clue that this wasn't a cool thing to do?"


----------



## Rel (Nov 16, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> So much of this is just comman sense.




Indeed.  If only it were more common.

And by the way, I haven't seen you around the boards much Elf Witch.  Am I not looking in the right places?  Regardless, I always enjoy your posts so don't be a stranger.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 16, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> So much of this is just *comman* sense.



I originally read that as *conman* sense, and I thought, WTF?


----------



## wingsandsword (Nov 16, 2005)

Xath said:
			
		

> I brought this up in my ethics class yesterday.  The general consensus was that in order to make the rule ethical, he'd have to extend it to all rowdy people, not just kids.



I'm fine with that, but the proprietor of the establishment in the article that started this was only having a problem with children to begin with, hence the sign.  Actually the original sign did mention it applied to "all ages".

But I for one am fine with any establishment that wishes to post a rule saying rowdy/disorderly people can just take it outside.

Now I'm imagining a quiet little coffeehouse with a big burly bouncer at the door


----------



## Zappo (Nov 16, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but the guy who tried to get a woman to stop breast-feeding ought to be tarred and feathered.



Agreed. Or at least, get a psychological check-up. I can't fathom what type of person would be annoyed by a woman breast-feeding, or why. Probably the same type of person who would cover up nude statues.


----------



## StupidSmurf (Nov 16, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> I'm fine with that, but the proprietor of the establishment in the article that started this was only having a problem with children to begin with, hence the sign.  Actually the original sign did mention it applied to "all ages".
> 
> But I for one am fine with any establishment that wishes to post a rule saying rowdy/disorderly people can just take it outside.
> 
> Now I'm imagining a quiet little coffeehouse with a big burly bouncer at the door





Patrick Swayze stars in....COFFEEHOUSE.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Nov 16, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but the guy who tried to get a woman to stop breast-feeding ought to be tarred and feathered.



And sometimes you can't believe everything you read in print.

http://www.poise.cc/didyouknow/archives/20051109.php

According to this, there wasn't a male on staff, and no woman was asked to stop breastfeeding.  Apparently the bookstore in question has chairs set aside specifically so women can breastfeed.

But far be it from the media to sensationalize something to sell a story!   

Warrior Poet

_Edit:  I'm with everyone who thinks responsible parenting means teaching children how to respectfully interact with their environment and others, and that removing children when they're having a fit is the appropriate thing to do, and the store's within its rights to establish non-discriminatory policy as they see fit._


----------



## Old One (Nov 17, 2005)

*While we are at it...*

...let's ban kids from airplanes, too!

Just kidding, BTW, as a father of a very active 3-year old and enormously cute 1-year old, I know all about kids acting up.  We do get the kids out to get them used to different situations, but if they start acting up (usually our son), we vacate the premises.

However, on a flight from Baltimore to San Antonio tonight, I had the misfortune to sit directly in front of a family of...hippies (for lack of a better term).  The youngest (about 3) screamed at the top of her lungs for most of the flight and ran up and down the aisle several times...sans pants or diaper...nice.  The two older kids were fairly well behaved, but the parents made no visible effort to calm or quiet the younger one.

Thank the stars I had my MP3 player...nothing like Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb" at max volume to drown out the screams !

I just don't get people sometimes...

~ OO


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Nov 17, 2005)

Personally, I don't see a problem with what he did.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

Means I can walk up to you and say: "GET OUT!" if I don't like the way you tied your shoes.

His business may suffer for it, it may not.

But honestly, some of these "I'm God's Special Little Sparkly Snowflake" people need to take some responsibility for the fact they are raising selfish, self indulgent, ill manner, socially unacceptable little rotten podlings that could use with some good discipline.

I have FOUR kids, from 18 to 8. I would NEVER tolerate my children running up and down the aisles. Throwing food in a resteraunt. Screaming "BUY ME THAT!" at the top of their lungs, calling me stupid, calling thier mother names, throwing themselves on the floor and kicking and screaming, or any of the other things you can see daily in the stores.

The kids need discipline. The parents need to learn that if they raise animals, they'll be asked to leave thier pets at home.

And if the poor widdle soccer mom wants to relax, she can do what the rest of us do: Get a babysitter, or wait until the kids are asleep and crack open a bottle of Jack Black Label.


----------



## StupidSmurf (Nov 17, 2005)

According to news items, the man's business has actually INCREASED.      Good for him!


----------



## mojo1701 (Nov 17, 2005)

My aunt and uncle do the same thing whenever they come over to our house for a birthday or something. They'll plop my younger cousin with my brother, my cousin (the younger's older brother, who's younger than me), and me. It doesn't help that the older cousin doesn't exactly help (in fact, he's the source of the younger's tantrums more often than not).


----------



## Xath (Nov 17, 2005)

http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp01072002.shtml

I *heart* Something Positive.


----------



## sniffles (Nov 17, 2005)

Old One said:
			
		

> ...let's ban kids from airplanes, too!
> 
> Just kidding, BTW, as a father of a very active 3-year old and enormously cute 1-year old, I know all about kids acting up.  We do get the kids out to get them used to different situations, but if they start acting up (usually our son), we vacate the premises.
> 
> ...



While I think it is the responsibility of the parents to make their children behave, why the heck didn't the flight attendants do something?!! Maybe people would take more responsibility for bad behavior (and I mean everyone, not just parents with children) if the rest of us called them on the carpet more often. It seems that we're all afraid that the bad behaver will sue or pull a gun. But if twenty people on a bus object to one person yelling and swearing, for example, he probably can't shoot all of us.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Nov 17, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> he probably can't shoot all of us.



You need to get to the gun range.  Have you seen some of the firearms out there these days?   

Facetiousness aside, I agree that public shaming can go a long way toward getting people to pay attention.

Warrior Poet


----------



## Old One (Nov 17, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> You need to get to the gun range.  Have you seen some of the firearms out there these days?
> 
> Facetiousness aside, I agree that public shaming can go a long way toward getting people to pay attention.
> 
> Warrior Poet




Bring back public stocks and rotten vegatables!

I agree - public shaming is very underutilized - I love this story:

http://www.newsok.com/article/1671313/

~ OO


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 17, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> But if twenty people on a bus object to one person yelling and swearing, for example, he probably can't shoot all of us.



Unless he's on full auto and has a bandolier of bullets across his chest.

But I'm guessing that at that point, we already know to leave the guy alone.   

Old One; great story!  I can't believe that mom is getting all kinds of flack about "emotional abuse."  In my book, she's doing a great job.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Nov 17, 2005)

Old One said:
			
		

> ...let's ban kids from airplanes, too!
> 
> Just kidding, BTW, as a father of a very active 3-year old and enormously cute 1-year old, I know all about kids acting up.  We do get the kids out to get them used to different situations, but if they start acting up (usually our son), we vacate the premises.
> 
> ...




I have on a couple of occasions "adopted" someone else's child on a flight.  The parents don't do anything to control the kids and I cannot take it so I do what I can to entertain the child.  Pretty easy when I have my kids along with crayons, coloring books and an array of toys.  Not so easy when I'm travelling for work with my laptop and a book or magazine.  

I have found that after some time of keeping the child calmer and quieter, the parents get a clue and try and do some on their own.  Maybe they just needed a break, and a gentle reminder of what being a parent is about.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 17, 2005)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Maybe they just needed a break, and a gentle reminder of what being a parent is about.



Probably so.  You're a great example to us all, Thornir.  Unfortunately, I don't do "gentle reminders" very well.


----------



## Old One (Nov 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Probably so.  You're a great example to us all, Thornir.  Unfortunately, I don't do "gentle reminders" very well.




Hehe...

I didn't want to get into anything with the parents, since I already wanted to strangle the unwashed husband.  We were next in line for take-off when he decided he needed to get out of his seat, walk back several seats to where they had placed their bags and rummage around in his backpack.

The flight attendants went ballistic, especially when he tried to argue with them about sitting down immediately...idiot.  

That said, I have actually helped out moms traveling with multiple children in the past, like keeping one occupied while she goes to change a diaper or is dealing with a cranky kid.  I just wanted to jettison this crew.

~ OO


----------



## buzzard (Nov 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Unless he's on full auto and has a bandolier of bullets across his chest.
> 
> But I'm guessing that at that point, we already know to leave the guy alone.
> 
> Old One; great story!  I can't believe that mom is getting all kinds of flack about "emotional abuse."  In my book, she's doing a great job.




Scenrario:
Rude buffoon on bus happens to be IPSC competitor and carrying a double stack full sized 9mm with two spare mags. If he restrains his '2 to the chest, one to the head' inclination, that's 45 shots to distribute among, what did we say? 20 people? Well those twenty better tackle him in a hurry, or things could get ugly. 

If you happen to have never seen an IPSC match (International Practical Shooting Confederation), and that is understandable since it isn't televised a lot, you would be amazed at what the good people can do. 

buzzard


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 17, 2005)

Old One said:
			
		

> That said, I have actually helped out moms traveling with multiple children in the past, like keeping one occupied while she goes to change a diaper or is dealing with a cranky kid.  I just wanted to jettison this crew.



Oh, yeah, I'd totally do that.  It's always good to be reminded that reasonably behaved children are usually completely fun and a joy to be around.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Nov 17, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> The parents need to learn that if they raise animals, they'll be asked to leave thier pets at home.





Quoted for truthery.  And for the humor factor as well!


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Nov 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Probably so.  You're a great example to us all, Thornir.  Unfortunately, I don't do "gentle reminders" very well.





Only if the "gentle reminder" is the judicious usage of a Louisville Slugger applied to one's cranium at a "not so gentle" velocity.....


----------



## sniffles (Nov 17, 2005)

I wish I could take up Thornir's style, but unfortunately I was born without a "mom" gene. I'd rather they hand me their pet tarantula than ask me to handle a kid.  :\


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 18, 2005)

Old One said:
			
		

> Bring back public stocks and rotten vegatables!
> 
> I agree - public shaming is very underutilized - I love this story:
> 
> ...




I think that the only lesson this kid is going to learn is that her mother is a sick puppy who enjoys torture.  I can't imagine she'll look back on this in 10 years with anything but resentment.  I also can't imagine her not throwing her mom into the worst nursing home she can find at the earliest opportunity and never coming back.

Bad crap only begets bad crap.  If you humiliate someone, they don't improve.  They only get humiliated on top of everything else that's wrong with them.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Nov 18, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I think that the only lesson this kid is going to learn is that her mother is a sick puppy who enjoys torture.  I can't imagine she'll look back on this in 10 years with anything but resentment.  I also can't imagine her not throwing her mom into the worst nursing home she can find at the earliest opportunity and never coming back.
> 
> Bad crap only begets bad crap.  If you humiliate someone, they don't improve.  They only get humiliated on top of everything else that's wrong with them.



I didn't read the story Old One posted, so I can't comment on that.  My support of public shaming wasn't in the context of stocks and pillories and that sort of thing, it was what sniffles talked about, i.e. calling people on their crap in a manner such that they are taken outside themselves for a moment to recognize a behavior they can amend.

The prime example has already been cited several times on this thread:  "Sir, or Ma'am, your child has rocketed straight past dreadful and achieved escape velocity into the beastly space.  See to your offspring as a decent human would, and thereby make the world a better place for a few moments.  I and my fellow coffee shop/airline flight/restaurant/movie theater patrons thank you."

Warrior Poet


----------



## Old One (Nov 18, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I think that the only lesson this kid is going to learn is that her mother is a sick puppy who enjoys torture.  I can't imagine she'll look back on this in 10 years with anything but resentment.  I also can't imagine her not throwing her mom into the worst nursing home she can find at the earliest opportunity and never coming back.
> 
> Bad crap only begets bad crap.  If you humiliate someone, they don't improve.  They only get humiliated on top of everything else that's wrong with them.




*shrugs*

My support of public condemnation and shaming is a bit tongue in cheek, but only a bit.  There have been a number of times that I have been "humiliated" in front of peers and/or the general public by an authority figure (including parents) to teach a specific point or lesson.  I still love my mother and, as a general rule, respect those that called me out to get me headed on the right track.  Sometimes kids - who really don't know it all - need a bucket of cold water thrown on them.  It's a quick shock, they are wet for a while and it gets their attention.

Is something like what was noted in the article torture?  I don't think so, if used (very) sparingly.  But I also happen to think that much of the "don't injure their fragile self-esteem" psycho-babble approach to education, sports and child-rearing today is crap.  I think it turns out a bunch of self-indulgent, self-absorbed, panty-waste prima-donnas that have absolutely no coping skills for failure and adversity when they reach adulthood.

~ OO


----------



## Rel (Nov 18, 2005)

Old One said:
			
		

> Is something like what was noted in the article torture?  I don't think so, if used (very) sparingly.  But I also happen to think that much of the "don't injure their fragile self-esteem" psycho-babble approach to education, sports and child-rearing today is crap.  I think it turns out a bunch of self-indulgent, self-absorbed, panty-waste prima-donnas that have absolutely no coping skills for failure and adversity when they reach adulthood.
> 
> ~ OO




I agree completely and I've recently gotten a chance to see weak parenting in the process of producing a horrid child.  It is not pretty.

I would absolutely resort to the methods that woman used if necessary.  So long as you make the consequences clear up front ("if you do that again then this is what is going to happen") then I think that makes for a very solid lesson and one that will not soon be forgotten.


----------



## BSF (Nov 18, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I think that the only lesson this kid is going to learn is that her mother is a sick puppy who enjoys torture.  I can't imagine she'll look back on this in 10 years with anything but resentment.  I also can't imagine her not throwing her mom into the worst nursing home she can find at the earliest opportunity and never coming back.
> 
> Bad crap only begets bad crap.  If you humiliate someone, they don't improve.  They only get humiliated on top of everything else that's wrong with them.




This is torture?  We are talking a kid that is failing in school, refuses to do homework and is talking back to teachers.  I've read some of the comments from the peanut gallery on this one.  The one about "finding the child doing something good" is what cracks me up.  The child is not doing something good, so where is the opportunity to provide positive reinforcement for good deeds?  Sometimes you need to provide positive reinforcement that bad deeds will lead to bad results.  

This child will not be capable of working in any environment I have worked in if she continues this behavior.  She will be fired and will be lucky to hold down low paying, low opportunity jobs.  

I agree that the shaming is a bit extreme, but sometimes you need to do something extreme to serve a point.  This mother isn't torturing anybody.  She is punishing her daughter and her daughter might think it a bit unfair.  But success in our society is not predicated on backtalking failures holding down good jobs.  If this child doesn't change her behavior, her mother won't need to worry about a good or bad nursing home.  Her daughter won't have the means to provide even that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 18, 2005)

> Who's not allowing disruptive people in their places? You have people on cell phones talking loud, some places you have drunks, you have guys hanging around hitting on people....
> 
> Disruptive people are allowed in businesses all the time.




etc.

Restaraunts and all businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone.  If they do it for reasons of gender, race, religion and similar reasons, its illegal.

If it is because someone is being disruptive, its not.

If a business chooses to remove or not remove a disruptive client, that's their business.  I know that if they don't,_* I*_ may not return.

This guy was trying to keep his restaraunt quiet.  His space, as noted, has a tin roof- a perfect surface for reflecting sharp, loud noises.  And a screaming child is nobody's idea of a "dining experience" enhancer to start off with.

Personal example:
I just took my mom to a fabric store last weekend and was clipped by a running, screaming butterball of a child- I nearly fell on him when he hit me in the back of the knee... the knee I had surgically repaired just a couple of years ago.

His mom sitting 20 ft away did nothing, said nothing.  He continued running about the store (with other children) until closing.

The next time this happens, I may fall on him.  If he re-injures my knee, his folks are paying for my medical bills and lost wages (which could be substantial- I'm an attorney...and the drugs I was on while in rehab from surgery made me functionally illiterate for almost a year- I couldn't read anything in normal sized print, like contracts, law books, etc.)

As for the public shaming thing...I have no problem with that.

All of my grandparents and my mother were teachers.  My paternal grandfather in particular taught for something like 50 years in the New Orleans area, from grade school to college.  He (and each of my other ancestors in question) have all used similar techniques in teaching AND in rearing their own kids.

And you know what?  My dad's an MD, I'm a lawyer...and every time I went to New Orleans, I ran into people who told me things like:

"Your Grandfather humiliated the hell out of me when he threw me out of ___________ for ___________...but it got me thinking.  It turned my life around!"

These people weren't ditch diggers- they were office managers for law firms, restaraunteurs, legislators and other successful men and women.

Embarrassment, used the right way, can be a powerful motivating tool.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 19, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I think that the only lesson this kid is going to learn is that her mother is a sick puppy who enjoys torture.  I can't imagine she'll look back on this in 10 years with anything but resentment.  I also can't imagine her not throwing her mom into the worst nursing home she can find at the earliest opportunity and never coming back.
> 
> Bad crap only begets bad crap.  If you humiliate someone, they don't improve.  They only get humiliated on top of everything else that's wrong with them.



?!

Do you have any kids, by any chance, or is this all hypothetical to you?

If you do, remind me never to meet them.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 19, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> ?!
> 
> Do you have any kids, by any chance, or is this all hypothetical to you?
> 
> If you do, remind me never to meet them.




Beat me to it.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Nov 19, 2005)

Old One said:
			
		

> But I also happen to think that much of the "don't injure their fragile self-esteem" psycho-babble approach to education, sports and child-rearing today is crap.  I think it turns out a bunch of self-indulgent, self-absorbed, panty-waste prima-donnas that have absolutely no coping skills for failure and adversity when they reach adulthood.




Quoted for truth.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 19, 2005)

I love how Dark Jezter's sig line has SUCH appropriate quotes for this thread.


----------



## Harmon (Nov 20, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> When you see a screaming whiny child running around at 10:00PM its not that the kid is behaving badly it is that the dumb parents have no business having a child up that late.




Little off subject, but....

Last weekend Coyote6 brought over the family dog (Snowy) because there was no one home to let him out.  

He was great, looked about, minded his manors, spent a lot of time at Coyote6's side, made his rounds to get petting from everyone, whimpered a bit when he needed to and did not bother my two kids (umm, you might call them cats). 

About ten pm more so he started getting fussy, and it was because he had not slept all day.  

I just found the tail to be to parallel not to mention.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Nov 20, 2005)

When I was 10, I pocketed a candy bar at the store.

Unfortunately for me, it wasn't store security that caught me at my first, and *ONLY* attempt at theft.

My Father caught me.

I swept the parking lot of that store, with a push broom, on Saturday and Sunday, with My Father watching over me.

And a sign around my neck that said: "I TRIED TO STEAL FROM THIS STORE!"

I have NEVER stolen since. Not even when I found a box with a tear across it that a DVD-RW was in 2 years ago. A $200 piece of hardware I came to the store to buy. When I took it to the counter, the lady behind the counter told me that if I left it with her, I could grab another, and she would ring me through.

I corrected her, then wandered back to buy the same brand and model.

The thought of stealing makes my hands shake just thinking about it.

People say public shame doesn't do anything, but how many of these parents would let thier children run wild if we still had little old ladies who commented on: "In MY day, we'd never..." and other parents who would call the parents of the little cretin to task for it? If there was more shame attatched to adultry for committing it, how many people would do it? If there was more shame for many of the things that are so common, yet completely rude, that take place daily in our society, how many of them would still go on?

It's considered rude or shameful to make a scene for telling that arrogant half-wit in the store who is in the 10 items or less line with a full cart to go somewhere else, it's considered rude to tell a parent: "Control that little animal before I muzzle it" when little Johnny Worthless is standing on top of his chair screaming at the top of his lungs because his fat little butt can't have a third piece of pie. But not rude of Johnny or his worthless mother.

The lack of public shame has led to a lot of this.

From: "It hurts a child's esteem if they are held back a grade because they are too lazy to do thier homework or apply themselves in class." to "It's rude to tell that insensitive jackass not to park in the handicapped space." we're the losers.

The kid can't hold a job and the ones he does hold, he can't do worth a crap because he's too ignorant and lazy. Mr. Arrogance figures he's above the law and cool, so he drives drunk and runs over your kid.

Public shame and personal accountability aren't bad things.


----------



## mythusmage (Nov 20, 2005)

Read this editorial in the San Diego Union/Tribune. You're not alone.


----------



## Rel (Nov 20, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Public shame and personal accountability aren't bad things.




I'm startin' to like you, Ralts.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Nov 21, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I love how Dark Jezter's sig line has SUCH appropriate quotes for this thread.



 LOL!  I didn't even think about that.  Wow, my signature quotes _are_ appropriate for this thread.


----------



## wingsandsword (Nov 21, 2005)

By the way, did anybody see the new episode of Boondocks tonight?  They had a short bit at the beginning of the episode about this subject, with a little demon making a mess and screaming at a store, and the mother being helpless to stop him.  Grandpa asks her about it, and she says she doesn't know what to do or how to stop him when he's like this, so he offers to help.  He pulls off his belt, and the kid gets a look of fear in his eye.  He spanks the kid, who stops misbehaving and the customers at the store go from embarrassed/angry at his tirade to smiling that he got disciplined.

I think that's part of the whole problem, parents who are too afraid of traumatizing their children that they never discipline them.  They think that if they have to harshly discipline their children when they are very out of line, it's child abuse, or they'll injure their children and be blamed for all their problems one day.  In the end, it produces kids who have no concept of limits or boundaries, because they're never told "No".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 21, 2005)

I did...and not only was it appropriate for the conversation...it was also funny as hell!

Boondocks is wrong, but in a good way.


----------



## JamesDJarvis (Nov 21, 2005)

I've seen places with a "you are welcome to talk on your cell phone...outside"  sign.


----------



## BOZ (Nov 21, 2005)

i like the look of satisfaction in the lady's eyes as she reclaims her power from the evil brat.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 21, 2005)

I was in Sam's Wholesale Club about an hour ago...

I saw 2 unsupervised boys playing in the frozen food section, and the older one tried to cram his struggling little buddy into one of them, using his body to push against the door like he was trying to freeze Jason Voorhees.

Anything could have happened: broken glass, food bags torn open...

Parents?  Snacking on the freebies at the other end of the aisle.

I have seen parents put halter-style leashes on kids before.  I like it.  The kid has 15-25' of play, MAX.  The parent always knows where the kid is.  That kid is not getting snatched, not running into traffic, and definitely not getting away with messing around in the store.


----------



## Xath (Nov 22, 2005)

I wore a wrist leash when I was little.  My sister had a halter leash.  People criticized my mom for treating us like pets, but in the end neither of us is traumatized and we're both very well mannered for our ages.


----------



## buzzard (Nov 22, 2005)

Xath said:
			
		

> I wore a wrist leash when I was little.  My sister had a halter leash.  People criticized my mom for treating us like pets, but in the end neither of us is traumatized and we're both very well mannered for our ages.




But do you fetch and heel?

Sorry, had to. 

buzzard


----------



## S'mon (Nov 26, 2005)

>>This is all part of a big change that our society has undergone in the past 30-40 years. When I was a kid, we rarely went to nicer, sit-down restaurants. Those places were generally "adult" locations, where there was no need to police kid behavior, because kids were rarely there (the only time we ever went was for special occasions).<<

That's how I remember it (I'm British, age 32).  I've been shocked to see how parents nowadays seem to have no interest in controlling their children's behaviour.  In  Britain traditionally formal restaurants just didn't allow young children.  It has always been different in Europe, but European children seem to get socialised at an early age and are normally well behaved at table, not like us asocial Anglo-Saxons cultures.


----------



## Old One (Nov 26, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> That's how I remember it (I'm British, age 32).  I've been shocked to see how parents nowadays seem to have no interest in controlling their children's behaviour.  In  Britain traditionally formal restaurants just didn't allow young children.  It has always been different in Europe, but European children seem to get socialised at an early age and are normally well behaved at table, not like us asocial Anglo-Saxons cultures.




I noticed that when I was stationed in Germany back in the mid-to-late 80s.  German children, in particular, were very well behaved at the table.  Of course, that could have something to do with 10 year olds getting a swig or two of wine/beer and mellowing them out .

~ OO


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 26, 2005)

Eh...I came from New Orleans, and was an Army brat...got to see a lot of the world as a child (including Germany).

1) The Booze theory:  I had my first taste of booze (that I remember) at about age 4, as did several of my relatives.  I wasn't a tableside terror.  They were.  In fact, now that Katrina has gathered us all in one city again, I notice that not only are those same terrors still lousy dinner company, but their kids are worse.  Its about discipline and character.

2) Europeans like to go to nice places.  They like to take their kids.  The kids like to go with their parents (almost all kids are like this).  The parents therefore put a lot of time into educating their kids on proper decorum so they can go to nice places without getting kicked out (especially after _paying_ to be in the nice place).

3) AFAIK, S'mon's experience was typical of British society, and I've seen similar "no kids" restaraunts in the USA.  Its simply easier for the staff to deal with drunks than drunks & kids (even nice ones).


----------



## Rel (Nov 27, 2005)

Tonight I got a first hand look at what happens to these kids when they get a bit older.  My wife and I were on a rare date to the movies without our own child.  We saw Harry Potter (which incidentally I thought was pretty good).

We found seats with plenty of time to spare and I went to use the restroom.  When I returned my wife said, "We probably don't want to sit here."  A moment later I understood because there was a small group of young teens (mostly girls) sitting behind us who were giggling and whispering and so forth.  Glancing around the theatre I saw that there were very few seats left at all and certainly none as good as what we had.  "It won't be a problem," I told my wife.

They were obnoxious throughout the previews (King Kong looks kick ass by the way) and continued through the brief opening credits of the movie.  When they kept up the laughing and asking inane (stage whispered) questions during the opening scene, a couple people around them "shushed" them quietly.  This had no apparent effect.

I decided right then and there that these rude obnoxious kids were NOT going to ruin my only chance to go to the movies for the first time in two months.  I turned around and gave them the "Daddy Voice" with both barrels: "_Shut...up_!"  I have seldom seen two more chagrinned and terrified faces in my life.  They uttered nary a peep for the entire rest of the movie.

What have we learned here?  I am turning into my father.  :\  Still, it felt good (and it felt even better when my wife gave me a firm, appreciative squeeze on the inner thigh).  

I only wish they would have wept a little.


----------



## Xath (Nov 27, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> What have we learned here?  I am turning into my father.  :\




For some reason, this was a frequent topic of conversation at this year's Thanksgiving.


----------



## Rel (Nov 27, 2005)

Xath said:
			
		

> For some reason, this was a frequent topic of conversation at this year's Thanksgiving.




You're turning into your father?!


----------



## Lefferts (Nov 27, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> You're turning into your father?!




No, he's turning into your father.


----------



## Rel (Nov 27, 2005)

Lefferts said:
			
		

> No, he's turning into your father.




Trust me when I say that Xath will NEVER be mistaken for my father, Lefferts.


----------



## JediSoth (Nov 28, 2005)

> I was pretty amused by all the complaints of "that's what kids do." Really? Mine don't, at least not when they're out. I have a funny feeling that these same complainers sure didn't get to act like that if they were out when they were kids either.




You know, when I was a kid, that wasn't what we did. If I acted like that in public, there was punishment. Not this "go sit in the corner and think about what you've done" crap, but the smack-on-the-butt kind.

[controls self before going on an uncontrollable rants about nosy busy-bodies, corporal punishment, and this blame-everyone-else-first society]

aselr oearen aodhfo ahe ndeo hnao

OK, so I can't talk about this in a coherant manner.



> I decided right then and there that these rude obnoxious kids were NOT going to ruin my only chance to go to the movies for the first time in two months. I turned around and gave them the "Daddy Voice" with both barrels: "Shut...up!" I have seldom seen two more chagrinned and terrified faces in my life. They uttered nary a peep for the entire rest of the movie.




My wife and I have to do this often at the movies. I tend to let it slide a bit in movies where I expect kids, but my tolerance drops to ZERO in PG-13 and above movies. Wanna see me become spawn of Satan? Bring a child to a rated R movie and let them misbehave just once. *coughSAWcough*.

JediSoth


----------

