Finally, a ban on children in a restaurant!

[Rici]

What, so you now you can't order babies in a restaurant anymore?!

 

[Fuelbi]

Whatever person banned children from restaurants is a good man and should feel good

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs0cYJUqJys

 

[theeboredone]

Now, lets ban them from Movie theaters. At least from a LOT of movies, except from Little kids oriented movies. I mean, I want to watch a movie without kids being annoying at it.

Sadly, even teenagers talk a lot during the movies...

 

[Takumaru]

What, so you now you can't order babies in a restaurant anymore?!

You can still order babies, you just can't bring your own.

 

[TheLostHylian]

I'd love it if some restaurants banned children after a certain time (like 8 or 9 pm) instead of flat out banning them.

Nothing worse than a nice dinner with a woman and suddenly you can't hear her talking anymore because there's a constant screaming going on two tables over, courtesy of the kid who doesn't want to eat his broccoli.

 

[Spelt]

toddlers and babies should be banned from movie theaters imo.

 

[TheLostHylian]

Oh I'm totally with you there. No one wants to hear your newborn crying when Optimus Prime is in the middle of kicking ***. As cute as the newborn may be, she needs to be at home. With you.

Want to watch Transformers still? HELLO I AM TORRENT PROGRAM

 

[JGM]

Interesting age they seemed to have chosen there but I'd have gone with 10, personally. I've seen and known plenty of kids older than 6 who would have no place in a "fancy" restaurant, and on the flip side I've seen and known kids under 6 who would understand they would need to be calm in a restaurant [because anecdotal evidence is clearly the best evidence to use in something like this].

I agree with the ban, but as I said I'd have gone with a higher age just because most of the kids I know seemed to mellow out around there. +1 to the banning toddlers/infants from certain movies idea.

 

[Pluvia]

This is why I like watching 15's and 18's at the cinema, no bloody kids to ruin it.

 

[Takumaru]

This is why I like watching 15's and 18's at the cinema, no bloody kids to ruin it.

15's and 18's? Are those age restrictions/ratings?

 

[Crimson King]

Unless there is some screening process on who can reproduce, people who shouldn't be parents will have offspring, and because of those all kids under thirteen should be banned from restaurants, theaters, etc. after a set time.

I went see ******* 2 in theaters and a family walked in with an infant and small child. I can remember a lot more instances of this, and the kid usually just walks around.

 

[Teran]

15's and 18's? Are those age restrictions/ratings?

Yeah it's the UK system.

Also, I find it funny how everyone's all like "yeah **** kids!" but when they become parents they'll be all like "WHAT ABOUT MY KIDS?! THINK OF THE CHILDREN"

But I do agree, young children are annoying, then again so were you.

 

[Crimson King]

Or just never have kids.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Kids suck. People should just go from being a cute newborn to 18 and out of the house.

 

[Takumaru]

Kids suck. People should just go from being a cute newborn to 18 and out of the house.

This ^ ^ ^

You get the kids when they're cute and funny and then they are responsible for themselves. Perfect system!

 

[Peeze]

Children should be used for unpaid manual labor from ages 4-18. The US economy would skyrocket.

Tell that to Somalia.

This might lead to more parents leaving their kids while they go out partying.

 

[Master Xanthan]

Whoever banned kids from their restaurant is a great person. Seriously, kids can be so annoying.

 

[flaco]

wow really a band?acward

 

[frotaz37]

I don't like the direction this is going in. A person should not be discriminated against because of their age unless the issue is safety...there needs to be more of a reason than "well I DESERVE to not have to listen to kids because they annoy me and I am ENTITLED to live an annoyance free life" to impose such restrictions, otherwise it seems like illegal discrimination.

 

[Luigitoilet]

I don't like the direction this is going in. A person should not be discriminated against because of their age unless the issue is safety...there needs to be more of a reason than "well I DESERVE to not have to listen to kids because they annoy me and I am ENTITLED to live an annoyance free life" to impose such restrictions, otherwise it seems like illegal discrimination.

Children and babies are more likely to disrupt the other customers' experience. Those other people ARE entitled, THEY PAID for this service/luxury. This isn't discrimination on the level of black/white segregation before the 1960s, it's a business ensuring that they provide the most enjoyable and high quality experience to paying customers. The screaming 2 year old in the front row didn't buy a ticket, it's the idiot parent who brought them there.

 

[frotaz37]

Children and babies are more likely to disrupt the other customers' experience.

I would love to see your evidence to support this claim, cause I really don't see how anyone could claim to know such a thing. Or are you speaking from your experience alone? Not like it matters anyway, because children not being present/not being too loud is not part of the service being paid for so they are not entitled to it even if they paid for the service.

This isn't discrimination on the level of black/white segregation before the 1960s, it's a business ensuring that they provide the most enjoyable and high quality experience to paying customers. The screaming 2 year old in the front row didn't buy a ticket, it's the idiot parent who brought them there.

So because the children themselves aren't paying customers, they somehow have less rights? That makes no sense. How is an adult paying for a child any different than an adult paying for an adult? Whatever the service is, they are being payed for by somebody. So what you end up saying is that because a child doesn't have a source of income, they have less rights.

All you're doing by saying that is using something a child can't help as a reason to discriminate against them, and that's really not much different from the era you mentioned at all.

 

[1048576]

Nobody can help anything, yet we don't allow serial killers into free society. Harvard denies people who suck at math acceptance.

 

[frotaz37]

Math is a trainable skill. Suggesting that being bad at it is something that "can't be helped" is nonsense.
Serial killers are a danger to people's lives. Most kids aren't, so I'm not really understanding where you're going with these analogies :/

 

[1048576]

Wait so now we're only allowed to ban things if they pose a threat to safety? Stop trying to be right. Start trying to find truth. **** is bad. It is not a threat to people's lives. Rapists and pedophiles are quite rightly banned from free society.

I don't know how much math you've taken, but at a certain point, you hit a wall and can't learn it anymore. Regardless, some people are naturally disadvantaged, through no fault of their own, and Harvard won't let them be math majors. Discrimination.

Should I be required to let your 5'1" *** play on my volleyball team?

I have no words. I don't know what compels you to put forth the ideas you have. Do you feel guilty about some past intolerance you caused, so now you're trying to win a liberal pissing contest to redeem yourself? Do you think children deserve the same autonomy as adults? Maybe your morality is something more fundamental than the harm principle, so you don't care what makes society better off as long as nobody has authority over anyone else. Maybe you don't see annoying children as a big deal, so more harm is caused by banning them. I don't know.

Personally I think offenses to people's mental and emotional sensibilities should be taken more seriously, or else physical offenses should be taken less seriously. I think the only reason they the discrepancy exists is because medical science doesn't understand emotional responses as well and they're hard to measure.

 

[theeboredone]

I think of it more as rules being enforced. It's a upper class, mature place to eat. This ain't chilis or tgif. Like certain school clubs or even frats, you can't just join unless you qualify.

 

[1048576]

Maybe they should have a kids and no-kids section, or just cluster all the families with kids together.

 

[Takumaru]

@frotaz: Children aren't adults and they get banned from more grown up environments all the time. This isn't an issue of rights. This is an issue of where children should and shouldn't be allowed and they shouldn't be allowed in an environment that caters to adult clients.

 

[Teran]

Tbh I think children could be a lot less annoying to people if parents and society didn't facilitate childish stupidity.

I mean, the kind of stuff we think of as "childish" isn't really childish more so than just stupid and can easily be trained out if parents don't give their children free passes on everything with the excuse of "they're young".

I mean I was a perfectly well mannered child who shut the **** up when he should be quiet and made all the noise I wanted when it was appropriate.

Kids aren't inherently obnoxious and ****ish, we just kinda encourage them to be ********.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Maybe they should have a kids and no-kids section, or just cluster all the families with kids together.

Or, the families who want to bring their kids to a movie have plenty of other theaters to choose from.

 

[Pluvia]

Apparently there is some "no kids" cinemas in cities here? I'm not too sure so I'll name search bait Teran so he can clarify.

 

[frotaz37]

Wait so now we're only allowed to ban things if they pose a threat to safety? Stop trying to be right. Start trying to find truth. **** is bad. It is not a threat to people's lives. Rapists and pedophiles are quite rightly banned from free society.

**** is a threat to people's safety and well being. A child in a movie theater or restaurant or airplane is not. Would you stop comparing children to rapists and pedophiles?

I don't know how much math you've taken, but at a certain point, you hit a wall and can't learn it anymore. Regardless, some people are naturally disadvantaged, through no fault of their own, and Harvard won't let them be math majors. Discrimination.

Except that's true for every single skill you can learn, so the point is moot. At the end of the day it's more of a trainable skill than age, gender, or race. Plus, I'm not suggesting that colleges change their acceptance policies (That's another discussion for another time). I understand the comparison you're trying to make but it doesn't work because a person applying for college has a chance (or at least has had a chance) to train and to prove their math skills. A ban on children doesn't allow such a chance.

I have no words. I don't know what compels you to put forth the ideas you have. Do you feel guilty about some past intolerance you caused, so now you're trying to win a liberal pissing contest to redeem yourself? Do you think children deserve the same autonomy as adults? Maybe your morality is something more fundamental than the harm principle, so you don't care what makes society better off as long as nobody has authority over anyone else. Maybe you don't see annoying children as a big deal, so more harm is caused by banning them. I don't know.

I have no words. I don't know what compels you to put forth the ideas you have. You're not saying anything useful, you're just lashing out at me like you're somehow offended by my point of view or your fabricated reasons for me having it. It really doesn't matter why I have the views I do, it has nothing to do with the conversation and I'm not gonna waste time defending myself against nonsense like this. You're not gonna turn this into a flame war so there's no point in trying.

@frotaz: Children aren't adults and they get banned from more grown up environments all the time. This isn't an issue of rights. This is an issue of where children should and shouldn't be allowed and they shouldn't be allowed in an environment that caters to adult clients.

Unless I'm mistaken, the reason children get banned from grown up environments is because said environments are hazardous to children, or children being allowed in the environment is hazardous to others. Why aren't children allowed in bars? Why aren't children allowed in strip clubs? Night clubs? Why aren't children allowed to drive? I don't think "cause they're annoying" is the answer to any of those, I'm pretty sure the issue is safety.

This definitely is an issue of rights from my point of view...I see banning people because there is a possibility they might be annoying to some customers as a re-opening of doors that have been rightfully closed for a long time.

 

[Spelt]

Tbh I think children could be a lot less annoying to people if parents and society didn't facilitate childish stupidity.

I mean, the kind of stuff we think of as "childish" isn't really childish more so than just stupid and can easily be trained out if parents don't give their children free passes on everything with the excuse of "they're young".

I mean I was a perfectly well mannered child who shut the **** up when he should be quiet and made all the noise I wanted when it was appropriate.

Kids aren't inherently obnoxious and ****ish, we just kinda encourage them to be ********.

I agree with everything in this post.

Children realize they can get stuff if they throw tantrums because parents rarely ever punish them for it.
they just coddle them and go "it's okay baby stop crying everything will be okay take some candy, play with my earrings, stick a fork in the power outlet whatever just stop crying sweetie"

 

[Crimson King]

This definitely is an issue of rights from my point of view...I see banning people because there is a possibility they might be annoying to some customers as a re-opening of doors that have been rightfully closed for a long time.

You are clearly arguing for the sake of arguing. Every business has the right to refuse service to anyone.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

^Exactly.

Just eat somewhere else or COOK something for your child. That's just the way it is sometimes.

 

[Teran]

Apparently there is some "no kids" cinemas in cities here? I'm not too sure so I'll name search bait Teran so he can clarify.

The only cinemas that forbid children from entering are porn ones to my knowledge.

Still most cinemas will obviously bar kids from entering 15s and 18s and when I was a kid 12s too, so it was actually decent.

Although I guess 12 year olds are kids but whatever.

 

[frotaz37]

You are clearly arguing for the sake of arguing.

Statements like this have no business in a discussion about anything. All you're doing is stating that my opinion shouldn't be taken seriously, or that I'm just trolling or something. I don't see why it's so hard to believe that there are people who oppose this ban.

Every business has the right to refuse service to anyone.

Right, but refusing service to an entire age group simply because "they are annoying" is coming really close to crossing the line, if not already crossing it. I can't think of any other situation in which this could happen without serious legal repercussion.

 

[-Ran]

A few malls in New Orleans institute a 'No teenagers without a guardian' clause on the weekend. They found that overall teenagers were loitering and pushing away the clientele that actually purchased items.

 

[Peeze]

@frotaz Its a private establishment. No one but the owner has a RIGHT to be there.

Rights in this discussion are stupid.

 

[frotaz37]

If that's the only argument then an owner should be allowed to implement a "no mexican people" rule.

Why doesn't that happen? Because of rights. Rights aren't at all stupid in this discussion.