The "No Kids Allowed" Movement

Post Reply New Topic

Master_Pedant: Your sig states: Terrorism does not justify state terrorism.

Is that even in cases where the state terrorists - and the state itself - conform heavily to your ideals and the non-state terrorists want something different? I'm talking about the kind of case where there are mass uprisings by the public for a libertarian-influenced kind of freedom after having enough of a vicious, brutal, controlling socialist central state?

Fancy restaurants can be an interesting diversion to children. The problem is that the things the children find interesting about the restaurant are precisely what gets them into trouble and infuriates adults seated nearby. The food- to children- is inedible so no interest in eating it. The only interest it provides is playing with it.

Long ago (really really long ago) my parents took my brother and I to a fancy French restaurant. It was just the sort of tactical error being discussed here, They bought us a frog leg entree. Neither of us had the slightest interest in eating a frog leg. But we were not bored. Oh no. We took the legs off the plate and walked them around the table and walked them up the sides of the booth and walked them across each other. Naturally we got in trouble and they didn't do that agian until we were adults. But our "frog march" must have annoyed nearby diners and so must the furious "stop that" hissing of my parents.

So on the one hand I agree that fancy restaurants can be interesting. On the other hand, what children find interesting and how they express that interest is precisely what causes the problem. It is the requirement that the child limit their interest to only sitting there in silence while eating inedible (to them) food that causes the problem.

I've eaten in restaurants around the world too. I didn't see any "scenes" being caused by children. In the very expensive restaurants, I didn't see any children. In the more moderately priced restaurants, I did see children and they were noisy and ate with gusto but I didn't see them get out of their seats or play with food instead of eat it.

Here's the big difference I noticed. Kids seemed to really enjoy the food. So they didn't succumb to the "play with it instead of eat it" behaviour like my brother and I and like so many kids when confronted with food that defies their edibility expectations. I don't know about the U.K. since I'm American, but in the U.S., food seems to have divided up into "children's food" and "adult food" for many different things. I'm not entirely sure how it happened but we somehow wound up with a culture where children and adults aren't expected to eat the same food. Mid-price American restaurants often have a separate menu for children which isn't merely smaller portions of the entrees but different entrees entirely. So when children get whisked out of that food segregation and are presented with one of the same expensive entrees everybody else in the restaurant is eating, they play with it rather than eat it. Because to them it isn't edible. Around the world I saw children eating the food, which immediately leads to better behaviour.

I like it. Children are not superior to adults. I think the "Oh My God The Children" craze of the 1990s and 2000s was a backlash to the abuse and neglect of children that was common from pre-literate to mid-modern times and now we are correcting it to make children EQUAL to adults.

I think it's a good sign.

Children are not the same as adults, its silly to expect them to behave like them. The 'no kids allowed' culture is just another aspect of the new anti-family world we live in. Btw, the signs look remarkably like the ones that say 'no foreigners' on some Japanese businesses and the logic behind them is just as stupid. Yes children can be disruptive; have a cup of concrete, its the price you pay for living in a society that has a future.

Anti-family world? Today is incredibly family oriented. This might sound weird but I would go as far as saying it's too family oriented. More and more people don't hang out with anyone except their family, because we have this idea that you can't trust anyone else that is so hip now (when of course your own family is far more likely to abuse or murder you than a random person). Everything is always about families and children, all the most popular charities are children's charities, people scream to bring back execution for child abusers (look at Casey Anthony). I mean don't get me wrong, I like kids - but kids grow up, if you consider children superior to adults, like most people today do, you are going to devalue them as they age. which imo is horrendous.

Family is great, I'm not saying we should follow Plato's advice and make everyone wards of the state, but I think so called "family values" are really just a rather poor system of ethics that places the propagation of genes and traditions ahead of human rights.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. We are more spread out than we have ever been before. Those children that survive the trip into this world face a future with no resources and a degrading environment. Those adults that benefited from education aid services are now shredding them for future generations and kids are being offloaded into the care of others and increasingly the state. All the while, most kids will experience divorce. In our modern culture, the adults have all the rights, the unborn have none and those being raised are finding theirs expendable. If however, you decide to have more than two kids, be prepared to be the subject of condescending remarks in the guardian.

I don't think comparing age discrimination to other types of discrimination is a fair comparison. Unlike other types of discrimination, age discrimination protects children from the things they are not ready for while simultaneously protecting others from the damage a child can do when confronted with an object, situation or enviroment they are not ready for. It's clear how this works with driving or alcohol or military enlistment. It's much milder in the case of a restaurant discriminating against child patrons.

Most of this thread has been about how nearby adults are adversly affected by children out of their element. So by banning the children from specific restaurants (owner's discretion), what have the children been protected from? They've been protected from the impossible-to-meet expectation that they behave like an introverted adult when in certain restaurants. They can't take part in the conversation, unless the adults agree to gear it to them, which they so rarely do. So they are expected to sit in silence or to say polite, quiet comments that an introverted adult might say such as "this tastes good". (And to them it probably doesn't- see my above post.) They are expected to sit still and not play with their food and entertain themselves without staring pointedly at the other patrons. Exactly how they are supposed to entertain themselves is unclear since they are generally barred from the adult conversation and their own childish conversation is considered inapproriate.

All in all, I think children would be relieved if their parents were suddenly unable to drag them to certain restaurants and were only able to take them to noisy restaurants (which wouldn't mind their added noise) with crayons and coloring placemats and "edible" food. We have no evidence that the children ever wanted to go to those restaurants in the first place. And plenty of noisy evidence that they didn't. I've heard "this place sucks!!" in pipsqueak tones more than once.

You have a point in which I think the obsession with children is more of an infatuation than true love or concern.

I don't think we are further spread out then before. I believe that peaked back in the 60s and 70s, most people live surprisingly close to their mothers. Gen Y are extremely attached to their parents, probably in part because they're spoiled.

The sad thing is while Gen Y's parents are very concerned about protecting them from drugs and pedophiles, they don't care nearly as much about a much greater threat, like you said, the destruction of our environment. You almost get the idea they care more about their children's purity and innocence than about their future.

Last edited by donnie_darko on 29 Jul 2011, 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

children are the reason i have to drive at 40kph between 2:30pm and 4:00 pm if i choose to drive somewhere on a week day between those times through "school zones". it is almost insufferable to drive at that speed for the few kilometers that span the school zones. i feel like getting out and running. why are kids let loose anywhere near main roads after their school day? they should be chuted out the back of the school into side streets where they can be collected or whatever, and the main road drivers would not have to suffer crippling delays and the "juniors" would be safer and out of the way.

i hate driving at 40 kph, and i have to use all my discipline to restrain myself from violating a 40kph speed limit. i am rather disgruntled that i have to spend so much energy in forcing myself to conform to an idiotic side effect of incomplete planning by the stewards of the children at the schools that spill out raggedly onto the highways after they get out.

i do not dislike children. they did not design the discomfort i feel as a result of their existence. adults designed it,

To protect the children from would be speeders like yourself.

ruveyn

QFT

why do people act like suddenly everyone is anti children?
there is a big difference in recognizing that a resteaurant owner has a choice that precedes that of both child and parent.

you dont have an inherrent right to be there, you dont dictate anything,
the only reason it seems that way is because the owner will be making his next meal off of your desire for fine food, he has a right to deny you that.

There might well be a market there for restaurants that both children and adults can enjoy but the problem is, again, that you have bored children, feckless parents irritated with the other customers and adults who just want to be left alone. Pubs are definitely not the answer here in the UK, because the regular customers are just driven away.

People don't actually care about children, or letting them learn about the world. They just want to protect them from everything, to wrap them up in cotton wool, prevent them from making their own decisions. Then when they grow up they're utterly at a loss as to how to deal with the world around them and nobody cares about them any more.

Exactly. I'm a moody person with a bad temper and the only sensory sensitivity I have is tactile which means I can't stand tags on my shirts so if anyone wants to go all No True Scotsman on me then be my guest. I also I tend to be outgoing and relaxed though I can be cranky and standoffish. Armchair psychology really gets on my nerves.

It just does not follow that because we understand children cannot drive, that they therefor should not be allowed in restaurants. Your statement does not have an logic to it, as your statements are disconnected from one another.



We live in a world with kids, it is not a reasonable expectation that children should be seen in public life. Alcohol and bars are a different matter because they deal with specific harmful behaviors. A restaurant is not such a thing. It is just an unfair expectation that some people have; that it is their right not to be disturbed by children. They world has children in it, they are necessary to it, so have a cup of concrete and deal with it.

Parents, from my generation, as a rule, have attempted, more than almost any generation before, to continue their lives as much as possible as if they were single. That is their choice, they have chosen taking pleasure for themselves ahead of giving it to their children. Now we as a society are doing much the same thing. The fact that some people chose not to have children, or to take them to restaurants, does not impact on the reality that we as a society have a duty towards them. A duty that we have shirked and continue to undermine. The simple reality is, that even if they are not your children, by force of community, you still owe them something. You need them for your future and they need you, even if the relationship is simply one of taxes.



This is where I have a problem, you have taken the decision out of the hands of the parent. The argument that some people cannot control their children does not equal a case that children should be banned. Children are a blessing, everything goes wrong when you stop seeing them this way.



Nonsense, I grew up in a restaurant, my parents owned one. Children can and for the most part do behave well in these establishments. It is not an impossible expectation.



BS. I remember sitting at many restaurant tables eating my food and discussing topics with the adults. We were raised and for the most part people tolerated us as children; now you want to tell the next generation that what we got is too much to ask... this seems slightly disingenuous to say the least.



Who cares, we have tons of evidence that parents want to take them there. The truth is, in the modern world, some people agree to any choice as being a valid one, unless its the traditional choice.

Society, as a rule, makes a mockery of the distinction between pleasure and happiness. The latter is far more important than the former. The parents taking their children to dinner may not look like they are engaging in a pleasurable activity and may even be infringing on yours. However, society does not owe you pleasure and certainly is not obliged to get out of your way in all things when you are going after it. I think the previous generation, which tolerated children to a much greater extent than ours does, had a better understanding of the different. To them, the idea of banning children from restaurants was unthinkable, the sound of children having fun was a sound of the surety of the future, almost a symbol of prosperity (especially to the boomer parents). I suppose, as a person who has more in common with that generation than with my own, I balk for the same reason. The idea that lives should be so separate, so that hedonism should be a right that goes unobstructed, is ridiculous to me.

You know whaT? F*ck families. The level of entitlement on people for having a family is so freaking high. Everyone can have a family, it is not as much of an accomplishment as going to the bathroom.

There are parents out there that seriously believe in a literal nanny state. That the government and all of society are supposed to take responsibility of their children instead of themselves. If your claim that culture is 'anti-family' was right, I would be the first to gloat and be happy about it. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. There's too many people out there that actually believe in family being the center of society, and they should just stop it.


Not quite, as the reasons kids can't drive are basically the same reason they likely won't behave correctly in a restaurant.





Or how about you just let restaurant keepers deny entrance to kids? It is not like freaking McDonalds would ever deny them entry. So, no, kids are not going to be starved to death by this trend of allowing restaurants, coffee places and bars to ban kids. In fact, it will make the family-friendly businesses able to focus on the family and provide more services that will be better for children.

Kids are the future, but heck, we are the present. If adults didn't work so much, the kids would actually literally starve and die. They wouldn't have toys or technological progress, and they wouldn't really be the future as they would be unable to learn anything.

Edit: Uh darn. it seems one of my edits cut a very long paragraph.

Here it is:

Possible outcomes:
* Kids will be glad as they will have to go to the places that like them. And that have games and stuff that is fun to do and junk food.
* Adults would be able to enjoy meals and drinks without worrying about children annoying them or about doing stuff children shouldn't see.
* Business would have a boost in sales. Both kid-oriented places and adult-oriented places will do better in the economy.
* Parents who would like to eat normal food are still able to order food for their home and take the food with them instead of the children to the restaurant. They will have to clean up themselves. Life is tough, I guess.

Let some business ban children. It is the price of living in a society that has a present.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 30 Jul 2011, 7:58 am, edited 5 times in total.