The "No Kids Allowed" Movement

Post Reply New Topic

there's a button in the upper right hand of every post that says "quote"

[quote]blauSamstag
there's a button in the upper right hand of every post that says "quote"

Thanks for the help but not sure if i did this right...

it seems like it only lets you quote the most recent post...
computers can be difficult... and mine has a lot of issues that i can't fix

Also... someone said they want to put children in concentration camps...

isn't that just sick!!?
sounds like world war 2 all over again...
only this time it will be adults locking up poor children...
very much like a world war 2 sort of "mass hysteria" among adults...

There are childern who are very kind and polite and can hold a decent conversation.

Last edited by transformingcar on 27 Jul 2011, 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I wasn't mocking people who supported this movement, I was mocking transformingcar for saying that anyone who disagrees with him are just lashing out on their childhood abuse and must hate kids. Armchair psychoanalyzing and loaded language are two of the quickest ways to lose credibility with me.

Anyways I have no issue with places being allowed to ban kids as they can be really disruptive. fyi I had an abusive childhood and I don't see how it is relevant to my stance here at all or why it would make me lash out on kids. Hell if I was gonna lash out at anything, it would be at a**holes who think it is acceptable to tell their kids what a piece of s**t they are and smacking them for being different.

And seriously this topic is about allowing business owners not to let kids into their buildings, not taking kids and punting them across the nearest football field. Way to be melodramatic.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 27 Jul 2011, 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wanting to have an occasional quiet night out without children != hating children.


I don't care how smart they are. I care how loud and disruptive they are.


Allowing private business owners to ban children != banning children from all public places.

Also, fwiw a personal peeve about writing style: it is standard to end a sentence with a single period (.). Ending with elipses (...) indicates that something has been left out. When every single sentence ends in elipses, it makes it seem like the writer cannot complete a thought.

Well Ace of spades i'm sorry but not all kids are disruptive... a lot of them are very kind careing people...
but it all changes when you get older... However I will never forget the great importance that it is to be a child...

I do not mean to use "loaded language' if you are referring to word like "selfish" or "hateful"

it is just what much of what is said in this topic sounds like...

give the kids a chance! please

aslo ace of spades i don't like to insult you or anyone else so I am very sorry... this is just such a bad topic that should not have been posted and I probally should not have found it... but i just can't let anyone take away the rights that children deserve...

i'm aslo sorry if your child hood was abusive... but do not take it out o n children!
they never mean harm to any one... but it seems when we become adults all we can do is harm...

i'm still there is upset that one person on here... who said the following

"Concentration camp"

I don't really know who said that...
but it seems like that particuler person has no understanding the horror those words put in some people...

Who did say that? did they mean it? and do they know what those are!? a concentration camp is a place where a large group of people are held... and killed in a brutal way... sometimes after so called scientiffic testing... that means torture...

say what you will but this topic should not have ever been posted on a website dedicated to people with disabilities!! !

DO NOT CORRECT MY GRAMMER/ SENTENCES/ WRITING STYE!! ! or whatever you try to call it.

I know how to write!! !
I am writing a book too!! !
this is just how I type when I post something ther is nothing wrong wtih that!! !

the elipses do not mean that the thought is incomplete!! ! it means that it's a spot to pause then continue reading!! !

ASLO... most children are not "loud and disruptive" they tend to be quiet...
Somtimes because they are fearful of the cruel adults around... they do not get get loud and disruptive without a good reason!! !
it is almost alway's an adult fualt for doing or saying somthing hurtfull...
Like a said before... Kids mean no harm... but when we become adults all we can do is harm.

Last edited by transformingcar on 27 Jul 2011, 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No offense taken, I just thought the loaded language and psychoanalysis was corny and that it is overly simplistic to attribute it to anyone who disagrees with you. I'm not saying all kids are disruptive but since you would have to single the disruptive ones out the parents of the disruptive ones could cause shitstorms so it's better to just leave them all out. btw I have no reason to take anything out on children. Knowing what abuse is like firsthand, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Besides it doesn't even make sense to be angry at kids. Why would I be angry at kids when it is the abusive parents that dish out the beatings and emotional abuse?

I can agree with some of that it since it makes more sence now. does this mean theres a way to meet in the middle and leave this mess behind us? just for now any way?

I really don't want to upset any one... so... can we all forgive each other for any harsh comments?

I am very sorry... and I hope this kind of difficult topic won't appear agian...

I mean no harm to any of you or your feelings on this matter... can we forget the bad things said and get along?

I did not correct you. I made a statement about how your style is perceived by me as a reader.


Writing in all capital letters and with excess exclamation points comes across to the reader as screaming.


You are factually incorrect.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... ipses.html
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/ellipsis.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis

As I said, it can be considered a point of style; however, you should be aware of its effect on the reader and the fact that it is not standard for written English.

To the one who said this to me. you are mostly right there.
i do understand your reasoning for this but the way i use it is not completly incorrect.
there are many ways to express words so I hope you will try to understnd my point of veiw becuase i can understand yours...

so do we agree to disagree and understand that we write differently?

I am writing a book to but i try do use words, sentneces and all the other things the way i leaned to from school.
of course when some one in a book speaks the sentence doe not have to be correct becuase everone talks differenly

Okay, but couldn't the same logic apply to people who get drunk at the restraunt or people with Sensory Integration Disorder? I can understand some paternalistic measures to keep children out of situations in which they're in danger (i.e. restricting them from establishments that serve prodigious amounts of alcohol or otherwise "unsafe" environments like stripclubs and, where legal, brothels), but the whole mentality of this thread (particularly the admission that this really isn't about childrens' safety so much as accomodating child-disliking adults) is unnervingly similar to the mentality of keeping the disabled out of restaurants because they were a real "downer" for able bodied patrons. The fact is, while I dislike slippery slope arguments, this "movement" sets a crappy precedent that resembles moves to bar other undesirables from places where those in power just wouldn't like to see them.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 27 Jul 2011, 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There's no hatchet to bury since I didn't have any hard feelings in the first place lol. But anyways I'm glad the message is clearer to you now.

Well it's PPR, feel free to post whatever topic you want to. Just try to avoid loaded language/propositions since they only function to impose bias.

Ah, the first rule in every intergenerational warfare insigator's playbook, "those youngings need to be stopped, so long as they fall just outside of my age demo! !!".

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 27 Jul 2011, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If the patrons of the child-free restaurant are willing to pay more in order to make sure that an annoying kid will not ruin their meal, then that is their right. It is still your right to take your kids to another restaurant.

What about them discriminatory insurance companies, charging more to insure young male drivers? I mean wouldn't it make more sense to just charge more for the ones who are bad drivers?

Edit: Oops, said the exact opposite of what I meant... :/ fixed.

Way to shift the goalposts. Right now the discussion is on whether it's a good idea, morally. While I'm not actually suggesting legislation against this at the moment, I do think it's a sucky movement based on the worst elements of "I do want any undesirables around me, I'm entitled to be around responsible folks like me" thinking.

Regardless, one could make the same lame argument over whether disabled or black people should be allowed in dinners. After all, if it's really so morally wrong, than the market's so good and morally directed that it'll ensure all profitable dinners aren't segregated, right (though history doesn't really pan sustain this belief).



Though I haven't looked into insurance practice and even though this is a lame arse attempt to divert the attention elsewhere, I'd probably think that if it we have easy records on a driver's trackrecord then using that to determine premimums rather than gender-based overgeneralizations would be the better move.

MP, I think that there's an important difference in that an adult member of a racial minority is responsible for his or her own self, and a child is not. In addition, a child is vastly more likely to misbehave through sheer ignorance than an adult of any race.