If your baby is crying...DO SOMETHING!! [Archive] - Page 2

Dangerosa

06-27-2007, 09:26 PM

You can drive from New York City to London, England? Please, let me know how you do it.

No one NEEDS to fly? No one NEEDS to take a train. No one NEEDS to take a bus. No one NEEDS to take a boat.... If you can't drive there yourself, ship the kid by FedEx.

Yes, the CEO can video conference. Yes, families fled Europe during the war never to see their loved ones again. But air travel has progressed to actually make it possible now for families to actually touch each other. Allowing a grandmother to actually toussle the hair of her toddler grandson is commonplace magic.

Maybe your job lets you have a month off or two for holidays. For the average North American, that's not the case. Most people can't take the time it would need to travel by boat to another continent and be able to visit.

If I was a divorcee, I wouldn't be able to drive to Vancouver to pass my kids to my ex for their two month visit, and then drive their again to pick them up. Do they NEED to see their mom? No, but fuck I'd hate to deny them that, and the courts would consider me an asshole if I did.

Fine no one "needs" to fly -- no life or death issue -- but to deny families a chance to interact because Carol or catsix doesn't want to share a jumbo jet with a toddler is fucking stupid.

The longest flight I've endured was 13 hours. It sucked, but even the biggest jerk on the plane fell asleep afterwhile. My commute to work by commuter train used to be two hours -- how is that different from the average domestic flight? Should we ban children from trains too? "Oh noes I'm stuck on a train for two hours and there's a toddler!" Plenty of domestic flights are just as long/short.

Where do you want to draw the line? No children on the Greyhound ride from LA to Cleveland? Want Amtrack to have a "no spawn" policy? My flight from NYC to Toronto is an hour -- less than my old commute. No kids allowed? What the fuck does it matter if it's a plane or a train or a boat? Won't the "horror of travelling in the presence of children" be the same?

Flying has become as comonplace as taking the bus, and more commonplace than the Pony Express.

No one needs to fly, but comparred to all the other options (for distances longer than a reasonable car ride), how big a deal is it, really, if a kid is on the plane? Get stuck on a Greyhound for three hours, it's the same. You want to ban all public travel for anyone under the age of 12?

Oh, I agree completely. But need is a strong word. The airline industry could die and humanity would survive. Would it suck, sure. But no one NEEDS to fly. However, to be ethical we should extend that definition of need to all passengers - if kids don't NEED to fly, neither does the CEO.

PunditLisa

06-27-2007, 09:28 PM

Your ignorance is on display here.

-FrL-

Actually I'm the mother of two former 3 year old children. Did they ever throw temper tantrums? Absolutely, but not after they learned to recognize the hairy eyeball. In fact, they're teenagers now and the hairy eyeball still works. :D

Oh, and a wrestling contest with a 3 year old to put on his seatbelt? I'd win that. every. time. for no other reason than because it's a non-negotiable safety issue. What kid isn't used to putting on a seatbelt? The ones who aren't used to putting them.

MsRobyn

06-27-2007, 09:33 PM

IIRC, from one of those little factoids you see in the margins, something like 60% of parents have used Benadryl to sedate their kids.

Not that I'm recommending it or anything. Sometimes they react to the food coloring and flip out instead.

See, that's why you use the dye-free kind. And believe me, on a cross-country flight, having Benadryl on hand is a blessing for all concerned, including the child.

Robin

eleanorigby

06-27-2007, 09:40 PM

Oh, and a wrestling contest with a 3 year old to put on his seatbelt? I'd win that. every. time. for no other reason than because it's a non-negotiable safety issue. What kid isn't used to putting on a seatbelt? The ones who aren't used to putting them.

Yep. My SIL doesn't bother to buckle her kids in, because "they delight in getting out of the seatbelts. How many times am I supposed to stop the car?" :rolleyes: :mad: Who's in charge here?

Strange how my kids never balked at the seatbelt--oh, sure they used to arch their backs (at about 18 months) to prevent the buckling, but this is non-negotiable, so by age 3, they were asking to be put into the belts.

fessie

06-27-2007, 09:43 PM

Yep. My SIL doesn't bother to buckle her kids in, because "they delight in getting out of the seatbelts. How many times am I supposed to stop the car?" :rolleyes: :mad: Who's in charge here?

Strange how my kids never balked at the seatbelt--oh, sure they used to arch their backs (at about 18 months) to prevent the buckling, but this is non-negotiable, so by age 3, they were asking to be put into the belts.

Heh - when mine were about 2 yrs old I explained that if they weren't wearing seatbelts, then "policee-man" would be arresting me (at that age, it causes some concern).

Of course, I had to scramble when they started telling everyone we met that "Policee-man a take a mommy a jail".

CanvasShoes

06-27-2007, 10:03 PM

Actually I'm the mother of two former 3 year old children. Did they ever throw temper tantrums? Absolutely, but not after they learned to recognize the hairy eyeball. In fact, they're teenagers now and the hairy eyeball still works. :D

Oh, and a wrestling contest with a 3 year old to put on his seatbelt? I'd win that. every. time. for no other reason than because it's a non-negotiable safety issue. What kid isn't used to putting on a seatbelt? The ones who aren't used to putting them.As PunditLisa and several others have pointed out in the thread, being a responsible parent means that you've BEEN parenting properly all along. Well before you have to take a flight with a three year old. And you come prepared, perhaps even having done "practice runs" (like a few long car trips).

Who waits until they're going on a plane ride to suddenly decide to teach a child to be seatbelted in? A responsible parent would have been doing that all along. Whenever I've seen a child behaving badly on a plane, it certainly hasn't had anything to do with the fact that they're on a plane, it's been quite obvious that they've not ever been parented or disciplined properly.

You bring things to keep them occupied, you make sure that they are already well-disciplined and well-behaved kids, LONG before you put them in a confined space with several hundred innocent bystanders. And FTR, unless the seatbelt sign is on, you can CERTAINLY take the child to the bathroom/galley area and have a stern word with them if need be.

Screaming babies on a plane is a whole 'nother ballgame. I have rarely seen any fellow travelers that didn't understand that with tots too young to understand about swallowing etc, that this was probably a likely occurrance, but ONLY for the take-offs and landings generally.

Oh and by the way, what kinda IDIOT doesn't bring earplugs for riding amongst one's 100 to coupla hundred fellow humans? I HATE flying, so I generally have a few OTC sleeping tablets, a good neck pillow and definitely earplugs. Though I'm one that hates unnecessary kid screaming, misbehaviour and the poor parenting generally behind those problems, my most unpleasant experiences (noise-wise) have been my fellow adults, not kids.

Dangerosa

06-27-2007, 10:04 PM

Strange how my kids never balked at the seatbelt--oh, sure they used to arch their backs (at about 18 months) to prevent the buckling, but this is non-negotiable, so by age 3, they were asking to be put into the belts.

For most parents there is at least one trip (eighteen months sounds about right) where you are standing in the parking lot of Target (or wherever), physically - I don't want to say forcing because you don't force enough to hurt - encouraging your child into a seat they don't want to get into (which can take some time) where you think to yourself "please, do not let this be the moment some busybody walks by and decides that the only reason my kid is screaming like this is because I'm abusing them and calls the cops."

Dangerosa

06-27-2007, 10:13 PM

As PunditLisa and several others have pointed out in the thread, being a responsible parent means that you've BEEN parenting properly all along. Well before you have to take a flight with a three year old. And you come prepared, perhaps even having done "practice runs" (like a few long car trips).

However, a car trip and an airplane can be very different things to a child. Some children are quite spooked by security now (they used to get more of a free pass). Our last trip with our kids was with Grandma and Grandpa - and we got seperated in the security line (my kids are old enough to understand "we'll meet them at the gate") Teddy gets put on the scanner. They may have to board on the tarmac - which can be loud (my older kids did NOT like boarding on the tarmac out of San Jose). If you don't bring their car seat, the seat is too big for them and their seatbelt not at all what they are familiar with (an argument in favor of bringing your car seat for plane travel). Once in flight, little ears are much more susceptible to pain. Little feet kick the back of the seat with every movement (even when your kid is being good - their legs are just the right length for move=kick). Planes aren't well configured for families bigger than three - we always have Dad (occationally Mom) across the aisle or in a different row. Its a lot louder on a plane than in a car - and there is just the whole flying thing.

So you can parent all along, be quite prepared, and then still have a kid spooked by the plane. Hell, grown ups have anxiety attacks over flying, seems reasonable that a three year old might.

CanvasShoes

06-27-2007, 10:34 PM

However, a car trip and an airplane can be very different things to a child. Some children are quite spooked by security now (they used to get more of a free pass). Our last trip with our kids was with Grandma and Grandpa - and we got seperated in the security line (my kids are old enough to understand "we'll meet them at the gate") Teddy gets put on the scanner. They may have to board on the tarmac - which can be loud (my older kids did NOT like boarding on the tarmac out of San Jose). If you don't bring their car seat, the seat is too big for them and their seatbelt not at all what they are familiar with (an argument in favor of bringing your car seat for plane travel). Once in flight, little ears are much more susceptible to pain. Little feet kick the back of the seat with every movement (even when your kid is being good - their legs are just the right length for move=kick). Planes aren't well configured for families bigger than three - we always have Dad (occationally Mom) across the aisle or in a different row. Its a lot louder on a plane than in a car - and there is just the whole flying thing.

So you can parent all along, be quite prepared, and then still have a kid spooked by the plane. Hell, grown ups have anxiety attacks over flying, seems reasonable that a three year old might.
This is true, but again, the difference between when a kid is spooked and which ones are just being brats is pretty obvious. Mine have been both, from what I've seen with my own and others who are well-behaved, the parents ARE able to get them under control. My beef is really with those who don't "do something" like the OP says, or worse, think that brattiness for brattiness' sake is normal and allow it.

There's a huge difference between a kid being scared and having to have a scuffle with them and the seatbelt when everyone is boarding and also making noise and having their settling in routines (besides which, every single airline I've flown on has the "parents with small children and those needing extra time to board boarding several minutes ahead of everyone else" bonus), and a few minutes of "getting used to the scary airplane fussing, and "I'm bored" brattiness (not headed off at the pass by the parent) well into the flight.

I'm not at ALL in agreement with the "kids shouldn't be allowed on airplanes" crowd. However as I've said throughout this thread, I DO think that parents have a certain responsibility to "do something" when their kids are acting up.

I don't believe that means that, as someone said "take their baby out of the store within a nanosecond of their starting to cry" but I do believe it means taking appropriate action, such as picking up the baby. Yes, babies do need to just "cry it out" occasionally, but not where they're going to cause others pain (and yes, as someone else pointed out, it is earsplittingly painful).

Again, some seem to be thinking that any complaint against incompetent parenting is a complaint against them if they've ever had a less than stellar parenting mishap (who hasn't? I can entertain for hours with the embarrassing parenting moments I've had, like the one where my 3 year old "beat me up" at the state fair, TOTALLY my fault I waited way too long to decide to go home, not realizing until too late that he was overtired, last time I made THAT mistake).

If you don't ignore, or expect everyone to accomodate your precious angel no matter what he/she is doing, then you're NOT what the thread is about. (not you Dangerosa, collective you :)).

Heffalump and Roo

06-27-2007, 10:40 PM

I would have to ask for a cite; who in the thread is saying parents shouldn't take responsibility for what their kids do?

I'd have to cite all the negative reaction to Captain_C's post when he said that since adults can't scream for two minutes in bookstores, then children shouldn't be allowed to do the same.

At some point, when the damage is large enough, we all agree that the parent is responsible for their child's actions. If a child takes a car for a joyride and wrecks the car, the courts and justice system will hold the parents responsible for the damages as if the parents themselves took the joyride in the car. I think most of us would agree on that.

But the issue here is at what point is there enough damage that the parents step in to take responsibility as if the parent him/herself did the actual act. In this case, people are saying that when children create an inconvenience with noise and the like, there is not enough damage to hold the parents responsible to the standard that the parent would be held accountable. However, if there's enough noise over a long enough time, parents can be held responsible as in the pool case I cited earlier in this thread.

My point is that people don't agree at what point we hold parents responsible for the acts of the child as if the parent committed the acts themselves. We mostly agree at one end where the damage is egregious (actually the courts step in here), but we mostly disagree where the damage is just some noise or someone getting bumped or small spills or . . . It is for these things that I'm saying that there would be disagreement over whether parents are responsible for the acts of the child. . . as if the parent committed that act.

In fact, as far as I'm aware, parents are even legally responsible for civil damages their children cause, aren't they? I'm pretty sure if my kid breaks or ruins something I'm obliged to pay for it. I know I certainly would be full of apologies (being apologetic, at least in person, is my nature, anyway) and would happily pay to clean someone's suit if my kid spilled something on it. But would you still think I was a total jerk because the incident happened, even if I apologize and pay for the damages?

For me, that would depend. It would largely depend on whether I thought the "accident" could have been avoided. If the parent saw the kids' game running around playing tag with no melted cheese in their hand and then told them that they needed to eat so take the melted cheese with them to play, I'd still be upset. That, to me, is poor parenting. And I've seen things like this happening often. Instead of making the child sit down to eat, the parents accommodate the child by allowing the child to take the food with them. That's an accident waiting to happen.

I would also be less gracious if I had already told them that their behavior is dangerous and was an accident waiting to happen. This happens quite a lot also.

I was attempting to point out that we accomodate others every day in life - it is part of being decent members of society. However, since there are posters here who do not seem to want to give one inch to people with kids - I thought I would start drawing my personal lines in the sand as well.

I obviously failed in my exposition.

To me, it read like the Bible verse (I'm not a Christian so please forgive me if I mess up the verse) that goes something like, Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And your allusion to drawing lines in the sand is interesting because there are some interpretations of the story of the woman at the well which state that when people picked up stones to throw at her, Jesus writes each of the person's sins down in the sand for those who pick up a stone where only they can see it and they then put the stone down.

The genius of the Bible, which was missing in your list of "sins" was the catch-all phrase at the end. Since pridefulness is a sin, even if you somehow can follow all the pretty restrictive rules, you'd still get hit with the pridefulness or intolerance rule. So if you had said that even if you hadn't done any of those things and you're still intolerant of children, then f*** off because you're an intolerant SOB or something like that, maybe it would have worked. But then again, rivaling the Bible is a pretty hard thing to do.

That is all I'm talking about, these blanket statements that were made by only a couple posters. I think saying "I can't stand kids" is about as morally defensible as saying "I can't stand black people." Or women. Or whatever. Now, I wholeheartedly agree when 5-4-Fighting says there is a "whole cultural, institutional and historical aspect, miscegenistic attitude, power-dynamical tone and diasporical effect " that isn't present when people talk about oppressing children. Our society is very permissive of children, even misbehaving children. I think it may, in fact, be too permissive of misbehaving children. So the cultural background isn't there, and a statement like that isn't seen as a threat. I guess that's why a lot of people consider it "okay." But I don't. It's still ignorance, which is what this board is dedicated to fighting. And I wanted to speak up against it.

So if there was a thread about lying, cheating men who had affairs on their spouses and someone had said, "I can't stand men," would you fight their ignorance and let them know that it was the same as racism or bigotry?

Frylock

06-27-2007, 10:47 PM

Actually I'm the mother of two former 3 year old children. Did they ever throw temper tantrums? Absolutely, but not after they learned to recognize the hairy eyeball. In fact, they're teenagers now and the hairy eyeball still works. :D

Oh, and a wrestling contest with a 3 year old to put on his seatbelt? I'd win that. every. time. for no other reason than because it's a non-negotiable safety issue. What kid isn't used to putting on a seatbelt? The ones who aren't used to putting them.

Your post is based on a supposition that what works for two three year olds (siblings at that) works for all three year olds.

I have a friend who does everything "right" (by my lights anyway)--she is firm, fair, she does not spoil her children, she does not reward them for misbehavior, she follows through on her promises both positive and negative, etc., etc. Her kid (a three year old) is a great kid. Sweetest thing you ever met. Very clever and sprightly. And every now and then, he gets really, really mad at something utterly trivial. When this happens, he is absolutely inconsoleable. He can not be calmed down. He's not being spoiled--he's just angry and sad and has no control over himself.

This is something he'll grow out of--just as his father (who did the same thing as a child) did--but it is clear to me that this is not something that can be 'taught' out of him. When he goes nuts, he just has to be removed from the situation if possible, and allowed to "cry it out." And sometimes (like on an airplane for example) he can't be removed from the situation. It's unfortunate if this happens, but it's just what happens.

Meanwhile, my kid is really sweet, almost never throws temper tantrums (and strangely, literally never throws them in public!) and yet my wife and I do not feel we have done anything in particular to bring about this character in him. He's just like that.

Kids have personalities. A personality is not an excuse for misbehavior, of course, but it is nevertheless a fact that at the age of three, some kids just don't know how to control their temper under some circumstances, while others do. It's not really about parenting styles all the time. It can have more to do with physiological development and personality.

-FrL-

Heffalump and Roo

06-27-2007, 11:03 PM

This is something he'll grow out of--just as his father (who did the same thing as a child) did--but it is clear to me that this is not something that can be 'taught' out of him. When he goes nuts, he just has to be removed from the situation if possible, and allowed to "cry it out." And sometimes (like on an airplane for example) he can't be removed from the situation. It's unfortunate if this happens, but it's just what happens.

But if they know this in advance about the child, shouldn't they make different plans in regards to planes and other confined places (except for emergencies of course) until the child grows out of it?

That's like if you *knew* that your computer was going to go off unexpectedly making a loud blaring noise and you could do nothing to stop it, shouldn't you either leave your computer at home or wait until it's fixed to take it on a plane?

miss elizabeth

06-27-2007, 11:18 PM

Frylock

06-27-2007, 11:55 PM

But if they know this in advance about the child, shouldn't they make different plans in regards to planes and other confined places (except for emergencies of course) until the child grows out of it?

I don't think so. But this is one of the issues at debate on the thread, of course.

In my opinion, considerations such as "If we don't get on a plane, this kid and his grandparents will never see each other in person!" count as overriding the risk that the kid might have a tantrum on the flight. (I should note that in the case of the kid I was talking about, the grandparents live in Morocco, so driving is not just a great difficulty--it's impossible. ;) )

A kid screaming on a plane for a while is an inconvenience, to be sure. But it's a far cry from an emergency. For that reason, I would think we need not require something so bad as an emergency before we allow that someone be permitted to risk causing the inconvenience in question.

That's like if you *knew* that your computer was going to go off unexpectedly making a loud blaring noise and you could do nothing to stop it, shouldn't you either leave your computer at home or wait until it's fixed to take it on a plane?

I believe the analogy fails because of the several ways in which laptops are not like little kids. People don't regard mechanical/electronic noise in the same way they regard human noise. Also, the analogy is underspecified. Perhaps there is important information on that laptop that must go with you to the place you're flying to. (And you're on a deadline, or whatever.) Basically, in other words, there are cases and there are cases, and I suspect for any case in which it turns out one ought to bring the kid along despite the risk, you can also construct an analogous case in which it turns out one ought to bring the laptop along despite the risk.

-FrL-

EddyTeddyFreddy

06-28-2007, 12:19 AM

CanvasShoes

06-28-2007, 12:48 AM

Speaking of a kid's tantrum disrupting a flight.... (http://www.nbc10.com/news/13575254/detail.html) Four year boy who freaks out because the stewardess doesn't fetch some apple juice fast enough for the Little Prince. :rolleyes:
Wow, for once catsix was right, they actually made an emergency landing because of this, though no charges were filed. Wow, what kind of tantrum was he throwing anyway, that they had to land the plane???

And imNSho, 4 is quite old enough to not behave that way, and the parent sure as hell should have controlled this situation. Unless there was something medically wrong with the child, this is the same sort of thing I've been talking about, that of a child not being parented properly and then being put into a situation where his princedom affects everyone around him adversely.

Heffalump and Roo

06-28-2007, 01:23 AM

So if there was a thread about lying, cheating men who had affairs on their spouses and someone had said, "I can't stand men," would you fight their ignorance and let them know that it was the same as racism or bigotry?Of course I would. What a dumb question. And I do it in real life too. Wouldn't you?

Hey, your post reminded that we haven't seen QG for a while. I just looked her up and she hasn't been here since 6/14. She would have been a riot (literally and figuratively) in this thread.

QG, if you're out there, you still have time to get some digs in here.

miss elizabeth, if you're not whooshing me, then no, I wouldn't tell people that "I can't stand men" is like racism or bigotry. I try not to say ridiculous things to others in real life. But that's just me.

Frylock

06-28-2007, 01:32 AM

Dangerosa

06-28-2007, 06:34 AM

I'm not at ALL in agreement with the "kids shouldn't be allowed on airplanes" crowd. However as I've said throughout this thread, I DO think that parents have a certain responsibility to "do something" when their kids are acting up.

Certainly parents should try and do something. But we had a 45 minute tantrumer who started tantruming at eighteen months and tantrumed well into her fourth year. (She still "goes off" it just doesn't reach tantrum proportions, its less often, its shorter). Trust me, you can try and do something, that doesn't mean it always works. And I DON'T think strangers can tell what is going on - hell, I'm her mother and I can't always tell if I have the "low blood sugar, overtired" kid or the "procrastinating brat." She is also (and this one is unfair) prone to migraines - first one we think at two (hard to tell with a kid). I can tell when that happens, but I don't think a stranger could tell the difference.

Malthus

06-28-2007, 07:12 AM

Speaking of a kid's tantrum disrupting a flight.... (http://www.nbc10.com/news/13575254/detail.html) Four year boy who freaks out because the stewardess doesn't fetch some apple juice fast enough for the Little Prince. :rolleyes:

Funny, what I thought when reading that story was "what kind of tantrum could a 4-year-old throw, that could possibly justify an emergency landing of a commercial airplane?!" :confused:

Malthus

06-28-2007, 07:23 AM

Hey, your post reminded that we haven't seen QG for a while. I just looked her up and she hasn't been here since 6/14. She would have been a riot (literally and figuratively) in this thread.

QG, if you're out there, you still have time to get some digs in here.

miss elizabeth, if you're not whooshing me, then no, I wouldn't tell people that "I can't stand men" is like racism or bigotry. I try not to say ridiculous things to others in real life. But that's just me.

How is that not "like bigotry"? :confused:

Seems to me that misandry and misogyny are both in fact categories of bigotry - bigotry, if by "bigot" one means "... a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own."

In this case, I do not understand why claiming to dislike men as men would not clearly qualify. Indeed, googling "misandry" and "bigotry" together call forth plenty of hits, including this one, where it is "compared to other forms of bigotry": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry

PunditLisa

06-28-2007, 08:56 AM

I have a friend who does everything "right" (by my lights anyway)--she is firm, fair, she does not spoil her children, she does not reward them for misbehavior, she follows through on her promises both positive and negative, etc., etc. Her kid (a three year old) is a great kid. Sweetest thing you ever met. Very clever and sprightly. And every now and then, he gets really, really mad at something utterly trivial. When this happens, he is absolutely inconsoleable. He can not be calmed down.

Then I, personally, wouldn't take long leisure trips on planes until he'd grown out of these tantrums. I'd pay for Grandma in Morocco to come visit us instead if I had to. Seriously. Morocco will be there next year and it will be so much more enjoyable for everyone, including my cabin mates, when junior can behave like a civilized human being.

Frylock

06-28-2007, 10:28 AM

Then I, personally, wouldn't take long leisure trips on planes until he'd grown out of these tantrums. I'd pay for Grandma in Morocco to come visit us instead if I had to. Seriously. Morocco will be there next year and it will be so much more enjoyable for everyone, including my cabin mates, when junior can behave like a civilized human being.

Recall that my point in that post wasn't really that the kid should be allowed on an airplane (though I do believe that) but rather, that it is wrong to think that the parents have control over this kind of thing if they are just the right kind of parents.

But as to your point, I believe in showing others the kind of consideration I would hope they would show me. The thing is, if I were on a plane, and there were a screaming kid sitting right next to me, then even if it came out that the only reason the parents have the kid on the plane is so they can go on a family vacation somewhere or other, I'd not be angry with the parents, and indeed, if they didn't mind, I'd do what I could to help them with the kid.

So perhaps if I expected parents to show me the "consideration" of not exposing me to the risk of their kid's tantrums, I would see things your way. But I don't expect them to show that kind of "consideration." I don't want them to show it. I want them to have a nice family vacation. I'm willing to undergo the risk of inconvenience involved in a temper tantrum.

And to be honest, I think this ought to be your attitude (that's the plural you) as well.

-FrL-

storyteller0910

06-28-2007, 10:47 AM

Recall that my point in that post wasn't really that the kid should be allowed on an airplane (though I do believe that) but rather, that it is wrong to think that the parents have control over this kind of thing if they are just the right kind of parents.

But as to your point, I believe in showing others the kind of consideration I would hope they would show me. The thing is, if I were on a plane, and there were a screaming kid sitting right next to me, then even if it came out that the only reason the parents have the kid on the plane is so they can go on a family vacation somewhere or other, I'd not be angry with the parents, and indeed, if they didn't mind, I'd do what I could to help them with the kid.

So perhaps if I expected parents to show me the "consideration" of not exposing me to the risk of their kid's tantrums, I would see things your way. But I don't expect them to show that kind of "consideration." I don't want them to show it. I want them to have a nice family vacation. I'm willing to undergo the risk of inconvenience involved in a temper tantrum.

And to be honest, I think this ought to be your attitude (that's the plural you) as well.

-FrL-

Seconded and thirded. You've made the point I tried to make earlier much more eloquently and concisely.

miss elizabeth

06-28-2007, 10:54 AM

Hey, your post reminded that we haven't seen QG for a while. I just looked her up and she hasn't been here since 6/14. She would have been a riot (literally and figuratively) in this thread.

QG, if you're out there, you still have time to get some digs in here.

miss elizabeth, if you're not whooshing me, then no, I wouldn't tell people that "I can't stand men" is like racism or bigotry. I try not to say ridiculous things to others in real life. But that's just me.
Usually, in real life, it doesn't go that far. It's more like Mary and I are consoling Sally after dumping Joe, that good for nothing cheater. (Names made up, obviously). Now, if Sally is crying and recounting the awful ways Joe treated her, and Mary says, "I can't stand men!" I would absolutely say, "Well, we all hate Joe, but there are a lot of good men in the world who would never hurt Sally like this." And I've never had anyone disagree. But, let's say Mary really is a misandrist and continued with explaining how Joe was typical of all men, and all men are lying assholes, etc. etc.

Yes, I would say, "You're a bigot." And I probably wouldn't be friends with her anymore, because I don't like bigots. And if that makes me ridiculous, well, okay then. I'm proud to be ridiculous.

RickJay

06-28-2007, 03:05 PM

I'd have to cite all the negative reaction to Captain_C's post when he said that since adults can't scream for two minutes in bookstores, then children shouldn't be allowed to do the same.
I'm sorry, but you've taken my words completely out of context. I was replying to catsix's complaint about children physically damaging things. Has anyone suggesting parents should not be responsible for that? Yes or no; who has said that? Inconvenience and noise is one thing, but damaging someone's property is quite something else.

And, incidentally, who said it was actually an alright thing for kids to scream uncontrollably?

But the issue here is at what point is there enough damage that the parents step in to take responsibility as if the parent him/herself did the actual act. In this case, people are saying that when children create an inconvenience with noise and the like, there is not enough damage to hold the parents responsible to the standard that the parent would be held accountable.
There isn't an equivalent accountability to be had, because you don't have a right to a convenient, trouble-free life without ever having to hear children. As a shopper in Borders you have no expectation of silence and no right to demand compensation if my kids wails. That's not to say parents shouldn't try to keep their kids quiet and teach them manners because of course they should, but that kids will from time to time cry, and that it takes a minute or two to do something about it sometimes, is simply a part of life you have to suck up and is not something that creates a civil liability in anyone.

There are of course special cases, such as a movie. In that case a good that you purchased (the right to see the movie) can be irreperably damaged by noise and disruption, so it's quite appropriate, in my opinion, to ban babies from movie theatres. There's also extreme cases such as the one you cited but

THE OP DID NOT CITE AN EXTREME CASE!

(Actually, I'm personally a little puzzled as to why that hasn't yet been done. Why do movie theatres not just say "No infants"?)

For me, that would depend. It would largely depend on whether I thought the "accident" could have been avoided.
How do you distinguish between someone who's a bad parent and someone who simply didn't spot a risk in time? I mean, really, who's got the time to go around divvying the world up into Bad Parents and Good Parents? If your suit gets stained, they should pay for the damages and apologize. That's pretty much the long and short of it.

Cartooniverse

06-28-2007, 03:19 PM

A lot of parents get attuned to the relative urgency of the crying and can distinguish between "I'm a little bored and fussy" and "I just swallowed a nail -- RED ALERT."

Who do I see about the iced tea I just spit all over the keyboard? Diogenes? You'll be invoiced. :D That was wicked funny.

We are animals, and we respond to a baby crying as such. We are tuned to the tones of our own quite keenly. We are also attuned to the crying of any baby. Not hardly an urban legend that lactating women let down when they hear a baby cry even if it's not their baby.

I remember the days when one or both would get the screaming meemies. I'd feel self-conscious ( and sometimes moreso if at the park or store and it was me and a dozen Moms with babies during the day. I, of the fatherly persuation. ) Now, in line and whatnot, I just smile.

It beats a baby who is completely silent. That is not normal, IMHO. Give me a cry with gusto.

I flew last night. A 2 hour flight became a....uh.... 6 hour flight. There was Uncle, with baby neice and 5 year old neice. He was just so cool- I truly respected how he did. Gentle, sweet. Great to see. Made me miss my kids as babies. There were THREE infants on the plane, all seated within 10 rows of me.

I didn't sleep. I read. :D

Cartooniverse

Acid Lamp

06-28-2007, 07:39 PM

(Actually, I'm personally a little puzzled as to why that hasn't yet been done. Why do movie theatres not just say "No infants"?)

.

It has. Many theatres now will not allow children in after a certain time at night, or into r-rated films at all. Instead, they provide "mommy matinees" at a reduced cost, and tell anyone going in without a kid to expect noise and that they have no recourse if they don't like it.

CanvasShoes

06-28-2007, 08:14 PM

Carol Stream

06-28-2007, 09:45 PM

Speaking of a kid's tantrum disrupting a flight.... (http://www.nbc10.com/news/13575254/detail.html) Four year boy who freaks out because the stewardess doesn't fetch some apple juice fast enough for the Little Prince. :rolleyes:

"Authorities said there would be no charges filed in the incident." OK, the parents should be sued for damages to recoup what must be a great expense in grounding a plane in mid-flight.

Captain_C

06-28-2007, 09:54 PM

I am proud that my child-hating ways are still being quoted in this thread. Good show.

CanvasShoes

06-28-2007, 10:26 PM

"Authorities said there would be no charges filed in the incident." OK, the parents should be sued for damages to recoup what must be a great expense in grounding a plane in mid-flight.
When I worked at Anchorage International as an aircraft refueler back in the 80s, the fine was $1000 per minute of the delay. That was what was levied at contractors such as the fueling company, the baggage handlers etc. I don't know what it is now, or if it would apply to travelers.

levdrakon

06-28-2007, 11:34 PM

"Authorities said there would be no charges filed in the incident." OK, the parents should be sued for damages to recoup what must be a great expense in grounding a plane in mid-flight.Here's another take on the apple juice incident. (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=10f5f73b-b856-4a79-b656-14ad59dedca7) Apparently it was the parent who caused the ruckus over the juice and forced 48 passengers to spend the night in Philadelphia.

Someone may have been arrested over it.

I'm all for arresting parents who inconvenience me over their kids. :p

RickJay

06-29-2007, 06:00 AM

Here's another take on the apple juice incident. (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=10f5f73b-b856-4a79-b656-14ad59dedca7) Apparently it was the parent who caused the ruckus over the juice and forced 48 passengers to spend the night in Philadelphia.
That would make more sense. I cannot imagine a pilot landing a place because a kid's crying. I know if they came on the iontercam and said "Well, the kid in 12D is upset for not getting his juice so we're making an emergency landing," the next disturbance would be caused by me.

Malthus

06-29-2007, 09:43 AM

Here's another take on the apple juice incident. (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=10f5f73b-b856-4a79-b656-14ad59dedca7) Apparently it was the parent who caused the ruckus over the juice and forced 48 passengers to spend the night in Philadelphia.

Someone may have been arrested over it.

I'm all for arresting parents who inconvenience me over their kids. :p

Clearly, we cannot allow adults on airplanes. They may disrupt flights.

levdrakon

06-29-2007, 10:56 AM

Clearly, we cannot allow adults on airplanes. They may disrupt flights.Did you ever watch The Fifth Element? I say we just routinely gas the cabin and make everyone sleep through flights.

Cartooniverse

07-01-2007, 11:05 AM

I think the Cult of the Child needs to chill out a bit and stop pretending they're being persecuted because someone else doesn't want their property damaged by an uncontrolled kid.

I thought it was a parent's job to make sure their kid doesn't damage someone else's things. I thought it was their job to keep their kids from climbing on people, or running around screaming in restaurants and airplanes and late-night movies.

I didn't sign up for being the guinea pig whose clothes, expensive suit or Old Navy track suit, get ruined because someone decided that although their kid should be on the airplane, they shouldn't have to sit still with their candy bar or bubble gum. Gum does not come out of velor.

Maybe you all expect your things to be destroyed by strangers and don't give a rat's ass, but I do care about my things. I've never had an adult get bubble gum on me by grabbing my leg with their gum-covered fingers.

At the very least, if your kid has an accident and spills something on me while seated next to me, say 'I'm sorry.' If your kid is climbing around on a plane with a candy bar and gets chocolate all over me, offer to pay for the cleaning. Don't just give me that 'Kids will be kids' as if I somewhere agreed to have my clothes and other possessions ruined because you chose to breed.

Trust me when I tell you that we're all incredibly grateful that your uterus is Closed For Business. The very fact that you obnoxiously use the phrase "breed" and "breeder" tells many readers of this and other threads where you post a lot about you.

It's really very sad. A perusal of your childhood and relationship with your parents would doubtless reveal exactly why you are so filled with bilious vitriol and loathing for all things child-like and child-related but really dear, none of us give one fat fuck why you hate people who love babies. Got that? :)

Know why? Because you were a screaming angry thrashing 3 year old once too but somehow from way up high on that throne you have forgotten that. Did you fly when you were a toddler? I have no idea. Did you ride in a car, or on a bus? Perhaps not. Perhaps you were exposed to groups of others only on a school bus and in school. If that is the case, then your socialization skills ( or lack of therof ) came primarily from being around groups of peers and from the instruction of adults.

Even if your travels outside of your home were solely limited to school and back and nothing else, you would have learned to get along with others to a degree that apparently you have not. Perhaps you were home schooled and never learned at all to socialize with others because you were not given the opportunity to learn to do so.

You have a lot of anger and a lot of hatred for a lot of things and a lot of different kinds of people. The thread on the woman in Atlanta who was shot to death by the cops proved that in spades, ok? All I'm saying is that perhaps while other posters in here maybe upset by your point of view, it does have some valid points. It is just very sad that you are incapable of seeing valid points in the posts made by ANYBODY who does not walk in perfect lockstep with you and your mindset.

I have two kids, as mentioned earlier. I travel a lot. I sit near babies, children, teenagers, adults and old people. I'm an average person who can see a child and understand who they are and why they are behaving as they are because of their age. It is pitiable that you cannot comprehend what being a child means, even though at some point in your life these behaviors were your behaviors.

On the other hand, if you did in fact emerge fully formed as a sentient 25 year old woman with a job, a home, a $ 1,200.00 Armani suit, hatred for all humans who procreate and leather travel case that is spotless, why then I guess my suppositions concerning your formative years are way off base.

Grow up.

Sorry. What was I thinking? This is The Pit.

Grow the fuck up.

Cartooniverse

Cartooniverse

07-01-2007, 11:10 AM

See, that's why you use the dye-free kind. And believe me, on a cross-country flight, having Benadryl on hand is a blessing for all concerned, including the child.

Robin

You do not drug a child who does not need a drug. Period.

Babies being flown from South Korea to the United States are given a strong sedative in their formula after take-off. It makes them sleep for most if not all of the flight ( 14-19 hours, depending ).

You are handing a baby over to people who know nothing about this child, just as the baby is coming off of a drug-induced stupor. To me that is nothing short of criminal. I've done it twice, I know what the fuck I'm talking about here. I was handed that packet of drug. Twice. Threw it away on the plane in the toilet twice.

Both of my adopted children arrived an utter mess because of this drug. So I know exactly what I am talking about here.

Drugging a child for the convenience of whiny-assed adults around them who forget that children are children and babies are babies is nothing short of criminal.

You DO NOT drug a child who does not need a drug.

Vinyl Turnip

07-01-2007, 11:42 AM

No offense, but your terminology ("strong sedative," "drug-induced stupor," "utter mess") seems a bit out of proportion to the issue. You're talking Benadryl, not chloroform or Rohypnol.

One can certainly debate whether or not it's ethical to sedate an otherwise healthy child to make travel easier, but making a kid drowsy for a few hours with a low dose of safe, OTC medication doesn't really rise to the level of cruelty you seem to be implying, IMO.

Cartooniverse

07-01-2007, 01:47 PM

--Shrug-- You do what you want to with your kid, I do what I want to with my kid. Everyone in this thread is free to express what they think of what other people are doing with their kid, or with the kids of others.

You give a kid Benadryl. How much? You're dosing to sedate not treat what the medication is created to do. ( The OTC v.s. Prescription debate is not one I'm willing to hijack this thread into but is well worth having in another thread, ok? ) Since the child is asymptomatic, what defines the dose you feel will sedate your child enough?

Benadryl is designed to treat something happening in the body. Absent that "thing " ( histamine receptor response ), you are drugging a child for no good reason at all.

Trust me, if a Doper ( and, of course, the irony of our collective name is not lost on me :D ) were announcing they they did use choloroform or Rhypnol I would be that much more distressed.

To be blunt, people are chosing to fuck with the health of their young child so they can nap on an airplane. I call that utterly irresponsible. If it had permanent effect I would say it was cruel ( a word you used, not a word I used ). I feel that " irresponsible" is more appropriate in this case.

fessie

07-13-2007, 08:54 AM

Interesting piece on a mom and toddler who were booted off a plane recently. (http://www.wfsb.com/family/13668816/detail.html)

...flight attendant became annoyed by Garren's personality when he kept saying three words.

"As we started taxiing, he started saying, 'Bye, bye plane,'" said Penland. "At the end of her speech, she leaned over the gentleman beside me and said, 'It's not funny anymore. You need to shut your baby up.'"

In disbelief, Penland asked the woman if she was kidding. It was then, Penland said, the flight attendant went too far.

"She then said, 'You know, it's called baby Benadryl.' And I said, 'Well, I'm not going to drug my child so you have a pleasant flight,'" Penland said.

RickJay

07-13-2007, 11:34 AM

Once again, we see that adults are usually a bigger problem than children on planes.

ENugent

07-13-2007, 12:47 PM

Once again, we see that adults are usually a bigger problem than children on planes.
In this case, the stewardess.

Cartooniverse

07-14-2007, 10:23 AM

Interesting piece on a mom and toddler who were booted off a plane recently. (http://www.wfsb.com/family/13668816/detail.html)

The interview on CNN post-event with the Union Rep from the Flight Attendants Union was priceless. She ranted on and on and on and on and on and on about how minimal their safety training is and how much they are overworked and underpaid and stressed out and how our safety is their only concern and clearly this woman had been a real threat to the safety of the crew and so she and her child had to be removed and that is all and nobody else gets to dare question the judgement of her Union member or they are UnAmerican terrorists who have no respect for the skies, amen.

It was....... disgusting? Yes. That's the word.

Heffalump and Roo

07-14-2007, 06:31 PM

I believe the analogy fails because of the several ways in which laptops are not like little kids.

The ways that the laptop and the kids are not the same are the same ways in which you give kids special dispensation for being kids instead of laptops.

I'm with Miss Elizabeth here. In fact, I'm having trouble coming up with a relevant way in which "I can't stand men" isn't like racism or bigotry.

OK, so let me take the example to one more level. How about if someone said that they can't stand all [other] humans? Is that bigotry? In my mind, at some point, the group of people being discriminated against becomes so large as to be meaningless. Having heard that someone doesn't like men, most people won't be swayed to do the same and take up some kind of discrimination against them. So at some point, people are just stating their preference for the type of people they prefer.

Yes, I would say, "You're a bigot." And I probably wouldn't be friends with her anymore, because I don't like bigots. And if that makes me ridiculous, well, okay then. I'm proud to be ridiculous.

Then doesn't that make you a bigot against people who you think are bigots? If bigotry is based on some type of ignorance (ignorance of how we're all generally the same), then aren't you just discriminating against some types of ignorance?

I won't go down the slippery slope of bigotry against bigotry against bigotry, but at some point, doesn't it just become a preference for certain types of people. One of the reasons that bigotry is unpopular though is because this preference has been used to discriminate against people in way where power was used to make a group of people's lives worse than others. If that's not possible, is it still bigotry in a meaningful sense?

So perhaps if I expected parents to show me the "consideration" of not exposing me to the risk of their kid's tantrums, I would see things your way. But I don't expect them to show that kind of "consideration." I don't want them to show it. I want them to have a nice family vacation. I'm willing to undergo the risk of inconvenience involved in a temper tantrum.

You seem to feel that having a nice family vacation is mutually exclusive from not having a tantrum in a public place. I believe both can happen simultaneously. To the extent that they can't, it would be nice if both sides tried to show more consideration. In some parts of this thread, I'm sensing entitlement on the part of the parents. To that extent, I think that both sides need to be more considerate.

I'm sorry, but you've taken my words completely out of context. I was replying to catsix's complaint about children physically damaging things. Has anyone suggesting parents should not be responsible for that? Yes or no; who has said that? Inconvenience and noise is one thing, but damaging someone's property is quite something else.

Odd that you should mention my taking words out of context. You took my words that were replying to miss elizabeth and responded to them. I wasn't originally replying to you.

There isn't an equivalent accountability to be had, because you don't have a right to a convenient, trouble-free life without ever having to hear children.

Perhaps and perhaps not. It depends on the venue and the community. A homeowner in a community which protects these rights has the right to the quiet enjoyment of their property. To that extent, they have a right not to hear screaming kids outside (to a reasonable extent). If this right is violated, the homeowner can call for enforcement by the police.

In a public place, the rights are less defined for the individual at the establishment, but the owner of the property, for example the airline and the bookstore, have the right to determine what they will allow on their property. If enough people complained, they have the right to change their policies about such things. Whether they will or not is up to them.

THE OP DID NOT CITE AN EXTREME CASE!

And yet earlier in your post, you talked about someone physically damaging things. If we were strictly talking about the OP, we wouldn't be talking about airplanes.

Once again, we see that adults are usually a bigger problem than children on planes.

From your perspective in this example, how could it be otherwise? Since children are blameless for their actions, there are only adults left.

If this were a different setting and the start of the issue were a dog barking, a parrot continually saying the same phrase or a mechanical device blaring, wouldn't that change the outcome? If so, that's because you're giving special consideration to the fact that it's a child that started it. So since in your mind, children should get special consideration, then there's only adults who could possibly be responsible.

RickJay

07-14-2007, 09:16 PM

If this were a different setting and the start of the issue were a dog barking, a parrot continually saying the same phrase or a mechanical device blaring, wouldn't that change the outcome?
Of course. Dogs, parrots, and portable stereos have no rights, and no expectation of accomodation. Society is supposed to be organized to the benefit of human beings, of which children are a part, and dogs, birds and machines are not.

If so, that's because you're giving special consideration to the fact that it's a child that started it. So since in your mind, children should get special consideration, then there's only adults who could possibly be responsible.
Only adults CAN be responsible. By virtually all legal precedent and societal convention, not to mention common sense, parents (adults) are held responsible for the actions of their children.

But having said all that, you're again taking words out of context to argue against straw men. (By the way, the fact that I replied to a post you'd made to someone else is not arguing out of context, as you imply. This is a public message board and your comments are liable to counterargument by anyone who wishes to do so, so get used to it.) When I say "Adults are more often troublesome than children" I am not saying that because I'm defining children as never being responasible for disruptions they cause. Children sometimes ARE troublesome; their parents are at fault but of course kids can be hellions sometimes. I mean it absolutely literally; adults cause more disruption on airplanes than children do, period. I'm not talking about who's morally responsible for it, I mean they literally cause more disruptions than kids. Far, far more.

CanvasShoes

07-14-2007, 10:30 PM

Certainly parents should try and do something. But we had a 45 minute tantrumer who started tantruming at eighteen months and tantrumed well into her fourth year. (She still "goes off" it just doesn't reach tantrum proportions, its less often, its shorter). Trust me, you can try and do something, that doesn't mean it always works. And I DON'T think strangers can tell what is going on - hell, I'm her mother and I can't always tell if I have the "low blood sugar, overtired" kid or the "procrastinating brat." She is also (and this one is unfair) prone to migraines - first one we think at two (hard to tell with a kid). I can tell when that happens, but I don't think a stranger could tell the difference.
But the point is wasn't whether strangers could tell the difference, it was that the parent "do something". I think "do something" means very different things depending upon what side of the screams one is on.

I'm assuming, based upon your other posts, that your 45 minute tantrum-er wasn't allowed to carry on for that 45 minutes, or even for longer than a few moments (since as a parent people KNOW when it's starting to turn into a tantrum and it's time to vacate public premises) in public around innocent strangers.

The problem is, that too many parents don't, and too many have the "but it's just kids being kids (no, screaming and having tantrums isn't just "kids being kids") therefore everyone just has to deal with my darling angel/I have a right to see this movie/invade this nice restaurant etc." attitude.

I think that those having their ears assaulted with an ear-splitting screeching child have a whole 'nother idea of what's a "reasonable" time period in which to do something, than some inconsiderate parents do. And again, this from a mom of two (1 a 27 year old adult and 1 a few months shy of 16).

And yes, of course planes are a different issue when even if they are just being brats you can't easily get away (but there is always the bathroom and galley area for a stern disciplinary action).

Cartooniverse

07-15-2007, 09:00 AM

And yes, of course planes are a different issue when even if they are just being brats you can't easily get away (but there is always the bathroom and galley area for a stern disciplinary action).

With all due respect, the galley and bathroom are not available.

I fly a lot. I'm six foot two and a bit, shall we generously say, broad across the shoulders. I try to get up and walk a bit once or twice during a flight from NY to LA. It's healthier and helps with leg cramps. More and more frequently I am told when approaching the galley at fore or aft of the aircraft that " safety regulations prohibit you from coming in here, you have to return to your seat." This is when the seat belt light is not illuminated.

That's a shame because the galleys afford me a view out a window and sometimes room to try to stretch and bend a bit, getting the blood flowing. I haven't tried saying, " Hey, I'm just trying to avoid Deep Vein Thrombosis and the blood clot and stroke that could result. Having me in here beats having me stroke out at 38,000 feet ! :) " I suspect they'd not be happy to hear this speech, although it is entirely medically accurate. DVT site (http://www.dvt.net/preventionCenter/default.aspx).

Bathrooms are for all to use. I have two kids. One was prone to amazing tantrums. They are not 3-6 minute scheduled events. The flight attendants are within their right to unlock the door and make you remove your ( trantrumming ) child after a certain period of time to open up the lavatory for the common use.

It is a very crowded enclosed space. No way around it.

Dangerosa

07-15-2007, 05:28 PM

And yes, of course planes are a different issue when even if they are just being brats you can't easily get away (but there is always the bathroom and galley area for a stern disciplinary action).

I have two questions....

1) What sort of stern disciplinary action works on a tantruming toddler and can be used in public without the risk of having the authorities meet you getting off the plane?

2) How does one get a tantruming toddler to the back of the plane or to the bathroom?

Cartooniverse

07-15-2007, 10:36 PM

Mom, is that you?

:D

I'd love to know the answers to these two questions as well.

And the answer'd better not be, " Oh, just use one of those darling little damp cloths soaked with Baby's First Chloroform(tm)". :eyeroll:

( is there really only one "m" in "tantruming"? I thought with the long U it would be tantrumming. Like drumming. Or humming. Or strumming. )

levdrakon

07-15-2007, 11:11 PM

I'd love to know the answers to these two questions as well.

And the answer'd better not be, " Oh, just use one of those darling little damp cloths soaked with Baby's First Chloroform(tm)"Whaaaat? I use that shit on the wife, the kids and the cats. Why on earth wouldn't you? ;)

Heffalump and Roo

07-16-2007, 12:08 AM

Of course. Dogs, parrots, and portable stereos have no rights, and no expectation of accomodation. Society is supposed to be organized to the benefit of human beings, of which children are a part, and dogs, birds and machines are not.

Wow, that's wrong in so many ways that I don't know where to begin.

So I'll start off by asking what rights and expectations of accommodation you think babies or children have.

Then I'll say that as far as I know, babies can't assert any rights for themselves except in very rare circumstances. In most cases, an adult is required to assert the rights for babies and children. In that sense, the rights that the adults have in regards to dogs, parrots and portable stereos also apply.

To give an example, if someone killed your dog, parrot, child and destroyed your personal stereo, the rights would be the same. As to the dog and parrot, the offender might go to jail by laws brought by the SPCA. And the offender might be required to give the owner restitution for the loss of property. The same would hold true for the personal stereo in the sense of restitution. In the case of the baby, very likely the murderer would go to prison in the criminal sense and would possibly pay for losses under the civil system. Now, these damages would likely to be much larger than for the parrot or dog because of the loss of human potential and the prison time would be much longer than for the dog or parrot but other than that, I'm not seeing how the rights for the child are different.

As far as injury to humans and pets and destruction of personal property, I think the same analysis applies.

The only example I can think of where humans might have more rights than animals is in the case of for instance, heating to an apartment or dwelling. But in that case, it's hard to separate the rights of the adults caring for the child with the child itself.

As far as noise is concerned, I don't know of any rights that children have in regards to that. If you're thinking of a specific right, please be more explicit.

So I'm not sure how you're making the big distinction in that sense between humans and non-humans as far as rights are concerned.

As for your statement about how society "should" be, I can only know what society is and has been. As far as how it has been, there have been some classes of people for whom children and babies have had no rights. For instance, if someone purchased a slave before the civil war, that person could kill that slave out of overwork and not be responsible to the child nor his/her parents. As far as it is now, see the example above with the dog and parrot.

Only adults CAN be responsible. By virtually all legal precedent and societal convention, not to mention common sense, parents (adults) are held responsible for the actions of their children.

Then when you said:

Once again, we see that adults are usually a bigger problem than children on planes.

that's essentially a meaningless statement. In the case you're responding to, if the child didn't exist on the plane that day, there would be no issue. Well, I guess you could argue that the instigator could be a dog or a parrot, but the point is that the child was the beginning of the issue and the resolution always comes down to adults because they're the only ones that can be responsible.

But having said all that, you're again taking words out of context to argue against straw men.

Could you be more explicit? What straw men are you referring to?

(By the way, the fact that I replied to a post you'd made to someone else is not arguing out of context, as you imply. This is a public message board and your comments are liable to counterargument by anyone who wishes to do so, so get used to it.)

I don't have an issue with that. I only brought up the inconsistency in saying that I'm not countering your argument directly when I wasn't replying to your argument in the first place.

RickJay]When I say "Adults are more often troublesome than children" I am not saying that because I'm defining children as never being responasible for disruptions they cause. Children sometimes ARE troublesome; their parents are at fault but of course kids can be hellions sometimes. I mean it absolutely literally; adults cause more disruption on airplanes than children do, period. I'm not talking about who's morally responsible for it, I mean they literally cause more disruptions than kids. Far, far more.

That might be a more meaningful statement if the percentage of children and adults are equal. I doubt there are. Since children don't travel extensively for their jobs, I doubt that there are more children flying than adults. Given that there are more adults flying, the probabilities that adults create more problems is much higher. So your statement is unremarkable and doesn't make the argument that children are therefore less problematic.

fessie

07-16-2007, 04:08 AM

Wow.

It's a pretty simple fact that we have to make more human beings in order for the human race to continue, no?

Do you propose that reproducers isolate themselves from the rest of society?
How many people do you think would sign on to that proposition?

Kids have their own needs - they are not mini-adults in any way. They are not born knowing how to be quiet and unobtrusive in the way adults sometimes (but not always) are.

The point of having kids is to bring them into society.
The point of having society is to welcome more kids.

Cartooniverse

07-16-2007, 11:05 AM

The point of having kids is to bring them into society.
The point of having society is to welcome more kids.

I personally agree with everything you wrote. The Dopers who consistently refer to people who have babies as "breeders" do not share these sentiments.

Malthus

07-16-2007, 11:29 AM

I personally agree with everything you wrote. The Dopers who consistently refer to people who have babies as "breeders" do not share these sentiments.

I never really understood the mindset of people who have contempt for parents. Even when I wasn't one myself, and it looked like I never was going to be one, I never thought of people having kids as "breeders".

I suppose it is some sort of defence mechanism against the perception that 'society' looks down on the childless.

fessie

07-16-2007, 01:20 PM

Malthus

07-16-2007, 01:36 PM

Hey, parts of society DO look down on childless adults. It's not at all fair.

There was a thread a while back where someone asserted that adults who don't have kids don't know about being selfless. I hadn't posted, but was sitting following along and nodding. And then a young man posted about his experiences caring for his elderly mother. It was so moving. Shut me up real quick.

We never know, looking at other people, what they're experiencing.

I know pretty well what it is like being childless, since I only have to remember myself around two years ago - when I pretty well had the notion I'd never have children. Can't say as I referred to parents as "breeders" then.

All I'm saying is that, whether 'society' is unfair towards the childless or not, a point which is pretty debatable, the proper reaction IMO is not to develop a contemptuous attitude towards those with children.

levdrakon

07-16-2007, 01:54 PM

fessie

07-16-2007, 01:57 PM

descamisado

07-16-2007, 02:02 PM

I think part of why people refer to breeders as breeders is due to the sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle but nevertheless endemic and persistent workplace discrimination that occurs. People with children don't notice it, but people without kids definitely notice how they're constantly being asked to work weekends and holidays so families can spend time together, or having to constantly fill in for families because parent-employees always seem to be bring their kid to the doctor, baseball practice, etc. Then you see family employees getting pay raises and promotions and generally being viewed as more mature and reliable than childless employees. Some animosity builds and dismissing them as "breeders" is relatively harmless little insult. I assume it's fairly harmless. Do any breeders out there actually take offense?Have you read the most latter part of this thread? :cool:

People are saying they are offended by the use of the word "breeder." I wouldn't use it, but I get the impression that, except for a few hardcore hatas, even those who have used it here are specifically talking about people with kids who think they have a particular right to something, whether it's timeoff from work, space on the sidewalk or the ability to be part of an ongoing disturbance in a public place. From what I can see, that is not most of the considered posters here but it does happen and it does cause resentment among those of us who don't have kids.

I wouldn't use the word because I have respect for people who choose to be parents and admire those who do it even halfway well.

Malthus

07-16-2007, 02:15 PM

Dangerosa

07-16-2007, 02:16 PM

I think part of why people refer to breeders as breeders is due to the sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle but nevertheless endemic and persistent workplace discrimination that occurs. People with children don't notice it, but people without kids definitely notice how they're constantly being asked to work weekends and holidays so families can spend time together, or having to constantly fill in for families because parent-employees always seem to be bring their kid to the doctor, baseball practice, etc. Then you see family employees getting pay raises and promotions and generally being viewed as more mature and reliable than childless employees. Some animosity builds and dismissing them as "breeders" is relatively harmless little insult. I assume it's fairly harmless. Do any breeders out there actually take offense?

Yes, its offensive. I think its "funny offensive" instead of just pure offensive, but plenty of people just think its offensive. I think its really offensive when its used to put me down because "they had to work late and I didn't" - particularly when the non-breeder missed two Fridays last month due to hangovers and the other two Fridays wasn't functional until after 1:00. (Worked with more than one of those - but back then I didn't have kids either. She blamed everything on "not being a family person" - we blamed her lack of raises and having to work late on her not showing up until 10:00am and drinking too much).

Honestly, before I had kids I had a better career trajectory and got bigger raises - because I could and chose to work late and make myself much more accessible to my job and I didn't turn down business travel. When I had kids (mine came fairly late), my career took a decided slow down - my choice to have kids and slow down the career so I could do it, but it isn't like I didn't give anything up when I became a mom. I should go work for one of these places that lets me off early and gives me raises just because I have kids. Must be nice.

Malthus

07-16-2007, 02:24 PM

Malthus, Well, sure.

I do remember, though, having vastly different opinions on children and their parents (and my own parents) just a few years ago. I myself was one of those self-centered childless people, and didn't even realize it. It never even occurred to me how different their lives were from mine. We used to complain to our upstairs neighbors all the time because their 3-yr-old kid, Max, made some noise. I just didn't understand.

I wish there was a way to help other people understand without going through having children themselves, but it may not be possible.

Yeah, it's a big life change and not one easy to understand by people who have not gone through it.

My beef is that, understand it or not, I don't see any need for rudeness from people.

It is just elementary that one doesn't give insulting labels to people identified by a trait you don't possess - whether it be religion, marital status, skin colour, sexual identity or, in this case, children. The only reason why this label isn't punch-in-the-face offensive is that there is no history of historical discrimination or hatred against parents.

Dangerosa

07-16-2007, 02:53 PM

I think as well there is a sense from the child free that "kids aren't that hard." Hell, there is a sense from those people who had easy kids - if all kids were like my son I'd still be sending disapproving stares to people whose kids had tantrums in Target. Fortunately, fate gave me my daughter so I could be a more understanding person.

Before you have kids, you decide your kids will be perfect (and remaining childfree keeps you with perfect kids). You've maybe babysat kids, it isn't that hard, and YOUR kids won't be ALLOWED to act like little brats like your sister's kids. I'll be able to reason with my kids. My kids will spend hours each day in educational productive activity. I'll never need to resort to spanking a child. When I put them in time out, they will sit quietly in the chair until the timer goes off, reflecting on their behavior. They'll never get wound up on sugar. They'll always use inside voices and never call their siblings "poopyhead." These things all happen because I'll build a good foundation from the moment of conception - after all, baby got Mozart in the womb and I started taking pre-natal vitamins a year before I conceived.

Then reality hits - you can't reason with a small kid. They are almost uniformly too loud and even if you never let them say "poopyhead" they learn it at school. They have poor self control over their emotions. They can't communicate "I have a tummyache" or "I'm cranky because my blood sugar is low." They get fed endless candy by well meaning relatives. Despite putting wholesome food in front of them, they eat nothing but Kraft Mac n Cheese for four months and your choice is to live with a hungry (and therefore cranky and intolerable) child or one that eats Mac n Cheese three meals a day. You try and read them The Hobbit and discover they'll only sit still for Captain Underpants. You have to bribe them to get into the bathtub (but they'll spend hours in there once they get in). By nature, they are selfish and self centered because they haven't even reached the stage of development where they really conceive of the other.

Yet, the vast majority of them grow up to be productive members of society.

fessie

07-16-2007, 02:57 PM

Preach it Dangerosa!!

Vicki Iovine says it's not the speed of the race that's difficult, it's the fact that it's a 24/7 marathon over uneven, unpredictable terrain.

levdrakon

07-16-2007, 03:50 PM

I think as well there is a sense from the child free that "kids aren't that hard." <snip>

So true. Amen! I don't have kids of my own, but *have* had to be the caretaker for awhile, and I see the truth of it.

Part of it is, parent's get time off of work but they're thinking "you childless people are so lucky. I've got to go deal with my three brats all night."

Childless people are thinking "aren't you lucky yet again. You get more time off work. Whenever I ask for time off boss looks at me like I'm headed for the nearest heroin den."

Heffalump and Roo

07-17-2007, 12:23 AM

I'm assuming you're responding to my post since you're reiterating something RickJay posted and I'm responding to him.

It's a pretty simple fact that we have to make more human beings in order for the human race to continue, no?
I considered whether to respond to this because I suspect you don't care that your argument is a logical fallacy, but someone else might, so I decided to post.

Your premise which leads to your conclusion below is an example of reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum). You've taken a premise to an extreme which leads to a falsehood, so you then conclude the opposite must be true. It also has overtones of the logical fallacy of law of the excluded middle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle) and false dichotomy (aka false dilemma). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

While it is true that if no more human beings were produced, the human race would cease to exist; but since there is no practical way to bring this outcome about to the planet worldwide simultaneously, the statement is pretty meaningless. There would have to be a way to stop ALL people from reproducing simultaneously or your statement has no effect. In societies with forced sterilization policies (http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/forcedsterilization.html), there are still enough people reproducing to not have any effect on society in terms of it functioning. In China, where there is a forced family planning policy (http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/onechild.htm) (1 child per couple in some areas), the society functions in the same way that other societies function, so limiting reproductive rights doesn't have an effect on society unless all rights are terminated simultaneously.

So your premise has to work as an all-or-nothing proposition in order for your conclusion to follow. But you haven't allowed for the vast middle between no one reproducing and all people who want to reproducing. This is why it's a false dichotomy or violates the law of the excluded middle.

Do you propose that reproducers isolate themselves from the rest of society?
How many people do you think would sign on to that proposition?
I'm not nor have been proposing anything. I was responding to RickJay's contention that children have rights that are substantially different than non-humans, particularly in regards to noise.

I don't have any idea how many people would sign on to a proposition that no one has ever proposed.

Kids have their own needs - they are not mini-adults in any way. They are not born knowing how to be quiet and unobtrusive in the way adults sometimes (but not always) are.
I don't think there's any dispute on that point, but it's also not persuasive in arguing that kids have rights in regards to noise.

The point of having kids is to bring them into society.
The point of having society is to welcome more kids.
Since your premises were faulty, your conclusion is also faulty.

In addition, if the point of every society is to welcome more kids, then there wouldn't be some societies that choose forced sterilization to avoid more children or to enforce forced family planning policies.

Taking your faulty premise to the opposite extreme and coming to the conclusion that way, I could then say that if more children causes overpopulation which causes lack of resources to the point of others starving, then the point of society is to have less children.

Both your argument and this one are logical fallacies.

Cartooniverse

07-17-2007, 07:54 AM

In China, where there is a forced family planning policy (http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/onechild.htm) (1 child per couple in some areas), the society functions in the same way that other societies function, so limiting reproductive rights doesn't have an effect on society unless all rights are terminated simultaneously.

Utter and complete bullshit foisted into a completely wrong set of "arguments" designed solely to make you sound right.

There is not now, nor has there ever been in the history of homo sapien social groupings, a society that has set out to murder the vast majority of offspring produced by its members. This sole example of society-wide infanticide/ mass gender-based abortions and abandonment is unique to China. The history of favoring a male child goes back at least 3,000 years (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508):
The traditional thinking is best described in the ancient "Book of Songs" (1000-700 B.C.):

"When a son is born,
Let him sleep on the bed,
Clothe him with fine clothes,
And give him jade to play...
When a daughter is born,
Let her sleep on the ground,
Wrap her in common wrappings,
And give broken tiles to play..."

Since 1979, over 15 million babies have been killed in China (http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/c-wnhol.html) in an attempt to adhere to the 1 Baby Rule.

Babies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1506469.stm) do not simply go away. They are aborted or abandoned (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508) on a society-wide scale.

This is not the norm. The effects are already being felt and as the generation lacking enough females matures, the impact on the entire Chinese society will be quite profound. Population shifts are already occurring as males leave more rural areas that are almost devoid of females for large cities in the hopes of finding a spouse.

Your statement is entirely factually incorrect .

Cartooniverse

Malthus

07-17-2007, 09:05 AM

I'm assuming you're responding to my post since you're reiterating something RickJay posted and I'm responding to him.

I considered whether to respond to this because I suspect you don't care that your argument is a logical fallacy, but someone else might, so I decided to post.

Your premise which leads to your conclusion below is an example of reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum). You've taken a premise to an extreme which leads to a falsehood, so you then conclude the opposite must be true. It also has overtones of the logical fallacy of law of the excluded middle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle) and false dichotomy (aka false dilemma). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

While it is true that if no more human beings were produced, the human race would cease to exist; but since there is no practical way to bring this outcome about to the planet worldwide simultaneously, the statement is pretty meaningless. There would have to be a way to stop ALL people from reproducing simultaneously or your statement has no effect. In societies with forced sterilization policies (http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/forcedsterilization.html), there are still enough people reproducing to not have any effect on society in terms of it functioning. In China, where there is a forced family planning policy (http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/onechild.htm) (1 child per couple in some areas), the society functions in the same way that other societies function, so limiting reproductive rights doesn't have an effect on society unless all rights are terminated simultaneously.

So your premise has to work as an all-or-nothing proposition in order for your conclusion to follow. But you haven't allowed for the vast middle between no one reproducing and all people who want to reproducing. This is why it's a false dichotomy or violates the law of the excluded middle.

Strikes me as not the best example. By all accounts China is right now starting to experience a rather profound social disaster brought on by its policy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3601281.stm

http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php?aid=40

I'm afraid that for all your citation of various logical fallacies in argumentation, you are simply wrong on the facts. Interference in reproduction short of total elimination of reproductive rights does have an impact on society, as one would expect, since it ultimately impacts every single meaningful aspect of society - whether one has access to partners of one's choice, how many people of working age there are compared with retirees and children, etc. etc.

And the very example you have yourself picked proves it.

fessie

07-17-2007, 09:12 AM

I wasn't even trying to provide some kind of abstract argument for children anyway, Heffalump and Roo. I was telling you what many people believe, what they base their decisions on. It may not be your reality, but it is theirs.

Not everything can be reduced, removed, abstracted to a theoretical discussion.

Frylock

07-17-2007, 09:28 AM

Your premise which leads to your conclusion below is an example of reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum). You've taken a premise to an extreme which leads to a falsehood, so you then conclude the opposite must be true. It also has overtones of the logical fallacy of law of the excluded middle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle)...

You're calling reductio ad absurdum and the Law of the Excluded Middle logical fallacies. :dubious:

You've lost the argument. Whatever the merits of your position may be, once you say something as absurd as what you just said, you lose all credibility as a participant in the debate.

-FrL-

overlyverbose

07-17-2007, 12:38 PM

Yes, its offensive. I think its "funny offensive" instead of just pure offensive, but plenty of people just think its offensive. I think its really offensive when its used to put me down because "they had to work late and I didn't" - particularly when the non-breeder missed two Fridays last month due to hangovers and the other two Fridays wasn't functional until after 1:00. (Worked with more than one of those - but back then I didn't have kids either. She blamed everything on "not being a family person" - we blamed her lack of raises and having to work late on her not showing up until 10:00am and drinking too much).

Honestly, before I had kids I had a better career trajectory and got bigger raises - because I could and chose to work late and make myself much more accessible to my job and I didn't turn down business travel. When I had kids (mine came fairly late), my career took a decided slow down - my choice to have kids and slow down the career so I could do it, but it isn't like I didn't give anything up when I became a mom. I should go work for one of these places that lets me off early and gives me raises just because I have kids. Must be nice.

I've been lurking in this thread for quite some time - I've really been enjoying it. Since having my kid, my career advancement has not only slowed down (I was recently informed that even if I telecommute, I probably won't be considered for advancement like I would if I didn't, but I understand), but I now have to take work home to keep up with my regular workload. In my experience, the people around here who have kids take work home almost every night and on weekends and only get around to it around 8:30 or 9, when the kids are in bed, working until 12 or 12:30. So, in my experience, people in corporate jobs with kids often work just as much as the childless, but at different hours and for less advancement.

Also, I think the term breeder is offensive because it implies a significant amount of disdain for people who have made the choice to have children. It also implies that not having kids is somehow superior to having them. I've never understood why one is better than the other - both have their upsides and downsides. I also dislike people who look down on me for lifestyle choices that have nothing to do with them.

Where did the term come from anyway? A friend of mine used to call me a breeder once she came out of the closet (we weren't friends for much longer afterwards because of other similar comments she made based on my orientation), so I had always assumed it was used as a counterpart insult to "queer" within the gay community. I suppose that assumption is incorrect or it's grown into more popular usage.

levdrakon

07-17-2007, 12:50 PM

Where did the term come from anyway? A friend of mine used to call me a breeder once she came out of the closet (we weren't friends for much longer afterwards because of other similar comments she made based on my orientation), so I had always assumed it was used as a counterpart insult to "queer" within the gay community. I suppose that assumption is incorrect or it's grown into more popular usage.First time I heard it was in the gay community and yes it was a counter to queer, fag, homo etc. But my straight kid-free friends immediately took it and I really haven't heard it used in the gay community much since. The gay community's pretty good at self-policing denigrative terms and there are plenty of sensitive gay parents ready to smack their fellow gays. You think straight parents are touchy? Don't piss off gay parents.

Heffalump and Roo

07-18-2007, 12:50 AM

Utter and complete bullshit foisted into a completely wrong set of "arguments" designed solely to make you sound right.
Well, I tried it with arguments designed solely to make me sound wrong, but it wasn't very appealing somehow. ;)

Your statement is entirely factually incorrect .
Strikes me as not the best example. By all accounts China is right now starting to experience a rather profound social disaster brought on by its policy:
You're both right. My statement was written badly. And was quite unnecessary to the argument. My only point was to counter fessie's argument:

The point of having society is to welcome more kids.

To that end, I was just arguing that there are societies whose point is not to welcome more kids. So it was unnecessary for me to say that the society in China functions as all other societies function. What I meant was that the Chinese society IS a society, regardless of how it functions in comparison to others. And it being a society and not having as their point to welcome kids, fessie's point was false.

I wasn't trying to make the argument that the Chinese society is better for its policies. Having said that, better is a relative term and we can only judge that from an ethno-centric position which was part of my point. Societies don't necessarily have a specific point to them unless we judge them based on our view of what that purpose is.

I wasn't even trying to provide some kind of abstract argument for children anyway, Heffalump and Roo. I was telling you what many people believe, what they base their decisions on. It may not be your reality, but it is theirs.
Ah, I see. I didn't get that from the way that your point was written. Perhaps it would have been clearer if you had said that "some people believe that". . .

After all, some people believe that extraterrestrials are here on the planet as we speak and some people believe that the rapture is imminent. There are people who believe all kinds of stuff. It doesn't make it right or true.

Not everything can be reduced, removed, abstracted to a theoretical discussion.
I couldn't agree more. And I especially agree with that statement in regards to this thread. It's a simple thread about children making noise in a public place.

So if you had said, for instance, that it was *your* experience (in your community in this particular culture, time and place) with your child that people allowed *you* leeway for your child to yell and scream for long periods of time in public places, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I've noticed that tendency myself with kids and parents in my own community.

But when people start talking about rights and societies and the purposes of societies as support for their own experiences, then I think the discussion has turned into a theoretical one and that theoretical rebuttal is fair game. . . if only to point out the absurdity of the claims that children making noise have any justification over and above people trying to be decent and civil in this society at this point in time, which is a privilege, not a right.

You're calling reductio ad absurdum and the Law of the Excluded Middle logical fallacies.
Yes, I am. And while I may be mistaken about this (I don't doubt it. I'm not a philosophy expert as you have claimed to be), since you haven't shown it to be false, I'll reserve judgment on it.

You've lost the argument. Whatever the merits of your position may be, once you say something as absurd as what you just said, you lose all credibility as a participant in the debate.
Since you've already jumped into this discussion earlier, clearly taking a side in it, I think I'll discount your objective opinion (by about 100% :p ) in regards to this "debate" (such that it is).

Further, if the ways that you judge a debate is to look at one side and see if they make a mistake to see if the other side wins, then you must think that Kirk Cameron won his "debate" since the opponents made several errors in their argument (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=420692). If so, good luck with the crocoduck theory and get thee to a (fundamentalist christian) church!

CanvasShoes

07-18-2007, 01:06 AM

I have two questions....

1) What sort of stern disciplinary action works on a tantruming toddler and can be used in public without the risk of having the authorities meet you getting off the plane?

2) How does one get a tantruming toddler to the back of the plane or to the bathroom?First, imho, there is a big difference between a baby/toddler, and a child who is old enough to mind to some reasonable degree. I believe I've stated that before, but if not, there it is. I really don't consider a 4 year old a toddler. And 3 is pushing it a bit. But again, on a plane, I can understand a meltdown and that 3 and 4 are not so far past toddler-hood that it may happen. NOT so in places where the child can and should be removed.

1.) Again, based upon having impressed the need for good, or at least adequate behaviour, upon one's child as a matter of longstanding practice. And then putting into effect any method used on prior non-airplane instances. Such as, the hairy eyeball, distractions, psychological lessons. For instance the "well darn this is a bummer, we have to have peanut butter sandwiches (child's least liked item that he/she will still eat if hungry) because you wouldn't behave and let mommy shop...darn, and we could have had (child's top favorite) instead". That one only takes once or twice before the child learns not to mess with mom in the grocery store. Enlist the assistance of others in the family to reinforce the methods that work. If mom is always the bad guy, kids are darned smart, they'll just attempt to manipulate the pushovers.

2.) If need be, throw the little monster over your shoulder and hike on down the aisle. I've seen it done, but luckily haven't had to do it myself.

Neither of mine ever pulled tantrums on a plane, but I've been in the midst of toddler tantrum central, and I removed my little monster immediately, by straps of his OshKosh overalls like a little suitcase and to the applause from other post office patrons in one instance. :D

When my daughter was 3, we flew to Hawaii (about a 7 hour flight), she wasn't having tantrums, but she was wound like a clock and full of irrepressible energy for the entire flight. Until we hit the ground that is, she fell asleep as we were taxiing into the gate. Boy, you haven't lived until you've tried to carry a sleeping 3 year old, carry-ons, and luggage through an airport all by your lonesome. Luckily we had a tailwind on the way back and she was tired out from the vacation and slept all the way...Whew!

She did however, have a ear-ache episode aboard a puddle jumper when she was about 10 months old. The crying was earsplitting and embarrassing, most everyone, except for the idiot guy next to us (my mom read him the riot act after about his 50th dirty look), was understanding.

My son was the tantrum thrower, and there were several memorable times when he was a toddler and even a preschooler that I had to leave a place or curtail something that would have been fun because of the need to remove him from the venue due to his behaviour.

That is what parenting IS. Yeah, it sucks sometimes, and I'm not the world's greatest parent either, not even close, sometimes I rather resented it. But in addition to my duty as a parent, I took my duty to be considerate to OTHERS, where my child was concerned, seriously. It's not everyone else's responsibility or duty to put up with other people's ill-behaving children, *I* had the kids, it's a choice, not an involuntary condition or something, why should everyone else have to suffer through their brattiness?

I understand that there are going to be exceptions to the rule, that some children, such as yours may have medical issues that are behind their tantrums. But frankly with too many parents these days, that is not the case. It's pure laziness and simply not caring. And with a lot of these people, they make it quite apparent that "little johnny, or jenny can do no wrong".

And again, it's those parents that folks in this thread are having issues with, or more to the point the cult of child worship attitude that goes along with it.

Rubystreak

07-18-2007, 01:14 AM

The point of having society is to welcome more kids.

Without getting sidetracked into completely tangential discussions of China, do you think it is safe to say that "society" is a very vague term, and that no "society," and certainly not 21st century Western society, can be described as uniformly as you have tried to describe it here?

There are multiple sub-societies, or communities, operating at once under the catchall of a larger one. Some sectors of society are indeed designed to welcome more kids. They tend to be kid-friendly and full of receptive, understanding (some of you would say "selfless," but I'd say "similarly inclined") folks. Some other sectors of society are not as welcoming, and those tend to be populated by people who are annoyed by the intrusion of your distinctly UNwelcome child. I don't think it's fair or warranted to say that one of these communities is better, morally superior, or more valuable than the other just because one appeals to you more than the other.

You very likely have to venture into territory that isn't as friendly to your worldview, though, and respect is the key to navigating there. NOT expecting your personal situation to be privileged goes a long way towards this, and stating the purpose of "society" to "do" something is rather absurd and bound to lead to situations like the OP's. This goes both ways, for childless people and for people with children.

Short story long, expecting society as a monolith, in all settings and situations, to welcome your kids is a wrong-headed, dare I say selfish, attitude? As selfish as is expecting not to have to listen to 10 minutes of screaming while quietly browsing in a bookstore. IOW, this is what I think Heffalump and Roo was trying to say but got completely off track. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so, I'm sure someone will be along posthaste to tell me so.

CanvasShoes

07-18-2007, 01:29 AM

Then reality hits - you can't reason with a small kid. They are almost uniformly too loud and even if you never let them say "poopyhead" they learn it at school. They have poor self control over their emotions. They can't communicate "I have a tummyache" or "I'm cranky because my blood sugar is low." They get fed endless candy by well meaning relatives. Despite putting wholesome food in front of them, they eat nothing but Kraft Mac n Cheese for four months and your choice is to live with a hungry (and therefore cranky and intolerable) child or one that eats Mac n Cheese three meals a day. You try and read them The Hobbit and discover they'll only sit still for Captain Underpants. You have to bribe them to get into the bathtub (but they'll spend hours in there once they get in). By nature, they are selfish and self centered because they haven't even reached the stage of development where they really conceive of the other.

Yet, the vast majority of them grow up to be productive members of society.
Who here is saying that the above quite normal childhood behaviours are some sort of proof that kids are bad?

I have seen no one in this thread (well except catsix, but she made no sense as usual), say that what makes children children; the captain underpants, the sometimes getting overtired and mom not noticing until it's too late (had that one happen at the state fair, boy was that an adventure and embarrassing!), the mac n cheese for half a year straight etc, the non-bathing (or hairbrushing in my little sister's case). is somehow bad or evil and means that they'll be non-productive members of society.

What I DO see people saying is "yes, we understand that sometimes kids behave in a socially unacceptable way. However, when they do that to excess and in inappropriate places...ACT! Be a Parent! Take them out of the situation! Do not give us the "well, kids will be kids", or "aww, isn't that cute he's sharing his mashed potatoes with your new suede skirt at this 5 star restaurant" or "oh, you must hate children" BS and continue to force others to be subjected to an ill-behaved child. Expecting respect and reasonable parenting duties from you (collective you) as a parent, and while out in public with your children, isn't a slam against children or their normal behaviour.

There are proper places and times for kids, and there are proper times and places to step up, and even if it spoils your fun, you have to be the parent, not the buddy and not the irresponsible "lets one's children run wild" cult of child worship disciple.

Frylock

07-18-2007, 03:50 AM

Heffalump and Roo

Let me be clear about something. I didn't say your opponents have won the debate. I only said that you've lost.

Though I didn't make this clear in my post, I happen to be of the opinion that it is entirely possible for both sides of a debate to lose. So just because I believe you have made crucial mistakes which tend to undermine your ability to further participate in the debate, it does not follow that I think you yourself have been proven wrong, or that your opponents have won the debate, or anything along such lines.

My point was that your post had undermined the trust that readers had had that you were arguing in good faith. The post made it appear you did not honestly understand where the fallacies in your interlocutors' arguments lay, and that instead of either admitting this or doing the work to rectify your lack of understanding, rather you had decided to hide behind authoritative sounding phrases which you clearly did not actually understand. It appeared you hoped to intimidate your opponent into submission by any means, truthful or not. This is bad form.

Now I want to explain the meaning of the terms you were trying to use.

I am not relying on any "expertise" here, even though you attributed a claim of such expertise to me. (I doubt I've ever claimed expertise in anything. I certainly don't feel like an expert of any sort.) I am a student of philosophy, to be sure, but this is irrelevant. It does not require expertise or even much study to know that what you said is wrong.

I am also not claiming "neutrality" or "lack of bias" with regard to this debate. I am claiming to have true information to impart about the proper use of certain terms, and I am claiming to know the correct way to evaluate your own contribution to the debate. The question whether I am "neutral" or "unbiased" is a red herring. One should look at my claims, and my arguments for them (if any), and evaluate their validity.

Reductio ad Absurdum is a valid argument form. Its structure is as follows. Suppose I want to prove that P. In order to do so by Reductio ad Absurdum, I start out by assuming (for the sake of argument, so to speak,) that not-P. I then attempt to derive a contradiction from this assumption. If I can show that some contradiction follows logically from not-P, then I have proven that not-P can not be true. And if not-P is not true, then it follows that P is true. So I have proven P, by Reductio ad Absurdum.

A simple, somewhat informal example. Imagine your friend tells you on one occasion that she only eats healthy foods. Imagine that on another day she tells you that hamburgers are unhealthy. And finally, imagine that on some other occasion, she reports that she's just eaten a hamburger. In this case, we can prove, by reductio ad absurdum, that the three statements she has made can not all be true. For suppose they were all true. (Assuming not-P, in other words.) Then since (by our supposition) your friend only eats healthy, and (again, by our supposition,) hamburgers are not healthy, it follows that she does not eat a hamburger. But (by supposition again) she has eaten a hamburger. This is a contradiction--she both has and has not eaten a hamburger. Since we've derived a contradiction from our supposition that all your friend's reports were true, we can conclude that not all her reports were true. Either she doesn't only eat healthy, or hamburgers are healthy, or she did not eat a hamburger.

Another somewhat more formal example. Suppose there were only a finite number of integers. Then there would be some integer greater than all other integers. Call it N. But we know that for all integers M, M + 1 > M. So N + 1 > N. We also know that for all integers M, M + 1 is also an integer. So N + 1 is an integer. But this means that N + 1 is an integer greater than N. So: From our supposition that there are a finite number of integers, we have derived the following conradiction; that there is a number N which is greater than all integers, and that there is an integer greater than N. From our supposition, we derived a contradiction. Thefore, we know that our supposition is false. There are not a finite number of integers.

More on that can be found here (http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm).

The law of the excluded middle is just the principle that every statement is either true or not true. Some people do harbor doubts about this one for certain types of statements. For example Aristotle and many since him have wondered whether statements about the future are neither true nor not true, but rather only become true or not true as the future "becomes" the present. But when it comes to statements in the present tense, the law is generally taken to be practically axiomatic. (And in fact most thinkers believe the law is true even for future-tense statements as well.) here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/) is more on the law of the excluded middle, as well as the closely related law of noncontradiction. (The LNC underlies validity of the reductio ad absurdum argument form by the way.)

The upshot of all this is that you can not criticize an argument (as you did) by pointing out that it is a reductio ad absurdum. Similarly, to say that an argument seems to rely on the law of the excluded middle is not a criticism except in certain philosophically rarified contexts.

Now onto a separate issue: Your misunderstanding of my position regarding children on airplanes. I said that I do not want parents to feel they should refrain from taking their children on airplanes, even if those parents think it entirely possible their children will throw a serious tantrum during the flight. I did not say, and I do not believe, what you imputed to me: that it is impossible for children to make it through a flight without throwing a tantrum. I think it very possible for tantrum-less flights to occur. I did say I am willing to incur the risk that someone's children may throw a tantrum on my flight. But this does not imply (as you seemed to think it does) that I think it is a certainty that children must misbehave on an airplane.

I think a good parent can know that there is a good chance her child will throw a serious tantrum on an airplane trip. My position is, I do not want that parent to feel obligated to refrain from bringing the child onto an airplane, and I think most people should feel the same way I do about this.

With that said, to be honest, I'm not sure you and I disagree (though it seems you think we do). You said below that you think both sides should show consideration for others. I agree with this. I think I should be tolerant of tantruming kids on the plane, and I think parents should do everything they can--within reason--to prevent tantruming kids on a plane. Where do you and I disagree? Is it over the "within reason" clause?

-FrL-

Cartooniverse

07-18-2007, 06:25 AM

Some sectors of society are indeed designed to welcome more kids. They tend to be kid-friendly and full of receptive, understanding (some of you would say "selfless," but I'd say "similarly inclined") folks. Some other sectors of society are not as welcoming, and those tend to be populated by people who are annoyed by the intrusion of your distinctly UNwelcome child. I don't think it's fair or warranted to say that one of these communities is better, morally superior, or more valuable than the other just because one appeals to you more than the other.

This is a really interesting argument, especially the part I quoted. Group dynamics come into play heavily when in an enclosed space like an airplane. How many other understanding adults are around? Will one upset passenger keep their mouths shut and bear it, albeit gracelessly, because of pressure from a group of strangers? At what point do they allow their own sense of entitlement ( " I paid for this ticket and by god I should be allowed to sleep...not listen to your child screaming and crying." ) affect their judgement in a negative way?

The society as defined by a group of strangers on an airplane does have rules. Unfortunately for thoes folks in here ranting about out of control children, the rules are enforced ( or, to be fair, not enforced ) by the personnel on the plane working for the carrier. Those folks have the unenviable job of balancing social order and group dynamic against the rules of the road. ( s.i.c.)

It may be that there is no other "society" that one finds one's self in that is by design so incredibly limiting in terms of escape for an upset witness and/or a parent wishing to remove a child to a quieter and more private area.

Even on a moving train, you can leave one car for another and in doing so spare one group the tantrumming child for a while. The only other enclosed space I can think of like this is a tour bus. I suspect there are tales of bus drivers putting people off of their bus because of a disruptive child, but I don't know of any.

So, back to your quote, Rubystreak. No matter what the combination on an airplane of folks inclined to be forgiving and folks inclined to be upset and unforgiving, in all cases control is wrested from their hands by the rules of the road. Because people need to fly ( I don't want to down that angry road again. Let's just say that people need to fly, for now, ok? ), they all surrender control of their physical surroundings. They have no choice. In about 6 hours, unless the storms ground my flight, I'll get to be on two airplanes today. I must fly for work. I must obey the rules, and also work within the fragile and temporary dynamics of a given group of people assembled randomly who make up the society of those two flights, for the duration of each flight.

It says nothing about the groups of people as they exist in their own lives whether or not they like being around kids. The only dynamic of any import is whether or not the group of people on that plane can adhere to the rules and manage to fly together without making problems.

Dangerosa

07-18-2007, 07:41 AM

First, imho, there is a big difference between a baby/toddler, and a child who is old enough to mind to some reasonable degree. I believe I've stated that before, but if not, there it is. I really don't consider a 4 year old a toddler. And 3 is pushing it a bit. But again, on a plane, I can understand a meltdown and that 3 and 4 are not so far past toddler-hood that it may happen. NOT so in places where the child can and should be removed.

1.) Again, based upon having impressed the need for good, or at least adequate behaviour, upon one's child as a matter of longstanding practice. And then putting into effect any method used on prior non-airplane instances. Such as, the hairy eyeball, distractions, psychological lessons. For instance the "well darn this is a bummer, we have to have peanut butter sandwiches (child's least liked item that he/she will still eat if hungry) because you wouldn't behave and let mommy shop...darn, and we could have had (child's top favorite) instead". That one only takes once or twice before the child learns not to mess with mom in the grocery store. Enlist the assistance of others in the family to reinforce the methods that work. If mom is always the bad guy, kids are darned smart, they'll just attempt to manipulate the pushovers.

2.) If need be, throw the little monster over your shoulder and hike on down the aisle. I've seen it done, but luckily haven't had to do it myself.

1) It may only take once or twice for your kid. That sort of stern discipline never worked for mine. We took away candy, toys, friends, tv. Doesn't do much. Distractions don't work once she gets going. Hairy eyeball, nope doesn't work. What worked was to let her work it out, then talk her down once she was ready to be talked down. But she needed to be ready. Until she'd wound down enough to be as rational as a little kid could be, nothing worked, she didn't hear you.

(Now, I understand how parents can think this things work - because they CAN work - they work wonderfully on my son, who will respond to hairy eyeball or even the threat of having a privilege removed).

2) They kick. As uncomfortable as screaming is, getting kicked in the head by someone else's kid is, IMO, worse. I'll risk screaming over my kid kicking someone. So we never bodily removed her from crowds because it wasn't safe for her or for people around her. Fortunately, she only had a tantrum once in a crowd like that - and it was mercifully short.

My daughter is someone we've thought was a little difficult. Describing her behavior to her pediatrician we were assured she was "a challenging child, but well within the range of normal and would outgrow it." And when she went into kindergarten we talked to her kindergarten teacher about it. And we were told that out of her class of 16 kids - five of them tantrummed regularly (and my daughter was not one of the five) and that this was normal - the school didn't think it unusual unless there were other behaviors or indications until THIRD grade and there were no indications we should take our daughter in to a child psychologist. (We did have her pulled in first grade from some of her peers that really had poor behavior). She is much better at seven, NEVER has public tantrums anymore and now does the teenager "go to her room and pout" thing rather than the kicking and screaming that would still occasionally happen two years ago.

Jolly Roger

07-18-2007, 07:49 AM

As someone who spends money, and doesn't have a crying baby, I'll be happy to point out the location of the front door to both of them.

I have to agree with that. If i go into a store filled with a screeching kid i'll leave, even if I had intended to buy something. I can't stand that noise. If I notice that there always seems to be a screeching kid in that particular store I'll just stop going there.

Jolly Roger

07-18-2007, 08:14 AM

I think your post was a little over the top but her comparing your statement to "I don't like black people" was a little perplexing, to say the least.

miss elizabeth, I'm black and I see the difference (though being black is what qualifies me to see that difference).

I'm lost on that one too. I'm black and I don't really like kids either.

Jolly Roger

07-18-2007, 08:55 AM

Well, if you want to talk about screaming kid stories, heres my personal favourite. My wife and I had gone to see a movie, Blade, when it first came to theatres. We went to the late show at the local mall which was about 9:30 PM.

So did another guy, his wife and their screaming snot machine. This kid was maybe 2 or 3. the little monster wouldn’t stop screeching and even in this rather large theatre it was impossible to drown him out and watch the movie. After what seemed like a good 40 minutes, but was probably only 15, the couple left with the kid. Whether they calmed him down or came back I don’t know. I was too pissed off at that point. I mentioned to my wife on our way home how I thought it was rude and irresponsible for those people to have brought the child with them. My wife, who is no fan of screaming children, tried to play devil’s advocate by saying “Maybe they wanted to see the movie and couldn’t get a baby sitter.”

Guess what? They don’t see the stinking movie then! They had the choice to have that kid and so its their problem! Not to mention that the kid was way too young to even understand the movie. We go to the late showings of movies specifically to avoid crap like that. Now honestly, that was the parents fault and not the child. But that doesn't mean that people won't be annoyed to downright angry about it.

That’s why the discussion of “its bad to say you don’t like kids” is at least interesting. I don’t actually hate kids, but I certainly don’t like them enough to have one. I’ve babysat for friends and neighbors, I’ve watched kids and I’ve worked in summer camps. I don’t have the patience to deal with them on a long term basis. (I’m also not a big fan of teenagers, but that’s a different thread). I don’t see whats so wrong about a person not liking children. It doesn’t mean they want to hurt kids or anything…it just means they’d prefer not to be around them. Especially when in a place like Borders or a café when the little brat feels like screaming its head off.

Malthus

07-18-2007, 09:05 AM

Without getting sidetracked into completely tangential discussions of China, do you think it is safe to say that "society" is a very vague term, and that no "society," and certainly not 21st century Western society, can be described as uniformly as you have tried to describe it here?

There are multiple sub-societies, or communities, operating at once under the catchall of a larger one. Some sectors of society are indeed designed to welcome more kids. They tend to be kid-friendly and full of receptive, understanding (some of you would say "selfless," but I'd say "similarly inclined") folks. Some other sectors of society are not as welcoming, and those tend to be populated by people who are annoyed by the intrusion of your distinctly UNwelcome child. I don't think it's fair or warranted to say that one of these communities is better, morally superior, or more valuable than the other just because one appeals to you more than the other.

You very likely have to venture into territory that isn't as friendly to your worldview, though, and respect is the key to navigating there. NOT expecting your personal situation to be privileged goes a long way towards this, and stating the purpose of "society" to "do" something is rather absurd and bound to lead to situations like the OP's. This goes both ways, for childless people and for people with children.

Short story long, expecting society as a monolith, in all settings and situations, to welcome your kids is a wrong-headed, dare I say selfish, attitude? As selfish as is expecting not to have to listen to 10 minutes of screaming while quietly browsing in a bookstore. IOW, this is what I think Heffalump and Roo was trying to say but got completely off track. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so, I'm sure someone will be along posthaste to tell me so.

While I agree that "society" is composed of multiple sub-societies, they all have one and only one thing in common - they are all composed of humans, who eventually get old and die. Unless the individual members of such society, or societies, are replaced, they will cease to exist.

This is the fundamental, the bedrock, the basic reason why *having kids* will always be "more valuable" than not doing so, and subject to a certain degree of privilege. It isn't because parents are better people, more moral and more selfless. It is simple mechanics. Societies require replacement members to survive, and without child-producing, they will die off.

This is similar to the "tragedy of the commons" situation - as everyone benefits from having new children around, in ways that may not be instantly apparent to them. Parents bear much of the burden for raising children, yet everyone benefits from having children around - the squalling baby annoying you in Chapters, or others just like her, will grow up to pay for your social security. Not to mention running the whole infrastructure of society when you are too old to do so.

Moreover, all humans now alive benefited from this "privilege" themselves, as all were once children. I think that this puts them under a reciprocal obligation to put up with a certain amount of annoyance from new humans. Seems a pretty tiny price to pay.

That being said, there are obviously situations and settings which are inappropriate for children, and there are obviously parents who are rude and inconsiderate. I merely state that, all things being equal, there are sound reasons why children ought to be granted leeway not given to adults and, yes, "privileged".

Malthus

07-18-2007, 09:10 AM

That’s why the discussion of “its bad to say you don’t like kids” is at least interesting. I don’t actually hate kids, but I certainly don’t like them enough to have one. I’ve babysat for friends and neighbors, I’ve watched kids and I’ve worked in summer camps. I don’t have the patience to deal with them on a long term basis. (I’m also not a big fan of teenagers, but that’s a different thread). I don’t see whats so wrong about a person not liking children. It doesn’t mean they want to hurt kids or anything…it just means they’d prefer not to be around them. Especially when in a place like Borders or a café when the little brat feels like screaming its head off.

The issue is whether your dislike of kids ought to be indulged or granted equal status by others to someone elses' desire to have their kids around.

I'd say that yes, the parents taking a little kid into an adult movie like Blade is in the wrong (is it even legal? I thought these things had age restrictions). In more generally public settings however, the rights of those with kids ought to prevail over your right to not be subjected to children.

Jolly Roger

07-18-2007, 10:20 AM

The issue is whether your dislike of kids ought to be indulged or granted equal status by others to someone elses' desire to have their kids around.

I'd say that yes, the parents taking a little kid into an adult movie like Blade is in the wrong (is it even legal? I thought these things had age restrictions). In more generally public settings however, the rights of those with kids ought to prevail over your right to not be subjected to children.

Dislike of kids may be too strong a description for me. I'm sorry if i came off that way, or said it. I prefer to not be around small children but I don't dislike them.

But I do disagree in one thing....I don't think anyone's rights are more important than mine just because they have kids. I know many will not agree with that, and thats fine.

Malthus

07-18-2007, 10:49 AM

Dislike of kids may be too strong a description for me. I'm sorry if i came off that way, or said it. I prefer to not be around small children but I don't dislike them.

But I do disagree in one thing....I don't think anyone's rights are more important than mine just because they have kids. I know many will not agree with that, and thats fine.

Way I see it, the rights are simply different.

A person who would prefer not being around kids presumably has some sort of right not to be subjected to small kids.

On the other hand, parents of small kids have a right to take them out in public, where they may encounter those who dislike being subjected to kids.

There can be no "equality of rights" here, as one 'right' must give way to the other: either those who dislike kids have to put up with having 'em around, or those with kids have to keep 'em out of sight. One or the other must be preferred.

My argument is that the default setting is that the rights of parents to take their kids out is to be preferred, subject to the caveat that there may, on a case-by-case basis, be settings in which young children are not appropriate. If this is interpreted as meaning "someone's rights are more important than yours", so be it - I think there are quite sound reasons already described why children should be 'privileged' in this manner.

miss elizabeth

07-18-2007, 11:13 AM

fessie

07-18-2007, 12:07 PM

I don't think anyone's rights are more important than mine just because they have kids. I know many will not agree with that, and thats fine.

I think it's simply that kids' needs, and therefore their rights, are vastly different from adults'. They need to move, and they need to make (some) noise, it's just the way they are.

It's like parking for the disabled - they don't have a greater "right" to shop, but their needs are different and should be honored.

I do agree, though, that children (under age 10?) should simply be BANNED from R-rated movies. Period. They don't belong in bars or expensive (i.e., no crayons or booster seats) restaurants. Same with adult concerts or plays.

overlyverbose

07-18-2007, 01:47 PM

Well, if you want to talk about screaming kid stories, heres my personal favourite. My wife and I had gone to see a movie, Blade, when it first came to theatres. We went to the late show at the local mall which was about 9:30 PM.

So did another guy, his wife and their screaming snot machine. This kid was maybe 2 or 3. the little monster wouldn’t stop screeching and even in this rather large theatre it was impossible to drown him out and watch the movie.

<snip>

Especially when in a place like Borders or a café when the little brat feels like screaming its head off.

In this case, I agree with you that this is a totally inappropriate venue for a kid. Additionally, I can't imagine taking my kid to a 9:30 showing of anything (he goes to sleep around 8 or 8:30), let alone a really loud, violent movie. Talk about scary - movies in theaters seem loud to me. I can't imagine what they might sound like to a tired toddler.

Anyway, I don't think it's bad that you don't like to be around small children. Some people love kids, some people don't. Heck, I'm still not much of a baby person unless it's my kid. Though I'm a lot more understanding when others' small children misbehave in public. It's unfortunate, but a lot of small children learn how to behave in public by misbehaving in public and having resultant consequences. I'm fortunate enough to have avoided public scenes for far (my toddler has started throwing tantrums, but is still young enough that they stop when I pick him up), but when others' kids lose it, yeah it stinks, but I don't usually care if the parents respond.

Still, I don't think the comparison of places like Borders is the greatest - large retail bookstores are vastly different from a movie theater. It's reasonable to expect quiet in a movie theater. However, lots of people host public events in Borders - most of our local stores host book groups/clubs, story time for kids, live music, book readings, signings, etc. And while I don't think kids should be allowed to run around screaming in a book store, most Borders I've been to have a fairly substantial kids' section, complete with places kids can sit, play and read. Seems like a good place for a kid to me. It also seems likely that, at some point or another, some kid who happens to be in the kids' section is going to lose it. You know, sort of a "you build it, they will come" thing. You include a kids' section in a store, kids will show up. Some kids will throw tantrums, etc.

CanvasShoes

07-18-2007, 09:31 PM

1) It may only take once or twice for your kid. That sort of stern discipline never worked for mine. We took away candy, toys, friends, tv. Doesn't do much. Distractions don't work once she gets going. Hairy eyeball, nope doesn't work. What worked was to let her work it out, then talk her down once she was ready to be talked down. But she needed to be ready. Until she'd wound down enough to be as rational as a little kid could be, nothing worked, she didn't hear you. But again, hearing you post here (or seeing it rather... :)), you don't sound like the type of parent that would let a child have a 45 minute tantrum in a public place. And I think you said that your daughter had medical issues including possible migraines (as a migraine sufferer myself, I can understand her pain, and the likelihood of a young child not understanding or being able to express that). Again, THAT is different from a parent that just simply doesn't care.

2) They kick. As uncomfortable as screaming is, getting kicked in the head by someone else's kid is, IMO, worse. I'll risk screaming over my kid kicking someone. So we never bodily removed her from crowds because it wasn't safe for her or for people around her. Fortunately, she only had a tantrum once in a crowd like that - and it was mercifully short.There is a method that I had to use on my son when he had tantrums, where you basically "bundle" them. They can't kick when they can't get their legs loose, and a loud cheerful (as cheerful as one can be under the circumstances) "Coming THROUGH, monster tantrum! Coming Through!!!" will work wonders to getting folks out of the way.

My daughter is someone we've thought was a little difficult. Describing her behavior to her pediatrician we were assured she was "a challenging child, but well within the range of normal and would outgrow it." And when she went into kindergarten we talked to her kindergarten teacher about it. And we were told that out of her class of 16 kids - five of them tantrummed regularly (and my daughter was not one of the five) and that this was normal - the school didn't think it unusual unless there were other behaviors or indications until THIRD grade and there were no indications we should take our daughter in to a child psychologist. (We did have her pulled in first grade from some of her peers that really had poor behavior). She is much better at seven, NEVER has public tantrums anymore and now does the teenager "go to her room and pout" thing rather than the kicking and screaming that would still occasionally happen two years ago.
I have to admit, I'm surprised by that, but don't disbelieve it. But again, a kindergarten class IS an appropriate (perhaps key) place for a kid TO misbehave. First off, it's an environment strictly for children. Second, professionals are there to guide kids when they do misbehave, and third, peer pressure works wonders, even at a young age.

A person, like the one in the OP, or the lady I mentioned earlier who was at the bowling alley, who coldbloodedly simply allow their infant to cry because THEY want to play pool, or shop for non-essentials, or read are not behaving like considerate fellow citizens, or very good parents.

Again, no one is saying that normal behaviour of kids (Yes, including the occasional meltdown) is some sort of reason to ban them from all society, or that it's somehow new or what makes them horrible creatures or something. We're saying that too many folks can't or won't figure out the difference between appropriate and inappropriate times and venues for kids, and how to parent should they find themselves in a situation where the child needs to be removed due to bad behaviour.

CanvasShoes

07-18-2007, 09:41 PM

....snip....It's unfortunate, but a lot of small children learn how to behave in public by misbehaving in public and having resultant consequences..
Excellent point! And this, in a nutshell, is what I've been saying (though not as clearly and succinctly as you just did.

Mommy takes Darling Angel out in public.

Darling Angel starts being a brat because she's tired, low blood sugar, whatever.

Mommy doesn't want to stop shopping, or browsing the bookstore or whatever it is that she's doing that's so much more important than using the moment to be a parent and start teaching Darling Angel "How to Behave in Public" (**Note I say start, we all know this isn't a one time only deal).

Mommy bribes Darling Angel with candy, or a toy.

DINGDINGDING.....Welcome to the Dark Side mommy, you've just taught Darling Angel how to manipulate you. Trouble is, Darling Angel is just going to keep on upping the ante to get what she wants.

RickJay

07-18-2007, 10:32 PM

Wow, that's wrong in so many ways that I don't know where to begin.

So I'll start off by asking what rights and expectations of accommodation you think babies or children have.
Children have any number of basic legal rights in accordance with the laws of any civilized society, and are generally accorded the most fundamental rights of human beings by all sane people. Certainly my country extends many basic rights to children. They have the right to live; they have the right to due process in criminal law; they have the right not to be discriminated against in accordance with race, religion, and a number of other classifications; they have the right to public educations, which must be offered in certain languages, depending where you are; so on and so forth. They also have rights that, as you point out, are generally exercised by their parents (e.g. the right to enter and exit the country, if they are citizens) but which nonetheless are, legally, applicable to the children, not just their parents. They are protected by criminal and civil laws beyond number in a manner consistent with other human beings. I would imagine most if not all of this is true of all organized states.

Then I'll say that as far as I know, babies can't assert any rights for themselves except in very rare circumstances.
Rights are not merely those that are asserted; for instance, the right to live is a fundamental right which can't be "asserted," unless you mean breathing.

In most cases, an adult is required to assert the rights for babies and children. In that sense, the rights that the adults have in regards to dogs, parrots and portable stereos also apply.
Simply absurd. Animals and objects do not have any legal rights whatsoever. Human beings do. Tell you what; if you don't believe me, go out and buy a dog and put it in a cage. Then go buy a child and put it in a cage. Invite the neighbours over, and when the police come, tell me which act you're arrested for.

That you will be arrested for kidnapping and forcible confinement and any number of other offenses is simply a reflection of the legal and social understanding that children, which are human beings, are entitled to basic rights, while dogs are not. I can shoot my own dog if I feel like it. There's no crime against it, providing I don't make it suffer unreasonably, and even the law agaisnt animal cruelty is only statutory, and could be rescinded tomorrow without any Constitutional objection. I will suffer no penalty if I kill my own dog. If I kill your dog the penalties will, likely, be entirely civil in nature, unless in so doing I violate other laws (e.,g. discharging a firearm where it is illegal to do so.) What happens if I shoot my kid? Shoot your kid? Straight to prison, and that's based on the fact that children deserve to live. They have a right to their lives. Animals don't, or else eating steak would be a crime.

The only example I can think of where humans might have more rights than animals is in the case of for instance, heating to an apartment or dwelling.
You're kidding, right?

You can't think of ANY OTHER INSTANCE where humans have more rights than animals? You've seen horses vote, cats win the right to equal protection under the law, and oxen win their freedom from slavery?

As for your statement about how society "should" be, I can only know what society is and has been. As far as how it has been, there have been some classes of people for whom children and babies have had no rights. For instance, if someone purchased a slave before the civil war, that person could kill that slave out of overwork and not be responsible to the child nor his/her parents.
Well, yes, there have been criminal, uncivilized countries run by murderers. So what?

Heffalump and Roo

07-19-2007, 01:44 AM

Without getting sidetracked into completely tangential discussions of China,

Aww, c'mon. . . why is everyone picking on my China argument? I kinda liked it. And I still think it's valid, just not in the exact way that I wrote it. So let me backpedal from my backpedal. While I agreed that the sentence should not have included the part about comparing the functions of societies as being the same, I still think it makes the argument that there are some societies that don't value having more children.

For that reason, I disagree with Malthus' argument that having children should carry privileges inherently. One of his arguments was that children provide for the parents' social security, but in a country of scarcity, more children could ensure the parents' death sooner through starvation.

And I also like my China argument because it shows how people only think of their own view and perceptions of things. It reminds me of RO counter-arguments in that way. People always think that everyone should be outraged over the same stuff. But people in different cultures could very well consider that absurd.

Your argument of different societies within societies, while very good, didn't show the dramatic differences between societies or different cultures I was trying to aim for.

Having said that, thanks for clarifying my argument.

My point was that your post had undermined the trust that readers had had that you were arguing in good faith. The post made it appear you did not honestly understand where the fallacies in your interlocutors' arguments lay, and that instead of either admitting this or doing the work to rectify your lack of understanding, rather you had decided to hide behind authoritative sounding phrases which you clearly did not actually understand. It appeared you hoped to intimidate your opponent into submission by any means, truthful or not. This is bad form.

Wow, so much to say about this. Before I start, I want to thank you for writing out such a lengthy post. It looks like you put some effort into it. . . either that or you type really fast.

First, regarding my "bad form." Is it better form to come into a thread and point out something that you think is wrong without explaining it and then point out the other person has lost all credibility and has lost some imaginary "debate"?

Second, you're attributing motivations to me that I simply don't have. I'm not sure how I would "intimidate my opponent into submission" in a thread on a message board. In my post to fessie that you're discussing, I clearly had said that I didn't think that she'd be interested in the discussion about what I was calling fallacies but wanted to post it in case anyone else was interested. So I clearly wasn't trying to "intimidate" the person I was responding to. My other "opponents" would be anyone else who might happen to read the thread and disagree which includes you. Since I know you're a philosophy student, why would I try to intimidate someone that I know has knowledge about the subject?

Third, how can you know whether I was arguing in good faith? As far as I was concerned, I had an understanding of a concept and posted it. Whether my understanding was flawed is still up for grabs. I realize now (after you pointed it out) I might have used incorrect nomenclature, but that's really a technicality as far as the argument is concerned, I think.

And why should the readers in this thread place any more trust in my statements than they do with any other post. I even linked to my resources so they could see for themselves if they agreed with my conclusions.

Fourth, in my first thread that I ventured into as a guest on The Dope, there was someone that tried to use fallacies to negate my post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8032844&postcount=138). If it's bad form to a member, surely it must be bad form towards a guest. And they weren't even kind enough to link to their resources. But no mention was made of that, so I'm feeling doubtful that there really is such an agreed upon concept here.

One should look at my claims, and my arguments for them (if any), and evaluate their validity.

And the same goes for mine.

Reductio ad Absurdum is a valid argument form. Its structure is as follows.

Interesting discussion, but it doesn't point out whether I used the concept as it applied to the post I was responding to.

Here's my abbreviated analysis:

Premise: It's a pretty simple fact that we have to make more human beings in order for the human race to continue, no?
Conclusion: The point of having kids is to bring them into society.
The point of having society is to welcome more kids.

So my thought was she's arguing not P (no more human being created), leading to the conclusion that then the point of society must be to have kids.

and I got my thought from (which was linked in my text):

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)Reductio ad absurdum is also often used to describe an argument where a conclusion is derived in the belief that everyone (or at least those being argued against) will accept that it is false or absurd. However, this is a weak form of reductio, as the decision to reject the premise requires that the conclusion is accepted as being absurd. Although a formal contradiction is by definition absurd (unacceptable), a weak reductio ad absurdum argument can be rejected simply by accepting the purportedly absurd conclusion.

Unfortunately, I did not carefully read the next sentence which points out:

There is a fairly common misconception that reductio ad absurdum simply denotes "a silly argument" and is itself a formal fallacy. However, this is not correct; a properly constructed reductio constitutes a correct argument. When reductio ad absurdum is in error, it's because of a fallacy worked into the example, somewhere, not the act of reduction itself.

which is the point you're trying to make. But just because it's technically not called a fallacy, I'm not sure it negates the argument.

Now onto a separate issue: Your misunderstanding of my position regarding children on airplanes. I said that I do not want parents to feel they should refrain from taking their children on airplanes, even if those parents think it entirely possible their children will throw a serious tantrum during the flight.

I've been giving this some thought. I actually had lunch with a preschool teacher this afternoon and asked her about this. I've noted that it's easy to tell which kids are going to likely throw tantrums. For one of my neighbors, I would be surprised if her kids threw an extended tantrum on an airplane unless there were extenuating circumstances. For another of my neighbors, I'd be surprised if her kids didn't throw a tantrum since they're throwing tantrums in public places all the time. So parents have the ability to assess whether they're kids are more likely to throw a tantrum or not. It's these parents that should think about not bringing their children on planes. Having said that, that's like whistling in the wind for the most part because those parents whose children are most prone to tantrums are least likely to be considerate about other people's comfort.

The society as defined by a group of strangers on an airplane does have rules.

Does this mean that each group of people on an airplane is a different "society"? Does it make a difference whether that society is made up of 80% business people on a commuter flight each morning between say, San Francisco and LA or whether that "society" is made up of people on a plane mostly going on a tour that starts on a Saturday afternoon?

Should the expectations be different? Are the so-called "privileges" that others have talked about in this thread being applied the same way in these circumstances?

Jackmannii

07-19-2007, 07:22 AM

I don't think anyone's rights are more important than mine just because they have kids. I know many will not agree with that, and thats fine. I think it's simply that kids' needs, and therefore their rights, are vastly different from adults'.Yes. They are subordinate to the rights and expectations of adults, in well-parented households.(Kids) need to move, and they need to make (some) noise, it's just the way they are.They may feel the need to kick the back of a chair occupied by an adult in an adjoining seat, or to race around a restaurant annoying other patrons because their parents are obliviously gabbing on the cellphone. Such behavior is quickly curtailed by good parents. Similarly, any child may begin screeching loudly for no good reason, but with good parenting that's stopped quickly, or if it can't be stopped one or more parents will leave with the child, even if it means their night out is curtailed. It's like parking for the disabled - they don't have a greater "right" to shop, but their needs are different and should be honored.The antics of badly brought up kids are not protected under law.

fessie

07-19-2007, 07:55 AM

I'd bet that some of our differing opinions and experiences on this are based on where and how we happen to live.

When we lived in Madison, Wisconsin (yay cheeseheads!), we were childless and could afford (not really, but we did it anyway) to go to nice restaurants. So I have actually seen kids running around and getting in the way. I saw a restaurant owner tell one family, very clearly, that they HAD to control their child, period. This was 20 years ago, so don't take it as a "kids these days" story.

People in (very liberal) Madison expected more accommodations for their children, at least to my (childless) eyes. They'd often interrupt me when I was out painting, expecting me to give their kids some kind of narrative on being an artist -- I'd think, fuck you, I'm not part of your field trip.

We have children now, so we don't go anywhere that kids aren't (generally) welcome. And we live in a conservative state. So now I'm seeing the other side of the coin - kids getting smacked at the library Storyhour because they can't sit still, moms who order their toddlers not to jump and splash in the public pool. It's the pool, for cryin out loud! That's where they're supposed to splash! I see parents going way too far in controlling their children.

And I see a lot of intolerant adults. My kids got the total stink-eye at Barnes & Noble, just for speaking above a library whisper. I thought the other patrons were really obnoxious for that. My children had taken their little cookies on the nice plates and sat at the table all on their own, being Big Kids. They weren't running and screaming, just talking in their enthusiastic preschooler voices.

I even know a mom who was asked to leave a grocery store because her kids were making a little racket (and not ear-piercing screams, people; somebody was crying, IIRC). Sure, it's great to do that "leave the store" thing when they misbehave - unless you're out of food. How was she supposed to feed her family?

Shit, that same grocery store chain used to demand that I give up the 2-seat cutesy cart at the checkout, exchanging it for a normal one-seated cart before I left the store. It was very difficult to navigate their parking lot while pushing one kid in the cart and balancing the other on my hip. You try it sometime.

I don't fly anymore (can't afford it), but the moms I know of who have, have spent a lot of time and energy trying to prepare in advance, trying to make sure that their children aren't a nuisance to others.

If you see someone on a plane who doesn't appear to give a whit that their kid's being annoying, it could be that they are just thoroughly self-centered -- but it could also be that they are flying because of an emergency, an illness or death, and just can't cope anymore. With anything.

Jackmannii

07-19-2007, 08:15 AM

Sure, it's great to do that "leave the store" thing when they misbehave - unless you're out of food. How was she supposed to feed her family?Come back later when kids are under control. Inconvenience to parent - yes. Threat of starvation? Be real.

fessie

07-19-2007, 08:30 AM

Have you ever run out of milk?

Gimme a fucking break, Jack -- you cannot tell me that a Mom's need to get some milk for her small child doesn't trump someone else's need for peace and quiet? How else is the kid gonna quiet down, if you can't give him/her some milk?

I'm trying to work with you here, I agree that kids aren't a magic wedge that entitle a parent to do whatever the fuck they want. Me, personally, I probably OVER parent my kids.

But a frazzled mom in a grocery store, trying to feed her family, SHE deserves a break.

Jolly Roger

07-19-2007, 09:02 AM

I even know a mom who was asked to leave a grocery store because her kids were making a little racket (and not ear-piercing screams, people; somebody was crying, IIRC). Sure, it's great to do that "leave the store" thing when they misbehave - unless you're out of food. How was she supposed to feed her family?

I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around that one, Fessie. Unless the store manager was the Grinch or something the kids must have been making more than a little racket. But i wasn't there...so lets say you're right, it was only a "little racket". Hey, the store manager went too far then. But there had to more to it than that unless the manager was just a hateful monster.

I also have to agree with Jack if the kids were making such a disturbance that they were asked to leave. They're not going to starve and the store wasn't going to magically disappear before the mom could come back later. Yeah, it sucks to have to take your kid outside and settle them down instead of getting a carton of milk and some baloney, but its not like they were tarred and feathered.

Shit, that same grocery store chain used to demand that I give up the 2-seat cutesy cart at the checkout, exchanging it for a normal one-seated cart before I left the store. It was very difficult to navigate their parking lot while pushing one kid in the cart and balancing the other on my hip. You try it sometime.

Do you mean one of those carts that look like a car or something for kids to sit in? Sounds like you should go to another store. They don't seem very helpful or friendly, and I would think a grocery store would kind of cater to children and parents.

If you see someone on a plane who doesn't appear to give a whit that their kid's being annoying, it could be that they are just thoroughly self-centered -- but it could also be that they are flying because of an emergency, an illness or death, and just can't cope anymore. With anything.

Or most likely they could just be assholes. If I'm on a plane and your kid is going bananas I don't particularly care about why the parents can't cope. I'm not going to just assume they have some family emergency. Why would I? And why would that absolve them from the responsibility of dealing with their kid?

Jackmannii

07-19-2007, 09:04 AM

I think it's simply that kids' needs, and therefore their rights, are vastly different from adults'. They need to move, and they need to make (some) noise, it's just the way they are.

It's like parking for the disabled - they don't have a greater "right" to shop, but their needs are different and should be honored.Me, personally, I probably OVER parent my kids. :dubious:

fessie

07-19-2007, 09:20 AM

Okay - I can't link to our conversation b/c it's a private forum -- the hilarious thing is, I was the one who started the thread to complain because I'd seen a mom ignoring her 2-month-old baby's cries at the grocery store!

Anyway, this is my friend's reply. She's got 4 kids. When she wrote this, the oldest boy was 3+, the twins were just shy of 2 (also boys), and she had an infant girl:

Yikes, lol. This lady was me two months ago!!! Courtney had TERRIBLE colic, and would cry regardless of what I did. There were days that I HAD to get to the grocery store to buy essentials (diapers, tampons, toilet paper, stuff that couldn't wait until Mike got home from work). I had the twins in one of those car contraptions that attaches to the front of the cart, and Court in her carseat SCREAMING at the top of her lungs. I tried to get in and out of their as fast as possible. The looks I was getting from everyone were terrible. A woman actually approached me and asked me the last time I had fed my child, and maybe I could open up a can of formula and make her a bottle to stop her crying. I was in shock! Um, besides the fact that I am breast feeding, how dare a stranger insinuate I was starving my infant?! As I was standing in the baby aisle looking at diapers, a manager approached and told me customers were complaining, and asked if I could come back and finish my shopping at a later date!!! What?! I said, "no I can't, I will finish up and leave. but I can certainly tell you, you will NEVER see me in this store again!" I just thought that was soooooo rude! I was crying too by the time I left the grocery store! Maybe this woman was having a similar day?

The replies varied, depending on whether or not the author had had a colicky baby (seriously, there really ARE some kids who can't be consoled).

But here's what it's like from a mom's POV:

Sometimes you can't do anything no matter how hard you try. Sometimes the incessant crying is too much and you just go out and do something, anything to soften the madness you are feeling from going crazy. I personally don't like taking my own kids out when they are like this but for some people they need to just get out or get crazy and better they have a crying baby on them then locked in the car alone or in the home alone. I am sure this can push anyone with a lick of PPD or baby blues to their limits.

I do believe that some kids just need to cry. If you do whatever you can to try to soothe them, then you did your job. It's not wrong to let them cry. It's a parental choice and matter of perspective.

I posted that because I tried to argue a long time ago that the lack of tolerance for children on the part of strangers contributes to child abuse (and I was widely mocked for it). That's basically what my friend is saying, too. Expecting mothers to stay at home all the time with their inconvenient, noisy, occasionally obnoxious kids (babies on up) is a recipe for disaster, IMHO. It's a prescription for madness.

catsix

07-19-2007, 09:20 AM

fessie said:
Gimme a fucking break, Jack -- you cannot tell me that a Mom's need to get some milk for her small child doesn't trump someone else's need for peace and quiet? How else is the kid gonna quiet down, if you can't give him/her some milk?

Because someone who is supposedly responsible enough to actually raise kids isn't responsible enough to plan ahead and buy more milk when she sees that the container in the fridge is running low?

If you manage to run out of food to the point that your kids will starve if you don't shop right this second, then maybe your kids would be better off being taken care of by someone else.

fessie quoting someone else:
There were days that I HAD to get to the grocery store to buy essentials (diapers, tampons, toilet paper, stuff that couldn't wait until Mike got home from work).

Why didn't Mike go and get the diapers and the tampons and toilet paper, oh I don't know, before they ran completely out of everything? It's really not that difficult to make sure that on your routine grocery trips you pick up stuff like that so that you never do run completely out. You take inventory. 'I have 2 rolls of TP. That will not last until next week's shopping trip, so I'd better get some today.'

Someone else's failure to plan ahead does not cause me to burn sympathy.

fessie

07-19-2007, 09:22 AM

:dubious:

What the fuck is that? Just because I have compassion for women who are struggling to raise their kids doesn't mean I overindulge mine.

You seriously cannot be a parent. Tell me you aren't.

fessie

07-19-2007, 09:23 AM

Yes, catsix. Good parents, normal people, run out of things and HAVE to go to the store.

Man, the ignorance around here today is shocking.

storyteller0910

07-19-2007, 09:32 AM

The antics of badly brought up kids are not protected under law.

Are you contending that I should only show consideration for someone if I am legally required to do so?

This thread has been incredibly educational. Ultimately, kids have nothing to do with it - either you're willing to give another person a break when they're having a hard time (for whatever reason), or you're not. I'd never realized that there are quite so many people walking around whose first reaction, upon seeing someone who is struggling for whatever reason, is to say fuck you, lady, you're an inconvenience.

Depressing.

storyteller0910

07-19-2007, 09:36 AM

fessie

07-19-2007, 09:45 AM

Catsix, you really don't have any idea what it's like to have a house full of small children, or a baby. It's simply not the same as single living.

"Take inventory?" You must be kidding. There is no "taking inventory". When my twins were babies, I was lucky to get a sandwich for myself. I lost 80 lbs (all of my pregnancy weight, plus another 20) within a month, because I rarely had time to eat anything. At all.

You start off thinking "I need a glass of water, I'm thirsty", but before you can get to the kitchen one kid needs a clean diaper, the other one is hungry, where is a clean bottle, now the first one wants a toy, no that toy, no it's THAT toy, the second one now has a dirty diaper....and there was something you wanted. Was it water?

It's MUCH, MUCH easier for me now that mine are 3.5 years old. The first two years were constant chaos. Unending chaos. Dizzying chaos.

Last summer was Hell because they'd be fine one minute, perfectly civilized, and insane the next. Like the time I went to empty the vacuum cleaner canister and they found the filter and shook dirt all over the house.

Or the time I absolutely HAD to take a shower while they were awake. So I had them on the couch, watching Teletubbies, perfectly content. Dash in the shower, lather, rinse (gave up on repeat long ago), jump back out. Five minutes, tops. Where are the twins? One kid's watching Corky Romano, and the other one is sitting on the kitchen table and has peeled all of the bananas in the house.

I think that if you see a woman with small children in public, and she's NOT screaming at them, and they're NOT acting like wild banshees, then you are witnessing the result of a fuck of a lot of hard work.

overlyverbose

07-19-2007, 11:25 AM

Because someone who is supposedly responsible enough to actually raise kids isn't responsible enough to plan ahead and buy more milk when she sees that the container in the fridge is running low?

If you manage to run out of food to the point that your kids will starve if you don't shop right this second, then maybe your kids would be better off being taken care of by someone else.

Why didn't Mike go and get the diapers and the tampons and toilet paper, oh I don't know, before they ran completely out of everything? It's really not that difficult to make sure that on your routine grocery trips you pick up stuff like that so that you never do run completely out. You take inventory. 'I have 2 rolls of TP. That will not last until next week's shopping trip, so I'd better get some today.'

Someone else's failure to plan ahead does not cause me to burn sympathy.

Do you never make mistakes and run out of certain items in your fridge that you use a lot? If so, I'm extremely jealous, because it happens all the time to me no matter how organized I am. Even people who make lists (like me - I'm anal enough I group everything by location in the supermarket so I can get in and out faster and minimize forgetting things) make mistakes or forget things.

Also, lots of parents (myself included) make misjudgments because kids are unpredictable. Some weeks my son sucks down more than a gallon of milk, so I have to make another trip to go out and get some. But most weeks my son drinks about 3/4 of a gallon. If I know he's already in a crappy mood, I'll probably try to wait, but if he's sick and needs the fluids and will only drink milk and my husband's not available to do it, hell yeah I'm taking him out to get him some milk.

Big deal - so you don't have any sympathy for parents. There are some parents I have no sympathy for, too. Still, I understand that there are circumstances in which parents might have to take a squalling kid to the supermarket or another public place. I've had to do it before, too, when my kid had tonsilitis and refused to drink anything for 24 hours. The doctor told me to get some pedialyte. I was the only parent available to do so and I happened to have the kid with me. It wasn't a situation where I could just sit and wait for my husband to do it for me.

Jackmannii

07-19-2007, 11:40 AM

What the fuck is that? Just because I have compassion for women who are struggling to raise their kids doesn't mean I overindulge mine.fessie, you need to bore a hole in yourself and let the sap out.Are you contending that I should only show consideration for someone if I am legally required to do so?I suggest you try reading for context.

Heffalump and Roo

07-19-2007, 11:49 AM

I just saw this article and had to laugh; I guess this topic is newsworthy. It's an article in Newsweek online that popped up on MSN today and it's called, Stop Setting Alarms on My Biological Clock
If I'm ever going to fulfill my dream of becoming a mother, I'm going to need some better role models. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762056/site/newsweek/)

She talks about how other mothers have turned her off the idea of being a mom for some of the reasons below.

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762056/site/newsweek/page/2/)Now let's talk a bit about manners, as in please teach your children some. The world has rules, and kids should learn them. And being well mannered does not infringe on their individuality and freedom.

I crouched to meet the eye line of an acquaintance's 4-year-old to greet her, and in response, she punched me in the face so hard my mouth bled. What was more baffling was the mother's reaction: nothing to the child, but to me she said very sternly: "You really shouldn't talk down to kids."

I also shouldn't be punched in the face by kids whose parents don't know how to set basic boundaries. Experiences like this don't exactly encourage me to hurry up and get pregnant.

and

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762056/site/newsweek/page/2/)Finally, don't make your kid an extension of your own narcissism.

No one could possibly love your kids as much as you do, so stop inflicting them on others. Don't bring your kid to adult parties when you're not sure if it's kid-friendly. If they didn't invite your kid, they don't want your kid there. If you don't want to get a babysitter, stay home.

storyteller0910

07-19-2007, 11:54 AM

I suggest you try reading for context.

Oh, please. Here's the context:

fessie suggested that people with children have unique challenges and needs, in much the same way that disabled people do (so does everyone, I'd add). Her argument was, essentially, that we show empathy for the disabled, that we make allowances for their unique challenges and needs, and argued that the empathetic thing to do would be to make similar allowances for the unique challenges and needs of parents.

You argued that her analogy was flawed because there are no laws analogous to the laws protecting disabled people that protect parents of children.

My reply was meant to imply - in case you're as thick as your responses in this thread would suggest and didn't get this - that there are reasons to show empathy toward other people quite apart from being legally compelled to do so.

That was the context.

As to this:

fessie, you need to bore a hole in yourself and let the sap out.

Man, what a cynical and depressing world you must live in.

Jackmannii

07-19-2007, 01:39 PM

You argued that her analogy was flawed because there are no laws analogous to the laws protecting disabled people that protect parents of children.

My reply was meant to imply - in case you're as thick as your responses in this thread would suggest and didn't get this - that there are reasons to show empathy toward other people quite apart from being legally compelled to do so..Actually I hardly began to cite the idiocy involved in comparing badly behaved children (and their clueless parents) to the disabled.

Parents whose kids make a spectacle of themselves in public places have a choice - to practice responsible parenting or to remove their children until the bad behavior subsides. The disabled do not have a choice. To analogize their situation to that of irresponsible parents is stupid and insulting.

Comprende?

One additional piece of sappiness that should not be overlooked:I tried to argue a long time ago that the lack of tolerance for children on the part of strangers contributes to child abuseWell O.K., two pieces of sappiness in one. Overlooking the learned explanation for child abuse, we have the classically moronic parental comeback in response to criticism of bad child behavior - "You must hate chil-drun." :rolleyes:

I feel sorry for the kids in these situations. They'll likely be paying the price for bad parenting much of their lives.

fessie

07-19-2007, 02:23 PM

No, you dumb fuck. We just have a vastly different definition of "bad child behavior".

Malthus

07-19-2007, 02:27 PM

Are you contending that I should only show consideration for someone if I am legally required to do so?

This thread has been incredibly educational. Ultimately, kids have nothing to do with it - either you're willing to give another person a break when they're having a hard time (for whatever reason), or you're not. I'd never realized that there are quite so many people walking around whose first reaction, upon seeing someone who is struggling for whatever reason, is to say fuck you, lady, you're an inconvenience.

Depressing.

Must say, this is my reaction too.

I was sorta interested in the 'purpose of society' part of the debate, but the hate for those guilty of "causing inconvenience" is just sad. All the sadder for being so apparently heartfelt.

I've often had this sort of reaction myself on the subway - seeing some woman with a screaming child, or some guy in a wheelchair, or someone old blocking my path on the stairs - and some part of my brain did think, "I wish they'd stay at home or get the heck out of my way. Don't they know they are causing a disturbance?".

But I always thought that reaction unworthy and petty, and assumed everyone else did the same. I never dreamed so very many people evidently feel that reaction is the right and proper one, that they were justified in their annoyance, that the object of annoyance, and not them, were in the wrong.

storyteller0910

07-19-2007, 02:28 PM

Actually I hardly began to cite the idiocy involved in comparing badly behaved children (and their clueless parents) to the disabled.

Parents whose kids make a spectacle of themselves in public places have a choice - to practice responsible parenting or to remove their children until the bad behavior subsides. The disabled do not have a choice. To analogize their situation to that of irresponsible parents is stupid and insulting.

I'm going to take one last shot at this.

You seem to have the idea that children are like little puzzle boxes, where if you can just enter the right "responsible parent" code, you'll get predictably good behavior. It just ain't so. Kids are tiny little humans, with all that implies. There is a period of time when they are no longer little poop machines - they are thinking, in some early way, trying to make and draw connections between things but not yet capable of rationality. There is no way, no foolproof strategy, that will allow any parent - no matter how responsible, dedicated, caring, intelligent, and creative they may be - to guarantee a child's behavior. Your kid might go ten consecutive trips to the grocery store and never make a peep, sit quietly, and smile. On the eleventh trip, after an hour of shopping, when your cart is very nearly full, that child might get frightened by the Spider Man display, or suddenly feel sick, or just start to wonder what her own voice will sound like in this new environment. And she'll cry.

At this point, your hypothetical responsible parent can try any number of strategies - distract the kid, give the old hairy eyeball, maybe even leave the cart for a moment and step outside. But sometimes this just doesn't work.

Now. You seem to be suggesting that the parent's next move should be to leave his or her full cart, having now just blown an hour of the day on nothing, leave the store, then come back later and repeat the process. You feel (s)he should do this so that you don't have to listen to her noise.

I submit that this makes you a jerk. If I'm standing there in that store, I'm going to look at that man or that woman struggling with a balky kid and think to myself:

Self, somewhere down the line, I'm going to be in a terrible rush to buy cold medicine, and be behind someone with a big cartfull of stuff, and they're going to let me go in front of them. Somewhere down the line, I'm probably going to drop an armload of crap in the middle of a street and somebody, for no particular reason and even though he's busy, is going to help me pick my shit up before it blows away. Or my own kid is going to cry on an airplane. Or I'm going to hurt my ankle and people are going to open doors for me. Or at least, I hope so. I hope they won't be to self-absorbed too have a bit of empathy for someone stuck in a bad situation.

So you know what? I don't want that harried parent to abandon his or her groceries and go home and come back. Because I would rather accept the unbelievably tiny and minor inconvenience of hearing a child cry for five minutes than subject someone else to a much more significant inconvenience. I would rather this, because I hope someone will give me a beak somewhere down the line. I would rather this, because I understand where the parent is and empathize. I would rather this, because somehow I've managed to internalize that the world isn't all about me and my convenience.

It's that whole "do unto others" thing, which I suppose you've managed to convince yourself is sappy bullshit but which, ultimately, isn't such a bad way to get through the day.

Jackmannii

07-19-2007, 05:59 PM

You seem to have the idea that children are like little puzzle boxes, where if you can just enter the right "responsible parent" code, you'll get predictably good behavior.Your position (and that of many others, apparently) is that kids are mysterious little bundles of instinct that will just raise hell sometimes, the parent is totally helpless (or too weighed down by Care and Woe to pay attention) and we should just suck it up and stop complaining, because Tolerance serves the good of society (much like breeding in the first place). To quote you, it just ain't so.

Supermarkets are not a venue I care much about, but if your child is throwing an uncontrollable nuclear tantrum - yeah, you should leave. If your kid kicks the back of someone else's seat in the theater, or stands up his seat at the restaurant and pokes the person in the neighboring booth, or runs screaming through the joint because you're conducting an endless cellphone conversation, you should be the first to notice and take corrective action. Your "tiny little human, with all that implies" can be adorable, or a brat that makes things miserable for everyone else. What you do (or don't do) has an enormous impact on what happens.

It's not easy being a responsible parent and postponing pleasure at times due to choices you've made. Lots manage, though, and their children are a pleasure to be around. The philosophy of these parents, to quote you again, seems to be:...somehow I've managed to internalize that the world isn't all about me and my convenience.

Rubystreak

07-19-2007, 08:50 PM

Ultimately, kids have nothing to do with it - either you're willing to give another person a break when they're having a hard time (for whatever reason), or you're not. I'd never realized that there are quite so many people walking around whose first reaction, upon seeing someone who is struggling for whatever reason, is to say fuck you, lady, you're an inconvenience.

Depressing.

It's not this black and white. I tried to explain in my last post that there are some situations where kids are expected and welcomed. If they act up in a setting like that, and you don't like it, you be tolerant or you leave. If they act up in a less welcoming setting, but only for a little while, and the parent is dealing with it, then maybe you can cope. If it's really more of an adult-only setting, or if the kid is volcanically freaking out, then it's incumbent on the parent to accommodate the needs of others, and not theirs/their kids, and go home. It's a judgment call, and everyone's judgment is different, but if you're obviously making a lot of the other people around you uncomfortable, then you have to do the right thing.

I think one's perspective on this is greatly altered by whether or not one has small children. It comes off like defensiveness, I have to tell you, storyteller and fessie. Most people are pretty tolerant of your kids, and if they do give you and your kid the hairy eyeball, so what? If you know you're doing the best you can, fuck 'em. However, if you are making excuses , then that's on you. Only you can know which it is.

CanvasShoes

07-20-2007, 12:31 AM

I'm going to take one last shot at this.

You seem to have the idea that children are like little puzzle boxes, where if you can just enter the right "responsible parent" code, you'll get predictably good behavior. It just ain't so. Kids are tiny little humans, with all that implies. There is a period of time when they are no longer little poop machines - they are thinking, in some early way, trying to make and draw connections between things but not yet capable of rationality. There is no way, no foolproof strategy, that will allow any parent - no matter how responsible, dedicated, caring, intelligent, and creative they may be - to guarantee a child's behavior. Your kid might go ten consecutive trips to the grocery store and never make a peep, sit quietly, and smile. On the eleventh trip, after an hour of shopping, when your cart is very nearly full, that child might get frightened by the Spider Man display, or suddenly feel sick, or just start to wonder what her own voice will sound like in this new environment. And she'll cry.I know you were answering a different doper but...

I haven't seen anyone here insisting that parents are only good parents if they can "guarantee a child's behaviour".

I think some of us are getting our wires crossed communications wise. I won't speak for jackmannii, but the problem for most of us that are complaining in this thread is NOT the kids who have issues like you describe above and are with parents who are actively trying to do something when the issues become earsplitting or potentially damaging to property.

The issue is with kids who are behaving badly and whose parents do nothing, or worse, smile on in cow-eyed idiotic adoration and act shocked that everyone around isn't as enthralled (or deaf and brain-dead) as they are.

When I was a kid, (back when dinos roamed the earth :)), and I misbehaved, or my sister misbehaved and my mom's back was turned? You better believe that the grocery store clerk, or my aunt, or the lady behind my mom in line would step up to the plate and "Young Lady!!!" me.

In this day and age? NO one dares say anything to parents about their precious angel, even if said precious angel's climbing you like a grand old oak tree.

THAT is the crux of the issue, no one is allowed to be annoyed at a child's bad behaviour and speak up about it. Oh, a 4 year old just crashed your grocery cart into someone's leg? "Awww, isn't he cute, he's 'helping', Huh??? How DARE you say my angel is misbehaving, you must hate children".

If you and others in this thread are not these sorts of parents, then you are NOT what the rant is about.

Kids misbehaving with non-caring, non-parenting parents in tow does NOT then equal "Children must always be perfectly and adultly (is that even a word?:D) behaving in public". Of COURSE kids are going to have all of the issues you and others have mentioned here, and all and any of the bad or annoying behaviours.

The difference is how the PARENT reacts and behaves when this happens. Yes, most of us agree that a child needs to go out into public to learn how to be in public. That's a pretty big DUH.

Some parents think that means "turn little Johnny loose, damn the torpedoes full speed ahead, and NEVER 'stifle' his individuality". (translation :sit and drink coffee, gossip with your girlfriends and don't bat an eye while Jr. or Missy terrorize everyone in site and behave like little heathens).

And while we're at it, allowing a baby on up to older kid to scream incessantly and do nothing about it is on that list too. Plane rides aside, if your child is in pain, or is having an out of control fit, you do NOT "need" to be browsing for books, at a concert, or inside your apartment watching soaps (former idiot neighbor woman), while your children scream as if they're being abducted and raped with a hot fireplace poker. (these weren't "wheee, hahaha, we're having fun and/or fighting screams, Nope, these were earsplitting, heard through the walls of an old almost soundproofed apartment, screams).

THOSE are the parents and the behaviours being complained about by most of us here. Not normal "kid is having a bad day and mom is trying, but nothing she does is helping" parents.

And someone else mentioned something to the effect of (paraphrased), you don't know how sad and badly in need of something/anything to just get out of the house...blah de blah, to the point that you do have to take a badly behaving child somewhere and ignore it.....".

I don't believe that BS for one minute. THAT spells very bad parenting. That woman who played pool while her little baby cried was, if not a cold-hearted bitch, behaving in a decidedly NOT good parenting manner. Doesn't mean I think she was a bad person, but at that moment, she was a person behaving badly.

And as to the "some kids could STARVE to death if their mothers don't shop this very moment!" nonsense. Good God! catsix's posts are insane, and generally completely lacking in any sense whatsoever, but THAT sentiment made even her have a good point.

Way back when, I went through some times where being flat broke would have been a move UP in status, and shopping was rare and budgeted to within pennies, and I still managed to get food into my family.

If you (collective you) get to the point where anyone in your household is going to starve if you don't make a specific single shopping outing, you've got more problems going on than whether or not you're a good, bad, or even mediocre parent. If one shopping trip stands between you and danger of starvation in your household, you're a complete and utter moron, kids or no kids.

storyteller0910

07-20-2007, 07:38 AM

It's not this black and white. I tried to explain in my last post that there are some situations where kids are expected and welcomed. If they act up in a setting like that, and you don't like it, you be tolerant or you leave. If they act up in a less welcoming setting, but only for a little while, and the parent is dealing with it, then maybe you can cope. If it's really more of an adult-only setting, or if the kid is volcanically freaking out, then it's incumbent on the parent to accommodate the needs of others, and not theirs/their kids, and go home. It's a judgment call, and everyone's judgment is different, but if you're obviously making a lot of the other people around you uncomfortable, then you have to do the right thing.

I'm not sure that you and I actually disagree on anything at all. I agree with all of the above.

by the way - and you don't have to believe me on this, but it's true - but there's no defensiveness on my part. I was blessed with a child who, since she was very, very small, is eerily and unusually well-behaved in public settings. She is the sort of child no one ever has to shush because she's already being quiet and polite. I do not believe this has anything to do with my or my wife's elite parenting skills, mind you. I think we won the parenting lottery. I just can understand those people with less good fortune.

storyteller0910

07-20-2007, 07:42 AM

I know you were answering a different doper but...

I haven't seen anyone here insisting that parents are only good parents if they can "guarantee a child's behaviour".

I think some of us are getting our wires crossed communications wise. I won't speak for jackmannii, but the problem for most of us that are complaining in this thread is NOT the kids who have issues like you describe above and are with parents who are actively trying to do something when the issues become earsplitting or potentially damaging to property.

OK, if everyone keeps posting stuff with which I agree, then we're really not going to be able to call one another names for very much longer.

If I agree that the parents who look on and do nothing or "smile in doe-eyed adoration" are total and complete tools, and you agree that there are circumstances in which a parent may try his or her best and still need a bit of a break from those around him or her, then we have nothing further about which to argue.

Captain_C

07-20-2007, 08:12 AM

But this has been such an entertaining thread so far! There's gotta be something everyone can disagree on related to this topic.

fessie

07-20-2007, 08:57 AM

The reason I lashed out at Jack has as much to do with previous threads as this one. We have a history. And, truthfully, he was right in our first encounter, in which he took me to school over the issue of homeopathy. I think the one valid point I made in that argument was that people who receive medical training have first-hand knowledge of disease and illness and cures; they know the stuff from experiencing it themselves, touching and smelling it, as opposed to just reading descriptions second-hand. By contrast, patients have to rely on faith when it comes to their physicians' knowledge and the efficacy of medicine in general. And sometimes their trust is betrayed (though not intentionally). So some of them redirect their faith -- because it was never true "knowledge" to begin with, only faith. Hence the interest in homeopathy.

I mention that because it's sort of the same situation here. Only now I'm the one with first-hand experience with babies and small children. And it's NOT like what you'd read in a book. You can have all the faith you want in a particular methodology; real life tends to contradict it. The mama-boards are full of women going "well, the book says I should be doing X, but my baby's not doing Y as a result! now what?"

Of course children don't belong in bars or pool halls; that's silly. Of course parents should, you know, parent their children, wherever they are and whatever they happen to be doing. The linked article about the 4-yr-old punching somebody in the face while the parent just smiles - WTF was that?

Thing is, though, it's like every other job - nobody does it perfectly. Everybody fucks up now and then, sometimes publicly. I'm an excellent mother with wonderful children, but I have definitely fucked up, more than once. We're usually "Oh, you children are soooooo cute and well-behaved" (yes, people say it, OUT LOUD, FREQUENTLY), but I know we've also been "Those People!" to observers at least a couple of times.

Especially when my son threw a rock at the wolf in the sanctuary - ay yi yi. Little kids are fast.

But what you guys are REALLY missing is families in crisis. We went through a spell when my husband was unemployed and looking at guns at Wal*Mart; we were living in a tiny, awful apartment and running out of money. I remember sitting at the mall playland, absolutely zoned out, kinda dimly hoping my kids were behaving themselves, but not actually caring all that much. Fortunately I had moved us near my family right then, so I could lean on them lots of days. Not everyone has that, some of their families just make it worse.

I guess that until you've lived it yourself, there's no way of understanding.

But I shan't worry, karma has a way of working things out. CanvasShoes will somehow run out of coffee, toilet paper, contact lens solution AND gasoline.

Triplets. Triplets, Jack. Be forewarned.

Dangerosa

07-20-2007, 09:26 AM

A person, like the one in the OP, or the lady I mentioned earlier who was at the bowling alley, who coldbloodedly simply allow their infant to cry because THEY want to play pool, or shop for non-essentials, or read are not behaving like considerate fellow citizens, or very good parents.

Go back and read the OP. The baby cried for three minutes before mom picked him/her up and comforted him. And is described as a baby. This isn't a pitting over a bratty toddler allowed to scream in B&N for 45 minutes.

I've said before (and maybe this is where I went wrong - cause my kids certainly aren't perfect) - I think you CAN spoil little kids. I think that a child who is picked up immediately when they cry learns to cry to get attention. So I've always tried to let my kids self comfort or work it out - yes even in public - for at least a few minutes. I don't want kids who learn that if they don't want to be in the grocery store all they need to do is start whining. And yes, even if its non-essentials. Kids need to learn that their little wants and needs don't come first every single time, and sometimes they need to sit quietly while Mom tries on shoes or picks out a book or grabs a mocha. All they learn if you pull them out when they start fussing is that they don't have to sit quietly.

Don't give me too much credit for "medical issues" Yes, she gets migraines. The vast majority of my daughter's tantrums are pure "I can't control my emotions." The point being - I have a hard time after years telling the difference, I'm damn sure a stranger can't. Yes, if its SAFE to remove my child when having a tantrum (for her, me, and the people around me) and the tantrum looks to be more than a few minutes, I will. But I have let her throw herself down on the floor in Target and watched her for three minutes while she realized I wasn't giving in - since what she wanted was not toys or candy, but to leave Target.

CanvasShoes

07-21-2007, 03:29 PM

But I shan't worry, karma has a way of working things out. CanvasShoes will somehow run out of coffee, toilet paper, contact lens solution AND gasoline.
I realize that you're trying to be funny, but you're missing the point. I SUCK at organization and have run out of all but the contact lens solution (don't wear contacts). But none of the above were about to lead me to starvation or even "going hungry".

Whomever originally posted the frantic "but you don't know what it's LIKE, sometimes you HAVE to shop or your family goes hungry" post (paraphrased) is the sentiment I was stating is moronic.

In fact, my sucking at being very organized actually supports my post. If I, a person who can barely make it to work on time (luckily we have a very flex schedule), or manage to do any one thing in my life consistently can manage without starving or harming one of my kids, and actually turn out a pair of pretty darned good human beings, all these Supermoms and leaders of the Revolt of the Cult of Child Worship have no excuses, and I find this "but we work our asses off and it's SOOOOOO hard" whine to be pathetic (no one in this thread, but many excuses of that sort out IRL and on Doc Phil etc).

Dangerosa: Go back and read the OP. The baby cried for three minutes before mom picked him/her up and comforted him. And is described as a baby. This isn't a pitting over a bratty toddler allowed to scream in B&N for 45 minutes.Have you ever listened to the Tests of the United Broadcast System? (I think that's the right title, could be wrong). They last for about 15 or maybe it's 30 seconds. Do you actually let it play? Or do you hit the remote, or car radio button immediately?

Take a stopwatch and a similar sharp, loud, high-pitched noise and listen to it for the entire 3 minutes. It's one thing if you happen to be the mom listening to it and attempting to do something about it. It's a whole 'nother story if you're an innocent bystander being assaulted with it in a place that should be reasonably quiet (and no to head off those posts, of COURSE bookstore doesn't equal Library).

As to the 45 minute thing, another poster had mentioned that their child (possibly you, but the memory is the first thing to go), had tantrums up to 45 minutes, I brought that up to say that I bet parents like you wouldn't allow it to go on in a public place for that length of time, and that your type of parent isn't the type being pitted here. I have a feeling that some (I've heard one specific poster mention this in other threads) DO seem to feel, at least to some extent, that kids, unless they're actively destroying something, should be allowed to basically run wild no matter how obnoxious they're being. And those are among the type of parent being pitted.

Dangerosa:
I've said before (and maybe this is where I went wrong - cause my kids certainly aren't perfect) - I think you CAN spoil little kids. I think that a child who is picked up immediately when they cry learns to cry to get attention.I agree, especially including the part about making mistakes, who doesn't? (except hold your breath a few years, I'll bet your kids turn OUT perfect, mine did! :D), which is why in my original post regarding this, I specifically said babies can't be spoiled. Of course there is an age where you have to start phasing them out of that "must be picked up all of the time" thing, but for the OP it was a baby, same with the lady in the bowling alley.

One last time, I honestly don't have a problem with someone who is having a really hard day and a bratty child on top of it, it may be annoying, but I truly understand. There's a HUGE difference between dashing into the store under duress to get essentials and actively DEALING with a monstrous behaving child during the time you're there, and someone strolling about looking in the linens and "goodies" sections for 20 minutes, quite oblivious to a 180 decibel screeching banshee in their cart.

An anecdotal bit of evidence to what I'm talking about. I was in Value Village (a thrift store, no essentials here, just used furniture, clothes and books) awhile back. I was getting some books to take on a trip outside and was in a line of about 15 people. The very last person in line was a lady with a very loud (the typical "but I WAAAANT IT.....high-pitched screech), ill behaving child. NOT a toddler. The kid NEVER shut up, and the lady wasn't doing anything other than (thank God for one favor) preventing the child from leaving her side.

People kept shooting her looks, which she returned with a very "so???" snotty little look on her face. Finally, after a few minutes she huffs "Haven't any of YOU ever had to deal with a child in public who acts up"?

I didn't even miss a beat, having indeed been in that very plight a time or ten. I said "Yup, and I took him RIGHT out of there too". I don't know what she did as I was next in line and she was at the end. Her essential "must have it or my family will go [???] item"? A couple of little decorative ceramic thingies.

For some reason V.V. is famous for this. I once shopped for about 20 minutes with a mom who spent the entire time pushing a young girl around in a cart who was screaming "YES mommy YES, I said YES, YES" over and over and over. You could hear the child throughout the entire store. I guess I can't complain about her though, since the mom was technically "doing something", she was saying "Now Angel, I told you, if you're good we'll XYZ, Didn't I tell you? Now what did we talk about remember?".

Jackmannii

07-21-2007, 11:45 PM

Rubystreak

07-22-2007, 12:41 AM

I had forgotten where I saw fessie's name before: she likes to tell other people how to parent, in a stridently opinionated manner, specifically you must let you kid trick or treat or you're an asshole (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6738495&postcount=1) and we should all teach our kids to believe in Santa Claus and just STFU (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8279401&postcount=94). So I don't think she's really all that open-minded about parenting issues or other people's belief systems when she holds her own daft ones so dear, much less the comfort of others in the bookstore when her kids are screaming.

Heffalump and Roo

07-22-2007, 11:10 AM

Rubystreak, thanks!! That's pure gold. I was just starting to miss QG, but this fulfilled by guffawing quotient for the day.

Some of the highlights:

Oh, my kid might binge on sugar - Yeah? So? It's a rite of passage.
Then the next day, you take them to a Border's.

Oh, it smacks of begging - Yeah? So? Sometimes you're on the asking end of things, it's part of the social contract.
My kid is screaming in Border's due to low blood sugar from the binge? It's part of the social contract for you to hear it. Cause you're on the listening to the screaming end of things, buddy.

Oh, they don't actually need candy - Really? Is that what they said? I can just hear them "Oh, mummy, I shan't be collecting goodies this yeah, there are fahr more important things for me to do. Instead I'll be asking for socks for orphans."
Oh, my kids are screaming because they don't want to be in the bookstore with low blood sugar? Is that what they said? I can just hear them "Oh, mummy, I'm screaming because of low blood sugar" Nah, can't be that. . . you're just all finicky people in a bookstore. Deal with it.

I just want to know how many of these parents are perfect themselves, free of all excesses and diversions. And of that subgroup, how many have half a brain? Or a life? Because carrying on, acting up, goofing off, doing too much or too little --- they're all NORMAL!!! Gaaaah! This "stay between the lines at all times" mentality among parents drives me bonkers!
Yes, all you "stay between the lines at all times" people who try to be considerate and follow the laws, get over yourselves!

Religious intolerance blah blah blah, Nazis and yellow stars, blah blah blah.
I'm not even touching that.

But honestly, in my heart, sometimes I wish everyone would just DO whatever and shut the F up.
Yeah!

If you think THIS is a weighty issue, just wait 'til you have kids yourself and start hearing all the crap about breast v. bottle, CIO v. co-sleeping, what are they eating for breakfast, when did they potty train, who's a better mother, what's the ALL TIME ABSOLUTE BEST way to raise a kid, the answer's right here and I can PROVE it!
And don't forget babies crying in bookstores and whether they should be taken out or not.

I love debate, but it gets NUTS.

Santa. Fat guy. Red suit. Chimney. Reindeer. Brings a toy.
Just do it and shut up.
No poem for this thread? Here, I'll help.

People run out of stuff.
Babies wail and cry in supermarkets.
Just deal and STFU.

fessie

07-22-2007, 12:08 PM

Oh kewl.

- Heffalump, your stringing together of remarks doesn't make any sense. My example of taking my kids to Barnes & Noble (which I described in this thread) was that they WERE behaving well, and that people around them shot them evil looks just for talking. Not screaming. Not running. No meltdown involved. And it was a few months ago, not after Halloween. Had nothing to do with Halloween.

-- But re: Halloween, I'd forgotten all about that one! Yeah, I like Halloween, and I grow weary of the "helicopter parenting" that's so common nowadays. Just let the kids do it and let it go! "Helicopter parenting" is far worse than a little sugar binge - people send their kids off to college and then call their professors when problems arise. Fucking-A, let the kids grow up and use their own judgement! There's a syndicated article in today's paper ("Parenting in a Nutshell" by Doreen Nagle) where she talks about "life after college" for your kids. What they should do after they finish school (the kids, not the parents). Like a parent is supposed to manage their adult child's life? I think THAT is nutters. And, IMHO, letting them make their own choices starts with simple rituals. Like, for example, HALLOWEEN!

--- In my remarks about Santa Claus, I acknowledged right off the bat that it's not "right" to wish everyone would just STFU and go along with the fat guy in the red suit. I merely stated that in my heart-of-hearts I sometimes grow weary of debating every single aspect of parenting. I had a sentimental moment; sue me.

-- Re: vaccinations, Jack, darling - don't you remember how that one went? Have you forgotten already? I came here and said "Gee, my anti-vax friends are arguing XYZ. Does it make sense?" And you said, "No, because of PDQ". And I said "Thanks. I'll repeat that to my friends." It was respectful. It was lovely. It was everything a good thread ought to be. I didn't "take up arms" on their behalf - I came here for some knowledge, which I took back to them.

--- But I did notice an interesting thing about YOU, Jack. You have a thing about parents. You seem to dislike them on principle. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=286825)

Jackmannii

07-22-2007, 02:08 PM

Re: vaccinations, Jack, darling - don't you remember how that one went? Have you forgotten already? I came here and said "Gee, my anti-vax friends are arguing XYZ. Does it make sense?" And you said, "No, because of PDQ". And I said "Thanks. I'll repeat that to my friends." It was respectful. It was lovely. It was everything a good thread ought to be. I didn't "take up arms" on their behalf - I came here for some knowledge, which I took back to them.What a lovely selective memory you have.

During that thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=424103&highlight=vaccination) you repeatedly posted debunked and undocumented theories about mercury and autism (including nonsense about how Amish don't get autism because they don't vaccinate, the revelation that your kid throwing a fit after getting a shot means we should take antivax claims seriously, and the suggestion that requiring hard evidence instead of anecdotes means we are disrespecting parents), plus these gems:

I'm quoting a source that anti-vaxers (who are my friends) have relied on. His latest piece made "Science Daily News", which may be about as reliable as "Ranger Rick" for all I know. I read that there are parents who have home movies of their children behaving completely normally (at their 2nd birthday parties or whatever) and then poof, they change. Some parents swear it happened as soon as they were vaccinated -- as in, within hours. Maybe they're ALL kooks? I dunno. At one point people believed that alcoholism was simply a character defect. That depression was just a figment of our imagination. And that following "a diet" would enable everyone to lose weight and keep it off. Things have turned out to be a bit more complicated, no?...Who's to say that the combination of thimerosal, a vaccine, environmental pollution and a genetic predisposition might not do it? Doesn't cancer take something like 5 "triggers"?
This is classic fessie: "Here's a bunch of weird shit I dug up from my credulous friends and some goofball websites whose credentials I didn't bother to verify. Gee thanks for debunking that one - how about this loony idea - of course there's no evidence and I'm not saying I believe it but can we know for sure?!?" :rolleyes: But I did notice an interesting thing about YOU, Jack. You have a thing about parents. You seem to dislike them on principle. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=286825)If that's what you conclude from the linked thread, your thought processes are even more disordered than I'd imagined.
Interesting though - I hadn't noticed that one of the mercury militia posters on the vaccination thread called herself Noahsmom. :D

fessie

07-22-2007, 02:59 PM

Thanks for the reply! I'll be sharing your refutation with others...

I appreciate your heads-up on whale.to. The Washington Times carried that story previously, but the link was long dead so I'd just googled the author's name & linked to the first one that didn't have ads plastered all over it.

OK, wait, I went back and read that article in order to cite it to my friends.

Your cited group did their research on Amish in Illinois, not Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (which is the population Olmsted interviewed). I dodn't see any proof that ALL Amish view vaccination in the same way, NOR was there any discussion of autism rates among the Illinois Amish.

Olmsted may not be a good reporter, but this isn't exactly an ideal refutation.

OTOH, there's been all kinds of shenanigans and horrible deception on the part of anti-vaxers, particularly David and Mark Geier, a father and son team. I started to quote one of their articles here, but when I looked a little further found them highly suspect. One of them publishes research that "proves" a link between thimerosol and autism rates, the other one is the "president" of a company that sells "Lupron", which is supposed to help autistic kids. They've gotten in all kinds of trouble for misrepresenting themselves, their qualifications, their degrees, their qualifications for providing expert testimony in court.

You didn't like, what, the fact that I actually read your cite and found that it didn't talk about the same group of Amish people that I mentioned originally? How looney of me. :rolleyes: How dare I, an Ordinary Mortal, research an issue. Am I supposed to lick your balls and not ask questions because The Great MD deigned to respond?

CanvasShoes, sure, there are plenty of asshole parents out there, why wouldn't there be? I'm not confident you (or anyone else) can tell at a glance whether you're watching a good parent on a bad day -- or, conversely, a bad parent on a good day. I knew an experienced Social Worker who told me once that one of the "red flags" of child abuse is parents who go overboard by being super-solicitous in public.

I just don't think a brief glimpse gives you all that much information. If everyone's offices were being spied upon all day long, don't you imagine people who saw a 3-minute snippet would draw all kinds of inaccurate conclusions?

Rubystreak

07-22-2007, 03:15 PM

that people around them shot them evil looks just for talking. Not screaming. Not running. No meltdown involved.

I doubt it. Really, I think if people are giving you nasty looks instead of ignoring you like most people do in stores, you must have drawn their attention. It just means that your senses are calibrated to one level of noise, and other people, trying to browse in a bookstore, might not find it suitable. This violates your idea of what society is supposed to do; nonetheless, your kids irritated people. They probably were not as angelic as you think they were.

And, IMHO, letting them make their own choices starts with simple rituals. Like, for example, HALLOWEEN!

Why not let parents who don't believe in Halloween or Santa make THEIR own choices? Why Pit them because their parenting choices are different from yours? This seems to be a theme for you.

In my remarks about Santa Claus, I acknowledged right off the bat that it's not "right" to wish everyone would just STFU and go along with the fat guy in the red suit. I merely stated that in my heart-of-hearts I sometimes grow weary of debating every single aspect of parenting. I had a sentimental moment; sue me.

It wasn't a sentimental moment-- it was a chauvanistic moment where you admitting that you get aggravated when people don't conform with your beliefs and practices, and question them. No respect for other people's way of doing things.

You seem very quick to become defensive over your own parenting, but just as quick to criticize the way others do things. What do you call that? I know what I call it.

fessie

07-22-2007, 03:20 PM

Perhaps you should change your name from "rubystreak" to "omniscient", since you think you know what was happening at my Barnes and Noble when you weren't even there.

I really don't care enough to do a search, but if you don't like the Pit (where people go to complain because they don't like how other people do things), then don't read it. And certainly don't open any threads yourself.

Rubystreak

07-22-2007, 04:25 PM

Perhaps you should change your name from "rubystreak" to "omniscient", since you think you know what was happening at my Barnes and Noble when you weren't even there.

It's not too hard to read between the lines of your little story. I'm sure your kids were totally perfect and all the people giving them the hairy eyeball were intolerant monsters. :rolleyes: They probably don't believe in Santa or Halloween either.

I really don't care enough to do a search, but if you don't like the Pit (where people go to complain because they don't like how other people do things), then don't read it. And certainly don't open any threads yourself.

I love the Pit. And what you're getting right now? If you don't like it, then YOU should stop reading, because people are taking you to task for your contradictory attitudes.

fessie

07-22-2007, 05:00 PM

What, did you get tired of having your ass handed to you in the tattoo thread?

My argument is merely that I am human and imperfect, and so are my kids; five minutes of "bad" behavior is in no way "proof" of bad parenting. Not from my kids, and not from anybody else's. If you don't even have children yourself, you really don't have a basis for understanding the issue at all.

My mistake, and it is a mistake on my part, is trying to explain this to people who don't want to hear it.

Rubystreak

07-22-2007, 05:26 PM

What, did you get tired of having your ass handed to you in the tattoo thread?

What, are you stalking me through the Pit? Go watch your kids scream.

Jolly Roger

07-22-2007, 11:40 PM

What, are you stalking me through the Pit? Go watch your kids scream.

Actually I don't think anyone is getting their ass handed to them in the tattoo thread. Its boiling down to "Tattoos are kind of silly because of XYZ reasons" / "Nu uh! I have a tattoo and for XYZ reasons."

But that has nothing to do with this thread....carry on.

Rubystreak

07-22-2007, 11:42 PM

Actually I don't think anyone is getting their ass handed to them in the tattoo thread. Its boiling down to "Tattoos are kind of silly because of XYZ reasons" / "Nu uh! I have a tattoo and for XYZ reasons."

But that has nothing to do with this thread....carry on.

I couldn't agree more-- the tattoo thread is going nowhere for anyone, really. fessie was taking a cheap shot at me because she's getting her ass handed to her in this thread.

levdrakon

07-23-2007, 09:38 PM

If you don't even have children yourself, you really don't have a basis for understanding the issue at all.As much as I try to avoid pile-ons, that's just stupid.

Hate to break this to you, but it's my earth too. Not only that, but I'm assuming you're human? Part of the human species? Tribe, village, community and all that? You parade your brats in front of me yes I DO get to judge your parenting skills, just as I get to make snide remarks to my friends about that neon pink skintight lycra outfit you've got on.

Don't like getting looked at and judged, move to your own planet. At the very least, build your own compound and stay there.

You bring your kids out into OUR public, I'm looking, I'm seeing, I'm hearing, and I'm judging.

CanvasShoes

07-23-2007, 10:01 PM

CanvasShoes, sure, there are plenty of asshole parents out there, why wouldn't there be? I'm not confident you (or anyone else) can tell at a glance whether you're watching a good parent on a bad day -- or, conversely, a bad parent on a good day. I knew an experienced Social Worker who told me once that one of the "red flags" of child abuse is parents who go overboard by being super-solicitous in public.

I just don't think a brief glimpse gives you all that much information. If everyone's offices were being spied upon all day long, don't you imagine people who saw a 3-minute snippet would draw all kinds of inaccurate conclusions?Yes, there ARE lots of asshole parents out there, that's what the OP is about. That is ALL people are saying. They're not saying that all parents having a child have a public meltdown are somehow defective. Or that unless their children are perfect little robots at all times that the parent is a bad one. You seem to be taking "when a child has a problem in public, the parent needs to address it" to mean "no child can ever make a peep or have a single mistake out in public or else the parent is a horrible one". No one is saying that.

They're saying that parents that allow and ignore these public meltdowns (or worse, those that see nothing wrong with them because it would "stifle the child's individuality or self-esteem) without doing a single thing are not behaving well in that instance.

I haven't seen any one say whether they (badly behaving parents they've seen) were inherently good or bad. However, from a brief glance we certainly can tell if the parent is, as the OP title says "Doing Something" or not. As in many people's examples in this and other "bad parent" threads.

Dangerosa

07-24-2007, 10:18 AM

I think the difference is I don't see enough in the OP to classify the parent as an asshole. I've done the same. I never took small children to fancy restaurants or rated R movies (we didn't go to PG ones), never took them to the bar, don't allow them to run around like little brats in the store. I limited my grocery shopping with kids (most of ours were delivered for three years) and I can't remember being in a mall shopping for fun with my kids. But I have let my babies cry for 3+ minutes before comforting them in public. And I have kept shopping while they cried. And I'm really wondering how you can tell from a brief glance that "yeah, baby is crying because she has an ear infection and we are in Borders while Target across the street fills her perscription, but there isn't a lot I can do because I spent all last night trying to comfort and when she has an ear infection it doesn't do any good anyway." That's a LOT to get from a stranger from a glance to know if this person belongs in the bad parent pile.

Malthus

07-24-2007, 10:58 AM

As much as I try to avoid pile-ons, that's just stupid.

Hate to break this to you, but it's my earth too. Not only that, but I'm assuming you're human? Part of the human species? Tribe, village, community and all that? You parade your brats in front of me yes I DO get to judge your parenting skills, just as I get to make snide remarks to my friends about that neon pink skintight lycra outfit you've got on.

Don't like getting looked at and judged, move to your own planet. At the very least, build your own compound and stay there.

You bring your kids out into OUR public, I'm looking, I'm seeing, I'm hearing, and I'm judging.

This is in fact a very similar issue to that in the tattoo thread.

Yes, you have every right to judge and make snide remarks; you also have every right to be called an asshole for being judgmental, particularly where your judgment is ill-informed and lacks any compassion.

The spiel about " ... you're human? Part of the human species? Tribe, village, community and all that?" is particularly rich. Sorry to break the news to you, but none of those things would exist if people didn't keep reproducing; so if you wish to not be inconvenienced by the sight and sound of "brats", I suggest you find your own compound and stay in it where you will be safe.

levdrakon

07-24-2007, 01:00 PM

This is in fact a very similar issue to that in the tattoo thread.

Yes, you have every right to judge and make snide remarks; you also have every right to be called an asshole for being judgmental, particularly where your judgment is ill-informed and lacks any compassion.

The spiel about " ... you're human? Part of the human species? Tribe, village, community and all that?" is particularly rich. Sorry to break the news to you, but none of those things would exist if people didn't keep reproducing; so if you wish to not be inconvenienced by the sight and sound of "brats", I suggest you find your own compound and stay in it where you will be safe.You sound like one of those parents with entitlement issues who think the whole world is theirs, the minute they become parents. You probably breast feed wherever you feel like it and leave your kids' dirty diapers wherever you feel like dropping them in public, because everyone else on the planet should "have compassion" for you as a parent. You probably like to bring your screaming infant with you to the 9PM showing of R rated movies and call everyone else in the theater assholes for being judgemental uninformed compassionless jerks who just "don't understand" what it means to be A Parent®. You probably talk on your cellphone during theater movies too. Yeah, we know your type.

The world's in no danger of becoming underpopulated if parents suddenly started showing some consideration for other people and doing something about their kids when the start throwing screaming tantrums in inappropriate places. I don't expect you to even begin to understand the meaning of inappropriate places though, because you're evidently one of those parents for whom there are no inappropriate places for your kids to throw screaming tantrums.

Malthus

07-24-2007, 01:24 PM

You sound like one of those parents with entitlement issues who think the whole world is theirs, the minute they become parents. You probably breast feed wherever you feel like it and leave your kids' dirty diapers wherever you feel like dropping them in public, because everyone else on the planet should "have compassion" for you as a parent. You probably like to bring your screaming infant with you to the 9PM showing of R rated movies and call everyone else in the theater assholes for being judgemental uninformed compassionless jerks who just "don't understand" what it means to be A Parent®. You probably talk on your cellphone during theater movies too. Yeah, we know your type.

The world's in no danger of becoming underpopulated if parents suddenly started showing some consideration for other people and doing something about their kids when the start throwing screaming tantrums in inappropriate places. I don't expect you to even begin to understand the meaning of inappropriate places though, because you're evidently one of those parents for whom there are no inappropriate places for your kids to throw screaming tantrums.

You 'probably' make personal snap judgments about people based on little or no information.

See: my previous comments about being thought an asshole.

levdrakon

07-24-2007, 01:37 PM

You 'probably' make personal snap judgments about people based on little or no information.

See: my previous comments about being thought an asshole.Mirror, meet Malthus. Malthus, meet mirror.

I've never said kids can't be kids, or shouldn't be kids, or won't be kids. When you're in public, you get judged. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of judged. It's not always a bad thing.

People are not islands. We don't inhabit our own world. We share our world with everyone else. The reason we have such large brains is because we spend so much time observing and interpreting and interacting with other people. The reason we have rules, and customs and traditions and laws is so we can live together. If you want to live outside all that, go for it. But you can't enjoy life inside society, behaving as if you exist outside society.

Malthus

07-24-2007, 02:00 PM

Mirror, meet Malthus. Malthus, meet mirror.

My mirror is saying "I don't know jackshit about levdrakon's habits in the movie theatre, so I won't insult him or her by saying anything about them. "

My mirror is wise. You should listen to it.

I've never said kids can't be kids, or shouldn't be kids, or won't be kids. When you're in public, you get judged. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of judged. It's not always a bad thing.

Kids will be kids and assholes will judge parents because of it. Got it.

People are not islands. We don't inhabit our own world. We share our world with everyone else. The reason we have such large brains is because we spend so much time observing and interpreting and interacting with other people. The reason we have rules, and customs and traditions and laws is so we can live together. If you want to live outside all that, go for it. But you can't enjoy life inside society, behaving as if you exist outside society.

You speak with the voice of society now? Amazing. First I have to meet my mirror, and now Society, as Personified.

Last I heard a bunch of people in this thread were compaining about how "society" provides such entitlement to "the cult of the child". I guess if they are right they just have to suck it up, correct?

To my mind, the better way to proceed is for parents and non-parents to attempt to put themselves in each other's shoes, in good faith - for parents to try as best they can to be polite and not annoy others when in public; and for non-parents to have compassion and understanding in those quite inevitable cases where children behave disruptively, and to at least attempt to conceive of the fact that sometimes kids cannot be controlled and whisking them away is impractical. Just a simple operation of the good ol' Golden Rule.

Of course, that's hard to do, requiring thought, consideration and imagination, so I suppose it is a heck of a lot easier for non-parents to simply demand that parents not annoy them with their "brats".

Rubystreak

07-24-2007, 02:12 PM

Last I heard a bunch of people in this thread were compaining about how "society" provides such entitlement to "the cult of the child". I guess if they are right they just have to suck it up, correct?

I don't think "society" (which is a rhetorical construct, not an actual monolithic entity) provides entitlement to the "cult of the child." I think some people with children have created this cult and are totally brainwashed members of it. These are the people who bring their kids to inappropriate places (like the 10pm showing of Interview with the Vampire-- yeah, I was sitting behind that kid), who let their kid have a 10 minute tantrum in a bookstore, who let their kids throw food at people in restaurants. They get on their high horse if anyone looks askance at them or their kids, or attempts to address the situation.

Honestly, probably not a lot can be done in this situation. You can't make people parent their kids differently-- you can only ask them to leave if they are disturbing others, and then you'll get told you're not being compassionate, etc. You can't make people tolerate kid behavior if they find it intolerable-- they will just give the kid the hairy eyeball and leave the store early, or complain to the usher in the theatre, or whatever. It's an impasse.

Of course more tolerance and understanding of other people's situations would go a long way on each side to making it all easier to deal with...

Malthus

07-24-2007, 02:32 PM

I don't think "society" (which is a rhetorical construct, not an actual monolithic entity) provides entitlement to the "cult of the child." I think some people with children have created this cult and are totally brainwashed members of it. These are the people who bring their kids to inappropriate places (like the 10pm showing of Interview with the Vampire-- yeah, I was sitting behind that kid), who let their kid have a 10 minute tantrum in a bookstore, who let their kids throw food at people in restaurants. They get on their high horse if anyone looks askance at them or their kids, or attempts to address the situation.

Honestly, probably not a lot can be done in this situation. You can't make people parent their kids differently-- you can only ask them to leave if they are disturbing others, and then you'll get told you're not being compassionate, etc. You can't make people tolerate kid behavior if they find it intolerable-- they will just give the kid the hairy eyeball and leave the store early, or complain to the usher in the theatre, or whatever. It's an impasse.

Of course more tolerance and understanding of other people's situations would go a long way on each side to making it all easier to deal with...

Quite right.

Some complaints about parents tolerating or causing problems are fully justified; some are not. Depends on the persons involved and on the context.

I'd be willing to give the harrassed mom in the food or drug store, or on the subway, a *lot* more leeway and compassion than the parents with a kid in an adult movie at 10 PM (who shouldn't even be there in the first place).

There is common ground and sanity to be found.

What I find annoying is the arguments along the lines of (in paraphrase) 'how dare parents take kids anywhere in public, where they may annoy me. If they do, they must instantly hush their kids or prove themselves BAD PARENTS.'

For a person attempting to be moral and compassionate, living in society means having to tolerate those who cause a disturbance to the orderly flow and quiet enjoyment thereof - the elderly, handicapped, children. Within reason. You offer a subway seat to an obviously infirm old person - this doesn't entitle him or her to wack you with their cane for fun; you tolerate a certain level of noise and rowdiness from children - this doesn't entitle parents to bring them to The Late Show, and scream in your ear.

Jackmannii

07-24-2007, 02:43 PM

What I find annoying is the arguments along the lines of (in paraphrase) 'how dare parents take kids anywhere in public, where they may annoy me. If they do, they must instantly hush their kids or prove themselves BAD PARENTS.'You 'probably' make personal snap judgments about people based on little or no information. :cool:

Malthus

07-24-2007, 02:48 PM

:cool:

Okay, I'll bite.

Are you claiming that my paraphrase is a "snap personal judgment about people" based on "little or no information"?

If so, I'll happily point to: (1) it is a comment about an argument, not a person; (2) it isn't directed to a specific individual; and (3) as for "little or no information", there are a plethora of examples in this rather lengthy thread proving I have a basis for the paraphrase.

:cool:

levdrakon

07-24-2007, 03:17 PM

Okay, I'll bite.

Are you claiming that my paraphrase is a "snap personal judgment about people" based on "little or no information"?

If so, I'll happily point to: (1) it is a comment about an argument, not a person; (2) it isn't directed to a specific individual; and (3) as for "little or no information", there are a plethora of examples in this rather lengthy thread proving I have a basis for the paraphrase.

:cool:Could you point us to the plethora of examples of people in this very thread saying "how dare parents take kids anywhere in public, where they may annoy me. If they do, they must instantly hush their kids or prove themselves BAD PARENTS."

Please? I mean, since there's a plethora I don't expect you to cite every example. But since this thread is on page eight, you should be able to easily come up with oh, twenty or thirty examples.

Malthus

07-24-2007, 03:58 PM

Could you point us to the plethora of examples of people in this very thread saying "how dare parents take kids anywhere in public, where they may annoy me. If they do, they must instantly hush their kids or prove themselves BAD PARENTS."

Please? I mean, since there's a plethora I don't expect you to cite every example. But since this thread is on page eight, you should be able to easily come up with oh, twenty or thirty examples.

Sorry, my time is too valuable to perform in this manner. You seriously expect anyone to comb through hundreds of replies and pick out thirty examples to please you? What are you gonna give me if I'm right, a cookie? Nice way to attempt to raise the bar so high only a moron would bother to meet it. :p

Aside from the OP in the first place, which is not nearly as strong an example as what came after, here are five, just to prove I'm not making shit up:

Post 53:

No, not in the slightest. Couldn't stand children when I was one, can't stand them now. Too noisy and unpredictable.

I am a firm believer in courtesy, a tenant of which is to not be a bother to others in public places. Children are some of the worst offenders of this. My mother refused to take me anywhere except school and relatives' houses until I could behave myself in a civilized manner (about the age of 6 if her stories and my memory are accurate).

Post 124:

I chose not to be a parent. That does not mean that you get force me to deal with your kids and their unruly behavior. I have no responsibility to 'deal' with noisy, messy and unpredictable.

Post 181:

After some kid's tantrum caused a 15 minute delay in the plane taking off and considering the fact that there is absolutely no way to remove them such that they aren't disturbing everyone else? Yes. Keep them off the plane.

Post 197:

I don't think a three-year-old kid needs to be on an airplane getting chocolate all over my suit, which is what happened to me on a flight from NYC to Pittsburgh. They can learn to be in public somewhere that they can be removed from the situation when necessary.

Post 205:

There are a lot of things that are legal that are a bad idea, and IMO, putting kids on airplanes to annoy, disturb, kick, climb on, and get food all over people who didn't choose to deal with said kids is a bad idea and rude. You might not have a problem with kids ruining your clothes and giving you a migraine, but not everyone is Saint Dangerosa.

Then I lost interest. I'm sure there are plenty more, if you care to look for 'em.

So, willing to concede, or are you going to quibble?

Jackmannii

07-24-2007, 05:02 PM

Malthus

07-24-2007, 05:19 PM

A non-quibble: Not one of those quotes remotely translates to "how dare parents take kids anywhere in public, where they may annoy me." At most, you have several examples of people who object to parents taking badly behaved children on airplanes, who will (for example) "annoy, disturb, kick, climb on, and get food all over people who didn't choose to deal with said kids". "Annoy" is at the lowest end of the scale. The key (again) is parents who are unwilling or unable to get their kids under control.

Another quoted poster evidently thinks it's the parents' responsibility to deal with the misbehavior of children (not exactly a revolutionary construct). Yet another you quoted says he/she was raised to behave properly and not taken out much in public until then.

So I don't know how you think your hyperbole is justified.

The very first post I cited pretty well explicitly stated my paraphrase - you don't have to read between any lines to get that this:

I am a firm believer in courtesy, a tenant of which is to not be a bother to others in public places. Children are some of the worst offenders of this. My mother refused to take me anywhere except school and relatives' houses until I could behave myself in a civilized manner (about the age of 6 if her stories and my memory are accurate).

Is saying pretty well exactly what my paraphrase was saying. He states that:

1. people should not be rude by bothering others in public;

2. Children are offenders in this regard;

3. His mom didn't take him in public until he was "able to behave in a civilized manner" - that is, until "about the age of six".

It is quite obvious, to those not rhetorically invested in denying it, that what he's saying in this post is people oughtta avoid taking kids out in public until they are around 6, just like his dear old mom, and if they fail in this regard they are "rude".

But I guess such a complex notion has to be spelled out for some.

As for the other quotes - what they are saying is that the reason one shouldn't take kids on an airplane is because of the risk that they, the child-free, may suffer inevitable annoyance - and thus that kids should not be on airplanes at all. The quotes say so expressly!

I don't know how you can deny what is written in black and white, or dismiss it all as "hyperbole". Yes, the quotes do not use the exact phrasing I chose. That's why I labelled them a "paraphrase". The paraphrase is not, however, untrue to the meanings actually expressed.

levdrakon

07-24-2007, 06:18 PM

I don't know how you can deny what is written in black and white, or dismiss it all as "hyperbole". Yes, the quotes do not use the exact phrasing I chose. That's why I labelled them a "paraphrase". The paraphrase is not, however, untrue to the meanings actually expressed.You're engaging in hyperbole, not paraphrasing. You're changing the meaning and exaggerating it.

According to you, there is a plethora of people in this very thread who are saying "how dare parents take kids anywhere in public, where they may annoy me."

That's not paraphrasing. That's hyperbole.

Paraphrase does not mean "change meaning of."

"If they do, they must instantly hush their kids or prove themselves BAD PARENTS."

There's nothing in your cites to back this hyperbole up. Someone said their parent waited until they could behave in public to bring them out in public. So? My mom did the same thing. Actually, she'd bring us out with her but as soon as we acted up we got brought home and lost that privilege for awhile. So?

You know, I've heard that some parents force their children to wear diapers until they learn not to crap where they stand. What are your feelings on this? As I understand it, crapping is quite natural for infants.

You sound really sensitive. Your kids start screaming and you feel like everyone's eyes are boring in on you, and judging you. Well, they are looking. It's perfectly natural for humans to look when they hear screaming, adult or child or infant. When people look towards a shrieking infant and see mommy calmly browsing the Harlequin romance novel section and not doing anything about shrieking child, then yeah not only are they looking but you're probably starting to get actual judgmental glares.

So maybe your parenting manual says "ignore and let the infant scream herself into exhaustion no matter where you are, it's the best way." Well, not everyone agrees. That's not the same thing as "instantly hush their kids or prove themselves BAD PARENTS."

Jackmannii

07-24-2007, 06:22 PM

The very first post I cited pretty well explicitly stated my paraphrase - you don't have to read between any linesBut you'd have to read several things into it that just aren't there. There is no demand that all children be handled in exactly the same way. There isn't even any way from this isolated quote to determine what "bothering others in public" means. For all we know, this particular poster didn't learn until the age of six that projectile vomiting for sport was not acceptable.

Likewise, none of the other posters you quoted called for a ban on children on planes. What they expressly referred to was uncontrolled behavior that a rational person would see as way out of line - looooong tantrums, climbing on or kicking passengers for example, with the obvious subtext that the parents can't or won't control them. Under a reasonable interpretation, if this is the case, they think such families should stay off airplanes.

But I guess such a complex notion has to be spelled out for some. :rolleyes:

CanvasShoes

07-25-2007, 01:43 AM

I think the difference is I don't see enough in the OP to classify the parent as an asshole. No, you're right, I wouldn't say that that particular one was being an asshole. But I do think that (depending upon the volume and how long she truly let the baby cry), was one who definitely should have "done something" as the OP title states.

I've done the same. I never took small children to fancy restaurants or rated R movies (we didn't go to PG ones), never took them to the bar, don't allow them to run around like little brats in the store. I limited my grocery shopping with kids (most of ours were delivered for three years) and I can't remember being in a mall shopping for fun with my kids. But I have let my babies cry for 3+ minutes before comforting them in public. And I have kept shopping while they cried. And I'm really wondering how you can tell from a brief glance that "yeah, baby is crying because she has an ear infection and we are in Borders while Target across the street fills her perscription, but there isn't a lot I can do because I spent all last night trying to comfort and when she has an ear infection it doesn't do any good anyway." That's a LOT to get from a stranger from a glance to know if this person belongs in the bad parent pile.
Well, as I said above, we obviously weren't in the bookstore, so we don't know what kind of cry it was, how loud, nor how long (it may have been three minutes, it may have been 30 seconds that was so agonizing to the nearby listener that it seemed like three minutes).

And no, I haven't subjected the public at large to my ear infection affected (and crying) baby by say going across the street to someplace else other than the pharmacy to let him cry.

I mean come on, the mentality behind that? Well, baby is in pain and crying, and *I* know why, even though no one else may, but even so, I'm going to take his/her poor little hurting self somewhere else other than where he and I need to be to allow him to cry, because I want to do XYZ.

Bottom line, you're right, we (the onlooker) don't ALWAYS know why a child is crying. But since the parent does, again, he or she bears responsibility for not unduly subjecting people to it. You already know this, but too many don't. We don't always get to do what we want, being a responsible and considerate part of society where our kids are concerned, that's a big part of being a parent.

On the subject of older kids and toddlers, it is quite often very obvious when it's a spoiled tantrum as opposed to "I'm hurting, need a nap, just fell down". As a mom, I know, and you know that there are definitely specific sounds in a kids voice.

How many of us moms (and maybe some dads?) don't swing around involuntarily at that certain tone of voice and a kid, any kid, yelling "mOOO oooM!". My daughter is an adult with a baby of her own, and my son is on the downward trek of his teen years, and that certain sound STILL gets me to automatically turn around. Same with cries and that certain spoiled noise.

And no, again, I don't believe that this means we always can know. But the parent does. They know when the kid is in danger of entering "overtired" land (or should, you don't make that mistake twice if you value your eardrums), onlookers may not, but THEY do, and that again, is part of their responsibility.

CanvasShoes

07-25-2007, 01:50 AM

Sorry, my time is too valuable to perform in this manner. You seriously expect anyone to comb through hundreds of replies and pick out thirty examples to please you? What are you gonna give me if I'm right, a cookie? Nice way to attempt to raise the bar so high only a moron would bother to meet it. :p

Aside from the OP in the first place, which is not nearly as strong an example as what came after, here are five, just to prove I'm not making shit up:

Post 53:

Post 124:

Post 181:

Post 197:

Post 205:

Then I lost interest. I'm sure there are plenty more, if you care to look for 'em.

So, willing to concede, or are you going to quibble?
Well, he did ask you to quote "people" and you quoted catsix, not exactly normal opinions there. :D

Cartooniverse

07-25-2007, 06:07 AM

Well, he did ask you to quote "people" and you quoted catsix, not exactly normal opinions there. :D

--Chortle-- By gum that's a kneeslapper.

True, too. :dubious:

I've taken the kids to the pharmacy after being at the Pediatricians. Yes they are whiny and crying and screaming if they have an ear infection. What would we do? Lock them in the car while awaiting the scrip? Please. It's the book store, not a house of worship. ( I know, I know.... )

And since when the hell is Barnes and Noble the main branch of the New York Public Library? It's a STORE. People TALK and LAUGH and CONVERSE. Babies make SOUNDS. I would say that a book store with a decent kiddie section is a fantastic place to take a child in this situation. Unless they're contagious, of course. :)

Dangerosa

07-25-2007, 06:53 AM

I mean come on, the mentality behind that? Well, baby is in pain and crying, and *I* know why, even though no one else may, but even so, I'm going to take his/her poor little hurting self somewhere else other than where he and I need to be to allow him to cry, because I want to do XYZ.

Bottom line, you're right, we (the onlooker) don't ALWAYS know why a child is crying. But since the parent does, again, he or she bears responsibility for not unduly subjecting people to it. You already know this, but too many don't. We don't always get to do what we want, being a responsible and considerate part of society where our kids are concerned, that's a big part of being a parent.

Actually, obviously I don't know. Because I would take my kids to the bookstore, knowing they had an ear infection and tears may result. My B&N is across the parking lot from my Target. If I have 20 minutes to waste, I'd rather waste them in B&N than in Target - and I don't see any reason why one retail establishment's patrons are any more privileged to not be exposed to the risk of my crying child than another's. What I have to do is waste 20 minutes. During which my baby may cry, or may sleep, or may fuss, or may just look at me.

We don't need to be in Target, we need to be close enough to pick up the prescription when its ready. I suppose if I was really considerate of others, I'd sit in the parking lot with the air on waiting for the prescription so I didn't risk inconveniencing anyone with the horror that is a baby's cry.

And we don't know what was going on with this Mom - but many people were sure eager to label her "bad parent" or "rude" because she dared expose people in a bookstore to a crying child for a few minutes. We also don't know about the banned OP - because we know people have NEVER exaggerated anything in a Pit thread in order to rant.

Go ahead and pit the people with the toddler in the rated R movie or the people with the baby in the smoking bowling alley. The ones that think its appropriate for their little angels to go to a five star restaurant and throw bread. Those really don't sound like great parents to me. But a parent who lets their kid cry in public for a few minutes? That's a standard I don't want to have to live up to myself.

Malthus

07-25-2007, 08:39 AM

But you'd have to read several things into it that just aren't there. There is no demand that all children be handled in exactly the same way. There isn't even any way from this isolated quote to determine what "bothering others in public" means. For all we know, this particular poster didn't learn until the age of six that projectile vomiting for sport was not acceptable.

Likewise, none of the other posters you quoted called for a ban on children on planes. What they expressly referred to was uncontrolled behavior that a rational person would see as way out of line - looooong tantrums, climbing on or kicking passengers for example, with the obvious subtext that the parents can't or won't control them. Under a reasonable interpretation, if this is the case, they think such families should stay off airplanes.

But I guess such a complex notion has to be spelled out for some. :rolleyes:

You *must* be shitting me. :p

Are you really of the opinion that the first quoted poster was *not* advocating that kids not be in public? That strains credulity. You really believe that he was referring to his habit of "projectile vomiting"? :dubious: Isn't it more natural to believe he was making a general point, and that if he personally was some sort of social leper he'd have mentioned it?

Are you *really* of the opinion that the second quoted poster was not advocating that kids not be on airplanes? She freaking well said it! In response to being point-blank asked the very question, she replied:

After some kid's tantrum caused a 15 minute delay in the plane taking off and considering the fact that there is absolutely no way to remove them such that they aren't disturbing everyone else? Yes. Keep them off the plane.

In response to the point that kids should be allowed in public (a general point) she replied:

I don't think a three-year-old kid needs to be on an airplane getting chocolate all over my suit, which is what happened to me on a flight from NYC to Pittsburgh. They can learn to be in public somewhere that they can be removed from the situation when necessary.

The obvious meaning of this is that kids, because they can't be trusted not to be disruptive, should not be on airplanes. She was obviously generalizing from specific incidents to make a general point - something everyone in that conversation well understood.

Malthus

07-25-2007, 08:46 AM

You're engaging in hyperbole, not paraphrasing. You're changing the meaning and exaggerating it.

According to you, there is a plethora of people in this very thread who are saying "how dare parents take kids anywhere in public, where they may annoy me."

That's not paraphrasing. That's hyperbole.

Paraphrase does not mean "change meaning of."

"If they do, they must instantly hush their kids or prove themselves BAD PARENTS."

There's nothing in your cites to back this hyperbole up. Someone said their parent waited until they could behave in public to bring them out in public. So? My mom did the same thing. Actually, she'd bring us out with her but as soon as we acted up we got brought home and lost that privilege for awhile. So?

You know, I've heard that some parents force their children to wear diapers until they learn not to crap where they stand. What are your feelings on this? As I understand it, crapping is quite natural for infants.

You sound really sensitive. Your kids start screaming and you feel like everyone's eyes are boring in on you, and judging you. Well, they are looking. It's perfectly natural for humans to look when they hear screaming, adult or child or infant. When people look towards a shrieking infant and see mommy calmly browsing the Harlequin romance novel section and not doing anything about shrieking child, then yeah not only are they looking but you're probably starting to get actual judgmental glares.

So maybe your parenting manual says "ignore and let the infant scream herself into exhaustion no matter where you are, it's the best way." Well, not everyone agrees. That's not the same thing as "instantly hush their kids or prove themselves BAD PARENTS."

I've proven that there were indeed a "plethora" of posts stating pretty well exactly what I thought.

I didn't expect you to have the decency of acknowledging the point and moving on, and in that respect, I'm not dissapointed. I did expect you to indulge in your charming habit of assuming you know stuff about me and my abilities as a parent; and I wasn't disappointed in that, either.

Malthus

07-25-2007, 08:48 AM

Well, he did ask you to quote "people" and you quoted catsix, not exactly normal opinions there. :D

Heh, maybe so - I don't know her.

But these two jokers won't even acknowlege she said what she said. :D

Jackmannii

07-25-2007, 10:27 AM

I don't think a three-year-old kid needs to be on an airplane getting chocolate all over my suit, which is what happened to me on a flight from NYC to Pittsburgh. They can learn to be in public somewhere that they can be removed from the situation when necessary.The obvious meaning of this is that kids, because they can't be trusted not to be disruptive, should not be on airplanes.Obvious to you, perhaps. What it sounds like to me is a response to the parents who think that any public setting is a valid laboratory for Teaching My Child To Behave, including such practices as ignoring a full-blown extended tantrum so that the kid will learn that such attention-getting displays don't work. A lot of people don't think that commercial flights are the place for this sort of "education".

Awhile back you suggested that both "sides" need to work together to minimize friction. If you really think that, you should stop quote mining and misinterpreting what you find, in order to create anti-parent bogeymen.

By the way, there've been comments in this thread to the effect that parents may not be able to attend to their kids in public because of distractions, stress, illness, necessities of life etc. Now I haven't read all 9 pages of this glorious stuff, but I don't recall seeing much acknowledgement that the unlucky souls on the receiving end of nonstop screaming, kicking, thrown objects etc. may be dealing with their own illness and stress.

It all boils down to consideration for others. For the most part, if you're introducing an unpleasant factor into a public situation, the onus is on you to minimize it or avoid it altogether if possible - not require others around you to be serene and avoid upsetting you by dirty looks.

Malthus

07-25-2007, 01:06 PM

Obvious to you, perhaps. What it sounds like to me is a response to the parents who think that any public setting is a valid laboratory for Teaching My Child To Behave, including such practices as ignoring a full-blown extended tantrum so that the kid will learn that such attention-getting displays don't work. A lot of people don't think that commercial flights are the place for this sort of "education".

Yes, obvious to me. And to anyone not belabouring a point.

Awhile back you suggested that both "sides" need to work together to minimize friction. If you really think that, you should stop quote mining and misinterpreting what you find, in order to create anti-parent bogeymen.

"Quote mining"? That's fucking rich. I was *asked* to produce examples of the sort of argument I find annoying. I did, and you won't even have the grace to acknowledge that they say what they say.

My statement was that both "sides" need consideration in real life. Are you really likely to go out and treat a parent inconsiderately because of anything I say in the Pit?

By the way, there've been comments in this thread to the effect that parents may not be able to attend to their kids in public because of distractions, stress, illness, necessities of life etc. Now I haven't read all 9 pages of this glorious stuff, but I don't recall seeing much acknowledgement that the unlucky souls on the receiving end of nonstop screaming, kicking, thrown objects etc. may be dealing with their own illness and stress.

Sheesh. Get a sense of proportion. How much are you assaulted by children in your everyday life? "Nonstop"?

Unless you happen to be a kindergarden teacher, I'm inclined to doubt it.

It all boils down to consideration for others. For the most part, if you're introducing an unpleasant factor into a public situation, the onus is on you to minimize it or avoid it altogether if possible - not require others around you to be serene and avoid upsetting you by dirty looks.

You don't think that those who are young and able-bodied have any duty to accomodate the feeble, the infirm and the elderly? That they are perfectly justified in giving granny "dirty looks" for upsetting their "serenity"? Or do you extend this principle to parents only?

To my mind, the notion of "consideration" includes such accomodation. Seems to me, to you "consideration" is a one-way street - others must avoid upsetting you, but you have no duty to accomodate their special requirements - they are making the disruption, the "onus" is on them, right?

woodstockbirdybird

07-25-2007, 03:05 PM

You don't think that those who are young and able-bodied have any duty to accomodate the feeble, the infirm and the elderly? That they are perfectly justified in giving granny "dirty looks" for upsetting their "serenity"? Or do you extend this principle to parents only?

To my mind, the notion of "consideration" includes such accomodation. Seems to me, to you "consideration" is a one-way street - others must avoid upsetting you, but you have no duty to accomodate their special requirements - they are making the disruption, the "onus" is on them, right?

Basically, yes. When there are socially accepted modes of behavior while in public places, and you're the one going against them, the onus is on you. It's not up to me to compromise with someone talking on a cell phone during a movie or letting their kids scream their lungs out in a bookstore - it's up to them to shut the fuck up. I've got 2 teenage sons, and if they acted up in a store (as younger children) and were obviously disrupting other customers, I took their asses outside.

Jackmannii

07-25-2007, 03:12 PM

You don't think that those who are young and able-bodied have any duty to accomodate the feeble, the infirm and the elderly? That they are perfectly justified in giving granny "dirty looks" for upsetting their "serenity"? Or do you extend this principle to parents only?Here we go again - parental irresponsibility is a handicap? These folks are just "differently abled"?

Perhaps parents who feel this way should petition their local governmental body to issue "ASSHAT" logos that could be attached to their clothing or "CHILD OF ASSHAT" stickers for their kiddie's stroller, so that everyone will know that Mom and Dad can't help their jerkishness.

Yes, there oughta be a law protecting these people from public disdain.

Talk about "feeble". :dubious:

Malthus

07-25-2007, 04:50 PM

Here we go again - parental irresponsibility is a handicap? These folks are just "differently abled"?

Perhaps parents who feel this way should petition their local governmental body to issue "ASSHAT" logos that could be attached to their clothing or "CHILD OF ASSHAT" stickers for their kiddie's stroller, so that everyone will know that Mom and Dad can't help their jerkishness.

Yes, there oughta be a law protecting these people from public disdain.

Talk about "feeble". :dubious:

But I'm not talking about "irresponsibility" at all. I've already given my views on that. You know that, since you've referenced them before. :dubious:

Or are you saying that *any* amount of disruption, any crying or noise, equals "parental irresponsibilty" and makes parents "asshats"?

If so, we are back to "can't take kids out in public without being judged an asshat".

Malthus

07-25-2007, 05:02 PM

Basically, yes. When there are socially accepted modes of behavior while in public places, and you're the one going against them, the onus is on you. It's not up to me to compromise with someone talking on a cell phone during a movie or letting their kids scream their lungs out in a bookstore - it's up to them to shut the fuck up. I've got 2 teenage sons, and if they acted up in a store (as younger children) and were obviously disrupting other customers, I took their asses outside.

I've never said that one should allow kiddies to obviously disrupt other people.

To quote myself, earlier:

For a person attempting to be moral and compassionate, living in society means having to tolerate those who cause a disturbance to the orderly flow and quiet enjoyment thereof - the elderly, handicapped, children. Within reason. You offer a subway seat to an obviously infirm old person - this doesn't entitle him or her to wack you with their cane for fun; you tolerate a certain level of noise and rowdiness from children - this doesn't entitle parents to bring them to The Late Show, and scream in your ear.

Agree or disagree?

To my mind, this *is* the "socially acceptable mode of behaviour in public places". Those not willing to accomodate others are being rude, not those who "cause a disturbance" - because those causing a disturbance cannot avoid doing so.

Certainly parents can, and should, act to minimize the disturbance caused by their children - I don't actually see anyone arguing otherwise. This may not always be 100% successful or even possible - for example, on an airplane. Others must therefore show tollerance - not to those behaving "irresponsibly" or "abusively", but to the realities of childhood - as they would to the realities of the elderly, the handicapped, or anyone else who through no fault of their own disturbs the orderly flow of existence.

bbs2k

07-25-2007, 05:23 PM

Admission: I have read maybe 2% of this thread, mostly from the beginning.

Bitch: Why is this thread still going on? Even the OP was banned over a month ago!

Result: Tell me I'm an idiot.

Heffalump and Roo

07-25-2007, 10:20 PM

Admission: I have read maybe 2% of this thread, mostly from the beginning.
If you haven't read about planes, supermarkets, dogs, parrots, the purpose of society, the Cult of the Child, and the reproductive rights in China; you really haven't read far enough yet.

Bitch: Why is this thread still going on? Even the OP was banned over a month ago!
One of the mysteries of the universe.

Result: Tell me I'm an idiot.
You're an. . . . nah, too easy. :p

Jackmannii

07-25-2007, 11:28 PM

Couple of interesting letters to the editor of the N.Y. Times Wednesday (in response to its Week in Review piece "Kids on the Plane? Maybe I'll Have That Drink").

One writer says "...For very young children, making noise, being active and protesting one's confinement are not "bad behavior" but are developmentally normal responses to being on an airplane...with all of the valid concerns these days about airline safety and security, how much terror can a 2-year-old really hold?"

From another: "...For the next 10 hours, the children (on the plane) screamed, fought, climbed, fell and screamed some more...I felt no sympathy for the parents. They never apologized for the disturbance they caused. Instead, they behaved as if they owned the plane and seemed to feel that the other passengers should be enjoying the distraction they provided."...you tolerate a certain level of noise and rowdiness from childrenYes. And don't think the rest of us aren't grateful for the parents who decide what that threshold level should be.

True, those who don't agree that the "certain level of noise and rowdiness" is tolerable will act accordingly, including glares, comments, and on up to more tangible expressions of displeasure.

The parents of these kids will just have to tolerate a certain level of opprobrium. :D

CanvasShoes

07-26-2007, 12:59 AM

Heh, maybe so - I don't know her.

But these two jokers won't even acknowlege she said what she said. :D
Well, to be fair to them, if you know this poster's unreasonable hatred of anything womanly or having to do with children, it's hard to acknowledge what she said, since it's essentially meaningless as a measure of how "people" think regarding this subject, she's extremely biased and bizarrely over the top on this subject (women and children).

Her history and long-standing misogyny bring a bit of "the little boy who cried wolf" to most of her posts. Even when what she has to say does make a bit of sense it's far too tainted with her generally misogynist beliefs.

I apologize but I have to agree with Levdrakon's and Jackmanni's opinions regarding this. Though I don't at all agree with some of the harsh, snipey WAY some of it comes across. But then, we have to deal, this is the pit.

catsix's post DO support your belief that "people" are saying, in effect, children should never be allowed out in public view until they can behave like perfect robots. But again, it's not what "people" are saying in this thread, it's what cat believes because she truly hates women and children.

But the other guy's post (sorry I forgot the poster's name), where he states (paraphrased), "My mom didn't take me out until I could behave, probably around six years old". I think you're misinterpreting that statement. A lot of people say that when they mean (to paraphrase yet another poster whose name I've forgotten), "take them out in public for practicing appropriate behaviour, but if they blow it, it's back to Mickey D's and Chuck E. Cheese's until the parent feels they might have a better shot at handling it, rinse lather repeat".

I'm not sure how to make this more clear to those few parents who are feeling sensitive to this, and/or feeling is if someone is saying they're bad because their kid is a monster sometimes.

No one is saying that a parent is "bad" if their child misbehaves, or if a baby cries. They're saying IF and when this happens, and it happens in a place where others, (many others), can reasonably expect to have some semblance of normal background noise, then the parent needs to address it.

CanvasShoes

07-26-2007, 01:08 AM

Couple of interesting letters to the editor of the N.Y. Times Wednesday (in response to its Week in Review piece "Kids on the Plane? Maybe I'll Have That Drink").Do you have a link to that piece? I'd like to read it. FTR, if there are kids on a plane with a fairly obvious "absent" parent in tow, I'll have that drink or a valium also.

I never get on a plane without earplugs and at least OTC sleeping tabs. And not just because of unruly kids and parents who ignore them.

Air travel is a major level of hell all by itself, kids or no kids.

Jackmannii

07-26-2007, 08:07 AM

Do you have a link to that piece? I'd like to read it.This (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/weekinreview/22sharkey.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) is it, although registration/payment could be required. Excerpts:

"Maritz Research recently surveyed 1,000 people online who had flown in the last six months for feedback on how airlines could improve customer service. Nearly three-quarters suggested that airlines segregate families in their own section, away from other passengers.

Though Ms. Foss said misbehaving children were only a minority, the fear that one or more of them might be on board can loom large in the minds of travelers. And when an uncontrollable child happens to be on a flight, passengers may not have much sympathy for the parents, or the kid.

Earlier this year, a 3-year-old girl who threw a tantrum and refused to be belted into her seat was removed, along with her parents, from an AirTran Airways flight. AirTran reimbursed the parents for the flight, but when the parents went public with their protest, AirTran received more than 8,000 e-mail messages and phone calls — nearly all supporting the airline.

Ms. Foss, a flight attendant since 1985, says the way to maintain perspective in the air — even if a screaming infant is assailing your eardrums — is to grin and bear it. That’s what she does.

“Most airlines are working with minimum staff,” she said. “So you have two flight attendants, 12 unaccompanied minors, a handful of crying babies, four wheelchairs, a couple of air marshals, and some drunks.”

“It’s a circus on the fly, and I’m the happy clown!” she said cheerfully."

Wheeee!!!

Dangerosa

07-26-2007, 11:37 AM

I'm fine with sticking families in their own section - put them all at the back of the plane. They should also guarentee families sit together. Last plane I was on I was sitting next to two little girls, their dad in the row behind me (I switched with him and therefore ended up sitting between two big men).

Malthus

07-26-2007, 02:44 PM

Well, to be fair to them, if you know this poster's unreasonable hatred of anything womanly or having to do with children, it's hard to acknowledge what she said, since it's essentially meaningless as a measure of how "people" think regarding this subject, she's extremely biased and bizarrely over the top on this subject (women and children).

Her history and long-standing misogyny bring a bit of "the little boy who cried wolf" to most of her posts. Even when what she has to say does make a bit of sense it's far too tainted with her generally misogynist beliefs.

I apologize but I have to agree with Levdrakon's and Jackmanni's opinions regarding this. Though I don't at all agree with some of the harsh, snipey WAY some of it comes across. But then, we have to deal, this is the pit.

catsix's post DO support your belief that "people" are saying, in effect, children should never be allowed out in public view until they can behave like perfect robots. But again, it's not what "people" are saying in this thread, it's what cat believes because she truly hates women and children.

But the other guy's post (sorry I forgot the poster's name), where he states (paraphrased), "My mom didn't take me out until I could behave, probably around six years old". I think you're misinterpreting that statement. A lot of people say that when they mean (to paraphrase yet another poster whose name I've forgotten), "take them out in public for practicing appropriate behaviour, but if they blow it, it's back to Mickey D's and Chuck E. Cheese's until the parent feels they might have a better shot at handling it, rinse lather repeat".

Don't know Cat's history, as I've said; I only go by what is posted here. Disagree on the other fellow - that's not the sense I got from his post at all. But that's hardly important.

I naturally recognize you are in the other "camp" on this. All I think we are asking for is the same as what you are asking for - a basic degree of consideration.

I'm not sure how to make this more clear to those few parents who are feeling sensitive to this, and/or feeling is if someone is saying they're bad because their kid is a monster sometimes.

No one is saying that a parent is "bad" if their child misbehaves, or if a baby cries. They're saying IF and when this happens, and it happens in a place where others, (many others), can reasonably expect to have some semblance of normal background noise, then the parent needs to address it.

I'm not seeing anyone disagreeing.

Though frankly, until this thread I never gave the matter much thought, because in all my years out in public I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've actually been truly bothered by other people's kids (aside from air travel) - and until I had one of my own, I wasn't particularly comfortable with kids.

It simply doesn't seem that common an occurance (airplanes aside) as to warrant such debate. Or maybe I'm just not very sensitive.

Captain_C

07-26-2007, 03:55 PM

It simply doesn't seem that common an occurance (airplanes aside) as to warrant such debate. Or maybe I'm just not very sensitive.

Or maybe we just all have waaaay too much free time at work, and need to find something to bicker about. Weeee!

zeno

07-26-2007, 04:08 PM

I was in a local bookstore a month or two ago and there was a woman there with a baby that screamed 45 G-dblassted minutes, and was still screaming when I left. If the baby is that upset, why don't they take it outside.?

CanvasShoes

07-28-2007, 03:52 AM

Don't know Cat's history, as I've said; I only go by what is posted here. Disagree on the other fellow - that's not the sense I got from his post at all. But that's hardly important.

I naturally recognize you are in the other "camp" on this. All I think we are asking for is the same as what you are asking for - a basic degree of consideration. Well, as a fellow parent, one who has had kids meltdown in public, I'm not sure what "camp" you think I'm in. Having been there, and had to deal with it myself, my only "camp" is that parents not simply ignore a misbehaving child (as I've seen people do numerous times).

Though frankly, until this thread I never gave the matter much thought, because in all my years out in public I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've actually been truly bothered by other people's kids (aside from air travel) - and until I had one of my own, I wasn't particularly comfortable with kids.You know? It's not the kids that bother me at all. In that sense, folks are right, kids are just being kids, even when they're being brats. What bothers me is parents who won't parent. Period. And if you've had rare experiences with non-parenting parents, you've been lucky.

It simply doesn't seem that common an occurance (airplanes aside) as to warrant such debate. Or maybe I'm just not very sensitive.This is one good point. Some people do seem to be pretty oblivious. I've seen parents able to carry on conversations with others in their party, completely oblivious to the pain their child, screeching at 180 decibels, was causing the ears of innocent bystanders.