Do you give a shit about me or my child’s feelings?
And I am sorry about your experience in Yugoslavia, sounds like a horrific scenario.
I can also survive a few minutes of being gang-raped. What’s your point?
When a baby is crying, a minute is ample time to offer it food. If it keeps refusing the food, the next logical step would be to check its diaper, which is also a great opportunity to take it out of the main dining room.
You’re seriously saying that it takes you more than a minute (an actual, literal minute) to offer a baby a bottle, a breast, or a spoonful of food, possibly of various kinds? You’re seriously saying that if the baby refused all the food, you wouldn’t next check its diaper? You’re seriously saying you’d just let the kid sit there and cry it out for several minutes, in public?
Heh, this is my last post so that I don’t continue to pile them up in a row. But I have to say, if both you and my daughter were in mortal danger, and I had the opportunity to save just one of you, I’d save my daughter, sorry. Similarly, if both myself and my daughter were in mortal danger, and you had to the opportunity to save just one of us, I’d hope you would save my daughter.
**jsgoddess ** Right on not showing solidarity with ZPG Zealot.
Now you’re just being stupid.
If you can’t put up with a few minutes of a crying kid while the parents try to calm the child, you have a problem, not the parents.
I have no idea why you think that makes a lick of difference. All infants are “likely” to cry, at some point; nappies get wet, babies get tired and ornery. It happens.
You post said nothing about “constantly throwing tantrums”. What you said was:
This describes all toddlers, all of whom can 'run around" and none of whom are “yet mature enough to understand …”.
Again, effectively all infants are “likely to cry” at some point over the course of a couple of hours.
As you say, it’s a message board and I’m directly quoting your actual words.
Now, there is a non-hyperbolic comparison. We should frame it and hang it on the wall. 
Breezed through the thread looking for buzzwords, eh? Well, you can always come back and read it when you have more time.
It was a stupid question, so it got a stupid answer. In the future, if you don’t want stupid answers from me in the Pit, don’t ask stupid questions. Stupid.
Ah, but IIRC, the anecdote clearly stated that it was 10 minutes of the parents doing nothing. Perhaps we were just raised differently. I was taught that if your child is crying in public, you should remove it to deal with it. And apparently you were taught that it doesn’t matter how much you bug other people–you just go ahead and do whatever makes you feel good about yourself and makes things easiest for you, honey. Now, here’s a gold star!
We’re all likely to die at some point, too. Are you going to accuse me of saying that we shouldn’t ever go to restaurants because we’re going to die there, too?
If that were the case, restaurants would be full of toddlers running wild underfoot. Most of them understand that they need to stay in their seats, and most of the rest understand being told to sit back down or being placed back in their seats.
If you’re stuck with one of those kids who’s in a really contrary stage where they’re going to do whatever they want, what they want is disruptive, and you know you won’t be able to control them, then you shouldn’t be bringing them out until you can teach them to behave.
And yet, completely changing their meaning. Have you noticed the other people who’ve responded to your posts to me, telling you that they mean exactly what I’ve said they mean, independent of me? Do you think it’s because you spend so much time raping babies? Does the perpetual baby-raping erection pull the needed blood away from your brain, or what?
Again with the comparisons! Not your long suit, I think.
No, it is because parents actively and phyiscially control them. For example, using booster seats with a belt on the very young.
Again, you simply don’t know what you are talking about. Few toddlers just learning to walk “understand” right away the ediquette of remaining in their seat and not annoying other restaurant patrons. They must be taught this, like any other social skill.
Ah, vox populi vox dei, eh? Or rather, argumentum ad populam.
You mean the same ones who assume I’m all for letting my kid scream without restraint?
They got that one wrong, too. As did you, I might add!
What I conclude is that, having taken sides, they are reading you as being more reasonable than you in fact are. I note none have been back to dispute the point.
Bullshit. Your parameter of “1 minute” is clearly unreasonable.
You are the queen of making shit up in this thread. I never said that nor implied that. You seem to think that because I think your “1 minute” thing is unreasonable that I think it’s ok for people to not take care of their kids as quickly as possible.
How about trying to stick to the actually things people write instead of inferring what you think they mean or think they would do?
Honestly, I considered it, even typed it. In the end, the Slammer prevailed. 
I left this thread because I see it as pointless to argue with you, as you seem to like to inflate other people’s statements. Shot From Guns is making the simple point that if you have a reasonable notion that your baby/infant/toddler is going to act up, based on your knowledge of that particular child’s idiosyncrasies, then you should not go. If you believe you are past that point, again based on your knowledge of the child, and the child surprises you with a tantrum (which I am sure we can all agree are the majority, hell perhaps even the entirety, of the cases), then you should quiet, shush, soothe, provide for, or all else failing, remove the child from the situation.
Throughout this thread you have been taking SFG comments to mean absolutes, which they were clearly not intended to be.
A little story, then I’ll stop hijacking this thread. Or maybe I won’t because it’s already self-hijacked itself into sheer lunacy.
I made a bet with a friend some years ago. I won’t get into the specifics of the bet, partly because they’re inconsequential to the story, but primarily because I don’t remember them. The terms of the bet, which I do recall, were that loser buys dinner. I lost the bet (D’oh!), so I had to take my friend to eat. I asked where he wanted to go, and he said Denny’s. “Dude, come on,” I told him, “pick a real restaurant.” But no, he was steadfast, and Denny’s was his final choice. I suppose the loser of the bet doesn’t get to make demands, so he got his wish. Anyway, at some point I asked him, “Seriously, why Denny’s?” suspicious that his choice was a form of additional punishment. He said he chose Denny’s because he wanted to order a Moons Over My Hammy. He was serious about his answer, and the sole reason he chose Denny’s is he thought it would be amusing to order such a ridiculously-named dish. “So was it any good?” I asked him. “No” was his response. “So was it worth it just to say the name out loud?” “Yes.”
Oh, some people.
Of course you did. Convenient that you only mention it after I brought it up, but totally plausible.
The reason I brought it up is because you utter unreasonableness generally is relevant. You are, bottom line, a crazy person, and are making that clearer post by post. It is a shame you don’t have to wear a big sticker on your head warning people about it.
I busted on Denny’s for a couple of reasons. First the food is so ungodly bad that a large part of me feels anyone who eats there deserves exactly what they get. But more importantly because it is the kind of restaurant where screaming kids are more likely. I’m over it. But I still judge you based on it.
Trust me, I believe you when you say you assaulted the kid. It is the kind of psychotic behavior that you have given the impression is normal for you. Your later excuses, conveniently remembered at a time that they make you look better and your additions to the story, on the other hand, come across as total bullshit.
I didn’t mention the waiter, psycho. I mentioned the management. Who are paid to deal with that sort of thing. The management, as representatives of the owners of the establishment you are attending can do various things. They can ask the people to leave if their child continues, or they can tell you to suck it up. That’s their choice. You instead decided that you would decide the corporate policies towards crying children. And you decided them in a way that was definitely tortious, and warranted a fat lip. Fortunately for you the parents of the child were more civilized than you, despite their apparent lack of parenting skills (though on that front I only have you extremely dubious word to go on).
If they ignore management, it is management’s problem. If management chooses to let the kid scream on, then they have made that decision. At no stage is it your responsibility or right to assault the child. And you make yourself look incredibly stupid by suggesting you would win a law suit against a parent who stopped you from doing it.
Here is my problem with you, Malthus.
I say X. You interpret it to mean Y. I say, no, I really did mean X. Multiple other people chime in to say, “Yes, we agree, we read X as saying X, too–not Y.” But no matter how many times I (and others) tell you that X means X, not Y, Z, or Helsinki, you continue to insist that it does, in fact, mean Y.
The initial X/Y confusion could be due to either poor phrasing on my part (not too likely, as multiple people have all confirmed that they understood exactly what I meant, most recently otternell) or a misreading on your part. Either of those *should *have been resolved the first time I corrected your misunderstanding and clarified my intended meaning.
The fact that you *persist *in arguing with your imaginary version of my position, instead of my actual position as I’ve stated and then repeatedly clarified it, and as other people have confirmed and explained, means that you’re (a) deeply stupid, (b) a troll, or (c) having a stroke. In the first two cases, you’re not worth my time, and in the lattermost, you should be in a goddamn hospital, so call 911 already.
“Strong suit” is what you meant to say. And it was a great analogy–just one that went over your head.
Let me break it down for you.
See, you were inexplicably interpreting my very reasonable request of “don’t bring your child to a restaurant if you can reasonably predict that they’ll make a scene” as the completely insane “don’t ever bring your child to a restaurant unless you can 100% guarantee that they won’t make a scene.” Now, consider that I’d said “try not to die in a restaurant.” You would then have to also interpret that as meaning “never go out to a restaurant ever, because everyone’s going to die, so you might die there.”
Yes, it’s retarded, but it’s your argument, not mine.
I’m not saying I’m right 'cause lots of people say I’m right. We’re arguing over what I meant by what I said. And when you’ve got a bunch of people and the original author all telling you that X means X, and not Y–that’s pretty solid evidence that you’re just making shit up.
That’s not what we’re talking about, though. You asked the completely inane question of whether or not I could “survive” a few minutes of a screaming child. My point, was, quite simply (albeit intentionally and offensively hyperbolically): there are many things I can survive; that doesn’t mean it’s polite to inflict them on me.
But, to return to the “one minute” discussion. It’s not like I’m sitting there with a stopwatch, expecting that at the :60 mark, the parents will be buckling the kid into a carseat. I’ve simply asserted that it seems to me that a full minute of time is more than long enough to ascertain that there’s something going on that will not be quickly resolved at the table, and to *start to *move the child elsewhere.
If you disagree, please tell me what steps you would take if your child started crying, with an estimated timeline for each.
Sorry, that’s rather unfair of me. I’m trying to piss you off enough that you’ll actually respond with some real information. So, with my apologies, please do tell me exactly what you think the parent should be doing if not removing the child. Again, with time estimates.
I didn’t ask a question. I made a statement.
If you can’t survive a few minutes of a baby issues when the parents are trying to resolve it, I suggest that you need to adjust your sensitivity.
What I AM NOT saying is that anyone needs to endure extended disruption.
Nothing to say here. The idea of some arbitrary timeline is asinine. A parent will do any number of things to try to calm the child before removing it. And no, I’m not going to enumerate them. I have actual work I need to do today.
My larger point is that everyone needs to be reasonable when shit like this happens.
Of course I can survive it (seriously, we’re back to this stupid hyperbole again?). We’re not talking about what’s going to get me to leave the restaurant in a huff–we’re talking about what the parents should be doing if they have the slightest bit of consideration for anyone but themselves.
It’s not an arbitrary timeline. I gave a concrete description of what I’d be doing if it were my child.
Yes, there are infinite things you could try in order to get your child to calm down. However, it’s just as easy, if not easier, to do most of them in a more private area than the middle of the dining area of a restaurant. So why does it have to take place at the table?
And you “have actual work [you] need to do today,” which is why you can’t respond to a simple request for actual information? Ahahaha. What a fucking cop-out. You might as well have said, “You have a valid point, but I’m too chickenshit to admit that I have no good response to it.”
If you don’t have the time to post a simple description of how you’d work at calming down your child (and hey, if it makes sense, maybe you’d actually convince me!), you wouldn’t have had time to respond to my post at all.
If I were at a restaurant where there was a crying baby, I would probably get perturbed. So much so that I might even write about it on my Facebook page. What I wouldn’t do is put my face inches from a crying infant and scream at it to shut up. That would make me somewhat retarded, I believe.
Actually, “long suit” is perfectly appropos there. Although I’d hate for that to become a bone of contention, too.
This thing has degenerated into “yes, you did”, “no, I didn’t”.
But allow me to throw in my two cents.
Malthus, I think you’re getting a bit overheated here. You took SFG literally when she didn’t mean it quite that way, and now you’re busy telling her what she thinks, or what she did actually mean. Shot From Guns, your original position was reasonable, but now you’re going a bit overboard, trying to defend it. Yes, a minute might be plenty long for the parents to react to a disruptive child, but your assumption that the only possible ways to deal with it are either to stuff food into the kid, or to remove him pretty much immediately is not reasonable. I wouldn’t let it go on too long, but it isn’t unreasonable to allow the parents to try a couple of things that have worked for them in the past, or to institute disciplinary measures if necessary.
As it is now, you two sound like my husband and me at our worst, and it isn’t pretty at all.
Now say sorry, shake hands, and go on about your business.
Yeah, I always hated it when my mom said that to me.
Tweet! I am going to have to blow the whistle on all this reasonableness coming out of your corner thridwarning! No fair reading the whole thread and trying to understand another person’s point of view!