I am proud that my child-hating ways are still being quoted in this thread. Good show.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
“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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
“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.
[/QUOTE]
Here’s another take on the apple juice incident. 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. 
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Here’s another take on the apple juice incident. Apparently it was the parent who caused the ruckus over the juice and forced 48 passengers to spend the night in Philadelphia.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Here’s another take on the apple juice incident. 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.
[/QUOTE]
Clearly, we cannot allow adults on airplanes. They may disrupt flights.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
Clearly, we cannot allow adults on airplanes. They may disrupt flights.
[/QUOTE]
Did you ever watch The Fifth Element? I say we just routinely gas the cabin and make everyone sleep through flights.
[QUOTE=catsix]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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
[QUOTE=MsRobyn]
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
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
–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 
) 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.
Interesting piece on a mom and toddler who were booted off a plane recently.
Once again, we see that adults are usually a bigger problem than children on planes.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Once again, we see that adults are usually a bigger problem than children on planes.
[/QUOTE]
In this case, the stewardess.
[QUOTE=fessie]
Interesting piece on a mom and toddler who were booted off a plane recently.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Frylock]
I believe the analogy fails because of the several ways in which laptops are not like little kids.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]
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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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).
[QUOTE=CanvasShoes]
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).
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=CanvasShoes]
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).
[/QUOTE]
I have two questions…
-
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?
-
How does one get a tantruming toddler to the back of the plane or to the bathroom?
Mom, is that you?
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™". :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. )