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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Well, yes, there have been criminal, uncivilized countries run by murderers. So what?
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.
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. 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.
And the same goes for mine.
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):
[
Unfortunately, I did not carefully read the next sentence which points out:
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.
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.
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?
Yes. They are subordinate to the rights and expectations of adults, in well-parented households.
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.
The antics of badly brought up kids are not protected under law.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.