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.
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?
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:
Is saying pretty well exactly what my paraphrase was saying. He states that:
people should not be rude by bothering others in public;
Children are offenders in this regard;
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.
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.”
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
In response to the point that kids should be allowed in public (a general point) she replied:
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.
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.
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.
Yes, obvious to me. And to anyone not belabouring a point.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
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”.
I’ve never said that one should allow kiddies to obviously disrupt other people.
To quote myself, earlier:
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.
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.
