Well I apologize. You are vociferously defending a woman who said without equivocation that my daughter should never have been born. So I guess it’s guilt by association.
No, it’s agism. It’s a miraculous and unique fragrant pile of hateful dogshit in its own right.
Everyone invoking racism in this thread is kind of silly.
Let me set the record straight.
There are some kids I like. There are some kids I love. There are some kids that I don’t like very much at all. There are pretty much no kids that I actively hate, with the possible exception of that little snot at the pool who splashed me a few years back.
(And before you get all up in my shit about how I shouldn’t get my panties in a twist about getting splashed at a pool, the kid did it on purpose and ruined my book. A lifeguard banned him from the place forever for it.)
But almost any kid, no matter how much I love him or her, tends to get on my nerves very quickly. I can only take them in small doses. And, with some notable exceptions, if I was never made to spend time with any kid ever again, I wouldn’t lose sleep over it.
And I have no need to make little copies of myself.
What I object to is the notion that if you don’t care to spend time with kids, there must be something morally wrong with you. Being compared to a racist is so offensive I’m surprised you had the sack to say it. It’s beyond absurd.
Is that clearer?
Who was the last person to do that? It was before this page, I guess.
Yes, that post is clear. It muddies up a bunch of the other ones you’ve posted, but I know where you are coming from.
Agism would be if I supported restricting the legal rights of people of a certain age. Simply not wanting to hang out with someone is not persecution. Unless, of course, you believe that depriving someone of my company is cruel to them. Hey, can’t blame you for that.
You want to know what real agism is? Restricting the rights of kids to vote, drive, drink, and own property. Just like the Nazis did to the Jews. 
That’s not the definition of ageism. It falls within the broader definition of the term, but it is overly specific.
Regardless, it doesn’t sound like the actual definition applies to you either.
Well, thank you for at least recognizing that.
My point still stands: Not wanting to hang out with someone is not a hate crime.
All of that is based on a negative attitude towards children, not based on the fact that a person doesn’t have children.
Never Mind
Pssst. Dalmatian.
Then what are you doing?
Is anyone claiming that it is? 
:rolleyes: No agism is discrimination based on age, just like racism is discrimination based on race. It has nothing to do with the legality of things. Just like you can be a racist and not persecute someone, you can be an agist and not persecute anyone.
lol
So, you’re trying to convince people to hate all children?
Moron rides again.
I’m not trying to convince people of anything, I merely made a statement and defended my position. Why are you arguing if you’re not trying to convince me that I’m wrong?
At no point have I so much as intimated that you need to like all children.
OK, so is not wanting to spend time with someone discrimination?
I would add (to only slightly change the topic) that children are not a special class of people like gays, Jews, blacks, or musicians. Yes, they are a special class, but not in the same way. Restricting any one of those other groups from entering, say, a supermarket would get you into a heap of trouble. But there are plenty of places that we restrict children from entering without batting an eyelash. Liquor stores, adult book stores, and “sophisticated” movie theatres spring to mind. (They spring to mind for me rather often.) There are some venues that most of us agree are no place for children at all. Do we ban kids from these places because we’re discriminating against them? No, we usually do it to protect them.
So comparing children to a particular race is a bad analogy right off the bat. Children are a special case. Call it ageism if you want, but you’d look silly for doing so.
They may be a special case, but that doesn’t excuse the idiotic attitudes towards them that have been expressed in this thread. Certain participants here are most certainly ageists, and I think mswas’ description of them is appropriate.
You’ve suggested that I’m either a bigot or defective for not liking them. That, in turn, implies that I should like them.
But is it really ageism? I think that real child-haters don’t hate so much because of age as how children can act. I’m sure they’d be just as miffed at adults who acted the same way. I know I’d be pretty pissed at a 50-year-old guy who ran around a restaurant screaming his lungs off. I don’t deal well with childish behavior. This is the behavior, that despite its name, is pretty much indiginous to children.
You know what I hate? Having a phone conversation with a kid.
“Hi Billy, how are you?”
“Good.”
“What did you do today?”
“Dunno.”
“How is school?”
“Good.”
“Hey, I saw the coolest thing today! There was a parade, and there were six elephants in it, and two of them got up and danced a jig! What do you think of that?”
“Dunno.”
Why do I hate those conversations? Because of some deep-seated irrational hatred for all beings under the age of 12? No. I hate the because they are boring and awkward and a waste of my time. I’d hate having that same conversation with an adult as well. The thing is, though, that most adults can carry on a better conversation than that. Most kids can’t.