I suspect that the ability to be able to do that came from the kids consistently seeing the consequences of not doing it. It’s just like training dogs. A dog doesn’t start out listening and obeying. If you see someone with an obedient dog, it is because the dog got corrected as a puppy.
Hoping I’m immune from anyone objecting to this comparison because I’ve done both.
I agree totally that parents must be vigilant to ensure child-appropriate venues.
As to the McD’s point … upthread, someone used as an example of the horrors of child misbehaviour, a visit to Chuck E. Cheese. WTF?
The point is that this exaggeration and hyperbole is so common on this one topic, and that it is in fact so widespread as to not be actively discouraged.
Note the difference if such “exaggeration and hyperbole” was aimed, for example, at annoyance over racial or ethnic differences. The fur would fly.
I wouldn’t say all or everyone. But it happens a lot, and it isn’t discouraged by social pressure - people think it mostly funny. Spermbucket, crotch-fruit, cuntdroppings. All hilarious no doubt.
Again, those who would find sexual, ethnic or racial epithets funny, who would make up amusing names for homosexuals, Blacks of Jews, would be buried under outrage - that’s an indication of the way the “culture” is here. It tolerates this sort of humour in one context and not in another; because in general “humour” or “hyperbole” of this sort is considered a red flag of all sorts of unsavory attitudes - particularly when used in an otherwise serious discussion of an important issue.
That is a totally different issue. The only issue I’m addressing is whether it is a real thing.
Whether or not it is a bad thing is a judgment call.
For example, if one concedes that the analogy I made above concerning racist epithets has legitimacy, one could of course state that there are perfectly valid reasons why the one is acceptable and the other is not.
What don’t you get? How is it any different from eating in a nice restaurant and having someone periodically blast an air horn? Or being seated next to a group of loud drunks? Or some guy talking loudly on his cell phone? Do you like having the back of your airplane seat kicked repeatedly? It’s not so much that people hate kids as much as it is people hate certain behaviors that tend to be performed by children (or adult jerks).
That is not the same thing as deciding to have or not have children. Some people simply do not want to change their lifestyle in order to raise a family. They may be too career focused or they simply don’t want the responsibility.
It’s a shame that choices for reaching the “pinacles of achievement” seem to be getting knocked up or devoting oneself to some corporate overlord.
I’m particularly curious about how you managed to survive to adulthood without offending yourself.
I know that some people like this have pets, and don’t understand the distinction. Pets are like children, only generally much less intelligent or complex.
What would a world without children be like? It seems it would soon become gray and dull, and would be terrifically self-centered from the start.
[/QUOTE]
:dubious: Are you talking about this, in post #31?
That’s the only time I’ve seen Chuck E. Cheese mentioned in this thread, and it was clearly an example of sarcastic hyperbole, rather than a serious complaint about kids at Chuck E. Cheese being too noisy.
ISTM you’re not exactly in a position to complain about other posters’ exaggeration and lack of accuracy, Malthus.
This is a very accurate observation. It’s also a good example of how “accurate” isn’t the same thing as “relevent” or “useful.” Yes, people can talk about children here in a manner that would be unacceptable if used in relation to ethnicity or religion. They can also talk about American Idol in a manner that would be unacceptable if used in relation to ethnicity or religion. I don’t think this provides us with any particular insight into the character of people who trash American Idol, though.
Your first sentence doesn’t imply your second. A correlation isn’t a causation. Unruly children tend to grow into unruly adults, and unruly children need disciplining.
So you’ve realized context is important in humour?
Congratulations. Here’s your sign.
As far as I’m concerned, if it happens once that’s one time too many. It’s completely inappropriate as are the other disruptions mentioned.
And, by the way, most moviegoing happens during a time that you already said isn’t when you go. So what’s unusual is your moviegoing cycles. (I managed a movie theatre for years). Screaming kids in an R-rated flick? Not uncommon.
True, but correlation is what we have in social sciences. It’s worth something.
What? Unless you have shown that there’s a causative effect, it is totally incorrect to conclude that one exists.
EDIT: of course, I’m not saying that correlations are worthless, just Der Trihs was trying to imply a causative effect from a mere correlation.
"What don’t you get? How is it any different from eating in a nice restaurant and having someone periodically blast an air horn? Or being seated next to a group of loud drunks? Or some guy talking loudly on his cell phone? Do you like having the back of your airplane seat kicked repeatedly? It’s not so much that people hate kids as much as it is people hate certain behaviors that tend to be performed by children (or adult jerks)."
This is a really good, succinct response.
It would appear, then, that those offended at the offense taken by others at their screaming kids is based upon the idea that since you know it’s not an air horn but rather a child you should make allowances for that in your level of annoyance; not just allowance, actually, but maybe even loving affection since they are children and they’re the future and you were a child, etc., etc.
Thing is, I typically don’t wanna go there when I’m eating. It’s an emotional demand (to expect me to not be bothered by having empathy with children, etc.)
"What? Unless you have shown that there’s a causative effect, it is totally incorrect to conclude that one exists."
“Suspect,” then? That’s all I’m saying, it’s worth something. Yes, one can’t see a correlation and walk away going “well, that settles it!” but neither can one see a correlation and say “means nothing! come back when you have proof!” Just saying it’s meaningful; it is, in fact, part of the path to determining causation especially in social sciences where it’s pretty much all you have in terms of longitudinal studies.
ROFL
I’m aware of that. But a correlation is just a hint that something else may be going on. It isn’t ``proof" of anything.
Besides, Der Trihs is completely mistaken in his assessment of the literature: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/4/824
On behalf of all of us trying to read a book while eating a solitary dinner, thank you.
And that’s a good post; the whole point is that even if it’s true that a kid needs to be ignored while screaming to help him grow into a splendid adult, why am I having to pay the price for that? I used a condom.
Ummm, what? That’s exactly the quote I was referring to, and exactly why I was referring to it - as an example of hyperbole, the horrors of child misbehaviour. Hence the WTF reaction - of course children misbehave there, everyone knows that they do.
Please point out how referring to what someone has actually said is “exaggeration” and “lack of accuracy”.
Question for those of you that object to parents taking children out to restaurants, because the children might behave unacceptably. What do you think about caregivers for adults with serious mental impairments–e.g., nonverbal autism? If someone takes their client out to a restaurant, and the client makes noise, are you infuriated at the caregiver?
AFAICT, the main difference between the two situations is that the child can learn proper behavior, and learning in context is an excellent way to learn.
Some of you may believe that folks with nonverbal autism ought not be allowed out in public. You may see a significant difference between the two situations that I’ve not seen.
Daniel
I personally wouldn’t demand any such perfection. Just leave the building, please, with your imperfectly-raised kids.
Thanks. Now, where was I…?
I agree that it is an accurate observation; I disagree it is irrelevant.
The issue is whether use of language demonstrates hostility towards the target. Your point (if I understand it) is that this is true, but that the target is an acceptable one in one case (in the case of “children” or “American Idol”) and an unacceptable one in another (ethnicity, religion).
While I may also disagree on your point, it is irrelevant - the question is whether the use of language demonstrates hostility at all. Only when this is established, can one ask “is this a sort of hostility that is unacceptable or not?”
I have so far made no comments about the character of those who are hostile towards children. I merely wish to establish if such hostility is widespread here on this website - in my opinion it is, and this thread is so far not disabusing me of that opinion for the reasons I cited.
**
**
Nope, it’s not a price that’s fair to expect us to pay. Your kids are your own reward, right? You didn’t just make them as economic units for the benefit of society, I assume. Surely their loveliness is worth giving up some of the benefits of living in society like eating out in a fine restaurant. Sorry.
In fact, other members of the same species (like me) have had the personal honor of being the one whose job it was to remove parents and their screaming kids from the room. They understood.