Family Etiquette

[mormont]

16 minutes ago, The Mance said:

Exactly.  Refuting a strawman is not the same as walking back an original position.

I agree: but the latter, not the former, has been the case in this thread. Consistently. 

ETA - for reference, check out the OP, post 3, post 10, post 19, post 20, post 36, etc. All of these are very broad statements about 'kids in restaurants': no exceptions are made. I could go on. 

[The Mance]

7 hours ago, La Albearceleste said:

I agree: but the latter, not the former, has been the case in this thread. Consistently. 

ETA - for reference, check out the OP, post 3, post 10, post 19, post 20, post 36, etc. All of these are very broad statements about 'kids in restaurants': no exceptions are made. I could go on. 

Well, perhaps you should, because I’m not seeing how any of those posts walk back an original position.  Or, even if they did, how those few early posts represent a “consistent” pattern to the thread.

And as far as your characterization of those posts, I’m not going to quibble over our definition of “broad” except to say that each of those posts seems to me to clearly be in reference to the behavior described in the OP.  ie running around, screaming, yelling, and getting int he way of waitstaff and other patrons.

And yet, throughout the thread, objecting to such behavior has been likened to wanting children to be leashed like dogs, seen but not heard, and conflated with objecting to “a little noise”.  As if anyone who isn’t fine with complete anarchy must necessarily be insisting on absolute silence and physical immobilization.  Seriously?  Strawman much?

[dornishpen]

I think something that’s missing here (and this was brought up by someone else and ignored) is that it’s quite dangerous for kids to run around restaurants. Wait staff typically carry multiple (up to 4) hot plates of hot food at a time and if a kid causes the worker to lose their balance by running into them it (and this has happened to me, though fortunately when it’s happened I kept my balance and didn’t drop any plates) could result in burns and cuts to the child, to the waiter and to other patrons. If a child is unable to stay seated for the duration of the meal and the parent is unwilling to take them outside for a few minutes to run around they shouldn’t be at a restaurant without a children’s play area.

Expecting children to be able to stay quiet (or no louder than adults) and sit completely still is unreasonable.

[JGP]

Is it though?

I guess I've just been lucky with my daughters then. I remember once shopping with my eldest when she was about 4 or 5 [maybe? thereabouts] and some kid was having one of those collapse-on-the-floor-shrieking-seizure kind of fits, and Llyra seemed kind of mortified and asked me what was wrong with him. I remember laughing at that, but retrospect maybe that was a brush off because I didn't actually have an answer,

Ok, correction. I am very lucky with my girls.

---

So Jace, did your sister just shrug that whole scene off with a no fucks to give expression or something? 

[mormont]

8 hours ago, The Mance said:

Well, perhaps you should, because I’m not seeing how any of those posts walk back an original position.  Or, even if they did, how those few early posts represent a “consistent” pattern to the thread.

'Few early posts'? Really? Come on. I listed six posts by five contributors that go as deep as post 36. You know better than that: describing that as a 'few early posts' is not being fair or even honest.

People start walking back at post 37, so sorry that you had to read so far past, um, post 36 to find that, I was in a rush at the time. And if your argument is 'some of those people haven't even walked back the original position', that isn't helping your argument about straw men: it's hurting it.

Really, this is some weak, weak stuff.

Quote

And as far as your characterization of those posts, I’m not going to quibble over our definition of “broad” except to say that each of those posts seems to me to clearly be in reference to the behavior described in the OP.  ie running around, screaming, yelling, and getting int he way of waitstaff and other patrons.

Really? Because frankly, if that's so, you have been inserting into those posts words that simply are not there.

ETA - for example, there is no mention of wait staff until post 16, after the pushback begins. There is, however, repeated mention of 'spoiling the evening' of other customers, both before and after that mention. That clearly is the main, and in some cases only, concern.

You may be reading what you would prefer they said instead of what they do say.

In short, your rebuttal didn't rebut.

[polishgenius]

Mormont, the topic begins with Jace specifically laying out a scenario in which her sister let the kids run around screaming, and the topic was built on that. People later on aren't specifying that they specifically mean kids who are running around screaming and the parents aren't doing anything about it because Jace already did that. It's like you're taking every post - heck, every paragraph because your entire problem depends on ignoring the first part of Jace's post as irrelevant to the topic and only keying off the second bit- exists in a vaccuum and the complete point needs to be restated again and again. But that's not how conversations normally have to work and it's you who's reacting to things that aren't there.

Isk's first one is the only one of the posts you pulled up where you really have a point, because even the best parents have off days and it isn't necessarily down to shit parents, but he's still only talking about the specific situation of kids being allowed to shreik and roam unchecked and even from someone who's a great parent, that's not good. It's shitty for the other patrons and the staff and acting like they shouldn't be annoyed because they don't know the particulars of the kids and the parents' situation is just ridiculous.

As is making out like a parent making the decision to do so or to sit in the cinema with a crying baby isn't being selfish. It might be understandable selfishness, even, a 'just for once I have to get out of the house' or whatever, but it's still putting their own consideration over that of the other patrons. That's what selfish means.

[mormont]

21 minutes ago, Fellaining Da Bruyne said:

Mormont, the topic begins with Jace specifically laying out a scenario in which her sister let the kids run around screaming, and the topic was built on that. People later on aren't specifying that they specifically mean kids who are running around screaming and the parents aren't doing anything about it because Jace already did that.

Firstly, you understand that's not how the world works, right? If Jace introduces the topic of people who cut you off in traffic and then give you the finger, and subsequently everyone chimes in with how crappy it is to cut people off in traffic, we do not take the finger as read?

Secondly, there is a huge difference between complaining about 'parents who aren't doing anything about it' and complaining about parents who 'can't control their kids' or haven't 'raised their kids properly'. On this thread, the latter have been referenced many, many more times than the former, but you seem to be treating them all as the same (as do a number of other people).

Thirdly, the number of times people here are bitching about having their evenings ruined as opposed to discussing health and safety risks makes it clear what their main concern is. As do references to what kind of restaurant they were in. It's not the hazards they're complaining about, it's having to put up with kids when they don't want to.

Fourthly, the tone of those posts and the language used about kids and parents with kids has been shocking. Insulting, condescending, rude, and inconsiderate. That alone undermines any case that the complaints are qualified and reasonable and are only intended to apply narrowly. If you intend your comments only to apply narrowly, you take care to reflect that in your language.

Among other points, I've noted that people do not know what the story behind any such incident is, and discussed why it may not be a situation that was predictable by the parent, or be under the control of the child or the parent, and why people should perhaps try to be more tolerant and understanding.

The reaction to that has been disappointing, to say the least. Defensiveness. Justification. Complaining about how I'm being unfair, or setting up straw men, or how I'm reacting to things that aren't there (when, to be blunt, that is simply not true: they are there. No question). Even hostility, in one case. I think that tells its own story too.

If you want to talk about what selfish means, I think we could equally well talk about the entitlement of people who prioritise their own experience to the point where they will run down other parents and even say nasty things about children because their evening did not work out as they expected. Particularly if those people are unwilling even to acknowledge that there may be other sides to the story.

 

[polishgenius]

5 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

It's not the hazards they're complaining about, it's having to put up with kids when they don't want to.

Well yeah. That's the discussion. You seem to think that people should be required to put up with kids at all times regardless of where they are or what they're doing. Heck, even more, you seem to think that people should be not allowed to feel annoyed at loud kids regardless of where they are or what they're doing, because no-one here's suggested running people out of restaurants or anything. They're just complaining. There's nothing wrong with not wanting loud disruptive kids around when you're out for a quiet evening. It isn't the moral flaw you seem to be under the impression it is.

 

 

5 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

Secondly, there is a huge difference between complaining about 'parents who aren't doing anything about it' and complaining about parents who 'can't control their kids' or haven't 'raised their kids properly'. On this thread, the latter have been referenced many, many more times than the former, but you seem to be treating them all as the same (as do a number of other people).

Because it's implicit in the topic! If you want to read it the other way then go ahead but you're the one at odds with how the rest of the topic is being conducted, here. We're all talking about one thing. You're talking about another. Go ahead, but when people tell you that's not what they were talking about, that's not correcting themselves, that's correcting you.

Some of the language has been over the top. Most of it is from Jace, who is pretty obviously and nearly always comedically over the top on these boards and I'm pretty sure you know that, and even then she is specifically noting that she only means these certain situations that she had a direct experience of just now.

 

8 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

Firstly, you understand that's not how the world works, right? If Jace introduces the topic of people who cut you off in traffic and then give you the finger, and subsequently everyone chimes in with how crappy it is to cut people off in traffic, we do not take the finger as read?

But that's not what's going on here. What's going on here is Jace introduces a topic of people who cut you off in traffic and then give you the finger and everyone subsequently chimes in with how crappy it is to behave like that and then you're countering with 'but they might have a really good reason to cut you off you have to tolerate these things' and ignoring that 'behave like that' also means 'swear at you while doing it'.

 

[Spockydog]

There is nothing worse than Other People's Children. And there is a special place in Hell reserved for people who take infants and newborns on long haul flights for vacation.

 

[The Mance]

5 hours ago, La Albearceleste said:

'Few early posts'? Really? Come on. I listed six posts by five contributors that go as deep as post 36. You know better than that: describing that as a 'few early posts' is not being fair or even honest.

Oh, please.  First off, yes, I stand by 6 posts from 4 contributors in a thread of over 80 posts and I don’t know how many participants being too small a sample to demonstrate a pattern of consistency.

And secondly, no,

5 hours ago, La Albearceleste said:

And if your argument is 'some of those people haven't even walked back the original position', that isn't helping your argument about straw men: it's hurting it.

that isn't my argument.  I clearly stated that I thought none of those posts walked back their position.  Not "some".  None.  But please, don't let me stop you from misrepresenting arguments in your efforts to deny strawmannirg.  Also, wtf?  Apparently you agree with me that none of the posts you indicated to demonstrate backpedaling actually show any backpedaling, since, by your own statements, backpedaling doesn't start until the post after the last post you mention?  And, also, apparently its my fault for not finding the posts that do actually support your assertions because...you're in a rush...or something?

[Jace, Extat]

I knew this thread was a good idea.

@JEORDHl

Yeah, she literally did not even tell the kids to sit down. I was left trying to coax them into their seats while she phoned around.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

There is nothing worse than Other People's Children. And there is a special place in Hell reserved for people who take infants and newborns on long haul flights for vacation.

I thought Hell was just other people.  Don't remember Sartre mentioning other people's children.

[mormont]

5 hours ago, Fellaining Da Bruyne said:

Well yeah. That's the discussion. You seem to think that people should be required to put up with kids at all times regardless of where they are or what they're doing. Heck, even more, you seem to think that people should be not allowed to feel annoyed at loud kids regardless of where they are or what they're doing

Well, I'm glad you aren't one to stoop to straw men.

5 hours ago, Fellaining Da Bruyne said:

Because it's implicit in the topic! If you want to read it the other way then go ahead but you're the one at odds with how the rest of the topic is being conducted, here.

What's 'implicit in the topic'? That there is no difference between 'parents who aren't doing anything about it' and parents who 'can't control their kids' or haven't 'raised their kids properly '?

That clearly isn't implicit in the topic, because it is not true. That people are wrongly and unfairly equating these things is implicit in their posts, which is one of the things I'm objecting to.

If you're telling me you don't see any difference, you need to reconsider.

(I'd note, by the way, that even a parent who is apparently not responding to their kids' misbehaviour should not be written off the way some people here want to do. I've known kids whose behavioural problems mean that confrontation, or anything they see as such, escalates their behaviour. If you've never been in a situation where you've seriously considered telling a kid off even though you know it will make things worse, because you know other people present expect you to? You're lucky.)

5 hours ago, Fellaining Da Bruyne said:

We're all talking about one thing. You're talking about another. Go ahead, but when people tell you that's not what they were talking about, that's not correcting themselves, that's correcting you.

No: they're conflating different things.

5 hours ago, Fellaining Da Bruyne said:

Some of the language has been over the top. Most of it is from Jace

Not really. It's widespread, and it cuts to the basis of the issue: whether that person sees other patrons (including children) as people or as annoying furniture. If someone is not willing to talk with respect about people (including children) then I see no reason to cut that person the benefit of any doubt whatsoever.

[JGP]

39 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

 

@JEORDHl

Yeah, she literally did not even tell the kids to sit down. I was left trying to coax them into their seats while she phoned around.

Figured as much.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just feed the kids to the hungry people hanging out by the dumpster out back

PROBLWM SOLVED!!!  FACTS!!!!

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

Just feed the kids to the hungry people hanging out by the dumpster out back

PROBLWM SOLVED!!!  FACTS!!!!

That's a fairly modest proposal.... 

[polishgenius]

1 hour ago, La Albearceleste said:

Well, I'm glad you aren't one to stoop to straw men.

 

 

6 hours ago, La Albearceleste said:

 

Thirdly, the number of times people here are bitching about having their evenings ruined as opposed to discussing health and safety risks makes it clear what their main concern is. As do references to what kind of restaurant they were in. It's not the hazards they're complaining about, it's having to put up with kids when they don't want to. 

 

On 7/6/2018 at 10:27 AM, La Albearceleste said:

I'm not saying it wouldn't annoy me if I were in the theatre. But I would get over it pretty quickly. 

(emphasis mine)
 

On 7/5/2018 at 11:22 AM, La Albearceleste said:

Reading the posts on this thread that complain about kids, I don't get a sense of people expressing public-minded concern for health and safety. I get a sense of people who are personally irritated about their own comfort levels, and think that kids should be seen and not heard. 

You're right, you're not expressing disdain for people who find disruptive children in quiet places irritating at all.


I also missed earlier this earlier which I wanted to respond to a little, but separate it from the slightly bad-tempred contretemps we're having elsewise because it's a different discussion that doesn't need anger:
 

On 7/5/2018 at 2:33 PM, La Albearceleste said:

We don't do anything differently than the rest of you. Neither do the vast majority of the parents of the kids who act up in a restaurant.  

Na, this isn't entirely right. Or maybe it's right but should be wrong in that kids aren't the same and the approach that works with one doesn't work with another so doing things all the same won't have the same results. But while there are kids who will just act out whatever you do, for the most part when young kids act out on the regular it's because the way hasn't been found yet. That's not due to negligience or malice or anything and I accept your point that for most parents in that situation, characterising them as 'bad parents' is unfair and judgemental, but at the same time neither should they be giving up and accepting it because for the vast majority of children, there is a way to get through to them. Sometimes it's a long old road and isn't usually going to be fixed in that restaurant on that night, but it's rarely ever a case of 'well there was nothing to be done about this it's just gonna happen'. Sometimes it is. Not the vast majority though.

[JGP]

3 minutes ago, Fellaining Da Bruyne said:

Na, this isn't entirely right. Or maybe it's right but should be wrong in that kids aren't the same and the approach that works with one doesn't work with another so doing things all the same won't have the same results. But while there are kids who will just act out whatever you do, for the most part when young kids act out on the regular it's because the way hasn't been found yet. That's not due to negligience or malice or anything and I accept your point that for most parents in that situation, characterising them as 'bad parents' is unfair and judgemental, but at the same time neither should they be giving up and accepting it because for the vast majority of children, there is a way to get through to them. Sometimes it's a long old road and isn't usually going to be fixed in that restaurant on that night, but it's rarely ever a case of 'well there was nothing to be done about this it's just gonna happen'.

Surrender parenting. It's a thing.

[polishgenius]

30 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Surrender parenting. It's a thing.

I don't think 'surrender' is a good word for it- if I was gonna use that term at all in parenting, it'd be for, for example, giving a kid a sweet when they scream with the result that they scream every time they're ever asked to do anything because they know that eventually, they'll get a goodie. Which can be part of what we're talking about but is by no means the whole of the topic.

But yeah.

[JGP]

That's what I call it.

Neither of my girls have behavioral issues, though my youngest has a passing relationship with the truth. The ex and I are working on it and have found a strategy that's paying dividends. Now, before anyone gets bent, I wouldn't equate surrender to indifference as I've a few friends that do this occasionally and I know they care and are very involved as parents. Seems more like a sanity thing, to the detriment of public peace for others. Unfortunately. 

You're talking about bribing though.