No Small Fries: Restaurant Bans Kids Under Six Years Old

[Martinus]

Yet you're all bitching about it.

We are making fun of this guy as an attenion whore and saying he sounds like an ass. Not complaining about his "policy".

He is not an attention whore - unless he went to the press and asked them to write an article about him. The attention whore is a cretin parent who brings a young kid to a restaurant.

[Valmy]

A parent who brings a young kid to a restaurant is the retard breaking social rules - the onus should not be on fellow guests or the owner to tell him or her that.

There are zero social rules against bringing young kids to restaurants.  There are certain ones you wouldn't but where is that a general social rule?

[Malthus]

I think this discussion misses the main point - it's not about where you ban kids, it's about parents being harebrained and bringing young kids to locales where it is clearly inappropriate. No, you don't need to bring your 4 yo to a dinner at a restaurant, or go to "family holidays" to Maldives involving a 16 hours trip on a plane.

When you decided to have a kid - more power to you - but that does involve certain sacrifices and you should not ignore them until "someone politely complains". If you come to a social occassion smelling of shit, or with a loud dog - it's not that you are in clear until "someone complains" - it's your onus not to let this happen in the first place.

Heh, who gets to set the rules as to when you can take a kid out to a restaurant, if not the owner? Many of 'em love having families as customers - that's why they have high chairs, crayons and kid's menus. 

Edit: double-d'oh! Ninja'd again!

[Slargos]

Join me Slarg in attacking Mart.  Together we'll rule the galaxy as father and son.

[The Brain]

I think this discussion misses the main point - it's not about where you ban kids, it's about parents being harebrained and bringing young kids to locales where it is clearly inappropriate. No, you don't need to bring your 4 yo to a dinner at a restaurant, or go to "family holidays" to Maldives involving a 16 hours trip on a plane.

When you decided to have a kid - more power to you - but that does involve certain sacrifices and you should not ignore them until "someone politely complains". If you come to a social occassion smelling of shit, or with a loud dog - it's not that you are in clear until "someone complains" - it's your onus not to let this happen in the first place.

It is amazing how you flail about like a crazy person and then come back and say something reasonable.

I am not sure how kids are not supposed to be at restaurants though.  Or go on vacations.  Just, you know, be polite.

If little kids were not supposed to be at restaurants then they would not have kids menus and provide high chairs and actively solicite parents with kids to come eat there.  If kids were not supposed to be on vacations, tourism organizations would not be actively trying to market towards them and their parents.  How is that a basic social expectation?

In an earlier discussion a parent put forward the idea that no one takes a little kid on a plane unless they have to, and someone could recall parents taking little kids on a long flight to a holiday destination which didn't exactly seem to imply that they were forced.

[Martinus]

Valmy, if you have a young kid, you should take them on short time trips, not long time ones. How the fuck do you get "kids should not go on vacation" from "dont bring toddlers on a 16 hour trip".

See, this is the kind of retarded, arrogant entitlement attitude ("I will not accomodate my lifestyle to the fact that I have a kid, so the strangers may suffer") that I and others resent - and despite your protests to the contrary, you show it in ample quantity in this thread.

[Ed Anger]

Join me Slarg in attacking Mart.  Together we'll rule the galaxy as father and son.

[Malthus]

In an earlier discussion a parent put forward the idea that no one takes a little kid on a plane unless they have to, and someone could recall parents taking little kids on a long flight to a holiday destination which didn't exactly seem to imply that they were forced.

Whether or not to take a kid on a plane depends on the kid, the length of the flight, etc. I've never had any problems with it.

[The Brain]

In an earlier discussion a parent put forward the idea that no one takes a little kid on a plane unless they have to, and someone could recall parents taking little kids on a long flight to a holiday destination which didn't exactly seem to imply that they were forced.

Whether or not to take a kid on a plane depends on the kid, the length of the flight, etc. I've never had any problems with it.

Problem starts when they outgrow the overhead compartment.

[Martinus]

In an earlier discussion a parent put forward the idea that no one takes a little kid on a plane unless they have to, and someone could recall parents taking little kids on a long flight to a holiday destination which didn't exactly seem to imply that they were forced.

Whether or not to take a kid on a plane depends on the kid, the length of the flight, etc. I've never had any problems with it.

I was just on a 6 hour trip to Canaries. There were about 10 little kids on the plane. At least one of them was wailing at any given time. So go fuck yourself.

[Malthus]

Yet you're all bitching about it.

We are making fun of this guy as an attenion whore and saying he sounds like an ass. Not complaining about his "policy".

He is not an attention whore - unless he went to the press and asked them to write an article about him.

Guy *sounds* like an attention whore. His restaurant is on a golf course, meaning that dispite what he says, the number of young children going to it in the first place is almost certainly rather tiny.

The attention whore is a cretin parent who brings a young kid to a restaurant.

Do you mean any restaurant?

[Valmy]

Valmy, if you have a young kid, you should take them on short time trips, not long time ones. How the fuck do you get "kids should not go on vacation" from "dont bring toddlers on a 16 hour trip".

Because the thing you have in parantheses was "family vacations" and I figured that was on a plane you happened to be on and not specifically related to only sixteen hour flights.  My apologies.

[Barrister]

Valmy, if you have a young kid, you should take them on short time trips, not long time ones.

Since when?  Our little guy is probably more comfortable on a long trip than a short one, as he gets time to adjust and get sued to his new surroundings.

[The Brain]

Valmy, if you have a young kid, you should take them on short time trips, not long time ones.

Since when?  Our little guy is probably more comfortable on a long trip than a short one, as he gets time to adjust and get sued to his new surroundings.

Travelling to the US?

[Malthus]

In an earlier discussion a parent put forward the idea that no one takes a little kid on a plane unless they have to, and someone could recall parents taking little kids on a long flight to a holiday destination which didn't exactly seem to imply that they were forced.

Whether or not to take a kid on a plane depends on the kid, the length of the flight, etc. I've never had any problems with it.

I was just on a 6 hour trip to Canaries. There were about 10 little kids on the plane. At least one of them was wailing at any given time. So go fuck yourself.

I should go fuck myself because of what some people I've never met did? 

I wouldn't take a very young kid on a 6 hour flight. But a 5 year old like mine, who never "wails" these days, I'd have no problem with. Neither would you, because he wouldn't wail.