No Small Fries: Restaurant Bans Kids Under Six Years Old

[LaCroix]

Know what? A Black person was once rude to me. So was a gay person, a few years ago. I think that was in New York.

Clearly, we can't have Blacks and gays out in public. My experience proves that.

clearly, but i spoke of parents and children, not blacks and gays 

my experience is an anecdote that, yes, contrary to what some in this thread have failed to notice in their lives, there are in fact parents who do not control their children. no where did i state that because of that boy and his father, no child should be allowed in a planetarium. that is ridiculous for obvious reasons. i mentioned this story because we are discussing children behaving rudely without parental supervision, so it is a bit disingenuous of you, imo, to wheel the discussion around to include rowdy behavior of non-children

however, a man who owns a private business is not simply talking out of his ass when he bans young children because they have the potential to ruin the atmosphere of the restaurant. there are other types of people with afflictions or what-have-you who might do the same, but it seems based off the quotes in the article that this disruption is the most common. he is not banning people with tourettes, he is banning children

@valmy: yes, they were behind me, and i said nothing

[Valmy]

@valmy: yes, they were behind me, and i said nothing

Ah well.  Pity somebody didn't say anything you were probably not the only person annoyed by it.  The parent might have been deluding himself that it was no big deal.

[Valmy]

however, a man who owns a private business is not simply talking out of his ass when he bans young children because they have the potential to ruin the atmosphere of the restaurant. there are other types of people with afflictions or what-have-you who might do the same, but it seems based off the quotes in the article that this disruption is the most common. he is not banning people with tourettes, he is banning children

Not really he is banning under six year olds.  Was that kid behind you under 6?

In any case I think it is a good thing.  If there are people out there, like Marty, who just cannot stand little kids it is good there are places that cater to them.

[LaCroix]

Ah well.  Pity somebody didn't say anything you were probably not the only person annoyed by it.  The parent might have been deluding himself that it was no big deal.

probably. i know it infuriated me. i turned around and looked at the culprits a number of times, but that's about it

i'm unsure of the child's age, but likely around 6-8. does this mean there are no children below that age that cause disturbances? of course not. if it had been in a restaurant setting then there would be less cause for concern, as talking typically occurs in such environments. i assume the owner has had problems in the past with screaming babies and loud and obnoxious children throwing tantrums

[Malthus]

clearly, but i spoke of parents and children, not blacks and gays 

It's okay to generalize from specific examples about parents and kids, but not about Blacks and gays? Why?

my experience is an anecdote that, yes, contrary to what some in this thread have failed to notice in their lives, there are in fact parents who do not control their children.

Sure it happens. The question is what frequency. Major problem or minor annoyance?

no where did i state that because of that boy and his father, no child should be allowed in a planetarium. that is ridiculous for obvious reasons. i mentioned this story because we are discussing children behaving rudely without parental supervision, so it is a bit disingenuous of you, imo, to wheel the discussion around to include rowdy behavior of non-children

Eh? not sure I understand you here.

My point is that people generalize unfairly about both children and non-children.

however, a man who owns a private business is not simply talking out of his ass when he bans young children because they have the potential to ruin the atmosphere of the restaurant. there are other types of people with afflictions or what-have-you who might do the same, but it seems based off the quotes in the article that this disruption is the most common. he is not banning people with tourettes, he is banning children

He has every right to ban children if he wants.

But the statements in the article make him sound like an ass, and the fact that his restaurant is a golf course restaurant seems to indicate actual children choosing to dine there are rare. Making a big deal about what is likely a non-problem sounds like the very definition of an attention whore.

Situation would be different if it was (say) a fine dining restaurant near a kid-friendly tourist attraction that got people with kids attempting to dine there all the time, and if the guy did not exude so much snarky, assholish 'tude: "we'd love to have kids, but sadly that does not match the fine dining atmosphere that we are attempting to cultivate" or some such.

[Slargos]

It's okay to generalize from specific examples about parents and kids, but not about Blacks and gays? Why?

Tell me. Do you flip a coin when you enter a thread on the subject of whether you will defend or attack dissonance? 

[Malthus]

It's okay to generalize from specific examples about parents and kids, but not about Blacks and gays? Why?

Tell me. Do you flip a coin when you enter a thread on the subject of whether you will defend or attack dissonance? 

I'd respond if I understood the question. 

[LaCroix]

It's okay to generalize from specific examples about parents and kids, but not about Blacks and gays? Why?

Sure it happens. The question is what frequency. Major problem or minor annoyance?

Eh? not sure I understand you here.

My point is that people generalize unfairly about both children and non-children.

He has every right to ban children if he wants.

But the statements in the article make him sound like an ass, and the fact that his restaurant is a golf course restaurant seems to indicate actual children choosing to dine there are rare. Making a big deal about what is likely a non-problem sounds like the very definition of an attention whore.

Situation would be different if it was (say) a fine dining restaurant near a kid-friendly tourist attraction that got people with kids attempting to dine there all the time, and if the guy did not exude so much snarky, assholish 'tude: "we'd love to have kids, but sadly that does not match the fine dining atmosphere that we are attempting to cultivate" or some such.

this is a thread discussing unruly children and their parents who fail to control them. two forces are at play here; the parent would not be an obstruction if the child was not present. for all intents and purposes, aside from letting their offspring run amuck, they themselves have committed no disturbance on their own part. they decided to bring the child; they could have left the child elsewhere

i assume that, because we are having this discussion, the restaurant and its owner experienced this with enough frequency to decide that it was worth it to his business to restrict children of a certain age knowing that he would lose a particular market. to him, it was a major problem, or we would not be having this discussion

you say his statements make him sound like an ass, but i don't see that. i see a frustrated individual. i don't think either of us can say with certainty how many unruly children caused problems at his restaurant, golf course or no golf course, but i'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that it caused enough problems. maybe only one horrible child and their awful parents caused this ban, or maybe it occurred on a semi-regular basis. people eat at golf course restaurants without having any interest in the golf aspect--maybe the food/service/atmosphere is excellent enough

"making a big deal about what is likely a non-problem"  i'm not sure anyone in this thread can say one way or another, unless they attended or worked at mcdain's constantly pre-ban

the tourist attraction might work if you could prove that hardly any children ever went to mcdain's before this ban. we just don't know

[Slargos]

It's okay to generalize from specific examples about parents and kids, but not about Blacks and gays? Why?

Tell me. Do you flip a coin when you enter a thread on the subject of whether you will defend or attack dissonance? 

I'd respond if I understood the question. 

In this thread, you decry dissonance. [See, discrimination of families as opposed to noggers or fags]

In the yarmulke thread [see what I did there?] you dismiss resonance. [See, demanding "sincerity" of religious practice.]

[/s]

[Malthus]

this is a thread discussing unruly children and their parents who fail to control them. two forces are at play here; the parent would not be an obstruction if the child was not present. for all intents and purposes, aside from letting their offspring run amuck, they themselves have committed no disturbance on their own part. they decided to bring the child; they could have left the child elsewhere

i assume that, because we are having this discussion, the restaurant and its owner experienced this with enough frequency to decide that it was worth it to his business to restrict children of a certain age knowing that he would lose a particular market. to him, it was a major problem, or we would not be having this discussion

you say his statements make him sound like an ass, but i don't see that. i see a frustrated individual. i don't think either of us can say with certainty how many unruly children caused problems at his restaurant, golf course or no golf course, but i'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that it caused enough problems. maybe only one horrible child and their awful parents caused this ban, or maybe it occurred on a semi-regular basis. people eat at golf course restaurants without having any interest in the golf aspect--maybe the food/service/atmosphere is excellent enough

"making a big deal about what is likely a non-problem"  i'm not sure anyone in this thread can say one way or another, unless they attended or worked at mcdain's constantly pre-ban

the tourist attraction might work if you could prove that hardly any children ever went to mcdain's before this ban. we just don't know

I should point out that this only became a story because the guy didn't just make his no-kids policy, he emailed it out to his regular customer list:

A local ABC affiliate reported that Mike Vuick, owner of McDain's in Monroeville, Pa., sent this email to his customers letting them know that kidlets would soon be non grata:

"Beginning July 16, 2011, McDain's Restaurant will no longer admit children under six years of age. We feel that McDain's is not a place for young children. Their volume can't be controlled and many, many times, they have disturbed other customers."

Two things to note about this:

(1) A mass email of a restaurant's policy is, to say the least, unusual; and

(2) It is on its face snarky, offensive and inaccurate:  "Their volume can't be controlled".  A five-year-old's volume most definitely can be controlled. I'd be pissed no end if my five-year-old started yelling in public!

I find it incredible that this golf course restraurant's seating policy is of such overwhelming significance as to merit a mass-email, even if a golf course restaurant is inundated by kids (which is hardly credible) - so I diagnose an attention-whore.

And it will probably work, too. All the publicity will no doubt draw new customers and those with kids, most of whom would never dream of going there anyway, will stay away. It's a win. 

[Malthus]

It's okay to generalize from specific examples about parents and kids, but not about Blacks and gays? Why?

Tell me. Do you flip a coin when you enter a thread on the subject of whether you will defend or attack dissonance? 

I'd respond if I understood the question. 

In this thread, you decry dissonance. [See, discrimination of families as opposed to noggers or fags]

In the yarmulke thread [see what I did there?] you dismiss resonance. [See, demanding "sincerity" of religious practice.]

[/s]

I still have no clue what you are saying. 

[LaCroix]

I should point out that this only became a story because the guy didn't just make his no-kids policy, he emailed it out to his regular customer list:

A local ABC affiliate reported that Mike Vuick, owner of McDain's in Monroeville, Pa., sent this email to his customers letting them know that kidlets would soon be non grata:

"Beginning July 16, 2011, McDain's Restaurant will no longer admit children under six years of age. We feel that McDain's is not a place for young children. Their volume can't be controlled and many, many times, they have disturbed other customers."

Two things to note about this:

(1) A mass email of a restaurant's policy is, to say the least, unusual; and

(2) It is on its face snarky, offensive and inaccurate:  "Their volume can't be controlled".  A five-year-old's volume most definitely can be controlled. I'd be pissed no end if my five-year-old started yelling in public!

I find it incredible that this golf course restraurant's seating policy is of such overwhelming significance as to merit a mass-email, even if a golf course restaurant is inundated by kids (which is hardly credible) - so I diagnose an attention-whore.

And it will probably work, too. All the publicity will no doubt draw new customers and those with kids, most of whom would never dream of going there anyway, will stay away. It's a win.

hmm, you have a point there about the email.  i must have skimmed over that--i fail at languish   

[Jacob]

I still have no clue what you are saying. 

I was going to try to parse it and rephrase it, but I can't make heads or tails of it either.

Possibly Slargos wrote "resonance" when he meant "dissonance" when he was talking about the religious head gear discussion?

[Capetan Mihali]

Hmm, I honestly can't remember any specific time when kids have behaved in a way that consciously bothered me.    Maybe it's because I avoid air travel and don't go to nice restaurants very often, but children are mostly a harmless enigma to me.

Only thing that gets to me a bit are kids in bars, since all the smoking bans seem to be encouraging people to bring them along.  In a friendly pub-type setting it's fine, but when you are in an American-style drinkin' bar, sucking down your mid-day gin or crying into your beer, it's a little uncomfortable.

[Slargos]

I cant help it if you are too slow. i will elaborate once im on real keyboard.