Poll: Okay to ban noisy kids from some places?

Is it OK to ban children from establishments?

  • Yes

    Votes: 263 91.0%

  • No

    Votes: 26 9.0%
  • Total voters
    289
  • Poll closed .
Haggisman said:
There are plenty of circumstances where it's acceptable to discriminate based on age, or do you think kids should be allowed into nightclubs, to buy alcohol, drive, and get credit cards?

The difference is that you make a choice to have kids, you don't get a choice whether youre black, gay, disabled or ginger!
Click to expand...

That's not discrimination, it's law... :confused:

You could also argue that children don't have a choice over being born, so why should they be discriminated against?
 
looking at the business model (organic kitchen)
and the seating arrangement (very close)

Hell yes

I have kids myself and if im out having a meal with other kids kicking off it winds me up so yeah, its her gaff she can do as she wants. so many people believe they are entitled to have it their way, no, no your not. Life isn't fair, deal with it !!!
 
AHarvey said:
That's not discrimination, it's law... :confused:

You could also argue that children don't have a choice over being born, so why should they be discriminated against?
Click to expand...

Lol. So letting them watch hard-core porn is a must from your logic.
 
As a parent I understand why some places ban kids, however while places are on banning sprees can restaurants also ban adults that have table manners worse than my 4yr old? I'd rather have a child running around and being a bit loud then hearing a grown adult smacking their lips and talking with their mouth full.

Seriously though, ive never understood why parents feel the need to meet up in coffee shops or other least child friendly places when there are places that are geared towards families (soft play, pubs with soft plays etc) that have plenty of room and stuff to keep kids busy.
 
Ban children and more importantly ban parents about talking about their children. It's even more boring than hearing the woes or pros of someone's love life. It is truly, utterly dull conversation for anyone that isn't a parent.
 
Mason- said:
To the people who say "it's discrimination", it is. So what?

People discriminate all the time, you find brunettes more attractive than blondes? That's discrimination.

If you ever have to make a choice about anything you have to discriminate. Doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. If this person doesn't want parents with young children in their business, so be it. It's a private business you are entitled to no courtesy other than what the law entails.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what discrimination means.. To discriminate is to decide based on false reasons. You are describing choice or preferences.
You discriminate against blondes because you think all blondes smell or you discriminate against blondes if you think all blondes are ugly regardless of these being false. You don't discriminate against all blondes if you like some but choose to prefer brunettes.

However here's the gray area, are all children noisy. No, not necessarily, but if a majority are then the majority rule gives you a right to discriminate. It could be said she isn't discrimating either since the fact almost all toddlers are a pain in the arse could be taken as fact. (kinda) A fairer system without discrimination would be to ban on an adhoc basis, and remove children who are noisy. (however that seems a waste of time on a minority)
 
Last edited:
I've no objection to age restrictions being imposed for relevant reasons. It would be better to have individual testing, but that's wildly impractical so age has to be used for practical reasons.
 
Aedus said:
Came to mind here too.

Business owners should be able to refuse service to whomever they want for whatever reason they want.

Entitled parents are the ****ing worst, no your child isn't more important than everything else, and no one gives a **** about or wants to hear your child screaming because you don't know how to be a parent.

Good on that woman, more places should do the same.
Click to expand...

No they shouldn't. Not whom ever they want.
They should be allowed to ban based on it affecting their business, aka noisy children but your advocating things we banned for very good reasons. You can't ban anyone based on things like character or personality, size, shape etc etc, unless somehow tall people for instance are destroying your ceiling with their heads.
Justification must come from facts no fiction.
 
Last edited:
Being given access to a resturant etc is a privledge not a right. I wouldnt expect an unwashed dirty person who have slept outside in the rain for the night to be welcomed into a resturant, as it would cause issues for other customers.
Kids are no different. At the end of the day, a business owner can choose how he/she wants to run it.

And I'm a Father, and actually when my lad was younger i would find it rather embarrasing if he made a scene, or annoyed other customers, so much so, that it was easier to not take him to nice resturants when he was 5 years or younger. If we wanted a meal out, we would specifically find a place that is geared towards kids, a wacky warehouse pub or similiar. You go to places to suit your party of people.
 
Ace Modder said:
Being given access to a resturant etc is a privledge not a right. I wouldnt expect an unwashed dirty person who have slept outside in the rain for the night to be welcomed into a resturant, as it would cause issues for other customers.
Kids are no different. At the end of the day, a business owner can choose how he/she wants to run it.

And I'm a Father, and actually when my lad was younger i would find it rather embarrasing if he made a scene, or annoyed other customers, so much so, that it was easier to not take him to nice resturants when he was 5 years or younger. If we wanted a meal out, we would specifically find a place that is geared towards kids, a wacky warehouse pub or similiar. You go to places to suit your party of people.
Click to expand...

Being able to enter a shop isn't a privilege it's a right under law. However you are right that you may be expelled because of the reasons you describe, none the less the person may run the business how they choose but the can't choose to discriminate against you unless it affects their business.
 
Not read the thread but I think the poll is a bit disingenuous as the ban wasn't just about noisy minors but about the the hazards created by buggies in a small table served restaurant. It's just more evidence of news click-bait creating a headline masking the actual story and to be honest the sad modus operandi of the modern BBC newsroom.
 
ChroniC said:
You don't understand what discrimination means.. To discriminate is to decide based on false reasons. [..]
Click to expand...

You are mistaken about what discrimination means.

To discriminate is to detect a difference. It's often (but far from always) implied that the difference is considered to have some degree of significance and that some form of action or judgement follows. It is not necessarily based on false reasons.

For example, I can discriminate between ground coffee and instant coffee because I have a reasonable sense of smell and taste. I consider the difference of some significance and I judge ground coffee to be better than instant coffee.

It doesn't have to involve action, judgement or even the ability to think. As a random example, here's a overview of an article entitled "Isotopic discrimination", which is defined as "The uptake or assimilation by living organisms of a particular isotope in preference to another isotope of the same element."

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100013377
 
Not necessarily. You are using the word in wrong context.
To discriminate can mean two things. To understand the difference between aka I can discriminate blue from green on a painting but in this context it means too make an unjust or prejudicial distinction. Unjust as in false and inaccurate.

Plus your point would still be wrong in your context.. To discriminate blonde from brunette is merely noticing the difference. It's still choice or preference to like one or the other.
Discrimination in my context is to unjust recognize a distinction based on a something false.

make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ChroniC said:
Not necessarily. You are using the word in wrong context.
To discriminate can mean two things. To understand the difference between aka I can discrimination blue from green on a painting but in this context it means too make an unjust or prejudicial distinction. Unjust as in false and inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Except that it doesn't. Plants, for example, discriminate between carbon-12 and carbon-13. The word doesn't mean what you think it means. Discrimination can be a good thing, a bad thing, just, unjust, rational, irrational. It can even be unjust but a required compromise. For example, the ability to vote rationally doesn't spontaneously appear in a person on their 18th birthday but the alternative to a fixed age for voting would be individual testing and licensing to vote and that's both impractical and almost certain to be a lot more unjust than a fixed age.

If you want to refer specifically to unjust discrimination, you should do that rather than claiming the word means something other than what it means.
 
I don't agree. Your describing destinctions between objects. Plants discriminate based on factual differences. That doesn't not mean they choose. It means they can differentiate.

In this context discrimination is based on choosing to do something without justification.

Words can have two meanings.

Regardless.. If I'm wrong I apologize, since it's ways too late and I'm too tired to care and it's taking the thread way off the point.
I'll be the bigger man and say your right. My bad.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom