Toddlers in Restaurants

[vraiblonde]

would also be in favor of those who drive gas hogs to pay an additional tax at the gas pump to off set the high demand. I mean why should I pay more if I drive a compact.

That is really a dumb argument. People who drive gas hogs ALREADY pay more for gas than compact drivers. They consume more fuel, and therefore contribute more in state and federal taxes. Economy car drivers consume less, and therefore pay less in taxes.

Am I, with my SUV, getting more for my tax dollar than you, Mr. Hyundai driver? No. I'm getting the exact same thing you get, just paying more for it.

 

[barncat]

If they started acting up, we "had a talk". If that didn't work, we either left or one parent would go sit in the car with Brattica while the other parent and the good kid enjoyed their meal.

Parents are lazy these days and have no concept of public behavior.

That's what we do. We try to limit our eating out with the little one to Chick-fil-A (playground), Cici's and other types of kid friendly restaurants. She's behaved so far for the most part, only once did hubby have to go out to the car with her.

 

[camily]

Think about it this way: childless adults are still paying for OPC. Their taxes help pick up the tab for schools, bebe mama welfare, public playgrounds and other assorted amenities that they will never personally use.

So, given that we are forking over money toward the welfare of these children who do not belong to us, does it seem fair that we also have to listen to them scream and throw things while we're trying to have a peaceful meal?

I pay social security and will never use that either. :shrug:
My taxes pay for medicare too.

 

[beamher]

It is amazing how many perfect little angels we have on the forums . Mine is an angel, but I'll be the first one to admit my grand daughter is hell on wheels. I took her to Cheeseburgers once. NEVER AGAIN! I was mortified with her behavior. Even though her mother was there (and made the issues worse mind you) I will apolize to every one who was made to bear witness to that night.

For now on, I'll stick with taking her to McD's or burger king (drive thru ). I will not subject innocent bystanders to that again. YW!

I took my angel to IHOP for breaskfast Sunday. It was very enjoyable.

did you all leave or let her carry on with her unexceptable behavior

 

[vraiblonde]

I pay social security and will never use that either. :shrug:
My taxes pay for medicare too.

Why do you say you will never use Social Security or Medicare?

 

[beamher]

did i say what the "bathroom" timeout consists of? no. so to be a little more clear, i find a quick facewash of cold water to stop most tantrums my kids are having. and i dont mean drown them, just cool them down. seems litterally cooling them down helps emotionally cool them down as well. I was spanked as a kid and it didn't stop me from bein bad for long and i dont mean a little smack, i mean jacked up against the wall and choked kinda ####.

you mean you don't use the "powerwash" technique nah, just kidding, i had flashbacks of that video

 

[camily]

Why do you say you will never use Social Security or Medicare?

Social security probably won't be there.
Didn't say I would never use medicare, just saying not now.

 

[SamSpade]

So, given that we are forking over money toward the welfare of these children who do not belong to us, does it seem fair that we also have to listen to them scream and throw things while we're trying to have a peaceful meal?

Kinda like having someone smoke at the next table while you're trying to enjoy a peaceful meal without vomiting. Kick 'em out!

Oh. They did that. Never mind.

 

[vraiblonde]

Oh. They did that. Never mind.

And there ya go

 

[SamSpade]

And there ya go

Well I was being funny, since smokers seem to object to it on principle - that principle being the deprivation of an enjoyable smoke because of the objections of people who ought to just mind their own business and buck up.

But the argument of "I don't have kids so.." is lame because your taxes will always be paying for some benefit that others enjoy and that you won't. Moreover, if you've already raised kids, someone ELSE who didn't have kids made that payment and had the same argument regarding the ones you raised.

When we were in Russia, patrons invariably asked to be moved away from us, because of our son, who was largely too withdrawn to make a sound in a restaurant, so we were baffled. We try to keep him under control in a restaurant, and he usually is well behaved, but I guess I don't find his occasional peals of laughter or squeals anymore annoying than the loud uproar emanating from the bar, the loud patrons next to us, the person gabbing on their cell phone or the boorish people next to us who've never heard of table manners - or personal hygiene.

Of course, we take him to Monterey's, CiCi's, Bon Buffet, Outback and occasionally Ruby's - generally places a little noisy to begin with.

 

[vraiblonde]

Well I was being funny, since smokers seem to object to it on principle - that principle being the deprivation of an enjoyable smoke because of the objections of people who ought to just mind their own business and buck up.

But the fact remains that the state saw fit to ban something from a privately owned business - not a state run facility, mind you, and not even give the business owners a choice - just because some people were annoyed.

So now that the precedent has been set, I have a few annoyances of my own I'd like the state to take care of for me.

 

[SamSpade]

- just because some people were annoyed.

That is the perspective of a smoker who believes the jury is out on lung cancer and second hand smoke.

If that is true, then it's an annoyance issue, and the smokers have a point.
If it is not true, then it is a public health issue, and the state has a right to make that call as surely as it does over any public health issue in a restaurant.

Anyway, I don't want to get into this - just putting my two cents in.

 

[Larry Gude]

Aren't smokers...

Well I was being funny, since smokers seem to object to it on principle - that principle being the deprivation of an enjoyable smoke because of the objections of people who ought to just mind their own business and buck up.

...and constitutional rights advocates, such as yours truly, actually objecting on the grounds of discrimination? Smoking is a legal activity. A bar owner, (a bar, I still can't get over that one, a freaking BAR) should be able to allow smoking at HIS place of business as he sees fit and a citizen should have every right to NOT patronize him because he allows smoking if they so choose.

No one is being imposed on, forced to being subject to something they don't like but that is perfectly legal and perfectly appropriate setting, A BAR. Yet, the property owner and the patron who smokes are being forbidden to have any smoking going on.

The precedent means anything is possible.

 

[vraiblonde]

That is the perspective of a smoker who believes the jury is out on lung cancer and second hand smoke.

But nobody was being forced to patronize an establishment where smoking was permitted. There were numerous non-smoking restaurants and bars where these folks could go and enjoy.

Anyway, I don't want to get into this - just putting my two cents in.

Oh come on - get into it

 

[SamSpade]

Oh come on - get into it

Nah. It means having to discuss it with everyone, and repeat myself.
Nah. It means having to discuss it with everyone, and repeat myself.
Nah. It means having to discuss it with everyone, and repeat myself.
Nah. It means having to discuss it with everyone, and repeat myself.
Nah. It means having to discuss it with everyone, and repeat myself.

I've already pointed out that if it's a public health issue with merit, the whole rights issue becomes moot.

 

[vraiblonde]

I've already pointed out that if it's a public health issue with merit, the whole rights issue becomes moot.

Right, but then we have the silly discussion about what constitutes "public". Is a privately owned business "public"? How about a private club, such as VFW or Elks?

And if it were truly a health issue, wouldn't the government outlaw smoking period? Like they do drugs? You'd think they would, since it's so dangerous and all. They make us wear our seatbelts - why not force us to quit smoking?

 

[kom526]

And if it were truly a health issue, wouldn't the government outlaw smoking period? Like they do drugs? You'd think they would, since it's so dangerous and all. They make us wear our seatbelts - why not force us to quit smoking?

Tax revenue silly!

 

[SamSpade]

That is really a dumb argument. People who drive gas hogs ALREADY pay more for gas than compact drivers.

Actually, there's some data out there to suggest that drivers typically stay within the same budget no matter what kind of car they drive, and they adjust their behvior accordingly, for better or worse.

That is, if you have about 400 bucks a month to spend on gas, and you have a gas hog - you combine trips and use one car instead of two. You'll go to DC with a friend by meeting in a parking lot and using one car instead of two - and so on. You're constrained not by the low gas mileage, but by your budget - you simply can't afford to "hog" so much gas.

On the other hand, similar studies show that drivers of gas misers move their total mileage UP - like that commercial where the guy offers to pay for gas if his buddy pays for food and they haul off on a road trip to LA.

What they find is that people base their driving on their budget, and not on their car's mileage. Got a gas sipper? You drive MORE. Gas guzzler? You drive a little LESS.

The whole "blame SUV's" argument is absurd on its face.

 

[MMDad]

They make us wear our seatbelts - why not force us to quit smoking?

They are. It's just a slow process.

Just like with seatbelts. At first you were required to have them, not use them. Then you had to use them, but it was a secondary offense. Now it is a primary offense.

 

[SamSpade]

And if it were truly a health issue, wouldn't the government outlaw smoking period? Like they do drugs? You'd think they would, since it's so dangerous and all. They make us wear our seatbelts - why not force us to quit smoking?

I don't know the law that well, but I'm pretty sure if you have cockroaches in your home, the state can't "shut you down", but if you have them in your restaurant, they can.

I think the operative portion is "public" health. I would bet on any day, my swimming pool is below code for health reasons. My garage would fail a safety inspection, and my downstairs shower stall would probably fail a test for mold.

On the other hand, I don't charge money for its use by the public.

And don't get me started on seatbelts. That one has never made a lick of sense to me.