http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/joe-rickey-hundley-sentenced-698432

Businessman Who Slapped Crying Toddler On Delta Flight Sentenced To Federal PrisonComments()
Share TweetThe businessman who last year slapped a crying toddler in the face on a Delta Air Lines flight--after using a racial slur when demanding that the child’s mother silence him--was sentenced today to eight months in federal prison.

Joe Rickey Hundley, 61, was arrested following last February’s incident aboard a plane heading from Minnesota to Georgia.

According to an FBI affidavit, Jessica Bennett’s 19-month-old son Jonah (seen at right) began to cry as the aircraft began its descent into Atlanta. Bennett told investigators that her child was in distress “due to the altitude change.”

Hundley, who appeared intoxicated, was seated next to Bennett (whose son was on her lap). As the child cried, Hundley demanded that Bennett “shut that [see forum posting rules] baby up.” He then “turned around and slapped” the toddler in the face, leaving Jonah with a scratch below his right eye.

In October, Hundley pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge. While prosecutors recommended a six-month prison term, a federal magistrate today opted for a harsher sentence due to Hundley’s prior conviction for assaulting a girlfriend.

Hundley, pictured at left, apologized to Bennett during the sentencing hearing in U.S. District Court in Atlanta. Bennett told the court that she considered Hundley a “bully” who chose to “unleash his bigotry” against a woman with a young child.

Good.

Sounds like he got what he deserved.

6 months?! BAH! Looks like he just got a slap on the wrists.

The biggest shocker here is that a guy named Joe Rickey Hundley could be an abusive racist.

At least he's in jail. He didn't kill anyone, so he doesn't deserve life in prison. Hopefully 6 months teaches him a good lesson. If it doesn't, then string him up.

Why didn't the guy just claim Affluenza?

 Alfndrate wrote:
6 months?! BAH! Looks like he just got a slap on the wrists.

Should it have been his face?

Randomly, he was also fired from his job.

6 months in prison and fired from his job.

Sounds about right.

Fired from his job? Okay, I can deal with that.

I thought it was 8 months. Either way, good.

He is lucky the mother didn't decide to tear him a new one

I think they were in descent at the time. The article is scant i what happened after.

I know She Who Must Be Obeyed would have pulled a Lecter and just bit his face off. I think if it were my baby I'd literally beat you until people pulled me off (if any).

 Alfndrate wrote:
Why didn't the guy just claim Affluenza?

He was flying coach.

 Frazzled wrote:
......... I think if it were my baby I'd literally beat you until people pulled me off (if any).

I'm not sure beating someone is the best way of getting pulled off?

A romantic meal or $50 might be a better bet.

 curran12 wrote:
I thought it was 8 months.

It was. The prosecutor asked for 6, but the judge opted for 8 in light of his previous assault conviction.

Fine I guess, but only if parents who allow their children to cry on planes in the first place get 12 months in jail.

 notprop wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
......... I think if it were my baby I'd literally beat you until people pulled me off (if any).

I'm not sure beating someone is the best way of getting pulled off?

A romantic meal or $50 might be a better bet.

 LuciusAR wrote:
Fine I guess, but only if parents who allow their children to cry on planes in the first place get 12 months in jail.

I dont thinkk parents with kids under 3 should even be allowedd on any form of transportation that isnt their car. Seriously, Im on the train trying to read, please keep your kid quiet

Get headphones? Not sure why your reading is more important than the person with the child's traveling. Granted I dislike when children cry when I fly but it happens. The only time I get discriminatory based on age is at places like the movies.

 Seaward wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Why didn't the guy just claim Affluenza?

He was flying coach.

Well then prison should be a breeze.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
Fine I guess, but only if parents who allow their children to cry on planes in the first place get 12 months in jail.

I dont thinkk parents with kids under 3 should even be allowedd on any form of transportation that isnt their car. Seriously, Im on the train trying to read, please keep your kid quiet

Well, considering I don't think teenagers should be allowed to talk or beon public transport either, I guess we could agree to both at the same time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Why didn't the guy just claim Affluenza?

He was flying coach.

Well then prison should be a breeze.

Indeed, many would view prison as a step up from coach class...

After you become a parent, you realize how young people without kids need to get over themselves and their apparent need for silence and quiet reflection every place they go. There are places where young children shouldn't be. Otherwise, deal with it like the adult you claim to be.

For one thing, you were likely a miserable, awful, screaming brat yourself at times as a young child, and other people were tolerant with you. It's payback time now.

For another thing, who's to say that some of you aren't more annoying than the young children?

Something that got left out here is his son had committed suicide and he was coming back from the funeral. Not to defend what he did, but it puts it in a bit of a different light.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/06/man-who-slapped-baby-on-plane-gets-8-months-in-prison/

That's fair, it makes what he did more "understandable" (and it's still pretty mental, I mean, seriously, slapping a baby), but still completely unacceptable.

Something that amuses me, is when people seem to think "I can understand this guy snapping" means "I agree with what he did".

 MrDwhitey wrote:
That's fair, it makes what he did more "understandable" (and it's still pretty mental, I mean, seriously, slapping a baby), but still completely unacceptable.

Something that amuses me, is when people seem to think "I can understand this guy snapping" means "I agree with what he did".

By his picture, he does indeed look like he enjoys tipping more than a few. Not the most stable of types since he's an alcoholic.

I don't like the name Jonah.

 gossipmeng wrote:
I don't like the name Jonah.

Of all the things you could have said you chose that... *sigh*

If their parents cannot control them, very young children should be either barred from long-haul travel if it can harm the travel experience of other passengers....or subject them to the save travel conditions as animals.

When I flew to Europe a few years ago we had a crying baby on our plane. The parents were walking up and down the aisle with it and clearly trying to make it more comfortable and help it go to sleep. You could see by their faces that they felt very bad about the amount the baby crying.

Some guy a couple rows behind me kept on calling the flight attendant asking her angrily "Isn't there anything you guys can do about that!" I'm sure the pilot will just pull this plane over in the middle of the air to give that baby a talking to sir .

Of course this is me when I listen to people that children should not be able to see their extended families because the fact that they are children might make it hard for you to read a book:

 gorgon wrote:
After you become a parent, you realize how young people without kids need to get over themselves and their apparent need for silence and quiet reflection every place they go. There are places where young children shouldn't be. Otherwise, deal with it like the adult you claim to be.

For one thing, you were likely a miserable, awful, screaming brat yourself at times as a young child, and other people were tolerant with you. It's payback time now.

For another thing, who's to say that some of you aren't more annoying than the young children?

Im pretty sure me trying to sleep or read on a train isnt annoying, nor is watching TV on the plane. PArents need to be mindful that no everyone wants to listen to their kid scream and cry. I do not want to go to a theater and deal with a kid screaming through Thor.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
I don't like the name Jonah.

Of all the things you could have said you chose that... *sigh*

When it should have been something like...

"Say goodbye to your Daddy Jonah"

I mean seriously, if you're going to poke fun at a kids name, make it a Firefly reference.

I am a parent. And I kind of think that when it comes to long-haul travel, if we want to take our child to see relatives far away, the onus is on us to find an alternative travel method, or to control our child so as not to disturb other people. I love my son, but no one else needs to be forced to.

That being said, it sounds like the child HAD been under control until the very end of the flight, and in the descent, you have to kind of expect children to be uncomfortable and cry. Even if you ARE so short tempered you can't handle it for the short period of time until the kid's ears adjust, there's never an excuse for slapping a child.

Pretty much sounds like the system handled this one appropriately.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
PArents need to be mindful that no everyone wants to listen to their kid scream and cry. I do not want to go to a theater and deal with a kid screaming through Thor.

A parent that takes a baby to a theater to see a movie that isn't rated G probably needs a punch in the junk. So, no argument there.

That being said, its a little unreasonable to expect a 19 month old to grimace and sack up when the pressure change on descent starts building up in their inner ears. I never though I of all people would be making this argument, but you need to be mindful that there is a difference between situations where a parent is showing bad judgement (i.e. a screaming baby at a restaurant) and when having to listen a crying baby for a few minutes is the cost of living in a civilized society. This is a big country, and if you gotta fly, you gotta fly.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
After you become a parent, you realize how young people without kids need to get over themselves and their apparent need for silence and quiet reflection every place they go. There are places where young children shouldn't be. Otherwise, deal with it like the adult you claim to be.

For one thing, you were likely a miserable, awful, screaming brat yourself at times as a young child, and other people were tolerant with you. It's payback time now.

For another thing, who's to say that some of you aren't more annoying than the young children?

Im pretty sure me trying to sleep or read on a train isnt annoying, nor is watching TV on the plane. PArents need to be mindful that no everyone wants to listen to their kid scream and cry. I do not want to go to a theater and deal with a kid screaming through Thor.

Kids crying in a movie theater during Thor =/= kids crying on airplanes

Guess what, small children cry. They cry when they are unhappy, scared, uncomfortable, tired, angry, sick, hungry; it is often the only way they have to express their emotions. That is something has happened for the 200,000+ year span of human existence; is not a recent development.

I also have some more shocking news for you: parents dislike listening to their children cry even less than you do. You think it's annoying having to listen to a baby cry on an airplane? Try thinking about how the parents feel, having to deal with an uncomfortable and unhappy baby, unable to just put on a pair of headphones and read a book, knowing that people on the plane are judging them because they think they can't "control" their children.

 d-usa wrote:
When I flew to Europe a few years ago we had a crying baby on our plane. The parents were walking up and down the aisle with it and clearly trying to make it more comfortable and help it go to sleep. You could see by their faces that they felt very bad about the amount the baby crying.

Some guy a couple rows behind me kept on calling the flight attendant asking her angrily "Isn't there anything you guys can do about that!" I'm sure the pilot will just pull this plane over in the middle of the air to give that baby a talking to sir .

Of course this is me when I listen to people that children should not be able to see their extended families because the fact that they are children might make it hard for you to read a book:

It is always fun when a baby cries on a Trans-Atlantic flight, right? If the parents are trying to settle the baby then the guy was being a jackass, the only time I think it is acceptable to ask a stewardness to intervene is if the parents are ignoring their little daring's cries, seat kicking, or other obnoxious behaviour

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
After you become a parent, you realize how young people without kids need to get over themselves and their apparent need for silence and quiet reflection every place they go. There are places where young children shouldn't be. Otherwise, deal with it like the adult you claim to be.

For one thing, you were likely a miserable, awful, screaming brat yourself at times as a young child, and other people were tolerant with you. It's payback time now.

For another thing, who's to say that some of you aren't more annoying than the young children?

Im pretty sure me trying to sleep or read on a train isnt annoying, nor is watching TV on the plane. PArents need to be mindful that no everyone wants to listen to their kid scream and cry. I do not want to go to a theater and deal with a kid screaming through Thor.

Kids crying in a movie theater during Thor =/= kids crying on airplanes

Guess what, small children cry. They cry when they are unhappy, scared, uncomfortable, tired, angry, sick, hungry; it is often the only way they have to express their emotions. That is something has happened for the 200,000+ year span of human existence; is not a recent development.

I also have some more shocking news for you: parents dislike listening to their children cry even less than you do. You think it's annoying having to listen to a baby cry on an airplane? Try thinking about how the parents feel, having to deal with an uncomfortable and unhappy baby, unable to just put on a pair of headphones and read a book, knowing that people on the plane are judging them because they think they can't "control" their children.

Then dont spread your misery to others. And yes they cry, I know that. But If you know you have a small kid that is prone to crying, dont spread it to others, keep it at home. Order take out, drive. Yeah I can udnerstand it sucks for a kid in a descent of a plane, and i get that. But when a kid cries for the ntire 6 hour flight, or train ride, or when Im enjoying dinner with my parents, and the parents ignore the it is rediculous

d-usa wrote:When I flew to Europe a few years ago we had a crying baby on our plane. The parents were walking up and down the aisle with it and clearly trying to make it more comfortable and help it go to sleep. You could see by their faces that they felt very bad about the amount the baby crying.

Funny thing, similar to that... the Missus and I were returning from Germany, PCSing back to the US and all that. So, under new command policy we MUST fly on the AF's civilian carrier bird. After almost 6 hours of delays prior to boarding, they completely rebook ALL the tickets, and reseat everyone on the flight. Well, being a "military" branch, they come out and say "any families traveling with small children who need help being seated, board now" and proceeded to put all those types of families completely crammed at the back of the plane... One baby starts crying, and it set off another, then another and so on.

Jimsolo wrote:there's never an excuse for slapping a child.

Unless it's your own


And, I'm sorry hotsauce, you're coming off very poorly here. As a parent of 2, it's my job to take care of my kids, and if we want to enjoy a meal at a restaurant, we will... How about, if you hate the sound of crying kids THAT much, why dont YOU go out of your way to order take out, drive or do whatever else you seem to be suggesting parents be forced to do. Also, often times, there simply isn't enough time, or the means are not available for families to get where they're going without subjecting you to the kinds of horrors that you must be in therapy for.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Then dont spread your misery to others. And yes they cry, I know that. But If you know you have a small kid that is prone to crying, dont spread it to others, keep it at home. Order take out, drive. Yeah I can udnerstand it sucks for a kid in a descent of a plane, and i get that. But when a kid cries for the ntire 6 hour flight, or train ride, or when Im enjoying dinner with my parents, and the parents ignore the it is rediculous

So someone working a new job with little vacation and wanting to see family on the other side of the country over Christmas now has to drive? Eating up what little time off they have, and having to take unpaid leave. As well as risking driving in adverse weather like we are experiencing these past few days.
What about people with family abroad? Should they have to swim home to avoid inconveniencing you?

Its the job of the flight company to provide a relaxing travel experience. If that means re-looking at how disruptive children on flights are, then so it should.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Its the job of the flight company to provide a relaxing travel experience. If that means re-looking at how disruptive children on flights are, then so it should.

What airline(s) do you fly with? The airline's job is to get you from point A to point B in a safe and timely fashion. Generally they do not provide massages, aromatherapy, or soothing scents. You're usually lucky if you have room ti stretch your legs.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:



And, I'm sorry hotsauce, you're coming off very poorly here. As a parent of 2, it's my job to take care of my kids, and if we want to enjoy a meal at a restaurant, we will... How about, if you hate the sound of crying kids THAT much, why dont YOU go out of your way to order take out, drive or do whatever else you seem to be suggesting parents be forced to do. Also, often times, there simply isn't enough time, or the means are not available for families to get where they're going without subjecting you to the kinds of horrors that you must be in therapy for.

Because I am the one who decided to not have kids so I dont have to deal with screaming kids. PArents are the ones who decided to have kids and be miserable. Kids are great, and I want some, but if im out with people, I do not want to hear a 5 year old screaming at a nice relaxing resturant im at.

Today I learned which people are worse than crying toddlers on a plane.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:



And, I'm sorry hotsauce, you're coming off very poorly here. As a parent of 2, it's my job to take care of my kids, and if we want to enjoy a meal at a restaurant, we will... How about, if you hate the sound of crying kids THAT much, why dont YOU go out of your way to order take out, drive or do whatever else you seem to be suggesting parents be forced to do. Also, often times, there simply isn't enough time, or the means are not available for families to get where they're going without subjecting you to the kinds of horrors that you must be in therapy for.

Because I am the one who decided to not have kids so I dont have to deal with screaming kids. PArents are the ones who decided to have kids and be miserable. Kids are great, and I want some, but if im out with people, I do not want to hear a 5 year old screaming at a nice relaxing resturant im at.

If you don't want to deal with society, then don't go out in public.

Simple as that really.

Im assuming you mean me?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Then dont spread your misery to others. And yes they cry, I know that. But If you know you have a small kid that is prone to crying, dont spread it to others, keep it at home. Order take out, drive. Yeah I can udnerstand it sucks for a kid in a descent of a plane, and i get that. But when a kid cries for the ntire 6 hour flight, or train ride, or when Im enjoying dinner with my parents, and the parents ignore the it is rediculous

Again, a plane is not a free-time venue, it's a way of transportation. Nobody was arguing in favor of keeping constantly crying kids at a theatre, restaurant or similar venue where people go for pleasure. Transportation is a necessity, one you think twice or more about as a parent when travelling with a baby or toddler.

By all means be annoyed when a kid cries for a 6-hour-flight if it makes you feel more cultured, but arguing that everybody with small kids should simply stay at home or drive themselves is so utterly ignorant it almost defies belief.

EDIT:

Last part here retracted.

Ok, maybe I went far with the last statement. But I cant be the only one who hates it when kids cry on a plane can I?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, maybe I went far with the last statement. But I cant be the only one who hates it when kids cry on a plane can I?

Hating it doesn't do anything. It's just a fact of life to be accepted, like traffic jams, security searches or taxes. You'll be happier once you learn to keep your mind on other things instead of dwelling on the unpleasantness of such trivialities.

Its not trivial when you cant hear yourself think over the crying if you are like me

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Its not trivial when you cant hear yourself think over the crying if you are like me

Just think about the crying, analyze it. When you're done give your report to the parent!

Sorry, I really don't want this to come across as condescending as it will probably read, but if you can't block out crying well enough to "hear yourself think", you need to grow some thicker skin, because you'll need it in your life yet to come.

Dealt with that once when I pcs'd over to Japan. I made that flight (24 hours) 14 times in 3 years. After the first time I came up with a little trick. 30 minutes before the flight I would go to the airport bar and order 2 double shots of Jose. Do one double, smoke a cigarette, (after about ten minutes) take a Dramamine pill and drain the second double. Board the craft, pass out ... wake up in Japan. All refreshed and whatnot ... it was great.

OT: This guy went a bit too far IMO. The innocence of children is to be protected at all costs ... this bastard failed. Bubba gonna like him.

Bah. Poor guy... he got in trouble for doing what we all secretly want to do.

Not going to lie if I ever end up with kids I'm bringing a roll of duct tape with me whenever we go on a long trip somewhere.

Also whenever I was a baby and I started making noise my mom pretty much just slapped me herself. It shut me up and I turned out relatively normal (despite what the previous comment would have you believe).

I made the decision to learn English. It's not my native language. But I made the choice to learn it and use it to communicate in an effective manner. Right now I am using it to communicate on a text based forum that relies on the written language.

I don't understand why we should have to deal with people who make grammatical errors, capitalize things wrong, and spell things incorrectly. Why should my pleasure be diminished because of people like that? My leisure time is valuable to me and being on here with people like that just annoys me.

Or do we realize how silly this sounds and acknowledge that part of living in society is dealing with things that might annoy us and make things less than comfortable and that we should be glad that the majority of people try to minimize the troubles they cause.

At least that seems better than calling for blanket bans on people that might annoy us...

Holy gak some of the posts in this thread are utterly disgusting! Well done!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Its not trivial when you cant hear yourself think over the crying if you are like me

you know they make earplugs, and noise cancelling headphones right?

If I can ignore a 30-06 going off near me with those, you can ignore babies on planes...

you should not be saying "responsible adults should be able to keep their kids quite on a plane or not fly" as literally, its not up to the parents when they cry.

you should be saying "hey, im Im on a plane, there is a good chance I will be stuck with unwanted baby/engine/foosball team chanting noise, maybe I should bring headphones/earplugs"


its far easier for you to modify your behavior so your environment is more to your liking, then to assume everyone will do the modifying for you...

and really, its NOT that simple to make the little ones shut up... even when trying and doing everything right... especially on planes where it makes their inner ears hurt during decent.

trust me...

I have been trying to get "baby" tazers/tranquilizers/chloroform approved for YEARS now...

at least my head phones work,

now if only I had something to drown out the SMELL of unwashed BO, patchooli, pot and smug self satisfaction from all the unwashed hippie/yupie/ect types, and the "OMG im gonna fly in my dirty sweats with no shower" gross people on planes.

You can't compare taking a kid to a movie to taking a kid on a plane. People with small children need to travel via plane just like everyone else. Air pressure in their ears is something that there is literally nothing you can do for them, They are in physical pain, not misbehaved.

If you don't like it, Fly first class. If you are in coach, put head phones one and shut your face. There is no expectation you have a pleasurable flight free of distraction in coach.

Also, movie theaters do have 'baby friendly' times if you ask. If you go to those showings, then it is on you. (they usually daytime on the weekdays) And some restaurants, you should expect screaming children. If you go to 'Red Robin', That place is a zoo. You should expect a 8year old soccer team, 3 crying babies and kids getting up and playing with balloons. If you complain about it, my response is: "You are at red robin... why are you complaining?"

Smacking a baby is unacceptable. I am glad his life is destroyed as he will have a felony on his record which will forever haunt him. The internet will never forget his name and he will forever be doomed for hitting a baby.

I travel for work a lot.

Headphones. Good, quality headphones. Get some. Also: alcohol.

 kronk wrote:
I travel for work a lot.

Headphones. Good, quality headphones. Get some. Also: alcohol.

I think the guy in the OP tried that 2nd one actually

 easysauce wrote:


you know they make earplugs, and noise cancelling headphones right?

I have a pair of Surefire earplugs for my range days, and let me tell you... I can wear those things on an M2 range, and still have a normal conversation, but when I am on a pistol range my heartbeat is thunderous.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I have a pair of Surefire earplugs for my range days, and let me tell you... I can wear those things on an M2 range, and still have a normal conversation, but when I am on a pistol range my heartbeat is thunderous.

I have some of those electronic muffs that cancel everything above x decibels, and the only "problem" with them is that I tend to talk to the people with me as if they could converse with me normally, when they can't hear anything I'm saying

Just to reiterate for those who might not have caught it, he was flying back from taking his own son off life support.

Relapse wrote:
Just to reiterate for those who might not have caught it, he was flying back from taking his own son off life support.

Yeah, I saw that. I had a really hard flight when I had to go home to identify my dad's body after he killed himself too, and yet I neither slapped children nor called anyone a racial slur.

He's a huge jerk with a prior history of criminal violence who got exactly what he deserved.

Relapse wrote:
Just to reiterate for those who might not have caught it, he was flying back from taking his own son off life support.

Doesn't absolve him of responsibility or culpability of his actions, otherwise anyone in emotional distress could basically get a monopoly 'get out jail' card.

He is an donkey-cave, if he was so fraught with grief where he was not able to control his actions, he should have never been on a plane while in that condition and taken more time to compose himself.

It does kind count as mitigating circumstances given his actions. He should probably have a lighter sentence given that...

 purplefood wrote:
It does kind count as mitigating circumstances given his actions. He should probably have a lighter sentence given that...

He could have gotten a year. He did get a lighter sentence. It was the previous assault conviction that got him as long as he did.

 Ouze wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It does kind count as mitigating circumstances given his actions. He should probably have a lighter sentence given that...

He could have gotten a year. He did get a lighter sentence. It was the previous assault conviction that got him as long as he did.

Ah well. There is that.

I'm not saying he should be let go, but given that he's demonstrated lack of self control in the past, it probably didn't take a lot to set him off after dealing with something like that.

@Ouze,

Damn, that is a heart breaker, and a trip I'm glad I never had to take. It was bad enough going to watch my father dying in the hospital, but at least I got to say good bye.

 purplefood wrote:
It does kind count as mitigating circumstances given his actions. He should probably have a lighter sentence given that...

Bull.

Sorry, but losing a family member is tragic, but how in the name of all that is holy does that mitigate slapping an infant?

 curran12 wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It does kind count as mitigating circumstances given his actions. He should probably have a lighter sentence given that...

Bull.

Sorry, but losing a family member is tragic, but how in the name of all that is holy does that mitigate slapping an infant?

Because of a very convoluted story involving Obama, kids that look like him, and Obamacare.... just a theory

Relapse wrote:
Something that got left out here is his son had committed suicide and he was coming back from the funeral. Not to defend what he did, but it puts it in a bit of a different light.

That certainly gives this a different light, and if the guy had no priors then maybe a suspended sentence would have been the better result. But the guy has a prior for assaulting is girlfriend, so...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Because I am the one who decided to not have kids so I dont have to deal with screaming kids. PArents are the ones who decided to have kids and be miserable. Kids are great, and I want some, but if im out with people, I do not want to hear a 5 year old screaming at a nice relaxing resturant im at.

But as a parent you sometimes have no idea when your kid is going to cry. Sometimes you can see they're getting tired or over-stimulated or just shifting in to that mood where a meltdown is likely, and then the last place you want to be is in a crowded, noisy restaurant, but other times it just comes out of the blue.

So sometimes you go out as a family, play on the beach, have some fun on some waterslides, and then afterwards get a meal at a restaurant. Good family stuff, the kind of quality time that everyone talks about as good parenting, what you're supposed to do. And then for no reason you can discern one of your kids cracks the gaks in the middle of the restaurant, because that's just something kids do from time to time.

Sorry, but it happens. And that doesn't excuse parents who take their kids to movies that aren't G, or parents who just sit there ignoring their kids while they're crying, or parents who let their kids run freely around bothering other people. But it's an unfortunate reality that just being parents means sometimes you're going to inconvenience other people. Sorry, but other people are going to have to accept that.

My kids will learn to Valsalva before they're allowed to board a commercial airliner.

Relapse wrote:
Just to reiterate for those who might not have caught it, he was flying back from taking his own son off life support.

That's neither an excuse or reason for committing assault. He's the adult and should exercise some self control whatever his personal circumstances are.

It's funny that some people are suggesting that people with children shouldn't take them on planes if they can't control them, how about this guy doesn't go on planes if he can't control himself?

Call me lazy or stupid I don't care, I booked 3 seats and paid for then I couldn't get business class back from Hong Kong, anyhow long story short some person was ill so I was asked to give up my seats (bear in mind this was DURING the sars crisis)so i did, so I end up somehow with some Chinese baby sleeping on me and some old lady leaning on me and a little Asian lady on the other side... Thank God for sense of humours, I complained to the airline and they offered me a full refund, I accepted a refund for 2 seats not all 3 since in my mind that person must have been proper ill for the trolley dolleys to bother me... But I didn't slap anyone dammit, what a sh...bad person

OK, so maybe slapping an infant went a tad too far.

Maybe feeding them feet first into a woodchipper wasn't perhaps an option. For a while, the kid makes more noise than the chipper - but it stops soon enough.

My usual reaction to crying children in transit is a comment along the lines of:
"FFS, stop playing with your food and kill it already." - sure, I get 'death stares' a lot - but I'm part gypsy myself, so that "evil eye" crap is just normal for me.

I don't like humans under the age of 17 at the best of times (family is not an exception). I don't get the depth of emotional attachment parents feel towards their offspring - because I can't have them, I will NEVER know this. Looking after a cat just isn't the same thing.

This entire post was in jest, right? Right?

 d-usa wrote:
Today I learned which people are worse than crying toddlers on a plane.

If you don't want to deal with society, then don't go out in public.

Simple as that really.

Indeed, this thread was quite enlightening. And a bit scary with all the sociopathy and stuff.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:



And, I'm sorry hotsauce, you're coming off very poorly here. As a parent of 2, it's my job to take care of my kids, and if we want to enjoy a meal at a restaurant, we will... How about, if you hate the sound of crying kids THAT much, why dont YOU go out of your way to order take out, drive or do whatever else you seem to be suggesting parents be forced to do. Also, often times, there simply isn't enough time, or the means are not available for families to get where they're going without subjecting you to the kinds of horrors that you must be in therapy for.

Because I am the one who decided to not have kids so I dont have to deal with screaming kids. PArents are the ones who decided to have kids and be miserable. Kids are great, and I want some, but if im out with people, I do not want to hear a 5 year old screaming at a nice relaxing resturant im at.

To be fair as someone who doesn't actually want kids, both sides have their fair share of "entitled donkeyhats". There's the kids are little gaks who do nothing but ruin and annoy everything that's around them, but at the same time there's the parent who seems to believe that ramming me in the back of the knees with the pram for the tenth time will suddenly make the train door open, or the crossing lights change. The fat mum that decides the best way to stop her child screaming is to shove everyone out of the queue and demand her order be served first to please this little hell spawn.

Really the easiest way to deal with them, is to realise they're there for probably 30 seconds to 5 mins of your life then gone. Avoid them in a restaurant? Don't go to a crappy one like Burger King or McDonalds where they're more likely to flock around. The jerk ones that believe their pram is a plough with which to shove people out of the way of, laugh at them for they will be elbow deep in the remains of whatever crappy food they were obviously rushing to. Though at the same time, the ones that have no baby in sight, just something like a pram with a normal backpack in it. If you get rammed by it, maybe don't fight the urge to flip it over. Cause that's just them being a jerk for no reason.

Relapse wrote:
Just to reiterate for those who might not have caught it, he was flying back from taking his own son off life support.

So fething what? Life sucks, and with him as a parent one could understand. He's lucky to be alive, pulling that stunt. I'd proffer if he did that on a Southwest flight about 20 parents would have formed a conga line to punch this guy in the baby maker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 purplefood wrote:
It does kind count as mitigating circumstances given his actions. He should probably have a lighter sentence given that...

NO. Pretty much nothing excuses "shut that nigg__ kid up."
Thats what we like to call " a racist "


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's funny that some people are suggesting that people with children shouldn't take them on planes if they can't control them, how about this guy doesn't go on planes if he can't control himself?

Brilliant!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Then dont spread your misery to others. And yes they cry, I know that. But If you know you have a small kid that is prone to crying, dont spread it to others, keep it at home. Order take out, drive. Yeah I can udnerstand it sucks for a kid in a descent of a plane, and i get that. But when a kid cries for the ntire 6 hour flight, or train ride, or when Im enjoying dinner with my parents, and the parents ignore the it is rediculous

IS this serious?

I get the feeling that you are trolling here.

GG

The kids aren't the problem. The adults are. Yes, kids running around, screaming for ages or what ever is annoying, but so is people talking on mobile phones on the train, or in a restaurant, or the couple who won't stop kissing with a sloppy "smak" every 30 seconds, or the person with music playing on there phone for everyone to hear. Some people just don't give a gak about other people. Not the kids fault.

 Frazzled wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Just to reiterate for those who might not have caught it, he was flying back from taking his own son off life support.

So fething what? Life sucks, and with him as a parent one could understand. He's lucky to be alive, pulling that stunt. I'd proffer if he did that on a Southwest flight about 20 parents would have formed a conga line to punch this guy in the baby maker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 purplefood wrote:
It does kind count as mitigating circumstances given his actions. He should probably have a lighter sentence given that...

NO. Pretty much nothing excuses "shut that nigg__ kid up."
Thats what we like to call " a racist "


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's funny that some people are suggesting that people with children shouldn't take them on planes if they can't control them, how about this guy doesn't go on planes if he can't control himself?

Brilliant!

I'm not excusing him, just shedding some light on what might have contributed to his action.

Steve has the way of it.

 Allod wrote:
Sorry, I really don't want this to come across as condescending as it will probably read, but if you can't block out crying well enough to "hear yourself think", you need to grow some thicker skin, because you'll need it in your life yet to come.

CONSIDER THE SOURCE.

Just saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Today I learned which people are worse than crying toddlers on a plane.

If you don't want to deal with society, then don't go out in public.

Simple as that really.

Indeed, this thread was quite enlightening. And a bit scary with all the sociopathy and stuff.

See, I wouldn't quite go that far. Some of the comments are about obsessively self-absorbed young people more than anything else. Add some emo and yes, a touch of antisocial behavior, and voila!

 Steve steveson wrote:
The kids aren't the problem. The adults are. Yes, kids running around, screaming for ages or what ever is annoying, but so is people talking on mobile phones on the train, or in a restaurant, or the couple who won't stop kissing with a sloppy "smak" every 30 seconds, or the person with music playing on there phone for everyone to hear. Some people just don't give a gak about other people. Not the kids fault.

Exactly what I was talking about in my previous post about adults often being more annoying. Unless you work in a day care, you're likely going to encounter many more of those people than screaming kids. If you actually pay attention, most children out and about AREN'T screaming. That's why your attention is drawn to those who ARE.

And following up on Frazz's comment about what the guy said...I'm reiterate that the guy's name was JOE RICKEY HUNDLEY. Fething A! That's straight outta central casting.

I hate kids, which is why I choose not to have them. I'm resigned to dealing with them in infrastructural arenas like public transport and airplanes and stuff. That's just people getting stuff done, so I give 'em a pass.

What I can't stand is people at entertainment venues who think that the rest of the world is under some sort of obligation to put up with your children. If your child is crying/screaming running around causing a ruckus or whatever for more than a few seconds, you do something about it. Don't just grimly sit there eating your burger while it wails.

The worst was while I was stationed over in Germany - there was an on post theater that only showed 3-4 films a day, so every showing of anything was just crammed with spouses and their kids; we had three crying babies at the 10pm showing of Underworld 2, it was unbelievable.

Ye, but thats nothing to do with the kids. Kids are going to cry. Thats the adults who don't think of others. They are probably the same people who leave all there rubbish in the theater, gum stuck to the seats, don't switch there phone off during the film, use there phone in the restaurant,etc. I would bet if they didn't have the kids they would be selfish donkey-caves in another way.

I understand people may not like or want kids, but I never understand people saying they hate them. They are not trying to annoy you or doing anything bad. They are just reacting to there environment in the best way they can. Its the selfish adults that are at fault. Hate them, not the kids.

And no, I don't have kids, and probably won't. Not because I hate them, I just don't feel I want them (at least at the moment).

 Bromsy wrote:
I hate kids, which is why I choose not to have them. I'm resigned to dealing with them in infrastructural arenas like public transport and airplanes and stuff. That's just people getting stuff done, so I give 'em a pass.

Understandable.

What I can't stand is people at entertainment venues who think that the rest of the world is under some sort of obligation to put up with your children. If your child is crying/screaming running around causing a ruckus or whatever for more than a few seconds, you do something about it. Don't just grimly sit there eating your burger while it wails.

I wish we could just walk up and slap adults that drop f-bombs in public every other word and teenagers that are loud and stupid as well, but that's life. It's an entertainment venue, not "your entertainment only " venue. If you can't handle a kid crying for more than a few seconds then maybe there are other issues in your life that need to be addressed.

Sometimes kids cry, and despite anything you try they will keep crying until they are done. That doesn't excuse kids running around the place, knocking stuff over and being destructive. Crap like that needs to be addressed by the parents and if not you should notify the owner of the place.

But I hear far more adults being loud and obnoxious than babies being loud and obnoxious. I've listened to more stupid teenagers talking during a movie and giving their gak commentary than children crying.

The worst was while I was stationed over in Germany - there was an on post theater that only showed 3-4 films a day, so every showing of anything was just crammed with spouses and their kids; we had three crying babies at the 10pm showing of Underworld 2, it was unbelievable.

It was unbelievable that the post theater, the one place where how many servicemen and their families could watch a movie in their own language, that only showed 3-4 films a day would be crammed with families?

Take your babies to the movies, if the baby starts crying one of the parents should exit the theater with it until it settles down. But to expect that there would be no kids in the only place that shows movies in your language while only having very limited showtimes is pretty silly.

I'm lucky that I have the option of making it a lot less stressful for myself when we go to the movies with our 4 month old. One of the theaters in the area has a "cry room". It's a small soundproof room at the end of the auditorium that has a giant glass wall where you can still watch the movie and which also has it's own sound system. So the little one can cry if she needs to and nobody has to listen to her. But I know that this is not an option for the majority of people.

There are times when it can be good parenting to ignore a crying child, if your child is crying in an attempt to gain attention or something. It's a judgement parents need to make. Though, I would probably remove the kid from the immediate area and then ignore them outside or in the car or something.

 d-usa wrote:


I wish we could just walk up and slap adults that drop f-bombs in public every other word and teenagers that are loud and stupid as well, but that's life. It's an entertainment venue, not "your entertainment only " venue. If you can't handle a kid crying for more than a few seconds then maybe there are other issues in your life that need to be addressed.

Sometimes kids cry, and despite anything you try they will keep crying until they are done. That doesn't excuse kids running around the place, knocking stuff over and being destructive. Crap like that needs to be addressed by the parents and if not you should notify the owner of the place.

But I hear far more adults being loud and obnoxious than babies being loud and obnoxious. I've listened to more stupid teenagers talking during a movie and giving their gak commentary than children crying.



It was unbelievable that the post theater, the one place where how many servicemen and their families could watch a movie in their own language, that only showed 3-4 films a day would be crammed with families?

Take your babies to the movies, if the baby starts crying one of the parents should exit the theater with it until it settles down. But to expect that there would be no kids in the only place that shows movies in your language while only having very limited showtimes is pretty silly.

I'm lucky that I have the option of making it a lot less stressful for myself when we go to the movies with our 4 month old. One of the theaters in the area has a "cry room". It's a small soundproof room at the end of the auditorium that has a giant glass wall where you can still watch the movie and which also has it's own sound system. So the little one can cry if she needs to and nobody has to listen to her. But I know that this is not an option for the majority of people.

Yeah, I don't think you should want be able to assault people for swearing. Maybe there are other issues in your life that need to be addressed. If I'm in a restaurant being loud and obnoxious I can and should be called on it. Having a baby is the same way. And of course you hear more adults being loud and obnoxious, there are a lot more adults than babies.

And yes, I would say taking your child to an R rated movie at 10pm is unbelievable. And you should also know better than most that german movie theaters have english language showings, especially around large American military bases so there are options to take your kids to go see actual kid movies.

 Da Boss wrote:
There are times when it can be good parenting to ignore a crying child, if your child is crying in an attempt to gain attention or something. It's a judgement parents need to make. Though, I would probably remove the kid from the immediate area and then ignore them outside or in the car or something.

And that is all I would ask.

 Bromsy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


I wish we could just walk up and slap adults that drop f-bombs in public every other word and teenagers that are loud and stupid as well, but that's life. It's an entertainment venue, not "your entertainment only " venue. If you can't handle a kid crying for more than a few seconds then maybe there are other issues in your life that need to be addressed.

Sometimes kids cry, and despite anything you try they will keep crying until they are done. That doesn't excuse kids running around the place, knocking stuff over and being destructive. Crap like that needs to be addressed by the parents and if not you should notify the owner of the place.

But I hear far more adults being loud and obnoxious than babies being loud and obnoxious. I've listened to more stupid teenagers talking during a movie and giving their gak commentary than children crying.



It was unbelievable that the post theater, the one place where how many servicemen and their families could watch a movie in their own language, that only showed 3-4 films a day would be crammed with families?

Take your babies to the movies, if the baby starts crying one of the parents should exit the theater with it until it settles down. But to expect that there would be no kids in the only place that shows movies in your language while only having very limited showtimes is pretty silly.

I'm lucky that I have the option of making it a lot less stressful for myself when we go to the movies with our 4 month old. One of the theaters in the area has a "cry room". It's a small soundproof room at the end of the auditorium that has a giant glass wall where you can still watch the movie and which also has it's own sound system. So the little one can cry if she needs to and nobody has to listen to her. But I know that this is not an option for the majority of people.

Yeah, I don't think you should want be able to assault people for swearing. Maybe there are other issues in your life that need to be addressed. If I'm in a restaurant being loud and obnoxious I can and should be called on it. Having a baby is the same way. And of course you hear more adults being loud and obnoxious, there are a lot more adults than babies..

Sounds like you call out adults all the time then? Most people do not and sit there meekly grumbling but seem to get quite veracious about babies crying. And lets face it babies do cry, mostly because they are hungry - so would you object to a quiet baby being breast fed at the next table?

So if there are other theaters with other options then why are you complaining that there are only 3-4 showings and that you have to endure these families there as if you have zero other options?

And I don't see the issue with an infant at an at rated movie, it's not like they know what is happening...

There is a distinct difference between a crying infant and a temper-tantruming toddler. Crying infants for the most part can't help themselves are are in legitimate pain or discomfort.

If you don't like kids, There are restaurants which don't allow them or are basically 'unfriendly' because they have dress codes or are too expensive for a family with kids. Many movie theaters have no-baby policies and have specific showings for babies. If you don't want to be near them while traveling, fly first class.

But especially travel, people who think babies need to be walled up in a tomb for the first 2 years of their lives to keep them from inconveniencing you, that is the wrong attitude. It is your job to keep yourself walled up from society if that is really important to you. I think there are some places and times where it is perfectly ok for people to be expected to tolerate a minor inconvenience like a crying infant. Flights being one of them.

I agree with the 'tantrum for attention' being removed, but infants are not doing it for attention the same way a toddler is. That is simply how I handle kids when they are in my charge... if they can't behave, we can't have nice things like pizza at a restaurant. TO THE CAR!

 notprop wrote:


Sounds like you call out adults all the time then? Most people do not and sit there meekly grumbling but seem to get quite veracious about babies crying. And lets face it babies do cry, mostly because they are hungry - so would you object to a quiet baby being breast fed at the next table?

I am well known in my social group for telling people to keep it the feth down, especially in movie theaters. And no, if someone wants to breastfeed, go right ahead. Noise pollution is special because it is omnidirectional and next to impossible to ignore.

and really, its NOT that simple to make the little ones shut up...

Hold a hand over their mouth for a little bit. That'll quieten them.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

and really, its NOT that simple to make the little ones shut up...

Hold a hand over their mouth for a little bit. That'll quieten them.

Use pillows for ultimate comfort!

This guy looks and sounds and acts like every person who gave me hell at any of my food service jobs.

You haven't lived until an entitled, middle aged man hurls 5 pounds of sliced ham at you because the advertised price was a nickel off.

 reiner wrote:
You haven't lived until an entitled, middle aged man hurls 5 pounds of sliced ham at you because the advertised price was a nickel off.

Well, He had to throw it at you because he knows damn well you raised the price and are some how pocketing that 5 cents.

I don't see why people 'take it out' on service workers :(

Because the service workers are the easily-abusable 'face' of whatever is making someone irrationally angry.

curran12 has the gist of it.

Taking out your frustrations on strangers, because you don't believe there are any repercussions or just don't care about other people, just like the guy in the article. He seemed so wrapped up in his world and his wants and needs that physically assaulting a stranger (baby or not) seemed like a reasonable response. I just can't understand the thought process here. What was he expecting to happen?

I don't buy into any cosmic karma or natural order of good and evil, but this kind of disregard for other beings just begets more anger, hate and violence. He just had to sit there for a few minutes and deal with a distressed child. Especially after experiencing a traumatic event as he had with the death of his own, I would think he would have had some empathy. I honestly feel bad for him. He strikes me as a broken human being.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
After you become a parent, you realize how young people without kids need to get over themselves and their apparent need for silence and quiet reflection every place they go. There are places where young children shouldn't be. Otherwise, deal with it like the adult you claim to be.

For one thing, you were likely a miserable, awful, screaming brat yourself at times as a young child, and other people were tolerant with you. It's payback time now.

For another thing, who's to say that some of you aren't more annoying than the young children?

Im pretty sure me trying to sleep or read on a train isnt annoying, nor is watching TV on the plane. PArents need to be mindful that no everyone wants to listen to their kid scream and cry. I do not want to go to a theater and deal with a kid screaming through Thor.

Your right lets just leave our two year old for the week while we go to Florida.Oops kid died.

Da krimson barun wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
After you become a parent, you realize how young people without kids need to get over themselves and their apparent need for silence and quiet reflection every place they go. There are places where young children shouldn't be. Otherwise, deal with it like the adult you claim to be.

For one thing, you were likely a miserable, awful, screaming brat yourself at times as a young child, and other people were tolerant with you. It's payback time now.

For another thing, who's to say that some of you aren't more annoying than the young children?

Im pretty sure me trying to sleep or read on a train isnt annoying, nor is watching TV on the plane. PArents need to be mindful that no everyone wants to listen to their kid scream and cry. I do not want to go to a theater and deal with a kid screaming through Thor.

Your right lets just leave our two year old for the week while we go to Florida.Oops kid died.

Win win ... You do not have to pay for College, and other people do not have to hear them cry in public. Before you leave for Florida I would recommend putting some air fresheners up for your return.

 curran12 wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It does kind count as mitigating circumstances given his actions. He should probably have a lighter sentence given that...

Bull.

Sorry, but losing a family member is tragic, but how in the name of all that is holy does that mitigate slapping an infant?

Because anyone who has experienced the loss of a family member will know that grief is a weird thing that can take time both to pass and to have an effect on your life. I greatly pity anyone who has to give the order/allow their child to be taken off of life support. A parent should not have to do that however, that is somewhat of a mitigating circumstance. The man essentially gave the order for his child to die. How heartless are you?

Da krimson barun wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
After you become a parent, you realize how young people without kids need to get over themselves and their apparent need for silence and quiet reflection every place they go. There are places where young children shouldn't be. Otherwise, deal with it like the adult you claim to be.

For one thing, you were likely a miserable, awful, screaming brat yourself at times as a young child, and other people were tolerant with you. It's payback time now.

For another thing, who's to say that some of you aren't more annoying than the young children?

Im pretty sure me trying to sleep or read on a train isnt annoying, nor is watching TV on the plane. PArents need to be mindful that no everyone wants to listen to their kid scream and cry. I do not want to go to a theater and deal with a kid screaming through Thor.

Your right lets just leave our two year old for the week while we go to Florida.Oops kid died.

That is a strawman argument if I ever saw one. Im saying take care of your kid in public places, dont just leave them in a place, crying, running, causing a ruckus and disturbing others. I dont have kids because i dont want to have kids screaming at me.

Kids scream.
That's just what they do. Regardless. Without drugs it's impossible to stop forever unless the kid is good or dead. Economy on an airline will forever be uncomfortable but that's life. Get some headphones listen to some music and deal with it.

But why should everyone have to deal with one person(Or maybe 2-3).
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Because life is gak and you always have to deal with 1 person.
It's not a need. You are complaining about being uncomfortable as you are transported hundreds if not thousands of miles at high speed. If it was about being uncomfortable we'd be having this argument midway through a 3 moth voyage across the Atlantic while we both have the gaks...
Life's a bitch. Sometimes there are screaming babies. Sometimes there are naked ladies.

Dakka seems to have a rather large number of people declaring that they've decided to never have kids.

I have ran into more screaming babies in the middle of my dinner then I have naked ladies.
Kids are the devil I tell you, Seen, but not heard.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But why should everyone have to deal with one person(Or maybe 2-3).
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

You're not going to get an answer because you already got at least 2 pages of answers, and only an idiot is going to play Charlie Brown to your Lucy at this point.

It's a lot easier to hear kids than it is to see them.
Makes them a damn to hunt i tell you.
Regardless, my point is people should stop whining. Economy is always going to suck, just listen to some music, go to sleep or do some equally time consuming activity. If you were planning on writing a freaking opera during a plane flight you deserve everything that comes to you unless it's good.

 sebster wrote:
Dakka seems to have a rather large number of people declaring that they've decided to never have kids.

I love kids that are related to me. I plan on having them someday. I just dont like screaming kids in resturants.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I love kids that are related to me. I plan on having them someday. I just dont like screaming kids in resturants.

?

"Because I am the one who decided to not have kids so I dont have to deal with screaming kids."

Yet, I dont want kids YET

 sebster wrote:
Dakka seems to have a rather large number of people declaring that they've decided to never have kids.

In my case it's a genetic impossibility. I am incapable of fathering them - and even if I could, my wife is also incapable. Adoption is not an option. Selfish? Perhaps, but as we are not practising ANY form of religion, we are not deemed to be "good" candidates for adoptive parents anyway.

As for my previous comment being in jest? Maybe.

It's pretty hard to carry a woodchipper onboard an aircraft, let alone operate one. I doubt the TSA would allow you to do it (but since they seem incapable of stopping loonies IN THE OUTER terminal from going postal anyway, it's all a bit iffy.)

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yet, I dont want kids YET

And when you do have them, will you stop going to restaurants? Will you no longer fly in planes? And when making a cross country trip because you won't fly in planes and you stop for lunch, will you insist your family all eat in the car because your child might cry and inconvenience the other patrons of the truckstop?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chromedog wrote:
In my case it's a genetic impossibility. I am incapable of fathering them - and even if I could, my wife is also incapable. Adoption is not an option. Selfish?

How is that selfish? No-one should ever feel obligated to raise children.

And in Australia, the problem with adoption is less one's faith, and more the incredibly stringent restrictions on anyone adopting, especially from overseas.

I never understood such stringent and sometimes arbitrary rules they put on adoptions. Surely it is great if someone wants to adopt a child and much less of a burden on the orphanage/whatever takes care of them, why place so many hurdles?
And no, I will not stop going to restaurants, I will just have to be mindful of the restaurants I go to. More child friendly places will have to be it. When Im talking not wanting kids screaming in restaurants Im talking nice ones, with bars, giant aquariams and other such, not dennys, nor Ihop or fast food And you are damn right I will drive, few things are better then driving cross country with your family

 d-usa wrote:
When I flew to Europe a few years ago we had a crying baby on our plane. The parents were walking up and down the aisle with it and clearly trying to make it more comfortable and help it go to sleep. You could see by their faces that they felt very bad about the amount the baby crying.

Some guy a couple rows behind me kept on calling the flight attendant asking her angrily "Isn't there anything you guys can do about that!" I'm sure the pilot will just pull this plane over in the middle of the air to give that baby a talking to sir .

Of course this is me when I listen to people that children should not be able to see their extended families because the fact that they are children might make it hard for you to read a book:

This.
You can't read your book, I'm sorry, I'm trying to raise a Child that will one day contribute to society just as much as you do.
Note: the guy could have pleaded depression.
Also, Jonah...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It does kind count as mitigating circumstances given his actions. He should probably have a lighter sentence given that...

Bull.

Sorry, but losing a family member is tragic, but how in the name of all that is holy does that mitigate slapping an infant?

Agreed.

 purplefood wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It does kind count as mitigating circumstances given his actions. He should probably have a lighter sentence given that...

Bull.

Sorry, but losing a family member is tragic, but how in the name of all that is holy does that mitigate slapping an infant?

Because anyone who has experienced the loss of a family member will know that grief is a weird thing that can take time both to pass and to have an effect on your life. I greatly pity anyone who has to give the order/allow their child to be taken off of life support. A parent should not have to do that however, that is somewhat of a mitigating circumstance. The man essentially gave the order for his child to die. How heartless are you?

I like the personal attacks on my 'heartlessness' because I am not pardoning a man who slapped an infant. Who also has a record of assaulting his girlfriend.

I am a real heartless guy, I am.

And here's the thing. Everyone loses a family member. I lost three of them this year including one we had to take off a respirator (but hey, nice making assumptions about me, how's your moral crusade going?). Know what I didn't do? Slap a child and shout racial slurs because of it. Know what most people don't do? Slap a child.

 curran12 wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It does kind count as mitigating circumstances given his actions. He should probably have a lighter sentence given that...

Bull.

Sorry, but losing a family member is tragic, but how in the name of all that is holy does that mitigate slapping an infant?

Because anyone who has experienced the loss of a family member will know that grief is a weird thing that can take time both to pass and to have an effect on your life. I greatly pity anyone who has to give the order/allow their child to be taken off of life support. A parent should not have to do that however, that is somewhat of a mitigating circumstance. The man essentially gave the order for his child to die. How heartless are you?

I like the personal attacks on my 'heartlessness' because I am not pardoning a man who slapped an infant. Who also has a record of assaulting his girlfriend.

I am a real heartless guy, I am.

And here's the thing. Everyone loses a family member. I lost three of them this year including one we had to take off a respirator (but hey, nice making assumptions about me, how's your moral crusade going?). Know what I didn't do? Slap a child because of it. Know what most people don't do? Slap a child.

You soul less bastard! How dare you not slap the children!

I guess I just don't get the viewpoint that society owes you something other than the fairly large tax breaks granted to you when you spit out a child.

Once again, I am okay with the whole crying baby on a plane/train/bus thing. That happens, theoretically you are on your way to handle some business and I am okay with that.

Your child shrieking at some sort of social event - no. We don't owe that to you. There is a moderate level of decency that you need to adhere to in public places into which you choose to go for enjoyment. I will tolerate your child to the degree that I would an overly loud ringtone - ie very little.

Just because you have limited free time because you chose to have children does not give you some moral superiority. What if I have limited free time because I work odd or long hours? If my girlfriend and I are only able to sync our schedules once a month to go out and enjoy a dinner out I should just toughen up and learn to enjoy crying because it is too much to ask for you to remove yourself?

And this

 the shrouded lord wrote:


You can't read your book, I'm sorry, I'm trying to raise a Child that will one day contribute to society just as much as you do.

Who the F appointed you arbiter of all social interactions and judge of the future? Your child could easily turn out to be a drain on society. You don't know how things will turn out. I'm going all hyperbolic here but....
Your child could literally be the next Hitler. I have proven that I am not. I want to enjoy my book. I've earned that. Your child is the unknown quantity so stop estimating it at it's highest value instead of it's average.

 Bromsy wrote:
I guess I just don't get the viewpoint that society owes you something other than the fairly large tax breaks granted to you when you spit out a child.

Once again, I am okay with the whole crying baby on a plane/train/bus thing. That happens, theoretically you are on your way to handle some business and I am okay with that.

Your child shrieking at some sort of social event - no. We don't owe that to you. There is a moderate level of decency that you need to adhere to in public places into which you choose to go for enjoyment. I will tolerate your child to the degree that I would an overly loud ringtone - ie very little.

Just because you have limited free time because you chose to have children does not give you some moral superiority. What if I have limited free time because I work odd or long hours? If my girlfriend and I are only able to sync our schedules once a month to go out and enjoy a dinner out I should just toughen up and learn to enjoy crying because it is too much to ask for you to remove yourself?

And this

 the shrouded lord wrote:


You can't read your book, I'm sorry, I'm trying to raise a Child that will one day contribute to society just as much as you do.

Who the F appointed you arbiter of all social interactions and judge of the future? Your child could easily turn out to be a drain on society. You don't know how things will turn out. I'm going all hyperbolic here but....
Your child could literally be the next Hitler. I have proven that I am not. I want to enjoy my book. I've earned that. Your child is the unknown quantity so stop estimating it at it's highest value instead of it's average.

oh, social events no way. sorry. I misread . also, I don't have a child, was talking rhetorically. BTW: if I got appointed arbiter of all social interactions and judge of the future, wed all be fethed. I couldn't even tell who was going to win total drama island not to mention being a "doctor-announced-sociopath .
also, I liken having children to owning an extremely demanding puppy.
does this make me a bad person?

You gotta hit children for no reason, or they'll grow up thinking that they're special and live a vicious life of entitlement and greed.

What an donkey-cave. It's certainly not right, but the way the mother is embellishing it just makes me gag.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But why should everyone have to deal with one person(Or maybe 2-3).
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Why should everyone here have to deal with your inability to follow Rule #1 and spell correctly and use proper grammar?

The needs of the many who can spell outweigh the needs of the few who can't?

Screaming kids can be annoying, but you know what's worse? Self entitled ass bags that think that the world should stop spinning and focus on them.

I hope this guy gets a midnight rendezvous with his cellmates.

 purplefood wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It does kind count as mitigating circumstances given his actions. He should probably have a lighter sentence given that...

Bull.

Sorry, but losing a family member is tragic, but how in the name of all that is holy does that mitigate slapping an infant?

Because anyone who has experienced the loss of a family member will know that grief is a weird thing that can take time both to pass and to have an effect on your life. I greatly pity anyone who has to give the order/allow their child to be taken off of life support. A parent should not have to do that however, that is somewhat of a mitigating circumstance. The man essentially gave the order for his child to die. How heartless are you?

I'm pretty heartless but lets restate:
He said "shut your nigg__ baby up" and then battered a child.

No mercy. Put him in with Spike "You sure got a purty mouth" Jones in the jail.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I have ran into more screaming babies in the middle of my dinner then I have naked ladies.
Kids are the devil I tell you, Seen, but not heard.

If you'd like, I can point you to some places that could rectify that situation.

I'm with Team Dachshund on this one. The death of his son would have been a mitigating circumstance if this was simply an outburst. But if I tally it up and grand him this excuse my total would look like this:

Traumatic experience of loosing a son: -1
Angry outburst on plane: +1
Hitting a child: +1
Preexisting issue with rage (prior assault conviction): +1
Preexisting issue if being a racist (I don't believe that he suddenly woke up and decided to call babies ni****): +1

So even with the loss of his son he still ends up +3 on the "go to jail" scale.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

That is a strawman argument if I ever saw one. Im saying take care of your kid in public places, dont just leave them in a place, crying, running, causing a ruckus and disturbing others. I dont have kids because i dont want to have kids screaming at me.

You don't have kids because you are still a kid.

Every argument you have tried to make also highlights your lack of understanding the difference between a misbehaved kindergartener, an upset toddler, and a crying infant, all while not understanding what parenthood actually is. Therefore, your arguments are invalid.

Sums up the argument there.

Kronk's time to weigh in on people with crying babies.

1. Allowed on planes. People have to fething travel. Get over yourself. People have to travel because their job required a move, a parent died, or the family gets to see junior for the first time. You do NOT have the right to fly on a quiet plane. You do have the right to go feth yourself, then the privilege of driving a car on one of our many scenic highways and interstates next time, listening to Zamfir: Master of the Pan Flute in your Yaris.

2. NOT allowed at MOST movies*. This is an entertainment venue. People paid money to watch a movie, not listen to your kid. If your kid is crying, take him outside.
* Unless it's a kids move. If it's rated G, the crying kid can stay and anyone that complained should have known better. Netflix next time. STFU and GTFO.

3. Restaurants. Fast food? No problem. Expensive Steak House, get a fething baby sitter donkey-cave. I'm not dropping 2 bills for the privilege of sitting next to your damn crying kid. I'm dropping 2 bills so that later I can show my ____ to my date later...

4. DMV. Sure. Why not. The place sucks anyway. The kid needs to know that life sucks sometimes.


There. The above is the answer to everything this thread needs to know. You are welcome!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

That is a strawman argument if I ever saw one. Im saying take care of your kid in public places, dont just leave them in a place, crying, running, causing a ruckus and disturbing others. I dont have kids because i dont want to have kids screaming at me.

You don't have kids because you a still a kid.

Every argument you have tried to make also highlights your lack of understanding the difference between a misbehaved kindergartener, an upset toddler, and a crying infant, all while not understanding what parenthood actually is. Therefore, your arguments are invalid.

What this guy says, for the most part.

Hotsauce, as a parent of 3, ages ranging from 1 to 5, let me clue you in on something.

You have no clue what you are talking about, so shut the feth up.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm with Team Dachshund on this one. The death of his son would have been a mitigating circumstance if this was simply an outburst. But if I tally it up and grand him this excuse my total would look like this:

Traumatic experience of loosing a son: -1
Angry outburst on plane: +1
Hitting a child: +1
Preexisting issue with rage (prior assault conviction): +1
Preexisting issue if being a racist (I don't believe that he suddenly woke up and decided to call babies ni****): +1

So even with the loss of his son he still ends up +3 on the "go to jail" scale.

Which, BTW, is more or less how a judge would handle this at a continental European court. 8 months seems entirely reasonable, all things considered.

 kronk wrote:
Kronk's time to weigh in on people with crying babies.

1. Allowed on planes. People have to fething travel. Get over yourself. People have to travel because their job required a move, a parent died, or the family gets to see junior for the first time. You do NOT have the right to fly on a quiet plane. You do have the right to go feth yourself, then the privilege of driving a car on one of our many scenic highways and interstates next time, listening to Zamfir: Master of the Pan Flute in your Yaris.

2. NOT allowed at MOST movies*. This is an entertainment venue. People paid money to watch a movie, not listen to your kid. If your kid is crying, take him outside.
* Unless it's a kids move. If it's rated G, the crying kid can stay and anyone that complained should have known better. Netflix next time. STFU and GTFO.

3. Restaurants. Fast food? No problem. Expensive Steak House, get a fething baby sitter donkey-cave. I'm not dropping 2 bills for the privilege of sitting next to your damn crying kid. I'm dropping 2 bills so that later I can show my ____ to my date later...

4. DMV. Sure. Why not. The place sucks anyway. The kid needs to know that life sucks sometimes.


There. The above is the answer to everything this thread needs to know. You are welcome!

wow. it took five pages for us/ you people to come up with that. kronk wins.
[/thread]

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
You gotta hit children for no reason, or they'll grow up thinking that they're special and live a vicious life of entitlement and greed.

On the other hand, this man makes a good point.

 sebster wrote:
Dakka seems to have a rather large number of people declaring that they've decided to never have kids.

Probably for the best - quite a few Special Snowflakes here demanding that society be tailored for their own personal comfort. Don't really want to spread that to further generations.

 kronk wrote:
Kronk's time to weigh in on people with crying babies.

1. Allowed on planes. People have to fething travel. Get over yourself. People have to travel because their job required a move, a parent died, or the family gets to see junior for the first time. You do NOT have the right to fly on a quiet plane. You do have the right to go feth yourself, then the privilege of driving a car on one of our many scenic highways and interstates next time, listening to Zamfir: Master of the Pan Flute in your Yaris.

2. NOT allowed at MOST movies*. This is an entertainment venue. People paid money to watch a movie, not listen to your kid. If your kid is crying, take him outside.
* Unless it's a kids move. If it's rated G, the crying kid can stay and anyone that complained should have known better. Netflix next time. STFU and GTFO.

3. Restaurants. Fast food? No problem. Expensive Steak House, get a fething baby sitter donkey-cave. I'm not dropping 2 bills for the privilege of sitting next to your damn crying kid. I'm dropping 2 bills so that later I can show my ____ to my date later...

4. DMV. Sure. Why not. The place sucks anyway. The kid needs to know that life sucks sometimes.


There. The above is the answer to everything this thread needs to know. You are welcome!

You sir, have just posted the best post of 2014 to date. Like a rich ripe onion, you peel one layer of goodness away and are surprised to find another underneath.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

That is a strawman argument if I ever saw one. Im saying take care of your kid in public places, dont just leave them in a place, crying, running, causing a ruckus and disturbing others. I dont have kids because i dont want to have kids screaming at me.

You don't have kids because you a still a kid.

Every argument you have tried to make also highlights your lack of understanding the difference between a misbehaved kindergartener, an upset toddler, and a crying infant, all while not understanding what parenthood actually is. Therefore, your arguments are invalid.

What this guy says, for the most part.

Hotsauce, as a parent of 3, ages ranging from 1 to 5, let me clue you in on something.

You have no clue what you are talking about, so shut the feth up.

Just wait until they are teenagers...

Kronk wins, again

 sebster wrote:
Dakka seems to have a rather large number of people declaring that they've decided to never have kids.

Dakka seems to have a rather large number of people declaring that them not having kids is a conscious choice they're making...

@Sebster: We've also been informed that we are "too old" to do it.

They don't like couples over 30 to adopt for some reason. Maybe they just don't think we could transfer the discipline we have developed over time to the adoptee?

 the shrouded lord wrote:

You can't read your book, I'm sorry, I'm trying to raise a Child that will one day contribute to society just as much as you do.

Questionable, really.

Yes, it'll probably contribute more in all honesty.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yes, it'll probably contribute more in all honesty.

Maybe. It's difficult to tell. I'm just caught up in what a strange argument it is to make, as it's without evidence and not necessarily relevant.

Not to mention that the relativity of what "contribute to society" even means.

 daedalus wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yes, it'll probably contribute more in all honesty.

Maybe. It's difficult to tell. I'm just caught up in what a strange argument it is to make, as it's without evidence and not necessarily relevant.

Not to mention that the relativity of what "contribute to society" even means.

Fr my studies it means to have some form of impact in the local community e.g: earning money to circulate back into the system.

 kronk wrote:

3. Restaurants. Fast food? No problem. Expensive Steak House, get a fething baby sitter donkey-cave. I'm not dropping 2 bills for the privilege of sitting next to your damn crying kid. I'm dropping 2 bills so that later I can show my ____ to my date later...

This rule is completely negated when that "nice" steak house, italian restaurant, etc. that SHOULD have a dress code of some loose variety allows people in there and stay to eat wearing their PJs, gym clothes or other wholly inappropriate clothing... Yep, welcome to a military town

 kronk wrote:
. Expensive Steak House, get a fething baby sitter donkey-cave. I'm not dropping 2 bills for the privilege of sitting next to your damn crying kid. I'm dropping 2 bills so that later I can show my ____ to my date later...

Would you want to eat at a restaurant that would let you in ?

You should be required to wear authentic 1870s western duds to wear steak at a Texas steakhouse. Or alternatively a Mexican cavalry officer's uniform.

 Frazzled wrote:
You should be required to wear authentic 1870s western duds to wear steak at a Texas steakhouse. Or alternatively a Mexican cavalry officer's uniform.

I'd say you first... but you are already probably dressed as a Mexican Calvary Officer right now...

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You should be required to wear authentic 1870s western duds to wear steak at a Texas steakhouse. Or alternatively a Mexican cavalry officer's uniform.

I'd say you first... but you are already probably dressed as a Mexican Calvary Officer right now...

Or a pink fluffy bunny smoking a fine Cuban...

 djones520 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

That is a strawman argument if I ever saw one. Im saying take care of your kid in public places, dont just leave them in a place, crying, running, causing a ruckus and disturbing others. I dont have kids because i dont want to have kids screaming at me.

You don't have kids because you a still a kid.

Every argument you have tried to make also highlights your lack of understanding the difference between a misbehaved kindergartener, an upset toddler, and a crying infant, all while not understanding what parenthood actually is. Therefore, your arguments are invalid.

What this guy says, for the most part.

Hotsauce, as a parent of 3, ages ranging from 1 to 5, let me clue you in on something.

You have no clue what you are talking about, so shut the feth up.

Yes I have NO IDEA what im talking about when I have nieces and nephews that I see everyweek, babysit for and watch and helped raise when their baby daddy left.
Of when I saw my cousins refuse to feed their infant daughters(They didnt want them getting fat) eaving the whole thanks giving miserable for everyone.
Your hand waving saying I cant possibly unnderstand is also a very big circumstantial personal attack fallacy. Saying because of my circumstances In life I cant possibly understand
I have watched crying kids before, I know there are times they just cry.

Use proper spelling and punctuation, I can't hear myself think while reading your posts. Follow Rule #1 and quit inconveniencing me and ruining my internet time.

 reds8n wrote:

 kronk wrote:
. Expensive Steak House, get a fething baby sitter donkey-cave. I'm not dropping 2 bills for the privilege of sitting next to your damn crying kid. I'm dropping 2 bills so that later I can show my ____ to my date later...

Would you want to eat at a restaurant that would let you in ?

"I would never join a club that would have me as a member!" Groucho Marx

Alfndrate wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Dakka seems to have a rather large number of people declaring that they've decided to never have kids.

Dakka seems to have a rather large number of people declaring that them not having kids is a conscious choice they're making...

And I for one would like to thank all those ladies that made that decision by refusing to have sex with them.

chromedog wrote:@Sebster: We've also been informed that we are "too old" to do it.

They don't like couples over 30 to adopt for some reason. Maybe they just don't think we could transfer the discipline we have developed over time to the adoptee?

You mentioned the wood chipper when you called to make an appointment didn't you?

Like the youngling posters who have "chosen" to not make babies; over before it started really.

What ever, Im going to go get a sandwich and wait for the internet guy.....stupid idiots.....turning off our internet just because interference from our house almost crashed a plane

Give us one good reason why you are such a special snowflake that the rules of this forum don't apply to you? Why should we have to tolerate that you break Rule #1 on every single one of your posts? Is there any valid reason why I have to be bothered by your inability to utilize grammar and spelling?

If you feel like you shouldn't have to tolerate kids, then why do you feel like we should tolerate actions like that from you?

Lets not turn this into a thread about my spelling or grammar. I can give you wholes lists why.

 d-usa wrote:
Give us one good reason why you are such a special snowflake that the rules of this forum don't apply to you? Why should we have to tolerate that you break Rule #1 on every single one of your posts? Is there any valid reason why I have to be bothered by your inability to utilize grammar and spelling?

If you feel like you shouldn't have to tolerate kids, then why do you feel like we should tolerate actions like that from you?

You might want to make sure we know who you are talking to. I assume you are talking to hotsause, but I can't quite tell.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Lets not turn this into a thread about my spelling or grammar. I can give you wholes lists why.

Only 2 mistakes on this one. Not bad! "Let's" and "whole".

Child makes incessant annoying sounds on airplane,

Slightly older child/teenager makes annoying sounds on internets.


The difference?


People cant slap you through the internets when you are being annoying,


the solution:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Give us one good reason why you are such a special snowflake that the rules of this forum don't apply to you? Why should we have to tolerate that you break Rule #1 on every single one of your posts? Is there any valid reason why I have to be bothered by your inability to utilize grammar and spelling?

If you feel like you shouldn't have to tolerate kids, then why do you feel like we should tolerate actions like that from you?

You might want to make sure we know who you are talking to. I assume you are talking to hotsause, but I can't quite tell.

Talking to hotsauce.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Lets not turn this into a thread about my spelling or grammar.

You are complaining about having to deal with behaviors that annoy you in public and how you shouldn't have to put up with them. So your behavior and us having to put up with it is relevant.

I can give you wholes lists why.

Please do. Bonus points for lack of spelling errors and correct grammar and punctuation.

 d-usa wrote:
Give us one good reason why you are such a special snowflake that the rules of this forum don't apply to you? Why should we have to tolerate that you break Rule #1 on every single one of your posts? Is there any valid reason why I have to be bothered by your inability to utilize grammar and spelling?

If you feel like you shouldn't have to tolerate kids, then why do you feel like we should tolerate actions like that from you?

Someone woke up on the hole side of the bed this morning didn't they!

I don't think there's anything else to discuss here really.