Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Its their decision, its their right.

Business owners reserve the right to refuse service, its down to them, if they make the wrong decision, then they pay for it due to a loss of custom.

Frankly, i hate children, I really hate badly behaved children, and I really really hate that an increasing amount of my nation are fat chavs who breed like rats and then bring their fething kids in to places when I am trying to eat and drink and I have to put up with their incessant gak. And when I say "take charge of your bloody children" IM the bad guy!?

If this happened in the UK, i would frequent McDains twice a week to show my support for this decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FITZZ wrote: I have to agree with the owners policy.
I have two children myself, and before they reached an age where they knew how to behave themselves in public, the Missus and I simply either got baby sitters when we wanted to go out to eat...or ordered in.
When my children were old enough to behave, they knew what was expected of them and for the most part did so...but many other patrons children didn't.
I know many people might have " What do you mean my child can't eat here" point of view...but given number of times I've seen parents allowing their children to run wild in restaurants ( and in public in general)...all I can say is if you control your kids this wouldn't be an issue.
As for infants...it's a simple fact...they scream and cry...ask any parent..I didn't force my screaming kids on others ( as much as I could avoid it) and honestly don't want to hear yours while I'm trying to enjoy a meal..

EDIT:...Wow, I sound like a real ass hole...not my intentions, I guess my point is...Parents..control your kids.

No, you don't sound like an ass hole, you do what I would do, and the fact that most people in modern society are selfish pricks has made you believe that your in the wrong when your actually totally in the right. Just because more people don't do what you do, doesn't mean your in the wrong.

biccat wrote:In fact, I think that the privilages afforded by private society to single individuals is well in excess of that extended to parents. They command the same pay, despite not having any obligations to raise or support a family. They get the same number of sick days, but will never have sick kids to attend to, so they can afford to "call in sick" once in a while to stay home and relax.

Payment and benefits aren't accorded based on one's obligations outside the work place, so I'm not sure how that is to considered a privilege; particularly given that its a matter of equal consideration. If childless employees were paid more than their with-child counterparts, then it would be a matter of privilege (and, arguably, this happens when considering men vs. women in the workplace).

Additionally, I know of a number of employers who are more accommodating with respect to the needs of parents; allowing for the medical emergencies of children to be considered separately from those of the parent, or allowing parents the freedom to work from home in order to make up for their demands at home.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think my experience ties into the larger phenomenon in which no class of people is extended more privileges by private society than parents (aside from children themselves). A coupel with a two year old can behave in a way that's nearly sociopathic, but everybody understands "well, they have a kid."

Wait, what?

I just don't see how this follows from your comments above. In fact, I think that the privilages afforded by private society to single individuals is well in excess of that extended to parents. They command the same pay, despite not having any obligations to raise or support a family. They get the same number of sick days, but will never have sick kids to attend to, so they can afford to "call in sick" once in a while to stay home and relax. Heck, we even create "child-free" zones so they have places where they can avoid kids altogether.

About the only concession demanded of single/childless individuals is that they pay property taxes which benefit schools. However, those taxes are evenly applied to everyone, so I'm not sure it's a particularly offensive discrimination.

All of your "advantages" are granted to all, from sick days to property taxes. I don't have more sick days, I simply have less need for them.

I think that society, and government, realize that having kids is a huge drain of resources, and tries to help out. that's not my point, although you can talk about stuff like tax breaks for kids, tax exemptions for dependents, and child care credits if you'd like.

What I meant wasn't so much in terms of policy, but in terms of how society views behavior. If I call in sick because I'm hungover, which is a natural consequence of drinking and chasing strange on a Tuesday, I'm viewed as irrresponsible. If you call in sick because you're child has a fever, which is a natural consequence of having a family, you're viewed as a responsible parent. It's not wrong, it's just there.

Likewise, I went to a friend's house, at the appointed time, for dinner. They were giving their daughter a bath. We spent the first hour talking little while they finished the bath, and eventually put her to bed. I really couldn't say anything, despite the fact that I was sititng there on a work night waiting to eat, because they were taking care of their daughter. If I made people wait an hour in my living room while I finished painting a model, I'd be seen as incredibly churlish.

Again, this isn't a complaint, so much as an observation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:In fact, I think that the privilages afforded by private society to single individuals is well in excess of that extended to parents. They command the same pay, despite not having any obligations to raise or support a family. They get the same number of sick days, but will never have sick kids to attend to, so they can afford to "call in sick" once in a while to stay home and relax.

Payment and benefits aren't accorded based on one's obligations outside the work place, so I'm not sure how that is to considered a privilege; particularly given that its a matter of equal consideration. If childless employees were paid more than their with-child counterparts, then it would be a matter of privilege (and, arguably, this happens when considering men vs. women in the workplace).

Additionally, I know of a number of employers who are more accommodating with respect to the needs of parents; allowing for the medical emergencies of children to be considered separately from those of the parent, or allowing parents the freedom to work from home in order to make up for their demands at home.

Form each according to his to ability to each according to his need, comrade!

Polonius wrote:All of your "advantages" are granted to all, from sick days to property taxes. I don't have more sick days, I simply have less need for them.

I think that society, and government, realize that having kids is a huge drain of resources, and tries to help out. that's not my point, although you can talk about stuff like tax breaks for kids, tax exemptions for dependents, and child care credits if you'd like.

I understand your point, but if you consider the scope of human development, society has always been more accepting of the actions of those who have children. There even used to be a time when people were hired or promoted based on whether they had kids or not. It was easier to lay off the single guy because he didn't have a family to support.

What is new is our tolerance of people who don't have kids. We expect (and rightfully so) that everyone should get paid equally, regardless of their spouses income or whether they have kids. But in doing so, the incentive to not have children and "enjoy life" is more pronounced. If pay is based on what it takes to support a family, then the person who doesn't have a family will necessarily have more disposable income.

There are entire communities for just single people. Others exist that prohibit children entirely. These are new phenomena designed to take advantage of the disposable income of these single people, and cater to their whims.

At least part of the modern acceptance of the chilldless is the matching expectation that fathers be involved as parents. Join that with the rising expectation that women work, and the pros and cons having kids as a professional male have changed dramatically since the 1950s. Even my father worked full time, while my mom stayed home. He was relativly uninvolved with raising me and my brother, but he still had far more domestic duties than his father did. If I were to have kids, I'd be expected (by my partner, society, and myself) to be "a good dad." My career would suffer, my hobbies would be cut back, and my social life would change. These were all less true in the past.

To bring things around on-topic, this restaurant ban illustrates the change: 50 years ago, it would have been acceptable and simple to find a baby sitter and go out. Taking young children out wasn't done. Now, it's a lot harder, and we as a culture understand that young families want to eat out. But, this same rising cost of having kids that leads to these understandings also leads to people chosing not to have kids.

I don't have any children yet but I wouldn't take them to any kind of resurant if they are too young to understand that there are place where you don't scream and cry. It is like when parents bring their babies to some crazy R rated movie. There is something noisy and then the baby cries and I just get pissed. Maybe movie theaters could do something similar to this too.

I'd lay money this is mostly a publicity stunt they hope will boost business. Monroeville is a suburban area and not a nexus of "upscale" dining. I dunno that I'd place the restaurant in the upscale category either from a look at their site and menu. Nothing wrong with it, just looks like an average restaurant in a suburban area...which by definition is going to attract suburban people with kids in tow. That's just how it is in the 'burbs, and why the serious restaurants get opened in city neighborhoods. I dunno if I have a particular problem with the policy, but I expect this may end up biting them in the butt in the long run even if they get a short-term boost in business.

When in Pittsburgh, these are two of my go-to restaurants. Tamari in particular is a real gem.

http://www.bigburrito.com/kaya/
http://www.tamaripgh.com/

No, I wouldn't bring my kids to either restaurant. But then, that's kinda obvious based on their location, atmosphere, etc. Unlike McDain's in Monroeville.

This is one of the bestest ideas I've ever heard, seriously.

Bring your kids to Applebees, or olive garden or any of those family friendly places, but the restaurant in question caters to a more upscale crowd and kids just don't belong in fine dining places unless they can behave.

I know it's a broad generalization but kids just can't behave right in public when they're that young. I know there's exceptions, but still. I think it's more the parent's fault though, because parents don't discipline their kids with anything worse than a timeout these days, so the kids think it's ok to scream when their chicken fingers to come fast enough. Or when they get served first and finish eating before everyone else and get bored. And it's the parents that get insulted when they're told their kid is annoying. If I wanna take my GF out for a expensive dinner, I don't want to have kids screaming in my ear all night.

No, sorry, I don't love your kids and I don't want their sticky hand germs anywhere near me or my food. There's a McDonalds in every town, thats where your kid wants to eat anyway, so just take them there instead. Thanks.

And, I agree about the whole thing being a publicity stunt and the restaurant is trying to drum up extra business for what's probably a mediocre menu, but still. I'd go there over a place full of screaming brats any day if the food is the same uninspired stuff you'll get everywhere else.

Other restaurants that have done the same have seen business increase. There is a large class of people who are quite happy to have a place where they're assured of a nice quiet meal - including parents smart enough to hire a babysitter once in a while.

I can't believe this is a news item. Or even the cause of so much discussion.

dogma wrote:There are numerous possible reasons to believe a child ban is silly. The obvious reason being that its unfair given that not all children scream all the time. The less obvious reasons include that having the opportunity to sequester one's children, voluntarily or otherwise, may be considered a superior choice in terms of business given a particular type of establishment; an Applebees with a no kids policy is going to be a very short-lived Applebees. Then there's criticism of your position regarding your own intent to impose a certain set of standards on social conduct in semi-public spaces while taking a self-righteous tack. In other words, so what if someone wants to impose their screaming children on you? Why do you get to impose your love of the absence of screaming children on them?

Didn't your mama ever explain to you that life isn't fair? 'No shirt, no shoes, no service' isn't a silly rule even though some people may look fine with no shirt. The fact that something might or might not be a good business decision is similarly irrelevant to whether the concept of the rule is silly. Naming a restaurant that advertises itself as family friendly and pointing out that it would have trouble if it dropped one of it's selling points doesn't make a lot of sense.

And your idea that I'm somehow obligated to put up with screaming children, and that I'm wrong for wanting a quiet evening in a restaurant puts you squarely into the 'wants to impose kids' camp, thus proving my original supposition correct. You can believe that I'm wrong for thinking that I should be allowed to spend my money and leisure time on restaurants that have an atmosphere I enjoy, but that makes you the silly one.

I think the first time I considered not having children was my first 14 hour plane ride.. That and my older sister had 3 children before I even graduated from high school and I helped take care of them when her husband left her (and them). There's nothing like other people's children to put you off your lunch, so to speak. What is cute and charming to a parent is fingernails on chalkboard to others.

This thread has made me stop and think for a moment about how my wife and I live, specifically how we avoid establishments that cater to or are frequented by families with children. We go to adults-only resorts, eat in slightly nicer than average restaurants, attend early or late movie showings, etc.

After spending so much time in Asia, I've come to appreciate the concept of wa (public harmony). My wife frequently comments on how family-friendly America is when compared to Japan.

My opinion. The policy expressed in the article is ok; I think that parents with small children entering a nice establishment should get the same stink-eye that I would get walking into Chuck E. Cheese's without a child in tow.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Didn't your mama ever explain to you that life isn't fair?

No, I found that out by reading your posts.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
'No shirt, no shoes, no service' isn't a silly rule even though some people may look fine with no shirt.

Some people might consider it to be silly. "Silly" isn't a quality which exists objectively in things.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
The fact that something might or might not be a good business decision is similarly irrelevant to whether the concept of the rule is silly. Naming a restaurant that advertises itself as family friendly and pointing out that it would have trouble if it dropped one of it's selling points doesn't make a lot of sense.

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, because that make perfect sense. When people call things "silly" they aren't making an empirical determination in accordance with some objective truth. They're making a determination according to aesthetic or qualitative reason.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
And your idea that I'm somehow obligated to put up with screaming children, and that I'm wrong for wanting a quiet evening in a restaurant puts you squarely into the 'wants to impose kids' camp, thus proving my original supposition correct. You can believe that I'm wrong for thinking that I should be allowed to spend my money and leisure time on restaurants that have an atmosphere I enjoy, but that makes you the silly one.

That isn't what I said. I said you were taking a self-righteous tack regarding other people imposing their will on you while making an argument which entailed you imposing your will on them.

I'm not even really addressing your stance on the ability of restaurants and their ability to ban children, I'm addressing the reasons why your conclusions regarding what someone else said were poorly drawn, and rather humorous given their self-righteousness.

Hmm this is a situation I'm sure many have anticipated for years. (for future reference the quotes I'm about to use are directly from the OP's quoted article)
""If they're so concerned about noise, what do they plan to do about the loud people at the bar?" asks one local resident."
"It's not illegal to ban kids from eating establishments, but some parents consider the move discriminatory, and potentially a violation of rights for certain special needs kids."

Okay so with the first one the bar people. It could be they are loud/somewhat louder trying to talk over the screaming children? Regardless people talking somewhat loudly at a bar is normal and generally accepted it is a generally social area to begin with (unless you are depressed and just downing the shots) and nobody likes a screaming child when trying to enjoy a meal you simply cannot compare a screaming child to people being social at a bar it is illogical and just trying to pass the blame elsewhere.

Now with the second one yes it is somewhat discriminatory but so is roughly everything else in life is it not? And screaming children simply do not belong in a more quiet restaurant area it is insulting to not only the owner but the other customers just minding their own business. a violation of rights for certain special needs kids? A screaming child is a screaming child regardless unless they are mentally insane any child can at least be taught when they can and cannot yell, no these parents for the most part are just embarrassed by their children actions and try to place the blame elsewhere. Granted some toddlers are very very quiet my friends daughter whom I babysit often for him is a great kid and I love babysitting her but that still does not change my mind that maybe this ban is not such a bad idea.

Given that you only exist because all of your forebears had children I think it's a bit rich to start bitching about society's unfair consideration given to parents.

That said, I've got no problem with banning children from a restaurant. A nice, quiet restaurant for adults obviously doesn't want a lot of children running around screaming.

It is balanced by plenty of restaurants who go out of their way to make parents and young children welcome, with high chairs, a special menu (usually fishfingers and chips, unfortunately) and amenities such as colouring in paper and crayons.

Carluccio's is particularly good in this respect and enables children to experience a proper restaurant atmosphere and hopefully learn proper social behaviour. Of course that depends on the parents too, which is where it all starts to fall apart.

Kilkrazy wrote:Given that you only exist because all of your forebears had children I think it's a bit rich to start bitching about society's unfair consideration given to parents.

Different times have different needs. When we were a predominantly agrarian society, go forth and multiply made some sense. Today? There are seven billion people on the planet and the figure is growing all the time. All our environmental issues can be tracked back to population explosions. The single best thing you can do for the planet is opt not to have children, and the single largest increase to ones carbon footprint is having another child. Realistically, it's time to add incentives for not having kids, not further subsidize those who choose to with tax credits.

Kilkrazy wrote:Given that you only exist because all of your forebears had children I think it's a bit rich to start bitching about society's unfair consideration given to parents.

Did I miss anybody bitching? I know I specifically said I wasn't complaining.

That said, this is exactly the sort of mentality that drives me up a wall sometimes. My parents chose to have me, for their own reasons. I don't have to respect other people's choices simply because my ancestors made their own choice. My grandfather personally killed Japanese soldiers, can I still argue that people shouldn't kill japanese soldiers?

So, no, I think it's totally ok to bitch about unfair consideration if you're not enjoying those considerations yourself.

I will be completely honest when I say I have almost no clue what this means "Given that you only exist because all of your forebears had children I think it's a bit rich to start bitching about society's unfair consideration given to parents." or who it is directed towards. Everything else I agree with, though I have never in my life heard of a place called Carluccio's.

ShadowZetki wrote:I will be completely honest when I say I have almost no clue what this means "Given that you only exist because all of your forebears had children I think it's a bit rich to start bitching about society's unfair consideration given to parents." or who it is directed towards. Everything else I agree with, though I have never in my life heard of a place called Carluccio's.

I think it was a combination strawman/flame, to be honest.

Yeah but towards whom is what confuses me the most

Redbeard wrote:Different times have different needs. When we were a predominantly agrarian society, go forth and multiply made some sense. Today? There are seven billion people on the planet and the figure is growing all the time. All our environmental issues can be tracked back to population explosions. The single best thing you can do for the planet is opt not to have children, and the single largest increase to ones carbon footprint is having another child. Realistically, it's time to add incentives for not having kids, not further subsidize those who choose to with tax credits.

Sorry, but this is completely wrongheaded.

Birthrates in first world countries are generally at or below sustainable levels. This means that the real population growth is occurring in places without good education, health services, and, most importantly, high productivity jobs. Assuming technological advancement is a good thing, it's better to have population growth in countries where children will be raised with a higher level of education and ability to contribute to the advancement of the human condition.

Even more, given pension, social security, and medical care services promised by western governments, countries that have a welfare state require ever-increasing numbers of contributors in order to sustain these programs at the preferred level. If birthrates decrease, there are fewer taxpayers to satisfy the burden imposed on them by the older generations. This can be taken up for a short time by immigrants, but they tend to have lower paying jobs (since they will typically come from a poorer nation) and eventually the tax burden imposed by the older generations will eliminate the incentive to immigrate.

So in short, we need to do more to encourage the highly-educated and higher earners in the middle class to have kids, not less.

"it's better to have population growth in countries where children will be raised with a higher level of education and ability to contribute to the advancement of the human condition." IF one's existence is solely based on the advancement of human condition and to sustain a system with pensions, medical care, and social security why even bother living?

"So in short, we need to do more to encourage the highly-educated and higher earners in the middle class to have kids, not less" Why only middle class? why not everyone else? Sorry man but if financial status dictates who should and should not have kids then there is a serious issue

ShadowZetki wrote:"it's better to have population growth in countries where children will be raised with a higher level of education and ability to contribute to the advancement of the human condition."

IF one's existence is solely based on the advancement of human condition and to sustain a system with pensions, medical care, and social security why even bother living?

You have to find your own reasons for living. Neither I nor the government can give them to you.

Hower, from a social policy perspective, these are important aims.

ShadowZetki wrote:"So in short, we need to do more to encourage the highly-educated and higher earners in the middle class to have kids, not less"

Why only middle class? why not everyone else? Sorry man but if financial status dictates who can and cannot have kids then there is a serious issue

Well, because (1) the wealthy don't need the incentives, and (2) the poor don't need the incentives. And - I'm going to come off like a dick here - middle class people tend to have middle class kids. Poor people tend to have poor kids. If your objective is to maximize productivity and wealth, you don't incentivize poverty.

Now, there are obviously strong political and moral arguments against such a system, but governments should be picky about what they should choose to incentivize.

If only, if only. Don't get me wrong advancement of human condition is noble but is it always a good idea?

Im not sure what to think of 1 and 2 so I unfortunately have no comment regarding that. And no I do understand what you are saying Ive taken economic classes and the like, seen the patterns concerning families finances and the future of their spawn etc. However wouldn't the advancement of human condition include helping these families out of poverty?

The restaurant shall burn

biccat wrote:
Birthrates in first world countries are generally at or below sustainable levels. This means that the real population growth is occurring in places without good education, health services, and, most importantly, high productivity jobs. Assuming technological advancement is a good thing, it's better to have population growth in countries where children will be raised with a higher level of education and ability to contribute to the advancement of the human condition.

More people is more people. The world cannot support the number of people it has currently, including in this statement their infrastructure needs. Climate Change is directly tied to the demands of population, and is the world's way of letting us know that we're doing something wrong. We, humans, are taking more space every year. We're driving more other species to extinction every year. And claiming that we need to encourage more of this behaviour among any class of people, educated, 1st world, whatever, is what is completely wrongheaded.

Even more, given pension, social security, and medical care services promised by western governments, countries that have a welfare state require ever-increasing numbers of contributors in order to sustain these programs at the preferred level. If birthrates decrease, there are fewer taxpayers to satisfy the burden imposed on them by the older generations. This can be taken up for a short time by immigrants, but they tend to have lower paying jobs (since they will typically come from a poorer nation) and eventually the tax burden imposed by the older generations will eliminate the incentive to immigrate.

You say this like it is a bad thing. Maybe what is actually completely wrongheaded is a government program that requires never-ending increases in population in order to be viable.

So in short, we need to do more to encourage the highly-educated and higher earners in the middle class to have kids, not less.

This is so wrong, it's not even funny. Highly-educated, high income people don't need incentives to reproduce, can support their offspring without handouts if they choose to have them, and will do so at responsible levels. We can leave the educated, well-off alone and they'll be fine. What we need to do is de-incentivize those who cannot afford children from having them, at all. The people who do the math and figure out that the government will give them more money if they pop out another. You say the first-world western governments cannot afford lower population growth rates. I say the world cannot afford higher population growth rates, and if the governments need to change to meet this reality, so be it.

Redbeard does have a point we are WAY over the sustainable limit for the human species only reason we have been able to sustain such a population is by mass agriculture, hunting, ect.

I have a child, but I can understand the sentiment. There have been occasional times in restaurants where I've asked to sit somewhere specific to get farther away from a screaming baby or toddler. I don't really object to the idea of a "no screaming babies" restaurant as long as it's doesn't get out of hand and become a trend such that there is suddenly an inability for people to take their babies to restaurants hardly at anywhere. After all, taking children to restaurants from an early age is how you teach them to behave in restaurants. Kids that start training early generally do better, it certainly worked for us. Every child is different and some handle things like that early better than others.

As for the overpopulation discussion, don't get me started, we'll be here all day. Let's just say I only have one child and I'd like for there to be enough food and water for people in 50 years time. Resources are limited and getting more so all the time. Quality of life is just as if not more important than quantity. Don't create more human misery by overpopulating the planet even more than it already is in some areas. There, I said it and I'd say it again.

ShadowZetki wrote:Redbeard does have a point we are WAY over the sustainable limit for the human species only reason we have been able to sustain such a population is by mass agriculture, hunting, ect.

The United States alone could supply all of the food that the world needs for the foreseeable future. If that's not sustainable, then I'm not sure what is.

Redbeard wrote:More people is more people. The world cannot support the number of people it has currently, including in this statement their infrastructure needs. Climate Change is directly tied to the demands of population, and is the world's way of letting us know that we're doing something wrong. We, humans, are taking more space every year. We're driving more other species to extinction every year. And claiming that we need to encourage more of this behaviour among any class of people, educated, 1st world, whatever, is what is completely wrongheaded.

Are you suggesting that poverty is a good thing because it consumes fewer resources?

Also, the world doesn't "let us know that we're doing something wrong." It reacts to an astonishing number of variables, of which humanity is only one. You are free to believe that anthropomorphic climate change is a problem worth solving, but it isn't an inherent problem requiring our attention.

Redbeard wrote:You say this like it is a bad thing. Maybe what is actually completely wrongheaded is a government program that requires never-ending increases in population in order to be viable.

Like what is a bad thing? A welfare state? Yes. Failure of the industrialized world due to lack of population growth? Yes.

If you want universal 'free' benefits, it is always going to require more contributors than recipients. This will always require never-ending increases in population to sustain. But you're right, maybe first world countries should get rid of programs like social security, medicare, and nationalized health insurance.

Redbeard wrote:This is so wrong, it's not even funny. Highly-educated, high income people don't need incentives to reproduce, can support their offspring without handouts if they choose to have them, and will do so at responsible levels.

But highly-educated, high-income people (group 1) don't reproduce at sustainable levels. This means that their families will eventually decrease or be eliminated. Poorly-educated, low-income people (group 2) reproduce above sustainable leves, which means that their families will eventually dominate.

Therefore, we can conclude that the incentives for group 1 to have kids are lower than those for group 2 to have kids. If we want to encourage group 1, then we need to increase their incentives. Note that this might be as simple as eliminating disincentives (e.g. high taxation, high tuition rates, etc.).

Redbeard wrote:We can leave the educated, well-off alone and they'll be fine. What we need to do is de-incentivize those who cannot afford children from having them, at all. The people who do the math and figure out that the government will give them more money if they pop out another.

Except for the part where you're wrong that the "educated, well-off" will be fine if left alone (well, they will, their lack of offspring may create a problem down the road), I see no problem here.

Redbeard wrote:You say the first-world western governments cannot afford lower population growth rates. I say the world cannot afford higher population growth rates, and if the governments need to change to meet this reality, so be it.

OK, so how do you propose reducing population growth in Africa, the Middle East, and India? I can think of a few ideas.

Wow, this thread has spiraled quite a bit.

To the original topic: I have no problem at all with banning kids. If you want to take your kids out for dinner, go to Friday's, Chuck E Cheese, The Olive Garden, McDonalds, or somewhere else that caters to screaming little kids. When I want a nice diner out with the wife or friends, I don't want your screaming kids bothering me. They crawl all over the furniture, and run around the restaurant, and are very annoying.

I'd also give my business exclusively to any airlines that institute a simular policy. (Really! Please, any airline executives reading this, think about it! You'd get every business traveler's business and make a fortune!)

For the fellow Chicago posters, you should check out Sprout in Lincoln Park. They have an amazing Sunday brunch that is ages 12 and up only! It's a great experience.

I think the population in Africa lowers itself faster than it reproduces (warlords, blood diamonds, civil wars, cannibalism, South Africa) why is it that the solution is always have the rich reproduce rather than help the poor escape poverty. Im not sure people living in poverty choose to do so but are forced to.