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.

I note that most people against this are American? I wonder why.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/7804354.stm

Couple took baby on drink session

A couple who took their baby son on a seven-hour drinking session have been given a two-year community order.
Mark and Petra Tyler, 46 and 24, of Reindeer Street, Mansfield, were arrested in September after being refused entry to a pub.
The couple, who appeared at Mansfield Magistrates' Court, pleaded guilty at a previous hearing to being drunk in charge of the four-month-old boy.
They were told if they reoffended they could expect to go to prison.
The couple were also ordered to pay £60 costs.
A landlord alerted CCTV operators who then called police when they saw the boy's buggy tipping from side to side.
The child was described by police as hungry and had a filthy bottle filled with sour milk in his pushchair.

Yes that's right, thanks the Labour party encouraging poor people not to work, we now have millions of citizens that think going on a bender with your child and your dole money is acceptable behaviour.

For this reason, I think in the UK they should ban kids from anywhere you can possibly get an alcoholic drink, and they should also frisk us all for cans and hip flasks.

If you really want to conserve resources then don't have any kids AT ALL. There are plenty that are available for adoption.

All in all I agree with biccat's take on some of the population issues worldwide. The problem with overpopulation lies in areas and peoples that can't support it. While seemingly over-crowded but upscale countries like Japan want their citizens to reproduce because their population has been declining IIRC

That is my plan believe me. Well if these countries cannot support the populations what are others doing to help?

Gin Lane

They should ban children under 12 in ALL restaurants. Bloody kids.

Gotta say I'm a little surprised at some of the strong reactions about children in this thread. Yes, children misbehave in public sometimes. But you also can't keep them locked in the basement. Exposing them to new things and settings is how they learn to behave in said places. Remember that *WE* were all young children once too. And although we might think *WE* were well-behaved in a given setting, odds are we acted terribly at least a few times there. Didn't make us monsters, nor did it mean we had bad parents.

I completely agree there are some restaurants that clearly aren't suitable for small children. But in my single days (in which I ate at a ton of restaurants in Philadelphia & Pittsburgh), I honestly don't remember small children being an issue at that level of restaurant. *shrug*

I think the restaurant is question isn't nearly as "upscale" and "fine" as people are making it out to be, and that's probably part of the issue here. Looks like a middling restaurant next to a driving range...IMO it's probably borderline in terms of what people would consider a "no kids" atmosphere.

IMO, this is almost certainly a PR stunt, and may indicate the restaurant is struggling. Because even though they might see some short-term business from this, they're going to get some negative attention -- especially in the 'burbs -- and I dunno that a really successful restaurant would be willing to take that on, even if they wanted to enact such a policy.

I lean towards letting owners choose who they allow into their establishment, and I have kids. I used to take my daughter into restaurants when she was a baby. If my daughter seemed to be getting ready to fuss and we couldn’t immediately defuse it, one of us would rush her outside to avoid disrupting people’s meals. But my daughter was usually quite well behaved. If I had had a particularly rambunctious or active child I would not have taken her out in the first place.

An interesting thing about theatres, I heard from someone that “back in the day” they had special rooms for people with infants. It was sound proofed with a window and speakers so parents can watch and no one outside could hear their kids. They should bring that concept back.

I have one thought about smokers though, even though I don’t smoke. If everyone hates smokers so much (seems to be the only group it’s ok to be openly and aggressively bigoted against) and hates the thought of them at restaurants why can’t they have designated smoking establishments? I see no reason why a bar owner couldn’t have a place where smoking is acceptable and if you don’t like it, don’t come in. You could have a waiver for employees acknowledging that smoking takes place here and they are ok working there. I’m sure plenty of smokers who would be willing to work somewhere like that and it would give smokers a place hang without people staring daggers at them.

gorgon wrote:I completely agree there are some restaurants that clearly aren't suitable for small children. But in my single days (in which I ate at a ton of restaurants in Philadelphia & Pittsburgh), I honestly don't remember small children being an issue at that level of restaurant. *shrug*

I don't know if it's a more recent development, but it does seem that this particular problem has gotten worse over the last 20 years or so.

All I know is that my father would have beaten me within an inch of my death if I had caused that kind of a ruckus in public. And I would have deserved it.

smeugal fan wrote:The restaurant shall burn

No, it won't.

I work in a supermarket, and I truly wish they could ban children from there too. We are very busy all the time and have lots and lots of cages/dollies on the shop floor at any one time. The thing you notice in this situation is children have no sense of spacial awareness. You're pulling a heavy cage and mummy's little darling comes running in front of you and you have to stop very quickly, this is VERY difficult with one with say, Bananas on it, which weigh about 300 kilos per cage. Try stopping that quickly.

If you come a cropper, which you will. Guess who is to blame? Same goes for kids using the aforementioned Cages AND the shelving as climbing frames...

That and there appears to be a certain generation of kids that can only communicate by screaming, no words, just inaudible shrieks. I can accept this if this is a toddler, but these are kids that are 4-6 years old. It boggles the mind why parents let them do it. If I did that when I was a kid I would've got a swift clip round the ear.

Monster Rain wrote:

gorgon wrote:I completely agree there are some restaurants that clearly aren't suitable for small children. But in my single days (in which I ate at a ton of restaurants in Philadelphia & Pittsburgh), I honestly don't remember small children being an issue at that level of restaurant. *shrug*

I don't know if it's a more recent development, but it does seem that this particular problem has gotten worse over the last 20 years or so.

All I know is that my father would have beaten me within an inch of my death if I had caused that kind of a ruckus in public. And I would have deserved it.

...I won't claim to have been the best behaved child, but I knew better than to start screaming and running about in a restaurant (or store), and if for some reason I "forgot" ...I was quickly "reminded".
What I see a lot of now is people who have children but can't seem to be bothered to actually take the time to teach them how to behave ( or pay much attention to them at all).

Yep. Mom and dad are texting other people while little Johnny climbs up the back of the seat and informs the rest of the patrons that he "WANTS ICE CREAM."

Monster Rain wrote:Yep. Mom and dad are texting other people while little Johnny climbs up the back of the seat and informs the rest of the patrons that he "WANTS ICE CREAM."

Exactly ...

I absolutely dread going to Wal-Mart due to the fact that there is almost always a small "heard?, gaggle?...brood?" of screaching children rushing about at the speed of light...knocking things off of shelves...running into folks..etc.
Meanwhile...where's mom...or dad?...oh, there they are...chit chatting with friends and blocking the aisle...guess the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree.

Let us coin the term "annoyance" for a large group of children in a store.

An "annoyance of children."

I have two children and I usually dread seeing kids on the loose in public.

Monster Rain wrote:Let us coin the term "annoyance" for a large group of children in a store.

An "annoyance of children."

I have two children and I usually dread seeing kids on the loose in public.

An " Annoyance" works...fits perfectly as well.

....I've got two kids myself Monster...most of the time when they see their " peers" misbehaving in public they look at me and ask "what's wrong with them?"...
Now, my kids are far from little angels...but it makes me happy that they recognize crap behavior when they see it...

Thanks for that KK, id never heard of Gin Lane and Beer street, and it made for a good 5 minute read.

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.

I'm in complete agreement with you buddy,me and the wife have created four extra earthlings ranging from age 12-3 and have pretty much done the same as you.

Screaming children awakes the inner devil in me.
Of all the things on this earth, this cosmos, this universe, screaming children makes me the most angry of anything.
I can see it in public places, where they generally are, like Wal-Mart.
But if I'm at the midnight screening of The Dark Knight and you decide to bring your screaming spawn to a violent movie early in the A.M. you have literally no reason to not shut the fether up. (true story)
I absolutely adore this restaurant owner, and I wished that more places did, honestly.

biccat wrote:
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.

Seriously? You've got to have some sort of source to make a claim like that. You think that the US could feed seven billion people indefinitely? You are aware that parts of the country, parts used for food production, are currently experiencing drought conditions as our water tables are depleting, right? We're doing okay now, but sustainably? Not so much. We're not going to have the water resources to make enough food for ourselves, let alone the entire world. Maybe not tomorrow, but looking forward to 2050. We're not even long-term sustainable today.

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

No, never said anything to that effect, don't put words in my mouth.

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.

Yes, some families may end. I fail to see what the issue with that is. Others will take their place. Einstein's father wasn't a genius. Newton's father wasn't a genius. Some smart people have average kids, some average people have smart kids (some have dumb kids). There will be no lack for intelligence. Gates' father wasn't a billionaire either. There will always be a wealthy class, and it don't have to come from inheritances. In fact, it's probably better when it doesn't or we end up with Paris Hilton and her ilk.

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.).

So you're suggesting cutting the tax rates for the wealthy to encourage them to have more children? That's brilliant. Meanwhile, you haven't denied that the lower income/education classes are reproducing at higher-than-sustainable levels, so maybe you're suggesting that reproduction should be restricted to only those who are wealthy or intelligent?

There's a reason that smart people are having fewer children...

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

Well, if we stopped exporting food there, then their population would eventually trend to it's locally sustainable levels.

Redbeard wrote: our water tables are depleting, right?

Well maybe we should stop putting water on tables. It seems like a bit of a waste of water and it certainly will warp the table eventually.

We should be putting more water on boards, am I right fellas?

Cute joke, but this is actually a very serious issue.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html

I have heard similar claims regards the USAs ability to produce food for the entire world from Kent Hovind.

I suspect if Biccat is making this claim its more due to theological beliefs, and I also suspect it is flat out wrong.

I'm not interested in going to the restraunt that bans children...

The restraunt that Cooks and Serves children? Put me on the waiting list!

The water table is #3,762 on my list of things to worry about, just behind the Smurfs movie but ahead of Lady Gaga's armpit hair.

As long as we don't run out of beer! Eh? Eh?

Redbeard wrote:

biccat wrote:
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.

Seriously? You've got to have some sort of source to make a claim like that. You think that the US could feed seven billion people indefinitely? You are aware that parts of the country, parts used for food production, are currently experiencing drought conditions as our water tables are depleting, right? We're doing okay now, but sustainably? Not so much. We're not going to have the water resources to make enough food for ourselves, let alone the entire world. Maybe not tomorrow, but looking forward to 2050. We're not even long-term sustainable today.

Indefinitely? No, eventually the sun will give out. Or maybe we'll all go extinct. But for a while? Yes.

As for water, I hope you understand that water is a renewable resource. Sure there's a fixed amount, but once it's used, it gets recycled.

Redbeard wrote:

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

No, never said anything to that effect, don't put words in my mouth.

Simply asking the question for you to clarify your comment that: "claiming that we need to encourage more of this behaviour among any class of people, educated, 1st world, whatever, is what is completely wrongheaded."

This argument was promoted by Krugman in one of his books. He basically says that we can't all live like today's Americans. The question we should ask then is: who has to get the short end of the stick? If America can live in the relative luxury, why can't others?

There's a very simple way to keep energy consumption down, reduce pollution, and maintain a "sustainable" lifestyle. Humans were doing it for thousands of years. But you can't have a sustainable life and enjoy the wealth, comforts, and security that the West enjoys today.

Redbeard wrote:Yes, some families may end. I fail to see what the issue with that is. Others will take their place. Einstein's father wasn't a genius. Newton's father wasn't a genius. Some smart people have average kids, some average people have smart kids (some have dumb kids). There will be no lack for intelligence. Gates' father wasn't a billionaire either. There will always be a wealthy class, and it don't have to come from inheritances. In fact, it's probably better when it doesn't or we end up with Paris Hilton and her ilk.

I didn't say that billionaires breed billionaires. Einstein may not have come from a genius family, but he also didn't come from poverty. He was able to attain a good education thanks to his parents. Same with Newton. Same with Gates.

Further, the largest indicator of whether someone will be "poor" is the economics of their parents. Being poor isn't simply a condition, but it is created from a lot of things, including poor education, illiteracy, poor money management, etc. Parents that lack necessary skills to live above the poverty line pass these traits onto their children (not through genes, but through lack of teaching). As an example, if mom and dad can't read, a kid isn't going to be exposed to reading at an early age, or possibly at all. If the parent's don't value education, the kids won't either.

Now, I'm not going on a Sanger-esque crusade to eliminate poor people, I think that they should have the same rights as everyone else. However, there is similarly no reason to encourage people to have children if they can't provide their kids opportunities to be successful. Besides, like I said, the "poor and undereducated" already have above-sustainable levels of children, so they don't need any more incentives.

Redbeard wrote:So you're suggesting cutting the tax rates for the wealthy to encourage them to have more children? That's brilliant. Meanwhile, you haven't denied that the lower income/education classes are reproducing at higher-than-sustainable levels, so maybe you're suggesting that reproduction should be restricted to only those who are wealthy or intelligent?

No, I didn't suggest anything of the sort. To quote another poster, "don't put words in my mouth." First, I said that the "wealthy" (and by this I assume you mean upper-class, those whose children will never need to work if they so desire) shouldn't get tax breaks. They don't need the incentives. If they want to keep wealth "in the family," they will. Further, wealthy heirs and heiresses don't tend to be wealth producers. Yes, there's value to capitalists, but wealth (generally) isn't destroyed when a person dies without heirs. It is simply transferred (although it may be depleted).

The point I was making is that since the middle class (those who aren't poor but need to work to live) doesn't breed at sustainable levels, and they provide better advantages to succeeding generations, there needs to be an incentive to change the cost-benefit analysis so that kids are worth having.

Redbeard wrote:There's a reason that smart people are having fewer children...

Really? Perhaps you could educate the rest of us, rather than trailing off in an ellipsis.

Redbeard wrote:Well, if we stopped exporting food there, then their population would eventually trend to it's locally sustainable levels.

While I agree we should stop exporting "free" food to those countries (and, in principle, end foreign aid in general), I don't see a problem with food exports in general. Some economies produce goods more efficiently, and if it's more efficient to produce widgets in Africa and food in the US and trade between the two, there's no problem.

mattyrm wrote:Thanks for that KK, id never heard of Gin Lane and Beer street, and it made for a good 5 minute read.

It's awesome stuff and proves that beer is good for you.

Parents should actually really support this. Imagine you are going out for your anniversary dinner, you have cooked and fed the kids, fought with the younger ones to get them to go to bed, waited for the baby sitter to show up. You've gotten dressed up for a nice night out. Now you have 3 kids, so spending $400 on dinner while not out of the question, is deemed irresponsible. You go to a nice non chain restaurant, maybe an Italian place where they use old Chianti bottles to hold candles. It's nice, reminds you of some of your first dates together. Your alone at a table with your wife.


WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Your one night ruined by someone elses kids. Thanks.

Cane wrote:The problem with overpopulation lies in areas and peoples that can't support it. While seemingly over-crowded but upscale countries like Japan want their citizens to reproduce because their population has been declining IIRC

An important thing to remember is that in rural areas children are a net asset, as they can provide cheap labor, while in urban centers they are a burden because cheap labor is generally not necessary. The same is true of developed, versus undeveloped economies.

dogma wrote:as they can provide cheap labor

I believe that was my dad's nickname for me and my brother.