Toxik916
Hank Scorpio
Sacramento Proud
Posts: 6,207
|
Post by Toxik916 on Feb 19, 2013 6:02:00 GMT -5
Maybe they should have a separate place on the plane for babies and children. Put up a sound proof barrier and boom everyone is happy.
|
|
|
Post by Throwback on Feb 19, 2013 6:15:04 GMT -5
I for one understand how and why a crying baby would aggravate people. But I've never been bothered by it. Maybe it's because I come from a big family where a new kid is born every 2 years and I'm just used to it. But babies hardly ever cry for to long of a period unless there is something wrong. Now I've only ever flown twice in my life and I remember my ears popping at least a dozen times during each flight. I imagine that would make a baby cry. so on some degree I do agree with parents thinking twice about flying. But anyway that's not even the case here. The case is about how one man decided to react to a baby crying and I'd like to think most people wouldn't resort to physical violence of a baby. And to think I only came into this thread to post this.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Feb 19, 2013 9:27:43 GMT -5
I can understand wanting quiet when you pay for a flight, but it's not like babies are out to annoy people. It's one thing if a child was kicking your seat, but I think trying to force a baby to not cry when it doesn't know any better is more than a little cold. And I can totally understand a baby crying when it's ears are popping. I hate flying and get quite bothered myself when my ears start popping so for a baby who doesn't know what the f*** it is it's not hard to imagine it being scary for them. Exactly. I think a far better way to go about things is to just put research into what makes babies cry on flights, and invent products and services that help with that. Treating babies like animals so adults can enjoy a flight is horrible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2013 9:30:15 GMT -5
Did anyone else read the thread title and think the baby got slapped for saying the slur? Save your trip to Disney World for when they are a bit older then. I can say I have to agree with this. I'm pretty neutral on babies, but Disney World is loud, often obscenely hot, ridiculously crowded, and consists as much of standing in lines and fighting through crowds as it does doing the fun stuff. I can see how that's a recipe for cranky kids. On a somewhat related topic, I do with that parents with strollers in the Disney parks would be a little more considerate. A lot of them tend to think they own the place and just plow right toward you, expecting you to get out of the way. I can't begin to count how many times I get my my shins whacked and my feet run over there while just watching a parade or something, and that's not the kids' fault.
|
|
|
Post by Baixo Astral on Feb 19, 2013 10:05:20 GMT -5
Wow... this thread. Muzzled and/or drugged babies? There are other parts of the internet to indulge that kind of thing, people, this isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by salsashark on Feb 19, 2013 10:16:18 GMT -5
You know what? I'm actually going to veer over to the other side far more with this subject the more I think about it, and some of you (especially Cantus Fraggle) are speaking sense, so I'll reconsider my position. Being vague hasn't helped either, so I'll specify a few things. I think it'd be considerate to hand out those candy bags for, say, 20 to 25 people within your vicinity. On a flight of however many hundred-ish passengers, it'd be ridiculous to give one out to everyone. I never said that, but I was never specific either. You have to use your judgment. The average loud baby would only really bother people within a close radius, so do something nice for them. If you can by any means, don't take a baby on a flight. I'm not going to say never take one on there for multiple reasons, but I'd say rule of thumb is to not do it. We've been discussing several extreme examples in this thread, and I don't know why most people are transporting kids, but whatever the case is, keep it light at least until they are 2 or 3 years old. Also, two or three years really isn't that long of a time to keep away from something like air travel barring extenuating circumstances. All this being said: ^ Don't bother arguing. He's just gonna say a baby in diapers shouldn't be in Disney. Save your trip to Disney World for when they are a bit older then. Was I wrong? You did say it. I'm just saying opinions can't be changed and there's no point in arguing because on a situation like this. There's always a counter argument. First off, you are wrong, yes. Saving your trip for when they are older =/= kids in diapers shouldn't be going to Disney World. They are not the same thing. The first part is based on the parents' exercising judgment regarding flying, the second is about a theme park that I never even mentioned in the place. Based on the =/= part, I'd say feel free to drive -- but not fly -- to Disney World if your kid is in diapers. I also really don't like you trying to squeeze words into my mouth. It's incredibly annoying and disrespectful. I believe there's merit to arguing on the Internet (ignore the memes), it's just that you should treat the other person with some respect and try to look at their side. People can be won over or at least moved by counter arguments -- folks change opinions in life all the time. I almost didn't want to say I was going over to the other side because I was so pissed about your posts, but that'd be unreasonable.
|
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Feb 19, 2013 10:40:15 GMT -5
I understand that people get annoyed by babies and kids crying. But honestly.....you are not guaranteed an annoyance free existence. Sometimes things can't really be avoided, and they will irritate you. As adults, some of us learn to just get the f*** over it. Tons of things annoy me. but again...that's life. I choose to get over it or allow it to turn me into a whiny asshole. Babies are going to cry. Finding it annoying...understandable. Slapping a baby, yelling at a baby, advocating the babies not being present or drugging or muzzling them is entitled, spoiled people actually thinking that the world should conform to suit their comfort. That is silly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2013 10:42:40 GMT -5
That's f***ed up.
I would have paid another two year to kick that kid's ass. Only fair thing to do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2013 10:45:00 GMT -5
is entitled, spoiled people actually thinking that the world should conform to suit their comfort. That is silly. I'm not saying that babies should be muzzled or whatever - but that goes both ways. No one forced them to have a kid and take it on a plane, so that entitlement goes both ways.
|
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Feb 19, 2013 10:48:01 GMT -5
is entitled, spoiled people actually thinking that the world should conform to suit their comfort. That is silly. I'm not saying that babies should be muzzled or whatever - but that goes both ways. No one forced them to have a kid and take it on a plane, so that entitlement goes both ways. Circumstances may very well force the issue. A funeral, a wedding; the parents could not find or afford a trusted baby sitter. They aren't pets; there aren't kennels you can just drop them off at. Having a member of your family that relies on you to survive isn't always a choice thing. I personally by choice do not take my young children into confined unescapable places by choice. But sometimes there is none. People should get over it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2013 10:52:15 GMT -5
I'm not saying that babies should be muzzled or whatever - but that goes both ways. No one forced them to have a kid and take it on a plane, so that entitlement goes both ways. Circumstances may very well force the issue. A funeral, a wedding; the parents could not find or afford a trusted baby sitter. They aren't pets; there aren't kennels you can just drop them off at. Having a member of your family that relies on you to survive isn't always a choice thing. I personally by choice do not take my young children into confined unescapable places by choice. But sometimes there is none. People should get over it. And again, funerals, weddings, etc aren't mandatory events. You can decline to go. I agree - they aren't pets, but by that same token having a member of the family that relies on you to survive is actually a choice. People choose to have children (extreme circumstances notwithstanding of course). There is always a choice for both sides - and "getting over it" shouldn't just be left to one side. It should be both sides.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Feb 19, 2013 10:54:36 GMT -5
You know what? I'm actually going to veer over to the other side far more with this subject the more I think about it, and some of you (especially Cantus Fraggle) are speaking sense, so I'll reconsider my position. Being vague hasn't helped either, so I'll specify a few things. I think it'd be considerate to hand out those candy bags for, say, 20 to 25 people within your vicinity. On a flight of however many hundred-ish passengers, it'd be ridiculous to give one out to everyone. I never said that, but I was never specific either. You have to use your judgment. The average loud baby would only really bother people within a close radius, so do something nice for them. If you can by any means, don't take a baby on a flight. I'm not going to say never take one on there for multiple reasons, but I'd say rule of thumb is to not do it. We've been discussing several extreme examples in this thread, and I don't know why most people are transporting kids, but whatever the case is, keep it light at least until they are 2 or 3 years old. Also, two or three years really isn't that long of a time to keep away from something like air travel barring extenuating circumstances. Why do parents have to do that, I think that's stupid. Maybe like, one or two if the parents feel like it, but they shouldn't have to put money into the potential of a baby crying. How about you do something nice for the parent who has to deal with the stress of the baby crying in their lap? They have a lot more on their minds and a lot more to deal with then the comfort of other people. f*** other people, they have a crying baby to worry about. You think it sucks to hear a crying baby, what about the parent themselves? And as well, there are funerals, maybe they need to go certain places. Maybe a parent does try to limit their travel as much as possible, but there are tons of other parents trying to do the same thing, and they happen to be on that one flight. Parents shouldn't have to think, well, I have a human being to look after, I should reconsider my options with flying. It all comes down to 3 simple words. Deal with it. I've flown all around the world, and I fly back and forth from my job. I haven't flown as much as some, but I've flown a lot. Deal with it. Circumstances may very well force the issue. A funeral, a wedding; the parents could not find or afford a trusted baby sitter. They aren't pets; there aren't kennels you can just drop them off at. Having a member of your family that relies on you to survive isn't always a choice thing. I personally by choice do not take my young children into confined unescapable places by choice. But sometimes there is none. People should get over it. And again, funerals, weddings, etc aren't mandatory events. You can decline to go. I agree - they aren't pets, but by that same token having a member of the family that relies on you to survive is actually a choice. People choose to have children (extreme circumstances notwithstanding of course). There is always a choice for both sides - and "getting over it" shouldn't just be left to one side. It should be both sides. Oh yeah, choice for both sides. Parentless person - Deal with it Parent - Not fly, not have children, decline weddings, don't go to Mom's funeral. Geez louise, some of you, I'd stand next to you on a plane with a crying baby out of spite.
|
|
King Ghidorah
El Dandy
On Probation for Charges of two counts of Saxual Music.
How Absurd
Posts: 8,330
|
Post by King Ghidorah on Feb 19, 2013 10:55:40 GMT -5
I'm not saying that babies should be muzzled or whatever - but that goes both ways. No one forced them to have a kid and take it on a plane, so that entitlement goes both ways. Circumstances may very well force the issue. A funeral, a wedding; the parents could not find or afford a trusted baby sitter. They aren't pets; there aren't kennels you can just drop them off at. Having a member of your family that relies on you to survive isn't always a choice thing. I personally by choice do not take my young children into confined unescapable places by choice. But sometimes there is none. People should get over it. What about the flyers circumstance, you seem to believe that having a child should give you priority over other people, and that's just not the truth. What if a man was going home on a long flight to another meeting and needed sleep before the plane landed, is it ok for him to be inconvenienced simply because he has no children?
|
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Feb 19, 2013 10:56:39 GMT -5
Circumstances may very well force the issue. A funeral, a wedding; the parents could not find or afford a trusted baby sitter. They aren't pets; there aren't kennels you can just drop them off at. Having a member of your family that relies on you to survive isn't always a choice thing. I personally by choice do not take my young children into confined unescapable places by choice. But sometimes there is none. People should get over it. And again, funerals, weddings, etc aren't mandatory events. You can decline to go. I agree - they aren't pets, but by that same token having a member of the family that relies on you to survive is actually a choice. People choose to have children (extreme circumstances notwithstanding of course). There is always a choice for both sides - and "getting over it" shouldn't just be left to one side. It should be both sides. I think that the right of a person to have a family member in their general vicinity outweighs your right to not hear crying. Ear plugs. Ipod. Realizing the world doesn't always revolve around you; much simpler than planning birth control around the possability of annoying a stranger.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2013 10:58:31 GMT -5
You know what? I'm actually going to veer over to the other side far more with this subject the more I think about it, and some of you (especially Cantus Fraggle) are speaking sense, so I'll reconsider my position. Being vague hasn't helped either, so I'll specify a few things. I think it'd be considerate to hand out those candy bags for, say, 20 to 25 people within your vicinity. On a flight of however many hundred-ish passengers, it'd be ridiculous to give one out to everyone. I never said that, but I was never specific either. You have to use your judgment. The average loud baby would only really bother people within a close radius, so do something nice for them. If you can by any means, don't take a baby on a flight. I'm not going to say never take one on there for multiple reasons, but I'd say rule of thumb is to not do it. We've been discussing several extreme examples in this thread, and I don't know why most people are transporting kids, but whatever the case is, keep it light at least until they are 2 or 3 years old. Also, two or three years really isn't that long of a time to keep away from something like air travel barring extenuating circumstances. How about you do something nice for the parent who has to deal with the stress of the baby crying in their lap? They have a lot more on their minds and a lot more to deal with then the comfort of other people. f*** other people, they have a crying baby to worry about. You think it sucks to hear a crying baby, what about the parent themselves? Because it's their baby and they chose to have it along with the headaches that accompany it. That's like saying "How about you do something nice for a crack addict!??!"
|
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Feb 19, 2013 10:59:41 GMT -5
Circumstances may very well force the issue. A funeral, a wedding; the parents could not find or afford a trusted baby sitter. They aren't pets; there aren't kennels you can just drop them off at. Having a member of your family that relies on you to survive isn't always a choice thing. I personally by choice do not take my young children into confined unescapable places by choice. But sometimes there is none. People should get over it. What about the flyers circumstance, you seem to believe that having a child should give you priority over other people, and that's just not the truth. What if a man was going home on a long flight to another meeting and needed sleep before the plane landed, is it ok for him to be inconvenienced simply because he has no children? He can put ear plugs in his ears. And yes, to me; my child and her needs outweighs that of everyone elses. It's called being a parent.
|
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Feb 19, 2013 11:01:58 GMT -5
How about you do something nice for the parent who has to deal with the stress of the baby crying in their lap? They have a lot more on their minds and a lot more to deal with then the comfort of other people. f*** other people, they have a crying baby to worry about. You think it sucks to hear a crying baby, what about the parent themselves? Because it's their baby and they chose to have it along with the headaches that accompany it. That's like saying "How about you do something nice for a crack addict!??!" That doesn't make any sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2013 11:02:30 GMT -5
And again, funerals, weddings, etc aren't mandatory events. You can decline to go. I agree - they aren't pets, but by that same token having a member of the family that relies on you to survive is actually a choice. People choose to have children (extreme circumstances notwithstanding of course). There is always a choice for both sides - and "getting over it" shouldn't just be left to one side. It should be both sides. I think that the right of a person to have a family member in their general vicinity outweighs your right to not hear crying. Ear plugs. Ipod. Realizing the world doesn't always revolve around you; much simpler than planning birth control around the possability of annoying a stranger. I would disagree about the first part you said. That's not a right - that's a choice that person made. There's no inalienable human right to take your baby on a plane. It's a luxury. I never said -don't have a baby. I'm just saying you can't choose to have a child and then throw up your hands and say "DEAL WITH IT WORLD!!!" Consideration should go both ways - it shouldn't ONLY be placed on the people who didn't bring their kids into that situation. Both parties should attempt to be considerate of the other. If you believe that a parent shouldn't have to be considerate of others - then that's where we disagree and its best to leave it at that. Parenting issues are always very touchy and we'll probably just go round and round. My only point was - both parties should work to "just get over it" as you put it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2013 11:03:01 GMT -5
Because it's their baby and they chose to have it along with the headaches that accompany it. That's like saying "How about you do something nice for a crack addict!??!" That doesn't make any sense. Of course it does.
|
|
King Ghidorah
El Dandy
On Probation for Charges of two counts of Saxual Music.
How Absurd
Posts: 8,330
|
Post by King Ghidorah on Feb 19, 2013 11:04:27 GMT -5
Again, you're using a child as a way to justify being selfish.
|
|