what a ridiculous "news" debate!

13 years ago

Huh seems good old fashion america is at it again with its love for segregation. It would seem as a whole our people are not happy unless a certain section of people are forcefully banned from certain things.

God bless the US, the land of the free!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8382841].message }}

Kay King 13 years ago

Interesting perspective:rolleyes:

Maybe "free" is the problem - too many permissive parents allowing their kids to run free and irritate other diners in a restaurant.
- [ 6 ] Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
https://www.pawsofwar.org/
2024 Patriot's Award for Service to Veterans
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8382955].message }}

bizgrower

13 years ago

I think establishment owners should be free to do what they want with their business.

In Colorado we have mandatory no smoking in bars and restaurants and it really financially hurt a lot of establishments at first. It should have been their choice, and people could decide to go to a smoking place or a smoke free place. Ditto for kiddows in restaurants.

I'm an easy going person, but my Dad would get upset at kids running around a restaurant or being "noisy". I remember thinking, "then why go to a restaurant that caters to families"?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8383011].message }}

GrowTutor

13 years ago

Originally Posted by bizgrower

I think establishment owners should be free to do what they want with their business.

Some people only believe in freedom for the things they agree with. I've seen people whining about freedom of speech telling others to shut up. There are cases of anti-gun people shooting people. Breastfeeding moms want to expose themselves in other peoples' businesses. Freedom is sometimes a double edged sword but some want the freedom to do what they want without the consequences of affording freedom to others.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8383399].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

<snip>Breastfeeding moms want to expose themselves in other peoples' businesses. <snip>

It is bizarre placing breastfeeding moms alongside your other examples. They want to feed their children, not "expose themselves." If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with nature.

Originally Posted by Kay King

Interesting perspective:rolleyes:

Maybe "free" is the problem - too many permissive parents allowing their kids to run free and irritate other diners in a restaurant.

It sure can be hard to control some kids. My son loves to run around in restaurants and it was a challenge to stop him from doing it, especially since, more often than not, waitresses (almost always female table attendants) and patrons are delighted by him and unintentionally encourage such behavior. Trying to discipline him didn't work, but I did manage to stop him from trying to do it after explaining the dangers of running around in a restaurant such as the possibility of knocking a tray full hot soup down and getting burnt.

I personally don't have a problem with restaurants having a "no small children" rule. It's their business.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386299].message }}

GrowTutor

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

It is bizarre placing breastfeeding moms alongside your other examples. They want to feed their children, not "expose themselves." If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with nature.

I have no problem with moms feeding their children, my kids and grandkids were breastfed discretely in public but we're not a primitive culture in the rainforest; we're a civilized society and we wear cloths to not expose ourselves. Despite your denial it IS about exposing themselves, some have admitted that they do it intentionally to confront business owners. They don't need to whip out a boob, for all to see, to feed their kids they do it intentionally. If you have a problem with covering up and being discrete then you have a problem with civilization. :rolleyes:

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386424].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

I have no problem with moms feeding their children, my kids and grandkids were breastfed discretely in public but we're not a primitive culture in the rainforest; we're a civilized society and we wear cloths to not expose ourselves. Despite your denial it IS about exposing themselves, some have admitted that they do it intentionally to confront business owners. They don't need to whip out a boob, for all to see, to feed their kids they do it intentionally. If you have a problem with covering up and being discrete then you have a problem with civilization. :rolleyes:

Perhaps a tiny minority of mothers who breastfeed their children in public deliberately expose themselves. Most don't. If say, they did deliberately whip out their boobs to expose themselves while feeding an infant, it is not the same as whipping out a gun in a violent and uncalled-for manner. Maybe I belong in the rainforest, but if I do catch sight of a woman's breasts, it doesn't bother me.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386460].message }}

GrowTutor

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

Perhaps a tiny minority of mothers who breastfeed their children in public deliberately expose themselves. Most don't. If say, they did deliberately whip out their boobs to expose themselves while feeding an infant, it is not the same as whipping out a gun in a violent and uncalled-for manner. Maybe I belong in the rainforest, but if I do catch sight of a woman's breasts, it doesn't bother me.

I'm sure your right that only a tiny minority of breastfeeding mothers expose themselves; most use a blanket or other means to avoid that. What many people are saying is that there no need for exposure just to feed a child and many of those that DO expose themselves are doing it to be confrontational.

Really, boob = gun is what you get from this debate? That's what you think people are comparing boobs to? Of course it's not the same and nobody is suggesting that it is...

I'm not "boob-adverse" either but that's not the point and trying to paint such pictures (against moms feeding kids, boobs = guns, bothered by boobs) is just sad.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386752].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

I'm sure your right that only a tiny minority of breastfeeding mothers expose themselves; most use a blanket or other means to avoid that. What many people are saying is that there no need for exposure just to feed a child and many of those that DO expose themselves are doing it to be confrontational.

Really, boob = gun is what you get from this debate? That's what you think people are comparing boobs to? Of course it's not the same and nobody is suggesting that it is...

I'm not "boob-adverse" either but that's not the point and trying to paint such pictures (against moms feeding kids, boobs = guns, bothered by boobs) is just sad.

Here, to refresh your memory. Your words, one sentence next to the other, as you wrote it:

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

Some people only believe in freedom for the things they agree with. I've seen people whining about freedom of speech telling others to shut up. There are cases of anti-gun people shooting people. Breastfeeding moms want to expose themselves in other peoples' businesses. Freedom is sometimes a double edged sword but some want the freedom to do what they want without the consequences of affording freedom to others.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387055].message }}

GrowTutor

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

Here, to refresh your memory. Your words, one sentence next to the other, as you wrote it:

Everything I said and you quoted is true.

There ARE cases of anti-gun people shooting others. FACT.
There ARE breastfeeding moms that want to expose themselves in other peoples' businesses. FACT.

None of that makes me anti-boob, anti-feeding or implying that exposing a boob is the same as drawing a gun.

I'd say nice try...but it wasn't.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387092].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

Everything I said and you quoted is true.

There ARE cases of anti-gun people shooting others. FACT.
There ARE breastfeeding moms that want to expose themselves in other peoples' businesses. FACT.

Nice try...

You wrote those two sentences next to each other. Just reflecting your words back to your face.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387099].message }}

GrowTutor

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

You wrote those two sentences next to each other. Just reflecting your words back to your face.

What difference does it make if the facts are next to each other? Did you read the whole post and get what I was talking about?

Let me explain it to you again:
I was talking about freedom, in response to bizgrower's statement that business owners should be able to do what they want.

I was explaining that SOME people only accept freedom to mean whatever it is that they support and I gave 3 examples:
1) People that whine about "freedom of speech" and tell others to shut up. (fact)
2) Anti-gun people that have shot others (fact)
3) Breast feeding moms that want to be able to expose themselves in other people's businesses. (fact)

See the business owners should have freedom to expect their customers not expose themselves in their property but the breastfeeding moms don't accept THAT freedom just the freedom they agree with.

Hope that helps but I have my doubts...

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387288].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

What difference does it make if the facts are next to each other? Did you read the whole post and get what I was talking about?

Let me explain it to you again:
I was talking about freedom, in response to bizgrower's statement that business owners should be able to do what they want.

I was explaining that SOME people only accept freedom to mean whatever it is that they support and I gave 3 examples:
1) People that whine about "freedom of speech" and tell others to shut up. (fact)
2) Anti-gun people that have shot others (fact)
3) Breast feeding moms that want to be able to expose themselves in other people's businesses. (fact)

See the business owners should have freedom to expect their customers not expose themselves in their property but the breastfeeding moms don't accept THAT freedom just the freedom they agree with.

Hope that helps but I have my doubts...

You missed the point again. When you put two things next to each other, an association is being implied, whether you intended it or not. Very basic editing principle. However, making a numbered list is an improvement. Questionable juxtaposition aside, I overall agree with your points on this thread...much as I abhor agreeing with you about anything, what with your noxious presentation of opinion, dogmatic and abrasive responses that litter this forum and all.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387416].message }}

GrowTutor

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

You missed the point again. When you put two things next to each other, an association is being implied, whether you intended it or not. Very basic editing principle. However, making a numbered list is an improvement. Overall, questionable juxtaposition aside, I overall agree with your points on this thread...much as I abhor agreeing with you about anything, what with your noxious presentation of opinion, dogmatic and abrasive responses that litter this forum and all.

pot/kettle/black... :rolleyes:

The association was that they're all examples of hypocrites that want their freedom at while denying other people theirs. Not that one has anything to do with the other. Basic reading comprehension....

Still trying to take shots at me because you didn't get it...sad. The people that thanked my post got it...

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387497].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

pot/kettle/black... :rolleyes:

The association was that they're all examples of hypocrites that want their freedom at while denying other people theirs. Not that one has anything to do with the other. Basic reading comprehension....

Still trying to take shots at me because you didn't get it...sad. The people that thanked my post got it...

The concept of associations made by placing things next to each other is very basic. It is ridiculous of you to make assumptions that folks can read your mind and know your intentions. Usually there is a reason for how things are placed. In your case, it was entirely blind, or you are just pretending to be clueless.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387529].message }}

GrowTutor

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

The concept of associations made by placing things next to each other is very basic. It is ridiculous of you to make assumptions that folks can read your mind and know your intentions. Usually there is a reason for how things are placed. In your case, it was entirely blind, or you are just pretending to be clueless.

Reading comprehension is very basic too, why are YOU the only one that didn't get it? :rolleyes:

I know they speak french in Quebec, is that the case in Vancouver too? If English isn't your first language then you shouldn't feel bad.

Are you mad because you were wrong or because I was right? Either way, get over it already because it won't be the last time.

Keep attacking me because you messed up, I think it's funny...

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387583].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

Originally Posted by bizgrower

I think establishment owners should be free to do what they want with their business.

In Colorado we have mandatory no smoking in bars and restaurants and it really financially hurt a lot of establishments at first. It should have been their choice, and people could decide to go to a smoking place or a smoke free place. Ditto for kiddows in restaurants.

I'm an easy going person, but my Dad would get upset at kids running around a restaurant or being "noisy". I remember thinking, "then why go to a restaurant that caters to families"?

SOME families are well behaved!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8384056].message }}

bizgrower 13 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

SOME families are well behaved!

Steve

In the particular restaurant I was thinking of, we had driven 25 miles and my Dad knew
it catered to families. They provided coloring books and had a fun theme. To me, the kids
did not cross the line into poor behavior in public. There was no crying baby or kid throwing a temper tantrum - just normal kids having a good time in a restaurant environment that facilitated that. There were all adults in our group and we could have driven 10 miles or less for better Mexican food in an adult restaurant.

------------------------------------------------

Of course, with freedom there is responsibility. And, one should always extend common courtesy.

------------------------------------------------

Via taxes and as an employer, I don't like paying for/dealing with other peoples' health problems caused by their choosing to drink or smoke too much, etc. (I'm 53 and have a 56 year old employee who is a functioning alcoholic and chain smoker. A customer seriously asked if she's my mom.) But, I don't think that making it mandatory for bars and restaurants to be smoke free has made a dent in that problem and, as I wrote earlier,
each individual business should be able to decide if they want to be smoke free or not, or have smoke free night(s). Patrons can decide where to go. In my small, real life experience, I know that people go to establishments less and actually drink and smoke more at home parties.

---------------------------------

I worked in a bar and by license, we had to have the under 21 years old crowd out by 9PM. (The owner chose 7PM as the deadline.) All under 21 had to be with a parent.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8384618].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Short and sweet - private property. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". You own the property, it's your choice to allow someone to be there or not. This forum doesn't allow spammers. Is that discrimination or limiting freedom? It's private property. The owner can do what he wants with it.

This "descrimination" against children seems to be okay with people who want TV to air only child friendly shows during early hours of the evening when they are usually awake. Adults out later in the evening often get out specifically to be away from kids for awhile. I see no problem with catering to that crowd. If someone wants to take their kids out later at night, there are plenty of restaurants that are family oriented. It shouldn't be a problem with ANYONE that there are a few places to go and eat in an adult only atmosphere. I don't have kids. I like an adult only atmosphere without having to go to a bar. I have rights, too, and so do other adults looking to get away from kids. So there should be places that cater to the adult only crowd. If I wanted to be around kids 24/7 I could have had my own.

[ 4 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8384086].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

Bizgrower,

TOTALLY RIGHT, about the kids! Yeah, many kids want to do SOMETHING, and some restaurants even try to cater to THAT!

They did NOT tell bars, et all, to ban smoking to help people stop smoking. Where did you get that idea? NOBODY ever claimed it was for that, etc.... They did it so that non smokers didn't have to be affected by it.

As for smokers? If they are banned EVERYWHERE, they will STILL smoke! They will try to hide it inside! They will go outside and do it! They will EVEN smoke in a rental car where it is banned, EVEN when threatened with a multi hundred dollar charge! They will smoke in hotel rooms, EVEN with threatened with a multi hundred dollar charge. I was in a hotel that was smoke free, and the police and fire departments were called because some careless people masked the smoke alarms, and started smoking marijuana like it was going out of style. The smoke built up, went into the hall, and triggered OTHER smoke detectors. It was a MESS! The smokers were arrested.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8385093].message }}

bizgrower

13 years ago

Steve,

In Colorado, I think the ban was for both the non-smokers and the concerns about health costs. That's the rhetoric I recall anyway.

Dan

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8385281].message }}

seasoned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by bizgrower

Steve,

In Colorado, I think the ban was for both the non-smokers and the concerns about health costs. That's the rhetoric I recall anyway.

Dan

Well, you would have to be pretty stupid to think a law, or even a ban will stop smokers, ESPECIALLY when cigarettes are still openly sold.

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8385386].message }}

Kurt

13 years ago

I thought the one restaurant's move to not allow kids under 8 after 7 pm was a pretty good compromise. If you have young kids, go before 7. If you don't want to be around kids, go after 7. Seems pretty fair to me.

It amazes me how many people are so unwilling to compromise.

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386268].message }}

hardraysnight

13 years ago

they can ban someone wearing a gang patch but cannot ban a 5 year old hooligan

i must be missing part of the story

Thanks

Signature

These guys helped me with the feedback for my site

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386472].message }}

lcombs

13 years ago

Ohio passed the smoking ban a few years ago.
It took 2 bills on the same ballot to do it.
You had to vote no on 1 and yes on the other.
And, you had to know which one was which.
They both read like either one would stop the ban.
It was very confusing.
But, one thing that made no sense whatsover was
it included private clubs.
My wife and I belonged to Amvets at the time
and they got busted a few times until they finally
caved and observed the ban.
Then, there was the largest Moose club in the country in Middletown, Ohio.
They put a "fine" jar on the bar that members would contribute to pay
the fine should they ever get busted, which they did a few times.
But, a tiny minority of members complained to the national Moose headquarters
over and over until they made the Middletown branch observe the ban.
How could that happen?
The Amvets and the Moose are PRIVATE clubs.
What right does the gov't have to tell a privately owned, building and all,
what to do?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fresh...55326481208883

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386529].message }}

GrowTutor

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

The government can do anything it desires because it is the government. People will support whatever the government does because it is the government.

The government is your friend. Without it, people would gad about doing whatever the hell they please and we certainly can't have that, can we?

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' " -- Ronald Reagan

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387389].message }}

ronrule

13 years ago

The owner has the right to run his business as he sees fit. I say this as a father of three myself... sometimes you want to go out to a place that's kid-friendly, and sometimes you don't.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

-
Ron Rule
http://ronrule.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387122].message }}

salpa

13 years ago

yes, sometimes media don't get the news and fake gossip they show from their television.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387763].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 13 years ago

Funny. Where's the uproar over children not being allowed in a bar, or in certain adult only condominiums or on certain rides at amusement parks, or certain movies.

I raised my kids and when I took them out to eat when they were more boisterous, I went to a family restaurant where there were kids everywhere. On those precious few nites that we afforded a babysitter so that we could have a date night out, like an anniversary or Valentine's Day, the last thing we wanted was to go to a restaurant filled with NON-romantic, not relaxing, not quiet children that we had just paid someone to give us a temporary reprieve from.

It is a most unpleasant experience for adults without children to be subjected to kids running around, babies crying, etc. when they are trying to have a quiet, relaxing adult dinner out. When I'm in the mood for that, I generally go to restaurants that don't typically attract families, but I would welcome a kids free time period in some restaurants.

Having raised my kids and having a slew of grandchildren, there are times when I welcome the absence of children.

[ 4 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8388086].message }}

what a ridiculous "news" debate!

Trending Topics

Tribute to Mark...

Google Adding Ads to AI?

What if we banned Google?

How to make affiliates sell my product??

Is sleep overrated ??