No apologies needed

[Saint Jade IV]

--like the feeble minded twits here.

I find your physical appearance repugnant and nauseating why should my comfort be subjected to your presence? Stay home until you have lost the ugly.

Skibereen, Warned for Flamebaiting. Again, cool it down on the rhetoric or you're going to earn yourself another vacation.

Nice out of context theater I was illustrating a point read the whole post.

I did read the whole post, and I already cautioned you before in your use of language. Those were the points where you crossed the line.

Oh come on, Nerv, it was obvious that he wasn't actually insulting the guy.

EDIT: Nevermind, didn't see the "feeble-minded-twits" thing.

I'm not a guy. I thought everyone knew that by now.

[Derscon]

--like the feeble minded twits here.

I find your physical appearance repugnant and nauseating why should my comfort be subjected to your presence? Stay home until you have lost the ugly.

Skibereen, Warned for Flamebaiting. Again, cool it down on the rhetoric or you're going to earn yourself another vacation.

Nice out of context theater I was illustrating a point read the whole post.

I did read the whole post, and I already cautioned you before in your use of language. Those were the points where you crossed the line.

Oh come on, Nerv, it was obvious that he wasn't actually insulting the guy.

EDIT: Nevermind, didn't see the "feeble-minded-twits" thing.

I'm not a guy. I thought everyone knew that by now.

I'm using "guy" in the "that person" colloquial form, because I'm a chauvinist pig who loves using language to oppress women, obviously.

Anyway, no girls on the internet, etc.

[ChengISao]

to sedation.

Mmm, sorry. This is really infringes on the child's rights.

I think that these things in general are inevitable and us passengers just have to suck it up.

Well fine, then Novocain and various other pain killers should not be allowed for kids despite if they are in pain.
After all, it's against the child's rights because they themselves can not make an informed decision..

I am all for them suffering when their ignorant parents do not even take the time to understand that the pressure changes are painful for children. They should not be on the plane in the first place, much less when they are too young even to suck on hard candy or chew gum. I even had one totally moronic mother inform me when i offered a sugarfree candy to her screeching 5 year old that, she doesn't approve of candy.

[Skibereen]

Well you should sedate yourself then, there is that option. Oh but no, that means youre being responsible just for you and not imposing your will over everyone else.
You know its really disturbing to police when rape victims cry, they shouldn't be allowed to file reports until the weeping stops. Its annoying.

[Czardas]

Well you should sedate yourself then, there is that option. Oh but no, that means youre being responsible just for you and not imposing your will over everyone else.

And the parent isn't imposing their will (to let their child cry or something) upon everyone else?

If someone is playing loud music in the apartment next door at 3 AM, should you just suck it up so that you don't impose your will on other people?

[Skibereen]

Free Speech is a Right. Even if that speech is incoherent bable in the form of weeping. Our Right to be irritating is protected.

[Czardas]

Free Speech is a Right. Even if that speech is incoherent bable in the form of weeping. Our Right to be irritating is protected.

Not really.

The right to free speech is not after all unlimited. And the right to be irritating exists no more than does a right to travel or a right to be undisturbed by screaming babies or any other "right" not explicitly established in law.

Besides, an airline is a private institution and it can remove you from its aircraft for any reason whatsoever.

[NERVUN]

By the way rhetoric is effective persuasive speach used to to change opinions and convey ideas by applying logic and language, I see your point it doesnt belong here.

And I see so by insulting peoples children that isnt actionable behavior, I myself have "brats" but marking a point, and offering my opinion on the intellectual capacity of people here that is...intriguing.

My point stands, with no apologies needed as it were their face is offensive, and should be sent so as not to disrupt other people in public. Ban away.

Rhetoric is persuasive speech, yes. However, attacking the person making the argument is not the same as attacking the argument. And on this site, one is allowed and one is not. You crossed the line into attacking the person. As for your second point, no one has attacked your children directly. People have made broad general statements regarding children, but not YOUR children. If your children are on NSG and they feel that they have been targeted by a post here deliberately, they are welcomed to make a post in Moderation. You, however, attacked those who disagree with you on this forum.

That was why I warned. Again, argue the post, not the poster.

[NERVUN]

On the contrary, there might be a number of reasons why removing the child is not an acceptable solution ranging from other children that need parental supervision, to no transportation, to social situations that preclude being unable to leave, etc.

The point of the matter is that a two-year-old child is still in the process of learning what is socially acceptable or not. Parents cannot wall themselves off from the world until the child is old enough to know the rules (And indeed, this is how we learn them. Unless you are seriously trying to tell me that you were reading at age two, I suspect that if I talked to your parents, they would have a number of stories about your earliest years and your behavior then). So in other words, you're going to have to put up with children. Think on the idea that someone once had to put up with YOU.

I was reading at the age of eighteen months. And I was an extremely (apparently, almost creepily) quiet baby. Do you have a non-fallacious argument?

Unless you are attempting to state that your experience is the standard for every child, or that you were ALWAYS well behaved, I do not see where you might be claiming a point.

[Skibereen]

Nerv simple minded twits is a broad general statement, didnt attack anyone any more directly then the attacks leveled here by others on children in general, I instead made a general attack on Generalites, who deserve to be muzzled far more then children do. I never said "you are". Thanks though for I dont know not reading or something...

Czar.
Freedom of movement is a right, I never said in any post ever the airline didnt have a right to enforce its rules as it saw fit, I am arguing against the narrow minded self indulgent ideas that comfort is a right.

And being irritating is subjective to the person being irritatted hence free speech.

[Czardas]

On the contrary, there might be a number of reasons why removing the child is not an acceptable solution ranging from other children that need parental supervision, to no transportation, to social situations that preclude being unable to leave, etc.

The point of the matter is that a two-year-old child is still in the process of learning what is socially acceptable or not. Parents cannot wall themselves off from the world until the child is old enough to know the rules (And indeed, this is how we learn them. Unless you are seriously trying to tell me that you were reading at age two, I suspect that if I talked to your parents, they would have a number of stories about your earliest years and your behavior then). So in other words, you're going to have to put up with children. Think on the idea that someone once had to put up with YOU.

I was reading at the age of eighteen months. And I was an extremely (apparently, almost creepily) quiet baby. Do you have a non-fallacious argument?

Unless you are attempting to state that your experience is the standard for every child, or that you were ALWAYS well behaved, I do not see where you might be claiming a point.

I was not. You, however, were:

"a two-year-old child is still in the process of learning what is socially acceptable or not"
"Unless you are seriously trying to tell me that you were reading at age two"
"Think on the idea that someone once had to put up with YOU"
etc.

I was just pointing out that your generalizations did not hold true for everyone, and cited a counterexample (in this case, me).

[Non Aligned States]

Free Speech is a Right. Even if that speech is incoherent bable in the form of weeping. Our Right to be irritating is protected.

Ohhhhh....

So if I were to surround your house with high powered speakers capable of reaching 150 decibels (placing them on property I own or rent), point the speakers at your house and play high pitched noises in the 18khz to 21khz range 24/7/365 nonstop, you'd defend this right?

[SaintB]

Nerv simple minded twits is a broad general statement, didnt attack anyone any more directly then the attacks leveled here by others on children in general, I instead made a general attack on Generalites, who deserve to be muzzled far more then children do. I never said "you are". Thanks though for I dont know not reading or something...

Czar.
Freedom of movement is a right, I never said in any post ever the airline didnt have a right to enforce its rules as it saw fit, I am arguing against the narrow minded self indulgent ideas that comfort is a right.

And being irritating is subjective to the person being irritatted hence free speech.

What you did was make an attack against everyone on NSG specifically by calling every single person here a 'Simple minded twit'.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Nerv simple minded twits is a broad general statement, didnt attack anyone any more directly then the attacks leveled here by others on children in general, I instead made a general attack on Generalites, who deserve to be muzzled far more then children do. I never said "you are". Thanks though for I dont know not reading or something...

Czar.
Freedom of movement is a right, I never said in any post ever the airline didnt have a right to enforce its rules as it saw fit, I am arguing against the narrow minded self indulgent ideas that comfort is a right.

And being irritating is subjective to the person being irritatted hence free speech.

What you did was make an attack against everyone on NSG specifically by calling every single person here a 'Simple minded twit'.

Exactly. I am not a twit!

[H N Fiddlebottoms VIII]

But the question is - does NSG think that the rights of the parent and child to travel supercede the rights of the other passengers to have a quiet flight? Especially considering how uncomfortable flying has become - unless you go first class.

There is no right for passengers to have a quiet flight. People with screaming brats might need to fly, too.

There is no right for anyone to have any kind of flight. If the airline feels that the business of single, childless professionals is more profitable than the business of parents who can't control their brats (I guarantee you it is), then they have every right and reason to kick said brats and parents off the plane. Sedation works in extreme cases.

Why stop at young children? Why not just ban everyone that could ever possibly be disruptive from ever being in the vicinity of anyone else?

Why stop there? Let's just send everybody to their own individual planet. That would solve all humanity's problems.

I never had you pegged for a Mormon. Does your wife know, or are you hoping she'll figure it out from your underwear and the fact that you keep marrying other women?

[Fartsniffage]

You 'told' the parents, and you 'told' the kid?

Some would say the problem isn't the kid OR the parents.

See that isn't what I said is it?

Of course I told the child, I'm not getting into a debate with a kid over whether it feels like stopping kicking the back of my chair. I didn't see the point of talking to the parents as they were sat right there and had decided not to stop the child themselves.

[SaintB]

Nerv simple minded twits is a broad general statement, didnt attack anyone any more directly then the attacks leveled here by others on children in general, I instead made a general attack on Generalites, who deserve to be muzzled far more then children do. I never said "you are". Thanks though for I dont know not reading or something...

Czar.
Freedom of movement is a right, I never said in any post ever the airline didnt have a right to enforce its rules as it saw fit, I am arguing against the narrow minded self indulgent ideas that comfort is a right.

And being irritating is subjective to the person being irritatted hence free speech.

What you did was make an attack against everyone on NSG specifically by calling every single person here a 'Simple minded twit'.

Exactly. I am not a twit!

Well not a simple minded one I mean it in the nicest possible sense.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Why stop at young children? Why not just ban everyone that could ever possibly be disruptive from ever being in the vicinity of anyone else?

Why stop there? Let's just send everybody to their own individual planet. That would solve all humanity's problems.

I never had you pegged for a Mormon. Does your wife know, or are you hoping she'll figure it out from your underwear and the fact that you keep marrying other women?

SOme people still like surprises you know.

[ChengISao]

Free Speech is a Right. Even if that speech is incoherent bable in the form of weeping. Our Right to be irritating is protected.

Yes, and it's a damn shame when the parents do not listen.

[Ashmoria]

as far as I'm concerned. No compensation, either - other than refunding the cost of the ticket.

I've flown with crying, screaming brats. Even on a short flight, it's enough to turn a calm, nurturing grandmotherly type into a fire-eyed, raving maniac. My feeling is if the kid can't keep quiet, he/she shouldn't be on the plane. It's distracting at best and infuriating at worst, it distracts the flight crew, it irritates the other passengers and, I would hope, is embarassing to the parent(s).

I'm sure there are things that can be done to keep the kids under control - ranging from explaining appropriate behavior to the more intelligent ones to making sure that they aren't hungry or tired to sedation.

But the question is - does NSG think that the rights of the parent and child to travel supercede the rights of the other passengers to have a quiet flight? Especially considering how uncomfortable flying has become - unless you go first class.

http://news.aol.com/article/southwest-a ... r%2F745890

a crying child is not a brat.

as long as the child is staying in his/her seat the rest of the passengers should get over it.

[Azzers]

This woman should have slapped her kid upside that head. That way, instead of being kicked off the plane, she'd be under arrest for child abuse.

What the fuck do you want her to do?

Close her fanny till she can control what pops out of it

What just happened? Did he lose the freaking game?!

I dont play the game

[Consaria]

They paid to get on the plane. They get the ride the plane.

[Czardas]

This woman should have slapped her kid upside that head. That way, instead of being kicked off the plane, she'd be under arrest for child abuse.

What the fuck do you want her to do?

Close her fanny till she can control what pops out of it

What just happened? Did he lose the freaking game?!

I dont play the game

Yes, you do. The rules of The Game say so.

1. You are always playing The Game.
2. Whenever you think about The Game, you lose.
3. Loss must be announced.

Also, we all just lost.

I wonder if this counts as meme spam? I'd hate to have to ban myself <.<

[ChengISao]

They paid to get on the plane. They get the ride the plane.

They do not get to allow their children to suffer in agony while I am forced to tolerate it.

Do some not get it?

Translation from Babbling Child to Adult:
Screeching out in pain = Yo! Stupid! I'm in pain here. You wanna do something about it, or at least get me out of the situation that's causing the pain?

[H N Fiddlebottoms VIII]

I dont play the game

Yes, you do. The rules of The Game say so.

1. You are always playing The Game.
2. Whenever you think about The Game, you lose.
3. Loss must be announced.

Also, we all just lost.

I wonder if this counts as meme spam? I'd hate to have to ban myself <.<

We all won the game. It's over, time to move on with our lives.