No apologies needed

[New Kereptica]

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?

[Anti-Social Darwinism]

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).

Little children cry sometimes. If you aren't mature and self-controlled enough to deal with it, that's your problem.

Also, sometimes children and parrents with children have to fly. I'm not going to list the numerous reasons why someone might need to be on a particular plane at a particular time, nor the reasons why they might have to have their child with them. The point is that you can't just say "throw them off the flight" (which depending on the circumstances could screw them) because you might be exposed to a little irritation.

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.

Sedation? Are you fucking insane? Do you really believe that the appropriate response to something as ordinary and routine as a child crying is to drug them until they pass out?

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.

Perhaps you should stay at home with some ear plugs and a pillow over your head.

Touchy, aren't we. 1. If you are traveling with screaming kids, especially for long hours, the noise will get to you - it's not a matter of self-control on your part, it's a matter of endurance, by the time the trip is over, whether you've acted on your irritation or not, you're a basket case. I've ended those trips with a raging migraine and an upset stomach (and received no compensation for my discomfort) - this is not about my ability to control myself, it's about having a reasonable expectation of having a peaceful trip. 2. Sedation was mentioned, not as something I would do, but as an option for keeping the kid quiet for a period of time. 3. The question is valid - whose rights are more important - a plane full of passengers who've paid for a trip with a reasonable expectation of quiet or one parent and a child who is screaming and who have also paid for a trip, but will get a refund if they're kicked off? Tell me, if the other passengers refuse to travel with a screaming brat and leave, will they get refunds because their "reasonable expectations" have not been met?

[Maurepas]

I might argue that. Parents may have responsibilities enforced by law, but many of those responsibilities to their children are really just intercessory methods of providing children with those things they will be able to do for themselves as adults. That's not really an "extra" privilege.

I meant extra as in, maybe a little leeway when it comes to noise, etc...

The way I've seen it they usually are. Its just that in this case, it was too excessive. If any one else on a plane carried on the way some kids do, they'd be asked to quiet down, etc.

Yeah, but, Im not sure 2 year olds = anyone else on the plane, tbqh...

Why not?

The others are significantly older, and more developed...

[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

[Lackadaisical2]

I might argue that. Parents may have responsibilities enforced by law, but many of those responsibilities to their children are really just intercessory methods of providing children with those things they will be able to do for themselves as adults. That's not really an "extra" privilege.

I meant extra as in, maybe a little leeway when it comes to noise, etc...

The way I've seen it they usually are. Its just that in this case, it was too excessive. If any one else on a plane carried on the way some kids do, they'd be asked to quiet down, etc.

Yeah, but, Im not sure 2 year olds = anyone else on the plane, tbqh...

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Are you saying that the airline ought to have let the kid carry on, and simply delayed the flight indefinitely until they could do the safety warnings?

[Maurepas]

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

[Unidox]

Sedation? Are you fucking insane? Do you really believe that the appropriate response to something as ordinary and routine as a child crying is to drug them until they pass out?

Personally, I'd settle for a zombie-like daze.

I would have voted for chloroform. Beats duct tape any day.

[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? -sniffs-
Do I smell?

[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.

[Maurepas]

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Are you saying that the airline ought to have let the kid carry on, and simply delayed the flight indefinitely until they could do the safety warnings?

Im saying they shouldve carried on schedule anyway, no delays...However, if it got too bad, as it did in this situation I dont object to the actions taken...

Id just caution against comparing 2 year olds to adults...

[Azzers]

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.

Why not indeed?

[Anti-Social Darwinism]

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Are you saying that the airline ought to have let the kid carry on, and simply delayed the flight indefinitely until they could do the safety warnings?

Im saying they shouldve carried on schedule anyway, no delays...

So, basically ignore the rules about safety procedures because some parent can't or won't make her child behave.

[Maurepas]

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Are you saying that the airline ought to have let the kid carry on, and simply delayed the flight indefinitely until they could do the safety warnings?

Im saying they shouldve carried on schedule anyway, no delays...

So, basically ignore the rules about safety procedures because some parent can't or won't make her child behave.

Well, they wouldnt have ignored them, per se, as they did play them...

However, I had added more too the post, as I dont actually object to their actions, I just disagree with comparing 2 year olds to adults, it just seems a bit nonsensical...

[Lackadaisical2]

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Are you saying that the airline ought to have let the kid carry on, and simply delayed the flight indefinitely until they could do the safety warnings?

Im saying they shouldve carried on schedule anyway, no delays...However, if it got too bad, as it did in this situation I dont object to the actions taken...

Id just caution against comparing 2 year olds to adults...

um, ok. I don't really have anything to argue about now, you're no fun

[The Romulan Republic]

Watch it with the personal attacks, please.

I'll keep that in mind, but for God's sake we're talking about drugging children because someone finds them irritating.

[Lackadaisical2]

Watch it with the personal attacks, please.

I'll keep that in mind, but for God's sake we're talking about drugging children because someone finds them irritating.

One of the reasons personal attacks are bad is because its too easy to not understand what a person says. ASD already said she didn't think drugging kids was appropriate, besides, its not helpful to the discussion, regardless of what is being discussed.

[Anti-Social Darwinism]

Watch it with the personal attacks, please.

I'll keep that in mind, but for God's sake we're talking about drugging children because someone finds them irritating.

No, we're talking about sedation as a part of list of options for quieting an obstreperous child in a particular circumstance, not as something that I, personally, would do.

[Czardas]

Watch it with the personal attacks, please.

I'll keep that in mind, but for God's sake we're talking about drugging children because someone finds them irritating.

People are permitted to make that argument. I can hold the position that irritating two year olds should be thrown into a giant blender, and so long as I can argue it coherently without lapsing into trolling or flaming*, the only recourse against such an insane position will be to demolish it with real arguments rather than calling me a meanie poo-poo head.

* although in practice, such an argument would almost certainly be considered trolling, -- but I'm intentionally exaggerating. Search the Jolt forums for posts by MeansToAnEnd to see *real* examples. <.<

[The Romulan Republic]

Touchy, aren't we.

No, I don't consider it "touchy" to have a problem with the idea that children should be needlessly drugged for your conveniance. I might have overreacted a bit to the rest of it, probably partly because that particular suggestion really pissed me off.

1. If you are traveling with screaming kids, especially for long hours, the noise will get to you - it's not a matter of self-control on your part, it's a matter of endurance, by the time the trip is over, whether you've acted on your irritation or not, you're a basket case. I've ended those trips with a raging migraine and an upset stomach (and received no compensation for my discomfort) - this is not about my ability to control myself, it's about having a reasonable expectation of having a peaceful trip.

I can't speak for you personally, but in my case I would try to simply ignore it. Maybe I'd succede and maybe I wouldn't, but irritating noises are a part of life. Maybe you have a greater sensitivity to that kind of irritation than I do, however, in which case I can't really judge weather you're overreacting.

But at the same time, you're blaming children for doing what children to some extent are just going to do.

I think it partly comes down to the age of the child, and how much self-control/sense of appropriate behavior they can be expected to have. Now, I could see your point in the case of, say, a ten year old. But if we're talking about babies, well, babies cry. Live with it.

2. Sedation was mentioned, not as something I would do, but as an option for keeping the kid quiet for a period of time.

I would personally mention it as a hypothetical example of child abuse if used in any but the most extreme situations.

3. The question is valid - whose rights are more important - a plane full of passengers who've paid for a trip with a reasonable expectation of quiet or one parent and a child who is screaming and who have also paid for a trip, but will get a refund if they're kicked off? Tell me, if the other passengers refuse to travel with a screaming brat and leave, will they get refunds because their "reasonable expectations" have not been met?

Its not as simple as that. Missing a flight (depending on your reasons for flying and your schedual) can be grossly inconveniant, or worse. Just getting a refund won't nessissarily make everything right. And while you might have a point in the case of older children, very young children and infants can just be expected to cry sometimes, no matter who their parents are or how well behaved they are. Its normal. And to punish both the children and their parrents for that is, yes, unfair.

[The Romulan Republic]

Watch it with the personal attacks, please.

I'll keep that in mind, but for God's sake we're talking about drugging children because someone finds them irritating.

No, we're talking about sedation as a part of list of options for quieting an obstreperous child in a particular circumstance, not as something that I, personally, would do.

Fair enough, I apologise for suggesting that you would personally do so. However, I still question your position on this subject, as I do not believe sedation is an appropriate option except in the most extreme of circumstances. In fact, I would be more inclined to catagorize it as "abuse" under most circumstances.

And technically, we are talking about drugging children because someone finds them irritating, weather or not you personally would do so.

[Dimoniquid]

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?!

[Dimoniquid]

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 would have ponies that eat rainbows, and poop butterflies

[Sarzonia]

Kids under 5 should not be allowed on a plane, period.

If a parent can not or WILL not control a child, that child has no business being outside the house.

When a little kid seemingly can't or won't keep from touching you or he throws a set of keys that hits you, any penchant you may have for patience goes out the window.

[Nation of Quebec]

Kids under 5 should not be allowed on a plane, period.

If a parent can not or WILL not control a child, that child has no business being outside the house.

When a little kid seemingly can't or won't keep from touching you or he throws a set of keys that hits you, any penchant you may have for patience goes out the window.

I actually can see the logic in that. Why should the rights of one noisy brat trump the rights of a couple hundred paying passengers? This is exactly why I'm tired of the constant pandering to children and parents simply because they're children.

If you make too much noise and become disruptive, you get kicked off. If the parent is unable or unwilling to calm their kid down then they either need to find a way to silence that child, without harming it, or they get booted off the plane. The constant noise is more than just a simple distraction especially if people have sensitive hearing. What if the child begins throwing objects at other passengers? Should they just take it and risk losing their patience, should they complain to the airline, or should nothing be done simply because it's a child being the disruptive one?

For those of you criticizing the airline, would you be reacting the same way if they had kicked off a loud and obnoxious drunk who couldn't control himself?

[Poliwanacraca]

I'm not sure where people are coming up with the idea that passengers have some "right" to a quiet flight. I've never seen that written in the legal documentation for any plane ticket I've purchased. They also don't guarantee I won't be seated next to a drunk guy who hits on me creepily for the entire flight, that no one will wear perfume I'm allergic to which makes me spend the whole flight having trouble breathing, that I won't be seated between two very fat people and not be able to move my arms for much of the flight, that the couple in front of me won't be very noisily and obviously making out for the entire trip and repeatedly bonking my tray table into my stomach as they do so, that the guy across the aisle won't keep singing the same stupid rap song to himself over and over for the entire flight, that we won't hit turbulence that makes me nauseated, or that the trip will, in fact, be pleasant in any way. You don't pay for a NICE flight. You don't pay to have the other passengers be enjoyable company. You pay to be safely and quickly transported from point A to point B. That's it.

Now, that said, I certainly find annoying passengers annoying, whether they're 2 or 92, but the idea that the airline has some obligation to protect other passengers from annoyance is nonsense. In this particular case, the child was preventing passengers from hearing the safety information, and the airline does have an obligation to make sure people can hear that, which means that in this case, I think they acted reasonably, but it's frankly ridiculous to me to argue that one's utterly imaginary right to a noise-free flight would mean that parents of small children should be barred from flying or kicked off planes as a general rule simply because crying babies can be annoying. There are noise-blocking headphones if people feel so strongly about the horrors of baby-noises.