NationStates Jolt Archive

Where do you get the business of "blinding fear?" You did NOT take that directly from my post unless somehing was very seriously misunderstood.

sorry, what exactly causes your child to give up their nature and obey you without question in any situation always all the time? are they robots? or are they afraid of what might happen if they don't?

Thanks :)

So I guess we agree to disagree. It's just hard for me to see this as being an isolated incident. Typically behavior like that is a pattern... But to paraphrase something you said, the available information isn't complete.
I guess agreeing to disagree is the best solution sometimes :)

Concerning the theory that there is a pattern, you should be aware that the flight down to Florida went without problems and the parents say that they don't know what set her off this time - just thought I should repeat that in case you hadn't noticed it. If you had, then... Carry on. :p

sorry, what exactly causes your child to give up their nature and obey you without question in any situation always all the time? are they robots? or are they afraid of what might happen if they don't?

Hey, if you want to keep trying to paint me as some kind of tyrant it won't hurt my feelings. You don't know me. For the record, however, I didn't say my children were 100%. If they were, spanking wouldn't be necessary, right?

The fact is, I disagree with you when you say that children must give up their nature to obey. (For the record, I don't mind my kids asking 'why?' if they legitimately are interested. They know this and won't hesitate to ask. The difference is that I won't debate with them when they're told to do something.)

I happen to believe that children naturally crave a sense of discipline. They respect adults who give it to them. My ex-wife is vastly more lenient on the kids than I am, and so, according to your mischaracteriazation of me, the kids must dread their time with me. Reality is quite on the contrary. My kids call me on the phone frequently, and always want to know when their next visit with me is. They don't want to go back home when our time is done.

And you know, at the age of 3, I don't think it's a bad thing for a kid to obey if for no other reason than fear of what may happen if they don't. The idea is to get them into the habit of obeying their parents early to avoid problems later.

I guess agreeing to disagree is the best solution sometimes :)

Concerning the theory that there is a pattern, you should be aware that the flight down to Florida went without problems and the parents say that they don't know what set her off this time - just thought I should repeat that in case you hadn't noticed it. If you had, then... Carry on. :p

No, I hadn't, thanks. I'm still mystified as to why the article seemed to imply that the parents were powerless to prevent their child from crawling on the floor, hitting them, and were apparently unable to get her buckled into her seat.

Hey, if you want to keep trying to paint me as some kind of tyrant it won't hurt my feelings. You don't know me. For the record, however, I didn't say my children were 100%. If they were, spanking wouldn't be necessary, right?

The fact is, I disagree with you when you say that children must give up their nature to obey. (For the record, I don't mind my kids asking 'why?' if they legitimately are interested. They know this and won't hesitate to ask. The difference is that I won't debate with them when they're told to do something.)

I happen to believe that children naturally crave a sense of discipline. They respect adults who give it to them. My ex-wife is vastly more lenient on the kids than I am, and so, according to your mischaracteriazation of me, the kids must dread their time with me. Reality is quite on the contrary. My kids call me on the phone frequently, and always want to know when their next visit with me is. They don't want to go back home when our time is done.

And you know, at the age of 3, I don't think it's a bad thing for a kid to obey if for no other reason than fear of what may happen if they don't. The idea is to get them into the habit of obeying their parents early to avoid problems later.
you said that the child should know it's "not their choice to disobey". Everyone has a choice. The fact that you would rule over your children so that you expect them to pick up an obey by virtue of "I told them to" leads me to believe you have serious control issues.

It's okay, we can agree to disagree, but I was just saying I wouldn't want my kids to be like that.

you said that the child should know it's "not their choice to disobey". Everyone has a choice. The fact that you would rule over your children so that you expect them to pick up an obey by virtue of "I told them to" leads me to believe you have serious control issues.

It's okay, we can agree to disagree, but I was just saying I wouldn't want my kids to be like that.

Wow... so I have serious control issues simply for having a high standard of behavior for my kids. Well... okie doke.

I happen to think there's a certain value in the kids knowing who is in charge. When I tell my kids to sit down, I expect them to sit down. When I tell them to be quiet, I expect them to be quiet.

Don't you?

Wow... so I have serious control issues simply for having a high standard of behavior for my kids. Well... okie doke.
I have a high standard too, it just doesn't involve "because I said so"

I happen to think there's a certain value in the kids knowing who is in charge. When I tell my kids to sit down, I expect them to sit down. When I tell them to be quiet, I expect them to be quiet.

Don't you?
I expect my kids to behave accordingly, and they do. I don't need to tell them to sit down and shut up because they are already behaving (not that I would ever tell a kid to sit down and shut up, that's just rude)

I have a high standard too, it just doesn't involve "because I said so"
Well that's another faulty assumption. if you would be so kind as to read my posts carefully, you'll find that I do value telling kids the wherefores and whys of the instructions they're given. I do not, however, expect them to obey ONLY when they understand why. They know that sometimes the opportunity to exlain it to them doesn't present itself right away, and that I"ll tell them later. In the meantime, I expect to be obeyed. That's a habit that has to be instilled early.


I expect my kids to behave accordingly, and they do. I don't need to tell them to sit down and shut up because they are already behaving (not that I would ever tell a kid to sit down and shut up, that's just rude)

Agreed. (And on the occasion when they're not already doing what you expect of them, of course you expect them to comply with your direction. Thats' what makes you the parent.)

snip It's not that they should be using fear, it's just that (and I know I'll probably g et a flame or two for this) training a child at that age is in some ways similar to training a dog. They can't be expected to understand the realities of why they must obey, so we teach them through positive and/or negative reinforcement.

I actually agree with this concept, that small children and dogs are a lot alike. They must be trained to obey, because they are incapable of understanding the dangers of the world around them. When your little girl is about to run into the street and you're too far away to grab her, or if she's about to touch something dangerous, you'd better hope that you trained her to listen to you when you say "no" or "stop." The same goes for your dog. If you haven't done your job by either dog or child, you end up with roadkill.

That being said, once a child has developed enough to understand, the need for such obedience significantly lessens, and an approach that appeals to the reason of the child can, and in most situations should, be used. And personally, I'd never want my kids to fear me. Respect me, of course, but fear me, no. (and I'll just agree to disagree on that topic!)

I actually agree with this concept, that small children and dogs are a lot alike. They must be trained to obey, because they are incapable of understanding the dangers of the world around them. When your little girl is about to run into the street and you're too far away to grab her, or if she's about to touch something dangerous, you'd better hope that you trained her to listen to you when you say "no" or "stop." The same goes for your dog. If you haven't done your job by either dog or child, you end up with roadkill.

That being said, once a child has developed enough to understand, the need for such obedience significantly lessens, and an approach that appeals to the reason of the child can, and in most situations should, be used. And personally, I'd never want my kids to fear me. Respect me, of course, but fear me, no. (and I'll just agree to disagree on that topic!)

AMEN!

I actually agree with this concept, that small children and dogs are a lot alike. They must be trained to obey, because they are incapable of understanding the dangers of the world around them. When your little girl is about to run into the street and you're too far away to grab her, or if she's about to touch something dangerous, you'd better hope that you trained her to listen to you when you say "no" or "stop." The same goes for your dog. If you haven't done your job by either dog or child, you end up with roadkill.

That being said, once a child has developed enough to understand, the need for such obedience significantly lessens, and an approach that appeals to the reason of the child can, and in most situations should, be used. And personally, I'd never want my kids to fear me. Respect me, of course, but fear me, no. (and I'll just agree to disagree on that topic!)
I read somewhere, and no it wasn't a) a religious text, b) a parenting text.

but it compared Raising your children like raising a Dog. You don't beat your dog, but use positive reinforement to get the good behavoirs to be predominate. you punish in ways that the animal relates the punishment to the deed and not to the master/parent. however, as your child grows older, you lessen the Dog treatment and start treating them like cats. give them the freedom and love, and when they need you they will come to you. do not keep treating them like dogs (Command/obey) then after a few years, they will go back to the family/pack order of things.

Once I worked with a lady who had a son that would frequently call her at work for little things. One day, he called her with some kind of computer problem. Apparently he'd picked up a virus or something and was calling her to help. (We worked in IT, so she had the expertise to fix it.)

Atfer talking for something like 10 minutes, she told him he'd have to wait until she got home to fix it... It was too complex to just talk him through a procedure over the phone. At this point, I gather he started whining about not wanting to wait, because she had to start repeating her explanation over and over and over ad nauseam about why he simply had to wait until she got home and there was nothing to be done at that moment. She kept trying toreason with him when clearly reason wasn't working.

I couldn't help thinking this was a clear sign that he didn't respect her, because no matter how many times she tried to tell him to simply wait, he continued to press. Sometimes, you just have to be forceful.

By the way, the son was 21 years old.

it is never the only way.

If time-outs fail, if talking to them fails, if all other forms of discipline/punishment fail, what is left?

I would rather my children behave out of respect and self control rather than blinding fear.

Do you not see the danger in having a child who obeys without question?

"Honor thy father and thy mother"

Words I try to live by.

"He who obeys his parents shall have a long life"

More words of wisdom.

Originally Posted by Ashmoria View Post
you cant possibly think that spanking stops a kid from crying.

she would scream and yell and after a while she would stop.Worked on me.

Did not work on me.

I ask again, who died and make the Bible more than literature?

Depending on your beliefs Jesus/no one. I prefer the latter but each to his own.


Or are you trying to insinuate that the parents, who obviously are not very well-raised themselves, should have slapped the kid for their own failure to set boundaries and teach their child manners?

QFT

Originally Posted by Smunkeeville View Post
my experience tells me that hitting someone who is frantically upset isn't going to stop them.
Worked for me.

Great, but it doesn't always work.


I simply wonder if the parents are giving any kind of discipline at all for something like this to occur. There are plenty of parents who manage not to have their kids make scenes in public but somehow this set failed in a big way.
There is another article which states that the child had an ear infection or something similar which would probably have been causing her pain. I wouldn't blame the parents dicipline for having their child crying from pain. And most/all children at some point or another will have their children cry in public, kids cry. It happens.

You know it doesn't likely help your credibility that you just suggested your children are the enemy.

:rolleyes: I see figure of speech is lost on people.

Parenting isn't a war.

Again, it was a figure of speech.

It's an education.

Nah? Really? WOW!!!!!

You are teaching your children. Everything you do, everything you say teaches your children.

No shit sherlock.

And when you strike a child, you teach them that when you get frustrated with the actions of someone you can't control, strike them.

Bullshit. To go back to my expression that you so willfully decided to twist: Spanking is the last resort as war is the last resort.

BTW: I never said that kids should be treated like enemies. As I said, nice twisting of the expression.

you said that the child should know it's "not their choice to disobey". Everyone has a choice.

And choices have consequences.

The fact that you would rule over your children so that you expect them to pick up an obey by virtue of "I told them to" leads me to believe you have serious control issues.

I see you have not paid attention at all to what he said. He did not say that at all Smunkee.

Great, but it doesn't always work.

True.

There is another article which states that the child had an ear infection or something similar which would probably have been causing her pain. I wouldn't blame the parents dicipline for having their child crying from pain. And most/all children at some point or another will have their children cry in public, kids cry. It happens.

If the kid had an ear infection then why the fuck were here idiotic parents taking her on a plane ride?

And choices have consequences.
no shit.

I see you have not paid attention at all to what he said. He did not say that at all Smunkee.
actually he did.

If the kid had an ear infection then why the fuck were here idiotic parents taking her on a plane ride?
I forget, do you actually have children?

Ear infections are hard to diagnose in small children because they hardly ever tell you that they have one, basically they act like little demons until one day they spike a fever.

Dem, honestly, I can't wait until you have kids yourself. All sorts of your assumptions here are going to be put to the test.

What assumptions? My stance throughout these discussions has been that all children are different - and that a parent must alter their parenting style to the child, rather than the other way around. The whole point has been not to have assumptions about your children, but to react to them just as they react to you.

Is that wrong?

Actually, she had had an ear operation, not ear infection:
Her mom thinks it may have been because of the ear surgery Elly underwent earlier this month, and perhaps her memory of the discomfort and ear pressure she endured during the plane’s descent into Florida.
Original story (http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070121/COLUMN01/701210459/1008/NEWS02)

But she did manage to fly down without incident, and she did manage to fly back home without incident the next day. Nobody knows why she did what she did that day.

All i know is that spanking worked for me. When i was bad i got spanked. I learned to know what was expected of me. I learned that certain things i did were wrong and that if i did them then they would bring consequences which i did not care to repeat. I respected my parent not out of fear of getting spanked but because i knew that they were meant to be obeyed, as simple as that. There are times when just telling your child to "behave" just don't work, when those times come, you better be prepared to spank them. Corporal punishment can be a very effective form of child rearing if used in the appropriate manner. Nobody here is saying to "beat" their kids, just disipline them every once in a while when they get out of control.

As a side not, i think anyone who thinks that children learn that violence is "ok" becuase they are being spanked is totally wrong. Obviously there is more then just spanking at hand if the child turns out to be Ed Gein or some other serial killer.

You brought up the crying.

Did I? I never said that the crying was the problem, now did I?

It should be, as I've said before. So given that they had 15 minutes to get her in the seat it should have been enough time. But it seems that the stewardess didn't warn them that if they didn't manage to get her under control they would be thrown off the plane. And they didn't help in any way, nor did they offer up any suggestions as how to do this. Strange that nobody would say "just pick her up and place her in the seat and calm her when you get airborn. If you don't you will have to disembark"?

Maybe because it's common sense? If an adult was refusing to get in her seat, and then was asked to leave in order to allow the plane to take off, would you be angry that they weren't told that they couldn't be disruptive on a flight? The fact that it was a child acting up makes no difference. The child caused the disturbance and the parents were unable to deal with it. Any rational person can see that the best option for the airline was to remove the disturbance and see to their other 100 or so customers.

That's where the airline failed.

By not treating the parents like children and trying to be their parents?

The airline compensated the poor customer service, the failure of their personel, and the delays the family suffered. Just because they weren't obligated to do so doesn't make it a perk; it was an apology.

The delays were the fault of the family, and "customer service" does not include "parenting tips." It was a perk - plain and simple. The airline had absolutely nothing to apologize for.

Like giving them a 24 hour flight ban?

Where are you getting this? The article says nothing about any such ban. It simply says that the family managed to fly out the next day. This is not unusual when a person misses their scheduled flight. Sometimes, it's even 2 or three days.

And offer "helpful" advise after the family had disembarked, just to raise tensions even further?

Based on the way the parents are reacting, I don't think they were exactly being cordial.

And not doing anything about the luggage that was on the plane - including the car seat

There was nothing that could be done without further inconveniencing every other paying customer on the flight.

Seriously, you're just as bad as they are - thinking that the world should revolve around their problems. Do you know how long it would take to find a single family's luggage once all the luggage was loaded? They may as well ground the flight for good and put everyone on another flight if that was the case.

- and not offering any apology before the media contacted them...

They have nothing to apologize for. They did nothing wrong.

In adition to the (claimed) general lack of service. Yeah, sure sounds like they did everything they could to help them out. :rolleyes:

Lack of service? Do you mean "lack of parenting for them"??

Ah. You've never gotten mad, and you've never felt you were treated poorly. I see.

No, I have. But not when the entire incident was my fault and the others reacted entirely properly.

So because they thought the compensation they got offered was too little too late, they must believe that the world revolves around them. Yeah, pure brilliance.

The "compensation" was entirely undeserved in the first place. They were the cause of the disturbance. As such, all responsibility was on them. Their daughter caused their inconvenience - not the airline. The fact that the airline has given them anything other than a rescheduled flight is extra, undeserved, and should be looked at with gratitude.

Wanted? So it was a choice? Why did she throw the tantrum in the first place?

Yes, it was a choice. Why did she throw it? Beats me. But unless it was because a stewardess punched her in the head or something, it isn't the fault of the airline.

So, as you have read their minds since you present this as a fact: Would it have been that easy? Why didn't they do just that? What were they doing instead? What was their motivation?

Beats me. That's why I wonder about their parenting skills.

What they could have and should have done is thank the airline for being so gracious as to give them extra stuff simply because they caused themselves to be inconvenienced.

So you judge them completely based on one incident, in which we do not have all the information about what actually happened, in adition to quite a bit of speculation on your part.

This incident is all I have to go on. I don't know them personally. Do you?

What would you think if you saw a child throwing food at a restaraunt for 15 minutes, and then when the food was boxed up and the family was asked to leave, the parents yelled, "We'll never eat here again! You're so rude!!!!"

Original story (http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070121/COLUMN01/701210459/1008/NEWS02)

Ah, that's where you got the ban. Looks like it's just standard procedure, though.

I will say this: if one of the employees really did try to lecture them on parenting, that was inappropriate. That employee should most likely be reprimanded. But I still maintain that the flight attendants on the plane did nothing wrong.

I do have to wonder about this story though. "Moments later" and "15 minutes" are very different.

If time-outs fail, if talking to them fails, if all other forms of discipline/punishment fail, what is left?

Ever heard the old expression "everybody has their price"?

Same things with kids. You need to know your kids to understand the currency that they consider punishment, and this will no doubt alter as they grow up. For my daughter, right now, time outs work. For my son, being sent to his room does not work. Denying access to my computer, however, does.

But spanking is not a currency, and I want my children to respect my parental authority - not fear it.

I forget, do you actually have children?

Ear infections are hard to diagnose in small children because they hardly ever tell you that they have one, basically they act like little demons until one day they spike a fever.

The minute I started squaking suddenly, my parents took me to the doctor and I had a DOUBLE Ear infection. If a kid starts screaming for no apparent reason, there is something wrong with them.

If the kid did indeed have a diagnost ear infection then that kid should not have been on an airplane. Period.

This is not a case if one has children or not Smunkee. It is a case of common sense.

Actually, she had had an ear operation, not ear infection:

Original story (http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070121/COLUMN01/701210459/1008/NEWS02)

But she did manage to fly down without incident, and she did manage to fly back home without incident the next day. Nobody knows why she did what she did that day.

Very very interesting.

The minute I started squaking suddenly, my parents took me to the doctor and I had a DOUBLE Ear infection. If a kid starts screaming for no apparent reason, there is something wrong with them.

If the kid did indeed have a diagnost ear infection then that kid should not have been on an airplane. Period.

This is not a case if one has children or not Smunkee. It is a case of common sense.

and if this was the time she started screaming? do you think that the mom still should have pulled her out from under the chair and spanked her?

Ever heard the old expression "everybody has their price"?

Yes.

Same things with kids. You need to know your kids to understand the currency that they consider punishment, and this will no doubt alter as they grow up. For my daughter, right now, time outs work. For my son, being sent to his room does not work. Denying access to my computer, however, does.

Everyone will respond to things differently. That is what has been said in the past in this thread.

But spanking is not a currency, and I want my children to respect my parental authority - not fear it.

Since when does spanking == fearing parental authority? It doesn't.

I just can't resist!

Jesus, Paul, Peter, Mark, Matthew, John....

...don't forget George and Ringo. :D

...don't forget George and Ringo. :D

Someone's watched to much Sister Act :D

And I like that one *hands Katganistan a cookie*

oh sometimes you just have to.

today its not just that people put up with bad behavior at the table in the restaurant. they let their kids run around and bother other people! how unsafe is it to let small children wander around where big trays of hot food are being carried?

by the time my son was old enough to respond to discipline it was seldom that i had to do anything but look at him. actually thats true of most small children. they are acting out and i just look at them. some give me looks back; some burst into tears; but none keep doing whatever it is that we both know they arent supposed to be doing.

You're shocked? People yell on their cell phones in restaurants too -- there's a lot of bad manners and rudeness to go around. Why wouldn't a kid act that way when adults can't manage to behave in a dignified manner at table?

...You're calling a 3-year old a "disgusting spoiled brat"?


...you have a helluva lot more gall than the parents.

Did I? I never said that the crying was the problem, now did I?
Looking back, I see that I misread you. Apologies.

Maybe because it's common sense? If an adult was refusing to get in her seat, and then was asked to leave in order to allow the plane to take off, would you be angry that they weren't told that they couldn't be disruptive on a flight? The fact that it was a child acting up makes no difference. The child caused the disturbance and the parents were unable to deal with it. Any rational person can see that the best option for the airline was to remove the disturbance and see to their other 100 or so customers.
There is a difference between an adult and a child, and the question remains: Did they get an adequate chance to deal with it? If they did, the airline acted correctly. If they did not, the airline was at fault.

By not treating the parents like children and trying to be their parents?
By helping in any way they could. By being service-minded and offering, well, service to their customers.

The delays were the fault of the family, and "customer service" does not include "parenting tips." It was a perk - plain and simple. The airline had absolutely nothing to apologize for.
You and I must use the word "perk" differently.

Where are you getting this? The article says nothing about any such ban. It simply says that the family managed to fly out the next day. This is not unusual when a person misses their scheduled flight. Sometimes, it's even 2 or three days.
I see you found it a little later...

Based on the way the parents are reacting, I don't think they were exactly being cordial.
The parents or the AirTran-people?

There was nothing that could be done without further inconveniencing every other paying customer on the flight.

Seriously, you're just as bad as they are - thinking that the world should revolve around their problems. Do you know how long it would take to find a single family's luggage once all the luggage was loaded? They may as well ground the flight for good and put everyone on another flight if that was the case.
My point wasn't that they should have dug up the luggage - my point is: "See, there might be a reason that he turned down their offer and said he wouldn't fly with them again. He might be mad at them for a reason. This is a part of it." I doubt the parents - if their version is the correct one - felt that the airline gave them all the help they could offer.

They have nothing to apologize for. They did nothing wrong.
AirTran is of a different opinion, and feels that it could have been handled differently. But if their story is the correct one, they probably chose the best course of action in the heat of the moment, as it were.


Lack of service? Do you mean "lack of parenting for them"??
No, I mean lack of service.

No, I have. But not when the entire incident was my fault and the others reacted entirely properly.
Good for you. Some people get mad and blame others. Sometime it is understandable. In this case, the blaming of the airline might be justifiable - especially if they weren't and didn't feel treated "above and beyond" (which I strongly doubt they were) or even correctly

The "compensation" was entirely undeserved in the first place. They were the cause of the disturbance. As such, all responsibility was on them. Their daughter caused their inconvenience - not the airline. The fact that the airline has given them anything other than a rescheduled flight is extra, undeserved, and should be looked at with gratitude.
Again, it depends on which story to believe.

Yes, it was a choice. Why did she throw it? Beats me. But unless it was because a stewardess punched her in the head or something, it isn't the fault of the airline.
*Shrugs*

Beats me. That's why I wonder about their parenting skills.
Because you don't know if it would have been as easy as placing her in the seat, you don't know why they didn't do just that, and because you don't know what they were doing instead you wonder about their parenting skills... Hmm...

What they could have and should have done is thank the airline for being so gracious as to give them extra stuff simply because they caused themselves to be inconvenienced.
Again, if their story is the correct one, I wouldn't have been particularly grateful myself. If AirTran tells the truth, then I would be inclined to agree.

This incident is all I have to go on. I don't know them personally. Do you?
Yet you judge them.

What would you think if you saw a child throwing food at a restaraunt for 15 minutes, and then when the food was boxed up and the family was asked to leave, the parents yelled, "We'll never eat here again! You're so rude!!!!"
Your comparison is flawed.

Ah, that's where you got the ban. Looks like it's just standard procedure, though.

I will say this: if one of the employees really did try to lecture them on parenting, that was inappropriate. That employee should most likely be reprimanded. But I still maintain that the flight attendants on the plane did nothing wrong.

I do have to wonder about this story though. "Moments later" and "15 minutes" are very different.
See, that's what I've been trying to say - and it's the most important point I've been trying to make: We do not know enough. The story isn't clear. And I don't understand why everybody and their turtle were so eager to condemn the parents when we don't have the facts yet.

I'm not taking sides, and I'm not saying that the airline company did anything wrong - because I simply don't know. I'm just trying to get people to see that maybe the parents aren't to blame, that the parents may not be stupid assholes, that the parents may have managed to "civilize" their child - that maybe we shouldn't condemn them just yet. Maybe.

that depends on the situation.

if none of those things work over time, you are doing them wrong. there are dozens of other techniques that can be used to forestall problems. things that encourage your child to learn self-discipline. after all no one wants their grown up child to need spanking in order to get his work done on the job eh?

Ashmoria, if you are spanking your grown up child then I would have to question the parents.

If time-outs fail, if talking to them fails, if all other forms of discipline/punishment fail, what is left?

that depends on the situation.

if none of those things work over time, you are doing them wrong. there are dozens of other techniques that can be used to forestall problems. things that encourage your child to learn self-discipline. after all no one wants their grown up child to need spanking in order to get his work done on the job eh?

You're shocked? People yell on their cell phones in restaurants too -- there's a lot of bad manners and rudeness to go around. Why wouldn't a kid act that way when adults can't manage to behave in a dignified manner at table?

of course they would act that way. being in a restaurant can be very boring and most parents dont think to bring something for their kids to do to keep them occupied while they wait for food or for the rest of the family to finish eating. so they let their kids wander around annoying other people and leaving them in danger of getting hot food dropped on them.

...don't forget George and Ringo. :D

NICE MOVE!!! :D

If a kid starts screaming for no apparent reason, there is something wrong with them.


Yeah, you obviously don't have much experience with young children.

Yeah, you obviously don't have much experience with young children.

Um yea.... its called what my parents experienced with me. :rolleyes:

I know lots of adults that behave unreasonably and even scream and yell. Can I start handing out spankings to people or should I first resort to lesser punishments, like hiding their whiskey? I mean, I MYSELF am an adult, 25 years old, so I should be able to educate others, right?

I was spanked often as a child. I believe that I turned out great. The old adage "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is more correct than one might think. For those who read the Bible, in Proverbs it says, "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." I was taught this growing up and so never was bitter for being spanked, though I was angry. My parents always had a reason for spanking me. Any discipline I recieved was not unwarranted and never done in anger on their part. Also, more than once I saw my parents cry after they were done spanking me.

P.S. I'm 20 years old and I am for spanking (corporal punishment) kids to keep them in line.

Ashmoria, if you are spanking your grown up child then I would have to question the parents.

the point being that kids need to internalize the rules. spanking is only ever an external influence. it doesnt help your child to figure out how to deal with temptation and frustration.

SO, as i was thinking today....

the more thorny issue than what to do with a child who is misbehaving in front of you--all but the lamest parent can deal with that--is what to do with bad behavior when you are NOT there. that seems to me to be the times when older children face the possibility of spanking.

when my son was maybe 7 his friends of the same age broke into the neighbor boys house to steal some supposedly valuable baseball cards. obviously their parents werent there to guide them or stop them. no one can be there every moment when their kids are outside playing in their neighborhood.

so what do you do when your 7 year old engages in breaking and entering?

thats scary shit. luckily i didnt have to deal with it; we were out that day. but none of these were bad boys, they just faced a tempation that they werent strong enough to resist. what do you DO?

what do you do when your son's teacher calls up and tells you he was caught cheating on a test? what do you do when the neighbor tells you he saw your kid tying tin cans on the tail of a stray cat?

THOSE are the situations that panic good parents and make them think that they should give their kid a good hard spanking. and the truth is that you can never know if whatever action you choose is effective until your child is older and doesnt turn into a criminal (or does).

For those who read the Bible, in Proverbs it says, "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."

Yeah, but my D&D book says the child that's spanked has to pass a Will save not to shift his alignment towards Chaotic, and, afterwards, Evil, so spanking must be bad.

Now shall we please start using DECENT sources for an argument as opposed to works of fiction?

Yeah, but my D&D book says the child that's spanked has to pass a Will save not to shift his alignment towards Chaotic, and, afterwards, Evil, so spanking must be bad.

Now shall we please start using DECENT sources for an argument as opposed to works of fiction?

can we go through a debate without resorting to religious smackdowns?

can we go through a debate without resorting to religious smackdowns?

If people stop using religion in debates, okay. Otherwise, I'll be allowed to use D&D. :p

of course they would act that way. being in a restaurant can be very boring and most parents dont think to bring something for their kids to do to keep them occupied while they wait for food or for the rest of the family to finish eating. so they let their kids wander around annoying other people and leaving them in danger of getting hot food dropped on them.

Yeah. Crayons and the back of a placemat are a wonderful thing. And you'd be amazed at the play acting one can get with a kid and the salt and pepper shakers.

I have found that, as favorite aunt, when reasoning fails, a very aggrieved, "I will ALWAYS love you, but right now I don't like the way you are behaving and don't feel like being around you," works fairly well. That and, "I want us to enjoy going to the movies/the museum/the amusement park/driving in the country together, but if you are going to continue to be disrespectful I'm taking you back home."

Needless to say, the explanation of the consequence is ALWAYS backed up by doing exactly as one has stated one will do, whether it is taking the child back home or leaving the immediate area the child is in (assuming their parents are present to supervise them).

If people stop using religion in debates, okay. Otherwise, I'll be allowed to use D&D. :p

I fully support this.

Yeah. Crayons and the back of a placemat are a wonderful thing. And you'd be amazed at the play acting one can get with a kid and the salt and pepper shakers.

I have found that, as favorite aunt, when reasoning fails, a very aggrieved, "I will ALWAYS love you, but right now I don't like the way you are behaving and don't feel like being around you," works fairly well. That and, "I want us to enjoy going to the movies/the museum/the amusement park/driving in the country together, but if you are going to continue to be disrespectful I'm taking you back home."

Needless to say, the explanation of the consequence is ALWAYS backed up by doing exactly as one has stated one will do, whether it is taking the child back home or leaving the immediate area the child is in (assuming their parents are present to supervise them).

Better than a slap on the ass, no doubt. And, it would improve the child's reasoning skills, rather than the firmness of their buttocks.

Yeah. Crayons and the back of a placemat are a wonderful thing. And you'd be amazed at the play acting one can get with a kid and the salt and pepper shakers.

I have found that, as favorite aunt, when reasoning fails, a very aggrieved, "I will ALWAYS love you, but right now I don't like the way you are behaving and don't feel like being around you," works fairly well. That and, "I want us to enjoy going to the movies/the museum/the amusement park/driving in the country together, but if you are going to continue to be disrespectful I'm taking you back home."

Needless to say, the explanation of the consequence is ALWAYS backed up by doing exactly as one has stated one will do, whether it is taking the child back home or leaving the immediate area the child is in (assuming their parents are present to supervise them).

I like the

"I love you, and I know that you are a good girl, and I know it sucks a big one here at the doctors office and that you are tired of being here, but we are almost done, so if we can all chill out it would be cool"

it seems to work.

If people stop using religion in debates, okay. Otherwise, I'll be allowed to use D&D. :p

DAMN! I MISSED THIS!!! :headbang:

and here I had a whole bunch of rules for dealing with spanking... yes, one of the quests we had to do was find a babysit Goblin a poor deluded couple adopted.

DAMN! I MISSED THIS!!! :headbang:

and here I had a whole bunch of rules for dealing with spanking... yes, one of the quests we had to do was find a babysit Goblin a poor deluded couple adopted.

...

I was sad due to having no D&D group...

Until I saw YOUR D&D group.

:D

...

I was sad due to having no D&D group...

Until I saw YOUR D&D group.

:D

can you imagine wanting to spank someone who could die just from the strength bonus alone!

and since the little nipper could litterally crawl anywhere!

Yes, we sometimes have really off the wall adventures. One pick up game had us playing Goblins defending the dungeon from nasty adventurers. :D

can you imagine wanting to spank someone who could die just from the strength bonus alone!

Didn't you have a Wizard in the group or something? Unless you're intent on it, you don't actually cause damage by spanking if your STR is average.

Didn't you have a Wizard in the group or something? Unless you're intent on it, you don't actually cause damage by spanking if your STR is average.

not wanting to hijack this... let's just say... yes, and no. Yes we had one, and no she couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with her rolling that night.

Looking back, I see that I misread you. Apologies.

NP

There is a difference between an adult and a child, and the question remains: Did they get an adequate chance to deal with it? If they did, the airline acted correctly. If they did not, the airline was at fault.

If the airline has to give the parents whatever they deem "adequate time", and all its other customers be damned, that airline won't be in business long. The airline can only be at fault if they caused the disturbance. They did not. They had to act in the best interest of all of their customers, not one specific family that was delaying a flight for all of the others. They did what they could for this family, but they had to deal with the larger issue.

If a child is acting up at a restaurant, should they stop service to all the other customers in the dining room to wait for the child to calm down? Or is it a better idea to ensure that they can provide their service to the others, while asking the disruption to leave?

By helping in any way they could. By being service-minded and offering, well, service to their customers.

Service doesn't include parenting. The flight attendants aren't going to know any better than the parents how to calm the child, and if they had touched her at all, they could have been sued.

You and I must use the word "perk" differently.

They got something extra for an inconvenience their daughter caused. What else could it be?

The parents or the AirTran-people?

The parents. It sounds as if one AirTran employee might have been rude, and she should be reprimanded. But treating these people like every other passenger isn't rude, it is fair - and it is exactly what a carrier that wants to stay in business has to do.

My point wasn't that they should have dug up the luggage - my point is: "See, there might be a reason that he turned down their offer and said he wouldn't fly with them again. He might be mad at them for a reason. This is a part of it." I doubt the parents - if their version is the correct one - felt that the airline gave them all the help they could offer.

And that is exactly the problem. The parents feel that extraordinary measures should have been taken to help them after their child caused a disturbance that the airline had to deal with. It is an incredibly selfish position - one that demonstrates that the parents are either being completely irrational, or that they think the world should revolve around them. Either is their problem, not the airline's.

No, I mean lack of service.

What kind of "service" are you expecting?

Good for you. Some people get mad and blame others.

And when the others are not at fault, we call this either irrational, or very selfish.

Sometime it is understandable. In this case, the blaming of the airline might be justifiable - especially if they weren't and didn't feel treated "above and beyond" (which I strongly doubt they were) or even correctly

It is obvious that they were. The airline went to extra measures to try and help them out - when they could have reasonably required the family to pay for a rescheduling fee and offered them nothing.

Because you don't know if it would have been as easy as placing her in the seat, you don't know why they didn't do just that, and because you don't know what they were doing instead you wonder about their parenting skills... Hmm...

Of course it would have been that easy. If she had been buckled into her seat, the plane could have taken off. It was the fact that she was not in her seat that caused them to be removed from the plane.

Yet you judge them.

I judge their actions.

Your comparison is flawed.

How so? It pretty much directly parallels the situation. In fact, it would be a better analogy if the restaurant in the analogy had given them their food for free and thrown in free dessert.

If the airline has to give the parents whatever they deem "adequate time", and all its other customers be damned, that airline won't be in business long. The airline can only be at fault if they caused the disturbance. They did not. They had to act in the best interest of all of their customers, not one specific family that was delaying a flight for all of the others. They did what they could for this family, but they had to deal with the larger issue.
How much more time could they give? Why does the airline company say thet it could - should - have been handled differently if they did all they could?

If a child is acting up at a restaurant, should they stop service to all the other customers in the dining room to wait for the child to calm down? Or is it a better idea to ensure that they can provide their service to the others, while asking the disruption to leave?
Irrelevant. Another flawed analogy.

Service doesn't include parenting. The flight attendants aren't going to know any better than the parents how to calm the child, and if they had touched her at all, they could have been sued.
Service include offers of help "Is there anything we can do to help sir?" and warnings - "if you can't get her calm you will have to disembark sir" - neither of which there is any indication that were ever offered. I don't know if they did or didn't offer help, but according to the parents there weren't a whole lot of communication between them and the crew, and definately no offers, questions or warnings.

They got something extra for an inconvenience their daughter caused. What else could it be?
Compensation. We've been over this, haven't we?

The parents. It sounds as if one AirTran employee might have been rude, and she should be reprimanded. But treating these people like every other passenger isn't rude, it is fair - and it is exactly what a carrier that wants to stay in business has to do.
Asking them to leave the plane - given that the story the airline tells is correct - was fair and right. It is the manner in which it was done, quickly and without any warning, and met with a rather rude representative afterwards.

And there is no indication that the parents were anything but polite. There is no indication that they refused to leave the plane or made a fuss about it there - they seem to have reacted quickly and rather quietly when they were told to get off the plane.

And that is exactly the problem. The parents feel that extraordinary measures should have been taken to help them after their child caused a disturbance that the airline had to deal with. It is an incredibly selfish position - one that demonstrates that the parents are either being completely irrational, or that they think the world should revolve around them. Either is their problem, not the airline's.
Actually, no. There is no indication the the parents felt that extraordinary measures should have been taken afterwards. What I said was, that was probably a factor that contributed to their anger against the airline. They apparently felt that they were thrown off the airline unjustly since they would have been able to calm her down if given a chance, and it is neither irrational nor "incredibly selfish" to compound that anger with frustration that the luggage and carseat was gone, and they were met with condecending parenting tips from an unhelpful representative of the company.

What kind of "service" are you expecting?
Communication. Warnings. Offers of assistance along the way. A calm and quiet explanation after they had been removed from the flight. Assistance to avoid a 24 hour flight ban. Etc etc.

It is obvious that they were. The airline went to extra measures to try and help them out - when they could have reasonably required the family to pay for a rescheduling fee and offered them nothing.
There are no indications that the airline went to extra measures to try to help them, not in the situation on the plane nor any time afterwards.

The offer only came after the media got interested in the story.

Of course it would have been that easy. If she had been buckled into her seat, the plane could have taken off. It was the fact that she was not in her seat that caused them to be removed from the plane.
Yet we still don't know why they didn't do just that, placing her in her seat.

I judge their actions.
Actually you don't because you don't know enough about their actions. You don't know what they tried to do, and you don't know what they didn't do. You judge them by... Hell, I still don't know what you judge them by. And I'm still curious as to why there is such a need to slam the parents when we know so little.

How so? It pretty much directly parallels the situation. In fact, it would be a better analogy if the restaurant in the analogy had given them their food for free and thrown in free dessert.
http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/8858/police7mp.jpg
I'm sorry, but that's far from true. The analogy would at least have to include a 24 hour feeding-ban, something about how the rest of the diners would miss their dinners if something wasn't done then and there, the family being kept from going home for a day, the restaurant not warning the family before throwing them out, the doorman treating them rudely, and the offer of free food only being given after the newspaper called them. So please, stay away from the comparison. It doesn't bring anything to the table.

I also feel we're getting close to a dead end here...

How much more time could they give?

Considering that the flight had already been delayed 15 minutes, and passengers quite often have closely timed connecting flights, probably no more time. That's why they asked the family to leave.

Why does the airline company say thet it could - should - have been handled differently if they did all they could?

I'm guessing it has to do with the lady who tried to give them a parenting lesson, as no action taken by the airline itself was at all unreasonable. It probably also has to do with the "customer is always right" principle. These customers are bitching up a storm, so they're going to get offered perks. That's how business quite often works.

In the service industry, it is common to apologize to people for their own mistakes. When a woman orders fajitas, and when you bring them out, she says, "NO! I WANTED QUESADILLAS!", you don't point out that she, in fact, ordered the meal with fajitas. Instead, you say, "I'm sorry, ma'am. I'll make sure this is fixed right away," and you probably comp her meal, even though it was her mistake to begin with. Sometimes, even if the customer isn't being rude and tells you point-blank that it was her mistake, you still comp the fajitas and get her quesadillas.


Irrelevant. Another flawed analogy.

Flawed in what way? You (and these parents) seem to think that the airline should have put their service on hold indefinitely to wait for one passenger to calm down. Meanwhile, everyone else on that plane was getting further delayed and possibly missing connecting flights, rides, etc.

Service include offers of help "Is there anything we can do to help sir?" and warnings - "if you can't get her calm you will have to disembark sir" - neither of which there is any indication that were ever offered. I don't know if they did or didn't offer help, but according to the parents there weren't a whole lot of communication between them and the crew, and definately no offers, questions or warnings.

What could they have done? They had no idea why the child was acting up. The parents said they didn't even have any such idea.

And it is common sense that, if you are disrupting airline service, you will either have to stop or be removed from the plane. Anyone who doesn't know that probably shouldn't be flying in the first place.

Compensation. We've been over this, haven't we?

Compensation implies that the airline took something from them without cause. It quite clearly did not.

And there is no indication that the parents were anything but polite.

They aren't exactly being polite now.

Actually, no. There is no indication the the parents felt that extraordinary measures should have been taken afterwards.

Considering that extraordinary measures were taken, and they still complained......

What I said was, that was probably a factor that contributed to their anger against the airline. They apparently felt that they were thrown off the airline unjustly since they would have been able to calm her down if given a chance, and it is neither irrational nor "incredibly selfish" to compound that anger with frustration that the luggage and carseat was gone, and they were met with condecending parenting tips from an unhelpful representative of the company.

The only thing here that isn't irrational or incredibly selfish is the problem with the condescending employee. Sure, they might have been able to eventually calm her down, but at what cost to everyone else on the plane, everyone else who would ride that plane later that day, everyone who might have connecting flights at the next stop, and other airport customers whose flight should have been at that gate? To expect the airline to simply stop providing service to everyone else and wait for them to calm their child down is irrational.

There are no indications that the airline went to extra measures to try to help them, not in the situation on the plane nor any time afterwards.

Free flights home and an extra set of free flights? That's pretty extraordinary, considering that the airline could have, by all rights, required the family to pay a rescheduling fee for being unable to fly their scheduled flight.

Yet we still don't know why they didn't do just that, placing her in her seat.

They have said why they didn't - they were trying to calm her down first. And, apparently, they expected everyone else to just sit around and wait until they accomplished it.

Actually you don't because you don't know enough about their actions. You don't know what they tried to do, and you don't know what they didn't do.

I know they didn't put their child in her seat and buckle her in. I know they are angry that the plane wasn't further held up so that they wouldn't be inconvenienced by their daughter's behavior.

And I'm still curious as to why there is such a need to slam the parents when we know so little.

I'm not "slamming the parents." I am looking at the events and drawing conclusions from them. The parents expected the airline to inconvenience countless other people because their child was throwing a tantrum. That isn't something I agree with. In fact, I think it is a rather silly position to hold.

I'm sorry, but that's far from true. The analogy would at least have to include a 24 hour feeding-ban,

As a general rule, if you're kicked out of a restaurant, they don't let you back in right away. If they want to go somewhere else, they can, just as this family could have bought tickets on another airline if they really wanted to.

something about how the rest of the diners would miss their dinners if something wasn't done then and there,

That was included when I asked if the restaurant should stop all service to the other customers to wait for the child to be calmed down.

the family being kept from going home for a day,

Wouldn't fit. In the restaurant example, we're talking about food, not transportation.

the restaurant not warning the family before throwing them out,

Rational people are well aware that, if they behave badly, they will be asked to leave a restaurant/airplane.

the doorman treating them rudely,

This was the only thing that was left out.

and the offer of free food only being given after the newspaper called them.

This is irrelevant when you consider the fact that them being kicked out of the restaurant would be proper action. The only improper action would be the person lecturing them on the way out.

Considering that the flight had already been delayed 15 minutes, and passengers quite often have closely timed connecting flights, probably no more time. That's why they asked the family to leave.
Probably.

I'm guessing it has to do with the lady who tried to give them a parenting lesson, as no action taken by the airline itself was at all unreasonable. It probably also has to do with the "customer is always right" principle. These customers are bitching up a storm, so they're going to get offered perks. That's how business quite often works.
I can also guess.

Flawed in what way? You (and these parents) seem to think that the airline should have put their service on hold indefinitely to wait for one passenger to calm down. Meanwhile, everyone else on that plane was getting further delayed and possibly missing connecting flights, rides, etc.
The restaurant analogy is fundamentally flawed.

That's not what I'm saying. Se previous posts where I talk about not taking sides but asking why people slam the parents.

What could they have done? They had no idea why the child was acting up. The parents said they didn't even have any such idea.

And it is common sense that, if you are disrupting airline service, you will either have to stop or be removed from the plane. Anyone who doesn't know that probably shouldn't be flying in the first place.
That's the service part: You ask. Maybe they had some toys for children they could have offered? Maybe she needed something? Maybe there was something they could have done? If they haven't asked, they have failed at service.

And it's common curtesy to issue a warning, even if they should know it. Maybe a warning would have caused them to take a more drastic approach, maybe it wouldn't.

They aren't exactly being polite now.
How? By saying they won't fly with AirTran again? That's hardly impolite.

Considering that extraordinary measures were taken, and they still complained......
...because of the way they were treated then and there, yes...? And the extraordinary measures were taken long after the flight?

The only thing here that isn't irrational or incredibly selfish is the problem with the condescending employee. Sure, they might have been able to eventually calm her down, but at what cost to everyone else on the plane, everyone else who would ride that plane later that day, everyone who might have connecting flights at the next stop, and other airport customers whose flight should have been at that gate? To expect the airline to simply stop providing service to everyone else and wait for them to calm their child down is irrational.
I see nowhere that they would have wanted the airline to stop providing service. I do see that the parents would have liked to recieve some service.[/QUOTE]

Free flights home and an extra set of free flights? That's pretty extraordinary, considering that the airline could have, by all rights, required the family to pay a rescheduling fee for being unable to fly their scheduled flight.
Again, all that came much later, when the media got in touch with the airline.

They have said why they didn't - they were trying to calm her down first. And, apparently, they expected everyone else to just sit around and wait until they accomplished it.
So did they know that they would be thrown off the plane if she couldn't quiet down?

I know they didn't put their child in her seat and buckle her in. I know they are angry that the plane wasn't further held up so that they wouldn't be inconvenienced by their daughter's behavior.
Did they want for the plane to miss the slot, to delay the passangers for hours, to inconvenience them? I don't see that.

I'm not "slamming the parents." I am looking at the events and drawing conclusions from them. The parents expected the airline to inconvenience countless other people because their child was throwing a tantrum. That isn't something I agree with. In fact, I think it is a rather silly position to hold.
Maybe you're not slamming them when you call them spoiled. But the post I responded to that started it all was
The whole problem is the parents didn't civilize the child from the beginning.
...in connection with other posters calling them asses and shitheads.

That is, to me, a rather silly way to look at it, and I still don't understand what they did to qualify for such namecalling and bashing.


As a general rule, if you're kicked out of a restaurant, they don't let you back in right away. If they want to go somewhere else, they can, just as this family could have bought tickets on another airline if they really wanted to.
The flight ban didn't prohibit them from flying with every other airline as well?


This is irrelevant when you consider the fact that them being kicked out of the restaurant would be proper action. The only improper action would be the person lecturing them on the way out.
Given that what you just said is completely true; Is it really so unbelievable that the parents felt it was so rudely done by a representative of the company that they decided to protest by using the only power that the consumer really holds, and decide to never use the services of that company again? Does that alone qualify them as spoiled asses or shitheads?

(See how I dodge the restaurant analogy there? ;))

Ah well, spirited debate aside I'll end my part of the hijack here. I'll read any response you might have, but I think I'll retire from this thread now. The thread has been quite worthless apart from this, but all good things must come to an end. Have a nice day :)

The restaurant analogy is fundamentally flawed.

Why? It is another service industry.

That's the service part: You ask. Maybe they had some toys for children they could have offered? Maybe she needed something? Maybe there was something they could have done? If they haven't asked, they have failed at service.

You ask if you think there is something you can do. At least two representatives came by to make sure the parents knew that they *must* get their daughter in her seat. Did the parents ask for anything? From the sounds of it - even from "their version" of the story - they basically were very curt with those who came. Once again, I'll liken it to another service industry. As a waitress, I was happy to offer help to people. However, if I had to tell someone that they were making a disturbance, and they answered curtly, I'd leave them alone and let the manager handle it if anything else were needed. Otherwise, I'd get complaints for hovering and bothering them.

How? By saying they won't fly with AirTran again? That's hardly impolite.

It is when they have no rational reason to say so.

...because of the way they were treated then and there, yes...? And the extraordinary measures were taken long after the flight?

Not long after the flight.

I see nowhere that they would have wanted the airline to stop providing service. I do see that the parents would have liked to recieve some service.

They wanted the airplane to sit around and wait for them to take as much time as they wanted to calm their daughter, and were angry when they were asked to leave "without being given enough time." As long as that plane was on the ground, the airline was unable to provide the service that everyone else on that plane had paid for.

Again, all that came much later, when the media got in touch with the airline.

And? The higher-ups in the airline can't see to something unless they know about it.

So did they know that they would be thrown off the plane if she couldn't quiet down?

It has nothing to do with quieting down. She had to be in her seat, with her seatbelt on. And if they didn't know that people have to do that, the only explanation would be that they've never flown before (which obviously wasn't true, as they had flown to the place they currently were). Anyone who has ever been on a flight and has even glanced at the news is well aware that instructions given by the flight crew must be followed, or you're off the plane.

Did they want for the plane to miss the slot, to delay the passangers for hours, to inconvenience them? I don't see that.

They wanted however long it would take - and every extra minute could cause someone to miss a connecting flight, or be late for a meeting, or miss the last bus, or any number of things.

Maybe you're not slamming them when you call them spoiled. But the post I responded to that started it all was

I said that their actions implied that they are spoiled. Once again, it is judging the actions.

The flight ban didn't prohibit them from flying with every other airline as well?

The article states that it is an AirTran policy. This most likely means that it applies to AirTran flights only. Otherwise, it would be a general airline policy.

Given that what you just said is completely true; Is it really so unbelievable that the parents felt it was so rudely done by a representative of the company that they decided to protest by using the only power that the consumer really holds, and decide to never use the services of that company again? Does that alone qualify them as spoiled asses or shitheads?

When it is unjustified, yes. If a representative of a company is rude to me, I will complain. If nothing is done, then I'll probably boycott the company, as they obviously don't care. If it is taken care of, then I don't blame the entire corporation for one person's actions. These people were offered more than anyone should get for a simple interaction with a rude employee, and they're still trying to blame the entire corporation. And they're trying to claim that actions which were entirely appropriate were not to do it.

Ah well, spirited debate aside I'll end my part of the hijack here. I'll read any response you might have, but I think I'll retire from this thread now. The thread has been quite worthless apart from this, but all good things must come to an end. Have a nice day :)

Ditto.

Since when does spanking == fearing parental authority? It doesn't.

Of course it's fear!

We teach our children that hitting is wrong by hitting them? That's what doesn't make sense.

I don't know if you have children... but if and when (or if you already) do have children I would hope you would see the obvious. Violence is never the answer. It only teaches children that it's "OK" and it's not.

Further, if you were to go up to a stranger and hit them because you didn't like their behaviour, you'd be charged with assault. Why should children have any less rights than that of a stranger. In fact children should be more protected by society than adults against what is nothing more than assault with a cute name called "spanking"

Spanking is barbaric and outdated. Invisible fencing and shock collars are more effective and humane.

Spanking is barbaric and outdated. Invisible fencing and shock collars are more effective and humane.


I'm going to assume you're joking.. ;)

Of course it's fear!

We teach our children that hitting is wrong by hitting them? That's what doesn't make sense.

Hitting is wrong. No doubt about that. So why do we play baseball when we are hitting a ball with a wooden bat at someone on the playing surface that can cause more severe injury than a good swift swat on the butt?

And no, it is not fear. I never feared my parents and my father never feared his father.

I don't know if you have children... but if and when (or if you already) do have children I would hope you would see the obvious. Violence is never the answer. It only teaches children that it's "OK" and it's not.

Violence is never ok. You are indeed right about that. The only time I ever got spanked is if I did something so totally wrong that not only was I spaned but got grounded and had things taken away from me.

Further, if you were to go up to a stranger and hit them because you didn't like their behaviour, you'd be charged with assault.

No shit Ms. Holmes.

Why should children have any less rights than that of a stranger.

They have less rights because they are minors. If I hit someone else's kid, then yea, charge me. Do not charge me though for spanking my kid however. Until he turns 18, he is my responsibility and thus punishment will be decided based on what he did wrong. Not everything is spank worthy.

In fact children should be more protected by society than adults against what is nothing more than assault with a cute name called "spanking"

:rolleyes: SPanking is not a crime. Bruising a kid is a crime. See the difference?