This is the weirdest thread.
How is that warranted by anything I've said, Walter? ACTUALLY said, mind you, not been accused of saying.
ell, I'd thaught it was a weird thread, too, and tried a (cheap) joke.
Didn't work, as I notice.
Sorry.
Okeedokes, seemed harder-edged than usual for you. No problem.
Walter Hinteler wrote:ell, I'd thaught it was a weird thread, too, and tried a (cheap) joke.
Didn't work, as I notice.
Sorry.
What a lame excuse for an excuse! You're lucky if Sozobe doesn't put you in the time-out chair for this, young man!
Damn. She's all forgiving and understanding again.
I am actually in a time-out chair and only posting via a virtual account.
Having read this entire thread, and not having done anything but made one silly remark, i reacted to the inference that those who are not parents don't understand because it was such an unnecessary statement. It was directed at Joe, and it was directed at him more than once. As Joe pointed out more than once, his argument was not predicated on any contention about how the child should or should have behaved, nor about how the mother should or should not have managed the child.
Duck Woman felt compelled to make a comment about people who aren't parents responding in parenting threads, and how they always complain that people who are parents say that if you don't have kids, you don't understand. I don't spend much time in parenting threads--but in this thread, and the thread about the Chicago restaurant which banned children, it was parents who broached the subject of people who are not parents just not understanding. In my limited experience of these types of discussion, it is most likely going to a case of parents bringing this up.
Once gain, Joe did not at any point state or even suggest that he knew how the mother should have behaved, or how the child should have been managed. His consistent position was that we don't have enough information, that all we knew is the child had been described as fussy, and that the mother had said on the Good Morning America program that the child's behavior on the plane was comparable to the child's behavior on the set of the program. None of that merited a comment about his putative ignorance of children.
Thomas wrote:Personally, I think this whole discussion could most easily be avoided if kids were transported in cages in the cargo section of the plane, similarly to how we now transport cats and dogs. Think of all the trouble that would spare us! No more crying marathons at three in the morning. No more chain reactions where one crying toddler makes another one grumpy and cry too. No more kicking into the back of my seat. Heaven!
Of course, just like Joe, I am not a parent -- but deep inside your mushy parent hearts, you all know I'm right. Good night!
Actually Thomas - just to make another aside - you can tranport your cat and dog in the cabin if it fits into a carrier that fits under the seat and only 2 such pets allowed per flight.
Montana wrote:One thing I don't like is snots!
My daughter tried to wipe her snots on me last night - so I kicked her out of the house.
Walter Hinteler wrote:I think, boomer, linkat , soz, CJ ... and nimh should get a special, small and windowless cage with plywood chairs when they fly.
Actually my children behaved much better than the loud a$$ adult sitting behind us that kept kicking my seat.
There should also be a section for loud a$$, stupid fat adults as well.
Linkat wrote:There should also be a section for loud a$$, stupid fat adults as well.
They already have that. It's called business class.
boomerang wrote:You DON'T know until you've done it. Honest to god you don't know.
You might think you have an informed opinion. I thought I did. I really thought I did.
Until you've done it, you don't know.
To bring all of this back to the topic of the thread, let me ask you and anyone else who thinks that "if you don't have kids, you just don't know."
Let's suppose that the flight attendant in this episode was childless. Was she qualified to make the decision she made? Or should she have called in a member of the flight crew who was a parent?
Now that we have arrived at the solutions for most problems one can conceivably experience during flights, we should all pat ourselves on the back and retire.....to the small toilets in the back.
Setanta wrote:
Duck Woman felt compelled to make a comment about people who aren't parents responding in parenting threads, and how they always complain that people who are parents say that if you don't have kids, you don't understand.
Whoa, nelly. Duck Woman said what?
I think suggesting that someone drug their child was a terrible decision, parent or not.
I guess I'd need to know a bit more about how she came to her decision before I can judge if she's "qualified" to make it.
If they really thought the baby and mother were security threats then I suppose she was "qualified".
boomerang wrote:I guess I'd need to know a bit more about how she came to her decision before I can judge if she's "qualified" to make it.
Like what? Suppose the first thing that drew the flight attendant's notice was the child acting "fussy." At that point, should she have called for the assistance of a member of the crew who was a parent?
FreeDuck wrote:Setanta wrote:
Duck Woman felt compelled to make a comment about people who aren't parents responding in parenting threads, and how they always complain that people who are parents say that if you don't have kids, you don't understand.
Whoa, nelly. Duck Woman said what?
Duck woman said this:
FreeDuck wrote:Do we always have to go here in parenting threads?
Sometimes, in frustration, someone says "you/he/she obviously don't/doesn't have kids or you/they would understand." The implication isn't that only parents understand, it's that if you clearly don't understand (as in, if you expect a 19 month old to do anything other than scream his f-ing head off and/or be annoying and squirmy after spending 11 hours in an airport presumable strapped into a stroller and up way past his bedtime, or think that the parent of said child can flip a switch on him and make him completely quiet) then you probably don't have small children or don't spend a lot of time with them. That's really it. (emphasis added)
What precisely does "Do we always have to go here" mean, if not that people without children "always" bring this up?
Like was she just annoyed or was there really a security threat.
Setanta wrote:
Duck woman said this:
FreeDuck wrote:Do we always have to go here in parenting threads?
Sometimes, in frustration, someone says "you/he/she obviously don't/doesn't have kids or you/they would understand." The implication isn't that only parents understand, it's that if you clearly don't understand (as in, if you expect a 19 month old to do anything other than scream his f-ing head off and/or be annoying and squirmy after spending 11 hours in an airport presumable strapped into a stroller and up way past his bedtime, or think that the parent of said child can flip a switch on him and make him completely quiet) then you probably don't have small children or don't spend a lot of time with them. That's really it. (emphasis added)
What precisely does "Do we always have to go here" mean, if not that people without children "always" bring this up?
"Do we always have to go here" most certainly does not mean "people without children 'always' bring this up". In fact, the first sentence of the following paragraph clearly indicates that these discussions start with someone who has children indicating that those without don't understand. The use of "we" is clearly inclusive of all participants. How you got what you got from that, I don't know, but it certainly required some creativity.
