I have had it with these Adorable babies on this adorable plane!

LarryC wrote:
CheezePavilion:

It's not something everyone wants to do, but it's something enough people want to do so that the next generation of people are created.

Correct; just like being a soldier is not something everyone wants to do, but enough do that the state is protected. Having and raising children is a core state and social interest. It's not good to take that for granted. There is no "they."

Sure, but it's not taking it for granted to point out that the enjoyment of children was sufficient motivation for enough people that no one has to "take one for the team." It's just refusing to romanticize it, either.


They often also get someone much younger than them who will be there for them when they get older. We come in and go out of life toothless and in diapers. As we age, the roles often reverse. In fact, haven't you told me that where you live, children are a form of protection, even for the very rich? Sounds like parents get a lot more benefits from having kids than teachers when you include those factors. It might be a second job, but let's face it: having kids is also a form of insurance against the effects of old age.

Absolutely. In my society, it's because we expect our children to directly support us financially when we become old. In your society, there does not seem to be that expectation. That means it's even more incumbent on the childless to be thankful for parents that will provide the next generation of workers that will create enough workers and income generators to fund and create value out of their retirement benefits.

In essence, those guys are enduring night after night of that crying everyone hates, so you'll have someone you can hire to fix your car when we're all too old to do it ourselves.

No, that's only half the story. Those guys are also enjoying day after day of the extraordinarily rewarding human relationship that is parent and child. Also, they not only get a mechanic they can employ with money, they get a kindred soul to be there for them through the ordeal of aging in a relationship that is far more special than any business one like car repair will ever be.

Right, but if playing with and taking care of them was sufficient motivation, your other motivations are irrelevant to some extent. You can't claim to be making a sacrifice for the good of society where even if raising them up right wouldn't contribute to making the world a better place, you would have had them anyway.

Is this the same reason for why teachers ought to get poor salaries?

Teachers get poor salaries because teaching was part of the pink ghetto of employment where women who had nowhere else to express their intellectual gifts in society had to go. Now that there's less discrimination in the workplace those women are busy becoming CEOs instead of principals, and everyone wonders why we can't hire the same quality of teacher for the same amount of money when half the damn population has unprecedented freedom in the labor market where before they had few choices besides teaching. The ironic thing is most of these people say they're for free markets and capitalism and call other people socialists.

...but that's another thread ; D

If some people find it enjoyable to take up a necessary task you personally find distasteful, then thank god for them right? If they happen to sometimes do it in your vicinity, the least you can do is not bother them while they're doing it.

Well no--if I should thank god for them, I shouldn't bother god while god is making such people in my vicinity! Sure they do a necessary task, but they're not exactly jumping on grenades. They've also got a chance to experience a kind of human connection the child-free will never have. Duty hath its privileges, I guess you could say.

This is sort of out-of-left-field and may only be the naïveté of someone who neither has nor wants children (mrs ruhk and I enjoy a quiet home and our disposable incomes), but wouldn't it be possible to just go to a pediatrician and get some sort of travel sedative prescribed? People dope their pets for travel all the time (yes I realize that babies aren't pets), and considering how uncomfortable air travel is for most adults it must be outright traumatic for babies who can't even comprehend what is occurring. It seems like an obvious solution.

Am I a bad person?

ruhk wrote:
This is sort of out-of-left-field and may only be the naïveté of someone who neither has nor wants children (mrs ruhk and I enjoy a quiet home and our disposable incomes), but wouldn't it be possible to just go to a pediatrician and get some sort of travel sedative prescribed? People dope their pets for travel all the time (yes I realize that babies aren't pets), and considering how uncomfortable air travel is for most adults it must be outright traumatic for babies who can't even comprehend what is occurring. It seems like an obvious solution.

Am I a bad person? :P

I think unnecessary medication that isn't guaranteed to work seems like a bad idea. Otherwise I'm sure you'd see more parents try that.

Jayhawker wrote:
But I also understand that kids do not always cooperate.

I understand that. But that's what modern pharmacology is for. Children aren't going to suffer tragic consequences from getting a few more hours of sleep. Besides, it has the upside of making traveling so much easier for everyone involved. Parents don't have to worry about fussy toddlers and everyone else doesn't have to deal with Honey Boo Boo's running wild.

ruhk wrote:
This is sort of out-of-left-field and may only be the naïveté of someone who neither has nor wants children (mrs ruhk and I enjoy a quiet home and our disposable incomes), but wouldn't it be possible to just go to a pediatrician and get some sort of travel sedative prescribed? People dope their pets for travel all the time (yes I realize that babies aren't pets), and considering how uncomfortable air travel is for most adults it must be outright traumatic for babies who can't even comprehend what is occurring. It seems like an obvious solution.

Am I a bad person? :P

No, you're not a bad person for thinking that. Most of the world is a should be a place for adults, not children. Airports and aluminum tubes five miles above the earth shouldn't be considered a place where kids can be a kid.

ruhk wrote:

Am I a bad person? :P

Doping kids so you don't have to put up with them? Yeah. You're a bad person.

Sorta missed the point there.

Between the noise, the crowd, and the air pressure changes, it's not going to be a pleasant trip for a helpless, barely sentient child, and that's going to make it unpleasant for everyone else on the plane. Chances are the parents will already be use to the kid being unpleasant to be around, the purpose of the meds is to ease the trip for the kid and your fellow travelers.

Same reason people sedate pets for travel (once again, I am aware kids are not pets), it's not for your sake, it's to make the trip easier for the pet.

Smiling, cuddling, reading, feeding, playing. All did a great job for my 9 month old. Any younger than that and he would have been alternately cuddling us or lying in an air cot. The only traumatic bit is the air pressure change and if you feed them during ascent and descent it stimulates the popping reflex and isn't a problem.

Potentially dangerous pharmacology definitely not needed. And there's no way on this earth or above it I'm going to medicate my child in order to make things easier for other people. Not going to happen. I will work my arse off to keep him happy, comfortable, and entertained but I'm not feeding him drugs.

No one's forcing you to, but it's an option for those who want it. Pro tip!

I still think you're a bad person.

Maybe I didn't put enough smileys in the body of my posts and the initial tentative disclaimer wasn't tentatively disclaimer-y enough, but you're taking it waay to seriously, man.

LarryC wrote:
CheezePavilion:


It's not something everyone wants to do, but it's something enough people want to do so that the next generation of people are created.

Correct; just like being a soldier is not something everyone wants to do, but enough do that the state is protected. Having and raising children is a core state and social interest. It's not good to take that for granted. There is no "they."

Wow. I don't even know where to start. So should those of us without children be sending our money to people with children to reimburse them for their great service? Here's a hint, this already happens. Dual income no kids means getting taxed at the highest rate for your income. No children to claim as dependents, taxes that go to services we don't use. I really bristle at the idea that they're performing some noble service when usually the choice to have children is almost completely personal. I'll buy this line of thinking when children are forced to visit childless couples in old folks homes and pretend to be their children. If I'm paying for this national good shouldn't I get the benefit of having a "child" as well?

ruhk wrote:
Maybe I didn't put enough smileys in the body of my posts and the initial tentative disclaimer wasn't tentatively disclaimer-y enough, but you're taking it waay to seriously, man. :P

FWIW I thought he was being sarcastic. At least I hope so. I don't agree with drugging the kids, obviously, but I hope that the childfree and the parents can co-exist here of all places. Those of us without children hear it all the time about how we're "selfish" and things like that. I would hope GWJ knows better than that.

DSGamer wrote:

Those of us without children hear it all the time about how we're "selfish" and things like that. I would hope GWJ knows better than that.

We've also been severely pressured to have kids by friends and family in the past that sometimes it almost seems like less of a lifestyle choice and more like some weird cult.
I'm joking of course.
Mostly.
Mostly.

ruhk wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Those of us without children hear it all the time about how we're "selfish" and things like that. I would hope GWJ knows better than that.

We've also been severely pressured to have kids by friends and family in the past that sometimes it almost seems like less of a lifestyle choice and more like some weird cult.
I'm joking of course.
Mostly.
Mostly.

Yeah. When you've had close family members question why you're even married and berate you for choosing to just be the two of you... I don't know. It's most definitely not a "first world problem" to have family threaten to disown you or question your choice of spouse based on a life decision.

Eventually you get tired of that and decide to live your life and you hope that once you've stood your ground and withstood the pressure that people will respect your decision just as you respect theirs.

ruhk wrote:
Maybe I didn't put enough smileys in the body of my posts and the initial tentative disclaimer wasn't tentatively disclaimer-y enough, but you're taking it waay to seriously, man. :P

You're not a bad person (as far as I know ;p), ruhk, but since you don't have kids you don't have any reason to know that giving unnecessary medication to young kids is a serious matter. Opinions vary by pediatrician (inevitably) but even something as simple as children's tylonal may lead to developmental problems in the child later in life. So basically, medication is the last resort. I didn't know that until we had the girls, there was simply no reason I would know that without being a parent.

/shrug

ruhk wrote:
Maybe I didn't put enough smileys in the body of my posts and the initial tentative disclaimer wasn't tentatively disclaimer-y enough, but you're taking it waay to seriously, man. :P

Maybe instead of "pets" you should have said "Mr. T's"

But I know what you mean: it's like how people freak out about putting small children on leashes saying they're not pets, but all I can think is "those little buggers are FAST and they just take off!" It's more just, hey--there's a reason anesthesiologists have all that schooling and make you sign all those forms: sedating people is dangerous work even when we're talking about adults.

Heck, if sedation was that easy, deadhead *me* when we fly, like in sci-fi!

Well until a certain age - measured in years, if not decades - dogs are faster learners, more respectful, better behaved, and more capable of cognitive thought and higher emotion than the young of our own species.

OG_slinger wrote:

No, I'm not being sarcastic. There is simply no excuse for 180+ people who all paid good money for a flight to have the already stressful experience made even worse by a bunch of screaming or squirming kids. It's ridiculous that the default position is "well, you know, it's a kid and therefore the burden is on you to make sure you aren't annoyed by their tantrums and meltdowns."

Do you get as offended and appalled when there's a screaming, squirmy kid on a bus or a train?

And if not, why not? "The journey is shorter" doesn't apply here - thy're both privately operated forms of mass transport open to the public for a fee. Same deal.

The "good money" you pay for a flight rents you a tiny sliver of space in a communal flying room. You are not paying for silence. You are not paying for sweet dreams and a solid 8 hours of sleep. You know full well that when you step onto a 737, you and 140-odd other people are going to be sharing around 800 square feet of floor. Where does this expectation that those other people aren't going to impinge upon your personal satisfaction come from?

It's not rational.

Jonman wrote:
The "good money" you pay for a flight rents you a tiny sliver of space in a communal flying room. You are not paying for silence. You are not paying for sweet dreams and a solid 8 hours of sleep. You know full well that when you step onto a 737, you and 140-odd other people are going to be sharing around 800 square feet of floor. Where does this expectation that those other people aren't going to impinge upon your personal satisfaction come from?

It's not rational.

"L'enfer, c'est les autres."

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Jonman wrote:
The "good money" you pay for a flight rents you a tiny sliver of space in a communal flying room. You are not paying for silence. You are not paying for sweet dreams and a solid 8 hours of sleep. You know full well that when you step onto a 737, you and 140-odd other people are going to be sharing around 800 square feet of floor. Where does this expectation that those other people aren't going to impinge upon your personal satisfaction come from?

It's not rational.

"L'enfer, c'est les autres."

If hell is other people, then why is everyone who is complaining in this thread subjecting themselves to hell by surrounding themselves with other people in a giant metal cigar at 4000 feet in the air? Why not move to van down by the river where they can get some peace and quiet?

Jonman wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

No, I'm not being sarcastic. There is simply no excuse for 180+ people who all paid good money for a flight to have the already stressful experience made even worse by a bunch of screaming or squirming kids. It's ridiculous that the default position is "well, you know, it's a kid and therefore the burden is on you to make sure you aren't annoyed by their tantrums and meltdowns."

Do you get as offended and appalled when there's a screaming, squirmy kid on a bus or a train?

And if not, why not? "The journey is shorter" doesn't apply here - thy're both privately operated forms of mass transport open to the public for a fee. Same deal.

The "good money" you pay for a flight rents you a tiny sliver of space in a communal flying room. You are not paying for silence. You are not paying for sweet dreams and a solid 8 hours of sleep. You know full well that when you step onto a 737, you and 140-odd other people are going to be sharing around 800 square feet of floor. Where does this expectation that those other people aren't going to impinge upon your personal satisfaction come from?

It's not rational.

To play devil's advocate: If I, a full-grown adult, want to engage in the same behaviors as a small child(crying, screaming, singing along with my Katy Perry albums, etc.), can I do that at will because it is a communal space? I mean, I've paid to be there, I should get to act as I wish.

Kraint wrote:

To play devil's advocate: If I, a full-grown adult, want to engage in the same behaviors as a small child(crying, screaming, singing along with my Katy Perry albums, etc.), can I do that at will because it is a communal space? I mean, I've paid to be there, I should get to act as I wish.

No, you should get to act as is the norm for your demographic. Just like the babies on the plane are doing.

Jonman wrote:
Kraint wrote:

To play devil's advocate: If I, a full-grown adult, want to engage in the same behaviors as a small child(crying, screaming, singing along with my Katy Perry albums, etc.), can I do that at will because it is a communal space? I mean, I've paid to be there, I should get to act as I wish.

No, you should get to act as is the norm for your demographic. Just like the babies on the plane are doing. :)

If he is not in full control of his cognitive functions then it is okay for him to act in such a manner. Or if you have a mental delay then it is okay for him to act like his delayed mental age.

Some kids react to sedation and become stimulated. Not something you want to experiment with in that environment. Some studies show heavy sedation may have bad effects on kid's developing brains. The more you know.

Jonman wrote:
Kraint wrote:

To play devil's advocate: If I, a full-grown adult, want to engage in the same behaviors as a small child(crying, screaming, singing along with my Katy Perry albums, etc.), can I do that at will because it is a communal space? I mean, I've paid to be there, I should get to act as I wish.

No, you should get to act as is the norm for your demographic. Just like the babies on the plane are doing. :)

That's rather different than your previous point. Also, as a large and nerdy white male, isn't singing tonelessly along with my JPop/Skrillex mix and talking loudly at you for several hours re: Star Wars in my demographic? I don't think either of those should be expected/tolerated behaviors on a plane(or bus, train, etc.), regardless of how common they might be in reality.

Kraint wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Kraint wrote:

To play devil's advocate: If I, a full-grown adult, want to engage in the same behaviors as a small child(crying, screaming, singing along with my Katy Perry albums, etc.), can I do that at will because it is a communal space? I mean, I've paid to be there, I should get to act as I wish.

No, you should get to act as is the norm for your demographic. Just like the babies on the plane are doing. :)

That's rather different than your previous point. Also, as a large and nerdy white male, isn't singing tonelessly along with my JPop/Skrillex mix and talking loudly at you for several hours re: Star Wars in my demographic? I don't think either of those should be expected/tolerated behaviors on a plane(or bus, train, etc.), regardless of how common they might be in reality.

That sounds like every long bus ride I've ever taken. Can I sedate you for those, please?

Tanglebones wrote:
Kraint wrote:

That's rather different than your previous point. Also, as a large and nerdy white male, isn't singing tonelessly along with my JPop/Skrillex mix and talking loudly at you for several hours re: Star Wars in my demographic? I don't think either of those should be expected/tolerated behaviors on a plane(or bus, train, etc.), regardless of how common they might be in reality.

That sounds like every long bus ride I've ever taken. Can I sedate you for those, please?

If you can figure out how to make it work on me, please do. I'll take it voluntarily, or via blow dart if you don't have it in pill form.

Kraint wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Kraint wrote:

To play devil's advocate: If I, a full-grown adult, want to engage in the same behaviors as a small child(crying, screaming, singing along with my Katy Perry albums, etc.), can I do that at will because it is a communal space? I mean, I've paid to be there, I should get to act as I wish.

No, you should get to act as is the norm for your demographic. Just like the babies on the plane are doing. :)

That's rather different than your previous point. Also, as a large and nerdy white male, isn't singing tonelessly along with my JPop/Skrillex mix and talking loudly at you for several hours re: Star Wars in my demographic? I don't think either of those should be expected/tolerated behaviors on a plane(or bus, train, etc.), regardless of how common they might be in reality.

Is it different? I'm not sure it is. Why do we expect different behavior from adults or kids just because they're on a plane?

When I get on a plane, I expect babies to scream because they're babies. I expect adults to talk to each other and to me, because that's what adults do.

Jonman wrote:
When I get on a plane, I expect babies to scream because they're babies. I expect adults to talk to each other and to me, because that's what adults do.

That's why I get on the airplane WiFi and talk loudly on Skype. Like an adult!

Ranger Rick wrote:
Jonman wrote:
When I get on a plane, I expect babies to scream because they're babies. I expect adults to talk to each other and to me, because that's what adults do.

That's why I get on the airplane WiFi and talk loudly on Skype. Like an adult!

;)

When you find a cure for that, please let me administer it to my parents and my wife.
So many people visualize the person they're talking to at the actual distance. If the person were sitting right there on the coffee table in front of them, where the laptop is, they'd speak much more quietly.