It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Toddler Booted From Plane

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
As a mother I got this worlds for you people.

Children get cranky, they cry, scream and get into tantrums.

So what people wants to do with such troublesome littler human beings?

Lets put them on Ritalin or prozac and have a happy, happy time and lets forget that adults were once littler screaming troublesome small people.


Our society is going on the wrong way when it comes with making each other too comfortable.


Marg, as a mom, I agree with you. Children get cranky and scream, etc. . . . And when the parents and their sweet little monster leave, I no longer have to deal with the glass shattering screams of protest over whatever injustice they feel has been committed. But poor old mom and dad have to live with it on a constant basis. Ah, the joys of parenthood.

Kids are not like pets that you can leave in a kennel until you return. They have real issues but are often unable to successfully communicate. Their frustration is usually accompanied by screams and tantrums. This is true for even the best behaved children. One parent could have held the child down while the other locked the seatbelt. Then the child could have been held in place until after the seatbelt sign was turned off. If the kid screamed through out the entire episode, well, that’s what earplugs are for. I always carry a pair for flying. Once the seatbelt sign had been turned off, the mom could have held the child.

Sometimes we, the childless (my baby is 29) public, has to get over ourselves. Yes, a screaming child is annoying. But screaming children are a fact of life. When we start banning children because of our own selfish desire for a few moments of peace and quiet, what kind of society are we promoting?




posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:56 AM
link   
loam


You do not acknowledge the fact that very young children are NOT physiologically or psychologically capable of consistently controlling their behavior.


Young children aren't expected to control their own behavior. That's what parents are for, as far as I'm concerned.




Unlike you, I also see a distinction between restaurants/movie theaters and mass transportation. If you’d like to discuss the public policy reasons why this should be the case, then I’d be glad to do so.


By all means, since it would seem to be an integral part in our disagreement. What makes a plane different from a theater?



Please don’t be offended, but I also think you have either never had very young children, you have forgotten the experience altogether, or never really understood them to begin with. Not all tantrums equal “misbehavior”. They are, in fact, a natural consequence of a child’s physical and psychological development. I see two “classes” of tantrums…you only see one.


I'm not offended.


I am not a parent. I am an uncle and a godfather though, and I've dealt with young children since I was a teenager. Not to say I have as much experience as a parent of young children, or a pre-school teacher or something, but I have had the pleasure of dealing with temper tantrums.

As far as not understanding children, you're right, I'm no expert. I only know what I know based on limited personal experience and what I read.

Now, instead of pointing out my relative level of ignorance repetetively, perhaps you could channel that energy into dispelling it instead?

As far as classes of tantrums..a tantrum is a tantrum as far as the rest of us are concerned. There may be differences as far as the development of the child is concerned, but when it comes to the folks on the plane, there's only one kind of tantrum - the kind they have to suffer through.

Of course tantrums are normal, and everybody knows they happen. We're not asking for the parents to wave a magic wand and make the kid grow up, we just want the parents to be firmly in control of their child when on the plane/train/bus. Crying is not something that can be helped, but I will not agree that there's any merit in having young children loose in public.



If you want to discuss poor parenting skills, and the plethora of examples of it, fine. I’m right there with you. It is a very serious problem and needs to be addressed.


I really don't think people hate this kid, or her parents, this is just a catalyst that's bringing up a really serious issue that we're all aware of, and people are venting their frustration.



You must have terrible luck then. My experience isn’t so universal. Moreover, I suspect the real problem here, as I mention above, is that you equate all “tantrums” with “misbehaving”. Believe what you will, but where very small children are concerned, they are not the same. Your denial of it does not change the fact of it.


I've lived about half my life in various slums, ghettos, and other assorted low-rent areas, so maybe my experience is coloured by that fact. Still, I think most folks would agree that out of control children are the rule these days, rather than the exception to the rule.

Anyway, I do think tantrums are bad behavior. If they weren't, we wouldn't seek to prevent them or stop them from happening, right?

That's not to say they're not normal, because clearly they are, but that doesn't make them good, any moreso than uncontrolled urination or public nudity. If the kid has gotta learn self-control and communication skills, that's fine, but I don't think an airplane full of people is the right venue for that. These issues should be handled at home, in private, to save everyone the aggravation. It must have been embarassing for the parents, not to mention incredibly annoying for the other passengers.

I wouldn't bring my children to a restaurant or a theater or on public transportation until I was reasonably confident that they would be able to behave themselves. If they started freakin' out, I'd take them and leave, to save myself the embarassment, and to save my fellow citizens the aggravation. It's the only proper thing to do, no?



See, the problem is that in your book NOTHING justifies the tantrum of a child. Even Mr. Tatro’s autistic child would not receive your understanding or sympathy…


Wait, hold on. My position is that nothing justifies a PUBLIC tantrum being IGNORED by the parents, to such an extent that it becomes burdensome for the rest of us. Tantrums are perfectly normal, and with decent parents and a fully functional brain, we grow out of them, but I will not accept the premise that society has to suffer the fallout from lazy parents who haven't taken the time to instill proper values in their children before they let them loose into the world.

That's my point. Not that tantrums are evil, but that failing to manage them is selfish and ill-mannered. I don't see how it's any different than a parent who fails to potty train their child, and then brings them out in public so they can piss on the seats of the bus.

If we're talking about an autistic kid crying, I sympathize, and I'm happy to put up with it. If we're talking about an autistic kid running around and causing a violent disruption, I have no sympathy. Now, to hear the Tatro's tell it, their kid was just crying, and if that's true then the airline had no business ejecting them.

Crying, while annoying, doesn't violate the personal space of the other passengers, poses no real threat, and can be forgiven, but that situaiton and this situation are different.

I realize the parents don't necessarily have the power to stop their children from crying. But, they ARE responsible for restraining their children and keeping them in their seat, something that the parents of this other girl were unable to accomplish.

It's for that reason that they were ejected, not because of the crying.



AirTran didn’t care why, and neither apparently do you. All that matters is the presence of the behavior. It becomes a strict liability offense…


Well, you're absolutely riight about this. I don't care why they're behaving the way they're behaving, I just need it to stop. I don't care if the little girl bit her lip, or saw the boogeyman, or has an ear infection - none of that is relevant to the other passengers.

All that's relevant is whether or not the parents of small children are in control of those children.

Would you be okay with a small, biting monkey, leaping seat to seat, terrorizing passengers, as long as the monkey's behavior was qualified by its trainer, and chalked up to night terrors, or a bad experience with a female of his species? Of course not...

The justification for the behavior is not that important to me. We might be more sympathetic if the child is disabled, but that doesn't mean the parents are magically relieved of responsibility. They have a duty to prevent their child from causing problems for the rest of us.



Beware those with young or developmentally challenged children…they are not welcome in public society. Period.


Why do you say that? People go to great lengths to excuse behaviors on the part of disabled folks that would get the rest of us locked up. There are limits though.



These parents weren’t taking their child to the theater or a restaurant. They were on a plane. You may see that as a wholly discretionary choice, but as I said before, I think as a matter of public policy it should be viewed as otherwise.

Incidentally, when you say “public places” would that also include grocery stores…lodging…other forms of public transportation?


Can you explain your feelings on this subject a bit more in depth? And yes, I also consider the grocery store, public housing, buses and trains and so on, part of the public sphere.



Think this one through, WyrdeOne. What precisely are you advocating?


In a word, responsibility. Parents of small children have to maintain control when in public places. If they want to let the kid run amok in the privacy of their own home, we've got no right to tell them off, but when their kid steps out of the door, they are subject to the same rules and mores as the rest of us. Since they aren't capable of fully understanding or controlling their own behaviors, it's the responsibility of the parents to mitigate the impact their children have on society.



Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Again, I just find it hard to believe you have any experience with young children.


We expect kids to do stupid, annoying, even dangerous things. We also expect parents to be there to prevent the behaviors from spilling over and screwing the rest of the world over. Can ya dig it?

We can't fault a kid for wanting to pull on the emergency escape door, but we damn well can fault the parents of that kid if they fail to prevent an explosive decompression at thirty thousand feet.

Obviously the situation we're talking about here was not so severe, but it's the same basic principle.



You don’t know, do you? But you’re completely comfortable assuming the worst.


All we know is what we're told. According to the mother, they were trying to console the little girl. What does that mean to you? It probably means the same thing to you as it does to me - talking. They were talking to her, while she crawled, screamed, and threw her little fists around.

I don't think we'd be having this conversation if the parents had dealt with the situation by simply placing the child in the seat, buckling her up, and holding her there. It's not the noise that's the issue, as far as I'm concerned, it's the notion of an uncontrolled child loose in the cabin.



Let’s be clear. There is a difference between negotiating with your child and explaining what behavior is unacceptable, explaining the consequence of noncompliance and executing accordingly.


Well, as you say, we don't know what they were saying to her. They said they were trying to console her, IIRC, that's all the information we have right now.

To me, console does not equal an explanation of consequences, but that's just me.



If your version of the facts are correct, then I may not disagree. But that isn’t clear now is it?


Indeed, but please understand, 'my version' of the facts is the commonly available version, based on all the information I've seen pertaining to this incident. If you have additional information, I'll read it and modify my views accordingly.

I'm not in love with my own opinion to such an extent that I can't change it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

But nothing I've seen so far indicates that the parents were acting responsibly.



Again, in your view, the behavior becomes a strict liability offense.


I'm not sure this is applicable, and this is the second time you've mentioned it, so I think I'd better address it.

Are we talking about the child's mind here? If so, I don't see how it relates to my opinion that the parents were negligent. We can't reasonably expect children to know anything about right and wrong, but we can expect parents to control the behavior of their children in public.

Are you saying that I'm saying the parents were ignorant of their responsiblities and liable regardless? If so, then yes, I agree. Regardless of whether the parents understood their responsibility, they are still bound to fulfill it.



Define tantrum. Because if you are trying to peddle the notion that you or your significant other never had a meltdown under the age of 3 or 4, you WOULD be abnormal…and extremely so.


Kicking and screaming, disobeying and hitting parents - you know, a tantrum. I was a hellraiser when I was older, but when I was young I was very responsive to my parents because they spent an innordinate amount of time teaching me when I was small, I looked up to them and I'm sure I wanted to please them by acting in the manner I had been instructed.

I don't think we're that unusual - because what are the odds we'd bump into each other if that was the case?

Her parents were very strict, just one look from dad was enough to keep her quiet or remind her of her manners. With me it was a little different, I was a quick learner, and I took a lot of pleasure (I think, based on what little self-knowledge I posess and the accounts I've heard) in doing things the right way, and in learning how to do new things the right way.

So, obviously there's more than one way to skin a cat. Whether you instill values through discipline or kinder, gentler methods, the values have to be instilled. I just did some reading on the onset of temper tantrums, and what percentage of kids exhibit them, and one source claimed that about 80% of kids throw tantrums.

So, 1 in 5 do not. Not that rare after all...



But could you kindly share what secret technique needs only be deployed once to permanently solve such behavior for a child of any age? With such effectiveness, you could make a fortune and resolve the matter altogether for society.


See above.



First, they are not equivalent problems.


What makes them so different? There's a time and a place, and an apppriate way to go to the bathroom. There's a time and a place, and an appropriate way to show frustration and anger. We have to be instructed by our parents in both. Seems very similar to me...



Second, “ignoring” is not the same as withholding stimulus in response to the behavior. One is done with purpose, the other is not.


Fair enough.



If you have ever wondered how we got where we are today in this country, and elsewhere, you need only to look at that sentence above. I think it explains much.


Sorry if I made you queasy, it wasn't my intention. Here I thought we were having a reasonable discussion, a disagreement between gentlemen. I had no idea you were so emotionally invested in the issue.

Anyway, you think the low tolerance of people like me is to blame for society's current state?

I don't think so...

I blame the trend towards instant gratification/poor self-control, and greed primarily. Hypocrisy plays a big part in it too. Most parents seem to lack the virtues they're supposed to instill in their children, so of course they fail miserably.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:54 AM
link   
(cont.)

loam
(cont.)



In the absence of violence, the rest of your statement is chilling to me…


I think you're reading too much into it then.



Did you hit your head?


Not recently.




I’m having real trouble reconciling your view on this subject and your apparent view on so many other topics found on this board.


If there's one thing you can count on, it's that my opinion on one subject is no indication of other opinions I might hold.



What does this have to do with the AirTran stories?


The girl I went to High School with was uncontrolled, and caused problems that could have been avoided if her parents had kept her out of situations where her behavior was unrestrained and became burdensome for others. The child on the plane was uncontrolled, and caused problems that could have been avoided if her parents had kept her out of situations where her behavior was unrestrained and became burdensome for others. That's it.



Show me the law that requires that type of accommodation and immunity to punishment. Your example speaks to yet another entirely different issue.


It's not any kind of law, that I'm aware of, it's a general mindset that not only refuses to hold people with special needs responsible for behavior they may not understand, but also refuses to hold their guardians to a higher standard when it comes to the impact their children have on society.

Regardless of any other factors, parents are responsible for the way their children act in public. If the parents will not, or cannot control their children, they have a responsiblity to the rest of us to keep the kids out of those situations.

If, as a toddler, I burst into flames everytime my parents brought me onboard an aircraft, I would expect them to take a bus, and I think society has a right to demand they do so.

My examples are getting pretty bizarre. Maybe it's time for a nap.




If you’ll recall, they asked to hold her and were denied the option due to regulation.


The mother asked to hold her daughter on her lap. Nobody was preventing her from putting the kid in the seat, buckling her up, and holding her there.

Maybe the parents' seats were separate from the child's seat? I don't know whether or not that's the case. If that's the case, at least there's a logical reason why they couldn't restrain her in her seat. Otherwise, it's a simple case of their unwillingness to restrain their daughter.



I agree. But then again you are discussing an entirely different topic. Why can’t you see that?


I suppose I can't see it because you haven't made it clear.



Who said anything about being content? Of course these situations are difficult and annoying. But do you really believe you are entitled to an annoyance free existence?


Nope, just entitled to common space free of uncontrolled children/animals/vehicles/ appendages/weapons/etc.. If someone is responsible for something, like a child or a vehicle, we expect them to maintain control of it. If they can't, or won't, they shouldn't be in the common area that we all share.



We are talking about annoyance here…not threats of bodily harm.


If the kid is out of control, the potential exists for them to hurt themselves, or hurt someone else. Parents are responsible for keeping their children under control when in public. Period.



People need to get a better sense of scale. Sheesh…


I tend to agree with you. It's hard to govern a grey world with black and white statutes, but that's what we have to work with, for whatever reason. Is it better for people to take each situation as it stands? Yes. If we're forced to set rules that leave no room for misinterpretation or discrimination, is it better to err on the side of caution? Yes.

Common sense says that parents who bring small children outside should be in control of them at all times, to curtail disaster, preserve lives, and yes, prevent annoyance.



These parents will fear for their safety.


Do you mean because of the reaction of the general public to the media circus surrounding their story?

Who brought the issue to light? Who went on the talk shows? They wanted national attention, and now they have it. Decisions have consequences, and maybe they'll learn that - if not from the debacle that resulted from their decision not to restrain their child, then maybe from the outpouring of anger and resentment in response to their televised plea for sympathy.



This child will learn she has the power to “mobilize the universe", if necessary.




I don't think so.



The relationships in this family will suffer because of the experience.


Oh come on, adversity can bring people together just as easily as it can tear them apart.

Will you blame the airline if the parents get divorced and the girl grows up to be a junkie and descends into an abyss of sex and drugs that eventually culminates with an overdose in a Denny's bathroom stall?

We're all victims of the consequences that stem from our own decisions, nothing more, nothing less. If the parents had acted differently, they probably could have gotten home without a hassle. If they can't learn to cope with their newfound infamy, then they may crumble, but it will be nobody's fault but their own - as I said, they made the decision to make a big stink, and now they're suffering for it.

And if the girl can't cope with having a dysfunctional family, she's not much of an American.



C'mon, this isn't adversity. I've seen adversity, and this aint it.



Does anyone really think these parents wanted this outcome?


In my experience, we don't get what we want out of life, we only get what we deserve.





In case you haven’t noticed, many others hold a more extreme view.


I have noticed. A number of people said they were in favor of waiting until after takeoff to eject the family.





It speaks to the airline’s judgment. If it was poor in the one example, then what makes you so certain it wasn’t in the other?


It may be a technicality to prevent drunken passengers from causing trouble on consecutive flights. If it's a hard and fast rule, there's not a lot of wiggle room.

I don't know the specifics, so maybe you can find them elsewhere. It might even be FAA policy, I don't know.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 05:33 AM
link   
If only I could boot people from my every day life, ya know standing in lines, etc.

My reasons could vary such as:



  1. They smell funky
  2. They smell like they are soaked in cheap perfume
  3. I can see critters in their hair
  4. They got some hellacious halitosis
  5. They appear to be ill and contagious
  6. They are known farters, SBD or open ended
  7. They want me to be their friend yet I do not even wish to speak to them
  8. Talking on their cell phone, well more like YELLING and I can also hear the other person on the fone due to high volume levels
  9. Temper Tantrum



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I also went through the stay at home stage when, the my children were in an age that they can not just sit still, not restaurants, movies or constricted places unless it was open spaces for them to runnnnnnn.

I traveled with my daughter then 2 1/2 and my son 1 and flying for 6 hours from Hawaii to the main land.

Yes it was hell, but the airline was so nice they gave me the front end seats, 6 hours with two small children was not funny.

But I have no choice I had to travel back to the US main land.

Guess what, they cry, dirty their dappers, vomited, screamed and did everything small children do, instead of having people complaining it was plenty of good Samaritans offering their help and understanding.

What is happening now in our nation and society since 9/11 is nothing but pure abuse and lack of respect for other people to the point of abuse of the new regulations on airplanes.

What is next . . .

Padded cages for children so they can be put in the cargo hold.

Get a grip America Children are littler people also and they have special needs.

Obviously is people here lying about children exemplar conduct or just has not been parents of small children yet.

Because life is life and only a few knows like me what it takes to travel with the littler ones.


[edit on 28-1-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lysergic
If only I could boot people from my every day life, ya know standing in lines, etc.

My reasons could vary such as:



  1. They smell funky
  2. They smell like they are soaked in cheap perfume
  3. I can see critters in their hair
  4. They got some hellacious halitosis
  5. They appear to be ill and contagious
  6. They are known farters, SBD or open ended
  7. They want me to be their friend yet I do not even wish to speak to them
  8. Talking on their cell phone, well more like YELLING and I can also hear the other person on the fone due to high volume levels
  9. Temper Tantrum



Kudo's!

I think this is a wonderful perspective. The reason being, if a child is offending someone than I guess we can go with what is called"slippery slope logic" and apply it to everyone else. Society has become very intolerant these days and compassion is almost nill.

Since they were able to boot a child, why not an adult?

I will replace the phrase "child with a tantrum" with, "adult with *****".

I asked the airline to remove the adult with extremely bad body odor.

I asked the airline to remove the adult with the colonge or perfume they were wearing because it was making me gag.

I asked the airline to remove the adult because he or she wouldn't shut the $$ck up when I was trying to sleep.

I asked the airline to remove the adult because they looked to be ill and were sneezing my way and wiping their snot on everything but Kleenex.


Tea

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Reading...
Thinking...

NOPE. It's the cargo hold. Not seen and not heard. Everybody happy.

This is the adult world and WE make the rules. I'm sick to death of accommodating other people's children.



new topics




 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join