Don't disturb my dinner with your autistic child!

[Matt3737]

Um yeah but it's not reasonable to be disruptive so you have a problem.

Let me tell you, when somebody goes off on a disruptive stint, like screaming in a restaurant or playing music way too loud, then there's already something wrong there. Something unreasonable is already happening. To ask them to keep it down as if they'll listen to you or something is just really fucking stupid. It's not like they're gonna say "oh gee, you're right!" and suddenly start behaving the way you want them to.

There are already reasonable responses to misbehavior in place. It's situations that are gray that we're supposed to be refering to. You make it sound like I'm too stupid to figure out what to do when the situation is clear. Thanks for the support there buddy.

Edit: On second thought, I see you were using a clear situational example to refer to a unclear situational example. In such a case though, where an unclear line is being crossed, that's exactly what happens. People act out to determine what's going on, who is in the wrong, and how to alleviate the situation. It's not about yelling for yelling's sake, but to bring to attention that something isn't right with the situation.

 

[the]

Whats most important here is my opinion.

 

[cvp12gh5]

Whats most important here is my opinion.

Duh.

 

[Nixie]

I really disliked the self righteous reply, like seriously yuck. I mean how can you have civil and collegial dialogue if the rules of engagement are "attack" from my own little worldview and go on belittle/demean/dehumanize the person asking a question?

I also don't get how someone could be all "fist pump" and "damn straight" about such a reply. It doesn't answer the question other than "you clueless beyoch, smack yourself for daring to ask an impertinent question".

Personally, I was raised to behave in public and free to run around like a hooligan at home. I noticed that a lot of my friends were raised the opposite...behave/be quiet at home and who cares what you do when I take you out of the house. I agree with some of the posters here who pointed out that the parent's have a responsibility to engage in modifying unruly, unwanted behavior.

I also agree that sometimes the best plans go awry and children are not little robots who can be programmed to behave in normal ways.

Now disabled and autistic older teens and adults it becomes harder because the first thing that people notice is the age and with that comes an expectation of a certain level of adult like behavior. I would think in the case of the autistic teen that the announcement that the individual had behavioral issues would have been sufficient for those in the area to be aware of what was going on. If someone wants to move because of unseemly behavior, I say that is their right. I have been in restaurants where my mother has asked to be moved because women sitting nearby had so much perfume on that the smell was overwhelming to be obnoxious. I don't think you have to make a big production out of it but there isn't anything wrong with asserting your rights.

As for the (supposedly horrid) question about whether parents who know their kids will cause issues should not take them out....that is a purely ethical question that can only be answered on an individual level. Do children (disabled adults/autistic teens) need to have life experience and be socialized by being taken to eat in restaurants.....sure. Do people have the right to be annoyed or disturbed when children (disabled adults/autistic teens) act out/become overly loud/run/jump/scream/cry....and so on...sure. Conflict is a part of being stuck here together with each other. It just depends on how well socialized you are as a parent and as the bystander if you can handle such things with dignity while being respectful of the other person.

On the side: I find it amazingly annoying when parents allow their children to run around as they please in public places. My disabled sister is unsteady due to brain tumors and medication and I can't tell you how many times some kid has run into her and almost made her fall. I think the same thing everytime...fucking brat.

 

[Kanamori]

I think there's something to be said about keeping some places more quiet. One doesn't have to let the chaos/noise ruin their evening or meal, though.

 

[Kanamori]

Also I hate it when people are too quiet and you hear every cough and mutter and all the mouth breathing and lip smacking and utensils clanking against plates. It's disgusting and irritating to me.

Does that give me the right to go up to somebody and say "Please stop breathing out of your mouth, it's really gross and I'm trying to eat here"? I think not.

A lot of people annoy me. Most people I know do something that really aggravates me. But I tolerate it because if I kept pointing it out everywhere it would take over my entire life and I'd be doing nothing but complaining about people.

If it takes a loud kid in a restaurant to annoy you, then just be lucky that you aren't me.

I think that people who complain about complainers are horrible... herro, I'm trying to be grumpy over here. If loud kids are the worst of your day, well your life isn't really that bad.

As long as there isn't knife or gun waving, seeing somebody dramatically kicked out could be entertaining and the highlight of the day or week.

 

[Lark]

I think that people who complain about complainers are horrible... herro, I'm trying to be grumpy over here. If loud kids are the worst of your day, well your life isn't really that bad.

As long as there isn't knife or gun waving, seeing somebody dramatically kicked out could be entertaining and the highlight of the day or week.

your post makes me think of scenes from City of God

 

[sprinkles]

There are already reasonable responses to misbehavior in place. It's situations that are gray that we're supposed to be refering to. You make it sound like I'm too stupid to figure out what to do when the situation is clear. Thanks for the support there buddy.

Edit: On second thought, I see you were using a clear situational example to refer to a unclear situational example. In such a case though, where an unclear line is being crossed, that's exactly what happens. People act out to determine what's going on, who is in the wrong, and how to alleviate the situation. It's not about yelling for yelling's sake, but to bring to attention that something isn't right with the situation.

Oh the elephant in the room huh?

No it's not your place IMO. If it's that bad then the owner or staff can handle it. And if it's THAT bad then the police can handle it.

If it's not worth calling the cops, or the owner throwing them out, or somebody getting punched in their bitch face then it's nothing. And if you complain anyway then well, maybe one day somebody will decide to punch you in your bitch face.

 

[Matt3737]

Oh the elephant in the room huh?

No it's not your place IMO. If it's that bad then the owner or staff can handle it. And if it's THAT bad then the police can handle it.

If it's not worth calling the cops, or the owner throwing them out, or somebody getting punched in their bitch face then it's nothing. And if you complain anyway then well, maybe one day somebody will decide to punch you in your bitch face.

A little sore, are we? Thank you again for pointing out the obvious as if I couldn't handle that part on my own. I do indeed appreciate the high esteem in which you hold me.

Comparing clear case situations with vaguery to make your argument work is, well, unfair and incorrect.

I know you're a very smart person, sprinkles, and I doubt anybody on this forum would argue otherwise, but you do have a problem admitting to making small errors. So much so that you are very aggressive towards the mere appearance of being misinterpreted or misconstrued towards being incorrect. You are smart, but your are entirely too prideful about that fact.

I'm sorry to have to say this to you, but you are incorrect. If disorder is a reasonable expectation then anything can reasonably follow whether it being doing nothing or doing whatever you damn well please. Paradoxically with no rules, you are also entitled to impose rules by any means possible.

The question has been and remains as to what is reasonable and what is not reasonable. You cannot somehow destroy one end of the spectrum using the other, no matter how much you wish it to be so.

 

[sprinkles]

A little sore, are we? Thank you again for pointing out the obvious as if I couldn't handle that part on my own. I do indeed appreciate the high esteem in which you hold me.

Comparing clear case situations with vaguery to make your argument work is, well, unfair and incorrect.

I know you're a very smart person, sprinkles, and I doubt anybody on this forum would argue otherwise, but you do have a problem admitting to making small errors. So much so that you are very aggressive towards the mere appearance of being misinterpreted or misconstrued towards being incorrect. You are smart, but your are entirely too prideful about that fact.

I'm sorry to have to say this to you, but you are incorrect. If disorder is a reasonable expectation then anything can reasonably follow whether it being doing nothing or doing whatever you damn well please. Paradoxically with no rules, you are also entitled to impose rules by any means possible.

The question has been and remains as to what is reasonable and what is not reasonable. You cannot somehow destroy one end of the spectrum using the other, no matter how much you wish it to be so.

1. I don't like people walking up to me and saying shit, so I'm probably not going to agree with any idea that gives them leeway to do so.

2. You want a solution to what's reasonable or isn't? I propose this: let the owners of the place decide. I think it is NOT reasonable to just let anyone have their say for any reason, and I don't think that there's really an instance where it becomes reasonable but is still foggy.

3. However if you disagree with that solution, I suggest imagining yourself calling the police about the disturbance in question. If you can picture yourself doing that and picture the police response making sense, then go ahead with it. But if you get punked because what you did was actually stupid then it's your own fault.

4. I don't hold you in high esteem. I kinda don't like you. I never really have.

 

[Matt3737]

1. I don't like people walking up to me and saying shit, so I'm probably not going to agree with any idea that gives them leeway to do so.

2. You want a solution to what's reasonable or isn't? I propose this: let the owners of the place decide. I think it is NOT reasonable to just let anyone have their say for any reason, and I don't think that there's really an instance where it becomes reasonable but is still foggy.

3. However if you disagree with that solution, I suggest imagining yourself calling the police about the disturbance in question. If you can picture yourself doing that and picture the police response making sense, then go ahead with it. But if you get punked because what you did was actually stupid then it's your own fault.

4. I don't hold you in high esteem. I kinda don't like you. I never really have.

1. Fair enough. Did I talk shit about you or towards you? I did begin my response with sarcasm, but I did so as to express my offense at your insinuation that I'm somehow absurdly stupid as you continue to do in point three below. To be fair, I also edited my initial response with what I saw to be the error that caused the misunderstanding if that was worth anything whatsoever.

2. That's reasonable for the situation given. Your following statements are less so. Nobody is entitled to their say? Like no free speech? Only those with authority make decisions? How do you justify your opinion if you give the premise that you are not entitled to it in the first place? How do we express to those with authority what our opinions are in a reasonable fashion?

3. Strawmanning and reductio ad absurdum. Really? That's cool. Apparently, common sense isn't going to be taken into consideration. That's a fair and just method of expressing your hurt pride I suppose.

4. I know. That was sarcasm. My self-esteem is not dependent on you, but my level of civility is dependent on you. I can be much ruder if you persist on continuing your conceited tirade.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION]

No see, here's the thing. People go around commenting about a nose ring or a t-shirt or a hair style, or how they don't like to see people in wheelchairs, or other stupid shit. So in a way you can say whatever you want but don't expect good results.

So that's why I say people don't get a say. It's not your job to regulate the world. Just how my bitching at you doesn't do you any good and your telling me how I'm wrong doesn't change my mind. It's pointless and futile and a headache for both parties that leads to threads like this one and people writing letters to ethics columnists when all could be avoided.

 

[Matt3737]

[MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION]

No see, here's the thing. People go around commenting about a nose ring or a t-shirt or a hair style, or how they don't like to see people in wheelchairs, or other stupid shit. So in a way you can say whatever you want but don't expect good results.

So that's why I say people don't get a say. It's not your job to regulate the world. Just how my bitching at you doesn't do you any good and your telling me how I'm wrong doesn't change my mind. It's pointless and futile and a headache for both parties that leads to threads like this one and people writing letters to ethics columnists when all could be avoided.

Well, actually I was hoping it would lead to a mutual understanding and possibly a resolution, but you're certainly entitled to receive whatever you expect from this.

 

[the]

Gay

 

[sprinkles]

Well, actually I was hoping it would lead to a mutual understanding and possibly a resolution, but you're certainly entitled to receive whatever you expect from this.

You want a mutual understanding?

Seeing threads like this over and over about all the ethical problems of the universe is really wearing me thin with negativity. Is that something that you can understand? I feel it is slowly choking me to death. It just never ends. Is that something you can understand?

I am so sick up to my eyeballs that people can't get along, that this is even a thing, that it makes me angry. So no I don't really trust people to be a good judge for things like this. From my view there's no blaming me because this is all I see lately and it makes me ill. Conflict makes me ill. But conflict seems to be all people want lately, so what's the use? I may as well get good at it if this is how the world is. Can you understand that?

 

[sprinkles]

Scratch that. I'm just gonna chalk this up to First World Problems.

 

[Matt3737]

If you read the OP you will see that the person in question was a woman alone with and autistic teenager. As much as a blessing these kids can be, I'm sure their parents' lives would be much easier if their kids were able to interact easily with the world around them. Also, anybody who has a kid who is acting up at that moment is in an unfortunate situation because it's not fun and you get judged by people around you, especially ones that don't have kids and therefore can decide that if they had kids theirs would not behave like that.

I was a mom young and I got lots of comments from people who didn't have kids at the time about how they would do things and what their kids wouldn't be allowed to do. Most of those now have kids and, believe me, their kids haven't behaved any better than mine and their parenting has not been any easier or better than mine. Actually, I was a lot stricter with my kids because I felt that I had something to prove because I was young. Meanwhile those that had kids much older than me seemed to be much more lenient with their kids as well as more prone to spoiling them.

La Sagna, I didn't initially respond to this comment because I really had no idea why you were responding to me or what your assumptions were. I have never stated what my opinion of the initial issue really was, and I have a feeling that maybe you and others are assuming that I am possibly siding with the family members that were upset by the woman and her autistic child simply because I speak out against those that are speaking in favor of her and her child.

I don't know if that is true or to what extent it may possibly be true, so I felt I should say so to be fair. I see both sides having very equal and conflicting expectations that have led to this unfortunate incident. I see neither side to blame, only insofar as it is presented and having no more information to weigh further, so I really feel neutral towards either side.

I only spoke out against those who feel it is clear, like the columnist who thinks it also is a clearcut case, that they are incorrect in their reasoning to go so far in siding with one side over the other. It may be fine to feel more for one side than the other or to sympathize with one rather than the other, but there is no rational way (without more info in this specific instance) to say clearly why one side is in the right than the other. They have equal reasons for being inconvenienced.

A parent who does not accept the burdens that come with being a parent also does not accept the blessing that comes with that selfsame responsibility. Those that argue only for the burdening of parenthood also deny the blessedness of parenthood. A child is both a great blessing and a great responsibility. Parents are to be held to that standard without exception. Does that mean that an autistic child, being a greater burden, is also a greater blessing? I believe it does. We live in a period of time that allows for and accommodates people who might not have been able to survive under different circumstances.

People, decent people at least, are quite understanding and allow for wider leeway in behavior for people with special needs if informed of the circumstances if it isn't obvious at first glance. The family that entered that restaurant though were also under special circumstances that are also generally allowed greater leeway. A period of mourning is always regarded as a special behavioral cirumstance in nearly every culture that I can think of. The family had a dying relative that they had begun to mourn for (though she hadn't passed yet, they had begun coming to terms with that situation).

Mourners are generally regarded to be in a liminal state between acceptance and denial. They are at odds with fate and are in a perpetual state of unanswerable questions. "Why now? What do I do? How do I accept this? What does this mean?" The incident with the mother and her child is something that they simply did not have the ability to process at the moment and it becomes another "Why? Why this? Why today? Why now?"

This is my perspective. Nobody is to blame. It is unfortunate, but it happens.

 

[sprinkles]

La Sagna, I didn't initially respond to this comment because I really had no idea why you were responding to me or what your assumptions were. I have never stated what my opinion of the initial issue really was, and I have a feeling that maybe you and others are assuming that I am possibly siding with the family members that were upset by the woman and her autistic child simply because I speak out against those that are speaking in favor of her and her child.

I don't know if that is true or to what extent it may possibly be true, so I felt I should say so to be fair. I see both sides having very equal and conflicting expectations that have led to this unfortunate incident. I see neither side to blame, only insofar as it is presented and having no more information to weigh further, so I really feel neutral towards either side.

I only spoke out against those who feel it is clear, like the columnist who thinks it also is a clearcut case, that they are incorrect in their reasoning to go so far in siding with one side over the other. It may be fine to feel more for one side than the other or to sympathize with one rather than the other, but there is no rational way (without more info in this specific instance) to say clearly why one side is in the right than the other. They have equal reasons for being inconvenienced.

A parent who does not accept the burdens that come with being a parent also does not accept the blessing that comes with that selfsame responsibility. Those that argue only for the burdening of parenthood also deny the blessedness of parenthood. A child is both a great blessing and a great responsibility. Parents are to be held to that standard without exception. Does that mean that an autistic child, being a greater burden, is also a greater blessing? I believe it does. We live in a period of time that allows for and accommodates people who might not have been able to survive under different circumstances.

People, decent people at least, are quite understanding and allow for wider leeway in behavior for people with special needs if informed of the circumstances if it isn't obvious at first glance. The family that entered that restaurant though were also under special circumstances that are also generally allowed greater leeway. A period of mourning is always regarded as a special behavioral cirumstance in nearly every culture that I can think of. The family had a dying relative that they had begun to mourn for (though she hadn't passed yet, they had begun coming to terms with that situation).

Mourners are generally regarded to be in a liminal state between acceptance and denial. They are at odds with fate and are in a perpetual state of unanswerable questions. "Why now? What do I do? How do I accept this? What does this mean?" The incident with the mother and her child is something that they simply did not have the ability to process at the moment and it becomes another "Why? Why this? Why today? Why now?"

This is my perspective. Nobody is to blame. It is unfortunate, but it happens.

I'm just going to go ahead and eat a lot of words. I was being really pissy and this put me in my place.

This is excellent and well thought. I feel I need to say that, given what I said previously. I'm humbled for reading it.

 

[Lark]

Scratch that. I'm just gonna chalk this up to First World Problems.

Ha! True.

There's a lot of the things which bother me which are chalkable to that, in part that's probably why they bother me, that they are even on the agenda in the first place when there are such other grave issues facing the world.

 

[Lark]

I'm just going to go ahead and eat a lot of words. I was being really pissy and this put me in my place.

This is excellent and well thought. I feel I need to say that, given what I said previously. I'm humbled for reading it.

Are you serious or is that just a pretty hilarious bit of witticism?