Posted by GIT on July 28, 2011, 11:24 am, in reply to "Re: Second Look"
OMG, YOU are the one that entered the "comfort" view, I was just trying to correlate that into the debate.
Yes I did but not in the sense that you used it. I was stating the occlusion of a group of individuals was a mere comfort issue that has nothing to do with all the comforts we experience. And I was using it to show that one example was a protective issue as opposed to a comfort issue - two completely different things was my point.
You and Whatusay both bring up very valid points however the things you listed are generally speaking for the protection of the children once again. Those are all things a child cannot do due to maturity levels. However going into a grocery store, there is nothing they cannot do with a parent there. Going to eat at a restaurant, nothing they cannot do without a parent there.
I think you are taking a childs inability to do things on there own and turning that into a right for adults to exclude them or treat them as lesser. The parents of these children should not have to worry about their child not being accepted somewhere - sorry.
As for the retirement communities. I did not know children were excluded from playing outside and that babies were not even allowed. I can understand the living there thing if it caters to those in their golden years who are supposed to be past their child rearing years. But even then ewhat about extreme situations and now that I type this it seems I do remember a case in Florida like this not to long ago. I think that is sad and another what if, what if you have aging parents and one is unable to travel to see a new addition to the family? That is horrible.
For the bars and casinos - why don't they allow children in there? Is it a protective issue again?
We could still flip this issue and make this any set people group that another does not want to tolerate because that is precisely what this boils down to. We could do it by any age, creed, sex, etc... When it is about tolerance over something an individual cannot help and not over protection - that is a discrimination point.
I am torn on the retirement community thing - I can understand the point there. They are old and should not be in the care taking position full time (if there own children are doing what they are supposed to be doing)so not allowing children to live there - I get that to a point. I just think of crabby old folks who want nothing to do with kids - see them as a bother. I also think maybe that is exactly what they need - kids around to chill em out a bit. Because there attitude then is one of intolerance towards a group of albeit small yet individuals.
Often it is but a child that can reach people in ways that adults cannot. Don't know - that one is tough and not allowing for extreme circumstances is foolish in my opinion. Torn there - maybe it is the feel of the attitude.
on July 28, 2011, 11:24 am, in reply to "