Posted by GIT on July 27, 2011, 8:24 pm, in reply to "Re: Second Look"
I understand what you are saying, I guess the problem I have is that one is needed for the protection of a people group who is far less mature, more vulnerable and less able to make informed decisions.
The other, is for mere comfort.
I would also point out that most of these places that are "kid friendly" are geared for kids not only in activities but also in scale. So why an adult would want to frequent such a place alone for mere entertainment does not make sense.
And if you reread the article it does seem to devalue children, calling them brats and comparing them to second hand smoke. I know these were meant for the shock value in the article - but come on, if this were another people group would the article be so lax in the wordage?
So, I guess in summary I think the comparison between a need for protection and a want for comfort, as though the two are of equal footing, is unfair to say the least.
I also agree Fire, it is discrimination against the family, not only children.
on July 27, 2011, 8:24 pm, in reply to "