|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Stan Rogers wrote: |
If you have a problem with the law go tell city hall.
IMO children have the the right to freedom of expression just like anyone else. |
Really?
It seemed a joke in the previous post.
So you are suggesting that children have the same rights...which they don't...under law.
Perhaps you need to rethink this a bit?
If children had the same rights and freedoms, parental consent, age limits, etc...would not be required...yet they are....why is that?
One word...accountability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jleblanc
Joined: 23 Aug 2012
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Either ban kids and waygooks or have it be against the law to ban either.
But anyone who is against banning foreigners but for banning kids is a hypocritical moron. "How dare they judge for the actions of a few!!!!" When it comes to a foreigner ban but when it comes to kids "One time this kid would not stop crying and it ruined my meal"=Perfectly justifiable to ban 10-20% of the population. This is topped by "They go after people with fewer protections and no ability to stand up for themselves" when talking about foreigner bans, and then they choose to target kids.
I have no problem with Fox's stance as he seems fine with foreigner bans and children's bans and adopts a pure "It's up to the owner" stance. But for the crowd that decries foreigner bans but is happy to see annoying little kids kicked out of restaurants, I feel just...embarrassed for you. |
It's not the same thing. The issue with the children is that if they get themselves hurt in the restaurant because of their own actions and their parents' lack of parenting, it is the restaurant's responsibility and they have to pay restitution to the child for something that is the child's fault (see article, it is clearly stated). If you're going to compare the two, then please explain how this applies to banning foreigners? If foreigners were going into establishments, getting themselves hurt, and then suing for damages and winning, then your argument would make sense.
The restaurant is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation here, and no, it is not fair to them. A child getting hurt in a restaurant because of their parents' negligence should not be the restaurant's responsibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm with the restaurants on this one. Korean children are a danger to themselves and to others. Their parents not only don't look after them in public but seem to condone and even encourage misbehavior.
The cap'n says ban the behavior. All well and good, but in many ways unfeasible due to Korean culture and restaurant employees' lack of status/age. Heck, I was at the museum by Seouland when a child climbed over the railing protecting a painting and was reaching out to grab it when the security guard told it stop and to get back where it belonged. The kid started crying and immediately a group of older women unrelated to the child started badgering the security guard for doing her job.
The mother then finally showed up and took the kid away.
As for the mother who says children need to go to restaurants to learn restaurant etiquette, that can and should be taught at home. This is the real problem--children not being taught how to behave, whether in the home or in public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jleblanc wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Either ban kids and waygooks or have it be against the law to ban either.
But anyone who is against banning foreigners but for banning kids is a hypocritical moron. "How dare they judge for the actions of a few!!!!" When it comes to a foreigner ban but when it comes to kids "One time this kid would not stop crying and it ruined my meal"=Perfectly justifiable to ban 10-20% of the population. This is topped by "They go after people with fewer protections and no ability to stand up for themselves" when talking about foreigner bans, and then they choose to target kids.
I have no problem with Fox's stance as he seems fine with foreigner bans and children's bans and adopts a pure "It's up to the owner" stance. But for the crowd that decries foreigner bans but is happy to see annoying little kids kicked out of restaurants, I feel just...embarrassed for you. |
It's not the same thing. The issue with the children is that if they get themselves hurt in the restaurant because of their own actions and their parents' lack of parenting, it is the restaurant's responsibility and they have to pay restitution to the child for something that is the child's fault (see article, it is clearly stated). If you're going to compare the two, then please explain how this applies to banning foreigners? If foreigners were going into establishments, getting themselves hurt, and then suing for damages and winning, then your argument would make sense. |
It's a horrible hypothetical, but one could say that foreigners burn themselves on the hot plates served in Korean restaurants.
I wonder honestly though, how often is a restaurant sued here? I'd be shocked if it was very common. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jleblanc wrote: |
It's not the same thing. The issue with the children is that if they get themselves hurt in the restaurant because of their own actions and their parents' lack of parenting, it is the restaurant's responsibility and they have to pay restitution to the child for something that is the child's fault (see article, it is clearly stated). If you're going to compare the two, then please explain how this applies to banning foreigners? If foreigners were going into establishments, getting themselves hurt, and then suing for damages and winning, then your argument would make sense.
The restaurant is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation here, and no, it is not fair to them. A child getting hurt in a restaurant because of their parents' negligence should not be the restaurant's responsibility. |
Well lets take for example some bars that have certain expectations as to what you'll order or perhaps serve exotic food or cook it yourself food. What if they had regular disputes with foreign customers over prices? What if they had really picky people who would take one look at a dish and send it back? Or didn't know that it had meat in it and sent it back? Or didn't know how to cook the meat and got sick from foodborne illness?
Would you say after incidents such as those that a place would be justified in banning foreigners? I don't think its justified in any one of those except the shady bars which are borderline illegal and mob owned. In that case it just might be for the best that you have a preemptive sign. There's plenty of other places to get your drink on and in those places the penalty for acting out for Koreans might be a mob stomping or paying a large penalty fee. I'm not sure foreigners want to follow the same rules of conduct and face the same consequences. Again, this is only for the shady "business meeting" bars and the like. And anyways, what are we losing out on? Paying 500 bucks for a bottle of Hennessy VSOP or even worse, 200 bucks for a bottle of crappy Imperial or Kingdom or Scotch Blue?
In the end banning kids from common restaurants and coffee shops is a terrible decision. The answer is to ban individual offenders not an entire class of vulnerable people.
The ban is the answer of the unimaginative and the simple-minded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. BlackCat
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: Insert witty remark HERE
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
My kid is very well behaved. Never had an issue in a restaurant.
|
No offence, but every parent in the world thinks this. But what you find adorable or have learned to tune out can be a major annoyance to others, especially if there are more than a few of these little angels doing it all over the establishment. Maybe your kids are really well behaved, or maybe no one's ever said anything to you. I honestly don't know, but I doubt there are any parents out there who think their own kids are devil spawn. It's like showing pics of your kids to others (and now putting it all over facebook). People aren't nearly as in love with your kids as you are but probably don't say it. It's good that parents think their kids are great, but they shouldn't expect everyone else to see the special little snowflake they see.
As to saying banning kids is the same as banning foreigners, that's just idiotic. There are lots of things in society, every society, that are adult-only. Korean kids aren't allowed in PC bangs after 11pm, which makes sense. But it would be stupid to ban foreigners in the same way. Kids can't buy smokes, booze or porn. Good idea. Banning one particular race from doing so would be discrimination. The thing is, every human on the planet is a kid at one point, so it's not discrimination. It's what healthy societies do to help prepare kids to be responsible adults. Responsible adults who should be able to enjoy adult things without having to dumb everything down to the level of children.
I think banning kids in restaurants is a complex discussion, but don't get me started on babies on planes. Yeah, sometimes it's necessary, but you don't need to bring your 3 month old to Thailand on vacation. Not just for the sake of your fellow passengers and hotel guests, but for the baby itself. Sure, they have a 'right' to do it, but I also have a 'right' to fart in a crowded elevator. But we live in a civilized society where we should sometimes take other people into consideration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| jleblanc wrote: |
It's not the same thing. The issue with the children is that if they get themselves hurt in the restaurant because of their own actions and their parents' lack of parenting, it is the restaurant's responsibility and they have to pay restitution to the child for something that is the child's fault (see article, it is clearly stated). If you're going to compare the two, then please explain how this applies to banning foreigners? If foreigners were going into establishments, getting themselves hurt, and then suing for damages and winning, then your argument would make sense.
The restaurant is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation here, and no, it is not fair to them. A child getting hurt in a restaurant because of their parents' negligence should not be the restaurant's responsibility. |
Well lets take for example some bars that have certain expectations as to what you'll order or perhaps serve exotic food or cook it yourself food. What if they had regular disputes with foreign customers over prices? What if they had really picky people who would take one look at a dish and send it back? Or didn't know that it had meat in it and sent it back? Or didn't know how to cook the meat and got sick from foodborne illness?
Would you say after incidents such as those that a place would be justified in banning foreigners? I don't think its justified in any one of those except the shady bars which are borderline illegal and mob owned. In that case it just might be for the best that you have a preemptive sign. There's plenty of other places to get your drink on and in those places the penalty for acting out for Koreans might be a mob stomping or paying a large penalty fee. I'm not sure foreigners want to follow the same rules of conduct and face the same consequences. Again, this is only for the shady "business meeting" bars and the like. And anyways, what are we losing out on? Paying 500 bucks for a bottle of Hennessy VSOP or even worse, 200 bucks for a bottle of crappy Imperial or Kingdom or Scotch Blue?
In the end banning kids from common restaurants and coffee shops is a terrible decision. The answer is to ban individual offenders not an entire class of vulnerable people.
The ban is the answer of the unimaginative and the simple-minded. |
It's simple-minded to think you can ban people from a restaurant after the fact.
Exactly how is that going to work in Korea? The arguments that would ensue might make great YouTube clips but aren't going to crate the peace and quiet the other patrons are expecting.
The ban is a pragmatic and rational decision IMO.
As for banning foreigners, who cares? I've been to lots of places that wouldn't serve me if I didn't order anju and left and I've been denied entrance at places that thought foreigners didn't spend enough. No sweat off my back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr. BlackCat wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
My kid is very well behaved. Never had an issue in a restaurant.
|
No offence, but every parent in the world thinks this. But what you find adorable or have learned to tune out can be a major annoyance to others, especially if there are more than a few of these little angels doing it all over the establishment. Maybe your kids are really well behaved, or maybe no one's ever said anything to you. I honestly don't know, but I doubt there are any parents out there who think their own kids are devil spawn. It's like showing pics of your kids to others (and now putting it all over facebook). People aren't nearly as in love with your kids as you are but probably don't say it. It's good that parents think their kids are great, but they shouldn't expect everyone else to see the special little snowflake they see.
As to saying banning kids is the same as banning foreigners, that's just idiotic. There are lots of things in society, every society, that are adult-only. Korean kids aren't allowed in PC bangs after 11pm, which makes sense. But it would be stupid to ban foreigners in the same way. Kids can't buy smokes, booze or porn. Good idea. Banning one particular race from doing so would be discrimination. The thing is, every human on the planet is a kid at one point, so it's not discrimination. It's what healthy societies do to help prepare kids to be responsible adults. Responsible adults who should be able to enjoy adult things without having to dumb everything down to the level of children.
I think banning kids in restaurants is a complex discussion, but don't get me started on babies on planes. Yeah, sometimes it's necessary, but you don't need to bring your 3 month old to Thailand on vacation. Not just for the sake of your fellow passengers and hotel guests, but for the baby itself. Sure, they have a 'right' to do it, but I also have a 'right' to fart in a crowded elevator. But we live in a civilized society where we should sometimes take other people into consideration. |
I say I've never had a problem with my kid because I'm VERY conscious of how she behaves in public. I've made sure to teach her proper behavior in restaurants, and can't recall her EVER leaving our table for anything other than an escorted trip to the restroom.
In regards to comparing it to banning other segments of society, I feel it's a reasonable comparison. I seem to recall a bar owner talking about how Nigerians don't drink, that they buy one drink all night, and then harass the women patrons. Now, if that observation is accurate, it may very well be a cultural difference - perhaps in Nigeria that's common behavior in the clubs (?). But to the club owner here, it's easier to simply ban Nigerians.
See how that works?
There seems to be a fair amount of dislike for kids on this boards - which is funny, because I'm presuming many of you teach them. My girl is now 7, and has been overseas 12 times. In all of those flights (24+) she's only had one problem, when she was 2 she fell asleep on take off and didn't "clear" her ears. They were killing her when she woke up, and it took a few minutes to get it sorted.
Again, I believe that banning the behavior is preferable - I'd LOVE to see assholes banned/asked to leave - regardless of age. Blanket banning a group from restaurants and cafes just seems like overkill. These are the types of places that most would consider accessible by the general public.
| atwood wrote: |
The ban is a pragmatic and rational decision IMO. |
Do you wonder if you'd feel the same way if you were a parent?
You're out for a walk with your family. Hot day. Everyone is feeling run down. In the distance you spot a sign for coffee and coolatas! Your family makes its way there - only to be told you're not allowed to sit - you'll have to order to go. Not because of anything you've done, mind you - simply because they find it "pragmatic". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You're out for a walk with your family. Hot day. Everyone is feeling run down. In the distance you spot a sign for coffee and coolatas! Your family makes its way there - only to be told you're not allowed to sit - you'll have to order to go. Not because of anything you've done, mind you - simply because they find it "pragmatic". |
Good point...cherry picking...but still a good point.
OK...disruptive children in public with parents who do not take the initiative to manage their children, while in said establishment(s), do NOT have the right to ruin or disrupt other paying customers.
Does that settle this thread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| trueblue wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You're out for a walk with your family. Hot day. Everyone is feeling run down. In the distance you spot a sign for coffee and coolatas! Your family makes its way there - only to be told you're not allowed to sit - you'll have to order to go. Not because of anything you've done, mind you - simply because they find it "pragmatic". |
Good point...cherry picking...but still a good point.
OK...disruptive children in public with parents who do not take the initiative to manage their children, while in said establishment(s), do NOT have the right to ruin or disrupt other paying customers.
Does that settle this thread? |
Totally agree! I've seen more than my fair share here as well. I'd love it if the manager would say something to them. Hell, I HAVE said something to them in the past.
Disrupting/annoying other patrons - get called on it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You're out for a walk with your family. Hot day. Everyone is feeling run down. In the distance you spot a sign for coffee and coolatas! Your family makes its way there - only to be told you're not allowed to sit - you'll have to order to go. Not because of anything you've done, mind you - simply because they find it "pragmatic". |
Segregation has arrived friend. Have the wife hold on to the rugrats while you go inside and order some takeout.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| At times, I think all this banter would make great episodes for Trailer Park Boys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jleblanc
Joined: 23 Aug 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| jleblanc wrote: |
It's not the same thing. The issue with the children is that if they get themselves hurt in the restaurant because of their own actions and their parents' lack of parenting, it is the restaurant's responsibility and they have to pay restitution to the child for something that is the child's fault (see article, it is clearly stated). If you're going to compare the two, then please explain how this applies to banning foreigners? If foreigners were going into establishments, getting themselves hurt, and then suing for damages and winning, then your argument would make sense. |
It's a horrible hypothetical, but one could say that foreigners burn themselves on the hot plates served in Korean restaurants.
I wonder honestly though, how often is a restaurant sued here? I'd be shocked if it was very common. |
There were only two mentioned in the article, but maybe now there will be more as people find out they can get money for their misbehaving kids? Regarding your hypothetical, if a restaurant was sued for that and there was proof there was no explanation to the parties at the table that it was hot, then I could understand the restaurant possibly being fined for that because that's something the restaurant is responsible for. The restaurant is NOT responsible for unruly children running into servers or hurting themselves. It's just not the same thing. And so we're clear, I'm not saying banning children is the answer. I'm just saying I don't think it's the restaurant's fault if a child gets hurt in that specific situation. It's dumb they're getting fined. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jleblanc
Joined: 23 Aug 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| jleblanc wrote: |
It's not the same thing. The issue with the children is that if they get themselves hurt in the restaurant because of their own actions and their parents' lack of parenting, it is the restaurant's responsibility and they have to pay restitution to the child for something that is the child's fault (see article, it is clearly stated). If you're going to compare the two, then please explain how this applies to banning foreigners? If foreigners were going into establishments, getting themselves hurt, and then suing for damages and winning, then your argument would make sense.
The restaurant is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation here, and no, it is not fair to them. A child getting hurt in a restaurant because of their parents' negligence should not be the restaurant's responsibility. |
Well lets take for example some bars that have certain expectations as to what you'll order or perhaps serve exotic food or cook it yourself food. What if they had regular disputes with foreign customers over prices? What if they had really picky people who would take one look at a dish and send it back? Or didn't know that it had meat in it and sent it back? Or didn't know how to cook the meat and got sick from foodborne illness?
Would you say after incidents such as those that a place would be justified in banning foreigners? I don't think its justified in any one of those except the shady bars which are borderline illegal and mob owned. In that case it just might be for the best that you have a preemptive sign. There's plenty of other places to get your drink on and in those places the penalty for acting out for Koreans might be a mob stomping or paying a large penalty fee. I'm not sure foreigners want to follow the same rules of conduct and face the same consequences. Again, this is only for the shady "business meeting" bars and the like. And anyways, what are we losing out on? Paying 500 bucks for a bottle of Hennessy VSOP or even worse, 200 bucks for a bottle of crappy Imperial or Kingdom or Scotch Blue?
In the end banning kids from common restaurants and coffee shops is a terrible decision. The answer is to ban individual offenders not an entire class of vulnerable people.
The ban is the answer of the unimaginative and the simple-minded. |
If we're going to compare based on what a restaurant expects from the customer, then are you saying a restaurant shouldn't expect parents to mind their children? You're running a bit wild with these hypotheticals. Is the restaurant's decision to ban children the answer? No. I never said it was. The answer is that the restaurant shouldn't be fined for parents who can't mind their children. Pure and simple. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Mr. BlackCat wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
My kid is very well behaved. Never had an issue in a restaurant.
|
No offence, but every parent in the world thinks this. But what you find adorable or have learned to tune out can be a major annoyance to others, especially if there are more than a few of these little angels doing it all over the establishment. Maybe your kids are really well behaved, or maybe no one's ever said anything to you. I honestly don't know, but I doubt there are any parents out there who think their own kids are devil spawn. It's like showing pics of your kids to others (and now putting it all over facebook). People aren't nearly as in love with your kids as you are but probably don't say it. It's good that parents think their kids are great, but they shouldn't expect everyone else to see the special little snowflake they see.
As to saying banning kids is the same as banning foreigners, that's just idiotic. There are lots of things in society, every society, that are adult-only. Korean kids aren't allowed in PC bangs after 11pm, which makes sense. But it would be stupid to ban foreigners in the same way. Kids can't buy smokes, booze or porn. Good idea. Banning one particular race from doing so would be discrimination. The thing is, every human on the planet is a kid at one point, so it's not discrimination. It's what healthy societies do to help prepare kids to be responsible adults. Responsible adults who should be able to enjoy adult things without having to dumb everything down to the level of children.
I think banning kids in restaurants is a complex discussion, but don't get me started on babies on planes. Yeah, sometimes it's necessary, but you don't need to bring your 3 month old to Thailand on vacation. Not just for the sake of your fellow passengers and hotel guests, but for the baby itself. Sure, they have a 'right' to do it, but I also have a 'right' to fart in a crowded elevator. But we live in a civilized society where we should sometimes take other people into consideration. |
I say I've never had a problem with my kid because I'm VERY conscious of how she behaves in public. I've made sure to teach her proper behavior in restaurants, and can't recall her EVER leaving our table for anything other than an escorted trip to the restroom.
In regards to comparing it to banning other segments of society, I feel it's a reasonable comparison. I seem to recall a bar owner talking about how Nigerians don't drink, that they buy one drink all night, and then harass the women patrons. Now, if that observation is accurate, it may very well be a cultural difference - perhaps in Nigeria that's common behavior in the clubs (?). But to the club owner here, it's easier to simply ban Nigerians.
See how that works?
There seems to be a fair amount of dislike for kids on this boards - which is funny, because I'm presuming many of you teach them. My girl is now 7, and has been overseas 12 times. In all of those flights (24+) she's only had one problem, when she was 2 she fell asleep on take off and didn't "clear" her ears. They were killing her when she woke up, and it took a few minutes to get it sorted.
Again, I believe that banning the behavior is preferable - I'd LOVE to see assholes banned/asked to leave - regardless of age. Blanket banning a group from restaurants and cafes just seems like overkill. These are the types of places that most would consider accessible by the general public.
| atwood wrote: |
The ban is a pragmatic and rational decision IMO. |
Do you wonder if you'd feel the same way if you were a parent?
You're out for a walk with your family. Hot day. Everyone is feeling run down. In the distance you spot a sign for coffee and coolatas! Your family makes its way there - only to be told you're not allowed to sit - you'll have to order to go. Not because of anything you've done, mind you - simply because they find it "pragmatic". |
I am a parent.
I'm sure there would be plenty of other places to have a cool drink. The places banning children are trying to provide a certain type of atmosphere and experience for their patrons which young children disrupt. I don't think you have to worry about Dunkin Donuts or the like banning kids.
I think you're way off base when you accuse posters of disliking kids. They are merely recognizing there's a time and place for everything and a quiet coffee shop where people go to relax, read, study, work and wind down is not the place for out of control kids.
As for planes, I realize families have to travel for many good reasons and it can be tough on babies. however, you do get on a flight every once in a while where the baby cries from beginning to end and you wonder what's up.
Wouldn't a sip of benadryl or tow go a long way in such a situation?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
