|
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 |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Kids go, and sometime, act like arses. Adults go, and sometimes, act like arses.
See how that works?
I don't care if people drink. Doesn't bother me at all. what bothers me is when they disturb me - yelling, swearing, fighting, falling over.
I don't care if people bring their kids out, what bothers me is when they disturb me - yelling, running around, crying.
Again, I don't ask that alcohol or kids be banned, I ask that when someone is disturbing other patrons, they be called on it.
edit: BTW, Atwood. I'm heading to a firm this week, so I'll chat with some lawyers on this - will get back to you with their quotes regarding litigation and compensation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
Kids go, and sometime, act like arses. Adults go, and sometimes, act like arses.
See how that works?
I don't care if people drink. Doesn't bother me at all. what bothers me is when they disturb me - yelling, swearing, fighting, falling over.
I don't care if people bring their kids out, what bothers me is when they disturb me - yelling, running around, crying.
Again, I don't ask that alcohol or kids be banned, I ask that when someone is disturbing other patrons, they be called on it.
edit: BTW, Atwood. I'm heading to a firm this week, so I'll chat with some lawyers on this - will get back to you with their quotes regarding litigation and compensation. |
The problem with that attitude is most people don't want to spend their days and nights "calling others on it." Even if there's a new sheriff in town and his name is Captain Corea.
A ban, and hopefully you realize it is limited to a few restaurants and cafes, is a much more sensible, practical and workable solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Adults get to go and sometimes get drunk. Why can't kids go and make a fuss and get hurt and cause accidents and ruin exclusive restaurant diners' meals? That's the gist of your argument. |
That is NOT his argument. Boy you suck at reading comprehension. Have you ever considered an LSAT/GRE prep course to brush up on that?
Captain Corea's point is NOT that kids should be allowed to run free. His point is that if you are going to BAN kids for making a fuss, then you should ban people who drink, as their disturbances are just as prevalent.
He'd be fine with a ban, provided the same rationale was applied to everyone- that of causing a disturbance and posing a safety hazard. But when you use that rationale and only ban kids, but fail to ban drunks as well, your rationale is arbitrary and not applied in a fair manner. You are not basing your ban on behavior, but age. And you're not basing it on rational, objective criteria, but instead on "what annoys YOU personally". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
Kids go, and sometime, act like arses. Adults go, and sometimes, act like arses.
See how that works?
I don't care if people drink. Doesn't bother me at all. what bothers me is when they disturb me - yelling, swearing, fighting, falling over.
I don't care if people bring their kids out, what bothers me is when they disturb me - yelling, running around, crying.
Again, I don't ask that alcohol or kids be banned, I ask that when someone is disturbing other patrons, they be called on it.
edit: BTW, Atwood. I'm heading to a firm this week, so I'll chat with some lawyers on this - will get back to you with their quotes regarding litigation and compensation. |
The problem with that attitude is most people don't want to spend their days and nights "calling others on it." Even if there's a new sheriff in town and his name is Captain Corea.
|
I also wonder how effective "calling others on it" would be. Given the lax attitude that most parents have regarding kids (here or anywhere), that task alone would almost be a full-time job. Plus, not everyone has the assertive attitude or the desire to get confrontational and lay down the law and make a battle with every idiot parent that comes in. This is why some would push for a ban over hiring a bouncer to manage the crazy kids.
"Ban the behavior" sounds good on paper, but might not be so easy. I think both options should be available.
| Quote: |
| A ban, and hopefully you realize it is limited to a few restaurants and cafes, is a much more sensible, practical and workable solution. |
Agree.
It's not like kids suddenly couldn't eat in any restaurants. It's about certain restaurants making choices that benefits certain patrons.... adult patrons. Restaurants should be able to law down rules regarding behavior, and/or put a ban in place if they want, and suffer the potentially losses from a few families here and there if they want to issue a ban.
Or they could have children/no-children seating areas, just like smoking areas. Put soundproof glass around these areas and put a kid theme in the room, and everyone is happier. Parents can steep in the kiddy chaos, while everyone else can enjoy themselves.
Also, wouldn't the parents themselves like to get away from kids once in awhile? They could hire a babysitter and get a nice meal away from the worries of loud kids. Imagine a parent that wants a night off, goes to a restaurant and has to deal with loud kids at the next table? A kid ban is also pro-parent in this case.
Choosing to be a parent brings certain costs. These costs should be to the parents who made the choice... not everyone else. Just because some parents happen to be fine with chaos and noise, doesn't mean everyone else will be. That's why there is a debate here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Agree.
It's not like waygooks suddenly couldn't eat in any restaurants. It's about certain restaurants making choices that benefits certain patrons.... Korean patrons. Restaurants should be able to law down rules regarding behavior, and/or put a ban in place if they want, and suffer the potentially losses from a few waygook families here and there if they want to issue a ban. Or they could have waygooks/no waygooks seating areas, just like smoking areas. Put soundproof glass around these areas and put a waygook theme in the room, and everyone is happier. Waygooks can steep in the waygook chaos, while everyone else can enjoy themselves...
...Choosing to be a waygook brings certain costs. These costs should be to the waygooks who made the choice... not everyone else. Just because some Koreans happen to be fine with chaos and noise, doesn't mean everyone else will be. That's why there is a debate here.
|
Aside from the libertarian line of Fox's thinking where banning is up to the individual owner for any criteria, there is no justification for this. A Korean could say the exact same thing about foreigners as we are about children and it would have as much validity.
I've always wondered if its really discrimination people are against or its just them being in 2nd place and having to compromise that they're against. I can see it's the latter. Discrimination is perfectly fine if they get to discriminate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mix1, I don't need to be away from my kid, because my kid doesn't stress me. My kid is not obnoxious, or loud, or annoying. She's actually one of the cooler people I get to associate with here. Now, you can say that's just me, but as an example, the dudes over at (a notoriously anti-K) site have met my girl, and they remarked on how cool and well behaved she was - of course not failing to point out "she didn't act Korean at all" lol
Again, this is a blanket ban on an entire group because of the actions of some. If that reasoning is sound, Africans can be banned from clubs because they don't order enough drinks. Or drunks and/or alcohol should be banned from most establishments.
Discriminatory blanket bans are wrong, and they almost always target weaker segments of society.
I mentioned handicapped/disabled earlier in this thread. Here's a question for any of you - ya ever work in a major Korean company? Ever walk through their offices?? Rows and rows of workers.
I've worked in 20+ such companies here.
Any guess how many times I've seen someone with a visible handicap?
Nadda.
I've asked team leaders in charge of hiring about this. Hell, even asked CEOs. Their reply?
take a guess...
"We don't hire handicapped people because they would make the other team members feel uncomfortable."
There's so much underlying discrimination here about certain groups, that when something like this pops up, it's best to stamp it down. I know people would spit and cuss if it was "foreigners" or Nigerians - we've seen that happen before on this board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
Agree.
It's not like waygooks suddenly couldn't eat in any restaurants. It's about certain restaurants making choices that benefits certain patrons.... Korean patrons. Restaurants should be able to law down rules regarding behavior, and/or put a ban in place if they want, and suffer the potentially losses from a few waygook families here and there if they want to issue a ban. Or they could have waygooks/no waygooks seating areas, just like smoking areas. Put soundproof glass around these areas and put a waygook theme in the room, and everyone is happier. Waygooks can steep in the waygook chaos, while everyone else can enjoy themselves...
...Choosing to be a waygook brings certain costs. These costs should be to the waygooks who made the choice... not everyone else. Just because some Koreans happen to be fine with chaos and noise, doesn't mean everyone else will be. That's why there is a debate here.
|
Aside from the libertarian line of Fox's thinking where banning is up to the individual owner for any criteria, there is no justification for this. A Korean could say the exact same thing about foreigners as we are about children and it would have as much validity.
I've always wondered if its really discrimination people are against or its just them being in 2nd place and having to compromise that they're against. I can see it's the latter. Discrimination is perfectly fine if they get to discriminate. |
Then let them ban foreigners if they think that they're upsetting their patrons that much. It's no sweat off my back.
Discrimination doesn't have to be a negative thing, although your discrimination against milk drinkers is a pretty poor show, and people with discriminating tastes want to eat in peace.
Think twice before now resorting to a slippery slope argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I know people would spit and cuss if it was "foreigners" or Nigerians - we've seen that happen before on this board.
|
The fact is that many people here who say they are against bigotry and discrimination, aren't against them at all. They're just against themselves getting shafted. Look at the threads where people rip on black people or Muslims back home. Look at the Canadian bashing. I already see a nasty tone emerging regarding the Scottish Referendum on some people's FBs and other threads. People denounce Korean Sentry but consider Klownisms 'good fun'. These views aren't based on any standard or principle, it's just whow they feel and their response to it. Children make them feel upset, so they think they should be banned. Then they go back and look for a rationale.
It's the heart of the basher mindset- the inability to step out of your shoes and consider another point of view and alternative explanations and what things would be like if the shoe was on the other foot.
Me personally, I can't stand screaming kids. But that's what comes with living in a civil society and having restaurants open to patrons of all ages. That principle doesn't go away just because its now inconvenient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
Agree.
It's not like waygooks suddenly couldn't eat in any restaurants. It's about certain restaurants making choices that benefits certain patrons.... Korean patrons. Restaurants should be able to law down rules regarding behavior, and/or put a ban in place if they want, and suffer the potentially losses from a few waygook families here and there if they want to issue a ban. Or they could have waygooks/no waygooks seating areas, just like smoking areas. Put soundproof glass around these areas and put a waygook theme in the room, and everyone is happier. Waygooks can steep in the waygook chaos, while everyone else can enjoy themselves...
...Choosing to be a waygook brings certain costs. These costs should be to the waygooks who made the choice... not everyone else. Just because some Koreans happen to be fine with chaos and noise, doesn't mean everyone else will be. That's why there is a debate here.
|
Aside from the libertarian line of Fox's thinking where banning is up to the individual owner for any criteria, there is no justification for this. A Korean could say the exact same thing about foreigners as we are about children and it would have as much validity.
I've always wondered if its really discrimination people are against or its just them being in 2nd place and having to compromise that they're against. I can see it's the latter. Discrimination is perfectly fine if they get to discriminate. |
YAWN...
Nice try.
One problem with your little switch-a-roo trick is that this is more about behavior of kids, not who they fundamentally are as people. Kids aren't a race.
Another problem is... they are kids. They don't get to play by the same rules as adults and fundamentally have fewer rights than adults. We discriminate against them in terms of what they can and can't do all the time, and this is a good thing. They'll be adults someday and then they'll gain those privileges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Talked to a retired supreme court justice about this case/situation today. Some random pieces:
| Quote: |
When deciding damages in a case like this, the LARGEST factor is damages (medical costs and such), and then potential future damages (loss of future income, for example).
Responsibility is never 100% either way. Even in a clear cut case of gross negligence, it's often an 80/20 split.
A host of factors can contribute to the decision regarding damages - warning signs, "victim's" actions, staff's actions, parental responsibility*
*Parents often bear a financial responsibility in damages. This may work towards lightening the financial compensation for the family.
Being drunk, disorderly, clumsy or whatever does not prohibit you from seeking (and winning) damages.
There are generally little-to-no punitive damage awards.
The law regarding discrimination is NOT clear. Generally, "private clubs" ca limit membership, but a business open to the public must be open to the public. There is, however, few laws regarding it, and it is handled on a case by case basis by a court.
ALL judgements are handled on a case by case basis. ((he really emphasized this point for some reason)) |
There's one retired judge's take on it. Cool old dude, but he might be out of date. I'll ask some lawyers later in the week if I have a chance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
Mix1, I don't need to be away from my kid, because my kid doesn't stress me. My kid is not obnoxious, or loud, or annoying. She's actually one of the cooler people I get to associate with here. Now, you can say that's just me, but as an example, the dudes over at (a notoriously anti-K) site have met my girl, and they remarked on how cool and well behaved she was - of course not failing to point out "she didn't act Korean at all" lol
Again, this is a blanket ban on an entire group because of the actions of some. If that reasoning is sound, Africans can be banned from clubs because they don't order enough drinks. Or drunks and/or alcohol should be banned from most establishments.
Discriminatory blanket bans are wrong, and they almost always target weaker segments of society.
I mentioned handicapped/disabled earlier in this thread. Here's a question for any of you - ya ever work in a major Korean company? Ever walk through their offices?? Rows and rows of workers.
I've worked in 20+ such companies here.
Any guess how many times I've seen someone with a visible handicap?
Nadda.
I've asked team leaders in charge of hiring about this. Hell, even asked CEOs. Their reply?
take a guess...
"We don't hire handicapped people because they would make the other team members feel uncomfortable."
There's so much underlying discrimination here about certain groups, that when something like this pops up, it's best to stamp it down. I know people would spit and cuss if it was "foreigners" or Nigerians - we've seen that happen before on this board. |
As I said to SR, kids are of a different category, a category with fewer choices, rights, and privileges, and that's a good thing. It's not about who they are fundamentally and as we agreed, this is mostly about the behavior, both them and the parents.
Also, I don't know if we can call it a "blanket" ban, or at least that's not what I'm arguing for. I'm arguing for restaurants to be able to make their own choices regarding kids. They wouldn't all decide to ban kids. Seriously, you wouldn't even want the choice to go somewhere with no kids? Well either way, I can guarantee many would, other parents included. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Captain Corea"]Talked to a retired supreme court justice about this case/situation today. Some random pieces:
| Quote: |
Responsibility is never 100% either way. Even in a clear cut case of gross negligence, it's often an 80/20 split.
|
I'll never understand this. It's a very common attitude here, and it's why they rarely seem to take full responsibility for anything or say sorry even when it's clearly their fault.
Well, there are plenty of instances where it clearly IS someone's fault in particular. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kids are annoying, thus 100% in favor of banning them from all restaurants.
You see the family sit down, you see the parents feed the kids Coke, countdown 3...2...1...kids go crazy. Shocking? Then the manic kids run into waiter and get scalded, parents sue the restaurant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm told on Korean sites the comments are very similar to here - singles on one side, parents on the other. lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
I know people would spit and cuss if it was "foreigners" or Nigerians - we've seen that happen before on this board.
|
The fact is that many people here who say they are against bigotry and discrimination, aren't against them at all. They're just against themselves getting shafted. Look at the threads where people rip on black people or Muslims back home. Look at the Canadian bashing. I already see a nasty tone emerging regarding the Scottish Referendum on some people's FBs and other threads. People denounce Korean Sentry but consider Klownisms 'good fun'. These views aren't based on any standard or principle, it's just whow they feel and their response to it. Children make them feel upset, so they think they should be banned. Then they go back and look for a rationale.
It's the heart of the basher mindset- the inability to step out of your shoes and consider another point of view and alternative explanations and what things would be like if the shoe was on the other foot.
Me personally, I can't stand screaming kids. But that's what comes with living in a civil society and having restaurants open to patrons of all ages. That principle doesn't go away just because its now inconvenient. |
That is the Cap'n's argument in a nutshell. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
Life in Klown would be "good fun" if it weren't so true.
Scottish referendum? Man, that's a derail of a very high order. Follow that and you'll be more lost than you already are.  |
|
| 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
