Mother/Son removed from airplane - Opinions?

[Sean]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3371901&page=1

I've always been one of those people who doesn't have children but believe that parents really need to reign in their kids these days. But in this case I think it went overboard. If what allegedly transpired really happened I think this flight attendent needs some anger management. Anyway, whats your take? Enjection right? wrong? for those of you who are parents how would you have handled it?

[CrystalTears]

"She leaned over the gentleman who was sitting next to me, and she said, 'OK, it's not funny anymore. You need to shut your baby up," Penland said.
Wow, what happened to nice, courteous flight attendants? All because he said 'bye bye plane'? That's a bit harsh. One thing is asking that the child be calmed, but to tell him to shut up? On top of which to have them removed from the plane. That's just insane.

[Sean of the Thread]

Well at least the kid will have a couple years of college saved for because of this.

[Gelston]

Babies should ride in the cargo hold in one of those pet carriers. I hate sitting next to a screaming baby for a 9 hour flight, kind of like Germany-Baltimore. I could barely control my homicidal urges.

[Moist Happenings]

According to the story as it was told this was an overreaction.

According to reality as the press works, this story is very one sided and really only gets the details from the mother that was thrown off the plane.

Details have a way of getting exaggerated, especially when one person is embarrassed or feels that they were wronged.

[Sean]

They were declined comment from the other side...

[Misun]

Obviously the flight attendant doesn't have any children if she suggested give the baby benadryl. And if she does have children, I feel for them.

I don't see how someone can interpret a one-year old saying "Bye, bye plane" to another plane leaving as a threat. Perhaps this person should be in a different line of work.

I hate when people without children try to impose their opinions one how to handle them onto some parents. Unless you have been there, don't say a word. And it doesn't seem that this baby was uncontrollable. He was just being a baby.

If the mother did threaten the flight attendant, that's a different story, but the way the flight attendant handled the whole situation was really lame. I have seen much worse come from adults on a plane and nothing is done about it.

[Atlanteax]

A lot of the passengers sided with the mother... and I think the Airlines Passengers' Rights guy said something about "until someone collaborates with the flight attendent..."

Which all indicates to me that the flight attendent just flipped out.

[Numbers]

Obviously the kid was a terrorist, had planted a bomb in the other plane, and when saying "bye bye plane," expected it to explode.

[Sean]

How very baby stewie of him... diabolical!

[Numbers]

Oh, and also, for a mother who finds the whole situation to be very "embarassing," she's certainly wasting no time making the talk show rounds and milking it for all it's worth.

[Nieninque]

I would imagine it would have been VERY embarrassing at the time. Being thrown off a plane would have been very likely to be humiliating.

After that has passed, I would imagine anger and indignation would set in, which is where she would be around now.

[Stanley Burrell]

For airplanes, in this day and age, the standard, I believe, needs to unfortunately be set permanently "human being." Comma.

That being said, there've been more than one too many cases of drunken/poorly rested pilots and stupid-ass flight people.

I'm trying to think if the economic tangibles of keeping a tighter flight schedule for a crippled industry should be further impaired due to a cautious need of screening at both passenger and employee level: We always say and hear, "tightened airport security" but there's still so much horse frickin' crap that occurs in the airline industry that always seems to pose, in my humblest of opinions, an absolutely ridiculous juxtaposition whenever a more social event (like this) is held in the same security comparison (if held in even the faintest flicker candlelight of code ROYGBIV security. ["Faintest flicker of candlelight" also makes me wanna cradle a glass of $10,000 dollar wine pinky up and wear a fez, son.])

Airline economics are very sensitive. And I'm guessing that an airline employed person's actions, such as in-flight personel telling a mother to give her kid benadryl, if it were schizophrenically out of the blue (say, if this was a clearly distinguished 99%-1% of who's-at-fault argument) then publicity like this wouldn't and couldn't at all be helping ExpressJet, or very possibly Houston Airport as a result of the sensitivity this can draw.

Man, I wish that we'd just build the stupid freaking intergalactic teleporter. This is the 21st century, dammit! WHERE THE FLOATING CITIES AT? AND THE TATOONINITE TUSKEN RAIDERS, YO? :'(

Holy shit, Bantha transportation is going to be so much awesomer than Delta flights. God.

[Gan]

Expressjet is a major training ground for new or inexperienced flight crews to get hours before moving onto the larger airlines (like Continental).

"The baby (Garret) was asleep by the time the airline returned to the terminal".

This speaks volumes. Clearly the flight attendant (only 1 on expressjets btw) is either in the wrong profession, brought her issues to work with her that day, or is already burned out from performing her job in a professional way. By the time this investigation is over with, there should be a settlement and the attendant should be looking for another job (in another industry).

And to endorse medicating a child without recommendation from the child's physician is completely stupid on the attendant's behalf.

And my last thought is for those who fly: As a parent of a child who has flown, and as a frequent flyer, if you are bothered by the vocal activity of an infant flying with you and cant understand that in most cases thats the only way the infant can express the changes that occurr to their bodies while flying (compression/decompression etc.) then you need to spend fifty cents and buy yourself a set of EAR PLUGS.

[StrayRogue]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvDWiEi5LsM

[Jazuela]

I'm a huge supporter of Benadril for flying kids of all ages. Mom dosed me and my 1-year-old sister up when we flew as kids, so did pretty much every mom on board with their own kids. It made things MUCH less traumatic for the kids, and MUCH less stressful for all the other passengers and staff. It's amazing what a 1/4 teaspoon of a non-addictive, non-habit-forming, non-alcoholic, non-toxic non-fattening liquid will do for a kid who doesn't understand why his head feels like it's going to implode during takeoff and landing.

Having said that, I don't understand why the stewardess wigged out like she did. I mean, it's not like the kid was screaming his fool head off or brutally kicking the seat in front of him, or running up and down the aisle and tipping over everyone's cups of soda along the way.

Maybe the stewardess should've taken a little Benadryl before the flight? I still take it when I'm feeling too edgy to fly. Doctors all over the country recommend it as a little something to take the edge off, for anyone capable of swallowing, no matter how old or young. It's even recommended as a mild sedative for mild cases of insomnia and can be used long-term without any ill effects. The worst thing that can happen if you take too much, is you throw it up, which is unpleasant, but hardly worth getting all upset about.

In summary:

The stewardess went overboard, AND people should dose up their kids before taking them on an airplane.

[Gan]

Benadryl is still an over-the-counter medication. Repeat, medication.

It should not be used for purposes other than its intended use. As it stands, Benadryl is an anti-hystamine, not a tranquilizer. Furthermore, how can an airline attendant who has no knowledge of the child's medical history even purport to know that Benadryl should be perscribed for a child riding on an airplane? What if the child's allergic? What if the child's reaction is completely opposite of the tranquilizer effect that some sustain as a side effect from taking that medication?

I know when my child takes Benadryl for allergies it puts him on the ceiling (totally opposite of making them sleepy).

People need to think twice before playing doctor or pharmacist with their children, if they want to be considered as a responsible parent that is...

[Jazuela]

It isn't only an anti-histimine. It is also a sleep aid, and the medication Sominex has the active ingredient of Benadryl, which is diphenhydramine, as its ONLY ingredient. It's also as SSRI (seratonin reuptake inhibitor) and used for mild episodic depression. It is also a non-toxic but effective sedative, and is recommended as such for anyone who isn't intentionally abusing it (apparently, some heroin dealers add their drug with diphenhydramine for an extra kick).

You can't be allergic to anti-histimines, by the way. Anti-histimines function as a blocking agent to histimines, which is what allergies trigger. So basically, even if it -was- possible to be allergic to them, the blocking effect would counter the allergy effect and you'd end up with - no effect at all.

[Bobmuhthol]

Whiskey will calm down a baby, too.

[CrystalTears]

The point is that it's not for the flight attendant to suggest medication for a child that they are not the parent of.

[Alfster]

Whiskey will calm down a baby, too.



So will a shotgun

[Jazuela]

Right, I agreed with that Crystal, it wasn't the stewardess's place, absolutely and without a doubt. That's why I agree she was wrong to do so. But - was this kid -shouting- "bye bye plane?" every 5 seconds for 20 minutes before the stewardess finally said something? Were there people who complained to her, before she said something, and who were either not interviewed for the article or pretended they weren't the ones complaining when they saw other people making the stewardess out to be a monster?

There are a few things missing from this article, primarily from the Airline's side of things. And they aren't talking, because there's litigation involved. I'll be interested to see how things play out once it gets to court.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<The point is that it's not for the flight attendant to suggest medication for a child that they are not the parent of.>>

I think the point is people don't like the manner in which the attendant did it (even though they weren't there...). If your child was acting abnormally, we'll say, and a passerby said, "Hey, you know, I hear a little Benadryl will help out a baby's behavior a lot in high-anxiety environments," would you respond by telling him that he shouldn't be telling you how to raise your kid?

[Alfster]

Right, I agreed with that Crystal, it wasn't the stewardess's place, absolutely and without a doubt. That's why I agree she was wrong to do so. But - was this kid -shouting- "bye bye plane?" every 5 seconds for 20 minutes before the stewardess finally said something? Were there people who complained to her, before she said something, and who were either not interviewed for the article or pretended they weren't the ones complaining when they saw other people making the stewardess out to be a monster?

There are a few things missing from this article, primarily from the Airline's side of things. And they aren't talking, because there's litigation involved. I'll be interested to see how things play out once it gets to court.

LOL

[Nieninque]

It isn't only an anti-histimine. It is also a sleep aid, and the medication Sominex has the active ingredient of Benadryl, which is diphenhydramine, as its ONLY ingredient. It's also as SSRI (seratonin reuptake inhibitor) and used for mild episodic depression. It is also a non-toxic but effective sedative, and is recommended as such for anyone who isn't intentionally abusing it (apparently, some heroin dealers add their drug with diphenhydramine for an extra kick).

Drugs affect people in different ways. Drugs are a very bad "first stop shop" for resolving people's difficulties. Encouraging a parent to drug their child so that the child doesnt make any noise is a long way from a reasonable request, regardless of the ingredients of said drug.


You can't be allergic to anti-histimines, by the way. Anti-histimines function as a blocking agent to histimines, which is what allergies trigger. So basically, even if it -was- possible to be allergic to them, the blocking effect would counter the allergy effect and you'd end up with - no effect at all.

You can be allergic to anti-histamines, depending on what the ingredients are and people's reactions to them. It is ridiculous to think that, if allergic to the ingredient of a particular drug, the combination of all of them would be guaranteed to do the job it was supposed to do in the first place.

I pray to god you arent a pharmacist with advice like you are giving.

[Bobmuhthol]

lol, Nieninque is right. People are allergic to antihistamines, and even further, more people are allergic to the dye in Benadryl.

[Nieninque]

people should dose up their kids before taking them on an airplane.

I am assuming you are childless.
I am hoping it stays that way.

Fucking idiot.

[Alfster]

I pray to god you arent a pharmacist with advice like you are giving.


Where do you work, if you work?
Burger King


Thank God BK doesn't sell drugs :P

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Jazuela
But - was this kid -shouting- "bye bye plane?" every 5 seconds for 20 minutes before the stewardess finally said something? Were there people who complained to her, before she said something, and who were either not interviewed for the article or pretended they weren't the ones complaining when they saw other people making the stewardess out to be a monster?

I've never known a safety demonstration to take 20 minutes. As taken from the article I posted:


As an attendant reviewed the flight safety instructions, Garren began to bid Houston adieu.

"There was a plane next to us, and I pointed it out to Garren, and he started saying 'Bye, bye plane,' over and over," Penland said.

Distracted and upset by the boy's words, the flight attendant went over to Penland after completing her safety demonstration.

[Gan]

You can't be allergic to anti-histimines, by the way. Anti-histimines function as a blocking agent to histimines, which is what allergies trigger. So basically, even if it -was- possible to be allergic to them, the blocking effect would counter the allergy effect and you'd end up with - no effect at all.

Yes you can, its demonstrated by the person getting hives after taking the medication.

But regardless of the uses of or effects of the medicine... bottom line, its still a medication. It should be used responsibly and appropriately, of which neither were represented by the attendant in her recommendation to the parent of the child.

[Stanley Burrell]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvDWiEi5LsM

I was waiting for someone to post this.

21st century flying (until Continental rolls out their foolproof T-47 Speedfighters that'll let me ski the surface of Hoth) should, should, should, should, should. Should. Should unbiasedly observe a human standard guideline.

If Warclaidhm boards a plane and the bantering dB becomes excessive enough to in any way, shape or form modify the ideal flight paths of an airport, that individual poses a threat to security -- Perhaps not National; but in more ways tied into the politics, economics and X levels of safety towards the airline industry; both aforementioned politically and economically, than I can even begin to start imagining. These daily cases, as judged by a SOCIAL NORM, can be overly semanticized, underlooked, or even dealt with in about as perfect of an equilibrium as you're going to get for a hustling, bustling terminal: But I hold a firm belief that if supposed sleeper cells our Homeland Security advisor just had a Nostradamian tummy-ache over actually knew how damaging even the *slightest* infraction on airline, and very possibly global reactions are, that Al-Qaida/Timothy McVeigh Jr./leprechauns/socially maladjusted fucks could set out to friggin' sneeze on someone the wrong way within 123456789 miles of a recognizable airport and have a retardedly catalytic effect.

Like everyone else, I've known sufferers of ED and/or LD: These individuals were either lawfully allowed to exist in a lawful society (by having the ability to conform to, at the very least, a non-aggressive medium, regardless of their impairment) OR were undoubtedly jail/ward-bound chaotic/neutral. With logical reasoning.

In a sick, demented way, I think that the unfortunately staunch politics of airline industries in a post-9/11 world could actually better economic and political relations between nations by simply setting a shared "compassion" that could begin at the PR level and make its way into a real international economical boom.

[Gan]

Thank God BK doesn't sell drugs :P

ROFL @ BK fast food and pharmacy. The one stop shop!

[Latrinsorm]

Bye bye, and next time DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS.

[Misun]

I'm a huge supporter of Benadril for flying kids of all ages. Mom dosed me and my 1-year-old sister up when we flew as kids, so did pretty much every mom on board with their own kids.


AND people should dose up their kids before taking them on an airplane.

How do you know every mom dosed their kids up? You clearly were too young and dosed yourself to know. AS a mother of two kids, I find your advice of dosing my children absurd. You clearly do not understand what it is to be a parent. I am not about to risk the health and comfort of my children for a few fellow passengers who don't want to be around kids. If they are worried about such things, perhaps they should pay for first class. What I find more annoying than some child crying (which is their natural right to do) or repeating over and over "Bye, bye plane", is the obnoxious drunk adults who don't listen and make off hand comments about planes crashing and such.

Now if a parent is clearly not handling (or trying to handle) their children and allowing them to scream, cry, run a muck and such, then there is a problem. But to just automatically resort to medicating your children for no legit reason is insane. Developing bodies and brains should be tampered with as little as possible.

And just so you know...one of my sons is allergic to they Benadryl. Just as he is allergic to soy because a doctor was too quick to prescribe soy formula to him as in infant to 'better' his stools.

Parents need to be very aware of what they put in their children now a days. And as far as approaching someone who's child may be causing problems? There are tactful ways to do it. I have had a couple of situations where people have approached me and asked nicely if there was anything they can do to help me in some very stressful situations with my son. It was much appreciated by me and help relive not only my stress but my embarrasment as well.

So my advice to anyone who is witnessing a child they consider 'out of hand' is to approach the parent with understanding that they may be under a great deal of stress and to not just 'attack' them for not being able to control their children. If you get a rude response, o well....but if you don't all the better.

That said, DON'T DRUG YOUR KIDS! They will do that themselves when they are older.

[Latrinsorm]

What I find more annoying than some child crying (which is their natural right to do)Where did that come from?

[Some Rogue]

Where did that come from?

I think it was in there somewhere between liberty and pursuit of happiness.

[Misun]

Where did that come from?

Because, in an infant or young child who cannot speak yet, it may be their only form of communication? And some people still believe that children should be seen and not heard.

[Gan]

Where did that come from?

From the same 'right' that a child has to eat, shit, and breathe.

[Celephais]

You can't be allergic to anti-histimines, by the way. Anti-histimines function as a blocking agent to histimines, which is what allergies trigger. So basically, even if it -was- possible to be allergic to them, the blocking effect would counter the allergy effect and you'd end up with - no effect at all.

Hey Dr. Jaz, It's been said a few times, but I am allergic to anti-histimines, and it was an absolute bitch getting that diagnosed

Dr: hmm, he's suffering from some sorta allergy, I'm going to up his anti-histimine dose...
later: hmm, getting worse, better give him more...
EKG, CAT scan, tons of other shit later: he has tourettes!
Many Drs, specialists, meds, nearly two years some Dr says "hey... why don't we take you off all the medicine for a bit" ... "That did it? You're alergic to anti-histimines"

[Nieninque]

From the same 'right' that a child has to eat, shit, and breathe.

I think it was Latrinsorm's way of saying "This story wasnt specifically about a child who was crying, therefore I am going to be a petty wanker and pick holes in the most mundane part of a person's argument, because effectively I cant fond any other fault with it and I HAVE to object to something!"

[Gan]

:yes:

[Latrinsorm]

I think it was Latrinsorm's way of saying "This story wasnt specifically about a child who was crying, therefore I am going to be a petty wanker and pick holes in the most mundane part of a person's argument, because effectively I cant fond any other fault with it and I HAVE to object to something!"I don't disagree with her(?) general take on the situation, I'm just very curious whenever people cite "natural rights". In general, curiosity is the chief motivation behind my posts. :D
Because, in an infant or young child who cannot speak yet, it may be their only form of communication?The research I've read suggests that (even when they claim to the contrary) parents aren't able to discern any actual meaning from cries. As such, it's hard to consider crying any more of a form of communication than defecation.
From the same 'right' that a child has to eat, shit, and breathe.Your use of quotation marks is interesting, to say the least. At any rate, this doesn't really answer the question: how does that right generate the natural right to cry?

[Some Rogue]

LatrinEstorm incoming! Head for the hills!

[Gan]

Your use of quotation marks is interesting, to say the least. At any rate, this doesn't really answer the question: how does that right generate the natural right to cry?

I put it in quotations because I knew where you were going with the 'rights' comment/issue. ;)

Since we've discussed natural rights versus legal rights, I would think that natural is more the optimal emphasis than 'rights' in that a baby naturally cries just as it naturally breathes. I think rights more fall into place with regards to legal rights to live, breathe, eat, shit, cry, and the persuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

But yes, I emphasized 'rights' because I knew where you were going.

[Misun]

The research I've read suggests that (even when they claim to the contrary) parents aren't able to discern any actual meaning from cries. As such, it's hard to consider crying any more of a form of communication than defecation.


I would hope you do not base your beliefs on research that you have read. Despite reports to the contrary, a parent, can discern the different cries of her infant/young child. Having experienced this twice, I know that I was able to tell what cries where those of hunger, pain, gas or just the need to be touched. Also if they were angry or just crying for cryings sake. The first advice my mother gave me when I had my first child was that "Babies cry. Sometimes to work their lungs, other times to just cry."

But I do believe it is entirely possible for a parent (mothers and fathers) to tell just what their infant/toddler is trying to tell them through certain cries.

As far as saying 'natural rights', that is exactly what I meant. It is natural for a baby to cry so why do so many people try to suppress it? It is natural for a toddler to repeat things over and over again because 'research' has shown that young children learn from repetition. As any parent who's child has asked them to reread a book they just finished reading them.

This child was only doing what children his age do. I think the flight attendant should reconsidered for her line of work if she cannot handle a small toddler on a plane. It's not like you can turn every plane around because you get irritated by someone's child.

[Nieninque]

I don't disagree with her(?) general take on the situation, I'm just very curious whenever people cite "natural rights". In general, curiosity is the chief motivation behind my posts. :D

You dont think that children have a right to cry?


The research I've read suggests that (even when they claim to the contrary) parents aren't able to discern any actual meaning from cries. As such, it's hard to consider crying any more of a form of communication than defecation.

For a lot of parents, I think this is true. My friend, when her little girl was very little could understand tons of what she was saying. To me it was babble talk, she could have a conversation and establish what was wrong with the child. I think, in the main, the fact that parents are unable to understand what the children are trying to communicate tells more about the parent than the child and should most definitely not stand as a reason to stifle children's one ability to show discomfort/pain/fear/hunger.

[Gan]

I'm going to impersonate Latrin a moment.

... In anarchy there are no rights, only strength and intellect which creates power...

In organized society, there are rights granted by the government who is given the power to do so by the society it governs.

[Latrinsorm]

I would hope you do not base your beliefs on research that you have read.It's very hard to take anecdotal reports seriously in the face of scientific data. I recognize that you're a little territorial (in the non-pejorative sense) about this, so I don't see any need to pursue this line.
It is natural for a baby to cry so why do so many people try to suppress it?There's plenty of things children naturally do that really ought to be suppressed. The one that springs immediately to mind (probably due to this context) is young boys punching and scrapping and whatnot. "Boys will be boys" feels kind of hollow when a 4 year old gets pushed down the stairs and has his skull fractured. (I select boys for this because I was a young boy once so it's easier for me to identify with boyish aggression. I make no claims as to young girls.)

I'm certainly not saying crying is going to fracture anyone's skull, but by demonstration it's clear that not all things natural are things that should be permitted. Do you have other justifications?

[Latrinsorm]

You dont think that children have a right to cry?I don't think children have a natural right to cry. Natural rights are the big ones, yowling doesn't fit.
To me it was babble talk, she could have a conversation and establish what was wrong with the child.I probably should have mentioned this in the beginning (and it seems Misun is using the same definition), but I'm using "crying" in the technical sense here for unimpeded sound that varies only in pitch and volume. As sound becomes progressively structured (cooing, babbling, etc.), obviously meaning becomes progressively more apparent.

In anarchy there are no rightsI recommend Hobbes! I'm not sure if the C&H Hobbes ever explicitly formulated it (the 25 cent bet comes to mind), but the original Hobbes had quite a lot of interesting things to say about that. That's going a bit afield, though.
In organized society, there are rights granted by the government who is given the power to do so by the society it governs.It's not so much a question of what manifests the rights in any binding sense, but a question of derivation. Is it simply a brute fact? Is there some logic involved? That sort of thing.

[Nieninque]

I don't think children have a natural right to cry. Natural rights are the big ones, yowling doesn't fit.

I disagree.

[Bobmuhthol]

Then you must not understand teh law.

[Misun]

The one that springs immediately to mind (probably due to this context) is young boys punching and scrapping and whatnot. "Boys will be boys" feels kind of hollow when a 4 year old gets pushed down the stairs and has his skull fractured. (I select boys for this because I was a young boy once so it's easier for me to identify with boyish aggression. I make no claims as to young girls.)

I'm certainly not saying crying is going to fracture anyone's skull, but by demonstration it's clear that not all things natural are things that should be permitted. Do you have other justifications?

This, too, is a misconception. I have two boys. The first one was very docile and fearful of climbing, swinging, ect. The second one is all over the place. Either way, what you said above is not specific to boys. My youngest happens to be four right now and recently had a classmate at school who was very aggressive and would daily harm one of the other children where it left bruises, scratches, whatnot. I even pulled up one day to see this child just run up to my son and push him down for no reason at all. This 'girl' was dismissed from the school shortly after because of the complaints from the parents. After a meeting with the school director, it became clear that she had certain issues at home that her mother was not addressing properly.

I do not think that an aggressive child can be placed under the category of 'boys' mainly. I have seen many girls who are more aggressive at that age and many boys who are more tenderhearted and docile. This whole 'Boys will be boys' notion is an old crock that has no bearing on today's children. Same thing with the 'Snakes and snails and puppy dog tails' idea about gender attributions in small children.

Children are children. I believe it is the parenting that makes a child aggressive or not, in addition to the child's basic nature. There are some cases where I know this may not be the case such as mental and/or emotional development, so please don't take that as a generalization of all children and parents.


Oh, and just to mention, I know it is considered a form of child abuse to 'subdue' your child with any forms of medication for the purpose of keeping them calm or 'under control' if not prescribed by a doctor.

[Celephais]

Geez, way to take what he specific said he wasn't trying to argue and construe it as his argument. He was using an example that he said himself wasn't a perfect example, but anyone with treee fittyiths of a brain could figure out what he was trying to say.

[Misun]

Geez, way to take what he specific said he wasn't trying to argue and construe it as his argument. He was using an example that he said himself wasn't a perfect example, but anyone with treee fittyiths of a brain could figure out what he was trying to say.

Perhaps I did misunderstand him. And yes, I only have treee fittyiths of a brain. I blame that on gemstone.

[Latrinsorm]

Either way, what you said above is not specific to boys.As stated, I was only referring to boys because I was a young boy. Nothing I said implied anything about girls; I had hoped this would be clear when I sad I was making no claims as to young girls.

In any event, a further clarification is required: I didn't mean aggression in the sense of purposive antagonistic behavior; rather, I meant it more along the lines of young boys are naturally less inclined to refrain from physical responses to stimuli than choose a more abstract strategy. Quite simply, they're neither aware of nor capable of engaging in less concrete measures. It's not so much that I think younger boys are more inclined to physical reactions per se, it's that I know their options are constrained to a point where physical reactions are usually the only kind available.

That aside, I think it's pretty clear that you agree with me on the salient point: "I believe it is the parenting that makes a child aggressive or not, in addition to the child's basic nature." These are (at root) natural impulses we're talking about, just as natural as the impulse to cry. I believe as you do that parenting is the solution to inappropriate impulses (though to get closer to topic I doubt parenting can keep an infant from crying). This is why I'm puzzled on the basis of your declaration of a natural right to cry.

[Tsa`ah]

Some of the responses ... just unbelievable.

First off, it's an airplane. While not the definition of public transportation, it is pretty public. If you can't take something of this nature ... get in your car and drive jackass. It would be one thing if the child was screaming it's head off and the mother was more than content to allow it to go on, but it just wasn't the case.

I can sympathize with anyone that gets annoyed at the parents of out of control children. I've been on plenty of flights where kids are trying to run roughshod up and down the isles, kicking the seat in front of them, and leaning over the back of their seats annoying the shit out of the people behind them. Those type of kids and their parents need a good beating. People that bring infants to quiet restaurants, movie theaters, and so forth are pretty inconsiderate as well. That's why we never did it with our first child simply because she was very vocal.

Second is the suggestion and support that a child should be drugged to keep it more docile. Here's a thought, fucking dose yourself into a coma. You're an adult and your system is already used to the chemical abuse. Maybe we as parents don't like the idea of throwing medication at every child related problem that comes up.

Third is the notion of "studies" and toddler communication. Only from Lat ...

Here's a thought for you jackass. Go hang around an infant/toddler for a while and learn to discern what sounds indicate what the child is trying to communicate. I knew what each type of cry, facial expression, and myriad of other sounds meant when my children made them. While these sounds may not have been intentional on the part of the child, they do have meaning ... so take your "studies" and shove them down your pie hole .... and cease being an ignorant jackass with straw man arguments.

[TheSmooth1]

I have a question. One of you ever intelligent parents, please enlighten me?

Why does someone need recommendation from a physician for over the counter medication?

I thought that was prescribed medication.

Are you telling me to consult a doctor every time I give my child Tylenol?

[Latrinsorm]

Here's a thought for you jackass.I don't have the book on me at present, but I'll be happy to get you a "citation" on "Monday". :)

[Tsa`ah]

I have a question. One of you ever intelligent parents, please enlighten me?

Why does someone need recommendation from a physician for over the counter medication?

I thought that was prescribed medication.

Are you telling me to consult a doctor every time I give my child Tylenol?

Common sense comes into play. You'll want to contact your pediatrician if you've already medicated your child within the guidelines on the bottle and your child is not responding to the medication. If you're going to try a different OTC medication because medication A isn't working. If you think the child needs more than the guidelines recommend ... etc.

Contacting a physician every time you want to give your child an OTC medicine is a bit absurd ... which is why you should use common sense when dealing with a child and medication.

On the same note, you shouldn't just throw medication down the child's throat because it isn't going to sleep or it's too rambunctious. Wearing the child out before a trip and denying simple sugars and carbs for the day always worked for me. They'll be excited for about 2 minutes before or after take off ... and then they're out.


I don't have the book on me at present, but I'll be happy to get you a "citation" on "Monday". :)

Chances are I've already read it. Here's the point that just flew miles over your head. While the sounds an infanct/toddler makes may not be intentional communication, you have to be pretty dense after prolonged exposure and care to not be able to discern what those sounds mean.

You can take the study, and shove it as directed ... and I'll again add ignorant to jackass just for you.

[Sean]

I forgot about the Douchey McJesus factor to making threads completely asinine. If only I had Ilvane powers to go back in time and lalalalalala this thread out of existance.

[Snapp]

LatrinEstorm incoming! Head for the hills!

I'm sorry, this made me laugh. :rofl:

As for the article, it's pretty hard to have a real opinion on it without hearing the airline's side.

[Sean of the Thread]

If only I had Ilvane powers to go back in time and lalalalalala this thread out of existance.

ahahahahaah

[Gan]

I forgot about the Douchey McJesus factor to making threads completely asinine. If only I had Ilvane powers to go back in time and lalalalalala this thread out of existance.

:rofl:
x10