Originally published at: Passengers lock screaming toddler in airplane toilet to "educate" her - Boing Boing
…
10 Likes
Poor kid. Flying must be miserable for toddlers.
13 Likes
That means it worked! Problem solved! A+ parenting.
/s
14 Likes
Rather than it being free for kids under two to fly, it should cost extra.
Is there a source for this that isn’t the Daily Heil? They are the Newsmax of the UK.
10 Likes
Or, maybe parents could just leave their babies home all the time so as not upset all the real humans who decided not to be breeders… I mean, children aren’t actual people anyway, right? Not like a family with young children would EVER need to travel or certainly they’re all incredibly wealthy and can afford to travel and pay extra for what is clearly a privilege that they aren’t entitled to. Not like the right to travel is a human right or anything… /s
19 Likes
How would that have helped?
9 Likes
Why is it that so many people think it’s cool to diss young children or their parents for the crime of existing in public spaces? Yes, it’s not fun for anyone when a baby cries on a plane or in a store. No, that doesn’t mean that babies should be locked in soundproof chambers until they are ready to join adult society.
“Why should I have to endure presence of a young child? I hate babies!” is no more defensible a position than “Why should I have to endure the presence of an elderly person? Old people suck!” or “Why should I have to endure the presence of a person with developmental disabilities? They make me uncomfortable!”
15 Likes
The first time I took a flight I was old enough to understand that my ears popping was a normal, albeit uncomfortable, part of the experience. But it’s just one of at least a dozen things I can think of that a toddler wouldn’t understand and that could even be worse for a toddler.
9 Likes
Because infancy is a part of the human life cycle, and humans occasionally need to eat and travel and go outside?
12 Likes
Is it? Smoking is both a choice and actually harmful to people around you. Being a young child is more like being a neurodivergent person, in that through no fault of your own you don’t always know how to respond to social situations the same way as other people, and I sincerely hope you wouldn’t ask to restrict travel for them.
11 Likes
Just in case this absurd, false equivalency is a genuine question, because “smoker” is a description of behavior not identity. Being a smoker or not isn’t inherent to the person. They can choose not to be a smoker for the duration of a flight, for instance
9 Likes
Change the term “Black person” or “Jew”… shitting on entire groups of people who can’t change their nature or how society understands them is not cool. Ever. I don’t understand how anyone believes that to be the case, that children as okay to dismiss as less than… 
Yes, it sucks to be near a crying baby. Imagine not being able to explain to everyone around you what’s bothering you, though. And no one can fully make you understand why your ears hurt all of a sudden…
8 Likes
Some grannies need to be checked for wolf-like characteristics.
6 Likes
Good reason to not let clueless parents (or grandparents, it seems) to take them on multi-hour torture binges.
Picking fights with fellow users will not end well.
Nor will being cruel about children.
Do better.
12 Likes
Proposing travel bans for children is not a good look, especially when you have no idea why any given family is traveling.
Just stop.
8 Likes
And it’s doubly crass when the person complaining literally used to be one of the people they are complaining about.
“Why should I have to tolerate babies when I didn’t choose to have a baby?”
You were a baby!
4 Likes
I dunno. There’s often very little you can do to avoid traveling with a child when you have responsibility for little ones for any reason, especially since so many times wherever you’d bring a child it’s a place where the child being there is kind of important. Seems unfair and socially short-sighted to make it any harder to raise a kid than it is and I say that as someone who already looked at the concept of parenthood and thought:
“Old endgame lost of old, play and lose and have done with losing."
BUT I would 100% sincerely pay extra for a no kids extra legroom flight. That is a way better value than “business class” or whatever they call it now. For international travel options like that priced between 1st class and economy for 12 hours or whatever no kids even if it required extra layover that’d be nice. I suspect if it was actually financially feasible some one would be doing it by now, but maybe not in the US because that also seems likely to attract lawyers.
I’ve had way too many sick (vomiting), angry (screaming), bored (literally pulling my hair, pinching, grabbing, kicking), and so on kids to be unsympathetic because modern planes are so cramped these people are practically in your lap for 9+ hours. But such are the hazards of public transportation
It’d also be nice not to run into unruly drunks kwim? But good luck with that while flying frequently…
Generally exclusionary policies work best if the people being upsold on the experience are the ones to pay for it (that’s punching up not kicking down I think). So if someone wants a guaranteed no screaming babies flight and some one is willing to sell them that for less than the price of a private jet I guess maybe there’s potential there? Depends though… just avoiding planes does the trick pretty well too after all.
Realistically given how fast we are killing ourselves with this stuff we should probably all fly less kids or no kids, economy be damned too… but that’s unlikely.
Ultimately it just feels to me like some folks and their shitty algos, strewn across the internet like gastric spatter, want to stir a fight between people with and without kids though and to hell with anything else.
Nothing like the pure hell of international air travel to bring that out in folks.
3 Likes
