Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think anyone in this thread is ranting about the child. The issue is with parents of children. Children are children, autistic or otherwise. It's the parents who bring them out to eat, it's the parents who raise them, it's the parents who are responsible for them, it's the parents who need to keep them under control OR move them somewhere else until they calm down (the bathroom, in your tight embrace, in the parking lot, in the car, in the house), OR move them somewhere that being overtly active/loud/not controlled is permissible (like a playground).
No one can, or should, try to control someone else's kids in a restaurant. However, the parents should, and if they can't, or won't, then they should accept that they're going to **** people off. These parents seemed just as surprised that the guy didn't like his dinner being disrupted, as they did with the father being punched. Why are they acting surprised? They admit that the kid disrupted it (by explaining that he's autistic - justifying/explaining why he acted out, is accepting that yes, he did in fact act out). They know their kid is autistic. Surely they didn't go to a restaurant without a contingency plan to accommodate the very real possibility that their autistic son might become overwhelmed and need to be moved elsewhere?
What kind of parents are they, who would subject their child to overwhelming stimulation, and NOT have very specific plans to help their child who was clearly in distress? Because, as all you parents of autistic kids know, when an autistic kid starts acting out, he's already in the process of a meltdown and needs someone to help them calm down OR somewhere safe for them to calm themselves.
I think many of you here... well, I'm basically misanthropic anyway, for all the compassion I do try to show. I think many of you here need your heads slapped good and hard to remind you there are other people outside your egocentrism and you DEFINITELY need to stay the hell away from me if you're ranting about an autistic child and you can't tell the difference between a disability and general poor behaviour. You're barely human yourselves, it appears.
It's easy to get up high and look down upon others.
As far as the father goes, he's no gem. HE used his son's autism as an excuse to permit that son to be disruptive. HE called the media and used his son's autism to garner compassion for HIM, and outrage for the person who hit him.
In all accounts of this episode, not once did it give one from the other side of the situation. No one knows what the father said prior to getting hit, except the excuse of his son's autism.
The father did nothing to control the boy in his home while on camera being interviewed either, so we can surmise he did nothing to control him in the restaurant.
I don't find as much of a problem with the child, had he been taken out before he got too noisy, but with the father who USED HIS SON as an excuse for his lack of dicipline on his children.
I don't think anyone in this thread is ranting about the child. The issue is with parents of children. Children are children, autistic or otherwise. It's the parents who bring them out to eat, it's the parents who raise them, it's the parents who are responsible for them, it's the parents who need to keep them under control OR move them somewhere else until they calm down (the bathroom, in your tight embrace, in the parking lot, in the car, in the house), OR move them somewhere that being overtly active/loud/not controlled is permissible (like a playground).
No one can, or should, try to control someone else's kids in a restaurant. However, the parents should, and if they can't, or won't, then they should accept that they're going to **** people off. These parents seemed just as surprised that the guy didn't like his dinner being disrupted, as they did with the father being punched. Why are they acting surprised? They admit that the kid disrupted it (by explaining that he's autistic - justifying/explaining why he acted out, is accepting that yes, he did in fact act out). They know their kid is autistic. Surely they didn't go to a restaurant without a contingency plan to accommodate the very real possibility that their autistic son might become overwhelmed and need to be moved elsewhere?
What kind of parents are they, who would subject their child to overwhelming stimulation, and NOT have very specific plans to help their child who was clearly in distress? Because, as all you parents of autistic kids know, when an autistic kid starts acting out, he's already in the process of a meltdown and needs someone to help them calm down OR somewhere safe for them to calm themselves.
You missed the most telling quote of the article by the attacked father:
"Somebody could have been seriously hurt over a four year-old autistic child in a restaurant who has every right to be there," Sonia Bennett said. "I'm against violence of any kind, but the biggest lesson here is that I have to be an advocate for my child who has autism."
This guy was on an agenda to force his problem down others throats.
And I'm sure that the Bennetts will be parading their child at restaurants everywhere, just to make sure that everyone experiences their autistic child at dinnertime. I'm glad that I don't live in their area and have to be trying to avoid them on my nights out.
Some autistics are capable of violence that someone else has to control on their behalf, and this violence can occur at what onlookers might think are random moments. Onlookers would have no idea why this is occuring. They would only know that it IS occuring.
I have scars all over the backs of my hands and up my arms from an autistic young man I worked with for years. He had no idea he was hurting me. Fortunately, he never bit me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu
And I'm sure that the Bennetts will be parading their child at restaurants everywhere, just to make sure that everyone experiences their autistic child at dinnertime. I'm glad that I don't live in their area and have to be trying to avoid them on my nights out.
It's easy to get up high and look down upon others.
As far as the father goes, he's no gem. HE used his son's autism as an excuse to permit that son to be disruptive. HE called the media and used his son's autism to garner compassion for HIM, and outrage for the person who hit him.
In all accounts of this episode, not once did it give one from the other side of the situation. No one knows what the father said prior to getting hit, except the excuse of his son's autism.
The father did nothing to control the boy in his home while on camera being interviewed either, so we can surmise he did nothing to control him in the restaurant.
I don't find as much of a problem with the child, had he been taken out before he got too noisy, but with the father who USED HIS SON as an excuse for his lack of dicipline on his children.
Hmmm...
Do you mean as "easy" as it is to sniff condescendingly and self-righteously because a parent isn't controlling their child to YOUR standards and, as I said initially, bending over backward to ensure YOUR dining experience should this occur in a restaurant?
As you say -- not one account of the other side; but everyone seems QUITE eager to assume the worst.
You people (I say with a distinct degree of separation) seem to be under the misperception that I was referring to the child himself rather than the parenting aspect. I'd venture the ready guess that none of you voicing so vehemently against the kid's parents have kids of your own, and that likely you think it's just -- *snap-of-the-fingers* -- THAT easy to either ensure exemplary behaviour on the part of children at all times or simply pick up and leave because the public venues are for everyone else, NOT for situations which infringe on your leisure.
Beautiful thing about that restaurant and/or any other public venue:
You people (I say with a distinct degree of separation) seem to be under the misperception that I was referring to the child himself rather than the parenting aspect. I'd venture the ready guess that none of you voicing so vehemently against the kid's parents have kids of your own, and that likely you think it's just -- *snap-of-the-fingers* -- THAT easy to either ensure exemplary behaviour on the part of children at all times or simply pick up and leave because the public venues are for everyone else, NOT for situations which infringe on your leisure.
Oh gee, now venturing doesn't get you anywhere. You're wrong. I have children, way past the age of the boy, so I have been in places with young children and knew when it was appropriate to leave. I did not take them where they would cause a scene under any circumstances. I have more respect for others sharing that space who don't go to hear shouting or crying children.
My oldest is 34 and when she was young, she wouldn't have dared to make a ruckus in a restaurant. My 16 year old would rather die than to have created problems or drawn attention to herself in a public place or where people gather when she was little. My boy gave reason to leave an establishment on only a couple of occasions.
I just deleted 59 posts because they were rude, personal attacks, off topic, or someone was responding to a deleted post...this thread will remain closed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
