I freakin' love how frotaz accuses LT of henpecking and whatnot when literally all he has done in this thread is henpeck tidbits of arguments and ignore the main caselines. Even more than that, I love that he goes on to do exactly this just a few sentences later. Except he doesn't address a single point I made, he simply ad hominems. "Sir, I feel that you have an incorrect opinion for the following reasons wot wot." "Yeah, well, your butt smells and you're tie's on backwards and I don't much care for yer face, so I win!!!"
Laughable.
I'm glad you've managed to latch onto another fallacious, preposterous analogy while conveniently ignoring the fact that your last one was torn to shreds and refusing to concede the point, or perhaps even recognize that you were forging a stance on bad and flawed logic. Wouldn't want you to lose your momentum, now.
The mentally handicapped comparison is only slightly less awful than the ethnicity argument you clung to so desperately. And I would show you why, but you would just deny it, henpeck a few minute strawman points to reply to in some asinine manner or other, or release the poor analogy and find yet another one to take its place. Life's too short to argue with obstinate, immobile white knights on the internet. At least, this side of the DH, anyway.
The great travesty isn't having a different opinion. The great travesty here, quite frankly, is having a stupid opinion, and then loudly carrying on with an undeserved and arrogant sense of righteousness and intelligence. And then continuing on and on, spinning around in an obnoxious and unending cycle. You've said nothing of value since you entered this thread, and now the interesting conversations that could have been (including less hyperbolic and pundit-like discussions of things you've mentioned!) have dried up in favor of you trying to exert yourself and your naive, *** on backward zealotry with middle school debating.
But yeah. I'm done. Pencil yourself another "win", champ.
EDIT: Ah what the hell; just for fun I'm going to try to crap on your new analogy in three sentences. It's gonna be tough, considering there's so much about it that is dumb.
While ******** people can in fact be disruptive for the reasons you've mentioned, this is not nearly as pervasive as you would think based on whatever anecdotal assumptions you're forming your opinion with, because while their development is generally arrested to the level of a child, a mentally handicapped adult is still an adult -- someone that has lived two or more decades of life. Children learn, and so can they, and that includes social rules, etiquette, and all that good stuff; my high school had a rather large program for mentally handicapped students, and I actually sat down at a table full of them once because they were so quiet and "normal" in their demeanor that I couldn't even tell. Lastly, this is not an easily quantifiable or measured trait, as there are degrees to most types of mental *********** and of course many, many different types of it to begin with -- it's infinitely more complex than "your children are two and four, and therefore very likely to cause a disturbance for our guests; as such we would prefer you take your business elsewhere this evening."
There, three sentences. As a bonus: people with mental handicaps can be asked to leave as necessary just as easily as a drunk and belligerent patron, a schizophrenic that is behind on their medication having an incident, or any other type of customer that is not as a rule a likely disturbance but has become one in the particular scenario.
Oh, and you've of course done nary a thing to answer to the fact that restaurants are private property, where the owners are opening their doors to you, not the other way around. You are permitted by them to enter the premises and purchase a service. That is the only law regarding them, so long as the maitre d' isn't dragging customers into a supply closet and ****** them. If people don't like the rules they can go somewhere else, and if there are enough of them that feel strongly they can organize a boycott or appeal to the legal system, but a victory there for the Parents For Loud Children In Public would still be an imposition on the actual laws, not an enforcing of law. Like I said. You have no right to be on someone's private property, period.
