Gross!

PJ_Saluki wrote:

What's the point? Anything goes?

No.

The point is that the way in which you talked about these kids in your original post was insensitive and offensive, whether that was your intention or not. What you described was a pretty unsavory scene, but why did you feel the need to belittle the kids in the process?

You shouldn't be surprised that some people found your words to be a little crass.

AllNiteThing wrote:

What about throwing said food, which you are also partaking in, all over the floor, handling it and putting it back, eating in the buffet line, etc etc. Sure, it's real people enjoying real food and really offending other real people and behaving really poorly. For real.

Nope, that rhetoric doesn't work. Let's break it down dialectically. People have a right to be offended by supposedly able-minded, technically intelligent people behaving badly. What Isaiah Berlin would call their negative rights of freedoms are being encroached upon. However, people don't have a right to be offended by a vulnerable minority of society whose behaviour might be deemed clinically to be an aspect of their condition, or what used to be called retardation. The "able-minded" diner's right to dine against that of someone with a perceived disability is a "positive" right, or believed privilege. To censure the behaviour of one who perhaps doesn't, and furthermore can't, know better, is tantamount to snobby bullying. That's the reality of the situation.

It's funny what people will put up with, in the name of table etiquette, as long as someone is just different and not really from a marginalised minority. Remember the scene in Borat where he was forgiven for bringing his shit to the dinner table because he was deemed intelligent enough to be Americanised, but as soon as his guest, a black prostitute, turned up, the cops were called? It seems that with a lot of people, bad table manners by people who might be taught better is excused, but sharing a dining space with a "taboo" group is a horror. :rolleyes:

PJ_Saluki wrote:

AAnd no, southern Illinois isn't as culturally advanced as New Jersey.

You're right, it's not. (I'm from Illinois, so I know this to be true.)

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Nope, that rhetoric doesn't work. Let's break it down dialectically. People have a right to be offended by supposedly able-minded, technically intelligent people behaving badly. What Isaiah Berlin would call their negative rights of freedoms are being encroached upon. However, people don't have a right to be offended by a vulnerable minority of society whose behaviour might be deemed clinically to be an aspect of their condition, or what used to be called retardation. The "able-minded" diner's right to dine against that of someone with a perceived disability is a "positive" right, or believed privilege. To censure the behaviour of one who perhaps doesn't, and furthermore can't, know better, is tantamount to snobby bullying. That's the reality of the situation.

No, the reality of the situation is that whoever was monitoring the people bused in should have made sure their behavior wasn't disruptive to the other diners. In fact, the establishment should have asked them to leave, and that would have been fully within their right. No offense, but I don't care who Isaiah Berlin is, nor what his opinions are. In no way would I look down on a 'special needs' person for the way they eat or what their 'perceived disability' is. But, when their behavior, whether controllable or not, is such that it creates a health hazard for the other diners, then it is rightly judged as inappropriate behavior. If they cannot control that behavior, then whoever is in control of their situation is responsible. In no way would I condone a confrontation or verbal assault on those patrons, but to simply say it was gross is no personal fault of the OP. Is it such a horrible thought?

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

It's funny what people will put up with, in the name of table etiquette, as long as someone is just different and not really from a marginalised minority. Remember the scene in Borat where he was forgiven for bringing his shit to the dinner table because he was deemed intelligent enough to be Americanised, but as soon as his guest, a black prostitute, turned up, the cops were called? It seems that with a lot of people, bad table manners by people who might be taught better is excused, but sharing a dining space with a "taboo" group is a horror. :rolleyes:

It wasn't just a 'black', she was a prostitute, and the guests had put up with enough up until then. That point is moot.

It's not that they are a taboo group, it's that they are messing with other peoples' food and making a health hazard by touching the food and throwing it on the floor. You people are making their 'specialness' an issue. No matter who they are, it is inappropriate behavior. Regardless of their mental faculties. If they can control it, they should. If they can't, whoever is in charge should be held accountable. End of story.

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Nope, that rhetoric doesn't work. Let's break it down dialectically. People have a right to be offended by supposedly able-minded, technically intelligent people behaving badly. What Isaiah Berlin would call their negative rights of freedoms are being encroached upon. However, people don't have a right to be offended by a vulnerable minority of society whose behaviour might be deemed clinically to be an aspect of their condition, or what used to be called retardation. The "able-minded" diner's right to dine against that of someone with a perceived disability is a "positive" right, or believed privilege. To censure the behaviour of one who perhaps doesn't, and furthermore can't, know better, is tantamount to snobby bullying. That's the reality of the situation.

It's funny what people will put up with, in the name of table etiquette, as long as someone is just different and not really from a marginalised minority. Remember the scene in Borat where he was forgiven for bringing his shit to the dinner table because he was deemed intelligent enough to be Americanised, but as soon as his guest, a black prostitute, turned up, the cops were called? It seems that with a lot of people, bad table manners by people who might be taught better is excused, but sharing a dining space with a "taboo" group is a horror. :rolleyes:

This is a great post. It's all about cultural expectations... and no I don't mean Asian/Chinese/US/UK... I mean subculture... those with 'impairments', and those without. I could take it further... what the fuck is 'impairment' anyway? It's a word the able-bodied use to categorise others who are different to them, because it makes them more comfortable and able to live with difference. What is difference? And so on... and so on... and so on...

MattCameronKicksButt wrote:

I'm sorry but the original post came off as sounding really stupid. You're right, I didn't get it and I'm not too worried about germs myself but some people are really sensitive about these things!

As long as the food was good, thats all that matters!

Look...I'm all for equal treatment of everyone and I despise mistreatment or judgement of those who can't control their actions whether mentally of physically. But, what the OP posted is just far and away from anything that should be accepted in public. You can't just let people run amok in public, throwing food, standing and eating in front of a buffet, handling others' food, etc etc. Where do you go, as someone said, shitting on the floor, groping others, jumping on the bar, etc etc. Sorry, it's not a discrimination, it's just proper public behavior. There's a reason people who have issues controlling themselves are supervised. Obviously whoever was doing that here wasn't doing their job.

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

This is a great post. It's all about cultural expectations... and no I don't mean Asian/Chinese/US/UK... I mean subculture... those with 'impairments', and those without. I could take it further... what the fuck is 'impairment' anyway? It's a word the able-bodied use to categorise others who are different to them, because it makes them more comfortable and able to live with difference. What is difference? And so on... and so on... and so on...

Agreed. What is the difference? It doesn't matter in this instance. If they are different, if they choose to eat different at their table, in their 'space', fine. When the choose (or are unable to choose) to disrupt others' space and food, then there is a problem.

PJ_Saluki wrote:

Those kids have just as much right to eat at the restaurant as I have. I never said they didn't. Some supervision from their teachers would have been nice for everyone involved. Kids would get their food and go to their tables to eat it. Other diners would get their food and do the same. You know, the way a buffet is supposed to operate.

yet your initial reaction was to put the blame on the kids.....

PJ_Saluki wrote:

I think there were a couple teachers there. There was a hot chick sitting with two teens who were with the group. I guess she was either a teacher or the best looking bus driver ever. I saw one other adult at that table, but no more. Of course when I got to my table I ate like I was sitting in the prison cafeteria -- head down, no eye contact.

i think i would have told her to get off her lazy ass and do her job.