-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Can Anyone believe this?!
- Thread starter steveshady
- Start date
speck76
Well-Known Member
Mgkcjohnson said:
Read the first line....THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HELPING OUT AND TAKING RESPONSIBILITY!!!!
Better?
CAN YOU SEE IT NOW!?
If I see a lost kid, sure I may choose to help the kid out, but that is MY CHOICE....it is not a responsibility that is thrust upon me.
lawyergirl77
Active Member
Wow. This thread is quite the trip...
Wading into the fray with two points:
1) Kodak employees are working on Disney property, providing services to Disney guests, all under the auspices of TWDC. Therefore, under the "apparent control" doctrine, they appear to a reasonable person to be under control of TWDC. Therefore, TWDC should ensure that they are properly trained or else they may be liable for any negligent/faulty/other-liability-triggering actions or omissions that these photographers may do. Making sure that they do the Traditions class may or may not help to fulfill this legal responsibility. Bottom line, if something had happened to that child, especially in the lawsuit-happy U.S., TWDC would likely have faced some responsibility for the CM's actions, ALONG WITH KODAK! (it's not all or nothing!!! They would likely have been jointly responsible for any damage).
2) Not sure what the "Good Samaritan" laws are like in Florida, but adults are actually under a legal responsibility to help kids that are in danger (be they injured, lost etc...) So, Speck, much as I respect many of your arguments (and agree with your frustration at some people's inability to take responsibility for their actions, be they parents or otherwise), you might actually be under a responsibility to help out a kid that is lost. (again, not sure what the laws are in Florida!)
Sorry that was long, guys - I just really wanted to add those two points to the discussion (and I wanted to make sure that I was being understood and wouldn't be misinterpreted!!!!)
Wading into the fray with two points:
1) Kodak employees are working on Disney property, providing services to Disney guests, all under the auspices of TWDC. Therefore, under the "apparent control" doctrine, they appear to a reasonable person to be under control of TWDC. Therefore, TWDC should ensure that they are properly trained or else they may be liable for any negligent/faulty/other-liability-triggering actions or omissions that these photographers may do. Making sure that they do the Traditions class may or may not help to fulfill this legal responsibility. Bottom line, if something had happened to that child, especially in the lawsuit-happy U.S., TWDC would likely have faced some responsibility for the CM's actions, ALONG WITH KODAK! (it's not all or nothing!!! They would likely have been jointly responsible for any damage).
2) Not sure what the "Good Samaritan" laws are like in Florida, but adults are actually under a legal responsibility to help kids that are in danger (be they injured, lost etc...) So, Speck, much as I respect many of your arguments (and agree with your frustration at some people's inability to take responsibility for their actions, be they parents or otherwise), you might actually be under a responsibility to help out a kid that is lost. (again, not sure what the laws are in Florida!)
Sorry that was long, guys - I just really wanted to add those two points to the discussion (and I wanted to make sure that I was being understood and wouldn't be misinterpreted!!!!)
Scooter
Well-Known Member
Mgkcjohnson said:
Mgkcjohnson...Using phrases like "Idiotic, Pathetic, and senseless", in regards to other peoples ideas and opinions is frowned upon in this forum.
Please try to be a little more civil. Everyone has there own opinions here and we are all allowed to express them even though they may differ from yours.
Thank you
Scooter
daveemtdave
New Member
Not quite sure where the GOOD SAMARITAN LAW comes into play here, but I have just read over our GSL that I am obligated under as an EMS worker and NO WHERE does it state lost children are my responsiblity.
People handle situations differently. Sometimes, adults don't use good judgement.....the parents didn't - the child escaped - a magician in training....the worker didn't, he handed the child off (if that is what actually happened).....and the woman who took the child had the worse judgement..if that child became missing, she was the last person to touch the child. If the child had a bruise or mark on them, this woman was the last person to touch this child....
What should happen. Everyone who works in places where a large amount of children are patrons - should all be equiped with a radio to call for security - security should be handling this, not the CM's or anyone else.
People handle situations differently. Sometimes, adults don't use good judgement.....the parents didn't - the child escaped - a magician in training....the worker didn't, he handed the child off (if that is what actually happened).....and the woman who took the child had the worse judgement..if that child became missing, she was the last person to touch the child. If the child had a bruise or mark on them, this woman was the last person to touch this child....
What should happen. Everyone who works in places where a large amount of children are patrons - should all be equiped with a radio to call for security - security should be handling this, not the CM's or anyone else.
lawyergirl77
Active Member
daveemtdave said:
Sorry, that was the first "Law" that came to my mind - I work in a civil law jurisdiction, but I know that some of the child protection laws/other "good neighbour"-type laws do have some kind of general clause stating that you should help lost kids. Not "that they're your responsibilty" - just that it is your duty to try and help them out in any way you can (provided it won't cause you bodily injury).
But it's apparently not in the GSL! Thanks for the clarification!:wave:
As for the fact that the woman would have been the last person to touch the child, yes, she absolutely would have been on the hook (or at least questioned) if the child had any kind of mark. But the child had been delivered into custody by someone working under the auspices of TWDC, so they could have still faced civil responsibility for having delivered him/her negligently (i.e. without any questioning) into her care.
But I agree that they should all be alerted as a basic rule to call security ASAP if they see this happening! It's the only really safe and responsible precaution (and likely would have averted this entire thread in the first place!)
speck76
Well-Known Member
Good Samaritan Act; immunity from civil liability.—
(1) This act shall be known and cited as the "Good Samaritan Act."
(2)(a) Any person, including those licensed to practice medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment either in direct response to emergency situations related to and arising out of a public health emergency declared pursuant to s. 381.00315, a state of emergency which has been declared pursuant to s. 252.36 or at the scene of an emergency outside of a hospital, doctor's office, or other place having proper medical equipment, without objection of the injured victim or victims thereof, shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.
(b)1. Any hospital licensed under chapter 395, any employee of such hospital working in a clinical area within the facility and providing patient care, and any person licensed to practice medicine who in good faith renders medical care or treatment necessitated by a sudden, unexpected situation or occurrence resulting in a serious medical condition demanding immediate medical attention, for which the patient enters the hospital through its emergency room or trauma center, or necessitated by a public health emergency declared pursuant to s. 381.00315 shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such medical care or treatment unless such damages result from providing, or failing to provide, medical care or treatment under circumstances demonstrating a reckless disregard for the consequences so as to affect the life or health of another.
2. The immunity provided by this paragraph does not apply to damages as a result of any act or omission of providing medical care or treatment:
a. Which occurs after the patient is stabilized and is capable of receiving medical treatment as a nonemergency patient, unless surgery is required as a result of the emergency within a reasonable time after the patient is stabilized, in which case the immunity provided by this paragraph applies to any act or omission of providing medical care or treatment which occurs prior to the stabilization of the patient following the surgery; or
b. Unrelated to the original medical emergency.
3. For purposes of this paragraph, "reckless disregard" as it applies to a given health care provider rendering emergency medical services shall be such conduct which a health care provider knew or should have known, at the time such services were rendered, would be likely to result in injury so as to affect the life or health of another, taking into account the following to the extent they may be present;
a. The extent or serious nature of the circumstances prevailing.
b. The lack of time or ability to obtain appropriate consultation.
c. The lack of a prior patient-physician relationship.
d. The inability to obtain an appropriate medical history of the patient.
e. The time constraints imposed by coexisting emergencies.
4. Every emergency care facility granted immunity under this paragraph shall accept and treat all emergency care patients within the operational capacity of such facility without regard to ability to pay, including patients transferred from another emergency care facility or other health care provider pursuant to Pub. L. No. 99-272, s. 9121. The failure of an emergency care facility to comply with this subparagraph constitutes grounds for the department to initiate disciplinary action against the facility pursuant to chapter 395.
(c) Any person who is licensed to practice medicine, while acting as a staff member or with professional clinical privileges at a nonprofit medical facility, other than a hospital licensed under chapter 395, or while performing health screening services, shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of care or treatment provided gratuitously in such capacity as a result of any act or failure to act in such capacity in providing or arranging further medical treatment, if such person acts as a reasonably prudent person licensed to practice medicine would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.
(3) Any person, including those licensed to practice veterinary medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment to an injured animal at the scene of an emergency on or adjacent to a roadway shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.
History.--ss. 1, 2, ch. 65-313; s. 1, ch. 78-334; s. 62, ch. 86-160; s. 46, ch. 88-1; s. 4, ch. 88-173; s. 42, ch. 88-277; s. 1, ch. 89-71; s. 37, ch. 91-110; s. 33, ch. 93-211; s. 3, ch. 97-34; s. 1164, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2001-76; s. 3, ch. 2002-269.
(1) This act shall be known and cited as the "Good Samaritan Act."
(2)(a) Any person, including those licensed to practice medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment either in direct response to emergency situations related to and arising out of a public health emergency declared pursuant to s. 381.00315, a state of emergency which has been declared pursuant to s. 252.36 or at the scene of an emergency outside of a hospital, doctor's office, or other place having proper medical equipment, without objection of the injured victim or victims thereof, shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.
(b)1. Any hospital licensed under chapter 395, any employee of such hospital working in a clinical area within the facility and providing patient care, and any person licensed to practice medicine who in good faith renders medical care or treatment necessitated by a sudden, unexpected situation or occurrence resulting in a serious medical condition demanding immediate medical attention, for which the patient enters the hospital through its emergency room or trauma center, or necessitated by a public health emergency declared pursuant to s. 381.00315 shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such medical care or treatment unless such damages result from providing, or failing to provide, medical care or treatment under circumstances demonstrating a reckless disregard for the consequences so as to affect the life or health of another.
2. The immunity provided by this paragraph does not apply to damages as a result of any act or omission of providing medical care or treatment:
a. Which occurs after the patient is stabilized and is capable of receiving medical treatment as a nonemergency patient, unless surgery is required as a result of the emergency within a reasonable time after the patient is stabilized, in which case the immunity provided by this paragraph applies to any act or omission of providing medical care or treatment which occurs prior to the stabilization of the patient following the surgery; or
b. Unrelated to the original medical emergency.
3. For purposes of this paragraph, "reckless disregard" as it applies to a given health care provider rendering emergency medical services shall be such conduct which a health care provider knew or should have known, at the time such services were rendered, would be likely to result in injury so as to affect the life or health of another, taking into account the following to the extent they may be present;
a. The extent or serious nature of the circumstances prevailing.
b. The lack of time or ability to obtain appropriate consultation.
c. The lack of a prior patient-physician relationship.
d. The inability to obtain an appropriate medical history of the patient.
e. The time constraints imposed by coexisting emergencies.
4. Every emergency care facility granted immunity under this paragraph shall accept and treat all emergency care patients within the operational capacity of such facility without regard to ability to pay, including patients transferred from another emergency care facility or other health care provider pursuant to Pub. L. No. 99-272, s. 9121. The failure of an emergency care facility to comply with this subparagraph constitutes grounds for the department to initiate disciplinary action against the facility pursuant to chapter 395.
(c) Any person who is licensed to practice medicine, while acting as a staff member or with professional clinical privileges at a nonprofit medical facility, other than a hospital licensed under chapter 395, or while performing health screening services, shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of care or treatment provided gratuitously in such capacity as a result of any act or failure to act in such capacity in providing or arranging further medical treatment, if such person acts as a reasonably prudent person licensed to practice medicine would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.
(3) Any person, including those licensed to practice veterinary medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment to an injured animal at the scene of an emergency on or adjacent to a roadway shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.
History.--ss. 1, 2, ch. 65-313; s. 1, ch. 78-334; s. 62, ch. 86-160; s. 46, ch. 88-1; s. 4, ch. 88-173; s. 42, ch. 88-277; s. 1, ch. 89-71; s. 37, ch. 91-110; s. 33, ch. 93-211; s. 3, ch. 97-34; s. 1164, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2001-76; s. 3, ch. 2002-269.
speck76
Well-Known Member
The law of negligence imposes a duty of care upon a person to take reasonable care to avoid causing foreseeable harm to another person or their property.
To be successful in a claim for negligence a person must show:
That another person owed them a duty of care, eg:
* the duty to drive safely to avoid accidents
* the duty to provide a safe place of work
* the duty to ensure that a place open to the public is not dangerous
* the duty to provide competent medical treatment
* the duty to give competent legal advice
* the duty to provide adequate supervision of children in a child care center WDW is not a child care center, Children are not permitted without an adult
That the person has breached that duty of care, eg:
* by going through a red light and therefore driving unsafely
* by not having adequate measures in place to ensure safe lifting of heavy objects and therefore not providing a safe work place
* by not having a system in place to clean up spills on the floor of a supermarket and therefore not providing a safe shopping environment
* by amputating the wrong leg and therefore not providing competent medical treatment
* by giving incorrect legal advice about a time limit which causes a person to lose their legal right to claim
* by not supervising children adequately As children are not admitted with a guardian, it is the responsibility of the guardian to provide reasonable care
That the person claiming has suffered some loss as a result of this which was foreseeable eg:
* damage to their car in a motor vehicle collision
* a back injury as a result of having to lift a heavy item without proper equipment
* a broken ankle when slipping on spilt tomato sauce in a supermarket
* extra pain, additional operations and loss of mobility because of incorrect amputation
* loss of the money which would have been recovered if the claim was made within a time limit
* injury to a child caused in an accident which could have been avoided if there was adequate supervision the burden of supervision falls upon the guardian, not the property owner
To be successful in a claim for negligence a person must show:
That another person owed them a duty of care, eg:
* the duty to drive safely to avoid accidents
* the duty to provide a safe place of work
* the duty to ensure that a place open to the public is not dangerous
* the duty to provide competent medical treatment
* the duty to give competent legal advice
* the duty to provide adequate supervision of children in a child care center WDW is not a child care center, Children are not permitted without an adult
That the person has breached that duty of care, eg:
* by going through a red light and therefore driving unsafely
* by not having adequate measures in place to ensure safe lifting of heavy objects and therefore not providing a safe work place
* by not having a system in place to clean up spills on the floor of a supermarket and therefore not providing a safe shopping environment
* by amputating the wrong leg and therefore not providing competent medical treatment
* by giving incorrect legal advice about a time limit which causes a person to lose their legal right to claim
* by not supervising children adequately As children are not admitted with a guardian, it is the responsibility of the guardian to provide reasonable care
That the person claiming has suffered some loss as a result of this which was foreseeable eg:
* damage to their car in a motor vehicle collision
* a back injury as a result of having to lift a heavy item without proper equipment
* a broken ankle when slipping on spilt tomato sauce in a supermarket
* extra pain, additional operations and loss of mobility because of incorrect amputation
* loss of the money which would have been recovered if the claim was made within a time limit
* injury to a child caused in an accident which could have been avoided if there was adequate supervision the burden of supervision falls upon the guardian, not the property owner
daveemtdave
New Member
If I understood the original post, this child was NOT delivered to him by anyone, just wondering around.
Everyone here has to agree, WHERE WERE THE PARENTS.........
This is a two year old. Yes, they are fast, but they are also 'clumpsy' so to speak. Heaven forebid if anything would have happened to that child.
Everyone here has to agree, WHERE WERE THE PARENTS.........
This is a two year old. Yes, they are fast, but they are also 'clumpsy' so to speak. Heaven forebid if anything would have happened to that child.
lawyergirl77
Active Member
Wow! I really didn't expect a case brief! Out of curiosity, Speck what do you do? (PM me the answer - if you care to satisfy my curiosity in the first place!!! (not meant to be snarky) - so that we don't lead to more drift in this thread)
I stand corrected with respect to my comments about the GSL. In Florida it is clearly only meant to reinforce the statutory duty of professionals (especially medical). I'll tell you why I included that part in my original post - in Quebec, there is a part of our Civil Code that holds that every citizen MUST come to the rescue of a citizen in distress, and this is specifically reinforced by child protection legislation that says that you have to help a child in distress. I was wondering whether or not such legislation exists in Florida (or anywhere else for that matter), but clearly it does not.
As for your comments about negligence, you do build a very persuasive argument, but I still think that an argument could be made for the other side as well.
Bottom line: theoretically, in a situation such as this, if any harm had come to the child in question, the parents could (and would likely have) sued TWDC for the actions of this cameraman, employee or not, whether he was right or wrong in his actions. And while if I was representing TWDC, I would CLEARLY be making the arguments you made in your second post, I still think that the lawyer on the other side would have something to say, and that a judge could find it persuasive.
I simply think that it is in TWDC's best interest to ensure that all of its agents, employees, (and people who give the impression of being a part of either category) should not simply hand a kid over to a complete stranger, just because they don't want to deal with the problem. Setting aside the (clearly) thorny issues of duty and responsibility, it just makes good legal sense!!!!!
I stand corrected with respect to my comments about the GSL. In Florida it is clearly only meant to reinforce the statutory duty of professionals (especially medical). I'll tell you why I included that part in my original post - in Quebec, there is a part of our Civil Code that holds that every citizen MUST come to the rescue of a citizen in distress, and this is specifically reinforced by child protection legislation that says that you have to help a child in distress. I was wondering whether or not such legislation exists in Florida (or anywhere else for that matter), but clearly it does not.
As for your comments about negligence, you do build a very persuasive argument, but I still think that an argument could be made for the other side as well.
Bottom line: theoretically, in a situation such as this, if any harm had come to the child in question, the parents could (and would likely have) sued TWDC for the actions of this cameraman, employee or not, whether he was right or wrong in his actions. And while if I was representing TWDC, I would CLEARLY be making the arguments you made in your second post, I still think that the lawyer on the other side would have something to say, and that a judge could find it persuasive.
I simply think that it is in TWDC's best interest to ensure that all of its agents, employees, (and people who give the impression of being a part of either category) should not simply hand a kid over to a complete stranger, just because they don't want to deal with the problem. Setting aside the (clearly) thorny issues of duty and responsibility, it just makes good legal sense!!!!!
Dakotadogy
Member
speck76 said:
Wow! What a heated discussion.
As a guest to WDW or any other place in the world, one would hope that if a seemingly lost or hystrically crying child was seen, and no other adults were around, that someone would choice to stop and assist the situation.
If the child was you, age 2, and you had become seperated from Mommy or Daddy wouldn't you cry for help? (Regardless if Daddy turned his back or you slipped Mommy's hand). It's human nature. It's as much human nature for that lost child to be scared and upset as it would be for someone to choice to stop and help and I think in most instances, someone would choice to help.
However, you are correct. The responsibility for that child lies with the parent (or guardian) and not with the adult that happens along.
speck76
Well-Known Member
Dakotadogy said:
IMO, a 2 year old has no place in WDW.....they can not experience any attractions, most cry during the shows, and most are afraid of the characters. I go to the parks a lot, and see many 2 year old - infants there.....WHY? Will they even remember it?
Secondly, when I go to the park, I go for rest and relaxation, and no other reason. I do not go to be a hero, and I really do not pay much attention to the kids, unless they are annoying me (like crying for 45 minutes straight during the UoE attraction). If I happened to notice a lost child, my only response would be to notify a CM. If I take that child into my custody (to take to guest relations or whatever), then I assume responsibility for that child.....why would I want to do this. All it takes is one child's lie, and a over-protective yet under-responsible parent to make my life hell.....
CaliSurfer182
New Member
It seems like everybody else has responded to this topic, so I figured I might as well respond too.
I believe that this is the real problem the neglect of duty by an assumed responsible party. Everybody is looking at this through the eyes of an adult, when we should be looking through the eyes of a child, more specifically a two year old child. To a two year old this man is responsible, he is an adult in uniform and above that a human. First and foremost as an adult human being you should care for a child(....it should just be human nature....but I realize many don't agree on that). Secondly the uniform factor is what children are taught to look for when lost. I mean you can look to Disney channel programming to prove that. I happen to have a two year old that watches a Disney show called Higgley-town Heroes (so I have watched it in passing). On the show anybody in a unifrom including a pizzaman is called a hero. Now this doesn't make the pizzaman responsible for you children, however it does send a bad message from Disney that they can say one thing, but they can't employ (or have employed people) on their property that follow through with the same values.
I don't believe that this photographer should be held monetarily responsible nor do I think Disney should, however I do believe there should be a strict policy on lost children and their recovery. This should involve all personnel who work on property.
This is the real point an innocent child was lost........I only hope that he found his way to his parents or guardians.
brich said:It is their fault, BUT, we now are faced with a uniformed employee on Disney property, whether paid by Disney or Kodak, who is the first ADULT to acknowledge the lost child. What the employee does at this point should be the issue :veryconfu . I believe the OP took issue of the employee's actions, not why or who lost the kid in the first place.
I believe that this is the real problem the neglect of duty by an assumed responsible party. Everybody is looking at this through the eyes of an adult, when we should be looking through the eyes of a child, more specifically a two year old child. To a two year old this man is responsible, he is an adult in uniform and above that a human. First and foremost as an adult human being you should care for a child(....it should just be human nature....but I realize many don't agree on that). Secondly the uniform factor is what children are taught to look for when lost. I mean you can look to Disney channel programming to prove that. I happen to have a two year old that watches a Disney show called Higgley-town Heroes (so I have watched it in passing). On the show anybody in a unifrom including a pizzaman is called a hero. Now this doesn't make the pizzaman responsible for you children, however it does send a bad message from Disney that they can say one thing, but they can't employ (or have employed people) on their property that follow through with the same values.
I don't believe that this photographer should be held monetarily responsible nor do I think Disney should, however I do believe there should be a strict policy on lost children and their recovery. This should involve all personnel who work on property.
brich said:
This is the real point an innocent child was lost........I only hope that he found his way to his parents or guardians.
One last thing I don't think was covered was the cops response to this predicament. If anybody was shedding their responsibility it was him. He is paid to serve and protect, and his answer was just flat out detestable. If you can't look to a law enforcement uniform to protect a child's interests who can you look too?steveshady said:
CaliSurfer182
New Member
On another point of this thread....... I would just like to add that I am a parent of five boys who range from 2 to 13, and neither my spouse or I have ever lost a single one of them at any point in our lives. We do not use a leash because we believe it is not necessary, and it is degrading (but that is our opinion).
However I don't believe children are being given enough credit here. My two year old has muscle problems and still can not walk, but magically he has found away out of every strap and stroller. Of course he can not get more than a foot away (because I am over protective as all he**), but if there is an opportunity he will take it. Children will challenge everything and anything that is how they grow into their own people. Does it void parents of their responsibility.........No.........but I sure would like to hope that if anything ever did happen negative in my life......there is at least one human with a little bit of humantity out there that would do the right thing. Not because they are responsible to, but because they should out of humanity.
However I don't believe children are being given enough credit here. My two year old has muscle problems and still can not walk, but magically he has found away out of every strap and stroller. Of course he can not get more than a foot away (because I am over protective as all he**), but if there is an opportunity he will take it. Children will challenge everything and anything that is how they grow into their own people. Does it void parents of their responsibility.........No.........but I sure would like to hope that if anything ever did happen negative in my life......there is at least one human with a little bit of humantity out there that would do the right thing. Not because they are responsible to, but because they should out of humanity.
speck76
Well-Known Member
Abandonment
Many States and territories now provide definitions for child abandonment in their reporting laws. Approximately 18 States14 and the District of Columbia include abandonment in their definition of neglect, while 13 States,15 American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands provide separate definitions for establishing abandonment. In general, it is considered abandonment of the child when the parent’s identity or whereabouts are unknown, the child has been left by the parent in circumstances where the child suffers serious harm, or the parent has failed to maintain contact with the child or to provide reasonable support for a specified period of time.
CaliSurfer182
New Member
speck76 said:
So by your reasoning should an adult with a two year old mental capacity not go?
Who are you to say what a two year old remembers? Are you one? I am not trying to get into an argument, but just because you know one or two children doesn't make you an expert. Your comments border on agism (if that is an appropriate saying). Just because you don't like children doesn't mean they don't deserve to be there.
My two year old can't walk. So since he can't enjoy walking should I restrict him to a bed his whole life?
My son learned lots of things early on, and Disney was one of them. And just to point your argument out as being wrong. I take my family to Walt Disney World about once a month. Well on like the sixth trip my son was a sleep for the whole car ride. He only woke up when we drove by the Epcot sphere, when he saw that he immediately said more...more with a smile on his face. He couldn't see anything but that sphere, and yet he knew linked to that was a day of fun.
My son knows who Winnie the Pooh and all of his friends are, in fact he asks to go on that ride when we pass by the storybook pages. He doesn't cry when he is afraid of things, he just says no more and closes his eyes.
I can go on and on, but unless you have personally raised every two year old in this world, it isn't right to make blatant comments geared at them or about them. Not one person is typical, all are different no matter what their age/size is.
speck76
Well-Known Member
CaliSurfer182 said:
It depends......will they be disruptive to other guests?
CaliSurfer182 said:
agism
n : discrimination against middle-aged and elderly people
I am not following
Anyway, sure, some kids do behave themself, but a fair amount are there simply because the parents want to be there. Is it fair to guests that can really experience the park to have parts of their trip ruined by bad parents that bring children too young to be in the park on attractions that they should not be on in the first place? I do not blame the kids....they are simply too young....it is the parents' fault.
CaliSurfer182 said:
What does this have to do with anything?
CaliSurfer182 said:
All are different, but many can fall within a certain "norm"
CaliSurfer182
New Member
The point I was trying to make about my son is that he is two and he does remember Walt Disney World visits and attractions very well. So you are wrong on what a two year old can take and remember from a WDW experience.
Also just because somebody bothers you or "detracts" from your experience doesn't give you the right to say they don't belong there. A paying customer is a paying customer. I could equally say that everybody but my family detracts from my experience and my magic because they make me wait in line for food and rides. My time is wasted by slow moving and inexperienced travelers........so therefore the parks should just be for my family because I say so. That adheres to your logic.......and I am sorry it is incorrect......WDW isn't built or managed through your beiliefs it is open to all as it should be.
I believe it is Walt's words that he wanted a place where parents could have fun with their kids. He didn't leave an age requirement. He said kids which covers all people not of adult-age. But please break out a dictionary and give me a qualified collegiate response, so as not to be misinterpreted. Because a dictionary should be used to judge all of life.
I have one further question for you, just so I can see your direction. Since pregenant women can't ride some of the rides and they can be cumbersome to someone like you......should they not go to WDW or DL? How about handicapped people who can't experience every single ride or attraction should they just forget about it? Also if my spouse is breastfeeding my child and I want to go to WDW should I leave her at home and just take one child with me......since she or my infant might bother/offend you.......and therefore miss out on family-time. So exactly what type of park are you trying to turn WDW into, because your comments about two-year olds make me feel like it definetly isn't a family park in your opinion.
I consider my time off precious because I don't get much of it, and I choose to spend it with my whole family. I believe my whole family deserves to go to WDW at the same time, and if you don't agree then to bad for you.
Also just because somebody bothers you or "detracts" from your experience doesn't give you the right to say they don't belong there. A paying customer is a paying customer. I could equally say that everybody but my family detracts from my experience and my magic because they make me wait in line for food and rides. My time is wasted by slow moving and inexperienced travelers........so therefore the parks should just be for my family because I say so. That adheres to your logic.......and I am sorry it is incorrect......WDW isn't built or managed through your beiliefs it is open to all as it should be.
I believe it is Walt's words that he wanted a place where parents could have fun with their kids. He didn't leave an age requirement. He said kids which covers all people not of adult-age. But please break out a dictionary and give me a qualified collegiate response, so as not to be misinterpreted. Because a dictionary should be used to judge all of life.
I have one further question for you, just so I can see your direction. Since pregenant women can't ride some of the rides and they can be cumbersome to someone like you......should they not go to WDW or DL? How about handicapped people who can't experience every single ride or attraction should they just forget about it? Also if my spouse is breastfeeding my child and I want to go to WDW should I leave her at home and just take one child with me......since she or my infant might bother/offend you.......and therefore miss out on family-time. So exactly what type of park are you trying to turn WDW into, because your comments about two-year olds make me feel like it definetly isn't a family park in your opinion.
I consider my time off precious because I don't get much of it, and I choose to spend it with my whole family. I believe my whole family deserves to go to WDW at the same time, and if you don't agree then to bad for you.