Screaming Infants in Public Spaces? Allowed?

[Albertae]

The solution of course is obvious. Outlaw children. If we do that society will be free not only of this meddlesome burden but all others in a mere 100 years or so.

Imagine it. Street free from crime. Skies clear of pollution. Nothing but blessed silence. We must outlaw children immediately!

If we outlaw children there won't be another 100 years or so.

[Shaggy Dog Story]

The solution of course is obvious. Outlaw children. If we do that society will be free not only of this meddlesome burden but all others in a mere 100 years or so.

Imagine it. Street free from crime. Skies clear of pollution. Nothing but blessed silence. We must outlaw children immediately!

If we outlaw children there won't be another 100 years or so.

If you don't think that the eradication of the entire human race is a sensible solution to the mild annoyance ofoccassionally hearing a baby cry then you're clearly unreasonable and not worth talking to.

After all, in the words of a great humanitarian "no man, no problem"

[Des-Bal]

If you don't think that the entire eradication of the human race is a sensible solution to the mild annoyance ofoccassionally hearing a baby cry then you're clearly unreasonable and not worth talking to.

After all, in the words of a great humanitarian "no man, no problem"

I think you're severely overplaying how unreasonable people are being by asking to have public spaces free of screaming children.

[Shaggy Dog Story]

If you don't think that the entire eradication of the human race is a sensible solution to the mild annoyance ofoccassionally hearing a baby cry then you're clearly unreasonable and not worth talking to.

After all, in the words of a great humanitarian "no man, no problem"

I think you're severely overplaying how unreasonable people are being by asking to have public spaces free of screaming children.

I think that public means public. Infants are part of the public.

[New Chilokver]

If we outlaw children there won't be another 100 years or so.

If you don't think that the eradication of the entire human race is a sensible solution to the mild annoyance ofoccassionally hearing a baby cry then you're clearly unreasonable and not worth talking to.

After all, in the words of a great humanitarian "no man, no problem"

You. I like you.

[Des-Bal]

I think that public means public. Infants are part of the public.

Right, they're a part of the public that produces a sound that is designed to be psychologically distressing.

[Shaggy Dog Story]

If you don't think that the eradication of the entire human race is a sensible solution to the mild annoyance ofoccassionally hearing a baby cry then you're clearly unreasonable and not worth talking to.

After all, in the words of a great humanitarian "no man, no problem"

You. I like you.

We aim to please.

[Novorobo]

It's unreasonable to expect infants to be sequestered from the hearing of the public for their early lives. Therefore the government must issue noise-cancelling headphones to the entire populace designed to filter out the sound of crying infants. It might cost a fortune, but if it will save people from minor irritation then there can be no question that it must be done.

I get that this is satire, but "noise-cancelling headphones" mean people won't hear something they need to hear, like a fire alarm. Same reason earplugs are no substitute for a noise policy, at least on the part of the owner of the establishment.

Maybe it might be an option when fire alarm signals can be relayed to people's headphones, though.

[Wallenburg]

I think you're severely overplaying how unreasonable people are being by asking to have public spaces free of screaming children.

I think that public means public. Infants are part of the public.

Pfft. Who cares? Clearly avoiding the minor inconvenience of hearing a crying infant is more of a concern than the ability of parents to provide for the basic needs of their children!

[Shaggy Dog Story]

I think that public means public. Infants are part of the public.

Right, they're a part of the public that produces a sound that is designed to be psychologically distressing.

Well yes that is true. And I certainly understand being annoyed by it. But life has its petty annoyances. We shouldn't vastly inconvenience one group (a group responsible for the perpetuation of our species) to spare another group from mild annoyances.

[Novorobo]

If parents have the right to inflict their children on people then those parents have no right to complain when the world is in turn inflicted upon their children. You want to bring your screaming child into a restaurant? Fine, don't cut your fucking eyes at me when I start using casual profanity and don't ask "how am I going to explain this to my kids" about anything that happens in public. If you get your chocolate in the peanut butter the fucking floodgates open.

I find the idea of being intentionally profane because a parent decided to bring a child (an affliction you were once cursed with) into the public to "spite" them a far more ludicrous proposition.

The infant is at least justified in behaving childish. What's your excuse?

If people don't have the right to a noise-free environment, by what standard do they have the right to a profanity-free environment?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Who cares?

Children are children, if they're not crying, they're going to do some other stupid shit.

A baby crying or screaming is the least of your problems while out in public.

[Novorobo]

Right, they're a part of the public that produces a sound that is designed to be psychologically distressing.

Well yes that is true. And I certainly understand being annoyed by it. But life has its petty annoyances. We shouldn't vastly inconvenience one group (a group responsible for the perpetuation of our species) to spare another group from mild annoyances.

Technically, adults who adopt non-infants, or young adults who immigrate from foreign countries, are ALSO responsible for "the perpetuation of our species." There's plenty more kids where they came from.

[Shaggy Dog Story]

I find the idea of being intentionally profane because a parent decided to bring a child (an affliction you were once cursed with) into the public to "spite" them a far more ludicrous proposition.

The infant is at least justified in behaving childish. What's your excuse?

If people don't have the right to a noise-free environment, by what standard do they have the right to a profanity-free environment?

Well there's a "right" and there's just common decency. An infant can't control itself.

[Shaggy Dog Story]

Well yes that is true. And I certainly understand being annoyed by it. But life has its petty annoyances. We shouldn't vastly inconvenience one group (a group responsible for the perpetuation of our species) to spare another group from mild annoyances.

Technically, adults who adopt non-infants, or young adults who immigrate from foreign countries, are ALSO responsible for "the perpetuation of our species." There's plenty more kids where they came from.

Huh? I don't have any idea what you mean here.

[Des-Bal]

Well yes that is true. And I certainly understand being annoyed by it. But life has its petty annoyances. We shouldn't vastly inconvenience one group (a group responsible for the perpetuation of our species) to spare another group from mild annoyances.

I would gladly cede that point but much of our society is built around the idea that children should be insulated from much of our society. If a child can be an imposition on the public then it can also be imposed upon.

[Shaggy Dog Story]

Well yes that is true. And I certainly understand being annoyed by it. But life has its petty annoyances. We shouldn't vastly inconvenience one group (a group responsible for the perpetuation of our species) to spare another group from mild annoyances.

I would gladly cede that point but much of our society is built around the idea that children should be insulated from much of our society. If a child can be an imposition on the public then it can also be imposed upon.

Nothing is really stopping you. You can swear all you want in public. If you face social pressure not to, and think it's unfair that babies can scream their heads off, well, we do tend to hold grown ups to different standards than we hold babies to.

[Albertae]

I can bet half of you idiots don't even have children. So, just shit your pieholes, because you have no experience on the subject.

[Novorobo]

If people don't have the right to a noise-free environment, by what standard do they have the right to a profanity-free environment?

Well there's a "right" and there's just common decency. An infant can't control itself.

Fine, but many parents frame it as a "right" to bring their babies anywhere, and then act all judgmental toward anyone who would dare cuss in front of their children. (From what I've heard, anyway.)

Personally, I'm all for letting the property owners decide who to side with.

[Shaggy Dog Story]

Well there's a "right" and there's just common decency. An infant can't control itself.

Fine, but many parents frame it as a "right" to bring their babies anywhere, and then act all judgmental toward anyone who would dare cuss in front of their children. (From what I've heard, anyway.)

Personally, I'm all for letting the property owners decide who to side with.

I have no issue with holding adults to a higher standard.

[Novorobo]

Technically, adults who adopt non-infants, or young adults who immigrate from foreign countries, are ALSO responsible for "the perpetuation of our species." There's plenty more kids where they came from.

Huh? I don't have any idea what you mean here.

How is it not self-explanatory?

Foreigners are going to "continue the species" anyway by having large families; we can embrace immigration of young adults from those families and still not have to worry about any demographic winter. Or if we're worried about the effects of a foreign upbringing on their role in our society, we can adopt kids instead, but adopt them after they are past the infancy stage.

[Novorobo]

Fine, but many parents frame it as a "right" to bring their babies anywhere, and then act all judgmental toward anyone who would dare cuss in front of their children. (From what I've heard, anyway.)

Personally, I'm all for letting the property owners decide who to side with.

I have no issue with holding adults to a higher standard.

It just seems so damn one-sided, though. If the rest of us have to walk on eggshells around kids, what's limiting where parents can take their kids?

After all, if they took their kids to a frat house and heard cussing, you accept that would be the fault of the parents, right? So where do we draw the line?

[Shaggy Dog Story]

Huh? I don't have any idea what you mean here.

How is it not self-explanatory?

Foreigners are going to "continue the species" anyway by having large families; we can embrace immigration of young adults from those families and still not have to worry about any demographic winter. Or if we're worried about the effects of a foreign upbringing on their role in our society, we can adopt kids instead, but adopt them after they are past the infancy stage.

Those adopted children still start as babies. Are.you really suggesting that in order to avoid hearing babies cry we shound start importing teenagers?

[The Constitutional Republic of Freedonia]

I find the idea of being intentionally profane because a parent decided to bring a child (an affliction you were once cursed with) into the public to "spite" them a far more ludicrous proposition.

The infant is at least justified in behaving childish. What's your excuse?

If people don't have the right to a noise-free environment, by what standard do they have the right to a profanity-free environment?

Because the child is not culpable for its actions. Same reason we do not send an infant to jail if it gets its hands on a gun and shoots its father, but we do if an adult does the same-ditto for crying v. profanity.

[Ifreann]

It's unreasonable to expect infants to be sequestered from the hearing of the public for their early lives. Therefore the government must issue noise-cancelling headphones to the entire populace designed to filter out the sound of crying infants. It might cost a fortune, but if it will save people from minor irritation then there can be no question that it must be done.

I get that this is satire, but "noise-cancelling headphones" mean people won't hear something they need to hear, like a fire alarm. Same reason earplugs are no substitute for a noise policy, at least on the part of the owner of the establishment.

Maybe it might be an option when fire alarm signals can be relayed to people's headphones, though.

We'll have to spend a lot of money on this technology, but no cost is too great.