[59nadir]

> the parent said he can keep his child still, but its not the child's natural state.

The child can be in its natural state in the privacy of their own home, not in public where it's a bother for everyone else. If we were talking about a child with real issues that could be blamed on disorders, it wouldn't just be about "natural state" and whatnot, and as you say the parent is able to keep the child quiet, proving it's just him preferring to not be considerate to his environment.

> And you go and call him a "bad parent" for not stifling his kid. Bullshit.

Screaming and running around in public doesn't foster any desirable or productive behavior on the part of the child, as far as I can imagine. I don't think it'll ever be in the favor of the child. All it really does is inconvenience people that didn't ask to deal with the noise of the child.

Edit: I want to add that I think there's a lot more that goes into being a bad parent, by the way. The only thing this "Society will have to adapt to me" behavior shows is a general lack of respect for other people and putting your convenience before them.

[pcarolan]

I would say that your sentiment encapsulates the attitude I disagree with. Public is, by definition, public. As in, for us all. Your norms are valid, but so are mine as well as my child's. I could make the argument that if you want solitude, you should visit the library where this norm is agreeably enforced by all, but I wouldn't. What I'd say is that the next time you are around a child who you feel is disruptive, go up to the parent and say, "I don't mean to be rude, but I was sitting here reading this book before you got here, would you mind asking your child to play more quietly or play somewhere else". I promise you I would not be offended by this (as a parent very little offends me anymore). Just don't expect the default state of a child to be child in church.