swansont Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 You're certainly smart enough to see the error in that remark. They listen to that music because for some reason their twisted little brains like it. This repellent buzz is intended for no use other than repelling specifically. Gee, and there are no people who do things specifically because their parents dislike or forbid it? I don't see how "annoying" is against the law. Can I have someone who smells offensive to me arrested for not bathing? If the sound exceeds a safety threshold, then go after them. (However, the OSHA levels for 16 kHz is 92 dB for 8-hour exposure, and the "mosquito" listed at 80 dB in one article, so I don't think that will pan out. I imagine other countries' safety levels are similar). Otherwise vote with your feet: never shop at a store with such a device, even when you're old enough to not hear it anymore.
Dak Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 hmm... it strikes me odd that, in the UK, there are laws oblidging shops to make reasonable efforts to be disabled-accesable, so as to not unintentionally discriminate against the disabled, and yet we are allowed to be intentionally annoying to a group of people based upon an arbritrary charectoristic (age). It wouldn't be ok if this was a sound only black people could hear, or if it was a bright light that only gay's could see, so i dont see why it's ok to piss off kids.
Klaynos Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I don't see how "annoying" is against the law. Because it's discrimination. In the UK there's currently a law that is about to take effect that makes discrimmination against people bassed specifically on age illegal... although I'm not sure of the exact scope of the legislation so unsure if this would cover it.... also, imagine if you lived next to a shop that installs it, and you have a baby... oh and I'm informed by someone who knows uk legislature far better than myself that if it is on public land and gives you a headache, or makes you feel sick, the propiater could be charged with assult...
In My Memory Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Dak, It wouldn't be ok if this was a sound only black people could hear, or if it was a bright light that only gay's could see, so i dont see why it's ok to piss off kids. I really dont think business owners wake up one day and say, "you know, I really dont think I've pissed enough people off today". I dont think you have a real claim that students are being discriminated against, because theres no evidence that stores wouldn't use similar measures to drive away large numbers of loitering geriatrics. Probably the reason for repelling teens is reducing crime or troublemaking, because if someone gets assaulted in the parking lot of business, then the business gets sued, which ultimately causes the store to raise prices / cut wages and hurts everyone. Similarly, if groups of kids are outside of a store playing music very loudly, the store can get ticketed for noise pollution. There might also be some kind of "image" factor at work, where groups of students loitering outside of a store just makes the store look less professional. And in any case, no ones rights have been violated. A store or business is private property, where you dont have a right to walk or stand anywhere you please at any time. I dont see that the stores have done anything unusual at all.
YT2095 Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I find most teens perfectly repelent anyway, nice to have some Pay-Back at last
swansont Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Because it's discrimination. In the UK there's currently a law that is about to take effect that makes discrimmination against people bassed specifically on age illegal... although I'm not sure of the exact scope of the legislation so unsure if this would cover it.... also, imagine if you lived next to a shop that installs it, and you have a baby... oh and I'm informed by someone who knows uk legislature far better than myself that if it is on public land and gives you a headache, or makes you feel sick, the propiater could be charged with assult... I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see that it's discrimination specifically based on age, it's discrimination based on the ear's response. It's no more discrimination than my previous example of playing certain types of music that cater to a particular age group. I find rap music generally annoying. I would tend not to shop in a store that played that music, nor loiter in the area. The store, presumably, plays that music because it fits in with the kind of customer to whom they are attempting to cater. I simply don't see that I've been discriminated against. And does that legislation pertain to hiring people, or having them in/around your place of business? Is it age discrimination to pay young people less than older people, or are you paying them different amounts because they have differing amounts of experience?
Psycho Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Hear what? I'm 16 i the only way i could hear it is if i turned it up to about 20 on my speaker, and if i was playing music 20 would mean you could easily here the music from 100 meters away.
Dak Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I really dont think business owners wake up one day and say' date=' "you know, I really dont think I've pissed enough people off today". I dont think you have a real claim that [b']blacks[/b] are being discriminated against, because theres no evidence that stores wouldn't use similar measures to drive away large numbers of loitering whites. Probably the reason for repelling blacks is reducing crime or troublemaking, because if someone gets assaulted in the parking lot of business, then the business gets sued, which ultimately causes the store to raise prices / cut wages and hurts everyone. Similarly, if groups of blacks are outside of a store playing music very loudly, the store can get ticketed for noise pollution. There might also be some kind of "image" factor at work, where groups of blacks loitering outside of a store just makes the store look less professional. And in any case, no ones rights have been violated. A store or business is private property, where you dont have a right to walk or stand anywhere you please at any time. I dont see that the stores have done anything unusual at all. Yes, but it's discriminatory because rather than dealing with the troublesome teens, it's dealling with ALL teens. prejudicial by definition. and, whilst it's private property, that doesn't give them the right to descriminate per se, because it's also concidered to be in the public. e.g., the proposed laws about not smoking in public would effect shops, even tho they are 'private'. in the UK, i'm pretty sure that if someone does something illegal on your property, you are not legally responsable unless you specifically allow it (hence assualt/noise pollution would not come back to the owner). I switched the refferenses to age in your quote above to refferenses to colour. if it's not ok to do this to blacks (or gays, or the french, or females etc -- which i think it would be hard to argue that it would be), then why is it ok to do it to teens?
chemfreak Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Ya herp we are the same age and I dont want that noise whenever my mom drags me into a store.
chemfreak Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 lol i played it in front of my dog and he went crazy!!!!! fyi hes a cavalier
abskebabs Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 OMG, I thought I was going mad! I hear high frequency sound all the time, but not necessarily when I go to a store and most likely when I'm on my own. Is this different to what is being talked about here? It's kind of like that noise you hear when you just turn on your tv, its high pitched like that. Or maybe I am just mad... ...I don't notice after a while though unless I pay attention it(thank goodness! ). Actually, come to think of it, most of the time I hear it after turning on my tv but I still hear after I turn it off and walkaway. It doesnt seem to stp unless another sound eventually drowns it out.
Klaynos Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I'm not a lawyer' date=' but I don't see that it's discrimination specifically based on age, it's discrimination based on the ear's response. It's no more discrimination than my previous example of playing certain types of music that cater to a particular age group. I find rap music generally annoying. I would tend not to shop in a store that played that music, nor loiter in the area. The store, presumably, plays that music because it fits in with the kind of customer to whom they are attempting to cater. I simply don't see that I've been discriminated against. And does that legislation pertain to hiring people, or having them in/around your place of business? Is it age discrimination to pay young people less than older people, or are you paying them different amounts because they have differing amounts of experience?[/quote'] By your logic, it's ok to be prejudice against people with small noses, if statistically one race has small noses is this not racisim by the back door? But the music isn't JUST designed to annoy people... I'm not sure about the specifics of the legislation...
Sisyphus Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Even if the comparison to racism was apt (which I don't think it is), it's still not illegal. A kind of precedent like "you're not allowed to be annoying to young people" is a ridiculous and dangerous road to go down.
swansont Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 By your logic, it's ok to be prejudice against people with small noses, if statistically one race has small noses is this not racisim by the back door? I'm not saying the prejudice is OK, rather that it's not racism.
KLB Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Even if the comparison to racism was apt (which I don't think it is), it's still not illegal.[/i'] A kind of precedent like "you're not allowed to be annoying to young people" is a ridiculous and dangerous road to go down. Agreed. If being annoying was illegal the most of the teens these sounds are intended to annoy would be in prision and this wouldn't be an issue.
abskebabs Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I just played the sample, and it sounds similiar, but a little higher pitched to what I hear with my tv. In fact it seems after hearing these noises they still sem to be ringing in your head!
AzurePhoenix Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 It's no more discrimination than my previous example of playing certain types of music that cater to a particular age group. I find rap music generally annoying. I would tend not to shop in a store that played that music, nor loiter in the area. The store, presumably, plays that music because it fits in with the kind of customer to whom they are attempting to cater. I simply don't see that I've been discriminated against. Most stores design themselves to ATTRACT the people who are most likely to want their particular services or products. You go to a Punk-Clothing store, and their customer base would be be repelled if the store played classical music or country western, so of course, they play whatever music it is that the punk-type people listen to. It's not to repel other customers, it's to make their primary focus-group more comfortable and to basically woo them. Everyone is going to be annoyed by something differently than other people, whether it be the music being played, the way the store is decorated, or the products being sold. But these are all molded to fit people the store suspects will be most attracted to what they're selling. Go to a big department store and you'll see that all of these things vary from section to section depending on who would be most likely to frequent that section. This sound is specifically targetting young people in a direct attempt to keep them out. It is put in place and designed to target them and keep them away based on the prejudice against their youth. The two "scenarios" are not the same in any rational way.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I think I should take statistics on what percentage of the people against this device are under 25 themselves.
Sisyphus Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Well now wait a minute. It's not to keep them out, it's to make it annoying to loiter outside, which they aren't supposed to do, anyway.
AzurePhoenix Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Well now wait a minute. It's not to keep them out, it's to make it annoying to loiter outside, which they aren't supposed to do, anyway.Ahh, my mistake. Where I'm from a theater courtyard or square or whatever is a major social gathering area with shops and resteraunts all around so it would amount to the same sort of thing as keeping kids out.
JustStuit Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 And if it was just for loitering, why would they have to make the frequency only for younger people, adults aren't allowed to loiter either.
JustStuit Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 True, so there would be no need to make a sound only younger people could hear.
AzurePhoenix Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Now, if any of you know me at all, you know that the last thing I am is a humanitarian, but frankly I was a bit shocked by this when I saw this -> Even if the comparison to racism was apt (which I don't think it is), it's still not illegal.[/i'] A kind of precedent like "you're not allowed to be annoying to young people" is a ridiculous and dangerous road to go down. The issue quite obviously isn't just about "annoying young people." Younger people as a large generic group are being targeted as people to be repelled. Now, while I don't see anything wrong with keeping trouble-makers out or whatever, I don't see how you could be okay with persecuting an entire group, which is more innocent than not, simply because they have a higher rate of trouble-making. Punishing someone for what they are, based on a what is ntohign more than a potential they have no control over is vicious and uncivilized, no matter whether a positive result comes of it or not. You don't control your age, just as you don't control your skin color or nationality or even where you come from within a specific area. And while any of these things might make it more likely for you to act a certain way statistically, it doesn't mean that you will or even that you specifically are likely to at all. In Arizona Mexicans have a particularly high rate of crime, and keeping them out of certain areas would certainly reduce theft and such, just like kids, but hell knows that if something were designed to keep them away, half of you who support this damned buzzy-noise thing would be up in arms all offended by the racist nature of the concept. There is no difference. They are simply younger than other people, they don't choose it. Being young is WHAT a young person is, not WHO they are, and it doesn't make them deserving of prejudice for it.
KLB Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 AzurePhenoix, you and several others have blown this thing way out of proportion and are trying to compare the annoying sounds to something much more insidious to which there is no comparison. Maybe if you studied your history lessons a little better you would realize just how shameful your comparing this annoying noise to racism and discrimination is. It is obvious that some of the younger folks here don't really know what racism and discrimination are. All the annoying sounds do is discourage young people from loitering in front of the stores which as has been pointed out they aren't supposed to be doing to begin with. Since adults apparently aren't the ones using these store parking lots as their personal hangouts it makes perfect sense to use a noise that only young people can hear since it happens to exist. This is a lot less intrusive means of handling the loitering than calling the police in on a regular basis to chase kids away. Loitering does not equal paying customers and in fact can drive away driving customers due to parking spots being consumed and/or an unfriendly/potentially unsafe situation. I know I'd not stop at a store in a city that had a parking lot full of kids loitering about especially if it were in a not so nice of a neighborhood. Young people seem to forget that stores are private property and if the store owner does not want you loitering in their parking lot then they are fully within their rights to use non-violent means to discouraging loitering. These sounds don't cause physical injury, and if one is simply going from a parked car into the store then these sounds would be hardly annoying. They are only annoying when listened to for an extended period like when one is loitering, which is illegal if the store owner doesn't want it to happen.
Recommended Posts