Teen Repelent

[KLB]

Well, nobody will use the device in your area, then.

Indeed. I suspect that these will only get implemented by businesses that are desperate to put an end to youth loitering and will only be used after other methods reducing loitering failed. It is unlikely that they will become a really popular solution. I personally think, however, that from a taxpayer perspective that driving away youth loiters via annoying noises is preferable to calling police to disperse loiters.

 

In regards to the noise causing problems for neighbors, this is obviously a situation where stores will need to take care to keep the volume to a level that doesn't bother their neighbors beyond their own store fronts. Simply being smart about speaker placement can address this issue. I suspect neighbors would be very happy to have fewer loiters hanging out in their corner store and in turn reducing problems for the entire neighborhood (grafitti, vanalisim, fights, crime, etc.).

[ydoaPs]

Read Phi's post again.

 

 

 

Well' date=' nobody will use the device in your area, then.[/quote']

that makes it less descriminatory how?

[Phi for All]

that was my point. they aren't loitering. therefore you are wrong. it is prejudice no matter how you slice it.

So why aren't you arguing that the NO LOITERING signs be taken down since they are being read by non-loiterers as well? The sound only affects young people who hang around long enough for it to be annoying. They could do the same thing by playing Disney's It's a Small World After All but they'd risk losing customers as well as loiterers.

*cough*STEREOTYPE*cough*

Nonsense. You came up with a few off-the-wall examples of why the majority is not the total. My comment was more sarcasm than stereotyping

for instance, around here, at least half of the people that loiter are over the age of 25....it's probably more. i haven't done a formal survey, though.

Please have that survey done because I don't believe you. It sounds like a typical generalization on your part. "Around here", "at least half", these phrases sound like you just want it to be true.

 

Or perhaps... you're one of the loiterers yourself and you just want to be taken seriously in context to your "wandering back and forth in front of a place without apparent business, such that the person poses a threat to public safety."

[KLB]

that makes it less descriminatory how?

I think people take the worry about discrimination to an extreme and this is another example of this. If I am a store owner and I have problems with teens loitering in front of my store, which is in turn driving away paying customers, I would want to take measures that drive the loitering teens away without annoying my paying customers. These high frequency sounds would do just this. It isn't discrimination, it is exercising my property right not allow loitering in the most cost effective manner possible.

 

If most of the people loitering outside my store were adults and not teens then maybe this wouldn't be the best solution to my problem. Then again if my loiterers are adults then I probably have problems that would need to be addressed by the police anyways.

[ydoaPs]

I think people take the worry about discrimination to an extreme and this is another example of this. If I am a store owner and I have problems with teens loitering in front of my store' date=' which is in turn driving away paying customers, I would want to take measures that drive the loitering teens away without annoying my paying customers. These high frequency sounds would do just this. It isn't discrimination, it is exercising my property right not allow loitering in the most cost effective manner possible.

 

If most of the people loitering outside my store were adults and not teens then maybe this wouldn't be the best solution to my problem. Then again if my loiterers are adults then I probably have problems that would need to be addressed by the police anyways.[/quote']

I think people take the worry about discrimination to an extreme and this is another example of this. If I am a store owner and I have problems with gays shopping in my store, which is in turn driving away paying customers, I would want to take measures the gays away without annoying my paying customers. These high frequency sounds would do just this. It isn't discrimination, it is exercising my property right.

[Phi for All]

I think people take the worry about discrimination to an extreme and this is another example of this. If I am a store owner and I have problems with gays shopping in my store, which is in turn driving away paying customers, I would want to take measures the gays away without annoying my paying customers. These high frequency sounds would do just this. It isn't discrimination, it is exercising my property right.

WRONG! You didn't just change youths to gays, you changed loitering to shopping. I call strawman.

[ydoaPs]

nope, not a strawman. in his case he didn't want teens loitering because they drove away business. in this one, gays aren't wanted shopping because they drive away business.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No, they didn't want teens loitering because they were causing criminal damage.

[ydoaPs]

that wasn't the argument i quoted, was it?

[KLB]

that wasn't the argument i quoted, was it?

No you turned my argument using a straw man which had nothing to do with my argument. Your argument is a false comparison to what I have been writing about, and you know it.

 

My posting that you quoted was about discouraging unlawful loitering by youths. The moment a "no loitering" sign is posted outside of a store the act of loitering becomes unlawful trespass. At this point in time it is perfectly reasonable for the store owner to take actions (that are within the bounds of law) to make their property less attractive to loiterers. In this case the use of annoying high pitched sounds is what is being used to make a property less attractive to loiter about.

 

Your argument was based on lawful customers shopping, this is a totally different thing, thus this is a straw man argument.

[ydoaPs]

No you turned my argument using a straw man which had nothing to do with my argument. Your argument is a false comparison to what I have been writing about' date=' and you know it.

 

My posting that you quoted was about discouraging unlawful loitering by youths. The moment a "no loitering" sign is posted outside of a store the act of loitering becomes unlawful trespass. At this point in time it is perfectly reasonable for the store owner to take actions (that are within the bounds of law) to make their property less attractive to loiterers. In this case the use of annoying high pitched sounds is what is being used to make a property less attractive to loiter about.

 

Your argument was based on lawful customers shopping, this is a totally different thing, thus this is a straw man argument. [/quote']

perhaps you'd like to re-read the argument you wrote.

[Phi for All]

nope, not a strawman. in his case he didn't want teens loitering because they drove away business. in this one, gays aren't wanted shopping because they drive away business.

It IS a strawman because you made up the scenario as an alternative argument to loitering teens. And I think you're the one being discriminatory now by saying gays who shop drive away business. Where the hell did you get that from?

 

Face it, you were trying to drop "gays" in the place of "youths" in KLB's argument, it didn't work so you changed it to shopping and it became a whole different argument, a strawman. And if you're not willing to admit your mistake, then I call a revprez as well.

[KLB]

perhaps you'd like to re-read the argument you wrote.

Everyone here knows exactly what I was writing about and my position in general. You were trying to twist the meaning of what I have been writing about as a whole using a disingenuous straw man argument. You can try to justify yourself anyway you want but any reasonable reader of this thread will see your argument for what it was a BS straw man post that was trying to stir things up by twisting things in a false manner.

[Kyrisch]

Using yourdad's same argument but removing the element upon which you called the strawman, we arrive at a situation in which gay people loitering in front of a store and perhaps doing their gay things (like kissing, etc. not that I have anything against that) is hurting business. In response, the store owner makes the area in front of the store less comfortable for gays. Is he discriminating? I say no, he is exercising his right as a private business owner along the lines of refusing service to anyone he wishes.

[JustStuit]

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.

If the adults don't loiter why is it nessesary to make it only heard by youngsters?

[KLB]

Using yourdad's same argument but removing the element upon which you called the strawman, we arrive at a situation in which gay people loitering in front of a store and perhaps doing their gay things (like kissing, etc. not that I have anything against that) is hurting business. In response, the store owner makes the area in front of the store less comfortable for gays. Is he discriminating? I say no, he is exercising his right as a private business owner along the lines of refusing service to anyone he wishes.

 

Actually a business might not be always able to refuse to do business with anyone they wish (just ask Denny's). If, however, if they are loitering, they are not buying, which means they aren't customers. So it would not be unreasonable make loitering less desirable. The key is to do so in a way that does not offend real customers or at least no harm one's business.

 

In the case we are discussing. Using annoying sound that adults don't typically hear, probably wouldn't harm business nor would it annoy the vast majority of paying customers.

[KLB]

If the adults don't loiter why is it nessesary to make it only heard by youngsters?

 

Simply put it is the best way to target the annoyance towards loiterers. Any method used should be as targeted as possible towards the offenders to avoid inconveniencing one's real customers.

[alt_f13]

Simply put it is the best way to target the annoyance towards loiterers. Any method used should be as targeted as possible towards the offenders to avoid inconveniencing one's real customers.

 

Then they should put reruns of "All My Children" or "Days of our Lives" on 24/7.

 

The device becomes progressively[/b'] more irritating. It's not as if you'll want to run to the other side of the street when you walk in front of the store.

 

You've obviously never heard one of these things. And the writer of the article probably hasn't either, considering that they are most likely in their 30s or 40s, and even if they have heard one of these things... that was 20 years ago.

 

There is one of these things around where I live, and I can't walk by the area without going into a rage, because the sound is more than annoying; it is painfully loud, AND AT 16KHZ! The telletubbies got progressively irritating...Hitler got progrssively irritating... Mosquito buzzers are like lemon juice to the eyes... for the ears; repeated punches to the spine while some fat kid in the corner scrapes his nails down the chalkboard. It's the kind of thing that makes you see red, and hear leprechauns.

 

And, yes, I cross the street when I need to venture past the buzzer in question.

 

It's less like sound, and more like having your eardrums pierced. Imagine someone screaming in your ear at 80dB. Just because it's at 16Khz, doesn't mean it's any less irritating... it makes it moreso. It's a dog whistle for people with good hearing.

 

Still, I don't think any of us can judge the situation properly without being there and seeing (and hearing) the full situation for ourselves. If the shoppes are all golf attire thrift stores... so much the better. You teenieboppers can cry to your mums that the sound hurts your ears, and you won't have to sit around for an hour while your grandpa gets fitted for his woolens!

 

Now if it was outside my local concert hall... then there would be cause for complaint. And an ass woopin'. The triangle just isn't as effective when the upper harmonics are drowned out by a piezo buzzer.

[ydoaPs]

You've obviously never heard one of these things. And the writer of the article probably hasn't either' date=' considering that they are most likely in their 30s or 40s, and even if they have heard one of these things... that was 20 years ago.

 

There is one of these things around where I live, and I can't walk by the area without going into a rage, because the sound is more than annoying; it is painfully loud, AND AT 16KHZ! The telletubbies got progressively irritating...Hitler got progrssively irritating... Mosquito buzzers are like lemon juice to the eyes... for the ears; repeated punches to the spine while some fat kid in the corner scrapes his nails down the chalkboard. It's the kind of thing that makes you see red, and hear leprechauns.

 

And, yes, I cross the street when I need to venture past the buzzer in question.

 

It's less like sound, and more like having your eardrums pierced. Imagine someone screaming in your ear at 80dB. Just because it's at 16Khz, doesn't mean it's any less irritating... it makes it moreso. It's a dog whistle for people with good hearing.[/quote']

so, how again is this targeting loiterers instead of young people? how isn't it descriminatory?

[Phi for All]

Try as I might, I can't justify any discrimination angle regarding the "Mosquito". If the Wyvern Theatre had decided to spend more money and have devices installed that, after normal hours, suddenly began playing the Teletubby theme while posters of the kids show unrolled themselves on every wall it would probably have the same effect of driving the teens away. I doubt anyone would bring up the discrimination angle even though it would be targeted at the same people (less effectively, since we all know vandalism would increase).

 

I still don't like the Mosquito, but I would argue more along the lines of what AzurePhoenix was saying, that this is a dangerous road to allow people to go down when talking about deterrants. I realize it's a Slippery Slope fallacy but I think those are most often valid.

 

The Mosquito sets a bad precedent. Do we know the long term effects of sounds like this? Could this annoying sound cause barely sane people who are close to the edge to plunge over it? If annoying sounds can be used to drive unwanted people away, can pleasing subliminal sounds be found and used to lure us in or change our feelings or make us vote differently?

[Rocket Man]

brilliant device of discrimination!

that's so annoying, and painful!

i can hear right up to 22 khz and intend to keep it that way. the article says it's harmless, i wouldnt trust it. loud HF can do serious damage, cramps the muscles dampening the noise in the inner ear, takes ages to hear straight again.

if you cant hear it, you'll probably feel something like pressure on your eardrum, the ear responds to the HF and dampens the sound but the sound isnt heard by the ear drum so you probably wont hear much else while it's running either. you'll feel like something is loud but you wont be able to hear it.

ear plugs/head phones wont do anything, the pitch is just too high, it's too far from the normal range to drown out with music and the majority of ear plugs dont respond well to those frequencies

 

love the idea of the ultra-sonic ring tones though, must get one.

[Phi for All]

so, how again is this targeting loiterers instead of young people? how isn't it descriminatory?

Listen, you'll get nowhere with discrimination because the loiterers are breaking the law. This isn't being used inside to keep certain people out, it's being used to disperse people who are lingering and causing problems. Bring up discrimination when the product is used inside a store to annoy unwanted clientele.

 

If anything, it can be argued that the Mosquito is doing these teens a favor by not involving the police. Crime is down in the area and the loitering problem is solved. I still don't like it but you can't yell "Discrimination!" when targeting criminals. Am I discriminating against shoplifters when I hire an off-duty policeman to patrol the mall at Christmas time? Aren't shoplifters just as valid a group as loiterers? The fact that these loiterers are under the age of 25 is secondary in this situation.

[ydoaPs]

Listen, you'll get nowhere with discrimination because the loiterers are breaking the law.

not all people in the area are loitering

 

 

I still don't like it but you can't yell "Discrimination!" when targeting criminals.

it's not targeting criminals. it is targeting young people.

 

Am I discriminating against shoplifters when I hire an off-duty policeman to patrol the mall at Christmas time?

that is a strawman. your scenario has criminals being targeted while the actual one doesn't. it just has young people targeted. a more apt analogy would be "am I discriminating against blacks when i hire an off-duty policeman to patrol the mall and pay special attention to african americans at christmas time?"

[Rocket Man]

my opinion if your interested;

 

it's not "progressively more annoying", it's just plain painful.

 

loiterers can be deterred by this, which is a good point, however the discrimination angle says that who ever walks past, (non-loiterers) and can hear it are treated differently to those who can. (probably not the best choice of words, but relates it to the definition of discrimination)

 

causing pain to people who can hear it and leaving the others alone to shop at their leisure.

 

as far as i can tell, it fits the definition of discrimination.

[Phi for All]

not all people in the area are loitering

WRONG! Anyone hanging around the theatre after hours long enough to be affected is loitering.

 

 

it's not targeting criminals. it is targeting young people.

WRONG! It's targeting loiterers, who are criminals, who happen to be young in this particular instance.

 

that is a strawman. your scenario has criminals being targeted while the actual one doesn't. it just has young people targeted. a more apt analogy would be "am I discriminating against blacks when i hire an off-duty policeman to patrol the mall and pay special attention to african americans at christmas time?"

WRONG AGAIN! Do you think being young is the cause of the problem at the Wyvern Theatre? Do you think the owners said, "Man! I really hate the fact that our clients are so young, let's do something to drive them away!" No, they said, "We can't get those kids to stop loitering out there in the square in front of the theatre. They are causing disturbances, vandalizing the place and driving business away. They ignore the signs we put up and so they are breaking the law. What can we do besides call the police?"

 

My scenario is NOT a strawman because loiterers and shoplifters are both breaking the law. How can you not see that the loitering caused the Wyvern to purchase this equipment? Why would they spend their money because someone is young?

 

Is it just me? Does anyone else think the Wyvern paid money to solve a youth problem instead of a loitering problem?