If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
How is that different from what I said? It's designed to stop young people from gathering, and as such, is used against innocent young people who wouldn't be causing a nuisance. It is by definition designed for use against innocent people, because it is only effective before any anti-social behaviour begins. No-one's going to leave an already confrontational situation as a result of this device.
It's called an analogy, we could replace race by hair colour or sex or whatever you want. Again, why is it ok to discriminate against age but not against race?
so in hackney, a device i invent device only gets rid of black people who statistically are more likely to be involvedin crime there even if most of the black people aren't doing anything wrong
is that okay because of resident's safety?
I think your still failing to grasp the anology, either that or your playing dumb to avoid the question. http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Analogy
You proposing limiting freedom of movement based on age because a minority of youths cause trouble. How is that any better than limiting freedom of movement based on race? Why is one OK and the other not?
This race issue is being used to highlight your hypocracy.
That'll make my gran happy. :rolleyes:
I do know that a gps unit that can be surgically placed under the skin has been invented for use on young people for making their parents feel safer, " knowing that their children don't go to dangerous locations ".
Are all young people neds wanting to rob shop-owners, being high on ecstacy? etcetera, etcetera....
By all means, punish the ones who actually do these kind of things, but that's no excuse whatsoever to install devices that affects everyone in a certain group (in this case young people).
Is it? I'll think you'll find that anywhere the majority of kids do break the law. It doesn't matter anyway. Your prepared to take away the right of those who've done nothing wrong in order to make you feel safer. That's fucked up.
Of course it's a sensative subject. Racism is descrimination based on skin colour and it's wrong, just because agism is more 'accepted' doesn't make it any mroe right or 'equal' whatever that means.
And what extra problems will descrination by race cause?
Yes though it's obvious you still don't grasp the anology .
I don't know what you mean by distrubed? If you mean distrubed by hanging around public places, dossing around in the streets because we had noting else to then yes fuck em. Until I commit a crime, until I keep somebody awake through constant noise than yes fuck em - who the fuck are they to tell me to move on. Why should I have been punished for doing nothing wrong?
I'm all up for punishing those that are actaully anti social but this box punishes ALL youths before they've done anything wrong.
You belief that's it's only bad kids that doss around outside in public areas is rubbish.
Why is that an issue?
It's aimed to to keep young people away all the time and prevent trouble. It's not to disperse kids once trouble has started - that wouldn't work, certainly wouldn't be as effective as an old bill car.
And surely it'll just move troublesome kids somewhere else.
:yes: most people my age have this as a ringtone, I know people that will walk through school corridors playing that sound, and it's not that bad; though it could be annoying if you were subjected to it for a long time
I hang around outside shops usually waiting for a friend. My friends hang around outside shops smoking. We aren't yobs.
Young people standing outside a shop on a street does not automatically equal yobs. This kind of ultrasonic system is used in gardens to ward of pests. I find it pretty disgraceful that the same is happening to people's children and young adults. Whoever installs this device is not respecting an intergral part of society. It is ridiculous.
Freedom of movement. A basic human right.
They have got rights, agreed. They have the right to protection from threating/violent behaviour and criminal activity.
However they don't have the right to move poeple along just because they don't like them being there which is what you're propoising. When that happens the rights of the people being moved on are violated.
When kids are causing trouble I'm all up for moving them on.
You understand the black anology yet?
What's the difference in descrimination against race and the descrimination against age? Why is one OK and not the other? Why is agesim more accepted in society and do you think it should be?
The products used to move away unwanted groups of teenagers - as advertised by the manafacturers. This is despite the fact they may not have done anything wrong. Anybody can buy it and put it up anywhere.
Right, so go back a 100 years and you'd be all for the deterrent that only worked on black people because back then it was far more acceptable?
And as said, all you're doing is moving the minority of troublemakers to a different area whilst affecting the majority of people who are law abiding. But of course since they're not in YOUR area anymore, then who gives a fuck? :rolleyes:
Yeah and another poster on here says she finds the noise extremely irritating to her ears. By normal young people I'm assuming you mean the ones who don't cause trouble yadayada but then the system doesn't distinguish between those that cause trouble and those that don't. It affects all so no I don't think you will find ANY young people going into that sweet shop.
Would you still be argueing your point if it was restricted to affect black people in some miraculous way? I know you think that racism is a more 'sensitive' issue but ageism is equally a prejudice.
Again we go back to the black people thing because can you really distinguish between racism and ageism? Both are examples of prejudice so why is ageism acceptable and racism not??
WHY is ageism more acceptable than racism? I don't understand how you can fail to see the comparison in this analogy.
Yes but using this device is ageist. It discriminates because of age right? You can't argue with that really! I'm guessing from your avoidance of this topic is that you would have a problem with black people being the demograph yet you don't have a problem with young people being the demograph. So...ageism...racism..?? Are they not both forms of prejudices??
What's the difference in descrimination against race and the descrimination against age? Why is one OK and not the other? Why is agesim more accepted in society and do you think it should be?
Of course it is. The whole issue is about descrimination.