I think a lot of things are ridiculous, but those are the rules, dont like it fight to get it changed. The problem is if you are under 18 nobody will listen.
which is why i am voicing out about it in the first place as i dont view it to be right
I think a lot of things are ridiculous, but those are the rules, dont like it fight to get it changed. The problem is if you are under 18 nobody will listen.
and how does that relate to shopping at a mall??
if anything, the irresposnible 25 year old should not be allowed to shop by your logic as he is irresponsible while the 15 y/o should as he is responsible
i mean you are the one that said thae mall does not want irresponsible people shopping lol
The point is if you are over 18 you can do whatever you want. Just because you might be a smart responsible 16 year old doesn't mean anything in the real world. That is how it goes. You might not like it but thats the law.
i like how you edited out the rest of my post that illustrated that it was people over 18 that are causeing riots and hence being irresposnsible
that in itself prooves the 18 age limit is utter rediculous
The point is if you are over 18 you can do whatever you want. Just because you might be a smart responsible 16 year old doesn't mean anything in the real world. That is how it goes. You might not like it but thats the law.
You have got to be kidding me. By law any person under the age of 18 is considered a minor, and by law is the responsibility of a parent or guardian. If a mall wants to say you need a parent or guardian to shop they have that right.noooo show me the law then that says a 16 y/o cant shop at a mall
a "policy" is not a law and any "policy" that practices discrimination is unlawful
i mean i cant make a "policy" to not hire disabled people and not be forced to change it as it is discrimintaing and illegal
So would you be okay with the age limit for serving alcohol to minors to be abolished, where the 10year old seemed (to who, the shop keeper?) responsible? Who gets to decide who is and isn't responsible? The government excluded you from holding a driving license until you were of age, 18years old?, were you not as responsible at 17years 300days? then why did the government exclude you from driving at that time?
And why is that, because a 16 year olds brain has not developed yet. So how can they be responsible if their brain isn'tI got my driver's license at 16.
Also, it is not just the effect of alcohol on people that barred minors from drinking, but also the damage of alcohol to brain development.
A few posts back you were arguing that the mall operators actions were wrong because all that mattered was "...what is defined by LAW and law alone" now you're arguing that any arbitrary distinction of legal responsibility by age is ridiculous.
it is illegal so no. read my posts. thought i made it clear on the difference between ILLEGAL activites vs legal ones...such as a 10y/o shoppingSo would you be okay with the age limit for serving alcohol to minors to be abolished, where the 10year old seemed (to who, the shop keeper?) responsible?
Who gets to decide who is and isn't responsible? The government excluded you from holding a driving license until you were of age, 18years old?, were you not as responsible at 17years 300days? then why did the government exclude you from driving at that time?
Wasn't sure of the actual age for driving around the world, but the same point is valid. Were you as responsible at 15 and a half as 16? was you friend as responsible as you were at 16 when he was 16 and a half? etc. etc.I got my driver's license at 16...
So? Surely if a 10year old is responsible then the risk to his brain's development is his to take?...Also, it is not just the effect of alcohol on people that barred minors from drinking, but also the damage of alcohol to brain development.
So you wouldn't be in favour of changing any law?...it is illegal so no. read my posts. thought i made it clear on the difference between ILLEGAL activites vs legal ones...such as a 10y/o shopping...
Why don't we just put *everyone* in jail? That way there'll be no crime at all!How do you know who the good kids are until after they are in the mall. Why wait for the fight to happen when you can stop it all together.
Wasn't sure of the actual age for driving around the world, but the same point is valid. Were you as responsible at 15 and a half as 16? was you friend as responsible as you were at 16 when he was 16 and a half? etc. etc.
So? Surely if a 10year old is responsible then the risk to his brain's development is his to take?
And why is that, because a 16 year olds brain has not developed yet. So how can they be responsible if their brain isn't
ROTFLOLBesides, if they get too uppity for you, you can always beat them off with the stick up your ***.
ExactlyNot all teenagers are foodfighting, thieving retards roaming malls. Some just like to have a place to eat and meet with friends, peacefully.
If a mall said all persons under 30 need a parent present that would be stupid right. And it would not be legal, why because a 30 year old is an adult. Now if a mall says no persons under 18 are allowed without an adult that is legal because a person under 18 is a minor. The mall has a right to keep unsupervised minors out.
It is a private building, the owners can say who and who can't enter.
30 and 18 no, but 30 ad 17 yes. One is an adult, the other is not. If a store wants to set a rule saying no persons under 18 without an adult they have that right.ROTFLOL
Exactly
Actually by your own logic yes they could "legally" say that 30yr olds needed a parent. Would they? No, because it is stupid, but as you said:
Just because a property owner "can" do something, doesn't mean they should.
Being 30, doesn't give someone any more right to shop in a mall than an 18yr old. There is NO legal distinction between 30, and 18 year olds with regards to shopping. Being a minor has nothing to do with shopping.
For the record Im 26
So, by extension, property rights mean nothing??
So you're the one that keeps "borrowing" my garden gnomes.
I'll let the kids know that your front lawn has a nice tree on it. They love the shade it provides.
NO, if a person under 21 is siting under his tree and is drinking a beer who gets in trouble, the person drinking or the property owner that allowed it to happen. It is a liability issue. Property owners don't want to be held responsible."Borrowing" other people's garden gnomes is stealing, which is illegal. Shopping isn't.
Now, letting kids all go into todd2000's lawn is trespassing because it is a private property that does not allow access to anyone other than the owners and their approved guests. But if todd2000 lets any random person over 18 to go sit and chill under the tree, but requires people under 18 to be accompanied by someone over 21 to sit under the tree, that's discrimination.
NO, if a person under 21 is siting under his tree and is drinking a beer who gets in trouble, the person drinking or the property owner that allowed it to happen. It is a liability issue. Property owners don't want to be held responsible.
I would like to get a lawyers take on all this as all we are doing is spinning tires.
That's not really the point. The point is that it is unfair if he lets any random person go sit under his tree, yet bans all the kids. Now if someone underage is drinking, then he has every right to report them and/or chase them off of his property, but he can't just chase off kids that are just sitting there, enjoying the shade.
However, using your example, the mall should not let anyone under 21 to be allowed in without supervision.
Drastic, but if the STATE interferes with corporal punishment, and restrictive measures prove unworkable, then there is little choice left to the parent.