which is why i am voicing out about it in the first place as i dont view it to be right
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mall Rats no more?
- Thread starter grapes911
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
which is why i am voicing out about it in the first place as i dont view it to be right
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.
Whatever you want seems to be stretching it quite a bit.
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.
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?
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
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.
You must be this tall to ride, but I not that tall, tough. How dare you.
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
you are twisting my words
it is should be defined by law. until there is a law that says you must be 18 to gain rights to shop at a mall, this is redicoulous to discriminate agaiant an age group.
my example was merely to show that even people over 18 are irresponsible
tell me how the the legal responsibility is going to change by having a parent present? i mean the parent is legally responsible for the kid regardless of if present or not
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
there is no set leag age to shop. i can have my kid neighbor go buy candy and guess what its legal, even all by himself
i got my license at 16, which is if i remember under 18. fact is there is a LAW saying what age you can drive. not what age you can shop
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?
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.
So you wouldn't be in favour of changing any law?
The point is that the same rights that allow a minor to shop in a mall, give the mall owner the right to exclude anybody from shopping in his mall.
Where a mall owner chooses to impose restrictions on certain groups, in this case unaccompanied minors, he has the right to do so if it is reasonable, and I believe it is. If he excluded black people that would be unreasonable, because they are no different legally to white people, but minors are considered a separate legal group, and have restrictions on their activities in many areas.
Individually deciding which person can drive is too time consuming and costly. The majority rules, such as most 16 year old can drive responsibly and most 15 year olds can't, or most accidents were caused by 15 year olds, or when the driving age is lowered to 15 accidents rose by ___ % etc. However, majority of the teenagers do not cause chaos in the mall. Even if the food fight involved 1000 people, there are far more teenagers in the area who goes to the mall than 1000.
So if a 30 year old decides to kill himself, would we say, surely if a 30 year old is responsible, then the decision to end his life is his to take?
The brain does not stop development until you're 25 or so, and there is even a study that showed that the average human brain does not stop development until 48. Which means that a huge chunk of people above the legal drinking age is not actually "responsible" if brain development is all that you're taking into account.
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.
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.
seriously though... i wouldn't miss all the young people at the mall for a second... it would be nice if the mall was less crowded, and less annoying... i would go there more often and probably spend more money.
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
"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.
Actually, I think he is only using it as an example, since drinking age is 21. Convert that to the current issue and ages to compare. as to drinking, the under 21 drinking on another's property without permission, does not transfer responsibility to the owner, unless he/she provided the alcohol or gave permission for the underage drinker to (Hide out) there and drink.
But as to the mall issue, these children are minors and fully the parents responsibility no matter where they go, hence accountability. The alternative to an unruly child, one who refuses to obey the parent, is to make them a ward of the state. Drastic, but if the STATE interferes with corporal punishment, and restrictive measures prove unworkable, then there is little choice left to the parent.
thats so stupid?
when i go to a mall..i spend like around $100 + each visit
mostly on clothes and stuff...some food...etc
thats stupid
when i go to a mall..i spend like around $100 + each visit
mostly on clothes and stuff...some food...etc
thats stupid
That is the closest mall for me. I imagine that will lead to a huge revenue drop to the retailers that cater to young people. I bet the overpriced media stores will be finished fast.