# Cranky old people rejoice!



## Andrew Green (Nov 30, 2005)

There is now a way to keep teenagers away!

http://news.com.com/Whats+the+buzz+Teens+cant+stand+it/2100-11395_3-5974937.html?tag=nefd.top

Is this ethical?  should it be legal?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 30, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> There is now a way to keep teenagers away!
> 
> http://news.com.com/Whats+the+buzz+Teens+cant+stand+it/2100-11395_3-5974937.html?tag=nefd.top
> 
> Is this ethical? should it be legal?


 In the old days, crank old people would just start a story with 'When I was a kid......' and the teenagers would scatter.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 30, 2005)

Ingenious! Twisted, but ingenious!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 30, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Ingenious! Twisted, but ingenious!


 My grandfather had a digital watch with an alarm on it.  He couldn't hear it.  It used to drive me nuts.  I'd go fishing with the old man at the river, and he'd be a good 200 yards down stream, his watch beeping away, him oblivious.  

Me, I could hear the watch 200 yards away, and i'd yell down stream 'Pa, your watch is going off'.  He'd hold it up to his ear, shake his head, hold it up to his ear again.  Finally, after beeping for 10 minutes, it'd quit on it's own.  It was kind of a running joke.

Now, several years later, i'm 31, my grandfather is still around, still unable to hear his watch.  Now, though........ I can't hear it either.  We just turn the TV up together, and enjoy the peace and quiet.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 30, 2005)

Interesting.

Now, if we can find one that keeps old people off the road...



OOH. Or that works on pesky neighbors!


----------



## arnisador (Nov 30, 2005)

Beeping watches have always been a huge aggravation to me too...but I can still hear them!

But, a buzzing watch that drives away teenagers....hmmmm.


----------



## Sam (Nov 30, 2005)

That's just wrong


----------



## arnisador (Nov 30, 2005)

Turn up the volume! We have a teenager in here!


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 30, 2005)

I like the concept of it, my only issue is that I know myself I have very sensitive ears and hearing range, so though they say something like that is just annoying, I personally would have a fear of pain (I don't like pain) if I needed to enter a store that had this going.... and what happens if you've got some kid shopping with mom and dad with a similar problem, you could do damage to the kid, especially if they are way young and can't articulate the problem and mom and dad don't know this device is in use...


----------



## Eternal Beginner (Nov 30, 2005)

My first reaction is "how terrible!".  My second reaction is "where do I get one?" 

Ever since my daughter started highschool we have been inundated with hordes of giggling girls and goofy boys.  They are all good kids but some just don't have that "it's time to go home" gene in their bodies.

I wish I had this device for about midnight every Friday and Saturday.  I love having them here (even though they are eating me out of house and home) but not ALL night!!!!


As far as ethical goes, as long as it doesn't hurt the kids, why not?  They said it hasn't been tested by hearing experts, so until that is done I don't think it should be used.  There is nothing wrong with shopkeepers protecting their merchandise in a harmless manner.


----------



## Gin-Gin (Nov 30, 2005)

I like the idea. It doesn't hurt the teenagers' ears (as far as we know), just annoys them enough to leave; I know that when I was that age, I was a PITA too.  While I believe that the teenagers have a right to shop there, if they're being disruptive & not shopping, the business owners have a right to protect their merchandise, staff, & customers. 





			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> Interesting. Now, if we can find one that keeps old people off the road... OOH. Or that works on pesky neighbors!


Definitely! I have annoying neighbors whose TV I can hear in my apt after Midnight. And, my boss' 81 yr old mother in law had a very bad car accident recently; she & two other members of the family were severely injured (bad judgment & pulled out in front of oncoming traffic). Now she's going through physical therapy & still wants to drive! :erg:


----------



## arnisador (Nov 30, 2005)

What I want is one of those devices that interfere with cell phones. I would have so many opportunities to use it!


----------



## Kreth (Nov 30, 2005)

Since the cutoff seems to be 20, I'm sure some of the bars here would be willing to conduct field tests.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 30, 2005)

I'd say that further testing is probably called for.  I wouldn't feel comfortable using or promoting this device without evidence of it's safety.  My fear would be the potential liability of damaging someone's hearing.

If it can be demonstrated to be safe, I think it's a wonderful idea.  The "bird flu" excuse was brilliant.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 30, 2005)

That won't work.  It'd never get past the iPod.


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 30, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> That won't work.  It'd never get past the iPod.



SSSsssssshhhhhhHHHHHH!!!!  Don't tell the kids!

- Ceicei


----------



## arnisador (Nov 30, 2005)

Our paper ran the story today. Heh.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 1, 2005)

Sorry, I dont find this amusing.

Keep finding ways to treat young people like they're inhuman, they'll continue to treat adults with indifference.  Why do you think they use the iPods?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 1, 2005)

> Keep finding ways to treat young people like they're inhuman, they'll continue to treat adults with indifference. Why do you think they use the iPods?


 
Treating adults with indifference is a developmental stage.


----------



## Sam (Dec 1, 2005)

He's right though, about the Ipods. My dad was yelling at me the other day and he didnt even see the earbuds in my ears because - well, I dont know why. But my hand in my hoody pocket turned the volume up loud enough that I couldnt hear him while he still thought he was chewing me out. I wish I bought one when they first came out


----------



## arnisador (Dec 1, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Sorry, I dont find this amusing.
> 
> Keep finding ways to treat young people like they're inhuman, they'll continue to treat adults with indifference. Why do you think they use the iPods?


 
I understand your point. The story I read talked about a store using it to combat persistent loitering by teens that was annoying to customers. Is that a bad idea?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 1, 2005)

My daughter's in high school, and she recently told me that the police prevent them from "hanging out" on the streets in the town during their lunch periods.  Apparently the merchants don't like it because it "scares away the customers."  

I said, "Really?  You ARE the customers." 

I suggested the thousand or so high schoolers stop buying their pizza, ice cream, bagels, Chinese food, burgers, and sodas for a week or two, and instead bring lunch from home.  Then see how happy the merchants are without those horrid loiterers.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 1, 2005)

I think this is a bad idea - there are certain frequencies and colors and odors and such that can bring about seizures, so ... I'm obviously not a huge fan of this idea.

Though it sure would be nice to find a way to keep the high schoolers from coming onto our property at a rental, smoking dope and leaving their trash around.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 1, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I understand your point. The story I read talked about a store using it to combat persistent loitering by teens that was annoying to customers. Is that a bad idea?


 
Well, where the story mentioned that the loitering consisted of mouthing off to passerbys and the like, I would suggest the store owner call the cops. 

I've seen telecommercials for similar devices that use soundwaves to drive off cockroaches, rodents, and other pests from homes. It's just kinda telling to me for people to endorse a device that equates young people with cockroaches. 

And let's not kid ourselves, if these things are for real and did go on the market, they wont only be used against trash-talking punks; plenty of yuppy retail storeowners who want to attract the right clientel will be hooking these babies up to clear their stores of _any_ teenagers. Of course, it's discrimination, prejudice in the extreme, but teens can't vote, so who cares, right?

I really don't think these things would make it to the market though; if the younger the harsher, and these things are supposed to be annoying enough to drive off late teens, what would they do to passing 12-year-olds, or toddlers? 

But I digress, as usual. I suppose I should put it this way: if they came out with a device that emits sound waves that would only be annoying to women, or blacks, or gays, or hispanics, I'd expect that such devices would be, to put it lightly, frowned upon. Please tell me why one that does this to teens is any different, or any less immoral.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 1, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> My daughter's in high school, and she recently told me that the police prevent them from "hanging out" on the streets in the town during their lunch periods. Apparently the merchants don't like it because it "scares away the customers."
> 
> I said, "Really? You ARE the customers."
> 
> I suggested the thousand or so high schoolers stop buying their pizza, ice cream, bagels, Chinese food, burgers, and sodas for a week or two, and instead bring lunch from home. Then see how happy the merchants are without those horrid loiterers.


 
My undergrad college was right across the street from an extremely yuppy development; apartments and storefronts located right there.  Bunch of students would always hang out in the development; coffee shop and pizza joint mostly.

Anyway, in our class was a girl who had a notoriously obnoxious laugh; anytime she heard a joke, I had to cringe.  Imagine Elmer Fudd in a blender and you're almost in the ballpark.  I heard one day that she'd been asked to leave the yuppy development by a patrolling cop.  Why you ask?  Apparently her laughing was annoying residents/customers of the development, and they wanted her gone.  For laughing.  Not harrassing passerbys, shoplifting, or even loitering after hours.  Laughing.  

This is the image that comes to my mind when I read about this device.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 1, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Well, where the story mentioned that the loitering consisted of mouthing off to passerbys and the like, I would suggest the store owner call the cops.



In a large city, this may be a low priority issue for t he police. I understand the claim that it's discriminatory...yet, I also see the valeu in it. I am conflicted!


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 3, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> In a large city, this may be a low priority issue for t he police. I understand the claim that it's discriminatory...yet, I also see the valeu in it. I am conflicted!


 
Well I think this is starting to get into collateral issues; what you bring up here is whether the constraints on police should be merit enough for private citizens to start using these things on their own.  A valid discussion, but collateral to the issue of the mentality behind this device's invention in the first place.  I ask again, it's not cool to make machines that create irritations to drive of blacks, women, gays, hispanics, immigrants, handicapped, or pretty much any other minority group; why are so many in this thread wondering how they can get such a device that works against teens (and, according to the cut-off point of 30, young people in general)?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 3, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Well, where the story mentioned that the loitering consisted of mouthing off to passerbys and the like, I would suggest the store owner call the cops.
> 
> I've seen telecommercials for similar devices that use soundwaves to drive off cockroaches, rodents, and other pests from homes. It's just kinda telling to me for people to endorse a device that equates young people with cockroaches.
> 
> ...


 Quite frankly, who a store does and does not want to cater to is their business.  As a consumer, you also have the right not to buy their services.  

Nothing in this equation, however, necessitates the involvment of legislation of any sort.  For example, if a store utilizes a device of this sort, and the community decides it doesn't like the idea, it won't take long before the market takes care of the problem.  

When we start using the term 'discrimination' I start visualizing the term 'litigation'.  Again, a store has every right to discriminate which clientele it wants to serve (with the exception of certain politically protected classes).


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 3, 2005)

In America, there are a zillion excuses to sue...this is another of them.  I predict that as soon as a lawsuit is filed, these devices will disappear.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 3, 2005)

Then show up through back channels...sold on the Internet, maybe.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 4, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Quite frankly, who a store does and does not want to cater to is their business. As a consumer, you also have the right not to buy their services.
> 
> Nothing in this equation, however, necessitates the involvment of legislation of any sort. For example, if a store utilizes a device of this sort, and the community decides it doesn't like the idea, it won't take long before the market takes care of the problem.
> 
> When we start using the term 'discrimination' I start visualizing the term 'litigation'. Again, a store has every right to discriminate which clientele it wants to serve (with the exception of certain politically protected classes).


 
I didn't bring up legislation, you did.  On the subject though, I'm amused by the fantasy of letting the economic market take care of social issues.  God knows that that's worked in the past.  

As far as the storeowner's rights, I'll just say that I'm not quite so certain that using a device that emits irritating sound waves to everyone within an age group is as acceptable as just putting a sign saying "No teens allowed."  Just cause they have the right to discriminate doesn't mean they can use whatever means they choose to enforce it. 

Anyway, whether you use discrimination in a legal sense or as just meaning making baseless assumptions, my whole point was to show that endorsing these devices is essentially telling young people that they're unwanted, inhuman, and undeserving of any respect, just by being in that age group.  If you have no problem with this then, hey, it's your karma.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 4, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I didn't bring up legislation, you did. On the subject though, I'm amused by the fantasy of letting the economic market take care of social issues. God knows that that's worked in the past.
> 
> As far as the storeowner's rights, I'll just say that I'm not quite so certain that using a device that emits irritating sound waves to everyone within an age group is as acceptable as just putting a sign saying "No teens allowed." Just cause they have the right to discriminate doesn't mean they can use whatever means they choose to enforce it.
> 
> Anyway, whether you use discrimination in a legal sense or as just meaning making baseless assumptions, my whole point was to show that endorsing these devices is essentially telling young people that they're unwanted, inhuman, and undeserving of any respect, just by being in that age group. If you have no problem with this then, hey, it's your karma.


 Social issues are best dealt with by the community.  As for telling young people they aren't wanted in a certain store, that's the business of the store owner.  Turning it in to a huge social drama is creating a tempest in a tea pot.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 5, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Social issues are best dealt with by the community.


 
Reason being, other than to simply see status quo problems continued?  I mean, obviously racism in the south would have been best dealt with by leaving it to the lynch mobs, right?



> As for telling young people they aren't wanted in a certain store, that's the business of the store owner.


Sure, but not by using irritating sound waves to drive them off like so many rodents.  The right to tell someone to get the hell out doesn't give you a right to point a harmless taser at them.  Again, you seem to miss that I'm not arguing about rights here, just what's morally being endorsed.



> Turning it in to a huge social drama is creating a tempest in a tea pot.


 
Well I'm sure this is just something funny for you to laugh about, and I wouldn't doubt you'd be buying one yourself, but you're not at or near the targetted age group; as a 24-year-old law student, I could be affected by them.  More likely to have them turned on for me, too; I look younger than my age.  I just got involved in this thread to point out to all the "where can I get one" folks exactly what these things are saying to teens.  If you're cool with it then, like I said before, it's your karma.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 5, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Reason being, other than to simply see status quo problems continued? I mean, obviously racism in the south would have been best dealt with by leaving it to the lynch mobs, right?


 It seems you may have a problem with reality, that is if you're equating a noise maker box with racial lynching.  Maybe a little perspective would help you.  Hyperbole does not an argument make.

As for who does decide issues of morality, who do you suggest that responsibility fall on?  You?



			
				RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Sure, but not by using irritating sound waves to drive them off like so many rodents. The right to tell someone to get the hell out doesn't give you a right to point a harmless taser at them. Again, you seem to miss that I'm not arguing about rights here, just what's morally being endorsed.


 The store owner can certainly use such a device if all it does is annoy the individual.  Again, hyperbole in your choice of comparing an annoying box to tasering someone is a false argument.




			
				RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Well I'm sure this is just something funny for you to laugh about, and I wouldn't doubt you'd be buying one yourself, but you're not at or near the targetted age group; as a 24-year-old law student, I could be affected by them. More likely to have them turned on for me, too; I look younger than my age. I just got involved in this thread to point out to all the "where can I get one" folks exactly what these things are saying to teens. If you're cool with it then, like I said before, it's your karma.


 
In the future, try not to base your arguments on wild comparisons, such as comparing a noisy annoying box to racial lynchings.  That's pretty much over the top.  And, quite frankly, a bit of an insult to those victims and families of real racial lynchings.

Next thing you know we'll be hearing how this is equatable to the holocaust.  Regardless of what they may teach you in law school, not everything is a civil rights litigation issue.   Sometimes, an annoying noisy box...is JUST an annoying noisy box.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 5, 2005)

No, I'm not equating the irritating noise (more than an annoyance, as it's designed to drive them away) with lynching.  The comment about racism in the south was to illustrate the problem with leaving social issues up to the same public that created such issues in the first place.  

I chose tasering because it's the only other example of a no-harm crowd control device I could think of.  I'd say shooting them would be an unfair comparison.  

However, as you'd rather nitpick the examples I used rather than address the points, I believe we're done.


----------



## Kreth (Dec 5, 2005)

I think it would be a situational call. Consider this: Store owner sees a group of kids outside his store, hanging out, being loud and rude. He tells them to leave, they tell him to **** off... He calls the cops, and the cops tell him that they can't do anything if the kids aren't actually committing a crime. IMO, the store owner would be entirely justified in using such a device at this point.
Of course, I've been known to deal with loud neighbors who were unyielding to complaints by leaving my apartment for a couple of hours with the stereo speakers up against a shared wall and Sabbath cranked.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 5, 2005)

If it's done on the store owner's property and isn't harmful, I say, why not?


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Dec 5, 2005)

Now the question is would their be a fuss if their was something to drive "old" people away...hmmm

Personally I can ignore more than most people I know....so they would have to pretty much beat me with a stick to get me away....lol


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 5, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> No, I'm not equating the irritating noise (more than an annoyance, as it's designed to drive them away) with lynching. The comment about racism in the south was to illustrate the problem with leaving social issues up to the same public that created such issues in the first place.
> 
> I chose tasering because it's the only other example of a no-harm crowd control device I could think of. I'd say shooting them would be an unfair comparison.
> 
> However, as you'd rather nitpick the examples I used rather than address the points, I believe we're done.


 I'd say it was all an unfair comparison.  Also, you never answered my question about who, other than the community, decides moral issues?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 5, 2005)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> Now the question is would their be a fuss if their was something to drive "old" people away...hmmm
> 
> Personally I can ignore more than most people I know....so they would have to pretty much beat me with a stick to get me away....lol


 Lots of things drive old people away.  That's never been a real question.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 6, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'd say it was all an unfair comparison. Also, you never answered my question about who, other than the community, decides moral issues?


 
No, I'm not proclaiming myself the moral authority.  I just know that leaving the community to deal with social issues like prejudice doesn't fix the problem, just maintains it.  

I've said my piece on this; you obviously find nothing wrong with treating young people like rodents; that is what this device does, and that's all I meant to point out in the beginning.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 6, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> No, I'm not proclaiming myself the moral authority. I just know that leaving the community to deal with social issues like prejudice doesn't fix the problem, just maintains it.
> 
> I've said my piece on this; you obviously find nothing wrong with treating young people like rodents; that is what this device does, and that's all I meant to point out in the beginning.


 I think what I asked you was WHO you believe should be designated to decide moral matters, OTHER than the community.  It seems a simple question.  I wasn't even asking for a supported argument, just an opinion.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 6, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I think what I asked you was WHO you believe should be designated to decide moral matters, OTHER than the community. It seems a simple question. I wasn't even asking for a supported argument, just an opinion.


 
Moral matter, then, as in what is right or wrong to do, should be up to the person to decide.  Let the Falwells of the world decide which are or aren't sinners.  

Setting off buzzers to create irritating noises apparently powerful enough to drive away entire age groups goes beyond a simple moral matter though.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 6, 2005)

They could just play elevator music over the PA...same effect. 

My wife saw a demonstration of this on a morning show..kids all started squirming...adults heard nothing. 

If it doesnt cause any hearing damage i.e. its just "irritating" then so what? Either tolerate it or leave, much like the ignore feature here. Im forced to listen to irritating people all day.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 6, 2005)

This isn't really a new idea.  Check out the Sonic-Lasers that are being used to "control crowds" these days.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4857417

Yeah, I said sonic-laser...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 8, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Moral matter, then, as in what is right or wrong to do, should be up to the person to decide. Let the Falwells of the world decide which are or aren't sinners.


 Well, that's a non-answer.  You cast this as a moral issue.  Then, you've tried to switch gears, and redefine what you meant by 'moral'.  We aren't talking Jerry Falwell issues of religion, we're talking about whether or not an annoying device is 'moral' (which you cast is).  So, again, your answer is a non-answer.



			
				RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Setting off buzzers to create irritating noises apparently powerful enough to drive away entire age groups goes beyond a simple moral matter though.


 Whatever you call it, you've dodged the question of 'who decides'.  Again, another non-answer.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 9, 2005)

How about you just tell me the answer you want to hear, and I'll say that?  Might make this collateral discussion go quicker.


----------

