Lying about child's age for free admission

[user1489773847]

Costing out a day trip to the zoo, now that DC has turned two have to factor in their ticket cost. DH says that we should just say he isn't yet two so it's free, and that everyone does it. Just wondered what the general consensus is on this? I feel bad lying but see his point that DS is still pretty young and could end up napping through a lot of it so won't necessarily benefit.

sookie I think we can safely say that anyone who mounts a sensible and worthwhile argument will make it onto that list as trifle appears to be unable to cope at all when people disagree with her. I wonder how this plays out for her in RL?

Congrats to the person who DID defraud Disneyland and didn't pay the same as their fellow more honest guests. You must be very proud. I did not want my DD's birthday marred by fraud

Thank you. I do feel proud. My DD's 3rd birthday was incredible, and not at all marred.

I draw my own lines where I choose to, like anyone. There is no absolute wrong or absolute right.
If a family gets to enjoy a day at the zoo by moving a childs birthday I couldn't give a shiny shite, and I'm bemused that anyone else does. It doesn't take anything from anyone, it doesn't affect your costs, it just doesn't matter. The zoo is open anyway and could be full one day because the sun is out and empty the next because its raining....a free toddler makes no difference whatsoever.

And the zoo knows that, expects it, and doesn't care, because the places that do use height measurements or ask for proof of age.
It's a total non issue, something for the Disgusted in Tunbridge Wells crowd to flap over, thats all.

And I wouldn't be so proud of your morals if you care more about massive corporations and their profits

I prefer to make my feelings known by simply not adding to their profits at all - ie. not visiting expensive, rip-off places.

Spartacus - if you feel so strongly about money-making corporations, how do you justify going to any theme parks, regardless of whether or not you lie at the ticket office? You are still bolstering the profits you so despise.

I don't feel that strongly at all, just offering a counter view.
I pay for all my children anyway.

Did you make the mistake of thinking that someone defending a position must actually do it? You shouldn't assume such things!

I honestly feel that most of the people who are scared of keeping a few quid out of Disney's multi billion pound corporation's pockets and choose to prevent their children from having that experience because of it are probably glad of an excuse not to go anyway for whatever reason but this gives them the opportunity to be virtuous and feel good about that choice.

Yeah, fucking Disney? They don't have quite enough money? Come off it people!

trifle

I was being facetious, just making a point.

My DD4 would totally pass for under 2... but if you said anything out loud she would quickly shout, "I'm 4!".

You shouldn't assume such things!

Fair enough I'm sorry if this was unfounded.

Similarly, you shouldn't assume that disliking the idea that everyone is entitled to expensive days out at theme parks is based on a concept of you should keep those for the richer folk, keep the riff raff out altogether!

What I dislike is the idea that these things are seen as necessities and that anyone who can't experience them is somehow deprived. You mentioned 'educational experience' - there's precious little of that to be had in theme parks, and even modern zoos. However, lying and cheating to get into such places, in my view, makes what is, at best, a fairly vapid experience into a lesson in dishonesty.

@wavybluesky - you justify sneaking into the pictures by saying 'needs must' - but I think 'needs must' only applies to something you need - and no-one needs to go to the pictures - it is a 'want' not a need.

If someone justified shoplifting food to feed themselves or their family, I would have every sympathy with that - but if you can't avoid a particular treat, have a different one, or save up. That is what we have always done. I can't afford to see all the films I would like to see at the pictures, so I go occasionally, and wait for the rest of the films I fancy seeing to turn up on DVD or on the TV.

Deadsouls:

Am probably flogging ye olde dead horse here but what is the point? Why do you believe this is okay?

It's just like bumping up an insurance claim, using the road salt on your own drive, saying you have whiplash, or fly tipping.

It looks like a victimless crime, but whenever people do this as an individual, it creates an infinitesimal extra charge for everyone else. When only a few people do it and most people do not, then it doesn't make a huge difference to anyone. If it balance shifts, then everything goes up dramatically for the people who pay.

I'm not quite sure why telling lies about the age of your children to get in is a grey area, or a subtle moral issue. It isn't. Loads of people do it, clearly, and very few people seem to care and that is fine, it's a much smaller thing than calling people names, IMO. It is however, still a lie.

I'm off now. It's been really interesting.

trifle
Which? Lying about age for admission or not paying for plastic bags

Or I should say 'not always' paying for plastic bags.

Deadsouls:

Well, either. I'm being quite serious here, am just wondering.

STDG - I agree with every word of your post

It looks like a victimless crime, but whenever people do this as an individual, it creates an infinitesimal extra charge for everyone else

Except in a place like a zoo, it really doesn't. If you think it does, you don't understand the commercial principles of an attraction of that type.

This has been gone over again and again by different posters with different arguments. So I'm not going to go into one about it, but I really am ambivalent about this issue (plus plastic bags, which sometimes I pay for, and sometimes not, sometimes I forget). I don't feel/think it's a big deal. I get that you do, but I don't.

Given you are apparently going to hell you nn is quite fitting Deadsouls

Deadsouls: You're quite free to not explain, but I really don't get it

It's a total non issue, something for the Disgusted in Tunbridge Wells crowd to flap over, thats all.

I agree with ImFuckingSpartacus. The only thing that would stop me was if the child clearly looked older or couldn't be trusted to keep their mouth shut - and small children often can't. It's a big deal being six when everyone thinks you're five.

limitedperiodonly:

I really wouldn't teach my child to lie.

No. you are teaching your children to be dishonest!

Deadsouls

It's a case of where you draw the line. Once you blur the line between honesty and dishonesty, you find yourself in a position of having to decide what type or degree of cheating/lying/theft (etc.) is OK, and you've then lost the clear distinction between right and wrong and (sorry to use a cliche) it's a slippery slope.

It's possible to sympathise with dishonest acts, or allow that there were mitigating circumstances, whilst still recognising them for what they are - it's the attitude that it's fine because everyone does is, and therefore 'doesn't count' that's disturbing.

It's also worrying that some see being unable to afford a £45 entry ticket to a theme park is a 'mitigating circumstance' for dishonesty - it's not, because it's a luxury, not a necessity. It would be great to live in a world where everyone could afford all the luxuries they want, but we don't, and I don't believe that makes it right for some people to obtain luxuries dishonestly.