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.

I always fear that such people would find themselves jobs in positions of sensitivity and authority e.g. Teaching or Social Work

The pp who thinks that morals are absolute and doesn't understand grey areas claims to be a teacher!
Which is worrying, I agree.

Assasinated, I was snarky, apologies.

I don't disagree, in the cases of stealing and lying generally. But, returning to the point of the thread, I struggle to find an exception that would justify lying in this specific circumstance

And you won't - there isn't one, or one of the defenders of this behaviour, which isn't disgusting or shocking but is still clearly wrong, would have given it by now.

I booked a hotel it was adult price for a 16yr old so I said she was 15, why should I pay for an adult when she's still at school

"Disgusting and shocking"

Sheesh, get a life!

Give it up will you Trifle, your only argument is to just keep shouting "its wrong because it just is and I say it is".
At least put some 'effort into it!

Or explain to us all why we should care whether you think something is wrong or not?

Anybody who disagrees with you doesn't need to justify to you, only to themselves.

But would having a discussion thread not be rather pointless if no one justified any of their opinions? I'd have just said, "No, OP, I don't think you should" and you'd have said "Yes, OP, that's fine" and that would have been the end of it.

If no one is required justify their view, or be prepared to have it challenged, MN might as well just introduce voting buttons for AIBU and get rid of the facility to have a meaningful debate.

Its not about any and all opinions, Arch, but personal moral codes, which do not need to be justified to anyone.

There is nothing wrong with "I think you shouldn't because X", or "I think its wrong because of Y", and the counter arguments. But there is something wrong "It just is objectively wrong and you all know it and you are just making excuses because you know its wrong because it is"

You see my point?

Trifle and Arch: I am content with my morals and will take the consequences of my actions.

You would not behave in the same way, and it is your prerogative to disapprove of my morals and even to report me for my behaviour.

You may make moral choices with which I disagree, but until you post on a thread about them, I'm not going to know, so I'm at a disadvantage in the judging stakes.

limitedperiodonly:

I completely get all of this. I am simply asking for an explanation as to why you believe this is moral. I clearly don't, but I can accept you might. What I am asking for (and no-one has to give it, but this is a discussion forum) is a morally consistent explanation of it: why is this different from other types of theft and fraud, where people lie in order to cheat others out of payment due, for items or services they don't need? To me, that's dishonest and it is wrong. Why is that not correct, in your view?

Teacher, foster carer, other responsible jobs. I've supervised contact btn children and their families, and record the strengths and concerns in the care given. I have written and delivered training for various positions.
We all make individual choices, and decide whether or not to follow the rules. Sometimes it is better to break the rules for a better outcome. But you are still breaking the rules. That is all I have ever said on this thread. That I would not lie to avoid paying for my child.

Perhaps I am unlikeable and unapproachable but I do not lack critical thinking skills and I do not name call other posters or accuse them of unpleasant personal attributes. I have described behaviours and actions. I wonder why some of you dislike that so much?

I am getting confused by this thread

Lying to get in somewhere cheaper or free is fundamentally dishonest

Could be construed as theft at least fraud as some posters have said

Dh did it once when we were on holiday as there was an arbitrary cut off and the oldest child was smaller than the younger

You could argue we do it when we put all five of us in a four bed room (its a stupid rule to be fair)

But i do know that its naughty

Should say that dh did pay for the child on holiday, just not the adult amount at 13 they wanted to charge

I see your point, Spartacus, but I don't, in real life, stand round policing the gates at theme parks or march up to people unasked and start telling them they should be paying for their three year old to get into the zoo. If someone asked me in real life, I'd give an opinion; if someone gave me a counter-opinion I'd think it was reasonable to ask them to justify it. I think I've explained at some length on this thread the reasons why I think this particular example of lying is wrong - no one is forced to agree with me.

Sookie - re. they cannot accept they are in the minority - there's a difference between recognising one is in the minority, and agreeing that that makes one wrong. For instance, if (say) you voted for the Liberal Democrats or the Green Party in the last General Election, you were in a minority - the Conservatives won the majority - does that mean anyone who didn't vote for the Conservatives should change their political allegiance to match that of the majority?

I think (Sookie) you need to accept that not everyone will go along with the crowd and say 'Oh, yes, actually you're right' where to do so would conflict with their own moral principles.

Trifle do you have a similar user name to someone else or do we usually disagree quite a lot?

Speeding is wrong because if you speed the chances of having an accident and injuring people/damaging property are increased. A two and a half year old getting into a zoo for free doesn't hurt anyone. In fact it may increase the zoo's business if it means more families visit and the rest of the family pay. Therefore whether or not it is morally "wrong" is debatable.

That's what I think Roomster101.

I was on a thread about restaurants that don't take bookings. I said I never went to them - their choice of business model; my choice whether to accept it.

However, I always go to one which allows me to circumvent their no-booking policy by being a regular customer and a big tipper.

When I turn up they pretend I am at the head of the queue but was waiting in a nearby bar for a text, rather than queuing at their restaurant. People were very annoyed at this.

But who's the biggest sinner? Me, for pushing in by handing over £20, or the restaurant for operating a bogus egalitarian system?

I don't know. All I know is that I get to eat when I want.

picklemepopcorn:

Hmm, am not totally sure

Incidentally, re. teaching/social work - I didn't mean to disparage them as professions when I said I'd rather work in the sewers (I realised afterwards that sounded rather rude, sorry).

I admire people who are cut out for those roles - it's just that I'm not, and would hate either job.

ArchNotImpudent:

That's alright, Arch. You have been scrupulously courteous on this thread - I think that earns you the benefit of any doubt!

Trifle:
I'll look out for you!

Arch:
No offence taken here! There are loads of jobs that I couldn't stomach! Perfectly respectable, just not in my comfort zone. I am excessively rational and painfully empathic, which makes me useless in many environments.

Trifle Thank you ! The reality is that I'm chronically shy IRL - a room full of school children would have a field day with me quaking and gibbering at the helm, and if I were a social worker and had to meet a new client, I'd spend an hour outside their front door trying to build up courage to knock and introduce myself to them.

I suppose it's because our personal moral codes are not the same thing as the law Trifle. If I were prosecuted for obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception for lying about the age of a child in order to gain cut price entry to a zoo, then I would accept it without complaint.

I would do that because I am an adult who takes responsibility for my actions.

I don't think it's likely, so that's why I would do it. I'm not going to attempt to justify it.

People have mentioned speeding. I never speed. I passed my test in 1984 and have never picked up any points. People should drive in an appropriate manner and that includes speed. I sometimes drive through areas where I strongly suspect the speed limit is imposed as much for reasons of revenue collection as for road safety, but I still don't do it because though I might not agree with the posted limit, it is inevitable that I would be caught.

limitedperiodonly:

You don't HAVE to justify it, obviously. No-one has to say anything on a discussion forum. But if you are trying to argue that it is in line with your moral code (which is how I read your comment), then I am simply curious about how that code reads. And by saying you think it is right but refusing to explain why, you leave me rather unconvinced. Sorry!

I think I had better bow out of this thread now. I am taking the name calling very personally (and assuming I am one of the egotistical people @SookieSocks is referring to).

I believe in paying for the goods and services I use, and not lying to defraud companies of the price I should pay for their goods, and I cannot understand why some people feel this makes me such a terrible person.