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.

Arch you need to accept not everyone loves the sound of your own opinions as much as you do.

HTH

I'm sorry you feel you have to bow out as well, SDTG. I suspect that others are reluctant to post any more on this thread.

It's a shame - any chance of meaningful and interesting debate has been rather shut down.

It's all over bar the shouting, is the phrase that leaps to mind.

Actually SDT you werent. You managed to get your opinion and stance across without demanding everyone do the same. Unlike 2 other posters.

Arch you need to accept not everyone loves the sound of your own opinions as much as you do

HTH

Pot. Kettle. Black.

ArchNotImpudent

Someone said: It may increase the zoo's business if it means more families visit and the rest of the family pay.

You said:

If that were genuinely the case, why would the zoo not just raise the age for getting in free? No one is forcing them to charge two year olds.

I'm not saying there is any justification for cheating on the entry price. It's theft.

What I'm saying is that some businesses do not have a very good model. Again, not justification for stealing from them, but it might offer an explanation as to why so many business start-ups crash and burn within a short time.

If I was in the zoo business, what I'd think, after the welfare of the animals, would be to get people in and spending money. Therefore I'd be relaxed about the entry policy for the tinies unless someone was clearly taking the piss, and make the real money through ice creams, face painting and the inevitable gift shop on the way out.

I'm not in the zoo business but I've visited plenty and that's what they do.

Sorry MrsPeely we have not been introduced before your pathetic attempt at a PA.

Is that your only contribution to this thread?

any chance of meaningful and interesting debate has been rather shut down.

Agree. Refusing to engage with numerous posters and telling them so one after the other because they do not agree and will not be swayed by your argument was always going to do that.

by saying you think it is right but refusing to explain why, you leave me rather unconvinced. Sorry!

I'm not refusing to explain Trifle. And I'm certainly not trying to justify it. I have explained. I would lie to gain entry to a zoo and I am content with my moral code. If you don't understand that, there's nothing more I can add.

I also struggle with the hurt accusations of "name calling" when throughout this thread posters who will not bow to the opinion of the vocal few have been called "dishonest" "immoral" "thieves" "liars" and so on, both directly and indirectly. I suppose THAT kind of name calling is ok and should just be sucked up though because Right Is On Your Side?

limitedperiodonly:

That is a statement of what, not why. You don't have to explain why, but you are certainly refusing to do so, at least as far as I can see.

limitedperiodonly

Regarding zoo business models, I've wondered (since reading this thread) if actually, the reason the age is set as low as two is because they know parents will lie.

That is, if they wanted five year olds and over to pay, but knew that if they said 'under fives' parents would sneak in six and seven year olds - they'd say 'under two' with the expectation that many parents will sneak in three or four year olds (but would struggle to pass off most five-year-olds + as 'under two'). That is, the model is based on predicted dishonesty. It might be argued that that makes it 'all right' but if so, it's rather sad that this approach has to be taken.

This thread is Mumsnet at its best.

Mrs you forgot scum and shabby.

Is that your only contribution to this thread?

On the contrary.

limitedperiod is it possible for you to explain why, by your personal moral code, it is not morally wrong for you to lie about the age of your child to gain free admission? Or is it more a question of belief, rather than there being a specific reason or justification for it being the right thing to do (or at least not the wrong thing to do)?

Trifle explain what it is you want me to say and I'll oblige you. I have said what I would do in that situation. I have conceded that it is wrong but said I am content with my behaviour. What more is there to add?

... and re. zoo business models if my theory is correct, that would explain why some posters have recounted their experience of having their openly acknowledged three- and four- year olds waved through - the 'under two' age limit really means 'under fives in a society where people routinely lie about their age' limit.

AssassinatedBeauty I might have answered your question in my most recent posts. My moral code is not the law of land. Which some people would be pleased to hear.

limitedperiodonly:

Have you (up to now) conceded that it is wrong? I didn't see that. I saw you say it was in line with your moral code. I assumed (since this is the only way for me in which the idea of a 'moral code' is meaningful) that this meant you thought it was justifiable. If you don't, then fine: you know it's wrong, you do it anyway. Nothing more to be said, except that I don't think you can complain when someone decides to do the same to you!

I must be very off my game tonight limited as I really can't see where you've explained. Lying to gain entry is ok because that's what you believe? Is that it? So no reasoning or justification is needed because it's a belief?

It was John Nash, the economist and mathematician, who posited that governments end up getting more revenue if they set taxation at what most people think is fair and most people cannot afford or be arsed to circumvent.

I think the same applies to zoo entry prices. And then you get them in the gift shop...

limitedperiodonly:

That is a pragmatic argument, not a moral one.

It is would be pragmatic for Tesco to let me get away with shoplifting a chicken, if they knew the rest of my spend gave them a profit margin large enough to account for the loss of the chicken. That doesn't make it morally right for me to steal the chicken.

FFS trifle and assassinated. Do you have difficulty with comprehension?

I have never said it is right to lie about age in order to get a cheap entry price. I have done this and would continue to do this if I thought I could get away with it.

I would do this knowing it was wrong and might leave me open to criminal prosecution and the condemnation of various people as a bad person.

I do this because my moral code is not the same as the law of the land.

Now I have explained that, can you two do me the same favour and explain why (a) my moral code should be the same thing as the law of the land;

and (b) what your moral codes are? Because I might not like them and it seems only fair.

That doesn't make it morally right for me to steal the chicken

It might be. You might be starving. That's the difference between moral codes and the law.

limitedperiodonly:

Perhaps I do have difficulty with comprehension. I am having difficulty comprehending how you are defining 'moral code'. To me, a 'moral code' is a set of principles - rules that you use to define right from wrong. You, however, seem to use the term 'moral code' interchangeably with 'total lack of moral code' AKA doing what you can get away with. That is fine, as far as it goes. But it is not moral. It is amoral, having no link to right or wrong and being merely pragmatic in nature.