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.

FWIW I've never stolen a chicken

Deadsouls:

I suppose I am bored like everyone else who posts here? There is nothing to be gained from anyone continuing with their posting yet there is more than one example of someone carrying on (you included), so please don't pretend I have been talking to myself

I'm not bored, I'm currently procrastinating. No you haven't been talking to yourself so maybe a bit unfair of me to single you out.

I'm not avoiding your chicken analogy - I was addressing your other points about morality and how it is complicated and multi-faceted.

I wouldn't pinch a chicken, you're right. But you seem to think this is because I'm not drawing an accurate equivalence between a product and a service. I don't pinch chickens because a) it would be messy b) it would be at a huge personal risk c) a chicken has real value for the money paid - unlike a sleeping baby in a museum.

The problem, as I see it is that:

Suppose (for the sake of argument) we accept that these organisations deliberately set the age bar lower than the age at which they actually expect children to pay (see the post from Porpoiselife who has worked in the industry). The idea of an 'unwritten' rule might give visitors reason to feel little compunction about lying, but it points to a far deeper problem in society - that we have to make rules based on the expectation that most people will lie.

If most people were routinely honest, this problem need not exist. Attractions could set the pay level at a fair level, and people would see it as fair to pay.

Lack of honesty has created this system. The only way to unpick would be for people to start being honest and paying for their two year olds.

The example of zoos and theme parks might seem trivial, but do we really want to perpetuate a culture where it's expected that people will lie and cheat?

I just want to know why you would do one but not the other

Lots of people have told you why, how come you want another one? (or are they all the people you are pretending don't exist, there are quite a few of us now, aren't there?)

I once stole a chicken. But it was alive, and it was an accident ......

Factorysettings:

"I wouldn't do it because I might get caught" - not a moral argument.

"I wouldn't do it because a chicken has value" - slightly better in theory but not in practice because A) ticket sales keep museums in business B) you're not asking for a look at the accounts before you decide to steal from these museums (so you could be contributing to their becoming insolvent) and C) unless you would be happy with people taking your stuff and choosing whether or not to pay you and how much, you don't have the right to do this to others, however much they want for their service or product.

It isn't a moral argument. It is flawed.

Lack of honesty has created this system. The only way to unpick would be for people to start being honest and paying for their two year olds

Or the system has created the lack of honesty, and the only way to unpick it (and a much fairer way than yours) is for companies to stop charging for 2 year olds.

It isn't a moral argument. It is flawed

Wow, so no only are our individual moral codes wrong (according to Oracle Trifle) but also now they aren;t even moral codes at all!
Thanks so much for teaching us......

Factorysettings:

And I will leave it there, I think. I think your moral argument (which you have at least tried to make) is a defence of stealing. You disagree. Okay.

I am asking why you believe cheating someone out of revenue

Family A: 2 parents, 2 kids. One just 3. Pays £60 to get in by fraudulently saying their 3 year old is still 2.

Family B: 2 parents, 2 kids. One just 3. They have a 2 for 1 offer. They get in for £40.

Are family A supposed to pay £80, to make family B not feel like 'mugs'?

If it is to do with cheating revenue, then that doesn't work for the above case, as the zoo is running an offer, family A weren't aware of.

Should the Zoo keep by spare 2 for 1 tickets and offer them to families who do not have them? Wouldn't that be fairer?

Some people get in with tesco vouchers, some have annual passes, some get offers, some have disabled children or are of pension age and obtain a concession. No one is going to pay the same price.

So this isn't black and white at all.

I agree, this isn't right or wrong. Rarely does anything fall into that category. It's fine.

You are asking me why I would do one and not the other, I'm telling you that personal risk informs this section, not just morality. That's very honest of me, you're welcome.

We've already established that I don't think big companies suffer as a result of lost ticket revenue of smuggled babies.

Deadsouls:

Quite alright.

And I don't think any amount of stolen profits could convince me to stick an uncooked chicken up me jumper.

gluteustothemaximus:

There are always unfairness surrounding promotional offers and so on. That is up to the attraction. It doesn't justify lying and conning them out of revenue when you aren't eligible for that offer. That is just sour grapes. If someone else has collected vouchers or bought another product that entitles them to pay less, that doesn't entitle people who haven't to pay less.

Factorysettings:

Well, quite. Perhaps in the footwell?

Or the system has created the lack of honesty, and the only way to unpick it (and a much fairer way than yours) is for companies to stop charging for 2 year olds.

But where is their incentive to do that, when they are used to people lying about their two year olds? Would they not be entitled to assume, based on the behaviour they're witnessing, that people who'd lie about their three year old being under two would lie about their six year old being under five?

I think it is a 'chicken and egg' situation, in which someone has to go first and break the cycle of 'routine' lying. Given that in this situation, it's the customers who are lying and the companies are responding to that behaviour, the customers, as initiators, should go first.

You say its chicken and egg, but then say one side is causing it, which is not a chicken/egg situation!

I think its the companies fault, and I'm surprised you put the onus for fairness and honesty on the consumer rather than the profit driven faceless corporation.

Its easy enough anyway to just switch to a height restriction, which is simple to monitor and enforce, which is what companies who actually care about the revenue loss do.

Its easy enough anyway to just switch to a height restriction

It would be worth it just to watch kids limbo under it

"Slump your shoulders and bend your knees, pet!"

Cooked chickens smell so bad

Like fart or something

Its easy enough anyway to just switch to a height restriction

I think a height restriction is appropriate in a theme park, yes - it may cause different issues in venues where there aren't height-restricted activities (would it be fair that, in a zoo, a tall three year old paid and a short four year old didn't?)

I'm surprised you put the onus for fairness and honesty on the consumer rather than the profit driven faceless corporation

In this instance, the companies aren't the ones being dishonest - the consumers are. In terms of fairness - I'd go back to the point that no one is forced to go to a leisure venue if they feel its policies are unfair.

An alternative method of unpicking the dishonesty would be for consumers simply to vote with their feet and boycott venues where they feel the charging structure is unfair.

What the companies will have to do is put a free sweets box on a high shelf near the height gage. That'll get them.

In this instance, the companies aren't the ones being dishonest - the consumers are. In terms of fairness - I'd go back to the point that no one is forced to go to a leisure venue if they feel its policies are unfair.

Well I think unfair and dishonest are equally bad sins. And while you are of course correct that no-one is forced to go, is it fair that my children would suffer because I boycott places that I feel charge unfairly? "Sorry kids, you're never going to see a penguin because mammy thinks that the zoo over charges for toddlers"........

Factory - limboing . Yes, I can picture the queue of children taking off their shoes, undoing ponytails etc!