[peterv]

"Lack of decency, culture and respect" is a brand of meaningless horse**** in the same general family as "the world is ****ed" and "Hooters actually has really good wings." It's just something people say because it gets said so much that everyone forgets it's just vapid sophistry. Young people are an easy object of scorn for anyone who seeks the intoxicating sense of superiority that comes from hating something, so no one complains when society gets its panties in a bunch about the young people and their degenerate behavior.

QFT

And it might sound like an exaggeration, but i think that mostly frightened people adopt such ways of thinking. (or professionals, the ones that actually sell the mosquito)

[Ghostavo]

You said in your previous post that you couldn't get arrested for making noise! That was what I was addressing!

First off I'm not sure you can get arrested for making noise. Maybe you can. I have no idea. Just a fine? I dunno.

Secondly, I never said you couldn't get arrested for making noise.

You said there were noise ordinance laws and I said "not all noise" ("Yes but "public places" aren't pin drop quiet." was the exact quote)

No one has yet shown me these things reach the level of that area's noise laws.

You said "I can go out and read the Bible in a loud squeaky voice and I doubt I will get arrested." and I said "Actually, if it's loud enough, you can.", let's leave it at that.

I think it's bad to do that to anybody, I just wanted to hear your opinion. I'm surprised anyhow. I thought people that agreed with the use of such device would abhor using it on anyone else.

If it's a legal noise, it's a legal noise.

This is not a "young people suck" argument. If it were old people complaining and it was legal, tell em to go play bingo.

Fine to hear that. (pun not so much intended)

Yeah, that's what I'm curious about. If this happened anywhere near here, the public outcry would be immense. Then again, I think people from the Netherlands would say the same thing a few months ago.  

Just thought of something. It said permanent. If they turn it on and off for business hours, is it permanent?

To me permanent would be "all the time", and if it's not on "all the time"... maybe that law doesn't apply.

Perhaps, but I would think it being on and off every business day would qualify for being permanent. We'd need a lawyer to go further into the issue.

Just to drive the point home, my reason to complain is not public assembly or freedom of association, but the inherent noise and disturbance it causes at anyone who hears it. Those who replied above who heard it seem impressed.

There is nothing wrong with the argument. There are just two issues.

1. There needs to be proof an ordinance exists in that area.

2. There needs to be proof these stores violate it.

And unfortunately, because there are groups against these things, I think they would have checked noise ordinances first. I'm not saying there aren't but the article seemed very "uh.... we're not sure what to do"

I agree, but it puzzles me really. The device's intent seems to be so easy to prove that one has to wonder how is it legal to operate it continuously in public places.

Regardless of that, after a bit of digging I found:
A reference to how loud it is and a few references about noise levels.

The first link indicates that the noise the device creates has a volume of 85 dB.

The second link indicates this is slightly below the noise level of a lawnmower. It also says 8 hours of 90dB can cause damage.

To me it seems these devices operate at the very edge of safety.

[Inquisitor]

Sounds to me like more "I am young,  I am angry, I should be able to do whatever I want, wherever I want, to whoever I want."

I am old, I am cranky, and I want you to get off my lawn.

[Liberator]

We had an issue where the local teenagers would block traffic for 6 or 7 hours every friday and saturday night.  The city council passed an ordinance to stop that from happening.  The modified that same ordinance to stop the same people from loitering outside the area businesses.

Loitering around like that is quite dangerous, as you can get run over by the inexperienced drivers who are coming to join you.

[Blue Lion]

Perhaps, but I would think it being on and off every business day would qualify for being permanent. We'd need a lawyer to go further into the issue.

We can, but if it would apply to something that is off on some times and on on other times, they got a weird definition of "permanent" in Portugal.

I agree, but it puzzles me really. The device's intent seems to be so easy to prove that one has to wonder how is it legal to operate it continuously in public places.

Because, and this is pure speculation, that noise ordinances deal on db levels mostly and these things probably don't violate it.

Regardless of that, after a bit of digging I found:
A reference to how loud it is and a few references about noise levels.

The first link indicates that the noise the device creates has a volume of 85 dB.

The second link indicates this is slightly below the noise level of a lawnmower. It also says 8 hours of 90dB can cause damage.

To me it seems these devices operate at the very edge of safety.

I think that's the point. They're juuuuuust legal and designed to be as annoying as hell to kids to make them leave. They aren't supposed to stand outside the store 8 hours a day.

[peterv]

Sounds to me like more "I am young,  I am angry, I should be able to do whatever I want, wherever I want, to whoever I want."

This is the very nature of young people Inquisitor. And when the older ones are using such forms of violence to control them (to scare them actually, all of them) what i understand is that the last thing that they deserve is respect.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

If only someone could invent such a device to be used in general discussion.  It could start off on your third post in any one topic and get more annoying the more you post.  Double, triple, etc posts would multiply the effect exponentially.    

In order to be on topic:
While you may the sidewalk and are responsible for taking care of it or if someone falls on it it is a right of way and you cannot prevent anyone from using or standing on it.  Same with streets and alleys.  If I look at my property line it extends half way out into the street and alley.  The utility companies also has right of ways on my property.  

One other important thing is that while this device has been studied it has NOT been found to be safe.  No one knows what long term repeated exposure to it will do to a person.

[DarkBasilisk]

I hate that sound, so much. Although ironically some teenagers now use it as a cellphone ringtone so they can hear their phone in class without alerting the teacher

Meh, I'm a bit torn on this one. I can see what Blue Lion's saying to a degree, but it sounds like in this case there might be a decent legal argument to why they *can't* do it thanks to possibilities of it being physically harmful (which I think is pretty reasonable, if this thing tends to make your ears hurt after a few minutes, that's not a good sign. Pain is the body's way of warning that something bad's happening and you should stop it, when you don't listen you tend to get hurt) and fun with subtleties in the constitution and property laws.

Morally I'm completely against it. First off, Blue Lion gives a great example, people over 25 with good hearing can still hear the sound. With each year you're becoming more and more ridiculous saying you have to keep away these people. It doesn't differentiate between perfectly decent people and the ones causing a problem (who are likely a minority unless the Dutch have a movie-like raging population of unruly teenagers that go out and break stuff everyday). We've got a lot of psychological studies (mostly done with animals thank God) that indicate living creatures tend to go into a horrible depressive slump when they're repeatedly punished for no apparent reason. If this doesn't cause physical problems it's going to mess with peoples heads. Not to mention that the productivity of this doesn't justify the cost. As people have mentioned: the whole thing might leave a lasting association that causes people to avoid the store for years after they stopped hearing the sound, parents aren't going to want to go their with kids in tow since they'll freak out, it's actually driving kids inside stores where they're being more of a problem, and most importantly: does the data really say where these kids are going now? It says reports of disturbances in those areas are down a lot, but does that really tell the whole story? I can't think that groups of people just decided to stop all activity. They've probably moved somewhere else and are causing problems over there.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

OK I'm almost 40 and that made me feel like my ear was going to bleed.  For some reason only the left one but I'm guessing that is due to a bad ear infection in my right one a few years back that resulted in some hearing loss.

[Mr. Vega]

Sounds to me like more "I am young,  I am angry, I should be able to do whatever I want, wherever I want, to whoever I want."

I am old, I am cranky, and I want you to get off my lawn.

That's right, all young people want to do is play around on your lawn and annoy you. God forbid we want to do terrible things like have a conversation outside a store without having our ears in pain from a device bought by a store owner with a bug up his ass. So **** off. World doesn't revolve around you and your lawn. Why don't I scream a horn at you for daring to talk outside a store.

Also, just because you're "old" doesn't exempt you from not being an asshole because of a knee-jerk reaction. Try using those brain cells that are still alive for a change before saying "those darn evil kids, how dare they want to talk in a public place."

[Liberator]

It's not that you want to have conversations outside a store.  It's that you want to have conversations outside a store for HOURS, usually during peak shopping hours.

[Mr. Vega]

So we're talking outside a store. So what? Are we harassing incoming and outgoing customers? No. We're talking outside a store. What exactly is your point? That there should be time limit on how long conversations of people younger than 21 can be in a public place? Do we need to issue talking licenses now?

Oh and PS: just be glad I'm not Kazan

[Blue Lion]

So we're talking outside a store. So what? Are we harassing incoming and outgoing customers? No. We're talking outside a store. What exactly is your point? That there should be time limit on how long conversations of people younger than 21 can be in a public place? Do we need to issue talking licenses now?

Oh and PS: just be glad I'm not Kazan

I'm gonna go with the same reason you dislike the buzzers: they find it really annoying.

But really, I don't care WHY. Let them think you're all possessed by Satan for all I care. If he's breaking the law, take him to court. If he's not, go stand somewhere else.

[Mr. Vega]

And healthy societies don't have these problems because there's a willingness to settle things by peaceful discussion rather than legal or physical means. It's only when things start to come apart and everyone hates each other that we see **** like people trying to drive others away from them with ear-splitting devices. Encouraging this behavior is not beneficial to society, I can promise you that.

This is not a "young people suck" argument. If it were old people complaining and it was legal, tell em to go play bingo.

Except if old people complained it would be stopped quickly. There's a double standard in the real world and if you don't think prejudice is what's driving the use of these things you're really naive.

[Mr. Vega]

Spose the sound could only be heard by and thus could only be used upon black people, would it still be socially acceptable? Alas, anyone under 21 is an acceptable target. And that's the only reason this bs is going down.

[Mr. Vega]

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Extreme exhibit A: Jim Crow. Legal? Hells yeah up until 1954. Did that make it ok?

[Blue Lion]

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Extreme exhibit A: Jim Crow. Legal? Hells yeah up until 1954. Did that make it ok?

It's a shame we didn't pass new laws and amendments to change that. I think it's really sad that discrimination is allowed to go on legally.

What? They changed the laws? It's illegal now? The hell you say.

 

[Mr. Vega]

So you agree that that kind of harassment should be illegal? Bout time.

[Blue Lion]

So you agree that that kind of harassment should be illegal? Bout time.

No, I think it's just fine.

[Mr. Vega]

Ok then, since you don't seem to be using the "It MUST be ok if it's legal" argument anymore, why then? Principle of private property?

And before we go any further, do you honestly think prejudice has nothing to do with these devices' use? You never heard of the juvenile delinquency scare in the 50s? It's happened.