Wow. To begin with, how can all members of a subset ever be deemed unworthy, in advance of individual behaviour? And secondly, why on earth would "anyone but parents with children" be a suitable filter for shutting out those with "no respect for public places?"
Quick notes: Why not talk to the police? You never want to confess to a crime, get caught lying to the police or look bad in front of a court. Talking to the police = If you're guilty of this crime, you might confess to it. If you’re not guilty of this crime, you might confess to it. If you’re not guitly of this crime, and do not confess, you might confess to another crime. If you’re not guilty of any crime and do not confess, you might lie. If you’re not guilty and do not confess and do not lie…
Because a democratic society is a society of peer pressure. Don't get me wrong; democracy has a great grand total in its favour. This is but one of the shortcomings.
Fallacy. Edit: Yes, it is. Your sample fails to account for cases where police have resisted the opportunity. That's faulty reasoning. Look up Bayes' theorem.
Why the fuck not? They wanted to be there, who cares if it's designed for kids? Clearly it has appeal to chess players too. This makes me sick. Why enforce the design idea when the users deviate? Who serves whom here?
