3 ms·

Debate is impossible if you're going to be merely absurdly argumentative. You can be a customer if you have the money part of the exchange, otherwise you're cl

Debate is impossible if you're going to be merely absurdly argumentative. You can be a customer if you have the money part of the exchange, otherwise you're clearly not a customer.

bena 8y ago
I'm being absurdly argumentative? Because I don't agree with your vague waffling when you are confronted with the implications of your ideas. If you don't mean X, then don't say X. You can't be a customer if I don't let you be a customer. When you walk up to a counter and say "I would like to buy these things" you are not a customer yet. You are giving an "invitation to treat". An invitation the establishment may decline. Many establishments have signs that say "No shoes, no service", "No hoods or hats may be worn in the building", "Tie required", etc. Each one as equally discriminating. But you are railing against the one that applies to you. "We refuse to deal in cash". If anyone is being absurd, it's you. You've actually admitted to it several times. Refusing to acknowledge that electronic payments are still exchanging money, just not in the form you like.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  In encountering dozens, perhaps hundreds of uses of the very well worn cliche "customer is always right" only once has the conversation or article suffered because it did not fully spell out, in legally precise language, all and every possible exception to the generality that everyone knows is but a convenient generalisation. Some customers may be committing fraud, other customers will abuse the privilege, shares may go down as well as up. Most find that a useful shorthand in achieving concise and clear discussion, that helps to avoid overly formal and long grandiose Victorian circumlocution, without finding it vague waffle. Something I am eternally thankful for. We could have an equally lengthy, fruitless and absurd discussion picking holes in Rackspace's "fanatical" support and Amazon's many slogans including "customer obsessed" and "most customer-centric company" because they do'nt spell out all exceptions, limitations and exclusions to the clearly generalised slogan at full length with legal precision. > You are giving an "invitation to treat". An invitation the establishment may decline Quite, and yet you write "What if all I have is corn? I'm a customer." You're not yet a customer and you're not offering legal tender or any other form of recognised currency. Which is why it is clearly absurd and takes the discussion away from the actual topic in TFA - the rise, and potential discrimination, of cashless. At no point did I dispute any electronic payments are exchanging money. That again is clearly absurd. What I did say is the form may inconvenience me (even if it becomes endemic) and I dislike it becoming required. As the article points out 7.5% in the US are unbanked. 12% aren't on the net. That's a far larger and problematic discrimination than "no hats". I won't be discriminated against, just inconvenienced. Which is why I mentioned, in another comment, I would encourage requiring businesses to accept legal tender (subject to any legislated limitations on paying large amounts in small change that many countries already limit). Legal tender is currently cash but an equally valid solution would be a state or central bank run fee-free, privacy respecting eCurrency as it could be easily made universal, separate from the banking system, and legal tender. Who knows it might turn out cheaper to run than mints producing coins and notes. In other words something outside the duopoly of MC and Visa that doesn't require a bank or abandonment of privacy to buy a pair of jeans. Then require businesses to accept that legal tender.
  - bena 8y ago
    > Most find that a useful shorthand in achieving concise and clear discussion, that helps to avoid overly formal and long grandiose Victorian circumlocution, without finding it vague waffle. Something I am eternally thankful for. This is what I'm talking about. You are exaggerating to absurd extremes. No one is using "overly formal and long Victorian circumlocution" here. And I literally pointed out where you explicitly said things that run counter to your claim that you didn't mean those things you said. > "most customer-centric company" This one can technically probably be measured along some metric. A company that is actively hostile towards its customers can be said to be less customer-centric than one that doesn't. > Quite, and yet you write "What if all I have is corn? I'm a customer." This is disingenuous. You are the one arguing on the basis of anyone in the shop being a customer. I'm showing you, from your perspective, how quickly the adage breaks down. It doesn't matter that it doesn't cover every, single incident. The problem is that it doesn't even really cover most incidents. > you're not offering legal tender or any other form of recognised currency. That's not a requirement to be a customer. > As the article points out 7.5% in the US are unbanked. 12% aren't on the net. And? Not being able to go to one burrito shop is hardly going to harm anyone. Not to mention, this is how things change. That 7.5% is going to go down. There's a large portion of people who don't receive any sort of cash. They can't be "customers" either. What happens if they want something? And I know what you're going to say: Yeah, but money has to be earned. No shit. And you have to do something someone else feels is worthwhile in order to earn that money. It is inherently discriminatory. But we accept it. > Legal tender is currently cash You have that backwards. Cash is currently legal tender. But so are electronic payments. Like someone else pointed out, electronic payments are currently the currency in general use. > I would encourage requiring businesses to accept legal tender (subject to any legislated limitations on paying large amounts in small change that many countries already limit). Give with one hand, take with the other. Already you accept the premise that a business can restrict the forms in which you pay. You buy into that. You just think the line should be drawn where you're comfortable with it. > You're not yet a customer and you're not offering legal tender or any other form of recognised currency. Which is why it is clearly absurd and takes the discussion away from the actual topic in TFA - the rise, and potential discrimination, of cashless. These statements are in conflict with each other and that's what people are trying to tell you. Discrimination you accept is still discrimination. > That's a far larger and problematic discrimination than "no hats". I won't be discriminated against, just inconvenienced. By not being allowed in the establishment? You can't just call discrimination you're comfortable with "inconvenience" and pretend it's not discrimination.

Debate is impossible if you're going to be merely absurdly argumentative. You can be a customer if you have the money part of the exchange, otherwise you're clearly not a customer.

bena 8y ago

I'm being absurdly argumentative? Because I don't agree with your vague waffling when you are confronted with the implications of your ideas. If you don't mean X, then don't say X. You can't be a customer if I don't let you be a customer. When you walk up to a counter and say "I would like to buy these things" you are not a customer yet. You are giving an "invitation to treat". An invitation the establishment may decline. Many establishments have signs that say "No shoes, no service", "No hoods or hats may be worn in the building", "Tie required", etc. Each one as equally discriminating. But you are railing against the one that applies to you. "We refuse to deal in cash". If anyone is being absurd, it's you. You've actually admitted to it several times. Refusing to acknowledge that electronic payments are still exchanging money, just not in the form you like.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
In encountering dozens, perhaps hundreds of uses of the very well worn cliche "customer is always right" only once has the conversation or article suffered because it did not fully spell out, in legally precise language, all and every possible exception to the generality that everyone knows is but a convenient generalisation. Some customers may be committing fraud, other customers will abuse the privilege, shares may go down as well as up. Most find that a useful shorthand in achieving concise and clear discussion, that helps to avoid overly formal and long grandiose Victorian circumlocution, without finding it vague waffle. Something I am eternally thankful for. We could have an equally lengthy, fruitless and absurd discussion picking holes in Rackspace's "fanatical" support and Amazon's many slogans including "customer obsessed" and "most customer-centric company" because they do'nt spell out all exceptions, limitations and exclusions to the clearly generalised slogan at full length with legal precision. > You are giving an "invitation to treat". An invitation the establishment may decline Quite, and yet you write "What if all I have is corn? I'm a customer." You're not yet a customer and you're not offering legal tender or any other form of recognised currency. Which is why it is clearly absurd and takes the discussion away from the actual topic in TFA - the rise, and potential discrimination, of cashless. At no point did I dispute any electronic payments are exchanging money. That again is clearly absurd. What I did say is the form may inconvenience me (even if it becomes endemic) and I dislike it becoming required. As the article points out 7.5% in the US are unbanked. 12% aren't on the net. That's a far larger and problematic discrimination than "no hats". I won't be discriminated against, just inconvenienced. Which is why I mentioned, in another comment, I would encourage requiring businesses to accept legal tender (subject to any legislated limitations on paying large amounts in small change that many countries already limit). Legal tender is currently cash but an equally valid solution would be a state or central bank run fee-free, privacy respecting eCurrency as it could be easily made universal, separate from the banking system, and legal tender. Who knows it might turn out cheaper to run than mints producing coins and notes. In other words something outside the duopoly of MC and Visa that doesn't require a bank or abandonment of privacy to buy a pair of jeans. Then require businesses to accept that legal tender.
- bena 8y ago
  > Most find that a useful shorthand in achieving concise and clear discussion, that helps to avoid overly formal and long grandiose Victorian circumlocution, without finding it vague waffle. Something I am eternally thankful for. This is what I'm talking about. You are exaggerating to absurd extremes. No one is using "overly formal and long Victorian circumlocution" here. And I literally pointed out where you explicitly said things that run counter to your claim that you didn't mean those things you said. > "most customer-centric company" This one can technically probably be measured along some metric. A company that is actively hostile towards its customers can be said to be less customer-centric than one that doesn't. > Quite, and yet you write "What if all I have is corn? I'm a customer." This is disingenuous. You are the one arguing on the basis of anyone in the shop being a customer. I'm showing you, from your perspective, how quickly the adage breaks down. It doesn't matter that it doesn't cover every, single incident. The problem is that it doesn't even really cover most incidents. > you're not offering legal tender or any other form of recognised currency. That's not a requirement to be a customer. > As the article points out 7.5% in the US are unbanked. 12% aren't on the net. And? Not being able to go to one burrito shop is hardly going to harm anyone. Not to mention, this is how things change. That 7.5% is going to go down. There's a large portion of people who don't receive any sort of cash. They can't be "customers" either. What happens if they want something? And I know what you're going to say: Yeah, but money has to be earned. No shit. And you have to do something someone else feels is worthwhile in order to earn that money. It is inherently discriminatory. But we accept it. > Legal tender is currently cash You have that backwards. Cash is currently legal tender. But so are electronic payments. Like someone else pointed out, electronic payments are currently the currency in general use. > I would encourage requiring businesses to accept legal tender (subject to any legislated limitations on paying large amounts in small change that many countries already limit). Give with one hand, take with the other. Already you accept the premise that a business can restrict the forms in which you pay. You buy into that. You just think the line should be drawn where you're comfortable with it. > You're not yet a customer and you're not offering legal tender or any other form of recognised currency. Which is why it is clearly absurd and takes the discussion away from the actual topic in TFA - the rise, and potential discrimination, of cashless. These statements are in conflict with each other and that's what people are trying to tell you. Discrimination you accept is still discrimination. > That's a far larger and problematic discrimination than "no hats". I won't be discriminated against, just inconvenienced. By not being allowed in the establishment? You can't just call discrimination you're comfortable with "inconvenience" and pretend it's not discrimination.