x9200 wrote:casey5047 wrote:x9200 wrote:I don't try to disingenuously minimize the disadvantages. These are the fact you are apparently oblivious of. Perhaps you should make some effort to address my points instead of trying to turn this discussion personal?
And why instead? This is one whole package. The only disadvantage I can see are potential problems for people of very low income.
Advantages, for me, is mostly the convenience. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I practically don't use cash already, I don't need to bother with ATMs, I always have a proof of transaction, I can buy many things simply cheaper comparing to the situation I would need to go to a shop and physically pay in cash.
Our lives, whether we like it or not, are already substantially cashless and invigilated so instead of seeing only the devil it's good to realize the obvious benefits of such systems. The privacy, where important should be protected by controlling the information given away on more personal grounds, not by paying cash for a bag of tomatoes.
Why 'instead,' what? Are you talking to yourself?
You didn't make any points in your first reply. There were no facts, just logical fallacies, a straw man argument and desperate attempts at being witty. In short, you're an arsehole.
This time, you're conflating the benefits of online shopping with those of a completely cashless society, and repeating the fallacy that if a bad thing is happening (our lives are increasingly 'invigilated'), it's somehow wrong to oppose more of that bad thing, which is so abstract and confused, I don't know where to begin.
I pointed out the 'devil' and you said all people who've noticed the 'devil' haven't noticed other bad things and want to return to a bartering economy or keep money under their beds or some unfunny guff.
If you had a bit better attitude I could even (attempt to) explain to you these fallacies (as you perceive them) but ultimately this is your problem and your limitations, so QFP only.
You're a pathetic cry-bully.
Firstly, are you seriously suggesting that this isn't belligerent and highly patronising?
There is already the whole infrastructure in place and operating that can trace your location and pretty much link it to other activities. If you feel that uneasy about it, Singapore (and most of the other developed countries) is probably not the right place for you.
Alternatively, you may consider trashing your mobile phone, not using any proximity cards and walking around inside a cardboard box (this would unfortunately attract some attention).
Now I've used the same tone to speak to you, you've turned all Victorian schoolmarmish. 'I won't talk to you if you use that dreadful language!' you wag your bony finger. 'Now you'll miss out on my brilliant explanations that definitely explain everything (I swear)!'
It's a transparent excuse to avoid admitting that you're an arsehole (see earlier quote) and your reasoning is poor (one example: most of your reasons are reasons for placing debit / credit card payment terminals at every physical point of sale in Singapore, not reasons for simultaneously eliminating the options of paying in cash as well... you need to explain why being a cashless -
cashless - casshhh...lessssss society is a good thing... another example: pointing out some benefits doesn't magically make detriments vanish: address those detriments to the point that being an absolutely cashless -
cashless - casshhh...lessssss society has a clear advantage over the current state of affairs or the obvious alternative outlined above (accepting cards and cash at every point of sale)... example 9857928: 'I can buy many things simply cheaper comparing to the situation I would need to go to a shop and physically pay in cash,' suggests that you're as confused as Scooby Doo.).