Did You Know? There Are No Penalties for Illegal Credit Card Use?

Quote from dalokgawd : ..., or a picture of Edward James Olmos' ass on the back of the card, now does it?

Why'd you have to go there? Now I have Edward's pockmarked ass for a visual

Quote from dalokgawd : If the merchant fails to check the back of the card, it doesn't matter whether it's my signature, CHECK ID, or a picture of Edward James Olmos' ass on the back of the card, now does it? In either case the merchant will fail to detect the fraud and the credit card company will reverse the charges against the merchant. Therefore, writing CHECK ID on the back of the card has absolutely nothing to do with raising prices.

You writing CHECK ID on the back of the card makes it impossible for the merchant to fulfill their agreement.

Quote : So, I reiterate, your argument has no merit, is a strawman fallacy, and you have no leg to stand on. Go back to the Podium where this sort of thing actually works and your fellow conservatives are impressed by your ability to mimic Fox News' level of discourse.

I don't visit the Podium any longer. Reasoning and selfishness like yours is why.

Quote from Foreveryours : Why can't you accept he knows what's best for everyone?

I guess I'm going to have to.

Quote from redmaxx : You writing CHECK ID on the back of the card makes it impossible for the merchant to fulfill their agreement. I don't visit the Podium any longer. Reasoning and selfishness like yours is why.

The ability of the merchant to fulfill the agreement is meaningless as long as no fraud is committed. Your entire argument was based on the idea that some fraud happened, and retail prices went up because the credit card company held the merchant responsible because they were unable to prevent the fraud. If the merchant checks the back of the card and it says CHECK ID their ability to prevent the fraud is no different than their ability to prevent the fraud if the card was signed. Whether it says CHECK ID or is signed makes absolutely zero difference in whether the merchant is able to prevent the fraud or not. If the card were signed instead of having CHECK ID written on it, and the merchant fails to verify the signature, they are just as liable for the damages as if the card said CHECK ID, or was blank, or had SUCK IT TREBEK written on it. Your entire argument that writing CHECK ID makes them more liable for the cost of the fraud makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because they would be liable for the damages of the fraud ANYWAYS if they fail to verify that the card is in the hands of the owner which they can do just as easily if the card says CHECK ID.

I'm sorry to hear that you are allergic to logic, but it explains a lot.

Quote from dalokgawd : The ability of the merchant to fulfill the agreement is meaningless as long as no fraud is committed. Your entire argument was based on the idea that some fraud happened, and retail prices went up because the credit card company held the merchant responsible because they were unable to prevent the fraud. If the merchant checks the back of the card and it says CHECK ID their ability to prevent the fraud is no different than their ability to prevent the fraud if the card was signed. Whether it says CHECK ID or is signed makes absolutely zero difference in whether the merchant is able to prevent the fraud or not. If the card were signed instead of having CHECK ID written on it, and the merchant fails to verify the signature, they are just as liable for the damages as if the card said CHECK ID, or was blank, or had SUCK IT TREBEK written on it. Your entire argument that writing CHECK ID makes them more liable for the cost of the fraud makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because they would be liable for the damages of the fraud ANYWAYS if they fail to verify that the card is in the hands of the owner which they can do just as easily if the card says CHECK ID. I'm sorry to hear that you are allergic to logic, but it explains a lot.

You make the seriously flawed assumption that the cashier is in any real position to check your ID and make a reasonably certain determination that you are who you say you are. There are a multitude of reasons why this is not the case, but the leading two are store policy, and the fact that stores are not staffing people experienced in identity verification. Thus, the end result (If A, then B, if B then C, etc.) is that fraud committed against your card, and anyone else that writes CHECK ID, is that prices for everyone go up.

I'm sorry you can't think through all the dependencies required to fulfill your demands, but that's the basis for your flawed supposition that I can't follow logic. Get on my level.

Quote from dalokgawd : I'm sorry to hear that you are allergic to logic, but it explains a lot.

I had no idea that could spread from liberals to rational humans. I hope there is a cure.

Quote from redmaxx : Get on my level.

I guess I could eat some paint chips and lose a few dozen IQ points... But then I might have to register as a Republican...

Quote from Iaaaiws : I had no idea that could spread from liberals to rational humans. I hope there is a cure.

Take 2 hours of Fox News and call me when you have been sufficiently inundated with mental bullshit that you can say "Obama was born in Kenya" with a straight face.

P.S. - If you guys are insistent on turning the Lounge into the Podium then I guess I will have to react appropriately...

Quote from dalokgawd : Take 2 hours of Fox News and call me when you have been sufficiently inundated with mental bullshit that you can say "Obama was born in Kenya" with a straight face.

I miss the days when you had a sense of humor

Quote from Iaaaiws : I miss the days when you had a sense of humor

I miss the days when I could post in the Lounge without having to read partisan political attacks all the time.

Quote from dalokgawd : I guess I could eat some paint chips and lose a few dozen IQ points... But then I might have to register as a Republican...

Quote from dalokgawd : I miss the days when I could post in the Lounge without having to read partisan political attacks all the time.

I guess I overlooked the same indignation from you all during the Bush years when the attacks were coming from the other direction.

Quote from Iaaaiws : I guess I overlooked the same indignation from you all during the Bush years when the attacks were coming from the other direction.

1) I don't think I was even posting on SD during the majority of the W. presidency.
2) If I was ranting on W., I would have done it in The Podium where it belongs, not in The Lounge.

Now that I'm thinking about it I might be wrong on that first one... I think my SD hiatus was like 2006-2010 or so... it's hard to remember.

Quote from dalokgawd : 1) I don't think I was even posting on SD during the majority of the W. presidency. 2) If I was ranting on W., I would have done it in The Podium where it belongs, not in The Lounge. Now that I'm thinking about it I might be wrong on that first one... I think my SD hiatus was like 2006-2010 or so... it's hard to remember.

I didn't mean you specifically. I also didn't realize that you would just be upset about partisan comments to you exclusively--I thought you meant in general which means that such comments in both directions should be equally offensive.

Quote from Iaaaiws : I didn't mean you specifically. I also didn't realize that you would just be upset about partisan comments to you exclusively--I thought you meant in general which means that such comments in both directions should be equally offensive.

I don't particularly appreciate partisan comments in any direction when they're in The Lounge. We have The Podium for stuff like that so I don't see why we should have that sort of thing in The Lounge as well...

Oh I am dumb. I completely misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were intimating that I posted partisan political stuff about W. in The Lounge back in the day. You meant why wasn't I railing against partisan political stuff in The Lounge when people were pissed off about W. back then the way I am railing about the anti liberal stuff now? Honestly I probably didn't care back then. I was a regular in The Podium back then and had a much higher tolerance for partisan politics back then. There's a reason I don't post in The Podium anymore, I just don't really enjoy that sort of stuff anymore. Not sure why, maybe I just have so many other things to worry about these days that I don't have room for political discourse anymore...