Looney wants RFID implants required.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2005-08-07 02:34pm

The major problem I can see is that it's set to broadcast and that it could be involuntary. However, a subdermal chip with a personals medical history that required a person accessing it with a scanner that needs to be directly next to where the chip is that is voluntary would be really handy. It would very likely significantly help EMTs and paramedics who may accidently render medication the person is allergic too. However, people with certain conditions already generally wear medical alert bracelets, so it could also be easily put in one of those.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-08-07 02:36pm

Chmee wrote:You can quit putting words in my mouth any time now. I don't speak in code, if I meant Republicans I'd say Republicans. Any time you think you 'know what I really meant,' count 10, because you seem to be off base on this with an amazing degree of consistency. Just discuss what I said, not what your tea leaves or Ouija board or whatever is telling you what the 'hidden meaning' was.

Once again, long on rhetoric but short on logic. If you say "people who support the Patriot Act" and then someone else equates that to "Republicans", it's the height of sophistry to say "huh? Republican? When did I say that?"

I'll happily concede I have no idea where it ranks in the top 10 or 50 or 1,000, I never made any allusion to it having a place in a ranking, that's your argument. You wanted a number to show that more than an insignificant percentage are opposed to its provisions, I gave you one easily with 30 seconds of Googling, and now you want to move the goalposts ... great, have fun with that, I'm not going to play 10 rounds of 'Oh yeah but what about [insert new argument I never made], prove that!' with you.

Yet again, you demonstrate that you are a lying shitheel. My argument from the beginning was that people make a big deal out of bullshit like this silly little chip but are "blase" about the Patriot Act. Do you know what "blase" means, you worthless stupid lying little asshole? It doesn't mean that you support it. It doesn't mean that you oppose it. It means that you don't care.

If you don't know the English language, just admit it and I can remove you from this forum since it is a fucking English language forum where you are expected not to pretend that someone is "moving the goalposts" when his position has in fact been consistent from the first moment.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-08-07 02:48pm

Darth Wong wrote:Do you know what "blase" means <snip>? It doesn't mean that you support it. It doesn't mean that you oppose it. It means that you don't care.

Yes, that would be why I directly responded that, through their legislators, millions of Americans are expressing that they care, and do not appear to be blasé in the least.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-08-07 02:55pm

Chmee wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Do you know what "blase" means <snip>? It doesn't mean that you support it. It doesn't mean that you oppose it. It means that you don't care.
Yes, that would be why I directly responded that, through their legislators, millions of Americans are expressing that they care, and do not appear to be blasé in the least.

And for the second time, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM? I have already pointed out that it didn't rank anywhere in the polled lists of "most important issues" for the 2004 election, so WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? First you tried to change the subject to "support/oppose" rather than the level of caring, then you tried to pretend that I was "moving the goalposts" by continuing to pound on my original point (as opposed to the one you were trying to put in my mouth), and now you act as though earlier rebuttals on precisely this issue never took place.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-08-07 03:03pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Chmee wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Do you know what "blase" means <snip>? It doesn't mean that you support it. It doesn't mean that you oppose it. It means that you don't care.
Yes, that would be why I directly responded that, through their legislators, millions of Americans are expressing that they care, and do not appear to be blasé in the least.
And for the second time, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM?

The House vote on renewal was 257-171 ... so through 171 legislators, millions of Americans expressed this opinion with enough clarity for me, perhaps not for you.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-08-07 03:06pm

Chmee wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Chmee wrote: Yes, that would be why I directly responded that, through their legislators, millions of Americans are expressing that they care, and do not appear to be blasé in the least.
And for the second time, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM?
The House vote on renewal was 257-171 ... so through 171 legislators, millions of Americans expressed this opinion with enough clarity for me, perhaps not for you.

You must have a mighty big shovel to pile up so much bullshit. Yet again, you are trying to equate support/oppose percentages (this time with a non sequitur that popular support = House support) to intensity of caring among the general populace. Once again: WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? Or are you just going to keep pretending that support/oppose is the same thing as care/don't care?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-08-07 03:21pm

Darth Wong wrote: You must have a mighty big shovel to pile up so much bullshit. Yet again, you are trying to equate support/oppose percentages (this time with a non sequitur that popular support = House support) to intensity of caring among the general populace. Once again: WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? Or are you just going to keep pretending that support/oppose is the same thing as care/don't care?

You're confused, that's your argument. At no point did I express a belief that anyone cares about this issue 'more' or 'less' than any other issue, I simply expressed the opinion that some obviously do care, and voice this opinion through their legislators, which was easily demonstrated. This issue of 'how much' they care, and the belief that it can or should be quantified, is entirely your tangent, don't expect me to prove or disprove something I never asserted.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-08-07 03:25pm

Chmee, you're not some fresh-off-the-login newbie, you should know how to debate here. Going 'DUR! PEOPLE SAID THEY DON'T LIKE ONE THING! TEREFOUR THEY IS FLIPPIN OUT LIKE AGAINST THIS DO-HICKEY! ANYONE WHO SEZ OTHERWISE IS TEH DUM!' makes you look like a retard. Want a trip out of this thread so you can fling your fecal matter in a more appropriate venue?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-08-07 04:07pm

Chmee wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You must have a mighty big shovel to pile up so much bullshit. Yet again, you are trying to equate support/oppose percentages (this time with a non sequitur that popular support = House support) to intensity of caring among the general populace. Once again: WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? Or are you just going to keep pretending that support/oppose is the same thing as care/don't care?
You're confused, that's your argument. At no point did I express a belief that anyone cares about this issue 'more' or 'less' than any other issue,

Bullshit. You denied the validity of my statement that Americans were blase about it. In fact, you went so far as to call it "deliberately disingenuous".

I simply expressed the opinion that some obviously do care, and voice this opinion through their legislators, which was easily demonstrated.

More bullshit, since it was not considered an important campaign issue, even by those who opposed it.

This issue of 'how much' they care, and the belief that it can or should be quantified, is entirely your tangent, don't expect me to prove or disprove something I never asserted.

You never said anything, except to deny the validity of my statements which you have utterly failed to disprove. In the meantime, the original statement stands: Americans are blase about the Patriot Act, which is a much more onerous intrusion onto civil liberties than a MedicAlert subdermal chip would be. They assign importance based on irrational criteria.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-08-07 04:16pm

Darth Wong wrote:Bullshit. You denied the validity of my statement that Americans were blase about it. In fact, you went so far as to call it "deliberately disingenuous".

And I'll stand by that, since it was in response to this statement of yours:

Darth Wong wrote:Why would people fight so vehemently against this when they happily let the PATRIOT Act go into effect?

The assertion that the people in the group who are inately suspicious of government-mandated RFID implants "happily let the P.A. go into effect" I still find deliberately disingenuous, since we know for a fact that a substantial percentage of the electorate, as represented by their legislators, did anything but 'happily let' the P.A. do anything, and in fact worked against its renewal in whole or part. I'd be surprised if you didn't know that, because you stay fairly current on events, so I can only conclude that it was a comment thrown out for argumentative impact without caring about its accuracy, which to me makes it rather disingenuous, sorry.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-08-07 04:22pm

Chmee wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Bullshit. You denied the validity of my statement that Americans were blase about it. In fact, you went so far as to call it "deliberately disingenuous".
And I'll stand by that, since it was in response to this statement of yours:
Darth Wong wrote:Why would people fight so vehemently against this when they happily let the PATRIOT Act go into effect?
The assertion that the people in the group who are inately suspicious of government-mandated RFID implants "happily let the P.A. go into effect"

Yes, that's what apathy does. You can support something, you can oppose it, but if it's not that important to you, you can let it go into effect regardless. And that's what "not an important campaign issue in 2004" means, for the umpteenth fucking time.

I still find deliberately disingenuous, since we know for a fact that a substantial percentage of the electorate, as represented by their legislators, did anything but 'happily let' the P.A. do anything, and in fact worked against its renewal in whole or part.

For the umpteenth time, all public opinion polls indicated that they didn't care enough to consider it a campaign issue in 2004.

I'd be surprised if you didn't know that, because you stay fairly current on events, so I can only conclude that it was a comment thrown out for argumentative impact without caring about its accuracy, which to me makes it rather disingenuous, sorry.

For the umpteenth time, all public opinion polls indicated that they didn't care enough to consider it a campaign issue in 2004. I love the way you never even attempt to deal with this fact; you just keep repeating your non sequitur that "if Joe Senator votes against it, then everybody in his constituency must have considered the issue to be very important."

According to your cretinous logic, Americans as a whole must have cared greatly about the need to keep Terri Schiavo on life support, even though we know it was just a case of the tail wagging the dog and the majority of the population opposed the government's actions.

Julhelm · Post by **Julhelm** » 2005-08-07 04:23pm

They'll have to kill me before any chip gets implanted in my body.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2005-08-07 05:19pm

I'd be fine with it as long as it was benign, non-invasive, had only medical info (I don't see what identity thiefs can do with purely medical information), and had to be read in person at close-contact by like a paramedic with a scanner, then it's okay with me.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2005-08-07 05:23pm

The Kernel wrote:Oh please, the chip doesn't broadcast for more than a foot, and it doesn't need to have your personal information on it. All it needs is you blood type, medical allergies, disease history, etc. Such a chip doesn't even need to have your name on it.

Fuck names - how is "blood type, allergies, diesease history, etc" NOT personal information? Huh? I might share my name with hundreds, or even thousands of other people - my medical information is unqiue to me

Fuck this shit - I am NOT being tagged. We tag inanimate possessions and livestock - and I am neither

I will not submit to this.

If they implant one in me against my will I will take a knife and dig it out of my own body.

No. Fucking. Way.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2005-08-07 05:51pm

Broomstick wrote:If they implant one in me against my will I will take a knife and dig it out of my own body.

Does this proposal entail mandatory implantation of the chip? I must have missed that part.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-08-07 06:26pm

Jesus, there's a lot of hyperventilating in this thread. How anyone could be so deadset against a measure that will save lives and have precisely 0 negative effects is absolutely mystifying to me. It's nearly as ludicrous as opposing surveillence cameras in public places.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-08-07 06:51pm

Broomstick wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Oh please, the chip doesn't broadcast for more than a foot, and it doesn't need to have your personal information on it. All it needs is you blood type, medical allergies, disease history, etc. Such a chip doesn't even need to have your name on it.
Fuck names - how is "blood type, allergies, diesease history, etc" NOT personal information? Huh? I might share my name with hundreds, or even thousands of other people - my medical information is unqiue to me

Fuck this shit - I am NOT being tagged. We tag inanimate possessions and livestock - and I am neither

I will not submit to this.

If they implant one in me against my will I will take a knife and dig it out of my own body.

No. Fucking. Way.

If you were hoping to prove my point about the neurotic nature of the opposition to this sort of thing, you succeeded brilliantly.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-08-07 06:54pm

Broomstick wrote: Fuck names - how is "blood type, allergies, diesease history, etc" NOT personal information? Huh? I might share my name with hundreds, or even thousands of other people - my medical information is unqiue to me

Fuck this shit - I am NOT being tagged. We tag inanimate possessions and livestock - and I am neither

I will not submit to this.

If they implant one in me against my will I will take a knife and dig it out of my own body.

No. Fucking. Way.

How exactly is this information going to harm you in any way? Your blood type, alergies and such are not unique to you, you probably share them with millions of other people. How is the disclosure of this information to medical professionals supposed to harm you?

I notice a lot of vitriol about this idea from your post, but not one single logical argument about how having the chip will hurt you. If you want to argue from emotion, you've come to the wrong board.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-08-07 06:55pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Jesus, there's a lot of hyperventilating in this thread. How anyone could be so deadset against a measure that will save lives and have precisely 0 negative effects is absolutely mystifying to me. It's nearly as ludicrous as opposing surveillence cameras in public places.

Americans in my experience seem to have a massive entitlement complex about privacy (despite having no founding in our Constitution) and they often invoke slippery slope arguments every time something like this is suggested.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2005-08-07 07:01pm

While I'm not really worried about this, I must say that if anyone tries to inject me with anything against my will, they risk losing a testicle.

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2005-08-07 07:04pm

The Kernel wrote: Americans in my experience seem to have a massive entitlement complex about privacy (despite having no founding in our Constitution) and they often invoke slippery slope arguments every time something like this is suggested.

You sound as if, despite not being in the constitution, that feeling entitled to privacy is a bad thing.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-08-07 07:05pm

Galvatron wrote:While I'm not really worried about this, I must say that if anyone tries to inject me with anything against my will, they risk losing a testicle.

Oh puh-lease, what a bunch of fucking posers. Are you all going to line up and kick the shit out of people who want to vaccinate your children too?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-08-07 07:06pm

Zed Snardbody wrote:
The Kernel wrote: Americans in my experience seem to have a massive entitlement complex about privacy (despite having no founding in our Constitution) and they often invoke slippery slope arguments every time something like this is suggested.
You sound as if, despite not being in the constitution, that feeling entitled to privacy is a bad thing.

Within limits I think a certain amount of privacy is expected. But people who think cameras in public places are a violation of their privacy for example are suffering from a serious entitlement complex.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2005-08-07 07:07pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Galvatron wrote:While I'm not really worried about this, I must say that if anyone tries to inject me with anything against my will, they risk losing a testicle.
Oh puh-lease, what a bunch of fucking posers. Are you all going to line up and kick the shit out of people who want to vaccinate your children too?

Aren't vaccinations voluntary?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-08-07 07:09pm

Galvatron wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Galvatron wrote:While I'm not really worried about this, I must say that if anyone tries to inject me with anything against my will, they risk losing a testicle.
Oh puh-lease, what a bunch of fucking posers. Are you all going to line up and kick the shit out of people who want to vaccinate your children too?
Aren't vaccinations voluntary?

No. You can't enter most elementary schools without vaccinations and you can't not send your children to school.