Papers Please?

[S0lid Snake]

Good news is RFID Chips can be terminated by a small E.M.P generator.

Was that the same one that will deactivate my pacemaker and scramble my brains if I get too close?
Now you've done it. I feel unsafe because of your talk about dangerous EMP stuff..

Here:-

http://www.amazing1.com/emp.htm

Have fun with that, your quite strange aren't you?

[Juliette]

Any and all talk of generating electromagnetic pulses strong enough to fry electrical systems scare the hell out of me; especially when used on my body.
As anyone knows, a pacemaker is pretty much an electronic device, with wiring. Friable wiring. Frying bad. EMP bad.

Kidney stones are best treated by ultrasound bombardments. That's how we do it in civilised countries.



The question I would like to pose is why you would want to get rid of safety after you have been introduced to it?

[S0lid Snake]

Any and all talk of generating electromagnetic pulses strong enough to fry electrical systems scare the hell out of me; especially when used on my body.
As anyone knows, a pacemaker is pretty much an electronic device, with wiring. Friable wiring. Frying bad. EMP bad.

Did I say do it on your body? You've missed the intended application for this device.

Kidney stones are best treated by ultrasound bombardments. That's how we do it in civilised countries.

Which would be where exactly?

The question I would like to pose is why you would want to get rid of safety after you have been introduced to it?

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." ... Benjamin Franklin

I would never accept it, period.

[Juliette]

(Feel free to use ordinary quotes. We have not reached the number of paragraphs that could warrant such a cluttered manner of presenting your response.)

Any and all talk of generating electromagnetic pulses strong enough to fry electrical systems scare the hell out of me; especially when used on my body.
As anyone knows, a pacemaker is pretty much an electronic device, with wiring. Friable wiring. Frying bad. EMP bad.

Did I say do it on your body? You've missed the intended application for this device.

I must have misunderstood. I thought you were going after the chip.
How could I have known you meant to disable the card if you did not say so?

Kidney stones are best treated by ultrasound bombardments. That's how we do it in civilised countries.

Which would be where exactly?

Europe, obviously. Whether the entire continent is as civilised as us remains subject to intense debate, but generally, I dare say our health care trumps that of any other 'nation' (state/federation/polis), worldwide.

The question I would like to pose is why you would want to get rid of safety after you have been introduced to it?

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." ... Benjamin Franklin

I would never accept it, period.

Liberty is a human construct, created by the mind to make sense of the world. It has no value except for what the mind gives it. Since its value is immaterial and invisible, there is no reason to attempt to safeguard it.
Security on the other hand is very tangible.
While freedom allows you to walk on the streets alone in the dark, security guarantees you are not raped while walking on the streets. Whether security is enforced by clearing the streets and instating a curfew is irrelevant. The "freedom to walk on the streets at night alone in the dark" is yet another easy way out for the human mind. It is nothing. Freedom/Liberty as it is 'fought for' does not exist, has never existed and will never exist. The issue is resolved.

[Iƒrit]

how long after this is implimented, will it tke your goverment to abuse this and render you a non-citizen? The only thing they would have to do is turn off your chip and presto you non-citizen, you have no access to food, money or shelter. All I see is an attempt for goverment/elite to control more then they already do,

[Juliette]

how long after this is implimented, will it tke your goverment to abuse this and render you a non-citizen? The only thing they would have to do is turn off your chip and presto you non-citizen, you have no access to food, money or shelter. All I see is an attempt for goverment/elite to control more then they already do,

"render me a non-citizen"? What's that? I can't vote any more? I don't have any rights any more?

A. Political "say" as we have constructed our democratic reality around is fundamentally fake. We vote one day (or a few consecutive days), in one year, during which we elect those who will speak on our behalf. Those who, by our mandate, will create policies and effectively govern this country because, in almost every case, man is an idiot. Of course the more appealing phrase is 'it is more efficient', but we all know that is merely a euphemism of "darn kid, if all people were to govern, that would be one hell of a messy, inactive, immobile organisation".
As a result, we have the best working system around, or so we like to tell ourselves. We vote, and from that point forward, the one we voted for will act, speak, eat and make love on our behalf. We give our mandate to the government. Now, would you want to have a government as whimsical as the masses? Fickle as a pickle, so to speak? Hardly. I prefer stability and continuity. If I were to want to effect actual changes and no representative is capable of satisfying my desire for such, I will become a politician myself. It is simple, and really, becoming a politician is easy. Sure, you're no Clark Kent who can change the world, but it's easier as flying to Krypton and being reborn a Superman. You know the drill.
B. Rights. Another construct, born out of the construct of 'liberty'. In essence, nothing but words. Did our caveman ancestors have rights? No. Are 'human rights' natural? No. We need to keep them around, because if we don't, they're gone. But do we need to keep them around? It does not change our chances for survival as a species (takes care of the "save the world" angle).. and as proven by your own words all across these boards, they do not cater to our whims as we so desperately seek them to do (takes care of the individual angle). What do human rights do to better the world? Nothing. In fact, if there were no human rights, most likely people would be more productive, more efficient, more .. human. You do realise humans are at their best when their existence is threatened, right?
No.. existence and rights are completely different things, in the sense that existence is real and that rights are but a construct of our mind to soothe our pathological desire for self-gratification.

So.. the government (my own elected government, my voice, so to speak) will inevitably rip me of my rights, my liberty? Even my home, food and whatever else I kind of care about? We know what I think about the first. Now, let us see what I think of the next.
C. My home, in essence, is a luxury and a benefit I do not inexorably require.
D. My food is something I require, yes, but if the government sees fit to no longer feed me (oh, the irony that our great civilisation is built on an agrarian civilisation.. did we forget how to let grain grow, or even to hunt? then what purpose do we have, if at all?), I will either ensure food will come to me, or I will find it myself. If anything, it will make my overly luxurious 4-meals-a-day rhythm change. Who knows.. I might lose a few pounds. Yay Government!
E. Well.. whatever else I do care about is subservient to my survival, and even in that capacity my desire to keep it around is trumped by my realism. I will not be bothered by someone taking away my friends, my family, no matter how harsh that may sound. I have lost sufficient family members to realise that they are, as is everything, temporary gratifications. All the time I have, all the luxuries I have, it is all temporary, and the essence of human life is very, very bare, and indeed very Spartan.
A human is only that, an overgrown primate, who by the grace of whatever god one worships has gotten the ill favour of receiving a great sense of self-indulgence. Ever since we came down from the trees we have been making our lives easier. Did we need to do so? Hardly..


My point is that all rights we have constructed, all liberties we have thought out, yea even our very possessions, our health and our life are non-essential, and that they are all gifts. Not to be squandered, but to be graciously accepted. If they are taken away, so be it. We merely return to our natural state.

Be safe.

[Cole]

Liberty is a human construct, created by the mind to make sense of the world. It has no value except for what the mind gives it. Since its value is immaterial and invisible, there is no reason to attempt to safeguard it.
Security on the other hand is very tangible.
While freedom allows you to walk on the streets alone in the dark, security guarantees you are not raped while walking on the streets. Whether security is enforced by clearing the streets and instating a curfew is irrelevant. The "freedom to walk on the streets at night alone in the dark" is yet another easy way out for the human mind. It is nothing. Freedom/Liberty as it is 'fought for' does not exist, has never existed and will never exist. The issue is resolved.

We are in a democracy, if you want to loose your liberty and private life and just have your life exposed like any celebrity to a bunch of people who can control your life, just wait such a dictatorship rises up based on USSR's paranoia of inhabitants, and go live there. But don't start to hope democracies in EU where people live there mostly because they know they won't be persecuted for any reason, start to follow dictatorships way. There are several coutries where there are no human rights, afterall!
And don't dream, there have always been risk factor, and always will be. Unless of course, we kill humanity as a whole. Otherwise, there will always be danger somehwere. Difference being, do we want to keep freedoms with risk factor, or do we want to loose EVERY freedom and still have the risk factor?
Not hard to answer..

I cannot even comment the last post you did, you shocked me.

[[KMA]Avenger]

i think this debate/argument is being forcibly over complicated by some (not pointing fingers).
at the end of the day, who are the govt? what is its purpose?

they have no right to tag me (or ANYBODY else) in ANY way shape or form!

i STRONGLY appose ID cards and chips and they are doing it in the guise of safety, that alone should scare all of us into telling them what they can do with their cards.

big govt is wrong and inherently evil, there are WAAAAY to many examples of big govt from the past and nothing changes with regards to big govt, thats historical fact.

anything that grants govt more power, be it ID cards or anything else must always be apposed.


in the early 1900's the elite split into 2 factions, 1 side believed that brute force and the military should be used to bring about "The New Order", and the other side argued that incrementation was the sure way to bring about "The New Order".

those that wanted brute force already tried it using 2 world wars and the the first attempt of a united nations, the league of nations. the league of nations was laughed at as considered a bad joke.
they gave us a 2nd world war and finally got the UN, which is equally as bad a joke as was the league before it.
these "believers" also tried a military coup on the US govt which failed and was exposed by the very general they hired to lead the coup (how many of you know about this chapter of US history?).

see the links below for info on general butler:

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/butler.html

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/artic ... racket.htm

when all the dust settled after WW2 it was decided that brute force was not the way and that the public was way to educated to actually fall for it, so it was decide that incrementation was the only way to fool the people into going along and accepting their esoteric agenda.

now:

i regressed so you people can understand the term "thin end of the wedge", its how the EU was formed and its how they are forming the other unions around the globe, and photo id drivers licenses was only the thin end of the wedge and to get us familiar to some kind of ID card.
notice how things change ever so slowly over a long period of time until we get accustomed to it and then "they" tell us that this is only a small step up from something that came before and all of it done in the name of "The Peoples Safety".

i'm not trying to change the nature of the debate just give people some information they may not have (or have over looked).

all of the above is true which is why i will never accept anything when they tell me "Its The Only Way"., it is NOT the only way, it is "Their" way, so don't be fooled by our puppet leaders into accepting their crap any more.

ID cards?

may as well put nazi patrols on every street corner asking in a german accent...i want to see your papers!

[Cole]

That would be the rise of the worst dictatorships humanity even knew if it was implemented and put into your brains. Would put 20th century dictators to shame.
People who support it on various places of society must be -extremly- paranoid in insecurity and even prefer to put their life on someone else' hands rather than keep living the way it's now.
Heck, it's FAR worse than any army of helicopters/cameras on the streets/"nazi patrols" (lol) we can think about! Because those can be applied imo in certain situations. The one we talk about, however, I'd rather die than have it!
It's plain foolishness to accept to become tools when you did nothing wrong in past regarding to law. It just means you are considered like other criminals.
It sounds like the kid who has good results at school, his/her parents say it's normal and *never* congratulate or anything. But when this person has lower results, (s)he is punished heavily. Makes you like alot working, isn't it? I think it makes you run out of family at 15 if not before more likely!
People with no rights working more efficiently? What a joke! If people like so much revolutions and insurrections, then they should do exactly that and delete all rights of people! And I wouldn't blame revolutionners, heck, I'd even side with them!! (yes! a non anarchist doing so!).

For the record, I can be considered as centre-right in politics for many aspects. Centre-left on few others. Just everyone knows I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything.

I like that EMP stuff...interesting thing that is, if this crap chip comes around
Liked what I read on that page you linked S0lid Snake.

The question I would like to pose is why you would want to get rid of safety after you have been introduced to it?

We don't want it that way unlike you perhaps? hmm, thought it was obvious, nvm.

I think I'll order or at least save that page of EMPs. Incase that foolish chip stuff comes in my country
Glad to know there could be a way to get rid of it!

I really don't get you Lois, loosing anything you have doesn't scare you from what you posted, neither does being introduced a chip in the brains, and a small device like that one scares you...where's the logic???

[Juliette]

The EMP causes me direct physical harm, whereas "losing everything I have" (as you so eloquently summarised) in itself does not.

I thought that was obvious.
Anyway, your points are grounded in emotion and, I am sorry to say it, are as such irrelevant to the greater issue.


(I will for the record assume you meant me, as I am the only one delving deeper into the issue instead of going on emo-trips and attempt to present them as arguments, much like the debate starter and others have done so far.)
Overcomplicating? Hah. If I am guilty anything, I am guilty of introducing 'realism' to the equation.
But if you want, I can dumb it down again, heck, it's what the people want what the people get:

"Card inefficient. Chip better. Government our own voice. Bad things happen. Security cures violence."

As rational people, we should be able to shed the baggage that the French Revolution gave us to carry. "Liberté, égalité et fraternité."
While a suitable argument can be made for the 'human rights cause' based on that trinity, those 'ideals' are hardly requirements for human survival.


I think we have a level difference here. My points revolve around the notion that freedom and rights are not required for survival and are, as such, luxuries which no one can 'claim'. Trying to claim the "right to protest" as being an essential 'human right' is about as insane as claiming that liberty trumps security.
See, the reasoning is simple. The human lives to survive (as any species tries to). Security is more important to survival as liberty is. As a logical consequence, security is the higher value.

Told you it is practical to know the definitions everyone is using.. see the "Definitions" experiment.

[Cole]

The EMP causes me direct physical harm, whereas "losing everything I have" (as you so eloquently summarised) in itself does not.

I thought that was obvious.
Anyway, your points are grounded in emotion and, I am sorry to say it, are as such irrelevant to the greater issue.


(I will for the record assume you meant me, as I am the only one delving deeper into the issue instead of going on emo-trips and attempt to present them as arguments, much like the debate starter and others have done so far.)
Overcomplicating? Hah. If I am guilty anything, I am guilty of introducing 'realism' to the equation.
But if you want, I can dumb it down again, heck, it's what the people want what the people get:

"Card inefficient. Chip better. Government our own voice. Bad things happen. Security cures violence."

As rational people, we should be able to shed the baggage that the French Revolution gave us to carry. "Liberté, égalité et fraternité."
While a suitable argument can be made for the 'human rights cause' based on that trinity, those 'ideals' are hardly requirements for human survival.


I think we have a level difference here. My points revolve around the notion that freedom and rights are not required for survival and are, as such, luxuries which no one can 'claim'. Trying to claim the "right to protest" as being an essential 'human right' is about as insane as claiming that liberty trumps security.
See, the reasoning is simple. The human lives to survive (as any species tries to). Security is more important to survival as liberty is. As a logical consequence, security is the higher value.

Told you it is practical to know the definitions everyone is using.. see the "Definitions" experiment.

You are not realist, I'm sorry to tell you.
If we introduced those things, it's because we wanted to grow and differenciate ourselves from animals, use our brains, and instead of killing each others to get meat, work together for the better of specie.
Treating people like scums is the EXACT same thing as animals figthing for meat. Hence, it's acting like an undeveloped creature. And we have *nothing* to gain from doing so.

I'm not going to repeat myself for arguing case by case your points. My definitions in other topic make it clear where I stand. Against darkness and ignorance coming from tyranical systems.

[Juliette]

You are not realist, I'm sorry to tell you.

Oh, my. I am not a realist? Damn.. what shall I do with myself. *rolls eyes* You do not present a proper argument as to why I am no realist. Your emotion-riddled statement is not an argument, and since I do not entertain non-arguments, your statement is false.

If we introduced those things, it's because we wanted to grow and differenciate ourselves from animals, use our brains, and instead of killing each others to get meat, work together for the better of specie.

Man has folded himself in the so called 'civilised build' where all his natural impulses and survival mechanisms are filtered, yea, even inhibited by

Ever heard of the New Zealand bird called the Kea?

Treating people like scums is the EXACT same thing as animals figthing for meat. Hence, it's acting like an undeveloped creature. And we have *nothing* to gain from doing so.

Oh, how well you have learned your moral lessons. Morality is a scam, much like the notion of good and evil being 'absolute opposites'. Nonsense. If anything, those ideas are tyrannical, because they limit the natural human. Yes, the human who does not let his original survival instincts be inhibited by his ratio is blessed.
And just to be sure.. like our old ancestors used to do, living on instincts, but with the added benefits of a brain, is the best way there is.
Any human should strive for the optimal balance between the human instincts and the human 'ratio'. Balance is good. Imbalance, overrationalisation is bad.

I'm not going to repeat myself for arguing case by case your points. My definitions in other topic make it clear where I stand. Against darkness and ignorance coming from tyranical systems.

Since your mind stands within the system, there is no point in your so called 'Defence against the Dark Arts'. You try to defend yourself from something you are in the middle of, instead of coming out of there to where I am, and fighting the system together. It's a shame really.



ps. Notice how well I can write emotion-based pieces too? Yea, I pride myself in being able to do both. So.. next person with an actual argument instead of my "I want to have the last word, NOW!"-friend?

[Cole]

You are not realist, I'm sorry to tell you.

Oh, my. I am not a realist? Damn.. what shall I do with myself. *rolls eyes* You do not present a proper argument as to why I am no realist. Your emotion-riddled statement is not an argument, and since I do not entertain non-arguments, your statement is false.

No, you are not realist, you want humans to *really* become inferiors to what they can do.

If we introduced those things, it's because we wanted to grow and differenciate ourselves from animals, use our brains, and instead of killing each others to get meat, work together for the better of specie.

Man has folded himself in the so called 'civilised build' where all his natural impulses and survival mechanisms are filtered, yea, even inhibited by

Ever heard of the New Zealand bird called the Kea?

If man tries to moderate itself, it's a good thing. Otherwise, we all know where humans could go if they didn't...psychopats and rapers all around there would be. Pretty scary.

Don't see what a parrot has anything to do with all of that, just because he is more intelligent than other birds, I still don't see the point.

I don't see why humanity should regress as low as you suggested...

Treating people like scums is the EXACT same thing as animals figthing for meat. Hence, it's acting like an undeveloped creature. And we have *nothing* to gain from doing so.

Oh, how well you have learned your moral lessons. Morality is a scam, much like the notion of good and evil being 'absolute opposites'. Nonsense. If anything, those ideas are tyrannical, because they limit the natural human. Yes, the human who does not let his original survival instincts be inhibited by his ratio is blessed.
And just to be sure.. like our old ancestors used to do, living on instincts, but with the added benefits of a brain, is the best way there is.
Any human should strive for the optimal balance between the human instincts and the human 'ratio'. Balance is good. Imbalance, overrationalisation is bad.

And you were the one claiming security over freedom is good? That walking in the dark safe should be above freedom? Oh wait...it's the good and bad. IF humans leave what makes them special, it will be the TOTAL opposite of that excessive security process.
Contradictions at their best.

"Last minute edit": it's funny because Miss Palin just did a speech about good and bad countries, and how Iran because they want to destroy Israel, is not a good one.
So, what do you say about that eh?

I'm not going to repeat myself for arguing case by case your points. My definitions in other topic make it clear where I stand. Against darkness and ignorance coming from tyranical systems.

Since your mind stands within the system, there is no point in your so called 'Defence against the Dark Arts'. You try to defend yourself from something you are in the middle of, instead of coming out of there to where I am, and fighting the system together. It's a shame really.

ps. Notice how well I can write emotion-based pieces too? Yea, I pride myself in being able to do both. So.. next person with an actual argument instead of my "I want to have the last word, NOW!"-friend?[quote]
Of course I stand in the system. I am not foolish enough to live in a chaotic instinct jungle law world. One post you say a world where everyone is safe and if anyone breaks law he/she is killed immediatly, and now it's about getting rid of moral and anything human-like? Contradictions again..
I fight tyrany, obscurantism, primitiveness, bestiality, survival instincts, ignorance, slavery. I support democracy, light views, behaveing, civilisation, evolvedness, truth, freedom.
Why would I fight the system I defend? Give me at least TWO VALID reasons!!


If current system of EU is so wrong, why stay into this and don't go elsewhere? That's what I could tell to every people who don't like how it is now, or those who would like it turns out into some crazy dictatorship with natural selection or no idea what.

[[KMA]Avenger]

regardless of peoples opinions, you'd think this poll would have more votes than it has

[Oculus Sinister]

Causality.

There are hundreds of threads on these various so-called urgent social issues. The general populace of these forums has a limited attention span.
Ergo, as more threads are created, less and less people will pay attention.

We are 'mind-numbed' by your flood of pretentiously urgent 'information' and cannot be brought to care any longer.

Cause and effect. You did this to your cause.