I learned something odd this morning. Three US states have laws on the books, created by Republican legislators, making it illegal to insert microchips into people. Virginia has even declared them to be the mark of the beast from Revelation.
And now Georgia is hoping to join the ranks of the crazy states. There is a bill pending, SB 235, the "Microchip Consent Act of 2009; prohibit requiring a person to be implanted with a microchip", which is symptomatic of the problem. This nice opinion piece summarizes why it is nuts.
In Gov. Roy Barnes' stump speech, the bill has become a routine example of the Republican tendency to attack problems that don't exist, and ignore the ones that do. Besides, Barnes argues, if someone holds him down to insert a microchip in his head, "it should be more than a damned misdemeanor."
But it goes even deeper than that. These bills, despite the protests of the sponsors, are driven by biblical baloney — there is this weird fear by crazy Christians that the onset of the apocalypse is going to be signified by people getting barcodes or chips or tattoos or something weird on their hand and forehead. The Georgia state house recently witnessed testimony in favor of the bill that shows how close this religious delusion is to serious mental illness.
He was followed by a hefty woman who described herself as a resident of DeKalb County. "I'm also one of the people in Georgia who has a microchip," the woman said. Slowly, she began to lead the assembled lawmakers down a path they didn't want to take.
Microchips, the woman began, "infringe on issues that are fundamental to our very existence. Our rights to privacy, our rights to bodily integrity, the right to say no to foreign objects being put in our body."
She spoke of the "right to work without being tortured by co-workers who are activating these microchips by using their cell phones and other electronic devices."
She continued. "Microchips are like little beepers. Just imagine, if you will, having a beeper in your rectum or genital area, the most sensitive area of your body. And your beeper numbers displayed on billboards throughout the city. All done without your permission," she said.
That's just sad. That woman is ill; she's paranoid and delusional. And she's being called upon to support time- and money-wasting legislation to endorse her hallucinations.
Even sadder: the committee hearing this testimony went on to approve the bill.
- Log in to post comments
Wait... what?????
I'm too young to remember this firsthand, but when they came out with UPC barcodes on consumer goods, didn't they say that was the Mark of the Beast?
We've been marking actual beasts with these things for some time now.
A microchip isn't the only thing that poor woman has up her ass.
And a majority of the committee decided to join her there.
And all this time I've been thinking that my Social Security number was the Mark 'O teh Beast. My, how I've fallen behind the changing times.
Ah, Republicans, always ready to defend your right to do what you please with your body unless they don't like it.
There are plenty of good reasons to support a bill like this, generally all built around the idea that we do have a right to decide what goes into our bodies and we shouldn't be coerced into accepting things.
And it's remarkably forward-thinking for people to pass laws ensuring chipping doesn't become a problem before it actually is a problem.
But... damn, these people are crazy.
I might not mind, if it was in vibrate mode.
I agree with #6, there are good reasons for wanting this bill to become law (corporations should not be treating their employees like objects for example) but "mark of the beast" is not one of them. I don't know whether to support this bill or be against it since the crazies are pushing for it.
I thought they wanted the apocalypse?
Could they just make up their god damn minds?
Sheesh
And yeah, that woman...yeah. As a psych major, I have to say she sounds very, very much like a paranoid schizophrenic. Sad. Well, at least she's apparently not homeless (I assume), making her better off than where a lot of other schizophrenics end up when their families don't want to bother taking care of them.
OK... and I'm probably gonna get shit for this, BUT...
Why this:
Emphasis mine... Why is that a valuable piece of descriptive information relevant to the issue at hand? Why "hefty", but not, say, blonde... or short, or tall, or white, or waivy-haired, or blue-eyed. Or without any physical characteristic descriptor whatsoever?
Why do I feel like the description "hefty" was added in there in an intentionally derisory manner? As if "hefty" would lend more credibility to the fact that she's obviously mentally unstable and socially inept...
Or maybe I'm just reading into it too much.
You'd think that a women with such an obvious and severe break with reality should be hospitalized for her own safety.
I mean, was she even asked to demonstrate any evidence whatsoever that her alleged microchip implant was real? And if so, who put it there? And why? If these elected officials were doing their job, they'd want facts.
Too bad they prefer their fairy tales.
Any guess on this woman's stance on abortion?
First it's your pets then it's your passports then it's you. It's a slippery slope, damnit.
I'm a little confused as to where this woman has the microchip. If it's in her nether regions as she seems to be implying then all she has to do is wear tinfoil underpants.
@ #13...
GOOD POINT! Brilliant observation.
#6:
But then why single out "microchips"? If the issue is that all bodily invasive medical procedures require consent, then a good law would state that clearly, rather than limiting its scope to electronics.
"...something weird on their hand..."
Am I the only one who thought of Say-rah?
Doesn't Babeland sell a device much like the one described by this poor woman? I don't believe it's implanted permanently, but it's definitely radio controlled... Do the good Christian lawmakers of Georgia have an opinion on that as well?
"Just imagine, if you will, having a beeper in your rectum or genital area,"
I think the majority of Republicans were against it until she said that.
I can agree to right to choose to have implants, but this is just paranoia. Ergh, Conservative politics, BYO metal disorder.
This is ghastly. To entertain this kind of thing without getting help for this woman is... unconscionable. It shows clearly that entire swathes of the country/world lack the ability to think critically. They will believe whatever they hear and a critical mass around them also agree-- no matter how insane (or easily falsifiable) the claim.
Heck, we could all go down there and plant beliefs about aliens being people with two different coloured eyes and they'd be out arresting those people.
The reasoning behind the response is all looney, but there are a couple of nuggets of truth in the details. I used to work with the RFID chips like those implanted in pets/livestock.
If they are talking about RFID chips (which is what is shown in the photo) - then the person has no control over the chip being "activated" and read. The chips power up when in the presence of the proper radio frequency and transmit their contents (usually just an ID number, but some can hold other info). I don't have one implanted, but I don't believe there is any physical sensation to the read process, so the idea of one "buzzing" is incorrect. (My dog has never complained of the chip in her back causing any discomfort.)
The idea of implanting people with them raises many privacy and security concerns that should be things that lawmakers are aware of, but tying it into mythical end-times stories is absurd.
Oh good! This just reminded me to have my cat microchipped. And I can guarantee you that when the vet does it, my cat will definitely need to be held down against his will.
Well I'm confused. If the Antichrist is prevented from ruling, does that mean the Second Kingdom of Christ won't happen?
That is why the fundies need Israel. So the battle on the plains of Armageddon (Meggido) can take place.
And where does it say in the bible that microchips will be implanted in people? It doesn't. There is something about numbers on foreheads or some such. Skin markings do not equal microchips.
No such thing as a biblical literalist. They just pick and choose and Make Stuff Up and lie a lot.
I support this regardless of the crazies supporting it. The government shouldn't have that power over individuals.
p.s. Whenever Roy Barnes can get points from the loons on a good issue, I for that too. We need him back to replace Sonny Purdue. (Or, as many like to say down here, "Pur-don't". Funny, right?)
If you read the article, one will find out that the lady discussing the groin microchips is much crazier than shown here.
Go ahead, have yourself a pleasant surprise.
These legislators are really one toy short of a Happy Meal. Everyone knows that extraterrestrials insert microchips. The Dept. of Defense uses RFID/GPS devices. The anal and vaginal probing are just for fun.
This is the voice I heard in my head as I read the DeKalb resident's comments.
I would love to have the RFID tag from my MBTA (Boston bus/subway) pass embedded in my hand. To never ever have to worry about losing the card, as well as the shell geeky potential of just waving my hand over the card sensor as I board the bus, would more than make up for the very minor inconvenience of the surgical procedure.
...Is her Microchip a remote sex toy?
A chip in my hand would be fantastic. Would almost not need a wallet anymore.
One could imagine logical reasons to require employees to put a chip in their hand. For instance if they want to increased security over key cards. I don't really see why this is an invasion of privacy.
and anyways of course its crazy atm to make a law about it either way, since its not happening.
I think everyone should have a microchip implanted in their brain connected to its pleasure center. Everytime it's activated we get an intenst sexual climax.
We all would get an activator, except it would only activates others' chips. Then we would all have an incentive to be nice to others...
This is an attempt by Georgia to regain first place in the race for stupid with Texas. I can hardly wait for the next counter move.
Oh Georgia...at least its a consent law. Of course now doctors will have to explain that the heart monitoring and stimulation system has a microchip in it and some poor deluded moron will not get it because of their misguided beliefs.
Ahh teh stoopid it burns.
@13 heh
Some idiot on the CNN board two nights ago was ranting about how a Microsoft test of skin "tape" to create tactile keypads on your hand in the future was supposed to be the "Mark of the Beast" as well. A few of us mocked him (I actually said I was mocking him...). Even a Seminary student tried to implore him to get some sense into his head.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of them out there.
I think it's funny that the sponsor of the bill is named "Chip".
Did you notice the name of the senator who sponsored the bill? Chip Pearson! If chips in the body are bad, a chip in the name must be the same, it's just like crackers and human flesh. Therefore he is actually THE ANTICHRIST. But they didn't notice....
yeah, that woman is obviously crazy. everyone knows it isn't the antichrist that chips you, it is aliens, after they have anal probed you. (they don't want to mistakenly probe you again)
@Celtic_Evolution#11
I've lived in Georgia and the AJC was my local paper for a few years. You have to consider the context. To be described as "hefty" in a Georgia newspaper of any sort, you must qualify as morbidly obese and have a full-on front-butt. To withhold that germane evidence of generally poor judgment would have compromised journalistic integrity. Just as a rough guide, if the AJC calls you hefty, there's not a chance in hell that you tip the scales at less than 300 lbs.
By the way, did anyone else notice the name of the bills sponsor? Chip Pearson. ROFL!
What's sad is that we're depending on crazy people to protect our most basic rights.
I don't know about you -- but not being coerced into surgery that deprives one of privacy is pretty damn basic. The bills should go further -- banning implantation without a very rigorous public review. Companies or the government SHOULD NOT start to use rfids as an id to work at a location.
And you know they will -- what's more "secure" than putting peoples damn id's right into them to get into the work building? Requiring it for employment seems just a reasonable extension of drug-tests & all the other invasions of privacy that are common-place in the workplace today.
The bonus to it is by requiring it for employment, you eliminate all kinds of possible troublemakers who feel they have a right to privacy and dignity -- you know, folks who aren't "team-players".
Yup, it's damn sad that it isn't secularists who are yelling about the obvious road we're going down, not until it's too damn late. We'll have to hope that the nutcases will save us from our own intellectual laziness.
Teshi @ 21;
Not just arresting them. They would probably start lynching and/or burning them as well. Perhaps with a little light stoning thrown in for good measure (because we all know how much god likes him a good stonin', just ask the taliban).
Sadly, for some people 'V' (original series or remake depending upon taste) is less a sci-fi show, more a docu-drama.
Their are always those who have a difficulty with the whole fantasy/reality divide. Theists being the most prominant such group. I mean honestly, microchips as the Mark of the Beast? I am pretty sure that nowhere in the bibble does it say;
...but maybe I just missed that part, being an atheist and all...
Ok, one has to wonder why she thinks this supposed chip is implanted in her vagina / rectum area.
Any chance this mysterious chip could be behind the strange feelings and cravings she has in that area?
Note the bill has no jurisdiction over aliens. That's what aluminum foil hats are for.
Note also that it does not prohibit microchips, or beepers in your rectum (sorry, I do not know and do not care to imagine or even mentally image that), just prohibits "requiring" it.
Can't Satan just ask nicely? So this does nothing about the problem?
Now ban tattoos and you're talking.
This was all engineered by Spike. He's still mad about the microchip the Initiative put in his head. I told him to get over it already but you know how he gets.
There are plenty of good reasons to support a bill like this, generally all built around the idea that we do have a right to decide what goes into our bodies and we shouldn't be coerced into accepting things.
And yet that is already the law. No doctor can treat you without your consent, unless you have been committed because you are a harm to yourself and others. So it's already against the law.
frog, Inc, most employers don't do drug tests anymore, since they are costly and bad peformance is easily caught, the ones that do only test when you start. No law had to be passed to force most employers to stop drug testing. Simple economics and self-interest stopped them.
The only exception is high value employees they also take out life insurance on, such as executives.
The crazies have been going on about this for a while now. I read a fairly rabid article on chips being the "mark of the beast" around 3 years ago, and two things instantly came to mind.
The first was that, if the mark of the beast is supposed to be on one hand (right or left, I can't remember)... then why not have it implanted in the *other* hand.
My second thought was that it actually sounded like a cool idea, and I wanted to see if I could find someone to take the RFID chip out of my subway pass and implant it into my hand.
Summer Seale #35 wrote:
And, because there are so many of them out there, I find it interesting to imagine (or consider) the possibility that this woman, who thinks a microchip was planted in her butt by the Department of Defense, is not clinically insane. If she is surrounded by enough people who distrust the government and advocate these sorts of conspiracies, she just might be buying into a pre-existing delusion, as opposed to manufacturing it. Add in religion, and the probability is upped.
Of course, my best guess is that she's a paranoid schizophrenic. What's fun is that this all-too-likely diagnosis doesn't seem to have occurred to the state representative sponsoring the bill till she was actually speaking. How the hell did he find her? Did she write him personal letters, or is she a "well-known" activist in the implanted microchip conspiracy field?
@rob #38: Perhaps they should also outlaw alien-inflicted anal probes as part of their "preventing fictional occurrences" initiative.
You're not.
It's been done already on a trial basis, but I can't find anything quickly where it's been done routinely. There have been laws restricting it passed in several states (see also here).
What exactly would be the point of implanting microchips/RFIDs in people?
Wow... really jihadashdee?
So you think leaving out that she's a "hefty" woman would have harmed the journalistic integrity of a story about a woman claiming to have microchip implants in her nether-regions, and a state legislature finding it a convincing argument?
Pardon me while I scoff...
er, that wasn't supposed to be all italicized...
Time to drink some coffee, methinks.
truthspeaker @ 44;
Loving the Buffy reference. In such a scenario, the next question is whether or not Angel (yes, David Boreanaze *waits for all the ladies and gay guys present to stop drooling* OK, now that that is out of the way, we can continue) still has a soul this week. It is so hard to keep track. Gypsy curses just aren't what they used to be.
Um, no.
I and everyone in the company I work for is tested randomly throughout their employment.
Companies regularly do this because they get a discount on their insurance if they partner with a testing service that reports to the insurance company and requires action on positive tests. That IMHO is the main reason for the testing. The identification of questionable employees is important but secondary and comes along with the savings on insurance premiums.
There is a legitimate use for microchips being put into humans, but I don't yet know if it is being used or not. Alzheimer's patients who live at home frequently wander off and every year there are stories of several who are found frozen to death, usually within a short distance from home. Would this not be a compassionate measure and save a lot of agony for the loved ones?
Rev, she said most, not all.
#48- That won't stop the twerps. Arilou and Sectoids will not be deterred by such laws. That's what Skyrangers and Interceptors with Avalanche missiles are for.
So... now that they passed these laws the Book of Revelation won't come to pass and the apocalypse will be thwarted?
Talk about hubris. Sheesh.
Yep... and there are plenty of other good uses for microchips directly implanted... monitoring internal pacemakers and sending statistics over rf to an external readout is another... there are plenty of (mostly medical or other care-related) good reasons.
The issue here is one of choice. It should not ever be mandatory for such devices to be implanted. But the reasons have nothing to do with anything that's going on with these kooks.
Wow, too many reruns of The Manchurian Candidate.
Er, I mean, clearly it's a government conspiracy to violate the integrity of our bodies, the same way fluoridation sapped and impurified our precious fluids!
Also, I suspect there are plenty of people who whould totally get off on having some sort of genital/rectal vibrator activated randomly by strangers. I'd bet there are even websites for it (Rule 34)... though I'm not about to look. Probably full of Republicans, after all.
It could be, yes. Especially with some free vibrating action.
Maybe the vibrating/beeping is from her cell phone. If she is as hefty as I imagine there could be more than one electronic device captured between her folds causing the problem. Only one way to fix that is to don the ole tin foil Muumuu
Oh and about the chips, I would love to have all my personal info on a chip, no need for a wallet anymore, or car keys, or an ID card at work, or a passport, or ....
@Anodyne #50: Tracking migratory patterns, of course.
That wasn't the point I was responding to.
and
I'm not trying to be a dick, but that's just not really the case. I assure you that our truck drivers and warehouse workers are not the "high-value" employees as was described.
It is an economic reason that some if not many companies do test these days as the cost of the testing is less than the savings you get on insurance premiums for liability, health etc..
For a time, there was a woman near my university who stood alongside the road with a sign.
The sign explained how she had been abducted by aliens who worked for the government, and they had implanted an automatic raping machine. She would approach people, hold out a pair of pliers, and beg them to remove the device.
I have never been so sad in my life.
Here is The Beast at work, trying to keep third world peoples alive:
http://www.ted.com/talks/frederick_balagadde_bio_lab_on_a_microchip.html
What I love most about these sorts of things is the tip-off that the fundie republicans assume the other side is as stupid and oblivious as them. Like we're going to fucking label shit "666" so every cracker grandma with more teeth than neurons knows what we're up to.
Don't they remember that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was in convincing the world he didn't exist?
Christians: when we come for you with our grey, socialist abortion clinics on every block—and we will— they'll be labeled "Bob Cletus's Big Fucking Gun & Crucifix Empory, Umpori,Empouri, Store". All of a sudden you'll be supporting evolution in schools, knowing where Tajikistan is, and speaking a fucking second language, when all you thought you were doing was buying TruckNutz for the special woman in your life.
So by all means, stop paying your taxes and hole up in some Montanan shack with your guns; you'll just make it all that much easier for us to round you up with our sonic brown note tanks and their gaydar (betcha you thought gaydar detected homosexuals, eh? Nope: detects rednecks with bolt action rifles. You can thank your home-schooling mom now.)
OH MY GOD! That makes me SO ANGRY when it comes from the John Birchers. "BIBLICAL LITERALISM" means symbolism when it gets to beat with seven heads, 10 horns. That's the UN, not a /literal/ 7 headed Beast.
So a huge mass of laser cannons is about to show up on the black market, is it? I wanna get one!
bah shit
blockquote fail up there
should be quoted
I think that there IS neural implant technology for severe pain and parkinson's sufferers.
I recall about 6-8 years ago there was a fairly big debate on the ethics of "who would control the button".
I know that there is active research in implants for blindness.
So they are trying to make it illegal to help people.
Hey! Sounds like the new version of stem-cells.
My kid has an annoying habit of misplacing his USB flash drive (and thus the homework on it); and while we're working on getting him in the habit of backing up his data on the home computer, I've also fantasized about the Great Day when we'll all just have a data port built into our fingers--a REAL thumb drive. Unfortunately, I mentioned that little sciencefictional notion to a co-worker, who then launched into a lecture on the Mark O' The Beast.
As for the UPC code being the Mark, that reminds me of a childhood friend who, was a Hal Lindsey fan, and waited breathlessly for every sign and portent of the second coming. This was the early 1970s, and his parents were convinced that all signs (including some numerology) pointed to Henry Kissinger as the Antichrist (and who knows--after all, the guy has so far eluded prosecution for war crimes...)
I better go put on my tin foil hat!
I do love how a "literal" reading of Revelation means reading it out of order, and throwing in some of Daniel that was not a prophecy but a writer speaking directly to people at his time about what were at the time current events, and calling the whole thing a prophecy for the future.
True. Severe psychotics live a few decades less than the general population. And they die in unusual and pointless ways. Suicide, anorexia, avoidable accidents.
That woman is undoubtedly SZ. The weight gain might be due to dopamine blocker anti-psychotic drugs such as Zyprexa, as that is a common side effect. And it will shorten her life.
Odd fact. 5% or 15 million people in the USA claim to have been abducted by UFO aliens. Makes this country look like the crossroads of the galaxy.
First of all, I'm getting really sick of having to apologize for my state. Second, you left out the best part! Not only is she paranoid about a pager in her taint, she's convinced that the DoD already put one in her! Just replace DoD with CIA and rectum with teeth (worst anal sex ever), and you have the complete nutjob cliche.
@Celtic_Evolution
Scoff away.
Bad judgment has many indicators. Ignore them at your peril. While it's true that hers was on display with or without the physical description, I don't think that the story was in any way compromised or made more injurious to the subject by the additional info.
Just out of curiosity, if there had been a picture of the woman giving her testimony would you have been offended by that?
In the interest of full disclosure, let me make an explicit statement of my prejudice here: If a person is morbidly obese, I think less of them. I don’t hate them, and I don’t judge them solely on how well they would sizzle in a pan, but yes, I do think a bit less of them overall.
Raven:
Wait. Isn't that the battle of Pelennor Fields against the witch-king of Angmar... or was that in Lord of the Rings? Damn, it's so hard to tell the difference between the bible and LOTR.
RFID is not a locator. It doesn't transmit its location, it just sends back its encoded information. The one shown in the article only transmits for about a foot without requiring the reading device to have a large antenna. When they implant them in animals, you run the scanner right above the skin to read them, and they are only about a centimeter under the surface. Also, metal can negatively impact the signal strength.
The use is for identification, not location. For location, you need a much larger device as it needs both GPS and a battery so that it can transmit its signal independent of the reader. Typical RFID has no battery, as it is powered by induction from the reader's radio signal. They only transmit when in the correct field, as they have no power to do so otherwise.
Brownian, OM @67:
Thanks for that big laugh. (Now I have to go and change my coffee-stained shirt. Worth every stain and second-degree burn blister.)
#70:
The key issue is consent.
#71:
Closely followed by a Not So Great Day when criminals start amputating fingers to get at valuable data.
I think it's amusing that they think they can fend off the apocalypse by passing silly state laws.
Is the apocalypse coming, or not? If it's coming, do you think it's just going to pass Georgia by if you make sure your citizens don't have microchip implants?
RFID for Alzheimer's patients can be done, but I think it's on a county to county basis. It's not a locator, but it does provide information on who the person is, how to contact relatives, pertinent medical information, etc. Many counties also have locators you can get for Alzheimer's patients that are embedded into wrist or ankle bands.
a beeper in your rectum or genital area, the most sensitive area of your body. And your beeper numbers displayed on billboards throughout the city.
High Score! I got the High Score!
Yeah, I know. He gets sexy as hell. He just can't help it.
BTW, completely OT, but James Marsters performs the Dresden Files books by Jim Butcher. One of the two or three best readers on audio books I've heard.
@Brownian, 67: FWIW that was awesome.
googlemess #45:
This paragraph is so full of fail, I don't even know where to start. Have you applied for a job in the last 10 years? Almost all require pre-employment drug screens. 80% of Fortune 500 companies require drug testing. Rev BDC already addressed this part of it: "Simple economics and self-interest stopped them." Really? The real economic self-interest lies in reduced insurance premiums, which far outweigh the cost of drug testing. If anything, market forces have increased drug testing.
And this:
You don't actually believe that the executives on the top floor would sign a contract that requires them to be subjected to the same rules/indignities as the worker bees, do you?
Moggie @ 80
Sorry, didn't mean to suggest that I actually think implantable data storage is something that should be pursued--it's merely a parental fantasy, akin to the notion of teachers sending vitally important pieces of paper home stapled to a kid's forehead. Oh, sure, some may say it's impractical and maybe cruel, but at least the damned field trip permisson slip wouldn't get lost...
It's no joke in Tennessee - from the NYT about the recent hospital shooting.
"On Monday, Ibssa fired a volley of bullets that killed one hospital worker and wounded two others because, police say, he thought his doctor had implanted a tracking chip in him during an appendectomy in 2001."
Indeed... I shall.
And for you, obesity is one of them. I know, I know, precious... It's a simple lifestyle choice for everyone... I know.
That I choose to not dismiss someone as automatically lazy, ignorant, or otherwise sub-standard because of their weight is certainly not "at my peril". It may in fact be to my benefit.
Really? You don't think adding needlessly gratuitous, negative descriptors of a person's appearance is injurious or clearly conveys prejudice? Bullshit! You said it yourself... you think less of obese people. Besides that making you a bit of an asshole, it also made you negatively prejudiced against this woman before ever having heard a single word she said. That she turned out to be a crackpot is irrelevant to that point. It certainly is injurious, and irresponsible.
No... why would I be offended by a picture? With a picture, I get to assess the individual for myself and determine, based on my own personal morality, what, if anything, about her appearance makes any difference whatsoever.
Having the journalist do that for me, and decide that the only relevant aspect of her appearance (to the fact that she's clearly otherwise dysfunctional) was her weight, is unwarranted. It conveys a negative correlation between her weight and her mental state, which is totally fucking inconsequential, except to be gratuitously insulting.
No shit. Really?
These things are contradictory.
I once misplaced my Trapper Keeper, and thus the homework in it. (And all my pens.)
It had a picture of a unicorn and some kitties on it, painted by Sue Dawe.
Am I really going to just keep getting older and older? :-\
John's excellent drug trip aka Revelations was a silly story to begin with and it hasn't aged well over the last 2,000 years.
Today if the Antichrist actually did show up, someone would take him out with an AK-47 or a tacnuke and that would be the end of that.
Morons probably wrote the law in such a way to outlaw pacemakers, vagal nerve stimulation, and spinal cord stimulation for pain control.
(not just for pain any more: http://www.wpi.edu/News/TechNews/010214/orgasm.shtml
...and here I thought all Republicans *liked* having something up their rectums...besides their heads, that is. News stories seem to indicate it.
@ 78: Thanks for the clarification. And if GPS devices are small enough (are they?), they could be worn as a non removable bracelet by people like Alzheimer's patients or mental patients. (and add the allergies, meds etc).
If a person is so incompetent that they need a GPS, then they must have a family member w/POA who would supply the non-governmental approval.
It's also a staple of the general conspiracy theory subculture. "They" implant microchips for mind control into everyone who's on to "them". Whoever "them" is.
Moggie @ 80
It is not about consent at all.
The only way that an implantation could happen is with a medical procedure. Medical procedures already require informed consent.
I have to agree with Rev BCD on the drug testing. I travel the country from power plant to power plant (hence the nym) and have always been tested upon initial entry and if I'm there long enough (20 months here in KC, Mo.) my name is put on the random testing list. Usually every 3 months or so.
Been doing this for the last 25 years.
I know it's been to my benefit. Mrs. TheBold is a bit overweight. Not what you'd call "morbidly obese," but definitely large.
She's also one of the most intelligent, funny people I know. She is also a very hard worker, and has excellent judgment (her only major misjudgment was hooking up with me). We've been together over 18 years, and I don't regret a one of them.
On the other side, there's my brother. He also professes to dislike large women, for many of the same reasons as our short-sighted fellow here. My brother is himself quite large, though, and refuses to see the hypocrisy.
Oh, well. I guess that is just our ability to rationalize the irrational.
Yup. Same here, though I think it may have been Pee Chee portfolios with amusing doodles on 'em. Marketing and technology will never keep up with the Organizationally Challenged.
Almost all require pre-employment drug screens. 80
yes I mentioned pre employment, maybe you should read more closely? Your figure is PRE employment, here is the linke:
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2007/84-percent-of…
The 80% random test figure is from 1996, rather old:
http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-11-05/business/17705543_1_drug-testing-…
The company I worked at, Motorola, stopped in the 90s, though they claim they still do. Well that's as good anecdotal "evidence" as Rev's above is it not?
But only 29% of employers conduct continuing random tests after you are employed:
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070206/NEWS/70206…
You don't actually believe that the executives on the top floor would sign a contract that requires them to be subjected to the same rules/indignities as the worker bees, do you?
My friends father, a pretty damn rich bank executive, had to submit to drug testing.
Celtic_Evolution @ #11:
Good catch! I'll bet it was general ignorance as opposed to malicious intent, but it's still an example of bigotry.
Rev @ #13:
I snorted when I saw that quote, and wondered who would be the first to pick up on it. You must have gotten up pretty early this morning.
Brownian @ #67:
Brilliant!
My addition to the conversation:
Imagine what would happen if a bunch of people wrote "666" with a marker on communion crackers and snuck them into church services everywhere.
@raven #91: Ahh, but he'll use his mind-whammy powers to get put in charge of the United Nations and, therefore, the entire planet.
Bad judgment has many indicators. Ignore them at your peril.
In the interest of full disclosure, let me make an explicit statement of my prejudice here: If a person is morbidly obese a superficial judgmental asshole, I think less of them. I don’t hate them, and I don’t judge them solely on how well they would sizzle in a pan, but yes, I do think a bit less of them overall.
Celtic_Evolution @ #11:
Good catch! I'll bet it was general ignorance as opposed to malicious intent, but it's still an example of bigotry.
Rev @ #13:
I snorted when I saw that quote, and wondered who would be the first to pick up on it. You must have gotten up pretty early this morning.
Brownian @ #67:
Brilliant!
My addition to the conversation:
Imagine what would happen if a bunch of people wrote "666" with a marker on communion crackers and snuck them into church services everywhere.
I think what you mean to say is that it makes you feel better about yourself.
Obviously the woman, hefty or not, is psychotic! Only a crazy person would think that our government would do anything of that sort to a citizen! Next there'll be people saying they were slipped LSD by the CIA and observed from an adjoining room... Gotta go-they say it's time for me to stare at those damned goats again.
Ack!
I have no explanation for why my post showed up twice, and not even consecutively.
The server has been a little off this morning, but that's the only excuse I can think of.
And your beeper numbers displayed on billboards throughout the city.
I haven't been to Atlanta in years, but I remember seeing lots of billboards with ads for DNA-reading services headlined, "WHO'S THE DADDY?" Does the pride of DeKalb County have reason to identify with these?
Oh I fully admit mine is anecdotal as it is only my experience with my company and discussions with my friend who was the head of HR for a large medical supply manufacturing company on the trends in drug testing.
So take it for what it's worth.
But the fact is, companies do drug test and they do more than pre-screen and there are definite economical reasons to continue if not increase testing.
Given the amount of expensive and intrusive crap that governments have carried out, attempted, or proposed in the past in an attempt to better control or monitor citizens' behaviour, I wouldn't put it past them to someday think microchipping everyone would be a good idea. Even (or especialy) if, as LMR indicates, the technology would be next to useless for what they wanted to do. (Exhibit A: the UK government and biometric ID cards).
As such, I'm broadly in favour of legislation intended to prohibit it. And I have no problem with the concept of prohibiting a government from doing something before it has tried to do so - afterall, most constitutions do just that.
The fact that the motivations for proposing this legislation are bat-shit insane doesn't change that.
After all, I don't object to laws saying "Thou shalt not murder", just because in some societies that law is in place because a book says that 3500 years ago, God wrote it on a stone tablet.
Sad to say, this is hardly surprising. The implanted microchip as “the mark of the beast” is hugely popular among the rapture crowd. It’s one of their favorite things to get frightened over, and they’re on constant vigil looking out for its insidious manifestation. I don’t expect Georgia will be the last state to do this.
Brownian #67, nice. In my head I hear it read by James Marsters’ “Spike” character.
@Celtic Evolution: Nah, you're right, hefty was gratuitus.
Also, she's not that crazy. She just read about vibrating underpants, and misunderstood. It's typical of the Right-Wing.
I have a live one in my workplace. "Get on a fucking treadmill" has been his observation on some women weighing barely 130 pounds. He himself is about 5'5" and maybe 190-200.
Of course, I'm sure it's all muscle underneath.
Yes Rev I was speaking anecdotally as well which i should not do. i realize after i posted the 29% figure was ALL companies, and not the largest, who may employ more people.
My perception is that it is falling on it's own, but there are few surveys out there.
thanks
@cypress #93
A problem with having a GPS built into something is powering the bloody thing. RFID chips take a tiny amount of energy that is supplied from a reader at close range, GPS units have to receive satellite signals. I suppose you could do some sort of one-shot activation but RFID & GPS are different technologies.
Anyway, I have the joys of being both a bit of a techie and a complete Luddite at the same time. I personally do not trust cards/passports/etc with RFID because is am not convinced that they are secure. Passport lives in a Faraday-caged wallet, only RFID cards are an access one for work and the London Transport Oyster swipe.
Implanting RFID chips does potentially have advantages, but the implantee has no control over who reads them. Until the whole security side is sorted out I'm highly unconvinced.
This doesn't mean that Satan invented them. Well, not to my knowledge anyway.
Moggie #80:
It already happens with high-end consumer good (like luxury cars) that have biometric anti-theft devices. Back in 2005, Boing Boing ran a tidbit about car thieves in Malaysia who cut off the finger of a Mercedes owner with a machete because they needed his fingerprint to unlock the car.
http://boingboing.net/2005/03/31/biometric-car-lock-d.html
Oh, and I forgot to mention... Jello Biafra's had a go already....
To this and all the other comments concerning consent, how is this not already covered by existing medical procedure consent laws?
Implantation of a chip or any other foreign object is a medical (actually surgical, even if it only entails an injection of some sort) procedure. The requirement for consent, and the right to refuse it, is almost absolute already.
So, even notwithstanding any crazy motivations behind it, these laws are completely redundant, and a waste of legislative time and taxpayer money.
So would you approve of a motion specifically drafted to prohibit the government from murdering people named Henry between the ages of 40 and 41 with used tires from Arizona, if they happen to be stutterers? And would you approve of people spending the time and resources to construct that bill?
@Celtic_Evolution
Please explain how that statement at the end of your last post is contradictory.
Unrelated to that alleged contradiction...
I see this as a problem of ethics. If we saw someone with razor marks on their body indicative of self-mutilation, we would think it our responsibility to try to get help for that person. However, if we see someone shortening their life by living in a cocoon of fat, we are supposed to do nothing and say nothing and give it no further consideration.
As a smoker, I'm subjected to the same sort of stigmatization and judgment, and rightly so. It's a sign of personal weakness and something that I need to work on. Anti-smoking group pressure has undoubtedly saved a vast number of lives. Hopefully we will someday be able to say the same thing about anti-obesity measures.
They seriously believe the anti-Christ, as they define him, is going to go "oh drat! State law! Foiled again!" Heck, but that woman's testimony they think someone is doing that already and they aren't calling for an investigation??
I once met a woman whose husband was a skinny, wild white-haired, eccentric professor-type philosopher. The woman was much younger, very much larger, and smoked home-rolled cigarettes with a breathy wheeze. Generally, she kept quiet while he passionately and peripatetically raved about everything under the sun. But when she did speak, it meant something. "Yes!" we'd all agree, "That's it! You've cut right to the heart of the discussion and summated our positions perfectly!"
It took me a few days to figure out why I was so surprised every time she did that, as if I never expected her to have anything worthwhile to say. And it turns out I didn't; everything about her physicality led me to erroneously think she wasn't very intelligent. I've never been slapped so hard in the face by my own biases as when I realised that. And I was ashamed.
Stereotyping: engage in it at your peril.
RamblingDude
Marsters reads the Dresden Files in his natural (American) accent, though, not Spike's (or Captain John's) British accent.
My impression of drug testing is that the organizations which do it think at the top that the managers in the middle are not competent to tell when the serfs they supervise at the bottom are stoned.
This is the way microchip implantation in humans will become commonplace.
Are you serious?
Let's look at your statement again, shall we?
If you judge them at all in a prejudiced way, that makes you think less of them, you are judging them... period. That it's not solely how you judge means what? You're judging them. Negatively. On sight alone. It's judgmental. Thus, your statement that you don't judge them (solely on one criteria or not) is worthless and contradictory.
So smoking (complete, total personal choice) is the same as obesity? Obesity is merely a sign of personal weakness in all cases?
You really are a piece of shit.
There we go. I smoke too, and I get tired of the constant comments, but generally I avoid pointing at someone else and saying "Oh, yeah? Well, he's fat. Whyncha go bother him?"
Personal weakness? Apparently you're unaware of the literature surrounding tobacco use. Nicotine affects the brain in some very substantial ways. Responding to strong signals from your own brain is not personal weakness.
It has, though never by referring to tobacco as a personal weakness.
Those of us in public health are trying, though again not by calling it "personal weakness". Look up the term "obesogenic".
otrame,
James Marsters is one of my favorite actors ever. While all the “Buffy” characters were well-cast and intelligently done, I think Spike was my favorite. I kept “taking notes,” so to speak, at how he did things. I’m not surprised that he also excels as a reader in audio books. Now I want to buy the “Dresdon Files.”
I think you're overselling. Referring to it as a personal weakness is not necessary, efficient, nor optimal, but it has been done in the past and people who managed to quit permanently out of shame are no worse off than people who quit while recognizing that smoking can be a behavioral/psychological issue that's not a personal weakness (although granted, I'd imagine the latter is a better road to take from a public policy standpoint, that doesn't mean the former never saved a person).
Not entirely. The bill also prohibits requiring implants as a condition of employment, for example.
Brownian, as a qualifier to the statement above in my # 126,
I'm aware that the addiction to smoking is real and not to be taken lightly (a separate point)... my point was only that it is a personal choice to start in the first place, and thus hardly an apt comparison to all cases of obesity.
@Paul #129:
Good points. I stand corrected.
If she has a microchip in her, she's under the complete control of Lucifer - she's one of Satan's Cybernetic Slaves. And therefor, any path she leads the assembled lawmakers down is the path Lucifer wants them to take. THIS NEW GEORGIA LAW IS PART OF SATAN'S EVIL PLAN!!!
Here's what I wrote about this.
@Celtic_Evolution
I did not anywhere in that statement say that I did not judge them. I said that obesity wasn't the sole criteria for judgment. I judge things and people all day long. You're soaking in it right now.
With that, I'll leave you to try to hack me up. We're getting more than a bit off-topic at this point.
Yup... and I'm sure if we weer in a room together you'd be doing so had we not been having the conversation, just by looking at me.
Whereas you've given me some fairly substantive words and personal reflections with which I can actually judge you based on who you are and what you think. Never would have tried to do so just by looking at you.
But hey... I'm sure your way's just as good.
Good luck with that.
I for one like the bill. I don't want anything focibly installed, especially one with ID/credit card/SSN/etc.
At the risk of sounding paranoid, RFID can be used as a locator; it's just not an active one. Because of the short range, when it is scanned, that RFID reader is essentially your location.
Think like the movie Minority Report... His eyes aren't active GPS, but whenever he enters a store, or whatever, his eyes get scanned and his location is logged. It's passive tracking.
It's not too much of a leap to see something more like an "EZ-pass" for toll-roads which have a range of 15-20 feet or so. Your movements could be logged through every street light, every store, apartment complex, taxi cab, etc... anywhere an argument could be made for an RFID reader to be installed.
This is dependant on a few things, but it's really not beyond the scope of technology we have right now.
And it opens a whole new area for fraud by someone covertly scanning your hand in a crowded area and pulling name, SSN, credit card... At least with a wallet, they actually have to steal the wallet. With an RFID chip, I think it's foolish to not expect someone to come up with a way to just steal all of your info when they walk by you.
The bill is in the right place I think, just not the reasons *why* they put it in place.
So if the bill is approved, the rapture will began.
Then, ¡¡¿WHY ARE THESE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AGAINST IT?!!!
So if the bill is approved, the rapture will began.
Then, ¡¡¿WHY ARE THESE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AGAINST IT?!!!
Yahoomess, #137:
What is wrong with those of you who think this bill is necessary? How is it possible that you do not understand that forcibly putting a device in anyone's body is already and obviously illegal? You could invoke countless statutes and regulations to do with assault and battery, medical consent, you name it.
What world are you living in that you don't understand this? How do you get about your daily business without the faintest grasp of the most ordinary legal protections you already have?
"Our rights to privacy, our rights to bodily integrity, the right to say no to foreign objects being put in our body"
None of that sounds crazy to me.
I was tentatively against the bill based on the presentation here (concurring with the waste of time), but if as has been said one part of the bill forbids employers from requiring RFID's and similar tracking chips under their terms of employment I think that is a law worth having on the books. While I understand that the initial complaint is possibly linked to the Bible stating that the Mark will be required to participate in trade, any pressure to actually submit to implanted tracking microchips is bad in their current form. They are not useful for authentication, and actually open up new risk vectors*.
* For example, theoretically RFID passports could be sniffed by a stronger receiver than the stock ones (it's quite plausible, and increases the detection range by orders of magnitude) and used to identify terrorist targets if you're visiting a foreign country. At least these have some shielding -- if you have a chip in your hand, are you going to have to wear tinfoil or lead gloves to keep from surreptitious access to your details?
alex.asolis.net:
Re-read my post #140. What part of it's already and obviously illegal are you having a hard time understanding?
There, fixed that. That is usually what happens to rambling, aggressive delusionals, at least where I work.
@Paul:
If that's true, then I'd support that too.
The crazy people have clearly seen the first episodes of South Park ("Cartman Gets an Anal Probe") and Futurama (the job-chip thing) too many times.
Hey, I thought the "Mark of the Beast" was on the hand or forehead. Nobody told me it was going to be stuck up your ass...?
Not to be outdone, Arizona is trying to pass (maybe it's passed now) a law that Obama can't be put on the state's presidential ballot unless he produces his 'birth certificate'....
*wink wink nudge nudge*
I weep for my home state. Strangely, I still want to move back there.
Shit. There's microchips in my computers! All of them!
@Paul #142: Does anyone actually know what's in the bill? I wouldn't be at all surprised if they included an exemption for businesses.
I wouldn't say I agree with the need for legislation, that's just a waste of time and money, I agree (as it is already covered by many existing laws, as has been pointed out by a few of you)...
Conversationally, though, I agree with the sentiment of not having things forcibly implanted in my body, obviously.
I think maybe others are saying the same thing, just not articulating it well... dunno, could be wrong.
This is a golden business opportunity: make and sell tinfoil hats. Perhaps they could be made from Mylar and have the Republican elephant printed on it (the elephant could have on a straight jacket!). We could make a bundle feeding into their delusions, plus the delusional will signal their presence, instead of being able to hide in state capitols.
I don't think you understand that it's not the fear that the government is allowed to do it now, but that they might make a law in the future that does allow it.
By already having a law that specifically states that it is illegal implant one, would block a new law which requires them, or at least give grounds to refuse getting one.
@150
tsg @130 directly stated it prohibits implants as a condition of employment, and I conditionally expressed approval of the bill if this is accurate (I do not have the time to try and track it down at the moment...actually, I lied, here's a link).
Interestingly, when defining microchip it states "Such term shall not include pacemakers."
The relevant section of the bill:
I consider this a reasonable law, although I am by no means a legal mind.
Link was broken. Here's the Georgia General Assembly page for the bill.
Wow, you must have a really fun life.
You know, even for things that are entirely up to a person's choice, I don't think I'm in any lofty position to judge them. Because, you see, it turns out that when you live in a society, there are hundreds of hundreds of decisions people make every day that impact you in one way or another. If you would like to judge every single one of them, you really won't have much time to have any kind of decent life. Is someone who smokes two packs a week going to affect your insurance more than the guy who thinks he's a good soccer player and ends up in the ER three times a year for twisted ankles and torn ACLs? And is it worth it for me to complain about someone's penchant for riding a motorcycle if it means they can gripe about my love of playing my headphones at full blast? When you live in an interdependent society, you have to make allowances for how other people live. And it's also useful to assume that they're not absolute idiots who have no idea what they're doing. "OMG don't you know smoking kills you????" "Holy shit, I had no idea! I've never heard that before in my life! I'll quit RIGHT NOW!" Really, give people some credit. You can't live life without risk. Some people take that risk in the form of full-contact sports, some take it in the form of a nightly drink, etc. Any one person isn't the moral arbiter of the universe on how a person should live, and shouldn't be. It's the messiness of being human.
If I don't have an implant in my hand, how will I know when LastDay comes and I need to report to Carrousel?
Check your email. Or log on to www.apocalypse.org.
*wonders how many people actually catch that reference before they search it on google, then realizes that the type of people here would be those that know old, obscure book/movie references like that*
There's a panel from Jack Chick's insane mind on the subject.
And if you're in the mood for some inanity, here's the entire comic it's from.
@Carlie
It seems to be all the rage today to read things into what I've written that simply aren't there. Interpolation and extrapolation works fairly well with large enough data sets but it's a tricky game with textual descriptions.
As far as constant judging goes, I'm not about to apologize for it. We all do it. If you don't then I have no idea how you manage in this world. I have an email from a Nigerian prince that I could forward to you if you'd like.
If someone shows up at my door in a cheap suit with a low-blink-rate, glazed look on their face telling me that they know for a dead-certain fact that I have an immortal soul that's in immediate peril, then I'm going to judge them to be at the very least credulous and at the worst a dangerous fruitcake. Similarly, if you get so fat that you have to be cut out of your double-wide then I'm not likely to pay you an ounce of attention (yes it too comes by the ounce) unless you're discussing the relative strengths of different bed frames because I will have judged you to be a person who has no idea as to how to go about living productively and efficiently.
It seems that I've gone straight through multiple layers of lard and struck a nerve. Lucky me.
Hack away. Now where are my damned cigarettes...
Numbnuts... do you even read the shit you write as you're writing it?
Look carefully...
This:
...
is hardly enough to judge and reach the conclusion that they are "at the very least credulous and at the worst a dangerous fruitcake." (by the way, what the fuck has "low blink rate" got to do with anything?)
It's this very important qualifier that you inserted:
that gives you any actual data to come to the conclusion you did.
Some of the brightest guys I know ain't much to look at...
Caught up yet?
Was that supposed to be clever?
It seems we've failed to penetrate several inches of skull and are left with a shallow, narrow minded, prejudiced asshat.
Lucky us.
jidashdee is the type to walk into a room with Stephen Hawking, not knowing who he was, of course, nudge his buddy with his elbow and giggle: "Heheh... look at the friggin retard"...
Good thing Hawking isn't fat or there's no telling how worthless he might be to him.
@Celtic_Evolution
As long as we've agreed to go completely ad hominem:
Wow. Anger and corpulence are a deadly combination.
Seek the advice of a physician immediately.
Check the scoreboard, fatty. I'm lapping you.
Have you read the bill? It addresses more than simply forcibly installing an implant in someone who doesn't want one. Not for nothing, but you might want to address your reading comprehension skills before criticizing anyone else's.
Thank you for proving there is no such thing as karma: if there were, your thyroid gland would have exploded for that.
I got it in one. My immediate response was, "but this time it's different because it's me!"
According to the proposed legislation, if I were a Georgian, I would need to visit my doctor to put my watch on (or perhaps my child's):
A watch is a mechanism that is passively capable to transmitting information. Therefore it is a "microchip".
It is applied to the skin. Therefore it is "implanted".
By section (e), only a regulated physician can "implant" a "microchip".
Gee... ignorance of the definition of "ad hominem"... what a complete surprise.
I see my admonitions were warranted... and with each weak attempt at weight-based mudslinging you are coming across as a bigger and bigger shitstain. Keep digging... I'm guessing in another 5 posts or so your thesaurus will run out of synonyms for "obese".
Funny thing is, you seem to think my outrage at your disgusting behavior towards obesity gives you some insight into my personal body type. Which makes you ignorant on top of being an asshole. You're creating quite the resume.
Scoreboard? Where? I see no scoreboard. But I do look around and see... well... zero support for a damn thing you've said so far in this thread... so umm... yeah... scoreboard.
Dude, I'm pretty sure I don't know much about you... but I know about me, and with my athletic background and resume, and your... ahem... smoking habit, I'm quite sure you'd be too out of breath to even lap the sweat off my balls.
I remember when Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel sermonized on the evil that was barcodes coming to 'merica. They were very much the "ooh scary, this could qualify as the mark o'the beast, it's rapture time!" ticket. That was a long time ago, in the early '70s. There was distinct desperation in the air then; it's just gotten increasingly hysterical over the years.
Rapture believing Xtians are utterly desperate for a real sign, for something, anything to be the fabled mark. They've been on about the chip for quite some time now.
Everybody seems to have missed a key part of this bill - for all the devastating invasion of personal privacy that forced implantation of a microchip would be, the bill makes it a misdemeanor!
BTW, UPC barcodes really do contain the Mark of the Beast. The "guard bars" (found on each end and in the middle) are two narrow lines separated by a narrow space, which is the same as the code for 6 on the righthand side. Hence, 6-6-6. Check it out, it's true (actually, since the number code is wider, it also includes a broad white space to the right of the bars; also, the bar pattern for each number on the left is the inverse of what it is on the right, so you have to find a 6 on the righthand side). I always wondered if they did that deliberately to freak out religious nuts, especially given the line "no one could buy or sell without the Mark of the Beast".
#159: Heck, I just watched the movie a couple weeks ago, I have the book somewhere, and I even remember the TV series.
The Bill.
@tsg #168: I love that line. It's so honest, especially coming from the protagonist.
And of course clever con artists aren't aware of those sorts of superficial judgments at all. Dipshit.
***
singular: criterion
plural: criteria
Awww, am I judging you unfairly? I feel so terrible about that.
I find it interesting that so much anger seems to lurk just beneath the surface of fat hatred of the sort that jidashdee is holding. He/she doesn't just have a casual "try a gym" kind of shrugging disdain for fat people, it's strong enough of a self-identifier to spout on about it over and over, getting more vituperative each time. My guess is that it makes jidashdee feel somehow cheated in the game of life that there are people who are more successful in many ways than he/she is, so the only way to even the score a bit is to be able to call them names.
*pat on the head* There there, little jidashdee. As MrFire said, we understand you need someone to put down to feel better about yourself. You can sit in the corner with all the other bitter people who can't stand it when other people are happier than you are, even when they're fat or ugly or have no fashion sense and obviously aren't as good a person as you.
Back to the original post topic, I'm not sure which makes me more uneasy - the idea of implanting microchips with information, or the idea of requiring biometric scans. At least you could contest information on the microchips; have a glitch in the biometric database and you're pretty well screwed.
@Celtic_Evolution
We need an ongoing abuse thread where we could really hash this out properly. Perhaps some sort of realtime chat where others could watch and score. That would be a lot of fun. It would be a different sport entirely, but still quite fun.
As it is, I think we've taken up enough space with the vendetta. You've shown no tendency at all to argue in good faith or to score points with good reasoning, instead opting for non sequiturs and appeals to popular opinion. If you think that you've won this little back-and-forth then that's just further evidence of your muddled thinking.
In future, try to calm down a bit and read what's actually written before you tear into someone. I hate arguing with people who really don't know how to do it.
#169:
Leaving aside the question of whether this legislation is necessary, do you get the impression that the drafters didn't bother consulting any medical professionals? Or, for that matter, anyone who reads wider than the bible? They've exempted the one electronic implant that all laypeople have heard of, but neglected to mention any others, or to anticipate any future medical developments. Would it have been so hard to write something like "...shall not include any device whose sole function is to treat or otherwise mitigate a pre-existing medical condition in the implantee"?
Oh hi, what's going on in this thread...
Especially because it includes "SECTION 4. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed." Does that mean if you physically assault someone, beat them near to death, you can avoid a felony charge by putting a microchip in them when you're done?
What makes you think the information on your sub-dermal chip is going to even be accessible to you, much less contestable? Presuming there will be an avenue to correct information (short of tearing the chip out to destroy it, which could lead to UNSCANNABLE! as in Idiocracy) on your microchip is already making an overly optimistic assumption.
You probably are too thick to realize the irony of posting this comment immediately after getting slapped around by someone other than me...
Buddy, you are suffering from so many self inflicted wounds it was hardly a challenge... heck, I just pulled out enough to win.
But is it on Capitol Hill?
(runs away after infecting everyone with that earworm)
hilarious
When a fundy says "literal reading of Revelation" I mentally translate it as "stuff I remember from The Omen and Hal Lindsay specials".
Republicans "infringe on issues that are fundamental to our very existence. Our rights to privacy, our rights to bodily integrity, the right to say no to foreign objects being put in our body."
Fixed the crazy.
However the article makes the serious error of making the Georgia politicians look smarter and saner than they really are.
Cthulhu! FSM! Tinkerbell! Please help me find work in another state.
Nah, that prayer wont work - Cthulhu created Georgia.
I don't think that follows. Implantation of a "microchip" against a person's will is a subset of assault/battery, not the new definition of it. That's like saying if you rape someone, you can just slap them in the face afterwards and only be charged with misdemeanor assault (or so my layman's understanding of criminal law leads me to believe, anyway).
Why do the fundies try to stop these things?
I mean, they believe that things happen according to gods plan, right?
Therefore, if this marking-of-the-beast thing is really happening, shouldn't they just be sitting idly by, watching gods plan unfold, that much closer to the 2nd coming of the messiah?
Seems more about scoring political points to me.
BTW, who do these bible-thumping, gubment-hating clowns turn to when they want something done?
That's right, the government.
The hypocrisy and the stupidity, it hurts.
#159:
Come on, it's part of geek culture! If a person doesn't spot the reference, I think less of them.
@169: If I read your quote of the bill correctly, it will be legal to implant a pacemaker against someone's will by threat or force. Given that the effects of some pacemakers can be unpleasant if misused, that's kind of creepy.
Aer you running off to the White House to stand in a line?
related
That is my understanding. Is there a plausible emergency scenario where implanting a pacemaker would be a necessary scenario to save someone's life where they may not be able to give consent prior to the procedure? That was my initial assumption when I read that section of the law, although I know little about pacemakers and their actual application.
If that is a plausible scenario, then at worst it is no more legal to do than it was before the bill was passed, and I don't really see an issue with the exemption. It does definitely sound creepy though.
The definition of "implant" does seem troublesome, though, as noted above. "On the skin"? That seems overly broad.
You originally wrote:
You then moved your goalposts to:
If I read what's actually written, as you recommend, I would conclude that you don't what your own argument is. At best.
loginhash (@153):
How? Any statute can be superceded by subsequent statute, and (AFAIK; IANAL) state law is unenforceable if it conflicts with federal law. So I can't see how any current act of the Georgia legislature can possibly "protect" Georgians against the future acts of their legislature, or of the U.S. Congress.
IMHO it's moot, though: Unless I'm crazy, the U.S. Constitution will suffice to protect me from the forcible or otherwise nonconsensual surgical implantation of devices into my person, whether I'm a Georgian or not.
Midnight Rambler (@172):
Heh! Yeah, it's reminiscent of South Dakota's attempt, a few years back, to "criminalize" abortion by the obviously proportional punishment of (IIRC) giving the doctor a maximum of 5 years and the woman no punishment at all for the allegedly horrifying act of conspiring to arrange the premeditated "murder" of an "unborn child."
I love it when people tell me something's the Evilest Thing In The Worrrrrrrld!!©... and then propose to punish it like jaywalking.
I'm trying to figure out why they included it in the first place. Under what conditions would it be acceptable to use physical violence; threats; intimidation; retaliation; the conditioning of any private or public benefit or care on consent to implantation, including employment, promotion, or other benefit; or any means that causes a person to acquiesce to implantation of a pacemaker when he or she otherwise would not?
#153:
Whuh? Wouldn't this hypothetical future evil antichrist-led government simply repeal or supersede laws which stood in their way? Look at that line from the bill, quoted upthread by tsg: "All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed". See how it's done?
Hi. Welcome to Pharyngula, a widely read blog. Others have been reading and scoring.
You lost.
Carlie, en garde!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upctPUa6RhA
To add to the anecdote war, I have never been drug tested. My current employer and my previous two both require us to submit to drug tests as a condition of employment, but none of them do random testing. My current employer, a collection agency, tests collectors if the client requires it. My previous one, and insurance company, didn't test anybody as far as I could tell. The one before that, a pizza delivery chain, only tested drivers who had been in accidents.
Some employers test and some don't. I imagine it has to do with what industry they're in.
It does nothing to prevent your employer from requiring implantation of devices (e.g. RFID chips) as a term of your continued employment. Physical coercion isn't the only type of coercion.
Not to sound nutty or paranoid. But I think it's a good idea. As mentioned earlier, implanted RFID in the workplace has been done on a trial basis already. It's no more secure than a card with RFID-provided credentials (and indeed, the card would be easier/more convenient to shield), and unnecessarily invasive.
PZ, is this helping? Really?
Well, probably. But apparently not everyone thinks so...
Another anecdote: I don't think less of obese people for being obese. I'm an obese person myself. But neither do I get all butt-hurt when someone includes it as a descriptor.
There are people who are obese through no fault of their own. But most Americans who are obese, including me, are that way because of poor lifestyle choices.
I was being a little facetious. It depends a lot on how the rest of the relevant code is written, but I could certainly see a defense attorney making the argument. I don't, however, expect the judge to agree.
Catching up:
*giggle*
1. Good for you.
2. If you were referring to my original post at #11 pointing this out, then I hardly think it qualifies as being "butt-hurt". I pointed out that I thought it was a bit gratuitous and perhaps drew a prejudicial and needless correlation.
I was certainly more irritated by jidashdee's entire point of view regarding obese persons. Totally different conversation.
But most Americans who are obese, including me, are that way because of poor lifestyle choices.
No argument. But I certainly wouldn't think less of you, truthspeaker, for being obese.
#43:
They just have - involuntary ones, at least. Read the bill: apparently, applying a tattoo to the skin is "implanting a microchip". That's some pretty crazy use of language.
Me neither, leading to a decrease in my long-term memory and an increase in the rate of my craving nachos.
That's still a simplistic way of looking at it. Rising obesity rates over the last few decades suggest more is going on, since it's unlikely that both children and adults the developed world over circa 1980 suddenly said "I'm hungry; let's get a taco." Sure, there are lifestyle factors at play. But there are also significant social and environmental factors at play: the internet, computerised workspaces (remember getting up from your desk and going to get a paper file from the cabinet? If so, you're among the last generation that does), high calorie-food, the perception of unsafe neighbourhoods (remember going outside to play with nearby kids? I did, until every media outlet from 1987 on taught us that the entire population of humans outside your home is comprised of molesters), increasing time constraints on people's lives, etc. etc. etc.
So, while yeah, there are things individuals can do to lose weight and increase fitness, be cautious about assigning blame unless you also want to posit a mechanism by which 1 out of every 7 humans suddenly and mysteriously became stupid and lazy 20 years ago.
SC - How is it possible that I have never seen that before???????? I also love the heart diagram on the blackboard that looks like a Viking helmet. Or a velvet mite.
That's the funny thing - Celtic didn't say much about it either, it was jidashdee who blew it up.
"Unnecessary." "True." See? Easy, done, no fuss. It only became a conversation topic because jidashdee had to tell us all how important it is to know that the weird woman was also fat because this was an incredibly important piece of information giving insight into her very soul, or...something.
And of course, blockquote fail in #207. No surprise.
"The 1984 Cable Act established a more favorable regulatory framework for the industry, stimulating investment in cable plant and programming on an unprecedented level. Deregulation provided by the 1984 Act had a strong positive effect on the rapid growth of cable services. From 1984 through 1992, the industry spent more than $15 billion on the wiring of America, and billions more on program development." source
:D (I keed, I keed.)
Gee, don't they have any adults in elected positions in Georgia?
Seems like all they are doing is pandering to the lunatic fringes. Next up will be bills outlawing abortion, and mandating creationism in schools. Again. Thomas Jefferson will be declared an unperson and the USA will be a xian nation. Confederate states appreciation month will last all year. And of course UFO alien abductions will be declared illegal as will anal probings by nonhumans. Bigfoot will be listed as a protected species with a bow only hunting season.
I'm not clear why this bill only covers microchips and not other forced surgical procedures. For example, it wouldn't cover Hooters waitresses who are forced through threat of firing to get breast implants. Why not simply say "Your employer can't demand you undergo a medical procedure without your consent"? And, more to the point, isn't that essentially the law already?
Interestingly, I heard this very discussion this morning on the Bill Press show. He had on Jackie Guerra, whom I am now in love with.
Part of the discussion was about obesity, and how it's become a result of a change in culture and has gotten worse as the middle class continues to shrink and we become more and more of a society of the haves and have-nots.
It's easier, faster, and cheaper to eat crappy food. Plus it's more available than it's ever been. With so many people out of work or both parents working one and two jobs each, eating healthy and having a proper, active lifestyle has become secondary.
Eating healthy takes more money, time and effort than the average American can spend.
It's a problem, no doubt. We need to find ways to make healthy choices as easily, cheaply and readily available as unhealthy ones.
Go Celtic Evolution! Nothing like bozos making judgments about people based on their medical conditions. Personally, I like to judge people with carpal tunnel syndrome who wear glasses - everyone KNOWS those are caused by a certain lack of self control in the wanker department.
Seriously, does anyone not know that certain medications, including anti-psychotics, include severe weight gain as side effects? That we live in what David Kessler (former head of the FDA) describes as a food carnival where we are bombarded with bad choices and where making good choices requires a degree of vigilance that is practically paranoid in intensity? That adult obesity is associated with maternal prenatal nutrition status (i.e. how well nourished was your mom or grandmom during their pregnancies)? That you have NO WAY of knowing whether a fat person is at their highest weight ever and just looking for that next double quarter-pounder to gain even more, or whether that person has, with tremendous personal effort, lost 100 pounds and is working on the next 75?
I admit it - I'm obese. I'm also entering a well-respected weight loss program at a research hospital in a couple months which I haven't been able to afford before now. So go ahead and judge my intelligence, whether I should deserve health insurance, or whether I should be able to vote based solely on how I look. (Oh, and I homeschool too - do I get banished to rural Mississippi now?)
I don't smoke and never have, but also don't judge my friends who smoke, make judgments about the personal weaknesses of strangers who smoke, or urge that we should take health insurance away from smokers. Instead I tolerate their smoking while being grateful for non-smoking zones, I support them in their repeated efforts to quit, and I encourage changes to our social environment that make it more difficult to smoke and easier to quit. Perhaps we could stop focusing on our personal judgments about fat people and start working on making it easier to eat well, easier to walk everywhere, and harder to afford a diet rich in cheetos and twinkies.
:) My TV fu is scary. Seriously, though, it was something of a formative moment for me: I realized that things I loved - music and rhythm - could teach.
Wish I used them more. I fail. :(
Your proposed law would not cover your example. "Your employer cannot require you undergo a medical procedure as a condition of your employment (or career advancement, whatever)" would be more what it would require. Of course, then they could come up with microchips with an adhesive that simply rests on your skin (which is what I think they were trying to avoid when they included "on the skin", along with tattoos that encode digital information similar to the proposed tattoos with pacemaker encryption keys encoded in them that were mentioned a couple days ago), but if it doesn't require a medical procedure to put it in, it doesn't require one to remove it either wen you're not at work. /shrug
And of course UFO alien abductions will be declared illegal as will anal probings by nonhumans.
I think they should also outlaw ghosts haunting occupied residences. They need to expand the trespassing laws to include non-corporeal beings and ethereal vapors.
Au contraire, I cannot think of any activity to which the term self control applies more than wanking.
I know of a few local researchers and projects which are examining foodscapes (the type, quality and quantity of available food in a given area*) and walkable access to safe recreational activities. So, people are working on it.
*Whaddaya know, a google search of 'foodscapes' turns up a bunch of art by Carl Warner and one of the groups I'm talking about: pdf link.
Religious bullshit aside, at least one company required that any employee entering their data center receive a Verichip implant. Google "citywatcher implant" for all of the gory details.
Shhh ... not too loud about the beeper bit - that could encourage all the young ladies to get clitoral microchip implants.
This is not just a religious thing though: won't someone think of the alien abductees! I mean, how can they sue the aliens if we don't make microchipping illegal?
I also find it very strange that the religiotards don't welcome the microchips and stuff - shouldn't they be pushing laws for mandatory chipping? After all, they claim they can't wait for the world to end. Hell, their cult has been waiting for over 2000 years ... still waiting ... Jesus is a long time in between comings.
I'm not clear why this bill only covers microchips and not other forced surgical procedures.
c'mon, really?
it's obvious:
It never intended to solve ANY existing problem.
It merely was intended to raise a hotbutton non-issue that could be used to say legislators were supporting their "constituent concerns".
It's been a standard tactic of any given US legislative body for decades (at least).
I cannot think of any activity to which the term self control applies more than wanking.
heh. Have you seen the series "Sons of Anarchy"?
reminds me of a certain character in that series...
I stand my judgment that people who have carpal tunnel syndrome and wear glasses are clearly overindulging in the wanking stuff and showing how weak-willed and generally worthless they are. Hey, it's as rational as deciding that fat people are weak-willed morons.
Seriously, people who take anti-psychotics long-term, as I assume this poor woman had, are extremely likely to become obese and have a number of other really bad side effects, all because of a poor roll of the genetic and environmental dice.
Me, I just skip the obesity part and go straight to thinking less of people with mental illnesses. If they really had any willpower, they'd cheer up and stop being crazy.
You know, relying on the testimony of the insane would seem to be bad policy. But then you think about it, and you realize that since half the GOP is now Teabagger, the GOP is already inherently insane, too, so they don't even notice when an insane person speaks for them.
Hear about the new law in Arizona, regarding Obama's status as a natural born citizen? It'd be funny if it wasn't, well, insane.
A lot of good people are going to move out of Arizona now. UofA is trying to recruit my daughter; I haven't explicitely said no, but I will if they ask again.
MikeM
If they really had any willpower, they'd cheer up and stop being crazy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE
"Just STOP IT!"
I've heard that series is great, but alas poor Ichthyic, I have not seen it.
Hear about the new law in Arizona, regarding Obama's status as a natural born citizen? It'd be funny if it wasn't, well, insane.
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0420/arizona-bill-force-obama-show-birth-ce…
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAaaaaaaaa....
*gasp*
fuck me, but those legislators are morons.
I'll add that to the list of reasons I left the States.
@226 no, the line is "if you'd just concentrate you could pull yourself together - if you'd just try."
or you're told it's a moral failure on your part (just like some people believe being fat is a moral failure on your part). Or that God is testing you. Or that it shows how much God loves you. If you only went to church more, or the right church.
I've heard it all.
I have not seen it.
ah, well, if you're curious look up:
Sons of Anarchy chronic masturbator
This is the perception anyway. I cook everything from scratch where as my wife eats a lot of TV dinners. I spend far less on groceries than she does. Granted it takes a bit of effort and organization to actually cook but to state that no one has time to do it is a bit of a stretch. It's about priorities, not about time and effort.
I personally would welcome a luxury tax on highly processed (junk) foods that could be used to keep the cost of whole primary ingredients down. If you hit people harder in the hip pocket for eating unhealthy food their priorities would change pretty fast.
If I may add my own anecdote about drug testing an employment?
I'm a consultant and have worked for around 20 companies in the last 15 years. If you include all the jobs I've had back to the late 80s, there've been at least 50 (lots of short term contracts, working 2 jobs to make ends meet,etc...). In addition to those jobs, there are the agencies I got the jobs through, technically I'm their employee. Between agencies and earlier, temp companies, that adds another 15 to 20 companies that could have had cause to ask for a drug test.
In all that time, for all those companies, I've had 2 drug tests. 1 for a company back around 1995 as a condition of hiring and one a few years ago. The more recent one? A drug testing company. And even they don't bother testing their employees once hired.
Please enjoy the anecdote until data arrives.
Fucking concern trolls. Now they're taking shots at us. Fuck them.
"Why do the fundies try to stop these things?
I mean, they believe that things happen according to gods plan, right?"
The Christian's "logic" for this law is to prevent them from becoming part of the armies of the anti-Christ themselves. Supposedly, if you get the "mark of the beast" you then become one of them . They want the end to come but do not want to go to hell because they are on the wrong side of the fight. I am so glad that i no longer am caught up in that kind of worldview anymore.
My response in the TNH thread:
It's in moderation. Mirroring it since I don't know how many things escape moderation there yet.
Oh, also in the YNH thread, someone by the name of faison posted:
I was trying to decide if it was more likely to be a false flag by someone in the Dungeon or from a Pharyngula detractor at The Intersection, then remembered that the sets are closely related and it doesn't make too much sense to try and distinguish between them. Either way, it's sad.
I've only read to the part where some people think her weight shows she has bad judgment, and that's bullshit. I happen to weigh about 100 pounds, but it's not because I'm a healthy person who eats right and exercises. It's because I have a really fucking fast metabolism and I'm chronically ill.
[blockquote]Me, I just skip the obesity part and go straight to thinking less of people with mental illnesses. If they really had any willpower, they'd cheer up and stop being crazy. [/blockquote]
QTF. Awesome Dr. Zoom.
That said, I'd support a tax on really unhealthy foods to help pay for healthcare. I want the right to eat nothing but cheez-its today, but I'm willing to pay a "sin" tax for it, just as I would if I smoked or drank alcohol.
And again I fail at html. I need to spend less time on bbcode forums, it confuses me.
Hey, did you know that the drugs people need to take for schizophrenia often have a side effect of serious weight gain? Maybe the poor crazy lady went off her meds because she was upset about her weight.
@45: And yet that is already the law. No doctor can treat you without your consent, unless you have been committed because you are a harm to yourself and others. So it's already against the law.
The Rev and others have admirably answered the first part. But the second not so clearly -- current law protects you from being held down and implanted (even though apparently it's a misdemeanor in some states) -- but it doesn't protect against indirect coercion.
If I can't work in the field I'm trained for without going through some indignity that is only relevant to the job as a control mechanism -- then I'm being coerced. Sure, no one beat me with a stick -- but really, how much of the coercion in the world is beating with sticks.
This is an essential failure of the libertarian world view -- if someone isn't beating me, I'm not being coerced. I'm free to starve, I'm free to have my life reduced to peonage -- as long as no one literally beat me with a stick.
Ridiculous. Most rulers aren't morons. First they put you in a glass house, to make it appear that you are free. If that fails, then they make an example. Only when all else fails do they start the beatings in general. The latter two they don't need, in general, to legalize -- the first works if they can just get away with the latter.
That'll be frog, Inc. for April Molly.
What's up with the use of the Royal We at yourenothelping.wordpress.com? "We feel" this, and "We think" that. Who is "we?" It comes off as quite pompous. Whoever "we" is, they don't have to reveal their identities, but writing like you were the damned NY Times op-ed page is just weird. Why don't "they" have individual authors at least pick a pseudonym?
Hey. No. That's not cool, faisons.
There is no indication that this woman is a danger to herself or others. (Nor should danger to one's self be grounds for involuntary incarceration, but that's another matter.)
No indication of violence or danger whatsoever. Apparently you think "mentally ill" inherently equals "dangerous". That is not true, and it is not acceptable for you to spread such FUD.
(If you think that getting locked up in a mental hospital actually helps most people, you're a sucker, but that's yet another matter.)
Haley - you almost had it. Here uses the < instead of the [
#193 ursa major
Driving east through Atlanta in I-20, just before the Dome, there is a big-ass "Where's the Birth Certificate?" billboard. Yeah, Georgia! Not!
TheAJC used to be slanted liberal and a good source for news. (If they ran a lefty editoral, they would have a righty rebuttal at the same time. Now, after their big cut back, they are trying to lean more right, carry less info and even run a column by Boortz on Saturdays. (Shudder! I won't listen to the guy; now I am paying for a paper that runs a column by him!)
Sorry but those anonymous fleas, with their unhealthy obsession for running commentary on anything PZ says od does, are getting way too much attention IMO.
If you think that getting locked up in a mental hospital actually helps most people, you're a sucker, but that's yet another matter.
Not that there are even many mental health care facilities left any more in the States, since apparently funding for mental health care was the first thing to be dumped in the rush to HMO management.
the last mental health care clinic in all of Riverside County, CA (that covers well over 2 million people) was closed around 2003.
...even the cops were unhappy about that.
getting "locked up" in a mental health care facility, for better or worse, isn't even an option in most counties any more, let alone actually seeking direct treatment for mental health care issues.
why people in the States let themselves be goaded into somehow thinking mental health care was somehow different than any other kind of medical health care is hard to understand, but it's a sad fact nonetheless.
even though the techniques for treating mental illnesses have improved tremendously in 40 years, I think people actually had better access to treatment, and saw better results simply because of that access, back in the 70's.
now? medical professionals at many hospitals have told me that unless you have a mental illness that you can toss a pill at, you're essentially screwed.
I dreamed I was standing out in a field, and there was this huge satellite dish stickin' out of my butt. And there were hundreds of cows and aliens, and then I went up on the ship, and Scott Baio gave me pinkeye.
Apparently, Texas isn't the only crazy. I wonder, if Republicans will also try to ban body art such as tattoos.
But if Satan really exists, I suppose it will be more clever than these fundies.
Posted by: MrFire | April 21, 2010 12:11 PM
Point taken.
In fact, I've previously complained elsewhere about the waste of resources involved in passing laws to outlaw things that are already illegal, so I should have considered that myself.
Now, in theory, I don't necessarily object to pre-emptively prohibiting something that no-one is doing yet, if there is a reasonable likelyhood of it happening and/or if the consequences of someone doing it are particularly severe.
And there may be circumstances where it is justifiable to specifically outlaw something that is already technically illegal under other laws, if the other laws are too vague or have too many loopholes to be effective.
Although the chances of both applying at the same time are probably quite low.
Furthermore, having read some of the details of this particular law, I think I'll take back my statement about supporting laws that are proposed for insane reasons, as even if they are a good idea in principle, they'll probably be badly thought out.
That said, an alternative version along the line of what other people have suggested might be valid. "No one can be compelled to under go any form of surgical procedure as a condition of employment or use of any public service. No one can be compelled to wear or carry any form of tracking device as a condition of employment or use of any public service, except where the nature of employment or service makes this necessary."
#252 GravityIsJustATheory:
Another point is that by overspecialization a response (the general crazy person version), you avoid handling the general problem.
And in this case, the general problem isn't the implantation of microchips in people, but the tendency of large organizations to invade the personal privacy and dignity of their employees -- to treat them as machinery.
So general tracking is a problem. So is absurd overkill rules about say smoking -- where it's not good enough to ban smoking at work, but also in the parking lot, in your own car, and so forth. It's not good enough to ban being high at work -- they ban being high on vacation. The agreements that anything you think about while employed is the intellectual property of the organization -- not just while at work, but at home, on vacation...
The list is endless about the continual loss of individual dignity and autonomy, where employers feel that they "own" you, that as long as you get a weekly check, they've rented your body and mind 24-7.
And none of these damn crazies give a damn about that. They'll block the microchips in extreme scenarios -- but allow the entire context where implanting microchips becomes imaginable.
How do we stand to live in a society where it's even imaginable that your boss would say "implant this chip, or your fired"? We've really fucked up when someone would have the temerity to even suggest it, without getting her assed kicked plus a suit & a strike.
faisons, on the other hand, does appear to be a danger to himself. Check out what he said at YNH (I quoted it at #238 here). Can't decide if he's a false flag troll or simply mentally deranged.
If Frog, Inc. were willing to extend the argument to such large organizations as the federal government, I would be inclined to agree. Of course, with the government, the problem is worse, as it is not possible to quit.