If immortality technology existed, but only the rich could purchase it . . .

Dr. Krieger said:
Lets say that we invent some new technology that allows one to live forever and perfectly fine.

But it's really expensive, and will always be expensive. Only the top 3% will ever be able to purchase it. And only for themselves and their close family members.

Basically, 97% can't have it.

1) would society outlaw this out of spite?
2) what are your specific thoughts? should it be allowed?

this is not a leading question or a mott-type switcharoo thread.
Click to expand...

I don't think you could outlaw it if the rich want it.

I don't think I would want to live "forever"

Reminds me of the Justin Timberlake movie about time and how the rich were all young and beautiful and could afford to buy time.
 
very few people are answering the motherfucking question I have put forward. It's not difficult.

would society outlaw it
should it be allowed

I'm just gauging responses. I don't need to hear about the feasibility of it being a real thing one day or how you need to suspend disbelief. that's not the point.
 
And I will ask another question, assume lobbyists/whoever wouldn't be able to stop people from outlawing it if they wanted to.
 
Dr. Krieger said:
very few people are answering the motherfucking question I have put forward. It's not difficult.

would society outlaw it
should it be allowed

I'm just gauging responses. I don't need to hear about the feasibility of it being a real thing one day or how you need to suspend disbelief. that's not the point.
Click to expand...

If it were allowed, you would have to control population somehow, otherwise, the resources of the planet will be taxed more than they already are.
 
Dr. Krieger said:
very few people are answering the motherfucking question I have put forward. It's not difficult.

would society outlaw it
should it be allowed

I'm just gauging responses. I don't need to hear about the feasibility of it being a real thing one day or how you need to suspend disbelief. that's not the point.
Click to expand...


Since I didn't answer the second question... no, it should not be outlawed.
 
Dr. Krieger said:
very few people are answering the motherfucking question I have put forward. It's not difficult.

would society outlaw it
should it be allowed

I'm just gauging responses. I don't need to hear about the feasibility of it being a real thing one day or how you need to suspend disbelief. that's not the point.
Click to expand...

Of course, it is. Why would only 3% ever be able to afford it?

I think it very possible that it would be outlawed. It would depend on the consequences.

Why shouldn't it be outlawed? You usually argue that if you can do something it's okay to, except when it creates a negative result for the privileged classes. That's a pretty retarded moral premise. Why should the masses be denied the ability to utilize their strengths? If the rich are too weak to stop them, then tough shit. I mean, that is pretty much your response to claims that lower classes face unfair burdens or treatment.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
Of course, it is. Why would only 3% ever be able to afford it?

I think it very possible that it would be outlawed. It would depend on the consequences.

Why shouldn't it be outlawed? You usually argue that if you can do something it's okay to, except when it creates a negative result for the privileged classes. That's a pretty retarded moral premise. Why should the masses be denied the ability to utilize their strengths? If the rich are too weak to stop them, then tough shit. I mean, that is pretty much your response to claims that lower classes face unfair burdens or treatment.
Click to expand...

you are turning my thread into something it isn't. I am not here to discuss my overall philosophy on life, if you wanna do that start a thread and I will answer your questions.

Quit trolling and derailing, if you don't like the premise of this thread get the fuck out.
 
The problem with the question is this: It is being presented to liberals for consideration but it's a hypothetical fantasy. In such situations, the liberal will always answer in the politically correct way, because there is zero chance they will ever have to support such a thing for real. You presumed that liberals are honest, and would give you an honest answer, and that isn't the case with liberals. They will always give the answer which suits their needs for the moment. It never has anything to do with honesty and integrity, just politics and agenda.

As long as we are talking about something that will never likely happen, the liberal can say whatever they please, it doesn't matter. So, of course, they can tell you exactly what you want to hear, and not have much objection. However, if by some miracle, the scenario you outlined were to actually happen, it would be a completely different tune from them. You see, every single thing has to be viewed through the prism of the liberal agenda. If there is no effect on the agenda, it doesn't matter.
 
Dr. Krieger said:
you are turning my thread into something it isn't. I am not here to discuss my overall philosophy on life, if you wanna do that start a thread and I will answer your questions.

Quit trolling and derailing, if you don't like the premise of this thread get the fuck out.
Click to expand...

Fuck you too, whiney thread Nazi.

You intend to create discussuion on whether it should be outlawed. Well, why shouldn't it be outlawed? You intend to show how it would be a show of spite against the 3%. I say you are just showing spite for the 97%.
 
Dixie said:
The problem with the question is this: It is being presented to liberals for consideration but it's a hypothetical fantasy. In such situations, the liberal will always answer in the politically correct way, because there is zero chance they will ever have to support such a thing for real. You presumed that liberals are honest, and would give you an honest answer, and that isn't the case with liberals. They will always give the answer which suits their needs for the moment. It never has anything to do with honesty and integrity, just politics and agenda.

As long as we are talking about something that will never likely happen, the liberal can say whatever they please, it doesn't matter. So, of course, they can tell you exactly what you want to hear, and not have much objection. However, if by some miracle, the scenario you outlined were to actually happen, it would be a completely different tune from them. You see, every single thing has to be viewed through the prism of the liberal agenda. If there is no effect on the agenda, it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Lmao, you always make everything about liberal and conservative, yawn, it is as bad as those that bring race into everything.
 
Rana said:
Lmao, you always make everything about liberal and conservative, yawn, it is as bad as those that bring race into everything.
Click to expand...


Well, I am sorry, but that's just the way it is. I know of very few liberals who aren't consumed with the liberal agenda, to the point of literal dishonesty. You'll lie, tell us what we want to hear for the moment, manipulate, deceive, it doesn't fucking matter... as long as the agenda marches on. You have no integrity, you can say you support something today and be totally opposed tomorrow, if it effects the liberal agenda. All that matters to a liberal, is the liberal political agenda, and they will do and say whatever it takes to keep advancing their agenda. Nothing else matters, you don't care about history, you don't care about the poor and needy, you don't care about jobs and the economy, you don't care about facts or truth...wars, drones, wiretaps, rendition... You only care about the precious agenda, and you'll do or say whatever you need to advance it.

People need to become aware of this.
 
Rana said:
Lmao, you always make everything about liberal and conservative, yawn, it is as bad as those that bring race into everything.
Click to expand...

Good ol' Dix. Maybe I was too hasty to name bravo as the frontrunner "most insanely predictable poster of 2013" earlier...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top