Bill_Oreilly said:

The chip for the workers allows them to buy snacks at the worksite breakroom. of course it will involve exchanging currency.

Your argument is not convincing in the least bit

---

MommaSmurf said:

The difference is that the chip would be a foreign object implanted in my body and the idea of that makes me uncomfortable whereas technology utilizing my fingerprint seems less invasive to me

Also I would assume some people's bodies would naturally reject the chip and force it out...

---

Bill_Oreilly said:

these chips also caused cancer in mice.

---

Crazy_Horse said:

Quote:

It's totally voluntary

---

---

badchad said:

MommaSmurf said:

The difference is that the chip would be a foreign object implanted in my body and the idea of that makes me uncomfortable whereas technology utilizing my fingerprint seems less invasive to me

Also I would assume some people's bodies would naturally reject the chip and force it out...

---

Sure. I respect that.

I'd opine that the chip is similar to what's used in veterinary practice (small, the size of a grain of rice and really non-invasive). Basically, I view the chip as an identifier. I'm not sure it infringes on privacy/rights anymore than requiring other types of biometric scanning (ocular scans or fingerprints, for example).

---

Cracked out said:

yeah, whoever said they already have all our info anyways and only the religious mark of the beast fucks care about it must be retarded or not have thought before they spoke. If you had a chip your whereabouts would be known at all times, no matter what. That alone should be enough for you to absolutely deny the chip. If it isnt, you are a retard, as previously stated, and i wont be able to explain it to you.

---

MrBlueYoMind said:

badchad said:

Generally, arguments against chipping come down to mentioning the bible and "mark of the beast." They have little rationale merit.

---

Actually there is plenty of rational arguments against mass micro-chipping. 

1. Every transaction monitored and taxed.  That $5 you want to give to your niece for her birthday actually deducted $5.10 from your account for transaction fees.  And your niece will have to pay $.10 in taxes for receiving $5 income.

2. The people who run the chips will literally own you.  If you can't buy something since everything is digital through a chip, then you're forced to submit yourselves to the tech owners/money controllers.

3. If you say something they disagree with, they can just shut off your chip and you're done.  They even have cyanide chips that can kill you.

4. Chips can be hacked and manipulated.


I'd rather not totally enslave myself by further submission to their system.  I can survive without using credit cards and banks.
What is so hard to understand about that? 

All of your arguments for the chip boil down to "Well, I'm already halfway in chains.  Might as well seal the deal"

---

Cracked out said:

yeah, whoever said they already have all our info anyways and only the religious mark of the beast fucks care about it must be retarded or not have thought before they spoke. If you had a chip your whereabouts would be known at all times, no matter what.

---

psi said:

Cracked out said:

yeah, whoever said they already have all our info anyways and only the religious mark of the beast fucks care about it must be retarded or not have thought before they spoke. If you had a chip your whereabouts would be known at all times, no matter what.

---

Except that's not how the chips they're talking about work. They don't contain a GPS or a power source, and are powered only by being in very close proximity to the reader device, similar to the "tap" function on a bank card. A typical smartphone, however, does have a GPS and a battery, and can allow your (phone's) whereabouts to be known at all times if it's on.

---

LogicaL Chaos said:

I'd definitetly take the ring instead.

Didnt see an explaination for *why* people are getting microchipped. I missed it in there.

---

So they can track how many 's people eat.