You have a resurrection machine

[Aprilgold]

I wouldn't outright sacrifice anyone but I would give people a proper suicide booth [I.E the machine] and then people who wanted to be 20 again would have to pay me. Pretty much making it the only ever-lasting-youth machine on the planet and I will be swimming in cash.

EDIT: Yes of course the people going to their death would eventually be put up into the machine and resserected at the very end of it if I feel they ended their life to soon.

 

[mrjoe94]

If we can bring a person back to the age of 20, does that mean they don't have any mental illnesses they had after that age? Anyways, my list.

Sacrifice:

however many'healthy' Taliban it'd take for this list:

(no flaming or wrestling is gay and all that.):


Owen Hart

Eddie Guerrero

Chris Benoit and his wife

My Grandfathers from both of my parent's side.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Super-OP-jitsu!

I was going to weigh in a bit, but this has made me want to sacrifice my head to my desk instead.

Your right; IQ does not affect Intelligence. It just attempts to MEASURE IT.

"The ratio of tested mental age to chronological age, usually expressed as a quotient multiplied by 100."
But now IQ is now generally assessed on the basis of the statistical distribution of scores.

BTW: IQ = Intelligence Quotient
http://www.answers.com/topic/intelligence-quotient

Every dictionary definition disagrees with you.

Even with the Flynn effect; there's plenty of people from 50 years ago that are smarter than plenty of people now and because we know about the potential Flynn effect it can be compensated for, to ensure the average individual IQ increases.

It's kind of funny that you're preaching about burning the unenlightened masses when you can't even use the word "your" or a semicolon properly on a consistent basis. You'd have a good chance of being a victim of your own selection process with things like that, which probably makes it a less attractive option for you there.

 

[Shakomaru]

Sacrifice fox news. And maybe the people at NBC who like butchering the olympics.

Here's the twist though. I resurrect myself from the future.

There's nothing in the rules against terrible time paradoxes.

 

[TheLizardKing]

Sacrifice the casts of "Jersey Shore" and "The Shire" (Australians will know what this garbage is) and revive Jim Morrison.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Sacrifice Jerry Sandusky, Fred Phelps, Jack Thompson, Leeland Yi, and Keith Vas to resurrect my grandmother.

 

[Prime_Hunter_H01]

I would just grab the death row people to power the machine, that part I am not concerned with.

The person I would bring back would be Gunpei Yokoi. While the 3DS's success is debatable it is no doubt leagues more successful than the Virtual Boy. I would like him to see a 3D portable gaming system work. Plus he could return to his franchises Metroid and Fire Emblem.

 

[Dogstile]

Of course I would use it. I'm sure WBC would love to help me out.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

It's said that when someone lacks any real arguments they simply attempt to deconstruct the grammar of a statement as opposed to presenting anything of value.

Well done; I misspelled "you're"

My use of semi-colons though. Fairly acceptable grammar. But im not writing legal documents; this is an informal forum and I could care less about my grammar. DWI

So; anything to contribute? Or is Grammar Nazi your only track?

But here's something else to round it out; My selection process is based on IQ.
Correct use of semi-colons and spellings of "you're" are not part of that test.
Therefore any imagined deficiencies in this areas would not affect my IQ; ergo it would not affect my chance of the grinder. Even if it did contain those tests; they would represent a fraction of the cumulative IQ score and as such be fairly inconsequential.

Being so clearly enlightened I thought that would be obvious to you? Or did you not understand the selection process I outlined? Because thats what your response strongly suggests.

Try harder kid.

My point, which you obviously missed, was that IQ tests are purely academic; it took no more than your advocacy of the process to immediately show that you're a potential victim of it. Your grammar itself had nothing to do with it, and if you weren't implying that people who can't pass a test according your standards should die, I wouldn't have said a word about it.

You did, though, so you're being a prick and have no grasp of irony. Even moreso because you called someone "kid" without context, as much of a faux pas in intelligent conversation making on the internet as anything else, except unlike me, you had zero basis other than that you wanted to show how smugly self-satisfied with yourself you are.

So no, I think we're done here. If there was even one person who does badly on an IQ test that's a half decent human being for every smartass **** who did well, the world would be a better place, and I'm quite pleased that you have no say in the matter whatsoever.

 

[chadachada123]

(Fuck this is going to get personal.) I would bring back my best friend, who died not long after his 17th birthday, three years ago next Friday.

Question: Can I sacrifice my alive-but-crippled close friend, who had his accident right before 18 (he's now 21), along with four other people, in order to bring him back to life but in good health? I would absolutely sacrifice four assholes to bring him to full health, morality be damned.

After those two? Who I'd bring back? Shit, I don't know. Thomas Jefferson, for starters, and Nikola Tesla. I'd bring back Edison just to shove a lightbulb up his ass and shove him back in the machine. Then I'd bring back intellectuals and leaders that didn't display malice but instead actually wanted to further our species.

As for who I'd sacrifice?

Spoiler

I'd sacrifice asshole execs, EVERY multi-millionaire that doesn't donate a significant portion of their money towards helping the poor, a good portion of the Middle East, a good portion of Africa, all religious extremists of any sort...actually, as long as I have full control over who lives and who dies, disease and health pending, I'd get rid of a good deal of humanity, because most humans are selfish cowards. At the very least, every world leader and politician that has ordered the deaths of innocents would go in the machine.

Honestly, the ability to kill would be far more beneficial for humanity than the ability to resurrect. But while I'm busy killing the evil people of our world, I might as well give the innocent people that were killed another chance at life in our no-longer-overpopulated world.

 

[Signa]

It's said that when someone lacks any real arguments they simply attempt to deconstruct the grammar of a statement as opposed to presenting anything of value.

Well done; I misspelled "you're"

My use of semi-colons though. Fairly acceptable grammar. But im not writing legal documents; this is an informal forum and I could care less about my grammar. DWI

So; anything to contribute? Or is Grammar Nazi your only track?

But here's something else to round it out; My selection process is based on IQ.
Correct use of semi-colons and spellings of "you're" are not part of that test.
Therefore any imagined deficiencies in this areas would not affect my IQ; ergo it would not affect my chance of the grinder. Even if it did contain those tests; they would represent a fraction of the cumulative IQ score and as such be fairly inconsequential.

Being so clearly enlightened I thought that would be obvious to you? Or did you not understand the selection process I outlined? Because thats what your response strongly suggests.

Try harder kid.

My point, which you obviously missed, was that IQ tests are purely academic; it took no more than your advocacy of the process to immediately show that you're a potential victim of it. Your grammar itself had nothing to do with it, and if you weren't implying that people who can't pass a test according your standards should die, I wouldn't have said a word about it.

You did, though, so you're being a prick and have no grasp of irony. Even moreso because you called someone "kid" without context, as much of a faux pas in intelligent conversation making on the internet as anything else, except unlike me, you had zero basis other than that you wanted to show how smugly self-satisfied with yourself you are.

So no, I think we're done here. If there was even one person who does badly on an IQ test that's a half decent human being for every smartass **** who did well, the world would be a better place, and I'm quite pleased that you have no say in the matter whatsoever.

Ok, first you groan at my very stupid "OP-jitsu," and rightfully so, but then you go on to not only fail to contribute, but insult people who have already contributed to the thread. What the hell man?

 

[leviathanmisha]

Sacrifice the 5 skeeviest members of the WBC (trust me, that's the hard part, cause they're all skeevy) and I would bring back my dad.

 

[NightHawk21]

I have a problem with the description of healthy? Are we talking no terminal illnesses or just diseases. You'd be hard pressed (and I bet it would be impossible) to find someone who is perfectly healthy. Also the definition of people is very vague, as it varies from country to country. So until the OP clarifies I'm running with standard legal definitions. What I would do is find some ridiculously religious country with a very lax ethics board that mainly disallows stuff like abortion, and preferably has nothing to lose by taking on riskier endeavors (maybe something like Cuba). Then I would on the bench fuse together 5 human eggs and 5 human sperm essentially making a person (if a person is considered a person at conception - hence why the very religious country was necessary). Then I'd throw my plates into the machine and start spitting out scientist after scientist.

You could throw in 5 wheelchair bound mentally handicapped people, but they have to be full grown. The machine works on matter conversion, so 5 babies wouldn't work.

That way you can't kill annoying kids in this question. Kids still have a chance to develop into a not-shitty, not-annoying members of society.

Ya buts what the difference between the handicapped people and say someone with incurable cancer? Or for a more direct comparison someone in a coma or an elderly person who is for all intents and purposes healthy except they use a walker?

 

[Signa]

I have a problem with the description of healthy? Are we talking no terminal illnesses or just diseases. You'd be hard pressed (and I bet it would be impossible) to find someone who is perfectly healthy. Also the definition of people is very vague, as it varies from country to country. So until the OP clarifies I'm running with standard legal definitions. What I would do is find some ridiculously religious country with a very lax ethics board that mainly disallows stuff like abortion, and preferably has nothing to lose by taking on riskier endeavors (maybe something like Cuba). Then I would on the bench fuse together 5 human eggs and 5 human sperm essentially making a person (if a person is considered a person at conception - hence why the very religious country was necessary). Then I'd throw my plates into the machine and start spitting out scientist after scientist.

You could throw in 5 wheelchair bound mentally handicapped people, but they have to be full grown. The machine works on matter conversion, so 5 babies wouldn't work.

That way you can't kill annoying kids in this question. Kids still have a chance to develop into a not-shitty, not-annoying members of society.

Ya buts what the difference between the handicapped people and say someone with incurable cancer? Or for a more direct comparison someone in a coma or an elderly person who is for all intents and purposes healthy except they use a walker?

It limits the question from becoming a total cop-out by just throwing the people in there that are days/hours away from death. Also, since there are deeper themes to this question on who's life do you value more, throwing the handicapped in there is a perfectly valid answer. Do you value the lives of 5 handicapped people more than someone else who left you or the greater public? Who's lives have affected you most? You don't have to answer those, but that's a lot of what this question boils down to. The concept of the machine places the question deeper into reality, because you can picture yourself with that machine and how you would react. Asking the above question changes the context drastically.

 

[Zakarath]

My, quite the bloodthirsty group here.
So eager to sacrifice those you disagree with to bring back your little heroes?
Would they agree with that?

Captcha: who is it?
Damn thing is becoming sentient.

 

[Andrew Drake]

Hmm... so the running gag is to sacrifice anyone contributing the the Human Collective Intelligence going downward...

Jersey Shore cast is here due to them being voted dead by so many.
My old high school, minus the two people who didn't bully anyone.
As Morrigan put it, "Flemeth's type" AKA "People who won't be missed."


So who do we bring back...

Walter Disney, so we can show him Gargoyles and see about getting an REAL third season. I am aware he would have no sway over his company, but his word alone would probably carry some weight.
Keep Five on hand for Bill Gates.
Einstein, so he can keep working on the Theory of Everything.
Turning
Hitler (Suicide is too easy...)
Sam Walton, so he can see what his company has become. Oh and to see if he can come up with any ideas regarding this recession, worth a shot.
Gary Gygax
Tesla and Edison, lock em in a room and whoever comes out alive invented everything.
Constantine, so I can have someone check for a certain translation error.
Winston "Original Badass" Churchill.

 

[NightHawk21]

Does this machine eliminate the possibility of resurrecting those used to power it?
What specifically does this machine take from a person to operate?
Is it soul powered?

I lack much of a conscience; so I'd start with the lowest IQ's and use them to resurrect the highest IQ's.

I'd do that until the Average IQ has gone up by a good 10 points.

I'd also throw a few dogs in there; see what sort of crazy man/dog hybrid I can make.

Well apart from the obvious response that IQ has no bearing on intelligence, you probably don't understand how IQs work.

There is also the Flynn effect to consider where a score of 140 on an IQ test 50 years ago is only about 100-ish now.

Your right; IQ does not affect Intelligence. It just attempts to MEASURE IT.

"The ratio of tested mental age to chronological age, usually expressed as a quotient multiplied by 100."
But now IQ is now generally assessed on the basis of the statistical distribution of scores.

BTW: IQ = Intelligence Quotient
http://www.answers.com/topic/intelligence-quotient

Every dictionary definition disagrees with you.

Even with the Flynn effect; there's plenty of people from 50 years ago that are smarter than plenty of people now and because we know about the potential Flynn effect it can be compensated for, to ensure the average individual IQ increases.

Ok, I never said it affected intelligence I said it had no bearing on intelligence. If you wanna throw around definitions than one of the definitions (and the one used above) is:

"Relation or relevance

- the case has no direct bearing on the issues"

So in simpler words, IQ has no relation to intelligence. Now before you say it does (what with being called "intelligence quotient"), IQ is not, never was, and in its current form never will be an accurate measure of how smart someone is. At best IQ measures a specific type of intelligence (going off the tests I took mostly related to patterns), and at its worst it is a completely inaccurate waste of time.

 

[Matthew Kjonaas]

Sacrifice

1. Shakespeare
4. All the actors for the doctor so we can have a ep with all 11 of em XD

Yes that would be the most amazing episode of doctor who that would ever happen in the history of television!

 

[Matthew Kjonaas]

1. Shakespeare
4. All the actors for the doctor so we can have a ep with all 11 of em XD

Yes that would be the most amazing episode of doctor who that would ever happen in the history of television!

sorry quoted when I tried to edit

 

[bigfatcarp93]

5 of the useless, skateboarding idiots at the park across from my house, no great loss there.

Albert Einstein. With today's resources and technology, he could work wonders.