What would you do if you were invincible?
- Thread starter Zombie_King
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd jump off extremely high points just to make people think I'm dead when I hit the ground. People will scatter around me crying for about five minutes until I get up saying, "'Tis no matter" and walk around unscathed.
definately go to the white house, and murder supreme court, become dictator of the U.S.
and totally make peace with the countries.
instead of making america full of fat people and greed...
assign people their jobs
make the United States the any colony of humanity
communism ftw
and totally make peace with the countries.
instead of making america full of fat people and greed...
assign people their jobs
make the United States the any colony of humanity
communism ftw
Must be...Copter400 said:
I'd work on High tension wires in Jeans and a T-shirt electrocuting myself with a whole lot of AC current, but not dieing from it.
Well, since invincibility doesn't mean super-strength, it would only be slightly more challenging for me to be put in jail than I would be as the normal, vincible me... If I went around robbing banks, sure, I'd live through a rain of bullets without a scratch, but if 4 officers could tackle and drag me into a cell, it wouldn't matter how invincible I am, I can't get out of metal bars... And if I did, it'd only take another tackle to bring me back and into a more secure holding cell.
Invincibility would mean that I couldn't be harmed, no scratch, prick, or point-blank hydrogen bomb explosion could affect me, and since my body couldn't be degraded in any way, there'd be no pain for my body to detect. On a side-note, being able to regenerate lost limbs is not invincibility, it's just super-human regeneration... You are vincible, but only temporarily, so I'd assume, in that situation, you could feel pain, and that would suck.
Also, if invincibility means no physical degradation, I could easily assume that'd mean I couldn't age, and thus invincibility would also mean both immortality and eternal youth.
Now, if I could convince people to be my followers, that my invincibility meant I was a god, THEN I may be able to test the waters a bit more, but otherwise, being eternally locked in a cage for robbery doesn't sound like my cup of tea... So I'd live my invincible, immortal, eternal youth pretty much as I do now.
This isn't to mention what scientists would want to do with me, I'd imagine that I could be studied against my will 'For the good of the American people'... People would complain on message boards, there'd be bumper stickers, maybe a few real activists, but nobody'd really do anything... Ur, sorry, that was a bit of a tangent. In short, invincibility might suck more than normal vincibility as things are now.
~~~
Edit #1: After reading one post made before this one, I'll say this - We don't care about the semantics of what word we are using, when we say 'invincible', we mean the inability to be physically harmed. It's like when people imagine an anti-gravity device... Sure, in literal terms, it means a device that negates all gravitation in a said area, but the general public only cares that it does one thing - It makes you float as if there was no gravity... After that, we don't care if it isn't technically an anti-gravity device, because it does what people think anti-gravity to be. Just as we don't care if 'invincibility' doesn't technically mean what we are imagining, because it describes the situation well enough for us to capture the situation.
~~~
Edit #2: I realise that it may sound hypocritical for me to say we don't care about the semantics when I clearly point out that if we are incapable of being physically harmed, we are also painless, immortal, and eternally youthful... But I believe I'm somewhat different in my semantics - They are telling us that we are using the wrong terms to properly describe the state we are discussing (the state of invulnerability) while I'm saying that if the state we are discussing were to be true, then, by proxy, other states would have to be in effect (If we are incapable of taking any physical damage, then that means we can't physically degrade from any of the natural elements that cause degradation, be it time, environment, etc. and if we can't phsycially degrade, then we'd never age [aging is the gradual process of degradation over time] and we'd never feel pain [since nothing can damage you, there will be no pain to be felt]). One tells us we are wrong for using an improper term, the other builds on the intended meaning, suggesting the possibilities it provides if it were to be true.
Invincibility would mean that I couldn't be harmed, no scratch, prick, or point-blank hydrogen bomb explosion could affect me, and since my body couldn't be degraded in any way, there'd be no pain for my body to detect. On a side-note, being able to regenerate lost limbs is not invincibility, it's just super-human regeneration... You are vincible, but only temporarily, so I'd assume, in that situation, you could feel pain, and that would suck.
Also, if invincibility means no physical degradation, I could easily assume that'd mean I couldn't age, and thus invincibility would also mean both immortality and eternal youth.
Now, if I could convince people to be my followers, that my invincibility meant I was a god, THEN I may be able to test the waters a bit more, but otherwise, being eternally locked in a cage for robbery doesn't sound like my cup of tea... So I'd live my invincible, immortal, eternal youth pretty much as I do now.
This isn't to mention what scientists would want to do with me, I'd imagine that I could be studied against my will 'For the good of the American people'... People would complain on message boards, there'd be bumper stickers, maybe a few real activists, but nobody'd really do anything... Ur, sorry, that was a bit of a tangent. In short, invincibility might suck more than normal vincibility as things are now.
~~~
Edit #1: After reading one post made before this one, I'll say this - We don't care about the semantics of what word we are using, when we say 'invincible', we mean the inability to be physically harmed. It's like when people imagine an anti-gravity device... Sure, in literal terms, it means a device that negates all gravitation in a said area, but the general public only cares that it does one thing - It makes you float as if there was no gravity... After that, we don't care if it isn't technically an anti-gravity device, because it does what people think anti-gravity to be. Just as we don't care if 'invincibility' doesn't technically mean what we are imagining, because it describes the situation well enough for us to capture the situation.
~~~
Edit #2: I realise that it may sound hypocritical for me to say we don't care about the semantics when I clearly point out that if we are incapable of being physically harmed, we are also painless, immortal, and eternally youthful... But I believe I'm somewhat different in my semantics - They are telling us that we are using the wrong terms to properly describe the state we are discussing (the state of invulnerability) while I'm saying that if the state we are discussing were to be true, then, by proxy, other states would have to be in effect (If we are incapable of taking any physical damage, then that means we can't physically degrade from any of the natural elements that cause degradation, be it time, environment, etc. and if we can't phsycially degrade, then we'd never age [aging is the gradual process of degradation over time] and we'd never feel pain [since nothing can damage you, there will be no pain to be felt]). One tells us we are wrong for using an improper term, the other builds on the intended meaning, suggesting the possibilities it provides if it were to be true.