3 ms·

A creditor's right to cash overrides a person's right to see?

• threshold 5y ago
  • friedturkey 5y ago
    Nobody is advocating for revenge lol Just that once someone buys a product, they get to keep it and continue using it. But oh no that’s communism the world is ending! lol
  • Dylan16807 5y ago
    1. That argument makes no sense at all. 2. If we could transplant eyes we absolutely would have eye donors and things would in fact be more equal in a good way.
    • threshold 5y ago
• fennecfoxen 5y ago
  [flagged]
  • friedturkey 5y ago
    And they're clearly not interested in making money since they've abandoned the project and are going bankrupt, so none of what you said has any validity here. Should houses collapse when the builder goes out of business? Should people be banned from living in them or making custom repairs because "What about the company's creditors!" Precluding a third party from performing after market-maintenance on a dead product and forbidding a current user to continue using something they paid for isn't capitalist--it's anticapitalist and purely spiteful.
• DoreenMichele 5y ago
  I'm reminded of the movie Repo Men. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1053424/plotsummary https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1053424/plotsummary
  • rzzzt 5y ago
    I have a question since you mention this movie -- was there an 80s/90s "precursor" for it with a big actor from that time? I know that Repo Man is not it, but maybe it hides under a different name. (Alternatively, it is a false memory.)
    • trasz 5y ago
      https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0087995/ https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0087995/ (Also check out https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0963194/ https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0963194/)