I suspect your definition of hunters is flawed. Packs of tigers or lions hunting zebra for example, usually go after the weak or sickly animals first. Yet they are still called hunters, and they are in the act of hunting when they do this.
Scavengers however would be things like carp (the fish) which are bottom feeders, basically scooping up whatever has fallen on the bottom and is not actively trying to get away. Vultures are also scavengers and again they go after things which are already dead or dying and completely helpless.
The St. John's I would classify as hunters, not scavengers, according to the above examples and sample definitions. I thought about going to websters dictionary and putting up official definitions to support my statements, but that seemed like perhaps a bit much.
I'm not curious how to "deal" with these problems. My value system is just fine. The people I have charged myself with protecting are as safe as they can be (can't do anything to save Larry or Mark, so why worry about it now). I see no point in killing the brothers beyond some need for revenge.
There are other methods to protect oneself that doesn't include killing every dangerous person in every opportunity that presents itself. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" doesn't just apply to medicine. Applied metaphorically to life, the St. John's farm is the perfect example of how we were unprepared to deal with threat to our safety. Killing one or both of the brother's is not going to change that.
We have the advantage over them in numbers, weapons, and they no longer have the advantage of our naivete.
I suspect your definition of hunters is flawed. Packs of tigers or lions hunting zebra for example, usually go after the weak or sickly animals first. Yet they are still called hunters, and they are in the act of hunting when they do this.
Scavengers however would be things like carp (the fish) which are bottom feeders, basically scooping up whatever has fallen on the bottom and is not actively trying to get away. Vultures are also scavengers and again they go after things which are already dead or dying and completely helpless.
The St. John's I would classify as hunters, not scavengers, according to the above examples and sample definitions. I thought about going to websters dictionary and putting up official definitions to support my statements, but that seemed like perhaps a bit much.
My only point is that they would never attack a fully armed team that's aware of their intent, even if just to pick off Clem or Larry. I think that separates them clearly from hunters.
I was just inferring a simple quote for the thread.:rolleyes: Anyways, have you watched the tv show? One of the main themes in The Walking Dead is about retaining people's humanity. Even if people try to senselessly kill you, you should try to resolve the problem without going to the side of murder. That's my two cents.
It's still idealistic nonsense in this context.:rolleyes: Yes, I've watched the series as well as read the comics. The theme of the Walking Dead is a lot more complicated than simply retaining ones humanity. How do you retain your humanity when society has pretty much devolved. Do you fight for what's yours? Are you willing to accept the responsibility of costing your group lives by hamstringing yourself?
There's too much here to respond to point by point, so I'll summarize:
I killed the first St. John because he's a threat. I'm rationally and willingly giving up my humanity to protect others and myself. I know killing can be a slippery slope and I'm going to try not to kill everyone because it's easy. I didn't kill the second because he was so pitiful it was better to leave him to hang himself.
As far as them being hunters (not scavengers), you're totally wrong. They make it a point to mention that they only target weak ones and people who are going to die. They don't go in with guns to bring down something - they set traps and bring people in with the promise of food. They're opportunists. If Lee's group hadn't flagged itself as being weak, desperate and easy to capture, the St. Johns wouldn't have messed with them.
Another point on that is that they could only deal with one. Hunters wouldn't have worried about that. If you want to see hunters, read the Fear The Hunters arc of the comic. These are just stupid, intelligent people with a plan to eat the weak.
That still makes them hunters. It's the exact same way in nature, pack animals will target slower slower/weaker/injured animals first. I agree that their hunting methods were different than the group that caught Dale in the comics but overall they are essentially the same.
My only point is that they would never attack a fully armed team that's aware of their intent, even if just to pick off Clem or Larry. I think that separates them clearly from hunters.
That just makes them smart. Have you ever seen a lion run into the middle of a stampede of african buffalo? That's just suicide.
How much of our humanity is acceptable to let go, exactly?
That'll make for a fun discussion. Looking forward to how folks answer it.
heh. Not going after someone or group of someone's who look well armed and strong is simply not being suicidal. It does nothing to preclude them from the hunting definition.
And I still suggest that there is no reason to let any of your 'humanity' go. If your value system is already well thought through, you will have no trouble with these choices because you will be living by your pre-established life values and have no need to change them.
The tv show bugs me because it seems like the entire group is mentally crippled somehow. They constantly make some of the most idiotic choices and work against each other. It feels like somehow the most socially inept people in the world managed to survive and we are watching a show about them.
heh. Not going after someone or group of someone's who look well armed and strong is simply not being suicidal. It does nothing to preclude them from the hunting definition.
And I still suggest that there is no reason to let any of your 'humanity' go. If your value system is already well thought through, you will have no trouble with these choices because you will be living by your pre-established life values and have no need to change them.
The tv show bugs me because it seems like the entire group is mentally crippled somehow. They constantly make some of the most idiotic choices and work against each other. It feels like somehow the most socially inept people in the world managed to survive and we are watching a show about them.
It's still idealistic nonsense in this context.:rolleyes: Yes, I've watched the series as well as read the comics. The theme of the Walking Dead is a lot more complicated than simply retaining ones humanity. How do you retain your humanity when society has pretty much devolved. Do you fight for what's yours? Are you willing to accept the responsibility of costing your group lives by hamstringing yourself?
That still makes them hunters. It's the exact same way in nature, pack animals will target slower slower/weaker/injured animals first. I agree that their hunting methods were different than the group that caught Dale in the comics but overall they are essentially the same.
That just makes them smart. Have you ever seen a lion run into the middle of a stampede of african buffalo? That's just suicide.
That'll make for a fun discussion. Looking forward to how folks answer it.
Here we are. Are you willing to remain "human" and try to deal with situations by organizing past concepts? Or are you willing to set that aside and turn into a different person by general morality? Many people will agree on one side of the argument, while I agree to an extent that we still have the option for retaining our humanity.
Here we are. Are you willing to remain "human" and try to deal with situations by organizing past concepts? Or are you willing to set that aside and turn into a different person by general morality? Many people will agree on one side of the argument, while I agree to an extent that we still have the option for retaining our humanity.
R.I.P. Dale
Yeah man, this is a difficult discussion. It's hard to find middle ground in situations like this. I'd also like to apologize for the dickish tone of my post. I re-read it after I finished an SC2 game and didn't realize how abrasive it sounded.
If I'm not mistaken you've read the comics, right? If so, how did you like the changes in Dale's character on the T.V. show? I think his character is one of the few things that turned out better in the T.V series. It brought this theme/discussion into the series much earlier than it appeared in the comics. It was always there, just not in the forefront like it was during the end of season 2.
speaking of the comics has there been any "celebrities" in TWD i don't mean actual people like Brad Pitt i mean Fictional Celebrities with Entourages and such
speaking of the comics has there been any "celebrities" in TWD i don't mean actual people like Brad Pitt i mean Fictional Celebrities with Entourages and such
None with entourages, no. One of the coolest characters in the early series was somewhat famous I guess. Tyreese played in the NFL but I can't remember what team. Might have been the Falcons but I can't really say for sure. There was a politician but I'm not sure if that really counts.
I know you were looking forward to a Bill Murray zombie as much as I was, sadly that hasn't happened though. Probably for the best to be honest. If the fans liked him he'd be killed off.
None with entourages, no. One of the coolest characters in the early series was somewhat famous I guess. Tyreese played in the NFL but I can't remember what team. Might have been the Falcons but I can't really say for sure. There was a politician but I'm not sure if that really counts.
I know you were looking forward to a Bill Murray zombie as much as I was, sadly that hasn't happened though. Probably for the best to be honest. If the fans liked him he'd be killed off.
Fuck you, Negan
zombie land reference nice.
Actually i weas thinking about one of the chapters of World War Z about a group of celebrities who decided to hide out in a Walled In Mansion which was also host to a Big Brother type show so the "Fans" found out where they were and wanted in to the safety so they attacked the mansion etc.
If kirkman tried to do an arc like that it'd probably be similar to the governor and woodbury
after reading this discussion, i think this situation brings up things that reach our moral core, i would not like anybody to impose their moral code onto me if i disagreed, so i wouldn't want to impose my moral code on somebody who disagrees.
so i would like to point out that my comments are my opinion and you are entitled to your own opinion, as you may guess i am against the death penalty, but i don't think people or a society who agrees with the death penalty are evil or necessarily wrong, i don't think there is only one right answer but i am against the death penalty.
the brothers situation isn't the same as the death penalty, but they are in a similar area, so that influenced my decision to spare them.
Yeah man, this is a difficult discussion. It's hard to find middle ground in situations like this. I'd also like to apologize for the dickish tone of my post. I re-read it after I finished an SC2 game and didn't realize how abrasive it sounded.
If I'm not mistaken you've read the comics, right? If so, how did you like the changes in Dale's character on the T.V. show? I think his character is one of the few things that turned out better in the T.V series. It brought this theme/discussion into the series much earlier than it appeared in the comics. It was always there, just not in the forefront like it was during the end of season 2.
Dale was my favorite character in the tv series. But I read the comics, yeah.
Dale and Andrea had sex
. I like how they changed him to be the only person who holds on the belief that things will soon get better. If I'm not mistaken, he organized a small "court discussion" on what should be done with Randall. Nobody was on his side: He wanted to let Randall live and be dropped off a few miles from the farm. Thinking that nobody was on his side,
I felt danny injured/trapped and unarmed was no threat, the trap as proved by the teacher 'david' is heavy and any movement hurts plus blood loss/infection (they probably don't clean the traps) No doubt in my mind he is walker chow.
andy;
Beaten to a pulp, thinks his family is dead, tired, 'begs lee to kill him' in front of his group in the rain. quite frankly the most pathetic looking piece of human garbage to ever exist.. to kill him either way is just giving him a 'last request' people like that DO NOT DESERVE 'pitty' plus as i said somewhere before to have him eaten alive and be tainted is real appropriate justice. a bullet is the easy/cowards way out. especially if you get some one else to do it for you...
wake up and smell the roses peeps the st johns own your souls...
I'm the kinda guy that starts a game over with 50+ hours because I made a bad choice along the way, and killing them both didn't bother me one bit. They are dangerous and needed to be put down.
I'm the kinda guy that starts a game over with 50+ hours because I made a bad choice along the way, and killing them both didn't bother me one bit. They are dangerous and needed to be put down.
Finally another person who makes sense.
I felt worse stealing food from the car, than i did killing Danny and then kicking Andy on to the fence killing him.
I killed em both (and anyone else I could) the second time around. I am a little disappointed that some of the choices in the game are so limited. I tried to go back downstairs and have a nice dinner before finding Mark but the game wouldn't allow that. I think they should have put that option in, you could have still tied it in with next segment fine. I think the writing team really missed a good Hannibal moment.
I killed em both (and anyone else I could) the second time around. I am a little disappointed that some of the choices in the game are so limited. I tried to go back downstairs and have a nice dinner before finding Mark but the game wouldn't allow that. I think they should have put that option in, you could have still tied it in with next segment fine. I think the writing team really missed a good Hannibal moment.
do you think shane :rolleyes: would decide that it would have been a waste not to eat the meat
This episode made me think i was going to do something but then it did something that made me rethink the thing i was going to do. The first time was siding with Kenny or Lilly in the meat locker that made me save Larry after Lilly says the reason why he acts like the way he is. Second is the brothers. When i got out of the meat locker i was ready for some revenge for Larry and Mark but then 3 things made me stop. 1. was Clem was there and i knew Lee should show her revenge is not the way things should go. 2.was i didn't want to prove Danny right about what he says. 3. was when i saw the walkers and knew they didn't deserve anything Lee could do and since Andrew was sitting in the rain doing nothing. Brenda's was taken by the zombie Mark and Danny was trapped in the barn so this ment one thing that they were eaten by the zombies which they seemed to deserved since what they did.
Also to people saying that it was stupid to leave Andy alive because he can come back well did anyone notice that the zombies was around the entire farm except the way Lee and the group took except that's what it looked like to me and if your saying Andy could run to the house there's two things that could go wrong. 1.Brenda and Mark could still be in the house or still have a way into the house and 2. he could run out of food in there and if your saying Danny and Andy could be hiding in the farm well there would be no time to grab food and water and get into the barn before the walkers came and Danny could turn at any minute so Andy was pretty much done for.
I cannot kill them in front of Clementine. And there is no chance for Danny to escape. He was trapped (the only way to escape was to amputate his limb; and he would not survive that). I am pretty sure the Walkers got him.
And Andy did not even try to escape, if I remember correctly.
I killed them both and was very surprised to see that only 17% of people shared my choice. They killed a friend and served him for dinner, I couldn't see another choice.
Comments
Scavengers however would be things like carp (the fish) which are bottom feeders, basically scooping up whatever has fallen on the bottom and is not actively trying to get away. Vultures are also scavengers and again they go after things which are already dead or dying and completely helpless.
The St. John's I would classify as hunters, not scavengers, according to the above examples and sample definitions. I thought about going to websters dictionary and putting up official definitions to support my statements, but that seemed like perhaps a bit much.
There are other methods to protect oneself that doesn't include killing every dangerous person in every opportunity that presents itself. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" doesn't just apply to medicine. Applied metaphorically to life, the St. John's farm is the perfect example of how we were unprepared to deal with threat to our safety. Killing one or both of the brother's is not going to change that.
We have the advantage over them in numbers, weapons, and they no longer have the advantage of our naivete.
My only point is that they would never attack a fully armed team that's aware of their intent, even if just to pick off Clem or Larry. I think that separates them clearly from hunters.
The only reason the St. Johns were a threat, and the reason why the bandits are a totally different animal.
It's still idealistic nonsense in this context.:rolleyes: Yes, I've watched the series as well as read the comics. The theme of the Walking Dead is a lot more complicated than simply retaining ones humanity. How do you retain your humanity when society has pretty much devolved. Do you fight for what's yours? Are you willing to accept the responsibility of costing your group lives by hamstringing yourself?
That still makes them hunters. It's the exact same way in nature, pack animals will target slower slower/weaker/injured animals first. I agree that their hunting methods were different than the group that caught Dale in the comics but overall they are essentially the same.
That just makes them smart. Have you ever seen a lion run into the middle of a stampede of african buffalo? That's just suicide.
That'll make for a fun discussion. Looking forward to how folks answer it.
And I still suggest that there is no reason to let any of your 'humanity' go. If your value system is already well thought through, you will have no trouble with these choices because you will be living by your pre-established life values and have no need to change them.
The tv show bugs me because it seems like the entire group is mentally crippled somehow. They constantly make some of the most idiotic choices and work against each other. It feels like somehow the most socially inept people in the world managed to survive and we are watching a show about them.
So it's Jersey Shore, but with zombies?
Here we are. Are you willing to remain "human" and try to deal with situations by organizing past concepts? Or are you willing to set that aside and turn into a different person by general morality? Many people will agree on one side of the argument, while I agree to an extent that we still have the option for retaining our humanity.
In Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald there's a Dairy with a Sick Miltank.
Yeah man, this is a difficult discussion. It's hard to find middle ground in situations like this. I'd also like to apologize for the dickish tone of my post. I re-read it after I finished an SC2 game and didn't realize how abrasive it sounded.
If I'm not mistaken you've read the comics, right? If so, how did you like the changes in Dale's character on the T.V. show? I think his character is one of the few things that turned out better in the T.V series. It brought this theme/discussion into the series much earlier than it appeared in the comics. It was always there, just not in the forefront like it was during the end of season 2.
None with entourages, no. One of the coolest characters in the early series was somewhat famous I guess. Tyreese played in the NFL but I can't remember what team. Might have been the Falcons but I can't really say for sure. There was a politician but I'm not sure if that really counts.
I know you were looking forward to a Bill Murray zombie as much as I was, sadly that hasn't happened though. Probably for the best to be honest. If the fans liked him he'd be killed off.
zombie land reference nice.
Actually i weas thinking about one of the chapters of World War Z about a group of celebrities who decided to hide out in a Walled In Mansion which was also host to a Big Brother type show so the "Fans" found out where they were and wanted in to the safety so they attacked the mansion etc.
If kirkman tried to do an arc like that it'd probably be similar to the governor and woodbury
so i would like to point out that my comments are my opinion and you are entitled to your own opinion, as you may guess i am against the death penalty, but i don't think people or a society who agrees with the death penalty are evil or necessarily wrong, i don't think there is only one right answer but i am against the death penalty.
the brothers situation isn't the same as the death penalty, but they are in a similar area, so that influenced my decision to spare them.
Dale was my favorite character in the tv series. But I read the comics, yeah.
in my first/second ep2 runs i left both brothers;
I felt danny injured/trapped and unarmed was no threat, the trap as proved by the teacher 'david' is heavy and any movement hurts plus blood loss/infection (they probably don't clean the traps) No doubt in my mind he is walker chow.
andy;
Beaten to a pulp, thinks his family is dead, tired, 'begs lee to kill him' in front of his group in the rain. quite frankly the most pathetic looking piece of human garbage to ever exist.. to kill him either way is just giving him a 'last request' people like that DO NOT DESERVE 'pitty' plus as i said somewhere before to have him eaten alive and be tainted is real appropriate justice. a bullet is the easy/cowards way out. especially if you get some one else to do it for you...
wake up and smell the roses peeps the st johns own your souls...
Finally another person who makes sense.
I felt worse stealing food from the car, than i did killing Danny and then kicking Andy on to the fence killing him.
do you think shane :rolleyes: would decide that it would have been a waste not to eat the meat
And Andy did not even try to escape, if I remember correctly.