Which US State would fall first in a ZA?
Too many states to make a poll so I'll just say my guess and why!
California would fall first!
Everyone would just get high and say 'fuck-it' :rolleyes:
California would fall first!
Everyone would just get high and say 'fuck-it' :rolleyes:
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Very true, but this was really meant as a joke so really we can suggest it started anywhere!
personally I wouldnt mind if it just happened in Virginia and was contained there!
My ex-wife is in Virginia!
ya got a point!
Thats funny I was going to say 'the state with the least amount of guns' and Texas would be the 1st state in the union to say 'what zombie problem?'
My choice: Maine. Its small, liberal ripe for the picking
Or are we in a different universe than The Walking Dead?
Mayhap.
And, considering the CDC is there, my money says that'd most likely be Georgia. My state!
I believe you are wrong for several reasons.
1. Texas is massive compared to most other states and have very cut-off high density cities. This means that as long as you get out of the cities the zombies will have to walk a long way to get anywhere.
2. Zombies are much easier to spot in the flat deserts of Texas rather than in some forested or hilly area along much of the east and west coast.
3. Maybe people will start killing each other, but do you seriously think that people lose all survival instinct just because they are armed? I think that's pretty unlikely
4. Humid, hot weather makes decomposition work alot faster than in other areas.
And finally as a little PS. I used to live in Texas, but am originally and currently in Norway so I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I definately think that you need to assess that claim further.
1. I'm not talking about zombies. 2. I'm not talking about zombies. 3. I'm not talking about survival instincts either, I'm saying that when people hear that society doesn't exist, whoever has a gun is going to be the first to rewrite the rules of morality and fairness. It's the "survival instinct" that destroys humanity, not preserves it. 4. I'm not talking about zombies.
I lived in Texas too, for a lot of my life. Come on, a bunch of cowboys in a lawless apocalypse? We all know that ends horribly for all but those with the biggest gun.
Nopes, you are way too pessimistic. You're the kind of guy I bet that wouldn't help out a fellow survivor in the ZA? If you would then what makes you so much better than everyone else? The fact that you think everyone other than you is an evil prick makes you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself or a low opinion of everyone including yourself.
But maybe I'm expecting too much when I say that
Are you kidding? I would die doing the right thing regardless of how vulnerable it left me and I'd try to save as many people as I can. I may not trust humanity as a whole in a crisis situation, but that doesn't mean I'd ever leave someone to die.
You don't know me, so keep the assumptions on hold for a while.
You're talking about The Walking Dead. It's a universe predicated on the premise that once society falls, everyone becomes an opportunist and the best of people become corrupted by the tragedy around them. Its biggest staples are bandits and - for lack of a better term - bullies: jerks who use their power to control others with a wooden bat covered in barb wire. I may not be the most optimistic person in the world, but I know that there is going to be a lot of ugliness brought to the surface if society is no longer keeping people decent with a panoptic tower called "morality". If the world goes primitive overnight, there will be mass looting, murder and chaos on the streets the second the bell rings. And to think humanity is above that in 100% unison is not optimistic. It's foolish.
I don't know, but there's always survivors. Extinction events never happen in the zombie apocalypse. I think it's just passing the point where society can rebuild.
Mind you that this was if the ZA 'happened' not a discussion of which states fell first in the Walking Dead comics. If you are such a good person then I find it wierd that you think that everyone else is an evil bastard. Either you will find yourself being one of those evil bastards or humanity's not as bad as you think.
And by the way, the only reason I have assumptions about you is because you have assumptions about humanity as a whole which paint everyone else as bastards and you as a hero. I don't like unlikely scenarios like that so I rip into it.
Sure, the prompt is different, but the answer is the same. The zombies aren't the threat, the wacked out survivors are. Though they're a minority, they're the ones that are going to vie for power and kill anyone that gets in their way. You'll end up with small empires of well armed people who only care about their own needs (be that family or something far more selfish) and do anything to keep control. The decent people avoid them, battle them or find somewhere to hide. I don't really think I'm either the good guy or the armed guy who finally has an excuse to use that gun he bought.
You're really extreme with your classifications. There's a ton of different types of people in and out of the zombie apocalypse. The thing is that a scenario like this would whittle it down to where only two types of people mattered: those who betray their morals to survive and those who don't. Even if it's less than 50/50, that's a huge problem. 1 crazed survivor with an automatic weapon is enough to kill dozens, if not hundreds. It's this fringe group, which would exist whether you believe in humanity or not (check the papers, they exist in the pre-apocalypse world too!), that would be responsible for the fall of society. Stop trying to brand me and actually think about what happens when you tell 100 people that they can do whatever they want without consequence and hand them a gun. How many of them kill the person closest to them? If you say zero, you really need to look at some social experiments.
If they have nothing to gain from killing the person next to them, yes I say 0/100. Why? Because these people will have an endless horde of living dead to kill so why the hell would they kill the only people that would make those lives bearable? And by the way unlike you I'm not the guy that will claim to "Never betray my morals and always help out others at the cost of myself" as I have never really been put in a situation where I would have had to pick. I will say that I of course hope that I wouldn't betray my morals, but that is nothing but a conclusion gotten in a world so peaceful and easygoing that it cannot be compared.
The reason I doubt that people will randomly kill others next to them comes from my belief that morals have something to do with genetics not only societal structures (which from your post above it seems like you don't believe to a high extent).
The thing you need to clarify now is: How do you know that you will not be one of the 'crazies'?
Ugh. Really? 0 in 100 people who have free reign wouldn't be able to think of one person they don't want to kill? You really don't know about humanity. Seriously, look it up right now. Try the Stanford Prison Experiment, or the Milgram Experiment, to list the most basic of social experiments. Find out under what circumstances people lose their humanity and how little coercion it takes to make mankind turn on one another. I suddenly feel like I'm talking to a pre-college optimistic child. If you aren't one or both of those, I apologize. But you sound very uneducated. Naive.
Morals have nothing to do with genetics. If that were the case, there would never be the option to commit atrocities; it'd be against your genetic code. If you were decent and killed someone, it'd have to rework your biological structure.
Am I going to be one of the crazies? What the hell is this, therapy? Ask me something related to the subject. If you want to ask me questions about my personality, I've got an E-Harmony listing I can direct you to. I'm not going to argue with you if you don't know what you're talking about. If you just think humanity is good because its what you believe in, then I have no reason to cite research results and argue with your blind faith.
Hard to judge where I haven't lived.
I agree, to many people in to little space, also washington, DC
Psh if it started in Virginia it would be contained because I would end it.
So yes let it start in Virginia first, I need the zombie killing training :c
You are incredibly arrogant aren't you? What you're basically saying is that you are better than everyone else. And to say that morals have nothing to do with genetics? Are you fucking serious? So you're what some guy who believes that the bible is where our morals come from? If you think that it's some coincidence that pretty much every culture in the world's history has had a problem with murder, theft and rape (outside of wars with others of course) then you are just stupid. And of course here it comes: "You don't believe the same stuff I do so you must be some kid", yeesh...
And by the way, I have no problem if you believe that humanity is going to lose it's humanity, what ticks me off is that you are so incredibly arrogant that you think that you're better than everyone else.
Oh, you again. Have you cracked a book and found out the psychological findings on how thin human kindness is? I don't mean the BIBLE, of course. Religion and genetics aren't the reason behind kindness. Without society to keep it in place, there will be a fringe group who abuse the power of weaponry and coercion to dominate others. The reason why everyone agrees that murder, theft and rape are bad is because it's a symptom of a peaceful world. You have property because you live within walls. You don't kill people because there is a sense of community telling you that you don't need to hurt others to survive.
I'm not arrogant to say that I'm not one of the rabid killers nor one of those who will be able to keep his hands and morals clean. I said I'd die because I'm naive and trusting. I'm meant for the world as it stands. The second someone pulls a gun to steal my beans, I'm not going to have a say in how the world should go anymore - for the good or bad.
I didn't say you were childish for disagreeing with me. Anyone can disagree with me for any number of reasons. But saying that 0 in 100 people will choose bad actions in a world without consequences is wrong. I, myself, optimistically say that it'd be 2%, but studies have shown the numbers to be much higher. Seriously, look it up. Stop arguing with me based on your gut and assumptions about me and argue with the results of psychological studies. Any college kid has heard of these tests. It's sort of a cliche. Man is good/man is evil. Civilians told to act as prisoners and prison guards let themselves be corrupted by the experiment and began treating lower status peers horribly - any of this ring a bell?
I'd really like to continue this conversation, but you're gonna need more than your own feelings to talk to me about this. Humanity isn't as inborn and unbreakable as you think.
Troll? Come on, this guy thinks that morality is in your genetic code. Don't defend him, Jack.
I've only read on the forums the copple of passed days, but since you're so desperately asking for an answer, I shall give you one. Reasons for you being a Troll, cause obvious Troll is obvious:
1. You're omnipresent in almost any thread on this forums
2. In the majority of all cases you have the last word, not letting anyone else "win" the battle
3. Your style of discussion reflects infallibility, arrogance, persuadive holier than thou indoktrination, intransigence, ignorance, hypocritical and obtrusiv exaggeration
4. Your post count speaks for itself
5. About every tenth or so post of yours is a double post, most responded in a emotional moment
6. Your tone is negative in general
7. You're always replying, to anyone, to anything, to absolutely any post. Even thoose that are not supposed to get any reply
Oh, and please answer a question. If morals emerged from the bible, then why was there social interaction long before the Bibel was written? Moral is a prerequisite for social interaction, you understand?
On topic: Obviously the state were the first living dead emerged back from death. Since in most cases the apocalypse has a exponentially and circular progress, unless it's of religious origin, it follows that the first state that has deads returning from death, will fall first. If the outbreak is somewhere near a border of two or more states, booth of thoose states will fall first.
So the question shouldn't be which state first to fall, but rather which state shows the first sign of infection. If the infection spreads out from another country then it's likely the first signs of infection will be on one of the biggest airports, unless the outbreak is in a country that borders the U.S.A, then the outbreak will be somewhere around the northern or southern borders, spreading in circles.
It would probably be also interesting which group of humans survive the longest. I assume thoose that combine multiple different survival properties, like immunity to the infection, if it's an infection, will for survival and a strong will in general, toughness, fitness, endurance, high willpower and intelligence. Not having to eat much also probably helps. I guess handling a weapon will be your least concern...that's automatism, any human can do this...and any human is capable of taking someone elses live in desperate situations. Morals are nothing but a reflection of prosperty inside a working social community. If either the community or the prospertya is gone, there's no longer a need for morals...only a need for survivalism instinct.
This really is a good post, I dont disagree on any comment, however this really wasnt intended as a debate which state would fall first, it was intended as fun for people to make comments on why certain states would fall..
I like the mentions of Texas not falling at all.. So many armed Texans would take care of that, LOL.
But because this thread has de-railed a bit, I may as well toss in another thought.
Alot of us are semi-regulars on this forum, see alot of the same names, read everyone opinions or thoughts on the game and how each of us would react.
Now let's say, for the fun of it, all of us who post on these forums find ourselves together, let's say something like TTG host's a BBQ for all of us. Then suddenly a ZA happens.. Your only friends or allies are the other people here from the forums..
Take into account the multiple personalities we all make up, the difference in morals, those who would decide things based on personal beliefs vs those who are more hard-hearted and think with survival foremost.
Makes me wonder that if there is so much argueing and insulting going on here behind the safety of the internet, how soon would we be killing eachother if a ZA really did happen.
I'm not going to single anyone out, but I will say that their are a couple people here as forum regulars I would proably either distance myself from or just shoot!
Some are just too set in their ways to try to cooperate or listen to reason. Some are so opposed to other idea's, I think it would create a violent situation. Just taking into account all I've seen on these forums.. As a group, TWD forum people would fail! IMO!
Okay, let's stick to your point by point. I acknowledge your stance and admit that I'm insufferable. So I'll spell out who I am a little better. Plus, I really love responding to things. That's not a mockery of your post. I actually do.
1. Omnipresence: Yes, I'm arrogant and love to talk. It's why I choose forums over other mediums. That doesn't make me a troll, just a Chatty Cathy. (And, no. Don't change my title to Chatty Cathy.)
2. Never Concede Defeat: I'm pretty sure I've admitted fault a few times. But no, in most cases I fight everything until the end. Shouldn't everyone? I mean, it's why we have opinions. In my recent topics, I've pretty much come to a stalemate each time. I'd rather not have my arguments go that way. I'm sure there's more give and take.
3. Arrogance: YES. I'm really sorry about it, actually.
4. Post Count: I really, REALLY love forums. Doesn't make me a troll.
5. Knee-Jerk Posts: I'm pretty sure I don't double post. Do you mean addressing multiple things? I only double post if I have a huge wall of text and want to separate something. But no, if someone argues with me, I argue back. There's a difference between a troll and a mouthy know it all.
6. Negativity: Sorry.
7. Replies Often: Really? You'd blow the whistle on me replying to topics in a public forum?
Question: If morals emerged from the bible, then why was there social interaction long before the Bibel was written?
Answer: I know it was assumed that I think that morality came from the bible, but I have never said that and don't think it. I think that morality comes from having a structured society of decent people. Religion doesn't play any specific role in that.
End post about me. Thanks, that was fun. I hope my recent spree of disagreements hasn't entirely shown a wrong side of me. I'd like to think I'm more laid back than the weekend has painted me.
---
I think this is the first post that hasn't outright slandered (or is it libel?) a group of people and just answered the question.
Get to your mountain, Cyreen!