That despite your many attempts to prove yourself as being a amoral, rational thinking survivalist type, in a real world scenario akin to the Walking Dead the decisions you believe you could make now in theory would not be the same as the ones in practice.
I doubt that, since this is the way i already think and see things.
I may not know you personally
Yeah, you dont.
but since we live in a civilized time, were you to find a baby deserted somewhere, crying, it's safe to assume you would not simply ignore it and abandon it.
Obviously i wouldnt. What possible reason could i have to ignore deserted baby?
These are largely instinctive responses we act upon. As such, even when the world is crumbling and people are becoming more ruthless it would be difficult to simply reverse these moral beliefs and values you have naturally ingrained in you simply by living for the past 20 years.
Moral values change over time and a zombie apocalypse would speed up the change dramatically. It would be natural selection (something which has not affected humans for quite a while) and eventually only certain type of people would be alive.
I truly believe if you were in the situation you would not drop the baby at your feet and walk away. It would not be as easy of a decision as you seem to make it out to be.
If i actually cared about that baby, sure it would be more difficult, but some random baby? Couldnt really care less.
That despite your many attempts to prove yourself as being a amoral, rational thinking survivalist type, in a real world scenario akin to th… moree Walking Dead the decisions you believe you could make now in theory would not be the same as the ones in practice. I may not know you personally, but since we live in a civilized time, were you to find a baby deserted somewhere, crying, it's safe to assume you would not simply ignore it and abandon it. These are largely instinctive responses we act upon. As such, even when the world is crumbling and people are becoming more ruthless it would be difficult to simply reverse these moral beliefs and values you have naturally ingrained in you simply by living for the past 20 years. I truly believe if you were in the situation you would not drop the baby at your feet and walk away. It would not be as easy of a decision as you seem to make it out to be.
I compare your way of thinking to that of a person goi… [view original content]
I enjoy life too, but I also don't enjoy leaving defenseless babies to their death because of it. That's just plain wrong. If you have to … morethrow an innocent baby to the dogs in order to enjoy life, something is wrong with you. I also assume you are atheist.
No matter what you do, you're going to be dead a LOT LONGER than alive. George Washington died a couple hundred years ago, and guess what? He's still dead.
I have no idea, I'm normally the do the right thing kind of guy, to the point where I don't mind making fairly big sacrifices like no food for 3 days because my neighbor's husband died of cancer and she had nothing to feed her kids so I just left all the money I had on her mailbox, but I have no idea what to do with a baby, absolutely no clue as to what I'd do, it's pretty safe to assume I wouldn't survive 2 years in the ZA though.
I also assume you are atheist.
You can not be serious. Assuming that everyone who is completely self centered survivalists are alway… mores atheists is why most people find religion to be a borderline joke now-a-days. Do not be so dense, and think for yourself.
Now, my personal opinion about AJ is very biased. I don't like babies myself personally, and if placed in a similar circumstance to Clementine, I'm not going to pretend I wouldn't just haul the baby around with me just as a "get out jail free card." I'd look after it until shit went sideways, then it's "bye-bye baby" in a heartbeat.
Does that make me evil? No, I don't think so. I'm cynical and jaded about "the preservation of life in a post-apocalyptic" world thing. It doesn't make a lot of sense for Clementine to put herself at risk because it's the "right" thing to do, especially after Lee died trying to do the "right" thing and save her. And lets not forget the cavalcade of … [view original content]
"Most" doesn't mean "everyone". And I hope you do realize that Kenny fanbase is big and you probably didn't talk with too many Kenny fans to understand the whole situation.
Moral values change over time and a zombie apocalypse would speed up the change dramatically. It would be natural selection (something which has not affected humans for quite a while)
That natural selection wouldn't work that quickly, the world of the walking dead could be compared to archaic hunter gatherer human tribes from thousands of years ago. The hyperaggressive members of the homo genus naturally dwindled away while those who were more passive, intelligent, and relied on social structure and trust survived much longer. In the Walking Dead this is also present, as those that are too ruthless are much more prone to danger and hate, eventually that leads to their demise.
eventually only certain type of people would be alive.
Ironically in the long term situation only children that had guardians that would not abandon them will be alive. This trait of morality would pass on.
That despite your many attempts to prove yourself as being a amoral, rational thinking survivalist type, in a real world scenario akin to th… moree Walking Dead the decisions you believe you could make now in theory would not be the same as the ones in practice.
I doubt that, since this is the way i already think and see things.
I may not know you personally
Yeah, you dont.
but since we live in a civilized time, were you to find a baby deserted somewhere, crying, it's safe to assume you would not simply ignore it and abandon it.
Obviously i wouldnt. What possible reason could i have to ignore deserted baby?
These are largely instinctive responses we act upon. As such, even when the world is crumbling and people are becoming more ruthless it would be difficult to simply reverse these moral beliefs and values you have naturally ingrained in you simply by living for the past 20 years.
Moral values chan… [view original content]
That natural selection wouldn't work that quickly, the world of the walking dead could be compared to archaic hunter gatherer human tribes from thousands of years ago. The hyperaggressive members of the homo genus naturally dwindled away while those who were more passive, intelligent, and relied on social structure and trust survived much longer. In the Walking Dead this is also present, as those that are too ruthless are much more prone to danger and hate, eventually that leads to their demise.
Are you sure? All the fat and stupid people would die first. Then elderly, crippled and basically anyone with bad health issues. Then those who cant kill their relatives, who are bit and they die because of that. Next would be suicidal people, as soon as za hits or months later as they get more depressed. Soon it would be those who sacrifice themselves to save others and those who look after people who cant take care of themselves and risk their lives because of that. Eventually only safe communities and efficient survivalists would be alive. Since places like Wellington would possibly be full, a lot of people would be outside and if they dont have certain mindset, they would die. In long run, only places like Wellington could afford to have more humane moral values, while others who survived outside world, would have to be more harsh in order to survive.
Ironically in the long term situation only children that had guardians that would not abandon them will be alive. This trait of morality would pass on.
Ironically all the children whose guardians died protecting them, would understand that risking your life for others gets you killed. It would be up to them to decide if they want to live or die.
Moral values change over time and a zombie apocalypse would speed up the change dramatically. It would be natural selection (something which… more has not affected humans for quite a while)
That natural selection wouldn't work that quickly, the world of the walking dead could be compared to archaic hunter gatherer human tribes from thousands of years ago. The hyperaggressive members of the homo genus naturally dwindled away while those who were more passive, intelligent, and relied on social structure and trust survived much longer. In the Walking Dead this is also present, as those that are too ruthless are much more prone to danger and hate, eventually that leads to their demise.
eventually only certain type of people would be alive.
Ironically in the long term situation only children that had guardians that would not abandon them will be alive. This trait of morality would pass on.
I think AJ and Clementine alone would not survive for long, even if Clementine sacrifice her life to save AJ, how AJ could survive with no one to care for him?
But, to put it in perspective for you, I wrote a thread after episode four saying Sarah's death drained me completely of all compassion and sympathy for other's wellbeing. After her death, I was all about me and nobody else.
I leave for one week and come back for one day to see this place has never changed at all.
* Long, Meaningless conversations.
* Assump… moretions of others' motives.
* Disrespect and misconception of atheism and survivalism.
* Arguing over how everyone is supposed to think.
Don't get me wrong, all the people you mentioned would die first. But people with a moral mindset could still easily thrive without having to become ruthless to live.
You would likely have two certain types of people who survive and pass on their ideas in their own unique way. The ruthless would survive by not trusting others, stealing, limiting exposure to danger, and killing dangerous people.
The moralists would survive by strength in numbers, trust, pacifism, and saving others (sure some would die in these situations, but with proper plans and judgement it would be a net gain).
Both ways work in their own ways. Besides, survivability is still based mainly based on non-mental factors, whether you are a hardened badass or a protective humanist, it wouldn't matter if you don't know how to live in such a world (shooting guns, making food, etc).
That natural selection wouldn't work that quickly, the world of the walking dead could be compared to archaic hunter gatherer human tribes f… morerom thousands of years ago. The hyperaggressive members of the homo genus naturally dwindled away while those who were more passive, intelligent, and relied on social structure and trust survived much longer. In the Walking Dead this is also present, as those that are too ruthless are much more prone to danger and hate, eventually that leads to their demise.
Are you sure? All the fat and stupid people would die first. Then elderly, crippled and basically anyone with bad health issues. Then those who cant kill their relatives, who are bit and they die because of that. Next would be suicidal people, as soon as za hits or months later as they get more depressed. Soon it would be those who sacrifice themselves to save others and those who look after people who cant take care of themselves and risk the… [view original content]
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
But, to put it in perspective for you, I wrote a thread after episode four saying Sarah's death drained me c… moreompletely of all compassion and sympathy for other's wellbeing. After her death, I was all about me and nobody else.
https://www.telltalegames.com/community/discussion/76755/i-m-done-with-compassion/p1
If i could and was there sure i would but i'm not there, and if the richest people of earth shared there wouldn't be starvation at all
people asked you if you saw a baby abandoned what you would do in a Z-A and you said you would leave him thats just sick...
You don't care about those kids in afrika if you don't care about abandoned babies who you would ignore
If i could and was there sure i would but i'm not there, and if the richest people of earth shared there wouldn't be starvation at all
peop… morele asked you if you saw a baby abandoned what you would do in a Z-A and you said you would leave him thats just sick...
You don't care about those kids in afrika if you don't care about abandoned babies who you would ignore
So you blame rich guys for not sharing a fortune they earned?
You claim to care about them, but clearly you dont, since you are here debating with me instead of helping them.
Comments
I doubt that, since this is the way i already think and see things.
Yeah, you dont.
Obviously i wouldnt. What possible reason could i have to ignore deserted baby?
Moral values change over time and a zombie apocalypse would speed up the change dramatically. It would be natural selection (something which has not affected humans for quite a while) and eventually only certain type of people would be alive.
If i actually cared about that baby, sure it would be more difficult, but some random baby? Couldnt really care less.
Well, that's your choice then.
That doesn't make it sound any better. My opinion stands. It's monstrous.
I leave for one week and come back for one day to see this place has never changed at all.
Ignore.
Ignore.
Ignore.
You don't have to be so rude. I just don't want to argue about something off topic.
Some people just can't let it go can they? Its been what 2 months since the finale and we're STILL fighting over this like children.
I don't know how anyone can enjoy life after letting a baby die.
I have no idea, I'm normally the do the right thing kind of guy, to the point where I don't mind making fairly big sacrifices like no food for 3 days because my neighbor's husband died of cancer and she had nothing to feed her kids so I just left all the money I had on her mailbox, but I have no idea what to do with a baby, absolutely no clue as to what I'd do, it's pretty safe to assume I wouldn't survive 2 years in the ZA though.
What sample size are you aiming for?
Aiming for a specific minimum sample size?
Whoops, ignore this.
Is there something wrong with dying for what you believe is right?
You don't have to be so rude about it. Why would I want to derail the thread and risk getting myself in trouble with moderators?
"Most" doesn't mean "everyone". And I hope you do realize that Kenny fanbase is big and you probably didn't talk with too many Kenny fans to understand the whole situation.
Well i would surely enjoy it more than not existing.
Ouch!
i guess i would have protected him as long as he still had a chance to survive.
but it would make me feel selfish.
... just because i got attached to this kid, forcing him to grow up in such a fucked up world ...
One long month
That natural selection wouldn't work that quickly, the world of the walking dead could be compared to archaic hunter gatherer human tribes from thousands of years ago. The hyperaggressive members of the homo genus naturally dwindled away while those who were more passive, intelligent, and relied on social structure and trust survived much longer. In the Walking Dead this is also present, as those that are too ruthless are much more prone to danger and hate, eventually that leads to their demise.
Ironically in the long term situation only children that had guardians that would not abandon them will be alive. This trait of morality would pass on.
Are you sure? All the fat and stupid people would die first. Then elderly, crippled and basically anyone with bad health issues. Then those who cant kill their relatives, who are bit and they die because of that. Next would be suicidal people, as soon as za hits or months later as they get more depressed. Soon it would be those who sacrifice themselves to save others and those who look after people who cant take care of themselves and risk their lives because of that. Eventually only safe communities and efficient survivalists would be alive. Since places like Wellington would possibly be full, a lot of people would be outside and if they dont have certain mindset, they would die. In long run, only places like Wellington could afford to have more humane moral values, while others who survived outside world, would have to be more harsh in order to survive.
Ironically all the children whose guardians died protecting them, would understand that risking your life for others gets you killed. It would be up to them to decide if they want to live or die.
I think AJ and Clementine alone would not survive for long, even if Clementine sacrifice her life to save AJ, how AJ could survive with no one to care for him?
That is why i would pawn it off someone with a heart.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
But, to put it in perspective for you, I wrote a thread after episode four saying Sarah's death drained me completely of all compassion and sympathy for other's wellbeing. After her death, I was all about me and nobody else.
https://www.telltalegames.com/community/discussion/76755/i-m-done-with-compassion/p1
I would leave AJ at Wellington and continue on with Kenny in the wilderness because raising a baby is a liability but I don't want AJ to die either.
I'd take care of AJ, I care about him.
This thread is fine to me....
Don't get me wrong, all the people you mentioned would die first. But people with a moral mindset could still easily thrive without having to become ruthless to live.
You would likely have two certain types of people who survive and pass on their ideas in their own unique way. The ruthless would survive by not trusting others, stealing, limiting exposure to danger, and killing dangerous people.
The moralists would survive by strength in numbers, trust, pacifism, and saving others (sure some would die in these situations, but with proper plans and judgement it would be a net gain).
Both ways work in their own ways. Besides, survivability is still based mainly based on non-mental factors, whether you are a hardened badass or a protective humanist, it wouldn't matter if you don't know how to live in such a world (shooting guns, making food, etc).
poor Sarah, that kid never had a chance.
I'd keep him safe, or try to atleast. It's fucked to leave a defensless baby to die.
Like people who abandon babies and won't get a second less sleep of it?
That is beyond selfish , its sick
[removed]
I feel no pain.
How can you sleep, knowing that children die out of starvation in Africa daily? You could help them but you dont. Are you a sick person?
No? All i have said, is that Jane is more rational choice, if your priority is your own survival.
If i could and was there sure i would but i'm not there, and if the richest people of earth shared there wouldn't be starvation at all
people asked you if you saw a baby abandoned what you would do in a Z-A and you said you would leave him thats just sick...
You don't care about those kids in afrika if you don't care about abandoned babies who you would ignore
So you blame rich guys for not sharing a fortune they earned?
You claim to care about them, but clearly you dont, since you are here debating with me instead of helping them.
[removed]
You help one person in Africa? You are such a good person. You deserve a thumbs up.
And why should they give away their own money?