Same, I rather be in a group but I will be extremely paranoid and on guard not trusting easy towards other human beings. Am thinking or feel its safer in isolated places like the woods, county, etc. Getting away from large populations of humans would be good.
1.) Definitely I'd rather take my chances with others that be on my own. No Human Contact does things to people you wouldn't believe.
2.) H… moreell no there are no more societal obligations or views I treat everyone equally (Untrusting until I get to know them.)
3.)I'd like to try to find a huge community of "nice" individuals but if I couldn't my group and I would probably be roaming Scavengers (More Loot and Less Traceable.)
Also does anyone agree with the human version of strongest of the fittest then nature? Take Crawford for example thier ideal of strong was not and lead to their downfall, also why kill kids, in nature reproduction is power in preserving your species and teaching them or more humans within the group,
I wouldn't be too willing to carry a baby honestly. Besides, I'm holding off on the frickle frackle till I get married. I'm too young to have an interest in it.
I assume Jane's had some birth control on her, or at the very least knows how to perform abortions on her own. Otherwise she's going to hav… moree to deal with the consequences of screwing Luke - a move which is even dumber on her part than his because she SHOULD know that it's going to be almost impossible for her to remain an independent survivalist if she was pregnant.
I assume Jane's had some birth control on her, or at the very least knows how to perform abortions on her own. Otherwise she's going to hav… moree to deal with the consequences of screwing Luke - a move which is even dumber on her part than his because she SHOULD know that it's going to be almost impossible for her to remain an independent survivalist if she was pregnant.
They were cartoon villains who represented just how evil that mindset would be if taken to its extreme. Carver, as outlandish as he is, is pragmatic enough to understand how important children are.
Also does anyone agree with the human version of strongest of the fittest then nature? Take Crawford for example thier ideal of strong was n… moreot and lead to their downfall, also why kill kids, in nature reproduction is power in preserving your species and teaching them or more humans within the group,
I agree, I just hate when some ppl use survival of the fittest in the wrongest of terms even for non humans. Nature decided s not another animal,it works its course on its own
They were cartoon villains who represented just how evil that mindset would be if taken to its extreme. Carver, as outlandish as he is, is pragmatic enough to understand how important children are.
Luke and Jane could have done it when they had free time tho am curious on this offer from Jane, I would be afraid little to be on my own then with a group
Crawford had some logic, although it was kind of crazy. The idea to kick out the sick was just to make sure one didnt die in their sleep and kill everyone from the inside, the kids thing was pretty much because they couldn't take care of themselves and they needed everyone to pitch in. Lee was killed because Clem was a stupid little kid too, (well actually Lee was stupid for not checking the over turned bin). Crawfords downfall only came because they were going to kick out a pregnant woman and she flipped which was kind of selfish of her.
Carvers didn't seem all that bad either, he was an ass but it was ran pretty well.
I agree, I just hate when some ppl use survival of the fittest in the wrongest of terms even for non humans. Nature decided s not another animal,it works its course on its own
Crawford had some logic, although it was kind of crazy. The idea to kick out the sick was just to make sure one didnt die in their sleep and… more kill everyone from the inside, the kids thing was pretty much because they couldn't take care of themselves and they needed everyone to pitch in. Lee was killed because Clem was a stupid little kid too, (well actually Lee was stupid for not checking the over turned bin). Crawfords downfall only came because they were going to kick out a pregnant woman and she flipped which was kind of selfish of her.
Carvers didn't seem all that bad either, he was an ass but it was ran pretty well.
Wow, we've got a 'badass' here! If everyone had your mentality, then I'm sure they'd kill you off for being 'useless' once things started getting tough.
Crawford had some logic, although it was kind of crazy. The idea to kick out the sick was just to make sure one didnt die in their sleep and… more kill everyone from the inside, the kids thing was pretty much because they couldn't take care of themselves and they needed everyone to pitch in. Lee was killed because Clem was a stupid little kid too, (well actually Lee was stupid for not checking the over turned bin). Crawfords downfall only came because they were going to kick out a pregnant woman and she flipped which was kind of selfish of her.
Carvers didn't seem all that bad either, he was an ass but it was ran pretty well.
Not entirely sure if thats a reply to me but I'm going to reply as if it is.
I said some logic, I agree with it but I wouldn't use it. My group wouldn't even get that big but each person would be required to hold their own weight. I wouldn't kick out the sick either, unless they were bitten, in which case I'd wait until they turn and then kill them. I wouldn't really be useless tbh, if the game is anything to go by, the apocalypse is lacking ideas, I have plenty and know how to utilize them. Stupid people just screw it up for everyone else.
Also, your comment made no sense, if everyone had Carvers mentality, the group would be a well oiled machine, nothing bad would ever happen. If I ever did become useless, I'd be the first to admit it and accept death or I'd just leave and never return. No point in me getting people killed! :P
Wow, we've got a 'badass' here! If everyone had your mentality, then I'm sure they'd kill you off for being 'useless' once things started getting tough.
I was responding to your comment about the comparison between Crawford and Carver and you said crawford had some logic, but I disagreed and used Carvers group for example.
I was just talking about the human ideal of strongest of the fittest compared to actual nature
It did make sense, all I said the only good thing about Carvers group was he was rational and thought about the actions that would have a long lasting effect on the group. Only problem he was too tight and his way became slavery for safety.
Crawford was just some stereotypical anti human group. It was bound to fail by the start with their measures. Personally I would never be apart of a group like that, nor Carvers[if he was not crazy ], or even the military for that matter.
Also big groups of humans are much harder to manage live among then smaller groups
Not entirely sure if thats a reply to me but I'm going to reply as if it is.
I said some logic, I agree with it but I wouldn't use it. My… more group wouldn't even get that big but each person would be required to hold their own weight. I wouldn't kick out the sick either, unless they were bitten, in which case I'd wait until they turn and then kill them. I wouldn't really be useless tbh, if the game is anything to go by, the apocalypse is lacking ideas, I have plenty and know how to utilize them. Stupid people just screw it up for everyone else.
Also, your comment made no sense, if everyone had Carvers mentality, the group would be a well oiled machine, nothing bad would ever happen. If I ever did become useless, I'd be the first to admit it and accept death or I'd just leave and never return. No point in me getting people killed! :P
So..how'd it reproduction if it's estimated that millions die worldwide due to to the global pandemic whilst a very few babies are being born every nine months? It's like discounting from 100 and while it's reaching zero it rises two or four then continuously keeps discounting? In a world like the Walking Dead it would rather be called de-production if that's even a word. I wonder how Kirkman would end TWD (if),
Last thing I'd need to worry about is catching a disease from some chick in the apocalypse, but I wouldn't be able to help becoming attracted to girls and trying to get lucky
1: Repopulation would only occur in a group with big people where they felt safe. Many would not want their child to be borned into a world like that. Then again who am I to talk. One of the reasons we live is to continue our genetic legacy.
2: It all depends on my relation with them.
3: Donno, It is a hard choise, would only stay but if i had the resources, like seeds to plant vegetables and a place where one could keep out any danger. But I would properly not stay permanent because same with the hordes, they are also on the move and you or your groups might not finish the fortifications before it is to late.
I think a game like Project Zomboids answers your questions. I usally are on the move until I find a nice place then I stay there until there are no more supplies left.
Some might argue that this is like Slash-and-burn, which is kinda is. And it will eventually come to a stop, so not the best plan.
Not really, not everything is as dire as the games stories, or even comic stories. Most groups have seemed to do fine until the main character arrives, it would be a boring game if everything goes right and nothing bad ever happens. If you had a setup like Dawn of the Dead, they lived there for months without issues and had sex. They were basically getting on with their lives up until the point they became stupid. Good movie though. Life just continues as normal once in shelter.
I meant that guy, Bokor. He could've been replying to either one of us.
The 400 days group seemed reasonable enough but they stuck with Carver, they could've left at any point but they chose to stay. Carver accepted kids and old people and punished anyone who didnt follow rules, how is that bad? He was crazy, but on paper it doesn't seem like an issue lol. Crawford would've sucked but you'd understand the rationing of medicine. I mean by this time they'd completely cleared out Savannah of all it's goods. They would've had to goto the next town over which would be even riskier. I dont exactly agree with it though.
I'd be like you, I'd stick with a smaller group. They're unlikely to do it, but if it were me.. instead of finding a boat, or escaping to somewhere I think might be safe, or join a big group. I'd just get a few people to help me set up a base in a shopping centre like Dawn of the Dead. They probably wont ever goto a shopping centre though because Romero tried to sue Dead Rising for using a mall, saying it was copying off of Dawn of the Dead. Like.. nobody would ever try that? lol.
You could also trade with other groups like in Fallout which would benefit a lot of people, if you have supplies they need, they wouldnt have to search all over and risk their life. I'm sure some would try to take it by force but they'd probably be unlikely to break in anyways so shrug
I was responding to your comment about the comparison between Crawford and Carver and you said crawford had some logic, but I disagreed and … moreused Carvers group for example.
I was just talking about the human ideal of strongest of the fittest compared to actual nature
It did make sense, all I said the only good thing about Carvers group was he was rational and thought about the actions that would have a long lasting effect on the group. Only problem he was too tight and his way became slavery for safety.
Crawford was just some stereotypical anti human group. It was bound to fail by the start with their measures. Personally I would never be apart of a group like that, nor Carvers[if he was not crazy ], or even the military for that matter.
Also big groups of humans are much harder to manage live among then smaller groups
Not really, not everything is as dire as the games stories, or even comic stories. Most groups have seemed to do fine until the main charact… moreer arrives, it would be a boring game if everything goes right and nothing bad ever happens. If you had a setup like Dawn of the Dead, they lived there for months without issues and had sex. They were basically getting on with their lives up until the point they became stupid. Good movie though. Life just continues as normal once in shelter.
I bet in real life many people will be at sites like shopping malls and etc that's if the military wont secure it first then force everyone to fall in line for food, shelter, water, etc. That's when things can get hot and uprising can start.
I would hope to be with a small group someone ware away from too many other humans but land ripe for food like animals and plants and water, living in a high fortress type of shelter with alot of weapons.
The fallout apocalypse was one of my favorites. But when you hear ppl planning for the apocalypse or groups, and fractions etc, one should see if they will live long enough to reach that point after the start of chaos. I always think of how to survive the beginning first or what exactly will happen. As some say-the first time is always the hardest.
I meant that guy, Bokor. He could've been replying to either one of us.
The 400 days group seemed reasonable enough but they stuck with C… morearver, they could've left at any point but they chose to stay. Carver accepted kids and old people and punished anyone who didnt follow rules, how is that bad? He was crazy, but on paper it doesn't seem like an issue lol. Crawford would've sucked but you'd understand the rationing of medicine. I mean by this time they'd completely cleared out Savannah of all it's goods. They would've had to goto the next town over which would be even riskier. I dont exactly agree with it though.
I'd be like you, I'd stick with a smaller group. They're unlikely to do it, but if it were me.. instead of finding a boat, or escaping to somewhere I think might be safe, or join a big group. I'd just get a few people to help me set up a base in a shopping centre like Dawn of the Dead. They probably wont ever goto a shopping ce… [view original content]
Last thing I'd need to worry about is catching a disease from some chick in the apocalypse, but I wouldn't be able to help becoming attracted to girls and trying to get lucky
1: Repopulation would only occur in a group with big people where they felt safe. Many would not want their child to be borned into a world … morelike that. Then again who am I to talk. One of the reasons we live is to continue our genetic legacy.
2: It all depends on my relation with them.
3: Donno, It is a hard choise, would only stay but if i had the resources, like seeds to plant vegetables and a place where one could keep out any danger. But I would properly not stay permanent because same with the hordes, they are also on the move and you or your groups might not finish the fortifications before it is to late.
I think a game like Project Zomboids answers your questions. I usally are on the move until I find a nice place then I stay there until there are no more supplies left.
Some might argue that this is like Slash-and-burn, which is kinda is. And it will eventually come to a stop, so not the best plan.
Sexwise it was only few ppl[ I think only two couples] and now that you mention that it would suck to be in group or around humans you did not find attractive or mate material sex wise. But survival wise its good for food, and little safety, etc
Not really, not everything is as dire as the games stories, or even comic stories. Most groups have seemed to do fine until the main charact… moreer arrives, it would be a boring game if everything goes right and nothing bad ever happens. If you had a setup like Dawn of the Dead, they lived there for months without issues and had sex. They were basically getting on with their lives up until the point they became stupid. Good movie though. Life just continues as normal once in shelter.
Comments
Same, I rather be in a group but I will be extremely paranoid and on guard not trusting easy towards other human beings. Am thinking or feel its safer in isolated places like the woods, county, etc. Getting away from large populations of humans would be good.
Also does anyone agree with the human version of strongest of the fittest then nature? Take Crawford for example thier ideal of strong was not and lead to their downfall, also why kill kids, in nature reproduction is power in preserving your species and teaching them or more humans within the group,
lol
At least you can come up with your own marriage customs
That and whom would crack under even worse situations
I also want to be the Governor
Am thinking maybe a condom or just a well quickie,[no fun for most women so idk how jane feels about it] But she did offer for something so idk
Or Luke just pulled out.
that does make a lot of sense all of you
LOL
They were cartoon villains who represented just how evil that mindset would be if taken to its extreme. Carver, as outlandish as he is, is pragmatic enough to understand how important children are.
I agree, I just hate when some ppl use survival of the fittest in the wrongest of terms even for non humans. Nature decided s not another animal,it works its course on its own
I wonder if Chuck used to fap in his wagon
I don't even
I'd want to repopulate... Its important besides, don't "do it" like Luke and Jane did because it risks the group's safety.
edit : was pretty funny but don't want to risk a ban after all
Luke and Jane could have done it when they had free time tho am curious on this offer from Jane, I would be afraid little to be on my own then with a group
Crawford had some logic, although it was kind of crazy. The idea to kick out the sick was just to make sure one didnt die in their sleep and kill everyone from the inside, the kids thing was pretty much because they couldn't take care of themselves and they needed everyone to pitch in. Lee was killed because Clem was a stupid little kid too, (well actually Lee was stupid for not checking the over turned bin). Crawfords downfall only came because they were going to kick out a pregnant woman and she flipped which was kind of selfish of her.
Carvers didn't seem all that bad either, he was an ass but it was ran pretty well.
Only logic I saw was to be conservative other then that everything was a mess, hell even Carver had the best setup in terms of survival.
Ideals do not equal survival of the fittest only lets make this easier on our selfs because we are weak
Only nature decides that
Wow, we've got a 'badass' here! If everyone had your mentality, then I'm sure they'd kill you off for being 'useless' once things started getting tough.
Not entirely sure if thats a reply to me but I'm going to reply as if it is.
I said some logic, I agree with it but I wouldn't use it. My group wouldn't even get that big but each person would be required to hold their own weight. I wouldn't kick out the sick either, unless they were bitten, in which case I'd wait until they turn and then kill them. I wouldn't really be useless tbh, if the game is anything to go by, the apocalypse is lacking ideas, I have plenty and know how to utilize them. Stupid people just screw it up for everyone else.
Also, your comment made no sense, if everyone had Carvers mentality, the group would be a well oiled machine, nothing bad would ever happen. If I ever did become useless, I'd be the first to admit it and accept death or I'd just leave and never return. No point in me getting people killed! :P
It would, but only when the time comes and the place I'm currently at is safe for a baby to be raised in.
Haahahahaahahah your comment killed me.
I was responding to your comment about the comparison between Crawford and Carver and you said crawford had some logic, but I disagreed and used Carvers group for example.
I was just talking about the human ideal of strongest of the fittest compared to actual nature
It did make sense, all I said the only good thing about Carvers group was he was rational and thought about the actions that would have a long lasting effect on the group. Only problem he was too tight and his way became slavery for safety.
Crawford was just some stereotypical anti human group. It was bound to fail by the start with their measures. Personally I would never be apart of a group like that, nor Carvers[if he was not crazy ], or even the military for that matter.
Also big groups of humans are much harder to manage live among then smaller groups
Watch it all....
I don't even want a baby when things are going good, there's no way I'm getting pregnant in a zombie apocalypse.
So..how'd it reproduction if it's estimated that millions die worldwide due to to the global pandemic whilst a very few babies are being born every nine months? It's like discounting from 100 and while it's reaching zero it rises two or four then continuously keeps discounting? In a world like the Walking Dead it would rather be called de-production if that's even a word. I wonder how Kirkman would end TWD (if),
Lol... Your title isn't very subtle at all, just putting that out there. xD
Last thing I'd need to worry about is catching a disease from some chick in the apocalypse, but I wouldn't be able to help becoming attracted to girls and trying to get lucky
1: Repopulation would only occur in a group with big people where they felt safe. Many would not want their child to be borned into a world like that. Then again who am I to talk. One of the reasons we live is to continue our genetic legacy.
2: It all depends on my relation with them.
3: Donno, It is a hard choise, would only stay but if i had the resources, like seeds to plant vegetables and a place where one could keep out any danger. But I would properly not stay permanent because same with the hordes, they are also on the move and you or your groups might not finish the fortifications before it is to late.
I think a game like Project Zomboids answers your questions. I usally are on the move until I find a nice place then I stay there until there are no more supplies left.
Some might argue that this is like Slash-and-burn, which is kinda is. And it will eventually come to a stop, so not the best plan.
I doubt many people would have sex often. You would be straving most of the time and trying to find shelter.
Not really, not everything is as dire as the games stories, or even comic stories. Most groups have seemed to do fine until the main character arrives, it would be a boring game if everything goes right and nothing bad ever happens. If you had a setup like Dawn of the Dead, they lived there for months without issues and had sex. They were basically getting on with their lives up until the point they became stupid. Good movie though. Life just continues as normal once in shelter.
I meant that guy, Bokor. He could've been replying to either one of us.
The 400 days group seemed reasonable enough but they stuck with Carver, they could've left at any point but they chose to stay. Carver accepted kids and old people and punished anyone who didnt follow rules, how is that bad? He was crazy, but on paper it doesn't seem like an issue lol. Crawford would've sucked but you'd understand the rationing of medicine. I mean by this time they'd completely cleared out Savannah of all it's goods. They would've had to goto the next town over which would be even riskier. I dont exactly agree with it though.
I'd be like you, I'd stick with a smaller group. They're unlikely to do it, but if it were me.. instead of finding a boat, or escaping to somewhere I think might be safe, or join a big group. I'd just get a few people to help me set up a base in a shopping centre like Dawn of the Dead. They probably wont ever goto a shopping centre though because Romero tried to sue Dead Rising for using a mall, saying it was copying off of Dawn of the Dead. Like.. nobody would ever try that? lol.
You could also trade with other groups like in Fallout which would benefit a lot of people, if you have supplies they need, they wouldnt have to search all over and risk their life. I'm sure some would try to take it by force but they'd probably be unlikely to break in anyways so shrug
Depends on the shelter, The group, Supplies.
Oh ok that cleared it up
I bet in real life many people will be at sites like shopping malls and etc that's if the military wont secure it first then force everyone to fall in line for food, shelter, water, etc. That's when things can get hot and uprising can start.
I would hope to be with a small group someone ware away from too many other humans but land ripe for food like animals and plants and water, living in a high fortress type of shelter with alot of weapons.
The fallout apocalypse was one of my favorites. But when you hear ppl planning for the apocalypse or groups, and fractions etc, one should see if they will live long enough to reach that point after the start of chaos. I always think of how to survive the beginning first or what exactly will happen. As some say-the first time is always the hardest.
It depends with whom, why, and environment, food, and future outlook with the odds of it being good for me
Or a incurable one you do not have treatment for, espy if its a silent one
Depends on group
Depends on person
Depends where I am and how much supplies I have
I agree its often large groups that are safer to have kids in
A permanent place must be hell of a secure place that has back ups plans from A to Z
I agree
Sexwise it was only few ppl[ I think only two couples] and now that you mention that it would suck to be in group or around humans you did not find attractive or mate material sex wise. But survival wise its good for food, and little safety, etc