Well the whole point of crawford was to keep only the most efficient survivors there. This girl clearly wasnt part of them and she fucked it up for everyone else. Just one irrational person caused an entire community to fall.
What's irrational is to expect that everyone would have accepted those values. It demonstrates a gaping lack of understanding of human natur… moree. This is the thing with the cold view - most humans just aren't like that. And by justifying the view that the wants of the self outweigh the needs of all others, you create a situation where anyone will do so including her when her want was to have that baby. So she acted according to those flawed principles.
Not sure if saying the same thing again makes it any more true. If it wasn't her, it would have been someone else. It was flawed because it didn't take people into account.
Well the whole point of crawford was to keep only the most efficient survivors there. This girl clearly wasnt part of them and she fucked it up for everyone else. Just one irrational person caused an entire community to fall.
Not sure if saying the same thing again makes it any more true. If it wasn't her, it would have been someone else. It was flawed because it didn't take people into account.
I'll put it this way... your examples of "groups doing just fine" have fallen just the same as groups of the other side of the moral compass. The only difference between the two is one group doesn't leave/kick out (kill) children. Have you seen a community of "bad" (not the greatest terminology to use but whatever) moral people hold together and survive? Have you seen a a community of "good" moral people hold together and survive? I've seen the latter.
Theres a difference between immoral groups (bandits) and rational & objective groups like Crawford. Bandits do immoral things, for sake of "why the fuck not?", while people like Crawford just do immoral stuff, because they see its necessary to ensure survival of the fittest.
So far the 2 communities which rely on rationality/logic (priority being their survival), both have fell because irrational acts. Crawford because of a unborn baby & Howe's because of unborn baby. These damn babies are bringing down all the efficient survivor communities.
I'll put it this way... your examples of "groups doing just fine" have fallen just the same as groups of the other side of the moral compass… more. The only difference between the two is one group doesn't leave/kick out (kill) children. Have you seen a community of "bad" (not the greatest terminology to use but whatever) moral people hold together and survive? Have you seen a a community of "good" moral people hold together and survive? I've seen the latter.
I think a lot of people don't realize what a responsibility it would be to try to care for a child in the apocalypse. It is just going to die anyways.
It needs
* Food
* water
* Warm Clothes
* Fresh diapers/clothes
* medicine
The matter's that you don't give a shit about the human race!
I never thought i would say this, but i agree with Zykelator. I don't give a shit about the human race either. After seeing what i seen, I don't care about anything anymore.
I think a lot of people don't realize what a responsibility it would be to try to care for a child in the apocalypse. It is just going to die anyways.
It needs
* Food
* water
* Warm Clothes
* Fresh diapers/clothes
* medicine
The matter's that you don't give a shit about the human race!
I never thought i would say this, but i agree with Zykelator. I don't give a shit about the human race either. After seeing what i seen, I don't care about anything anymore.
Theres a difference between immoral groups (bandits) and rational & objective groups like Crawford. Bandits do immoral things, for sake of "why the fuck not?", while people like Crawford just do immoral stuff, because they see its necessary to ensure survival of the fittest.
I wouldn't argue with that. It's definitely true, but it doesn't really fall into our current conversation does it? The clarification on the two types of immoral groups has no relevance to the groups falling.
"Bridge's fall."
"But the blue bridge is different than the red bridge."
"K?"
So far the 2 communities which rely on rationality/logic (priority being their survival), both have fell because irrational acts.
How can you not expect irrational acts to spawn from such heinous and immoral seeds? Both groups you give have fallen from a form of revolution caused by immoral environments. If anything your examples support a claim that "rationality/logic (priority being their survival)(immoral, or just flat out uncaring if you don't like the term immoral)" based groups are more likely to fall than the opposing side. Who's to say Crawford would have fallen had they let Anne keep the child? Who's to say Howe's would have fallen had Carver not been such a cruel and immoral leader? Who's to say Wellington wouldn't have fallen if..... oh wait. And they were (from what we could see) very caring and "moral" people, (giving supplies to those who did nothing for them, and even offering them a chance for entry if they could return at a later time after expansion) right?
Crawford because of a unborn baby & Howe's because of unborn baby. These damn babies are bringing down all the efficient survivor communities.
Theres a difference between immoral groups (bandits) and rational & objective groups like Crawford. Bandits do immoral things, for sake … moreof "why the fuck not?", while people like Crawford just do immoral stuff, because they see its necessary to ensure survival of the fittest.
So far the 2 communities which rely on rationality/logic (priority being their survival), both have fell because irrational acts. Crawford because of a unborn baby & Howe's because of unborn baby. These damn babies are bringing down all the efficient survivor communities.
Leaving a baby behind in order to not risk everyone else isnt morally wrong imo.
Moral is such a tricky word. We will be using morality as majority rule and what is viewed as right and wrong by the majority. Leaving the baby to die is marked as the "wrong" or "bad" choice by most people.
Lee obviously cared about Clementine and even i wouldnt just leave family or close friends behind, because emotions and stuff.
This isn't about Lee, this is about you and how you would handle the situation. Lee is a placeholder. What is actually being said here is since you would abandon AJ at the drop of a hat then you would have no explanation for not abandoning Clem at the drop of a hat. After all you are about survival of the fittest, and at the time Clem didn't fit into that line up plus you had no reason to "care" for her anymore than AJ. She is unknown and an obvious detriment as she is a knowledgeably weak, physically weak, emotionally weak child. So wouldn't you toss her like you would do AJ? Why wouldn't you? She would be weighing you down.
Life can be boring without having people you care about with you and whats the point of living if you cant enjoy it with people you like? Having good friends prevent depression, thus increasing your survival chances, because suicide wont be an option.
Right. So in order to make you happy (stem off depression) have something that can bring you happiness.... like a bab... wait a minute! Or if a child doesn't make you happy then go find a group that does. One that can support you as much as you can support it. Not a group with a child (Clem) or gasp an infant. Because both of those, after all, are more likely to get you killed than a bit of sadness (something you'll already be feeling a lot of anyways).
Ben put others in danger with his stupid behaviour. I would have left him behind, not kill.
Ben did put others in danger. I may have left him myself. The difference between him and a baby..... well I think you can do the comparison yourself.
They killed others and ate them so they would survive. You've probably heard stories about people who have got stuck somewhere and they eventually had to eat their friends in order to survive.
So you are saying this is a "revised moral value." Wow!! I have heard stories about people who have needed to eat others in order to survive. I don't remember them going out of their way to eat others, and I don't remember them keeping them alive as they ate their pieces or even killing them with the intent to eat them OR eating them with other food around (the list goes on). The St. Johns' were not stuck in a blizzard. They were not stuck on a mountain. They had bread, and milk, and vegetables, and the wilds, and every bit as much food (way more than most actually) as every other group out there.
You dont see stealing from someone as immoral act? Even good people can make bad things, that doesnt necessarily make them bad people.
I said hardly. Is it immoral? Slightly. Is it as immoral as murdering a defenseless newborn? Hardly comparable! Need I continue?
murdering someone because of mistake is stupid and wrong.
We are on the same page here. So why were you originally arguing that this was just a simple change of moral value? " people would do things which by nowadays standards would be considered immoral." "For example," --> "murdering someone because of mistake" You must believe, then, that because of the ZA it would be right for someone to be murdered because of a mistake, after all, changing moral values right?
In addition, if murdering someone for making a mistake is wrong then why is murdering someone for being unwillingly born right? Murdering for doing bad is bad, murdering for existing is justifiable?
LINK
Thanks for that wiki link. An interesting read. I'll admit I was misinformed there. It is interesting how Philo and other philosophers are remembered, but the common of the era are viewed as "ancient" and primitive in not only technology and knowledge, but morality also. The majority of today's civilized people wouldn't so readily throw the moral code of infant murder away. Seen many times in events such as battle. Where Army soldiers go out of their way to protect the innocent and defenseless (one of my SGTs for example).
You do know how stuff goes in India? Female babies being aborted or killed because they want boys?
Now we get into abortion and whether a fetus is considered a living being and the like. Think I'll just skip this tidbit of your post because I'm not looking to get that political.
Putting aside that, a baby in za would put everyone around it at risk. Lower mobility because you have to carry it, the need to loot spesific kind of places for the food, crying alerts close by walkers. Survival chances of adults is low and considering that you would have to take care of the baby for like +7 years until it can actually do anything useful is very unrealistic goal.
Yes. But that's the basis of this to and fro we have here. "Survival of the fittest, or survival of humanity?" To come full circle... shouldn't you have left Clem?
People who would take care of babies and do other "stupid" stuff would most likely die, so only people like me would manage to stay alive for long time (with some luck of course), thus the world would have different set of moral values.
Thanks for quoting stupid, because that's extremely perspective based.
And:
Why do you say that? We've seen the downfall of immoral people as much as we have the downfall of moral people (if not more than). Only people like you would manage to stay alive? We've seen many, many like you die. In horrible, gruesome, twisted ways... often at the hands of the very moral people you say would already be dead.
Remember, all this talk is based on assumption that za happened and its been like +2 years or so.
So? In a thousand years when killing… more (directly or not) a baby is a moral choice then we can consider that ok. As it sits now, it isn't.
Leaving a baby behind in order to not risk everyone else isnt morally wrong imo.
Even if you think that was too soon then what about the many months following that? When her acts indirectly started getting people killed? Should have packed up and left her on the side of the road. After all it would help the others' chances of survival.
Lee obviously cared about Clementine and even i wouldnt just leave family or close friends behind, because emotions and stuff. Life can be boring without having people you care about with you and whats the point of living if you cant enjoy it with people you like? Having good friends prevent depression, thus increasing your survival chances, because suic… [view original content]
Its gonna be hard looking after a baby, considering that Clem is a kid herself. I think AJ should be protected at all costs. It just isn't right to leave a defenseless human being behind.
so if you strain/break your leg or get the flu and can't run as fast as the others you've become a liability we should leave you? Thats what you are saying...
We are talking about the Zombie apocalypse and there are almost no humans left and you talk in the present day with 7 billion people.
I think you are a depressed person but when talking about a game in the Z-A you mix reality (with 7billion+ people)with a game (almost everyone is dead)
Keep your head in the game and don't mix your depreesive blabbering about the real world with A GAME
Why should i? Have you seen how fucked up things are? Wars, religions, terrorism, slavery... All that shit and more. People are just too stu… morepid, crazy and greedy. We are pretty much the most harmful & stupid species on this planet and i just cant give a crap about the future of human race.
99% of all species which have existed on this planet has gone extinct, i dont care if one them is humans.
How can you not expect irrational acts to spawn from such heinous and immoral seeds? Both groups you give have fallen from a form of revolution caused by immoral environments. If anything your examples support a claim that "rationality/logic (priority being their survival)(immoral, or just flat out uncaring if you don't like the term immoral)" based groups are more likely to fall than the opposing side. Who's to say Crawford would have fallen had they let Anne keep the child? Who's to say Howe's would have fallen had Carver not been such a cruel and immoral leader? Who's to say Wellington wouldn't have fallen if..... oh wait. And they were (from what we could see) very caring and "moral" people, (giving supplies to those who did nothing for them, and even offering them a chance for entry if they could return at a later time after expansion) right?
But the point is, that the reason Crawford fell, is because they had people in, who did not belong there, who could not live by their rules. Normally, those people would have been banished, but this pergnant lady decided to go on killing spree instead of leaving. If everyone would actually follow those rules, that place would be great, for efficient survivors.
Howe's fell, because Carver wanted to have revenge and the baby for himself. These 2 things eventually caused Howe's to fall also.
People who are there know the rules. They knew how "immoral" those places are and its up to them to decide if they want to stay there or not.
Theres a difference between immoral groups (bandits) and rational & objective groups like Crawford. Bandits do immoral things, for sake … moreof "why the fuck not?", while people like Crawford just do immoral stuff, because they see its necessary to ensure survival of the fittest.
I wouldn't argue with that. It's definitely true, but it doesn't really fall into our current conversation does it? The clarification on the two types of immoral groups has no relevance to the groups falling.
"Bridge's fall."
"But the blue bridge is different than the red bridge."
"K?"
So far the 2 communities which rely on rationality/logic (priority being their survival), both have fell because irrational acts.
How can you not expect irrational acts to spawn from such heinous and immoral seeds? Both groups you give have fallen from a form of revolution caused by immoral environments. If anything your examples support a claim that "rati… [view original content]
30% of people let Ben fall/crawford pull him down, because he is a liability and caused deaths. I guess im still in minority, but 30% used the same logic i would use for the baby.
This isn't about Lee, this is about you and how you would handle the situation. Lee is a placeholder. What is actually being said here is since you would abandon AJ at the drop of a hat then you would have no explanation for not abandoning Clem at the drop of a hat. After all you are about survival of the fittest, and at the time Clem didn't fit into that line up plus you had no reason to "care" for her anymore than AJ. She is unknown and an obvious detriment as she is a knowledgeably weak, physically weak, emotionally weak child. So wouldn't you toss her like you would do AJ? Why wouldn't you? She would be weighing you down.
First of all, i wouldnt had any reason to leave Clem behind (first days of za) and after a while, i would start to care about Clementine and would take care of her. I've said before, that i would still look after people i care about. Im not all about survival of the fittest, but i would still be ready to radical decisions in order to keep me&others safe.
Right. So in order to make you happy (stem off depression) have something that can bring you happiness.... like a bab... wait a minute! Or if a child doesn't make you happy then go find a group that does. One that can support you as much as you can support it. Not a group with a child (Clem) or gasp an infant. Because both of those, after all, are more likely to get you killed than a bit of sadness (something you'll already be feeling a lot of anyways).
This speculation is going a bit too far. Of course i would try to find group where i fit in perfectly, but if i would start to take care of someone like Clementine on first day of za, it would be unlikely that i would just leave suddenly just to find new group. You seem to forget that as time moves on, my worldview would gradually change more to survival of the fittest type.
Ben did put others in danger. I may have left him myself. The difference between him and a baby..... well I think you can do the comparison yourself.
After 2 years of za, i dont think it would matter much if its a baby or grown up guy who is putting others in danger.
So you are saying this is a "revised moral value." Wow!! I have heard stories about people who have needed to eat others in order to survive. I don't remember them going out of their way to eat others, and I don't remember them keeping them alive as they ate their pieces or even killing them with the intent to eat them OR eating them with other food around (the list goes on). The St. Johns' were not stuck in a blizzard. They were not stuck on a mountain. They had bread, and milk, and vegetables, and the wilds, and every bit as much food (way more than most actually) as every other group out there.
Well they seemed like psychopaths, so this might be bad example.
I said hardly. Is it immoral? Slightly. Is it as immoral as murdering a defenseless newborn? Hardly comparable! Need I continue?
Im not comparing everything to killing infant. Im comparing old and new moral values.
We are on the same page here. So why were you originally arguing that this was just a simple change of moral value? " people would do things which by nowadays standards would be considered immoral." "For example," --> "murdering someone because of mistake" You must believe, then, that because of the ZA it would be right for someone to be murdered because of a mistake, after all, changing moral values right?
In addition, if murdering someone for making a mistake is wrong then why is murdering someone for being unwillingly born right? Murdering for doing bad is bad, murdering for existing is justifiable?
This happened, so some people did accept these moral values. I wouldnt feel its necessary to kill someone for a mistake. I would rather just kick people away and let them try survive on their own.
Its right for sake of others. Its not the babys fault, but why should others suffer because of the baby?
Yes. But that's the basis of this to and fro we have here. "Survival of the fittest, or survival of humanity?" To come full circle... shouldn't you have left Clem?
If i found Clementine after 2 years of za and she was like Sarah, i would probably have left her behind. However just like in the game, its the first days and i would look after her, eventually grow the care about her and try to keep her alive. You dont have the be exreme on one side. Sometimes you just have to do radical decisions so others have a better chance to live.
Thanks for quoting stupid, because that's extremely perspective based.
Thats was the point.
Why do you say that? We've seen the downfall of immoral people as much as we have the downfall of moral people (if not more than). Only people like you would manage to stay alive? We've seen many, many like you die. In horrible, gruesome, twisted ways... often at the hands of the very moral people you say would already be dead.
Im talking in larger time scale. Those who would risk their lives to save others would most likely die from this, while those who looked after themselves (mainly) and be ready to make radical decisions, would more likely survive.
Leaving a baby behind in order to not risk everyone else isnt morally wrong imo.
Moral is such a tricky word. We will be using moral… moreity as majority rule and what is viewed as right and wrong by the majority. Leaving the baby to die is marked as the "wrong" or "bad" choice by most people.
Lee obviously cared about Clementine and even i wouldnt just leave family or close friends behind, because emotions and stuff.
This isn't about Lee, this is about you and how you would handle the situation. Lee is a placeholder. What is actually being said here is since you would abandon AJ at the drop of a hat then you would have no explanation for not abandoning Clem at the drop of a hat. After all you are about survival of the fittest, and at the time Clem didn't fit into that line up plus you had no reason to "care" for her anymore than AJ. She is unknown and an obvious detriment as she is a knowledgeably weak, physically weak, emoti… [view original content]
The matter's that you don't give a shit about the human race!
I never thought i would say this, but i agree with Zykelator. I don't give a shit about the human race either. After seeing what i seen, I don't care about anything anymore.
so you want a survival horror game but you also want a smooth ride with the least efforts? maybe you should watch a movie or go and play the sims wich isn't a horror game i know.
So you're just someone who would abandon anyone if its not the way you want it.
Reminder then , they wouldn't do anything for you if got into serious trouble and then you're a walker
night night...
so you want a survival horror game but you also want a smooth ride with the least efforts? maybe you should watch a movie or go and play th… moree sims wich isn't a horror game i know.
So you're just someone who would abandon anyone if its not the way you want it.
Reminder then , they wouldn't do anything for you if got into serious trouble and then you're a walker
night night...
This isn't about Lee, this is about you and how you would handle the situation. Lee is a placeholder. What is actually being said here is si… morence you would abandon AJ at the drop of a hat then you would have no explanation for not abandoning Clem at the drop of a hat. After all you are about survival of the fittest, and at the time Clem didn't fit into that line up plus you had no reason to "care" for her anymore than AJ. She is unknown and an obvious detriment as she is a knowledgeably weak, physically weak, emotionally weak child. So wouldn't you toss her like you would do AJ? Why wouldn't you? She would be weighing you down.
First of all, i wouldnt had any reason to leave Clem behind (first days of za) and after a while, i would start to care about Clementine and would take care of her. I've said before, that i would still look after people i care about. Im not all about survival of the fittest, but i would still be ready to radical … [view original content]
Comments
Well the whole point of crawford was to keep only the most efficient survivors there. This girl clearly wasnt part of them and she fucked it up for everyone else. Just one irrational person caused an entire community to fall.
And thats what normal people do? Cause entire community to fall because they couldnt be part of it?
Not sure if saying the same thing again makes it any more true. If it wasn't her, it would have been someone else. It was flawed because it didn't take people into account.
People knew the rules. This bitch just decided to kill everyone because she didnt want to follow them. Crazy person got them killed, not the rules.
Hmm... now we're at a "this bitch" level. Not convinced how rational this really is.
Im just betting bored with this conversation. You dont seem to understand my point.
No, I understand it. I just think you're wrong. But man, "this bitch"? Way too emotional for my survivor group.
She was selfish and stupid. Bitch feels like a proper insult.
I'll put it this way... your examples of "groups doing just fine" have fallen just the same as groups of the other side of the moral compass. The only difference between the two is one group doesn't leave/kick out (kill) children. Have you seen a community of "bad" (not the greatest terminology to use but whatever) moral people hold together and survive? Have you seen a a community of "good" moral people hold together and survive? I've seen the latter.
Theres a difference between immoral groups (bandits) and rational & objective groups like Crawford. Bandits do immoral things, for sake of "why the fuck not?", while people like Crawford just do immoral stuff, because they see its necessary to ensure survival of the fittest.
So far the 2 communities which rely on rationality/logic (priority being their survival), both have fell because irrational acts. Crawford because of a unborn baby & Howe's because of unborn baby. These damn babies are bringing down all the efficient survivor communities.
I think a lot of people don't realize what a responsibility it would be to try to care for a child in the apocalypse. It is just going to die anyways.
It needs
6 . needs to shut the fuck up
I never thought i would say this, but i agree with Zykelator. I don't give a shit about the human race either. After seeing what i seen, I don't care about anything anymore.
Funny that there atleast one thing we agree on.
yeah i know. I was just saying the same thing.
AGAIN!
Yeah but it won't get better if nobody tries.
I lost my faith in humanity years ago.
Well , that's your opinion.
OK? So what, and that is yours.
I wouldn't argue with that. It's definitely true, but it doesn't really fall into our current conversation does it? The clarification on the two types of immoral groups has no relevance to the groups falling.
"Bridge's fall."
"But the blue bridge is different than the red bridge."
"K?"
How can you not expect irrational acts to spawn from such heinous and immoral seeds? Both groups you give have fallen from a form of revolution caused by immoral environments. If anything your examples support a claim that "rationality/logic (priority being their survival)(immoral, or just flat out uncaring if you don't like the term immoral)" based groups are more likely to fall than the opposing side. Who's to say Crawford would have fallen had they let Anne keep the child? Who's to say Howe's would have fallen had Carver not been such a cruel and immoral leader? Who's to say Wellington wouldn't have fallen if..... oh wait. And they were (from what we could see) very caring and "moral" people, (giving supplies to those who did nothing for them, and even offering them a chance for entry if they could return at a later time after expansion) right?
Erm, I feel this was a poke at cheap humor.
Moral is such a tricky word. We will be using morality as majority rule and what is viewed as right and wrong by the majority. Leaving the baby to die is marked as the "wrong" or "bad" choice by most people.
This isn't about Lee, this is about you and how you would handle the situation. Lee is a placeholder. What is actually being said here is since you would abandon AJ at the drop of a hat then you would have no explanation for not abandoning Clem at the drop of a hat. After all you are about survival of the fittest, and at the time Clem didn't fit into that line up plus you had no reason to "care" for her anymore than AJ. She is unknown and an obvious detriment as she is a knowledgeably weak, physically weak, emotionally weak child. So wouldn't you toss her like you would do AJ? Why wouldn't you? She would be weighing you down.
Right. So in order to make you happy (stem off depression) have something that can bring you happiness.... like a bab... wait a minute! Or if a child doesn't make you happy then go find a group that does. One that can support you as much as you can support it. Not a group with a child (Clem) or gasp an infant. Because both of those, after all, are more likely to get you killed than a bit of sadness (something you'll already be feeling a lot of anyways).
Ben did put others in danger. I may have left him myself. The difference between him and a baby..... well I think you can do the comparison yourself.
So you are saying this is a "revised moral value." Wow!! I have heard stories about people who have needed to eat others in order to survive. I don't remember them going out of their way to eat others, and I don't remember them keeping them alive as they ate their pieces or even killing them with the intent to eat them OR eating them with other food around (the list goes on). The St. Johns' were not stuck in a blizzard. They were not stuck on a mountain. They had bread, and milk, and vegetables, and the wilds, and every bit as much food (way more than most actually) as every other group out there.
I said hardly. Is it immoral? Slightly. Is it as immoral as murdering a defenseless newborn? Hardly comparable! Need I continue?
We are on the same page here. So why were you originally arguing that this was just a simple change of moral value? " people would do things which by nowadays standards would be considered immoral." "For example," --> "murdering someone because of mistake" You must believe, then, that because of the ZA it would be right for someone to be murdered because of a mistake, after all, changing moral values right?
In addition, if murdering someone for making a mistake is wrong then why is murdering someone for being unwillingly born right? Murdering for doing bad is bad, murdering for existing is justifiable?
Thanks for that wiki link. An interesting read. I'll admit I was misinformed there. It is interesting how Philo and other philosophers are remembered, but the common of the era are viewed as "ancient" and primitive in not only technology and knowledge, but morality also. The majority of today's civilized people wouldn't so readily throw the moral code of infant murder away. Seen many times in events such as battle. Where Army soldiers go out of their way to protect the innocent and defenseless (one of my SGTs for example).
Now we get into abortion and whether a fetus is considered a living being and the like. Think I'll just skip this tidbit of your post because I'm not looking to get that political.
Yes. But that's the basis of this to and fro we have here. "Survival of the fittest, or survival of humanity?" To come full circle... shouldn't you have left Clem?
Thanks for quoting stupid, because that's extremely perspective based.
And:
Why do you say that? We've seen the downfall of immoral people as much as we have the downfall of moral people (if not more than). Only people like you would manage to stay alive? We've seen many, many like you die. In horrible, gruesome, twisted ways... often at the hands of the very moral people you say would already be dead.
Its gonna be hard looking after a baby, considering that Clem is a kid herself. I think AJ should be protected at all costs. It just isn't right to leave a defenseless human being behind.
I agree. AJ is a human being, and not a "thing", as some people call it.
Not on my watch
so if you strain/break your leg or get the flu and can't run as fast as the others you've become a liability we should leave you? Thats what you are saying...
^That is.... Clem's story is "not" over :P at least not "over... period!"
And he could be one of the last newborns in the world.
We are talking about the Zombie apocalypse and there are almost no humans left and you talk in the present day with 7 billion people.
I think you are a depressed person but when talking about a game in the Z-A you mix reality (with 7billion+ people)with a game (almost everyone is dead)
Keep your head in the game and don't mix your depreesive blabbering about the real world with A GAME
Yeah a garage with the doors open that looks like a tin can compared to wellington
But the point is, that the reason Crawford fell, is because they had people in, who did not belong there, who could not live by their rules. Normally, those people would have been banished, but this pergnant lady decided to go on killing spree instead of leaving. If everyone would actually follow those rules, that place would be great, for efficient survivors.
Howe's fell, because Carver wanted to have revenge and the baby for himself. These 2 things eventually caused Howe's to fall also.
People who are there know the rules. They knew how "immoral" those places are and its up to them to decide if they want to stay there or not.
maybe people played the first option first and then they played it again for the other option?
so the original would be the other way around?
First of all, i wouldnt had any reason to leave Clem behind (first days of za) and after a while, i would start to care about Clementine and would take care of her. I've said before, that i would still look after people i care about. Im not all about survival of the fittest, but i would still be ready to radical decisions in order to keep me&others safe.
This speculation is going a bit too far. Of course i would try to find group where i fit in perfectly, but if i would start to take care of someone like Clementine on first day of za, it would be unlikely that i would just leave suddenly just to find new group. You seem to forget that as time moves on, my worldview would gradually change more to survival of the fittest type.
After 2 years of za, i dont think it would matter much if its a baby or grown up guy who is putting others in danger.
Well they seemed like psychopaths, so this might be bad example.
Im not comparing everything to killing infant. Im comparing old and new moral values.
In addition, if murdering someone for making a mistake is wrong then why is murdering someone for being unwillingly born right? Murdering for doing bad is bad, murdering for existing is justifiable?
This happened, so some people did accept these moral values. I wouldnt feel its necessary to kill someone for a mistake. I would rather just kick people away and let them try survive on their own.
Its right for sake of others. Its not the babys fault, but why should others suffer because of the baby?
If i found Clementine after 2 years of za and she was like Sarah, i would probably have left her behind. However just like in the game, its the first days and i would look after her, eventually grow the care about her and try to keep her alive. You dont have the be exreme on one side. Sometimes you just have to do radical decisions so others have a better chance to live.
Thats was the point.
Im talking in larger time scale. Those who would risk their lives to save others would most likely die from this, while those who looked after themselves (mainly) and be ready to make radical decisions, would more likely survive.
We are becoming best buddies with this pace.
so you want a survival horror game but you also want a smooth ride with the least efforts? maybe you should watch a movie or go and play the sims wich isn't a horror game i know.
So you're just someone who would abandon anyone if its not the way you want it.
Reminder then , they wouldn't do anything for you if got into serious trouble and then you're a walker
night night...
Could you stop replying on my messages?
Ok I'm done. Been fun!