Essay talk:Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse- Things to Consider

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Interesting[edit]

Having played several zombie survival games as well as being a bit of a fan of the genre I'm interested in what possibilities this essay will explore, as well as having a few thoughts of my own. Comrade GC (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

at which point your zombie fantasy...[edit]

...does a zombie horde overwhelm a tank? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

.....and at what point did you realize it is a hypothetical? The reason I said modern weapons are useless is not so much a weapons ability but rather upkeep. Your tank breaks and you probably cannot get another. One FICTIONAL zombie goes down, others will be quick to replace them. Maybe what I said could be an ANALOGY. Would a tank destroy a virus or parasite? This essay was intended to target those who want a zombie apocalypse (face palm). Don't worry, I will make a big note so others don't get mistaken. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm so tempted to make a Left 4 Dead 2 reference and say "a zombie horde overwhelms a tank when you throw a bile bomb on a tank, but bile bombs on tanks aren't generally recommended"... and the tank in this context is a huge ass boss zombie. Anyhow, a tank requires a ton of MAINTENANCE, so good luck finding resources to salvage, and cleaning that machine and keeping it fueled is also important. It may hold you off in the short term, but I don't think tanks are sustainable in the long run. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Would not motorized vehicles in general be a poor long term option? Comrade GC (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Yup, they are. Too high-maintenance and you'll probably come across highway blockades. And you can't exactly take your car for emergency escape. The gas will probably be salvaged for important things like cooking (and cooking zombies too, mmmm) and gas stations are probably raided and sucked dry. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention those with knowledge of automobiles could theoretically turn the engines into generators for shelters. Comrade GC (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
plus, during a zombie apocalypse, where are you going to find ammunition for your tank. the supermarket? БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 22:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Sadly I can honestly see that happening in some of the redder states... Comrade GC (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
if you dont want want folk to comment, maybe not ask for comments?how does a hypothetical zombie horde deal with a hypothetical tank then? this all supposes a zombie apocalypse would take hold in the first place, that zombie would cause a complete collapse of society, that a zombie outbreak would last longer than it takes a corpse to rot. up keep and maintainance tanks and technology would not be an issue as it would all be dealt with in pretty short amount of time. no a tank would not destroy a a virus or a parasite, but thats no more a zombie apocalypse than spanish flu was, which i might add did not result in the collapse of all society. No one 'wants' a zombie apocalypse. people say they would survive a such thing say so in same way that after i watch star wars, i say id make an awesome jedi - its indulging in a bit of fantasy inspired by a work of fiction. you are begruding peoples survivialist fantasies while indulging your own zombie fantasy. zombies only work in films because they film makers try so hard to make them work. they ignore, gloss over obvious solutions and depend on the incredible stupidity of the protagonists. Zombies as they appear in movies just would not last long. flys, wild animals, or natural rotting would make short work of them. poor weather would do them in. a cold spell would end them. a drought would finish them. modern technology, infrastructure, modern medicine, would contain them. hypotheticals to show how bad an entirely fictional zombie outbreak would be are kind of ridiculous when you arbitrarily stack the odds the make so no one would survive AMassiveGay (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

You were the one who skimmed over this. Come on, even well trained epidemiologists figured humanity would be destroyed in a zombie apocalypse. The difference between the Spanish Flu and a zombie is that the flu does not chase you and literally bite you. As for the tank, say you had a fully functional tank and a hoard of a few hundred zombies shambled towards you- the zombies are walking corpses, they could get caught up in the gears. I do know that ZOMBIES ARE FICTION. Because it would be everywhere, tanks in an urban environment would be impractical. I would like to add the fact that you started this discussion with insult. Maybe I was simply having fun with this essay besides making a point that wanting a zombie apocalypse is stupid. But this was an analogy to a vicious real world pandemic. Just because Spanish Flu or the Plague didn't destroy humanity does not mean a new disease wouldn't either. How about you read the public service announcement I put or will you skim that just as you did my original essay. PS- I never said you could not reply. I would have been much more polite. I normally try not to use ad hominoms (I think I spelt it right) but you started the insult. I apologize that this could not have turned out better. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 It's ad hominems, and personally I think this essay is well written, taking numerous factors into account for its premise. Comrade GC (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
i must have missed the part where i insulted you, you thin skinned dear you. or do you really think it an insult to suggest zombies would be no big deal? get a grip AMassiveGay (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I admit, I may have over reacted. Things I put don't always come out as intended. However, just because I said zombies does not literally have to mean zombies. I have stated over and over this was an analogy. A literary concept. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
isn't calling someone a "thin-skinned dear you" in response to an accusation of an ad hominem an ad hominem in of itself БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 19:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)