hepcat
3121
His logic isn’t calling for immediate extermination of anyone new. He did write:
Potential external threats are judged to be either brought into the fold or eliminated
I would say so. When a person can’t make a sweeping generalization about the state of humanity based on postings on the internet about a tv show with zombies…well…I’m not sure I wanna live in that kind of world. :(
;-)
Reldan
3122
Not everybody. Just the ones that aren’t going to be pliable and have something you need. There really isn’t a high likelihood of having two independent groups living in proximity of one another not creating a disaster down the road. You either merge or wipe out, because at some point or another disaster is going to befall one group and make them desperate enough to do whatever it takes to save themselves.
The difference here is that generally I think the governor is self-serving but also makes choices he believes benefits the citizens of Woodbury. To some extent I might credit that he’s self-serving simply because he believes he is the best one to lead Woodbury and doesn’t trust that anyone else could look out for their interests like he does.
I think where it ends defines itself, depending on what your goals are.
For instance, if you’re Rick and want to be leader, Shane needs to die as soon as he gives the impression that he will not follow or that he wants to lead. Because that’s the point where he’s interfering with your goals.
With the prisoners it was obvious that they needed to die because they interfered with the group’s goal(to survive in the prison).
The difference between someone like Rick and people like Shane or the Governor is that people like Rick cling to the idea that life can be ‘normal’ again, while the Shanes of this world realize that the previous life is dead and gone and they are in a new world now.
The difference here is that generally I think the governor is self-serving but also makes choices he believes benefits the citizens of Woodbury. To some extent I might credit that he’s self-serving simply because he believes he is the best one to lead Woodbury and doesn’t trust that anyone else could look out for their interests like he does
Really? You think the choices he makes are made with the goal of benefitting Woodburyites? As opposed to him generally preserving the welfare of (compliant) Woodburyites because that’s the best way for him to remain leader with all the privileges that entails, including allowing him to pursue his goal of curing/teasing some humanity of his zombie daughter?
The difference between someone like Rick and people like Shane or the Governor is that people like Rick cling to the idea that life can be ‘normal’ again, while the Shanes of this world realize that the previous life is dead and gone and they are in a new world now.
I think the difference is that Rick doesn’t kill people just because they interfere with his goals. I don’t think it’s necessarily clinging to the idea that life will be normal again, so much as clinging to the idea that normal morality still has some place in the new world. Especially in the context of his children. He doesn’t want them growing up as survival machines, aka animals.
In other words, if there ever is a zombie apocalypse, you’re going to be part of the problem. ;)
In The Road, the father is a useless fool and the dudes with all the slaves and human flesh burgers and catamites are crushing it.
The reason I think it is clinging is because for the longest time, even after they knew there was no government left, Rick and Lori worked hard to prevent Carl from learning anything about and otherwise adapting in any way to their new situation. If I remember right, Shane was the one who first started teaching Carl survival related things.
They, as parents, should have been the first to realize it’s impossible for Carl to have what they would have considered a normal childhood now. None of the luxuries and institutions that made such a childhood possible exist anymore. Someday, many decades later, that stuff might be rebuilt but it’ll be long after Carl has grown up.
Guys like Shane and the Governor(from the looks of it) cut the old world loose right away. The Governor obviously adapted fast enough to put together a functioning town in the time Rick barely was able to get his group in a semi-safe location. If you want your kid to have a chance to survive in this world, that is the way it has to be- adapt as soon as possible.
hepcat
3128
"She tried to defuse the situation and calm him down and told him, ‘Let’s just go to bed,’ " Cote said.
This woman is the Jesse Owens of negotiators.
Alas, that link just leads to a login page.
Really? I just tested it again and it worked fine for me. Easy enough to google though: “man shoots girlfriend over walking dead”
tgb123
3131
A real fan would have shot her in the head.
Kyle700
3132
Well, considering I watched all of them within a 4 day period, I don’t that is necessary ;P
He told them that topside was locked down, and there was absolutely no way they were getting out of the building even if he unlocked the lower levels. But they did. With a single grenade. Against a building that was supposed to “never be broken into”.
And I’m not so sure you guys are looking at the characters decisions from their perspective. Killing everyone you meet, as well as KILLING your BEST FRIEND in a world where you don’t exactly have a lot going for you is probably a LOT harder then it would seem at first glance… I couldn’t do it. It would be pretty hard to adapt facing constant threats from people eating you and your loved ones, having no food and supplies, and having to be constantly on the move.
Ok, I found the story. Wow, this guy has issues (and somehow has a GF).
hepcat
3134
DID have a girlfriend, I would imagine.
…although Chris Brown was able to win back the singer he almost beat to death, so who knows. Some people are just idiots and never learn.
It would definitely be difficult, and in fact impossible, for some people to do it. These people would not survive long, or would survive but as slaves/captives to the people who could.
My point is that it’s not so much the acts(can you kill?) which will be the deciding factor, it’s the acceptance(or lack thereof) of the fact that the old ways, the old moral codes/laws/ethics are out the window. None of that is relevant anymore.
If you can’t accept the fact that there’s no one to call for help, even if you had a working phone to call with, then no you won’t be in a hurry to kill strangers. But once you realize that the only people who will help you are the ones in your group then groups of strangers are extreme risks that you can’t tolerate.
Kyle700
3136
yeah, but you have to get in a group in the first place for that to even be relavent.
I just don’t think that anyone could actually get up and kill someone just for running into you. Sure it’s easy to talk about in person, but I doubt it is easy to do. Maybe some people will think like that, but most survivors would not, I believe.
Only if they had obviously hostile intentions would I murder them. Somewhat like the guys in the bar in the second season, or the crazed guy from the prison.
Reldan
3137
It’s the subtly hostile ones that will kill you in the end. Or just set the stage for a situation where you conveniently won’t make it out alive. The groups that are good at this will thrive and the others will perish, until the chances become very high that any random group you come across are not going to be your buddies.
Consider that survival comes mostly down to a combination of manpower and resources. Groups that wipe out other groups to take their resources will thrive (and snowball). Groups that can manage to successfully merge with other groups to form larger, stronger groups will thrive as well. A group that doesn’t want to take what you have but doesn’t want to team up? Not bloody likely.
Even a ‘good’ guy like Rick does essentially what I’m talking about. He took command of Herschel, his family, and his farm. Sure it was played like Rick and Herschel were sharing power, but bottom line was it was Rick running the show because Herschel said on more than one occasion that he wanted them gone and they never budged.
In the real world the way that scenario would play out is Rick’s people disarming Herschel’s and forcing them to do as they’re told. That’s if Rick’s people see no threat from them, otherwise Rick’s people would need to choose between leaving the area entirely or killing them.
There is no way it makes sense to hang around a group of people who are not on your side and yet not (overtly) aggressive to your group. It’s like having a bear as a pet. You are only waiting for that day when it’s kill or be killed, at which time your dumbass is the one getting killed. It’s imperative that you eliminate threats at your convenience, thus reducing your own potential casualties. That “can’t we all just get along” attitude is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that those things are no longer in play in a post-apocalyptic world.
hepcat
3139
It sounds like your “real world” is based entirely on repeated viewings of Escape from New York.
In a world where the characters are so one-dimensionally hostile (toward other humans in a world filled with monsters), gameoverman’s logic makes sense, but even as someone who is largely misanthropic, I don’t think things would be as he seems to see them in a “real world” post-apocalypse.
If there weren’t obvious benefits to creating larger and larger societies of folks working to common goals we wouldn’t have spent most of our entire existence building such.
Tyreese was a breath of fresh air on this show if only for the fact that his reaction to being locked in by Carl was one of the few rational reactions we’ve seen in a similar situation.
Normal Walking Dead encounter:
Dude: “I don’t trust you”
Dude#2: “Why don’t you trust me? Fuck you, I don’t trust you!”
Dude: starts shooting
Tyreese encounter:
Dude(Carl): “I don’t trust you”
Dude#2(Tyreese): “That’s pretty reasonable, I just stumbled into your camp uninvited. Let me prove that I’m cool and everything will be cool.”
In the real world I’d expect more of the latter, even (especially) in the face of a giant disaster like zombies.
