The Ranting/Debate Thread
- Thread starter Obeliskos
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,983
- Reputation score
- 434
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
See? In L4D I'm pretty sure the virus was airborne, or in the water supply or something. Almost everyone was turned very quickly, except the immune... who turned out to be carriers. So the virus was still inside them, breeding and living and waiting to spread and infect others whether it be through sex, a fist fight or what have you.
See? In L4D I'm pretty sure the virus was airborne, or in the water supply or something. Almost everyone was turned very quickly, except the immune... who turned out to be carriers. So the virus was still inside them, breeding and living and waiting to spread and infect others whether it be through sex, a fist fight or what have you.
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
So what's really being argued here is how to combat the virus. So let's just establish that setting first. Let's say the virus is like Resident Evil. Now re-animating dead cells is already taking a big step in reality, but let's keep it where it doesn't go beyond what was the original dead life-form. So in other words, no mutations or whatever. So you can get affected by being bit or through bodily fluids basically. So it's like aids. Other then that, the effected life form comes back as a flesh-eating creature.
So what's really being argued here is how to combat the virus. So let's just establish that setting first. Let's say the virus is like Resident Evil. Now re-animating dead cells is already taking a big step in reality, but let's keep it where it doesn't go beyond what was the original dead life-form. So in other words, no mutations or whatever. So you can get affected by being bit or through bodily fluids basically. So it's like aids. Other then that, the effected life form comes back as a flesh-eating creature.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,983
- Reputation score
- 434
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Even still, if we keep the common aspect of zombie lore that they must be shot in the head to be put down... that's not an easy thing to do for untrained shooters. Especially with moving, lurching creatures that form hordes. Many common anti-personal weapons are rendered useless as it would take a lot of shrapnel to destroy the brain and hits elsewhere will do quite little. And if we start tossing nukes around, well that's never a good thing.
Even still, if we keep the common aspect of zombie lore that they must be shot in the head to be put down... that's not an easy thing to do for untrained shooters. Especially with moving, lurching creatures that form hordes. Many common anti-personal weapons are rendered useless as it would take a lot of shrapnel to destroy the brain and hits elsewhere will do quite little. And if we start tossing nukes around, well that's never a good thing.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,239
- Reputation score
- 1,017
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Well it was weird, the first one, the virus spread was kinda experimental, injections and such that let out. If we're talking one person gets injected with a virus and they become a zombie... I don't think an apocalypse is any danger.
However, in the second, I believe it was carried by rats, and they got it aerially, I'm not sure.
Well it was weird, the first one, the virus spread was kinda experimental, injections and such that let out. If we're talking one person gets injected with a virus and they become a zombie... I don't think an apocalypse is any danger.
However, in the second, I believe it was carried by rats, and they got it aerially, I'm not sure.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,983
- Reputation score
- 434
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Ah game one was a contained breakout. The virus went airborne for a bit inside the underground labs but was quite contained. The airborne portion died off quickly and simply lived inside the creatures.
The second one was caused when an Umbrella team went to take the G-virus from William Birkin. There was a bit of an incident when they tried to take it, and T-Virus samples busted and got into the sewers where it infected rats who then scampered through the city. Just like the black plague, it was probably spread by fleas rather than the rats themselves.
Ah game one was a contained breakout. The virus went airborne for a bit inside the underground labs but was quite contained. The airborne portion died off quickly and simply lived inside the creatures.
The second one was caused when an Umbrella team went to take the G-virus from William Birkin. There was a bit of an incident when they tried to take it, and T-Virus samples busted and got into the sewers where it infected rats who then scampered through the city. Just like the black plague, it was probably spread by fleas rather than the rats themselves.
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Not the mention that Birkin injecting himself doesn't help either.
To your last point, sin. I think zombie control is a lot easier than dinosaur control. Between the two, we're dealing with creatures that can learn versus one's that don't. We're also dealing with reproduction on the dinosaur's side.
I mean, as for zombies...
Not the mention that Birkin injecting himself doesn't help either.
To your last point, sin. I think zombie control is a lot easier than dinosaur control. Between the two, we're dealing with creatures that can learn versus one's that don't. We're also dealing with reproduction on the dinosaur's side.
I mean, as for zombies...
You must be registered to see the links
, and you're pretty much set. For dinosaurs, you got a lot to learn and even then... the dinosaurs can learn, which would just create more complications.
Unknown Squid
Aurani's Wife
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,256
- Reputation score
- 314
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Dinosaur appocalype? Come on, that's just plain ridiculous. The very worst that dinosaurs could do is slowly upset the local ecosystem by mixing up the natural food chain, and even then there's nothing guaranteeing they'd win/be able to survive.
Despite what many movies will portray, dinosaurs were still just animals. They're not bullet proof, they will still startle and run from gun shots, are easily out smarted and trapped, and they don't have a rabid desire to mildly chew on every individual passing civilian before going to the next. It's like talking about a tiger, grizzly bear, elephant and crocodile apocalypse.
They are big soft targets mostly full of squishy organs. A T-Rex would still be taken down by a few shots from a good hunting rifle, and any automatic will make mince meat of them. A jurassic park style "raptor" will still drop from a shotgun blast, and despite what the movies pretend, a 500lb reptile can not move around through woodland with ninja like silence. Despite what B rated horror movies show, there is no magical edge of the camera for them to teleport out of either.
I'm not saying they wouldn't be dangerous, since for example if you threw a load of elephants and tigers into an unprepared town, it would certainly cause absolute chaos. But for the most part the lot of them would quickly flee from the town or find corners to hide in. The local ecosystem most likely wouldn't be able to sustain them and many would starve even without efforts to control them. A semi organised and moderately equipped militia force would certainly be able to remove the problem with a bit of time and caution. A professionally assembled or military force could sweep an area clean with no difficulty at all.
Also, the vast majority of dinosaurs (there is a little debate about the latter generations apparently) were cold blooded. It takes an crocodile roughly 10 years to reach sexual maturity, and even then they're not fully grown. I can't say what the age and maturing rate would be for a rex, raptor or the like, but I don't imagine it would be any less.
All in all, hardly ideal apocalypse material.
Dinosaur appocalype? Come on, that's just plain ridiculous. The very worst that dinosaurs could do is slowly upset the local ecosystem by mixing up the natural food chain, and even then there's nothing guaranteeing they'd win/be able to survive.
Despite what many movies will portray, dinosaurs were still just animals. They're not bullet proof, they will still startle and run from gun shots, are easily out smarted and trapped, and they don't have a rabid desire to mildly chew on every individual passing civilian before going to the next. It's like talking about a tiger, grizzly bear, elephant and crocodile apocalypse.
They are big soft targets mostly full of squishy organs. A T-Rex would still be taken down by a few shots from a good hunting rifle, and any automatic will make mince meat of them. A jurassic park style "raptor" will still drop from a shotgun blast, and despite what the movies pretend, a 500lb reptile can not move around through woodland with ninja like silence. Despite what B rated horror movies show, there is no magical edge of the camera for them to teleport out of either.
I'm not saying they wouldn't be dangerous, since for example if you threw a load of elephants and tigers into an unprepared town, it would certainly cause absolute chaos. But for the most part the lot of them would quickly flee from the town or find corners to hide in. The local ecosystem most likely wouldn't be able to sustain them and many would starve even without efforts to control them. A semi organised and moderately equipped militia force would certainly be able to remove the problem with a bit of time and caution. A professionally assembled or military force could sweep an area clean with no difficulty at all.
Also, the vast majority of dinosaurs (there is a little debate about the latter generations apparently) were cold blooded. It takes an crocodile roughly 10 years to reach sexual maturity, and even then they're not fully grown. I can't say what the age and maturing rate would be for a rex, raptor or the like, but I don't imagine it would be any less.
All in all, hardly ideal apocalypse material.
Last edited:
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Well, for starters, you have to picture a situation that fits just like zombies.
So how I figure it, it's like Jurassic Park. Some guy makes them, but the islands have to be quarantined. From there, they expand.
I mean, logically speaking... how do you expect a zombie outbreak to occur? Do you think people will just be "un-aware" and thus let a virus happen? By all logic, people would know beforehand and this take measure to contain it.
Yet to let this debate take place, we have to assume there's a lack of control on both sides.
Well, for starters, you have to picture a situation that fits just like zombies.
So how I figure it, it's like Jurassic Park. Some guy makes them, but the islands have to be quarantined. From there, they expand.
I mean, logically speaking... how do you expect a zombie outbreak to occur? Do you think people will just be "un-aware" and thus let a virus happen? By all logic, people would know beforehand and this take measure to contain it.
Yet to let this debate take place, we have to assume there's a lack of control on both sides.
Unknown Squid
Aurani's Wife
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,256
- Reputation score
- 314
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Lack of control would probably mean eliminating all weaponry from the world and removing all the doors from buildings. I can't really see how you can remove the ability to control dinosaurs.
Even without any control or attempt at resistance from humanity whatsoever, the modern ecosystem would kill off the dinosaurs in most parts of the world without our help. Most prey would either be to small and insubstantial to survive on, or too hard to catch. There would be places where they would be able to fit in, or even thrive, but they'd be confined to those habitats, and would never grow beyond the numbers nature normally sustains. There is a reason that top feeding predators like lions don't start storming African villages in hordes after all. They have a hard enough time merely surviving without trying to challenge the real top predator in the world.
Assuming the dinosaurs were for some reason allowed to take hold in the natural enviroment, one next pressing issue would likely be their imminent re-extinction due to over enthusiastic sport hunters seeking exotic game.
Lack of control would probably mean eliminating all weaponry from the world and removing all the doors from buildings. I can't really see how you can remove the ability to control dinosaurs.
Even without any control or attempt at resistance from humanity whatsoever, the modern ecosystem would kill off the dinosaurs in most parts of the world without our help. Most prey would either be to small and insubstantial to survive on, or too hard to catch. There would be places where they would be able to fit in, or even thrive, but they'd be confined to those habitats, and would never grow beyond the numbers nature normally sustains. There is a reason that top feeding predators like lions don't start storming African villages in hordes after all. They have a hard enough time merely surviving without trying to challenge the real top predator in the world.
Assuming the dinosaurs were for some reason allowed to take hold in the natural enviroment, one next pressing issue would likely be their imminent re-extinction due to over enthusiastic sport hunters seeking exotic game.
JohnDoe
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 770
- Reputation score
- 90
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
As the squid said ecosystem would be a big problem for dinosaurs, considering the possibility that glaciation is one of the most probable cause of their extintion, any area outside the tropical area would be safe, maybe the ocean would cause problems, but it's still not enough to call an apocalypse.
A zombie outbreak could be more dangerous depending on the starting factor. The worst possible thing is that dead just come back to kill more people, you can't eradicate the concept of death so it's a pain, but can still be handled if no one does something stupid, which always happens.
A virus can be really troublesome depending on the vector of transmission and the latentcy, a virus that takes weeks to manisfest with any important symptom could spread like oil in the sea far before it can be contained.
Also to be considered is the tendency of viruses to mutate which is completely random and supported by an extremely fast reproduction speed, this means that even if a vaccine is found for a specific strain it might be completely useless for others, to find an effective cure could take decades, which would make it easier to just wait for all who died to just wait in a completely sealed enviroment, possibly in an extremely cold region of the world, if you have a sure way to determine who is infected and who is not, so there is still the problem of someone doing something stupid, which always happens.
Thta being said both zombie outbreaks can easily erase any living dinosaur, so i'd say zombies win anyway.
As the squid said ecosystem would be a big problem for dinosaurs, considering the possibility that glaciation is one of the most probable cause of their extintion, any area outside the tropical area would be safe, maybe the ocean would cause problems, but it's still not enough to call an apocalypse.
A zombie outbreak could be more dangerous depending on the starting factor. The worst possible thing is that dead just come back to kill more people, you can't eradicate the concept of death so it's a pain, but can still be handled if no one does something stupid, which always happens.
A virus can be really troublesome depending on the vector of transmission and the latentcy, a virus that takes weeks to manisfest with any important symptom could spread like oil in the sea far before it can be contained.
Also to be considered is the tendency of viruses to mutate which is completely random and supported by an extremely fast reproduction speed, this means that even if a vaccine is found for a specific strain it might be completely useless for others, to find an effective cure could take decades, which would make it easier to just wait for all who died to just wait in a completely sealed enviroment, possibly in an extremely cold region of the world, if you have a sure way to determine who is infected and who is not, so there is still the problem of someone doing something stupid, which always happens.
Thta being said both zombie outbreaks can easily erase any living dinosaur, so i'd say zombies win anyway.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,983
- Reputation score
- 434
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Dinosaurs may learn, but you're also forgetting that in some fiction zombies have learned as well. From George Romero films, to the Stephen King novel Cell. Also, you keep forgetting this basic principle that not everyone is going to be able to shoot their loved ones in the head, and also a headshot may or may not kill a zombie outright if it doesn't hit the right part of the brain. Dinosaurs can bleed out... take a good rifle and hit a T-Rex in the thigh and it will go down.
So this is getting right down to basic killing factors of the creatures in discussion here. A zombie is a a watermelon sized target at best (for the headshot undead type) or a human sized target (for the living infected type), and their speed is a major variable. An entire species dedicated to eating the flesh of the living because that's all they do (unless we're talking voodoo zombies, but I doubt there would be an apocalypse centered around them).
Meanwhile again, the dinosaur can be anything from crushable under your foot, to being a large multistory billboard screaming "Hey guns! Shoot me here!". Also, not all dinosaurs were carnivores, so many would ignore human beings if they did not go near their territory, and sometimes even the carnivores would run away, whereas a zombie would always, always attack.
A dinosaur is an animal, a zombie is a monster created from our own flesh.
Also, the zombie survival guide is based off American architecture, culture and laws, so it's useless for people in many places around the world. So they would have this book but be unable to do anything about the situation because they either can't read or can't use the advice in the book. The book also ignores all variables that can happen with an outbreak of the virus. I know you want to focus on the Resident Evil type just to make things simpler (re: easier for dinosaurs to win the debate), but it's a silly notion to ignore perhaps the most dangerous part of zombies themselves. This point of the survival guide being useless in many portions of the world was even pointed out by the author in his next book World War Z.
And don't say "oh well America survives" because they won't. The economy would shatter if huge chunks of the world were succumbing to a flesh eating wave of the undead. That coming down can lead to all sorts of issues.
Jurassic Park is a horrid example simply for the fact that they had limited weaponry on the island, the guy who was the raptor hunter was a fucking idiot ("let's go hunt the raptors alone in the middle of the jungle") and was actually rather quarantined already. There was very little people, and very little backup plans for when the dinos escaped. Besides, Jurassic Park also happened because of sabotage.
So lets go to this portion where you're saying "logically speaking". A virus can indeed come out of no where. It's happened many a times throughout history. HIV, Bubonic Plague, SARs, West Nile... need I go on? These can pop out of no where, and depending where in the world they pop up can quickly spread. SARs started in China who were executing people in the streets to try and stop it yet it still made it's way to Toronto. Mad Cow Disease is caused by feeding bovine bits of bovine... yet people still do it to save costs and suddenly we have an outbreak of Mad Cow Disease. Men who knowingly have AIDS/HIV have willingly had sex with other people not caring if they spread the disease. So yes, people have just let diseases and viruses go, whether or not they were unaware of the fact.
Meanwhile a genetic creation of a life form long extinct (save possibly some critters in the ocean), would take much more effort and all sorts of control programs would be in place. You can't create a situation with dinosaurs that would match a zombie outbreak simply because we cannot sporadically create and drop dinosaurs into random population centers, whereas a zombie outbreak would likely not be noticed until it hit a population center.
Hmm, I didn't even bring up the fact of the dead simply rising. That's a huge issue. Suicides quietly killing themselves in the middle of the night, heart attacks, strokes... all sorts of sudden and random deaths that will suddenly become another threat. Sure you can set up burning pits in replacement of funeral homes, or shoot all the dead people you see in the head... but there will still be people who just die randomly whether in cities or out in the middle of no where that will suddenly become a waiting trap.
Dinosaurs may learn, but you're also forgetting that in some fiction zombies have learned as well. From George Romero films, to the Stephen King novel Cell. Also, you keep forgetting this basic principle that not everyone is going to be able to shoot their loved ones in the head, and also a headshot may or may not kill a zombie outright if it doesn't hit the right part of the brain. Dinosaurs can bleed out... take a good rifle and hit a T-Rex in the thigh and it will go down.
So this is getting right down to basic killing factors of the creatures in discussion here. A zombie is a a watermelon sized target at best (for the headshot undead type) or a human sized target (for the living infected type), and their speed is a major variable. An entire species dedicated to eating the flesh of the living because that's all they do (unless we're talking voodoo zombies, but I doubt there would be an apocalypse centered around them).
Meanwhile again, the dinosaur can be anything from crushable under your foot, to being a large multistory billboard screaming "Hey guns! Shoot me here!". Also, not all dinosaurs were carnivores, so many would ignore human beings if they did not go near their territory, and sometimes even the carnivores would run away, whereas a zombie would always, always attack.
A dinosaur is an animal, a zombie is a monster created from our own flesh.
Also, the zombie survival guide is based off American architecture, culture and laws, so it's useless for people in many places around the world. So they would have this book but be unable to do anything about the situation because they either can't read or can't use the advice in the book. The book also ignores all variables that can happen with an outbreak of the virus. I know you want to focus on the Resident Evil type just to make things simpler (re: easier for dinosaurs to win the debate), but it's a silly notion to ignore perhaps the most dangerous part of zombies themselves. This point of the survival guide being useless in many portions of the world was even pointed out by the author in his next book World War Z.
And don't say "oh well America survives" because they won't. The economy would shatter if huge chunks of the world were succumbing to a flesh eating wave of the undead. That coming down can lead to all sorts of issues.
Jurassic Park is a horrid example simply for the fact that they had limited weaponry on the island, the guy who was the raptor hunter was a fucking idiot ("let's go hunt the raptors alone in the middle of the jungle") and was actually rather quarantined already. There was very little people, and very little backup plans for when the dinos escaped. Besides, Jurassic Park also happened because of sabotage.
So lets go to this portion where you're saying "logically speaking". A virus can indeed come out of no where. It's happened many a times throughout history. HIV, Bubonic Plague, SARs, West Nile... need I go on? These can pop out of no where, and depending where in the world they pop up can quickly spread. SARs started in China who were executing people in the streets to try and stop it yet it still made it's way to Toronto. Mad Cow Disease is caused by feeding bovine bits of bovine... yet people still do it to save costs and suddenly we have an outbreak of Mad Cow Disease. Men who knowingly have AIDS/HIV have willingly had sex with other people not caring if they spread the disease. So yes, people have just let diseases and viruses go, whether or not they were unaware of the fact.
Meanwhile a genetic creation of a life form long extinct (save possibly some critters in the ocean), would take much more effort and all sorts of control programs would be in place. You can't create a situation with dinosaurs that would match a zombie outbreak simply because we cannot sporadically create and drop dinosaurs into random population centers, whereas a zombie outbreak would likely not be noticed until it hit a population center.
Hmm, I didn't even bring up the fact of the dead simply rising. That's a huge issue. Suicides quietly killing themselves in the middle of the night, heart attacks, strokes... all sorts of sudden and random deaths that will suddenly become another threat. Sure you can set up burning pits in replacement of funeral homes, or shoot all the dead people you see in the head... but there will still be people who just die randomly whether in cities or out in the middle of no where that will suddenly become a waiting trap.
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
It wasn't a matter of winning. It was a matter of what's realistic.
A virus and a zombie are already contradictions. A virus needs something living to infect. Once a zombie becomes "a zombie" by definition, the virus wouldn't have anything left to live off of. So if the virus goes, then what happens to the zombie?
I picked RE because that virus was more explained. The idea of something that was made to expand on dead tissue, is quite the explanation. If you think about it, it's more like cancer than aids. Cancer is your cells growing too fast. Makes perfect sense when you compare.
Anyhow, it's the same with Jurassic Park. It's a brilliant idea - to take supposed dinosaur DNA from mosquitoes that were trapped in tree sap (amber) and then re-create the sample by mixing it with contemporary amphibians (frogs). The altered DNA also explains how the dinosaurs would be able to survive in our established ecosystem.
My main point though, is not the story behind the outbreak, but just the outbreak happening. The stories are far from limited, so we can't focus on that.
It wasn't a matter of winning. It was a matter of what's realistic.
A virus and a zombie are already contradictions. A virus needs something living to infect. Once a zombie becomes "a zombie" by definition, the virus wouldn't have anything left to live off of. So if the virus goes, then what happens to the zombie?
I picked RE because that virus was more explained. The idea of something that was made to expand on dead tissue, is quite the explanation. If you think about it, it's more like cancer than aids. Cancer is your cells growing too fast. Makes perfect sense when you compare.
Anyhow, it's the same with Jurassic Park. It's a brilliant idea - to take supposed dinosaur DNA from mosquitoes that were trapped in tree sap (amber) and then re-create the sample by mixing it with contemporary amphibians (frogs). The altered DNA also explains how the dinosaurs would be able to survive in our established ecosystem.
My main point though, is not the story behind the outbreak, but just the outbreak happening. The stories are far from limited, so we can't focus on that.
Unknown Squid
Aurani's Wife
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,256
- Reputation score
- 314
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Well the DNA wouldn't allow them any concessions regarding natural survival. A "raptor" that can't out run a gazelle will starve, and a T-Rex that can't find enough large wildlife to sustain it's imense size will starve. Neither can survive tundra. The only way altered DNA could help them with that would be to make them entirely different creatures, and in several dozen different regionally suited variants.
The supposed catastrophe that wiped out the dinosaurs didn't instantly kill all life on the planet after all. It change the climate, and the super reptiles were too poor at adapting to cope. Survival of the fittest, and they weren't it.
Well the DNA wouldn't allow them any concessions regarding natural survival. A "raptor" that can't out run a gazelle will starve, and a T-Rex that can't find enough large wildlife to sustain it's imense size will starve. Neither can survive tundra. The only way altered DNA could help them with that would be to make them entirely different creatures, and in several dozen different regionally suited variants.
The supposed catastrophe that wiped out the dinosaurs didn't instantly kill all life on the planet after all. It change the climate, and the super reptiles were too poor at adapting to cope. Survival of the fittest, and they weren't it.
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
This goes back to story elements though. We basically have to assume that a large amount of carnivores & herbivores were around. I mean, the carnivores feasted on the herbivores, so as for the eating cycles work, we would only have to question if the herbivores would be able to eat the plants so they can live/breed and thus let the carnivores do the same.
Obviously it's the carnivores that will cause the real trouble during such an outbreak. Herbivores could be a problem too, depending how much the dinosaurs would grow and expand. Humans trying to find places to live and yet be near an area where a herbivore sets it's home, would only mean that a carnivore would be right around the corner.
This goes back to story elements though. We basically have to assume that a large amount of carnivores & herbivores were around. I mean, the carnivores feasted on the herbivores, so as for the eating cycles work, we would only have to question if the herbivores would be able to eat the plants so they can live/breed and thus let the carnivores do the same.
Obviously it's the carnivores that will cause the real trouble during such an outbreak. Herbivores could be a problem too, depending how much the dinosaurs would grow and expand. Humans trying to find places to live and yet be near an area where a herbivore sets it's home, would only mean that a carnivore would be right around the corner.
Pale
New member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,038
- Reputation score
- 96
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Continued from another thread.
Right, ok, so, here we go. Nothing can be singled out for nazism. No single cause. Same for the Holocaust. There's nothing in all of history we can pick up and declare to be THE cause of the Holocaust, Hitler, and all that.
As for the origins idea, well. I think you'll find the links between fascism and the Roman Empire rather more tenuous than those between fascism and Nazism. Mussolini was very quick to point out how he was just like the Romans because that won him support, owing to Italian nostalgia for the "Good Old Days". Much like the Brits these days. Nazism however is an immediate and direct evolution from fascism. I think it should also be obvious that no nazism, no Hitler, no Holocaust.
So you can conceivably demonstrate the fascism, while not the sole factor responsible for the slaughter of millions of Jews, was certainly critical. I'd offer the non-Godwinesque comparison that the concept of communism led to the deaths of millions of Russians!
Hm, well, actually I think it IS something to be surprised about. People all over the world EXIST under dictatorships, and have for hundreds, if not thousands of years. If it was just one country, I could dismiss it as a random event, but three in a row?
I'm still unsure, though, so over to you, Debate Thread.
Should the WikiLeaks fiasco be considered a Black Swan event, and is it responsible for the repeated series of political upheavals in recent times?
P
Continued from another thread.
Right, ok, so, here we go. Nothing can be singled out for nazism. No single cause. Same for the Holocaust. There's nothing in all of history we can pick up and declare to be THE cause of the Holocaust, Hitler, and all that.
As for the origins idea, well. I think you'll find the links between fascism and the Roman Empire rather more tenuous than those between fascism and Nazism. Mussolini was very quick to point out how he was just like the Romans because that won him support, owing to Italian nostalgia for the "Good Old Days". Much like the Brits these days. Nazism however is an immediate and direct evolution from fascism. I think it should also be obvious that no nazism, no Hitler, no Holocaust.
So you can conceivably demonstrate the fascism, while not the sole factor responsible for the slaughter of millions of Jews, was certainly critical. I'd offer the non-Godwinesque comparison that the concept of communism led to the deaths of millions of Russians!
Hm, well, actually I think it IS something to be surprised about. People all over the world EXIST under dictatorships, and have for hundreds, if not thousands of years. If it was just one country, I could dismiss it as a random event, but three in a row?
I'm still unsure, though, so over to you, Debate Thread.
Should the WikiLeaks fiasco be considered a Black Swan event, and is it responsible for the repeated series of political upheavals in recent times?
P
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,983
- Reputation score
- 434
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Well then... zombies still cause more damage. We can easily stop an animal, we wouldn't be sharing the planet with bears, wolves, elephants, and so forth if animals could so very easily kill us all off.
I'm not going to come up with anything else, most of my points have been ignored so far.
Well then... zombies still cause more damage. We can easily stop an animal, we wouldn't be sharing the planet with bears, wolves, elephants, and so forth if animals could so very easily kill us all off.
I'm not going to come up with anything else, most of my points have been ignored so far.
Unknown Squid
Aurani's Wife
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,256
- Reputation score
- 314
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Ok, we'll have a full variety of dinos, and have them turn up/break out on a main continent. There's still a major problem there, being that an active hunting predator needs to eat dozens of herbivores over a year. If you have 25 predators, then you will need in the region of 500 herbivores to safely feed them for a year. To provide enough time and population security for the herbivores to breed new generations without risk of the predators making them extinct before the young mature, you will need thousands. You would need to be mass producing these things in factories before you had enough to kick start a new food chain. This is without any other natural misfortune befalling them or significant competition from the existing animals. What happens when our raptors meet a grizzly bear? What if lions started hunting the dinosaur herbies? What does one of the highly limited T-Rexes do when an enraged elephant breaks it's leg? There's too many things out there to make life hell for them.
This is still assuming mankind miraculously takes no stance on the events. When you've got a fledgling population of raptors that need every one of their numbers to ensure enough young to grow their population, a local farmer blowing away a few that stray onto his land looking for prey is really going to hurt their chances.
Humans won't be retreating and "trying to find places to live", because a gang of large animals aren't a threat to us. The mammoth was a powerful and fearsome creature, and we hunted them with with spears and log fires.
Dinosaurs vs Nature is a hard enough battle, and one they've already lost.
Dinosaurs vs Established human society, would be nothing more than a second apocalypse for the dinosaurs.
Ok, we'll have a full variety of dinos, and have them turn up/break out on a main continent. There's still a major problem there, being that an active hunting predator needs to eat dozens of herbivores over a year. If you have 25 predators, then you will need in the region of 500 herbivores to safely feed them for a year. To provide enough time and population security for the herbivores to breed new generations without risk of the predators making them extinct before the young mature, you will need thousands. You would need to be mass producing these things in factories before you had enough to kick start a new food chain. This is without any other natural misfortune befalling them or significant competition from the existing animals. What happens when our raptors meet a grizzly bear? What if lions started hunting the dinosaur herbies? What does one of the highly limited T-Rexes do when an enraged elephant breaks it's leg? There's too many things out there to make life hell for them.
This is still assuming mankind miraculously takes no stance on the events. When you've got a fledgling population of raptors that need every one of their numbers to ensure enough young to grow their population, a local farmer blowing away a few that stray onto his land looking for prey is really going to hurt their chances.
Humans won't be retreating and "trying to find places to live", because a gang of large animals aren't a threat to us. The mammoth was a powerful and fearsome creature, and we hunted them with with spears and log fires.
Dinosaurs vs Nature is a hard enough battle, and one they've already lost.
Dinosaurs vs Established human society, would be nothing more than a second apocalypse for the dinosaurs.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,239
- Reputation score
- 1,017
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
While zombies are exponentially slower, dying at an accelerated rate constantly, accruing all sorts of accumulated damage, with dysfunctional brains and deteriorating ability to find and catch any type of food.
Honestly, unless one of these situations STARTED with a 1:1 ratio towards humans, I don't really see either of these being apocalypse situations.
While zombies are exponentially slower, dying at an accelerated rate constantly, accruing all sorts of accumulated damage, with dysfunctional brains and deteriorating ability to find and catch any type of food.
Honestly, unless one of these situations STARTED with a 1:1 ratio towards humans, I don't really see either of these being apocalypse situations.
JohnDoe
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 770
- Reputation score
- 90
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
The main cause for the holocaust, on a pragmatical basis, would have probably been econimacal and political. The jew comunity has a tendency to be close and generally composed of middle/high bourgeoisie(i'm getting out of my knowledge of english, so i'm not sure if it really makes sense). Considering the strong nazionalistic orientation of nazism, the economic troubles of germany after WW1 and the bellic effort's enormous cost, a close comunity with a religious belief different from the majority of the population with considerable economical resources and generally not well considered by the people becomes the perfect target. This way you can gain popularity by creating an elitist feeling in the people and accumulate a considerable amount of both money and free manpower to produce weapons and vehicles without having to heavily tax the people, who were already heavily taxed by the other european countries already, you become a hero. This is were hitler's genious lies, evil indeed, but genious none the less.
Most people tend to stick to the official reasons, but we need to remember that rarely what is said is really meant in politics.
Yeah, fascism doesn't really have much in common with the roman empire, but it was being as a mean to exploit the feeling of the people, so it can still be considered a cause, if one wants to really start nitpicking, that was my point.
Let's remember that nazism acquires actual power a mere ten years after fascism and only really shares the means used to obtain power, nazism was focused on the race from the very beginning, while fascism's focus was the country, the foundamental ideology is different, that's why it shouldn't be mixed like it's the same thing. Let's not forget that a similar situation can be observed in the raise to power of communism in russia and napoleon's empire after the french revolution. The main problem with nazism and fascism is their contemporaneity and the alliance during the WW2, which tends to give most people the impression that they are the same thing.
As much as fascism could have given Hitler the idea on how to start his empire, it's such a small reason compared to the situation germany was in because of the winner of WW1 and is no way a determining factor, the fact mussolini had the idea a few years before hitler don't mean that hitler wouldn't still have done what he did, while if after WW1 germany wasn't completely tarnished there wouldn't have been as much gunpowder for hitler to use, if there wasn't a WW1 there would have probably been no problem at all, if you think about all the causes that co-operated to the raise of nazism you will see that fascism is not as important as you think it is.
Also along the lines of your reasoning, adolf hitler's father is more responsible than anyone else for the slaughter of milions of jews, since no Alois equals no Adolf, same could be said for the mother, the parent's parents, etc...
Oh, let's not forget god, no god, no jews, no slaughter.
I understand your logic, but it doesn't justify the use of the word fascism for something that is foundamental ideology of nazism, as a matter of fact fascism acquired antisemitism from nazism in 1938 when they signed their alliance, 16 years after coming to power.
Well, it was a surprise in 1789 with the first french revolution that started a process that spread to almost all of europe, the recent uproar can still be considered an aftereffect, they just had a late start because they didn't find a valid enough reason to unite the people, the beast called people being what it is. I mean it's expected to happen at some point that poeple looking at others living better lives would want to have the same, they just need the right spark.
Now that you make me think more carefully about it, the spark might have been the wikileaks effect, releasing information on the economical status of certain countries, that's an interesting point you made there.
The main cause for the holocaust, on a pragmatical basis, would have probably been econimacal and political. The jew comunity has a tendency to be close and generally composed of middle/high bourgeoisie(i'm getting out of my knowledge of english, so i'm not sure if it really makes sense). Considering the strong nazionalistic orientation of nazism, the economic troubles of germany after WW1 and the bellic effort's enormous cost, a close comunity with a religious belief different from the majority of the population with considerable economical resources and generally not well considered by the people becomes the perfect target. This way you can gain popularity by creating an elitist feeling in the people and accumulate a considerable amount of both money and free manpower to produce weapons and vehicles without having to heavily tax the people, who were already heavily taxed by the other european countries already, you become a hero. This is were hitler's genious lies, evil indeed, but genious none the less.
Most people tend to stick to the official reasons, but we need to remember that rarely what is said is really meant in politics.
Yeah, fascism doesn't really have much in common with the roman empire, but it was being as a mean to exploit the feeling of the people, so it can still be considered a cause, if one wants to really start nitpicking, that was my point.
Let's remember that nazism acquires actual power a mere ten years after fascism and only really shares the means used to obtain power, nazism was focused on the race from the very beginning, while fascism's focus was the country, the foundamental ideology is different, that's why it shouldn't be mixed like it's the same thing. Let's not forget that a similar situation can be observed in the raise to power of communism in russia and napoleon's empire after the french revolution. The main problem with nazism and fascism is their contemporaneity and the alliance during the WW2, which tends to give most people the impression that they are the same thing.
As much as fascism could have given Hitler the idea on how to start his empire, it's such a small reason compared to the situation germany was in because of the winner of WW1 and is no way a determining factor, the fact mussolini had the idea a few years before hitler don't mean that hitler wouldn't still have done what he did, while if after WW1 germany wasn't completely tarnished there wouldn't have been as much gunpowder for hitler to use, if there wasn't a WW1 there would have probably been no problem at all, if you think about all the causes that co-operated to the raise of nazism you will see that fascism is not as important as you think it is.
Also along the lines of your reasoning, adolf hitler's father is more responsible than anyone else for the slaughter of milions of jews, since no Alois equals no Adolf, same could be said for the mother, the parent's parents, etc...
Oh, let's not forget god, no god, no jews, no slaughter.
I understand your logic, but it doesn't justify the use of the word fascism for something that is foundamental ideology of nazism, as a matter of fact fascism acquired antisemitism from nazism in 1938 when they signed their alliance, 16 years after coming to power.
Well, it was a surprise in 1789 with the first french revolution that started a process that spread to almost all of europe, the recent uproar can still be considered an aftereffect, they just had a late start because they didn't find a valid enough reason to unite the people, the beast called people being what it is. I mean it's expected to happen at some point that poeple looking at others living better lives would want to have the same, they just need the right spark.
Now that you make me think more carefully about it, the spark might have been the wikileaks effect, releasing information on the economical status of certain countries, that's an interesting point you made there.