I think this depends on the production budget
Constructing a fake body that the zombie actors can actually eat is expensive
4 Likes
This varies a lot too.
In Night of the Living Dead the dead just arise. We donât see the human-zombie transition ever. Seems like the whole movie was more of an allegory or social commentary if you ask me /s
In The Worldâs End the process takes a few hours
In 28 Days Later it is almost instantaneous, but technically itâs a blood-borne virus
Zombieland has a fairly rapid transition too, but on the scale of hours.
Zombie Strippers has a fairly instantaneous transition, but the newly-dead are mostly torn to pieces yet remain animated
1 Like
#bothSides 
1 Like
You never know.
1 Like
fighting back just alienates the moderate zombies
3 Likes
This comes up in certain vampire genres, too. In the âBuffy the Vampire Slayerâ world, vampires are dead: they have no heartbeat and donât breathe air because they donât need to oxygenate their blood, since itâs not pumping. But they do need to âeatâ.
And they breathe heavily after/during fights. And when they get cut, they bleed, but how would the blood come out if nothing was pumping it? And how can they get drunk by drinking alcohol if their blood isnât pumping around? 
So many questions.
3 Likes
Maybe their blood viscosity is different from ours?
I suppose it goes straight to their heads.
1 Like
peddles
3 Likes
Pedantry on my part: your correction isnât pedantic, itâs just a correction
3 Likes
Maybe the original poster was just riding the cycle of disinformation.
6 Likes
You want pendantic?
Okay, peddle and pedal have the same etymology.
4 Likes
Without looking at the link, I would have expected they both go back to Latin pes, pedis, = foot?
2 Likes
Yes, indeed. One of the wonderful things about that word is that so much rests on our feet (literally and figuratively), we end up with all kinds of words based on it. From pedestal to peddle to pedal.
4 Likes
The National Trust for Scotland is a different organisation than Historic Scotland. The National Trust is a charity that takes over historic buildings the owners of which canât pay the upkeep for anymore, and makes them available to the public. Historic Scotland used to be a government agency that cared for and made publicly accessible historic buildings and estates that belonged to the Scottish state. However, Historic Scotland doesnât exist anymore, it was consolidated into Historic Environment Scotland together with the
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland.
4 Likes
Oh my goodness, youâre absolutely right, of course! My wife used to work for RCAHMS and all, and weâre members of both NTS and HES! Dear oh dear oh dear.
2 Likes
Eh, an easy, and inconsequential mistake to make
1 Like
was going to call out the bit about Millennials until I got the joke, that Generation X doesnât exist
2 Likes
I think the author is confusing whataboutism, bothsidism, and tu quoque. And in debates in current international developments the difference is important.
Whataboutism is a tactic, a diversion from the actual topic. They should be ignored because the opponent is in no way interested in answering the question and will come up with another one the second you engage.
Bothsidism is usually a fallacy of false equivalence. If the equivalence is not false bothsidism is not a fallacy but it might be an attempt at derailment. Any real life example I can think off will be a hot potato that might blow up so⌠When Cardassians blamed Bajorians for using violence to achieve their goals that was bothsidism, pointing out that when the Dominion took over Cardessia it was the same thing that what Cardessia did to Bajor it was not bothsidism.
Of course thinking that this defends the actions by the Dominion on Cardessia would be a tu quoque fallacy.
Tu quoque is the fallacy if thinking that hypocrisy negates a truth, strictly speaking it is a pure non sequitur as the actual argument is not addressed at all. If I would blame somebody for being overweight that would be hypocritical but pointing out that I am as well as a counter argument would be a fallacy.
1 Like
Thereâs no confusion, as the conjunction âorâ (highlighted below for your benefit) and separate Wikipedia definition links in the original post indicate:
These, and tu quoque arguments are all closely related fallacies regularly used by apologists for the Putin regime. Feel free to use whichever one applies to a particular line of BS.
8 Likes
I believe that bothsidesism is less of a false equivalency, and more of a false premise to the effect of âone cannot denounce something that is wrong unless one also denounces everything that is wrong.â The thrust of the argument then becomes: âYou are not denouncing [something bad that somebody else did], so [the thing done] is either not wrong or you are applying a double standard in your denunciation.â
Not only is the premise patently wrong, but the unspoken assumption (i.e. that âyou are not denouncing [something bad that somebody else did]â) is also untrue (because it leaves out the key words: âright nowâ).
4 Likes
