If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Finally, a question for the ages: "In a war between zombies and vampires, who would humanity side with?" It's not news, it's Slate.com   (slate.com) divider line 92
    More: Fail, zombies, vampires  
•       •       •

2563 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Nov 2013 at 9:17 AM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



92 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-20 09:18:10 AM
I don't think you can side with zombies.
 
2013-11-20 09:18:47 AM
Vampires can still have sex, so I'm thinking that's where we'd go with it.
 
2013-11-20 09:19:07 AM
You may think you're siding with zombies, but they don't care. Vampires, you can reason with, until they decide you have nothing left to offer them and they fark/eat you.
 
2013-11-20 09:19:14 AM
You're going to want to know who ally with when the War of the Undead comes.
 
2013-11-20 09:19:30 AM
vampires are cool. and smoking hot if you believe true blood etc (which of course I do). I side with eric northman
 
2013-11-20 09:19:33 AM
Zombies are assholes. I'd side with the sparklies before the deadies.
 
2013-11-20 09:20:20 AM
Completely farking stupid. Why would vampires go to war with zombies? Zombies have absolutely no ability whatsoever to harm vampires. They have no brains and completely lack the ability to wield even rudimentary tools, much less the stake that is required to kill a vampire. Even if "human allies" (and, really, how can you ally with something that lacks any understanding of the word or concept) were to somehow weaponize zombies against vampires, say by strapping a pair of silver-tipped wooden stakes to each arm, how would mindless zombies be trained to aim for the heart? It's impossible, and ridiculous, and utterly pointless. The only possible  reason that vampires would ever even go to war against zombies would be to protect their food source, and in that case the war would be swift, brutal, and decisively in favor of the vampires.

Now, vampires versus werewolves....THAT's a clever idea. Someone should totally do that one.
 
2013-11-20 09:21:55 AM
we would be food.
 
2013-11-20 09:22:44 AM
i side with the ponies
 
2013-11-20 09:22:58 AM
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
 
2013-11-20 09:23:04 AM
It's not a question of sides, it's just which one do you want to become when they bite you?  Being a zombie would suck ass, being a vampire would be pretty nice.  Except during the day.
 
2013-11-20 09:24:41 AM
It's always been Vampires...

Even when they were hideous and distasteful, they were seductors...

Even more so now.

Also.. Angie Everhart in Bordello Of Blood... oooh my.
 
2013-11-20 09:24:50 AM
Why would we side with anyone? KIll 'em all and let satan sort 'em out
 
2013-11-20 09:24:53 AM
I'd think humanity would go for the zombies.
On the one hand, people almost universally hate lawyers and politicians, since they're considered blood-sucking parasites.  So vampires have a disadvantage right there.  TV shows...why is there a following for True Blood and Vampire Diaries?  And one can't deny that vampire moves are popular, though the Twilight series of books and the movies based off them have inspired an insipid, trite, and plain awful version of the vampire mythos.  Long gone are the days of Dracula.  So points off for that.  Vampires are losing out on too many fronts.
People seem to glorify the mindless these days, so zombies have an advantage there.  However, zombies desire brains, and "brains" are definitely out these days, despite the unusual popularity for shows like The Big Bang Theory.  Zombie movies are better.  And zombie shows are big right now.  So, zombies win out on the entertainment value as well.
Winner: zombies.
 
2013-11-20 09:25:18 AM

srgrobe: i side with the ponies


And this.. always this.


FlufflePuff is best pony...thing.
 
2013-11-20 09:26:01 AM
I would think vampires would side with humans because without human blood they would starve.
 
2013-11-20 09:26:57 AM

eyeq360: I'd think humanity would go for the zombies.
On the one hand, people almost universally hate lawyers and politicians, since they're considered blood-sucking parasites.  So vampires have a disadvantage right there.  TV shows...why is there a following for True Blood and Vampire Diaries?  And one can't deny that vampire moves are popular, though the Twilight series of books and the movies based off them have inspired an insipid, trite, and plain awful version of the vampire mythos.  Long gone are the days of Dracula.  So points off for that.  Vampires are losing out on too many fronts.
People seem to glorify the mindless these days, so zombies have an advantage there.  However, zombies desire brains, and "brains" are definitely out these days, despite the unusual popularity for shows like The Big Bang Theory.  Zombie movies are better.  And zombie shows are big right now.  So, zombies win out on the entertainment value as well.
Winner: zombies.


Vampires = Morality Play.
Zombies = Social Commentary.

People have always been more interested in what it is like to be bad.. and the wages of sin... v/s something they can actually *do* something about.
 
2013-11-20 09:28:28 AM
Now my reasoning is that humans and vampires would join together. They have an interest in preserving the status quo - one in which both have flourished for centuries, in tacit symbiosis. The zombies just want to eat everything - us, if you're human, or your food supply, if you're a vampire.
It's a no-brainer.
Hyuck. :D
 
2013-11-20 09:28:45 AM
It depends on what kind of zombies you're talking about.  Are we talking about the slow walkers from Walking Dead or the crazy as all fark, running Dawn of the Dead type zombies?

Vampires suck, sorry, that biatch ruined all vampires with that Twilight shiat.
 
2013-11-20 09:28:53 AM
Eh, I'll take being vampire food over zombie food. Both will turn you into their own kind, so I'll take immortality with an intact brain.
 
2013-11-20 09:29:49 AM
The vampires would have to be the first to die. Everybody knows they will screw you over once the war was over, so you round up the zombies in train cars and release them on the vampire as toxic weapons.
 
2013-11-20 09:30:01 AM

Shadow Blasko: srgrobe: i side with the ponies

And this.. always this.


FlufflePuff is best pony...thing.


i18.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-20 09:31:03 AM

asquian: Eh, I'll take being vampire food over zombie food. Both will turn you into their own kind, so I'll take immortality with an intact brain.


That is one of the things I always liked about Riceian vampire lore.

No sex, and when you turn you are still what you were.. but not WHO you were.. because demons.

Takes some of the... pulp out of it.

Still awesome to be a vampire, but it takes the "ooooh sexay" out a bit. (or.. bite)
 
2013-11-20 09:35:39 AM
Anne Rice Vampires? I'd rather be eaten alive by zombies.
Buffy vampires? Too angst ridden but better than zombies. Wishverse Vampire Willow was much better than zombies.
Underworld Vampires? Their politics sucks but choosing Selene to bite you instead of a zombie is not exactly a hard choice.
 
2013-11-20 09:38:19 AM

Shadow Blasko: eyeq360: I'd think humanity would go for the zombies.
On the one hand, people almost universally hate lawyers and politicians, since they're considered blood-sucking parasites.  So vampires have a disadvantage right there.  TV shows...why is there a following for True Blood and Vampire Diaries?  And one can't deny that vampire moves are popular, though the Twilight series of books and the movies based off them have inspired an insipid, trite, and plain awful version of the vampire mythos.  Long gone are the days of Dracula.  So points off for that.  Vampires are losing out on too many fronts.
People seem to glorify the mindless these days, so zombies have an advantage there.  However, zombies desire brains, and "brains" are definitely out these days, despite the unusual popularity for shows like The Big Bang Theory.  Zombie movies are better.  And zombie shows are big right now.  So, zombies win out on the entertainment value as well.
Winner: zombies.

Vampires = Morality Play.
Zombies = Social Commentary.

People have always been more interested in what it is like to be bad.. and the wages of sin... v/s something they can actually *do* something about.


True, but it seems like after Twilight, people have turned vampires into "OMG, sexy-squeal" without the morality play.  Stoker's Dracula played on the morality play very well.  Rice, though I'm not a total fan of her works, did it fine.  Buffy the Vampire Slayer had the whole morality thing in there with Angel and his soul.  He could be good, but he could be evil, very evil.  Kind of campy at times, but at least it was somewhat serious in the portrayal of vampires.
 
2013-11-20 09:43:00 AM
After siding with vampires, humanity would gradually become entirely composed of vampire-manity as everyone gets bitten.  What happens when the supply of fresh humans runs out?  Can vampires have children and suck their blood?  I would think not.  So eventually the vampire race would take over all humanity and then die out.  I can't see any way around this.

What weapons do vampires have to fight zombies?  I guess they can do that thing where they hold up one hand and the zombie crashes against the opposite wall, then slowly slides to the floor.  That seems pretty effective.  Anyway zombies are easy to evade if you're a vampire, can't you just disappear and reappear somewhere else?
 
2013-11-20 09:47:18 AM

TreeHugger: After siding with vampires, humanity would gradually become entirely composed of vampire-manity as everyone gets bitten.  What happens when the supply of fresh humans runs out?  Can vampires have children and suck their blood?  I would think not.  So eventually the vampire race would take over all humanity and then die out.  I can't see any way around this.

What weapons do vampires have to fight zombies?  I guess they can do that thing where they hold up one hand and the zombie crashes against the opposite wall, then slowly slides to the floor.  That seems pretty effective.  Anyway zombies are easy to evade if you're a vampire, can't you just disappear and reappear somewhere else?


You're assuming STD Vampirism, which only exists in a small part of the mythos.

That is one of the things I liked about True Blood was that biting someone doesn't automatically turn them. You have to WANT to make a childer.
 
2013-11-20 09:47:24 AM

eyeq360: Shadow Blasko: eyeq360: I'd think humanity would go for the zombies.
On the one hand, people almost universally hate lawyers and politicians, since they're considered blood-sucking parasites.  So vampires have a disadvantage right there.  TV shows...why is there a following for True Blood and Vampire Diaries?  And one can't deny that vampire moves are popular, though the Twilight series of books and the movies based off them have inspired an insipid, trite, and plain awful version of the vampire mythos.  Long gone are the days of Dracula.  So points off for that.  Vampires are losing out on too many fronts.
People seem to glorify the mindless these days, so zombies have an advantage there.  However, zombies desire brains, and "brains" are definitely out these days, despite the unusual popularity for shows like The Big Bang Theory.  Zombie movies are better.  And zombie shows are big right now.  So, zombies win out on the entertainment value as well.
Winner: zombies.

Vampires = Morality Play.
Zombies = Social Commentary.

People have always been more interested in what it is like to be bad.. and the wages of sin... v/s something they can actually *do* something about.

True, but it seems like after Twilight, people have turned vampires into "OMG, sexy-squeal" without the morality play.  Stoker's Dracula played on the morality play very well.  Rice, though I'm not a total fan of her works, did it fine.  Buffy the Vampire Slayer had the whole morality thing in there with Angel and his soul.  He could be good, but he could be evil, very evil.  Kind of campy at times, but at least it was somewhat serious in the portrayal of vampires.


But these new vampire brood a lot. That's pretty much the same thing as a morality play right? right? I mean, chicks dig it so it must be good.
 
2013-11-20 09:48:12 AM

eyeq360: Shadow Blasko: eyeq360: I'd think humanity would go for the zombies.
On the one hand, people almost universally hate lawyers and politicians, since they're considered blood-sucking parasites.  So vampires have a disadvantage right there.  TV shows...why is there a following for True Blood and Vampire Diaries?  And one can't deny that vampire moves are popular, though the Twilight series of books and the movies based off them have inspired an insipid, trite, and plain awful version of the vampire mythos.  Long gone are the days of Dracula.  So points off for that.  Vampires are losing out on too many fronts.
People seem to glorify the mindless these days, so zombies have an advantage there.  However, zombies desire brains, and "brains" are definitely out these days, despite the unusual popularity for shows like The Big Bang Theory.  Zombie movies are better.  And zombie shows are big right now.  So, zombies win out on the entertainment value as well.
Winner: zombies.

Vampires = Morality Play.
Zombies = Social Commentary.

People have always been more interested in what it is like to be bad.. and the wages of sin... v/s something they can actually *do* something about.

True, but it seems like after Twilight, people have turned vampires into "OMG, sexy-squeal" without the morality play.  Stoker's Dracula played on the morality play very well.  Rice, though I'm not a total fan of her works, did it fine.  Buffy the Vampire Slayer had the whole morality thing in there with Angel and his soul.  He could be good, but he could be evil, very evil.  Kind of campy at times, but at least it was somewhat serious in the portrayal of vampires.


Funny how we both pretty much just went the same place on that.
 
2013-11-20 09:51:15 AM

talkertopc: Anne Rice Vampires? I'd rather be eaten alive by zombies.


Depends... Sure, not everyone gets to be Lestat, but even Marius had a pretty damned nice life.

Can't say I would say no to the life of a Rice-style vamp, just as long as it was post-Akasha.
 
2013-11-20 09:54:05 AM
I'm done reading Slate after the article about how to wear your backpack: one shoulder or two?
 
2013-11-20 09:54:11 AM

srgrobe: i side with the ponies


For Pony!

/Not a MLP reference.
//Although I would choose that over Vampires or Zombies too.
 
2013-11-20 09:55:20 AM
I'm sticking with the robots on this one.
 
2013-11-20 09:57:14 AM

Empty H: But these new vampire brood a lot. That's pretty much the same thing as a morality play right? right? I mean, chicks dig it so it must be good.

No.  Brooding a lot does not mean morality play.  It's just an excuse for the male lead to be half-naked to show off his six-pack or his chiseled cheekbones.  Chicks dig six-packs, as in abdominals, not a tasty local craft brew.  Thought some would like both.
 
2013-11-20 09:58:07 AM
There is a thin line between vampires and zombies to start with.  They are both undead.  Neither one has any need to fight the other.  The only reason either have to kill something is for food.  Niether one can be food for the other.  So, really, the entire concept is more ludicrous than it first seems.

But, to entertain the thread...  Vampires could easily wipe out pretty much every zombie on the planet with ease.  And it would be in their interest to do so, because zombies would be viewed as an "invasive species", in that they would be taking away the vampire's food supply.  Zombies would have nothing at all to gain by wiping out vampires.  They wouldn't be able to put together a rational thought to begin with.  In any case...  Zombies would simply rot and fall apart before long anyway.
It is a completely one-sided fight.

So, who would humanity side with?  Obviously, the vampires.  And just hope that their appreciation for your help extends to them deciding not to simply kill you just because they can.
 
2013-11-20 09:59:28 AM
Vampires.  They'd probably team up with humans to kill the zombies because they'd still want to feed on humans.  And they have many years of sexual experience so there's that.
 
2013-11-20 10:02:14 AM
slayer199:  And they have many years of sexual experience so there's that.
And if you ever get priapism and you're nowhere near a doctor...
I think I might need some brain bleach after realizing I just typed that out.
 
2013-11-20 10:06:08 AM

eyeq360: slayer199:  And they have many years of sexual experience so there's that.
And if you ever get priapism and you're nowhere near a doctor...
I think I might need some brain bleach after realizing I just typed that out.


media.tumblr.com
 
2013-11-20 10:07:05 AM
Simple Machiavellian strategy. Ally with the weaker enemy to overcome the stronger enemy, then turn on the weaker enemy. Kill the vampires first.
 
2013-11-20 10:09:27 AM

eyeq360: Empty H: But these new vampire brood a lot. That's pretty much the same thing as a morality play right? right? I mean, chicks dig it so it must be good.
No.  Brooding a lot does not mean morality play.  It's just an excuse for the male lead to be half-naked to show off his six-pack or his chiseled cheekbones.  Chicks dig six-packs, as in abdominals, not a tasty local craft brew.  Thought some would like both.


chicks dig a bad boy, more than six-packs (although both is better), and there's not much badder than a vampire
 
2013-11-20 10:11:51 AM

LargeCanine: Simple Machiavellian strategy. Ally with the weaker enemy to overcome the stronger enemy, then turn on the weaker enemy. Kill the vampires first.


How, exactly, do you ally with zombies?

Short of herding them towards a place you have magically managed to sequester all the vampires during the day?
 
2013-11-20 10:13:58 AM

Lady J: eyeq360: Empty H: But these new vampire brood a lot. That's pretty much the same thing as a morality play right? right? I mean, chicks dig it so it must be good.
No.  Brooding a lot does not mean morality play.  It's just an excuse for the male lead to be half-naked to show off his six-pack or his chiseled cheekbones.  Chicks dig six-packs, as in abdominals, not a tasty local craft brew.  Thought some would like both.

chicks dig a bad boy, more than six-packs (although both is better), and there's not much badder than a vampire


There is badder, but they usually aren't as sexy. I believe the vampires of the last decade have come to exhibit the peak of that bad/sexy curve. 

Kind of off topic, but I saw the preview for that new Beauty and the Beast TV show. It seemed like they missed the whole point of the beast since the guy looked all chiseled and brooding. True, he had some facial scars, but nothing actually made him ugly. I believe they were trying for that pinnacle of bad/sexy curve but missed the point of the story.
 
2013-11-20 10:14:37 AM

LargeCanine: Simple Machiavellian strategy. Ally with the weaker enemy to overcome the stronger enemy, then turn on the weaker enemy. Kill the vampires first.


And even *that* assumes that zombies are interested in attacking/eating vampires, which I doubt, because vampires are pretty much dead. Maybe if they made noise... but the zombies would still have to see them as a food source for that plan to help.
 
2013-11-20 10:17:48 AM

Empty H: Lady J: eyeq360: Empty H: But these new vampire brood a lot. That's pretty much the same thing as a morality play right? right? I mean, chicks dig it so it must be good.
No.  Brooding a lot does not mean morality play.  It's just an excuse for the male lead to be half-naked to show off his six-pack or his chiseled cheekbones.  Chicks dig six-packs, as in abdominals, not a tasty local craft brew.  Thought some would like both.

chicks dig a bad boy, more than six-packs (although both is better), and there's not much badder than a vampire

There is badder, but they usually aren't as sexy. I believe the vampires of the last decade have come to exhibit the peak of that bad/sexy curve. 

Kind of off topic, but I saw the preview for that new Beauty and the Beast TV show. It seemed like they missed the whole point of the beast since the guy looked all chiseled and brooding. True, he had some facial scars, but nothing actually made him ugly. I believe they were trying for that pinnacle of bad/sexy curve but missed the point of the story.


penny arcade got there before you (although comic is from 2011 so you may be talknig about a different show
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/02/28
 
2013-11-20 10:19:01 AM

Shadow Blasko: eyeq360: slayer199:  And they have many years of sexual experience so there's that.
And if you ever get priapism and you're nowhere near a doctor...
I think I might need some brain bleach after realizing I just typed that out.

[media.tumblr.com image 350x197]


Just be glad I didn't speculate on what a zombie would do...damn it.  Must stop brain.  Must stop brain.
 
2013-11-20 10:25:48 AM

Lady J: Empty H: Lady J: eyeq360: Empty H: But these new vampire brood a lot. That's pretty much the same thing as a morality play right? right? I mean, chicks dig it so it must be good.
No.  Brooding a lot does not mean morality play.  It's just an excuse for the male lead to be half-naked to show off his six-pack or his chiseled cheekbones.  Chicks dig six-packs, as in abdominals, not a tasty local craft brew.  Thought some would like both.

chicks dig a bad boy, more than six-packs (although both is better), and there's not much badder than a vampire

There is badder, but they usually aren't as sexy. I believe the vampires of the last decade have come to exhibit the peak of that bad/sexy curve. 

Kind of off topic, but I saw the preview for that new Beauty and the Beast TV show. It seemed like they missed the whole point of the beast since the guy looked all chiseled and brooding. True, he had some facial scars, but nothing actually made him ugly. I believe they were trying for that pinnacle of bad/sexy curve but missed the point of the story.

penny arcade got there before you (although comic is from 2011 so you may be talknig about a different show
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/02/28


HA. I hadn't seen that. Thanks for posting. Looks like the show I am talking about. I wonder what it says about me that I thought I was talking about a new show and it has obviously been out for more than 2 years.
 
2013-11-20 10:26:48 AM

Shadow Blasko: LargeCanine: Simple Machiavellian strategy. Ally with the weaker enemy to overcome the stronger enemy, then turn on the weaker enemy. Kill the vampires first.

And even *that* assumes that zombies are interested in attacking/eating vampires, which I doubt, because vampires are pretty much dead. Maybe if they made noise... but the zombies would still have to see them as a food source for that plan to help.


Don't overthink the hypothetical.
 
2013-11-20 10:27:02 AM
Well, that story sure did suck.

How about a zombie story that takes place in Ireland. The only way to avoid infection is to have at least a .1 blood alcohol level at all times. And the Catholics and Protestants end up having to work together to save the day. I'd go see that.
 
2013-11-20 10:27:18 AM
I'm gonna side with the Federation cuz their guns makes things turn red and then go away!
 
2013-11-20 10:29:37 AM

markfara: Vampires can still have sex, so I'm thinking that's where we'd go with it.

dreamworlds.ru


"I can slick my parts with blood so you can thrust your body up against my cold, dead corpse "


/of course you can still have sex with a zombie as long as you stay away from the bitey parts
www.zombiefinder.com
//Dead Girl. Very disturbing movie.
 
Displayed 50 of 92 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report