Almost as bad as belittlement: accusing someone of belittlement. Any "belittlement" on my part was in direct responst to the same on your part. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. I certainly took no offense, but in the future, don't make up stuff about what I said - just address my actual arguments, please. Doing otherwise is just rude.
Um... hate to burst your biologist bubble, but EVERYTHING is a mass of chemicals. Everything. Well, save for free-floating elementary particles and single atoms, I guess. Maybe some brushing up on the basics of science is in order?
In any case, you're not reading my argument very well - it doesn't rest at all on saying viruses are "like" neurotoxins. You simply stated that it seemed impossible for something to act that quickly, and I pointed out something that DID INDEED act that quickly - neurotoxins. And if real-life neurotoxins can do it, fictional viruses may be able to do it too. Belaboring my analogy for any other purpose simply fails to address my argument and doesn't help your case.
I'm also mildly amused by how easy the idea of "fiction" can mildly annoy you - you should stick to non-fiction from now on, it should prove less annoying. Before arguing any further, I'd advise you to read up on basic chemistry and the foundations of basic fiction and the rules of storytelling, otherwise it's futile. Have fun - there's lots of cool stuff to learn.
Well, first of all, a virus is not necessarily a living thing (though the majority opinion seems to treat them as though they are these days) but that's academic. A virus, like a neurotoxin, is a mass of chemicals, and while none that I know of make use of neurotoxins, there is no such thing as zombies either. If one assumes that zombies are possible, there is no logic that dictates that they could not transform rather quickly. The neurotoxin example simply points to a real-life example of something effecting rapid change on an organism.
Basically, in fiction, you're allowed one "leap," and everything else has to be internally consistent. It doesn't seem to me that you've pointed out anything that is not internally consistent in these movies - of course they're impossible, but given that, they don't violate any of their own "rules."
Sounds like they're just things that bother you for whatever reason, but there's no real logical problems (save for the obvious ones, like the fact that zombies couldn't exists IRL). And criticism just means I'm interested in what you have to say, so I hope if anything that take it as a compliment.
Let's just look at the very first criticism, for instance - the idea that the change happens "too fast." What would be a "realistic" change speed for a zombie, considering that there's no way there's any hard scientific data on the matter? Since there are many neurotoxins that work almost instantaneously, it doesn't seem to be much of stretch to say that exposure to the infectant can have a near-immediate effect on the afflicted person. Since we're already suspending our disbelief and accepting that zombies can exist in the movie, it doesn't require any real leap to accept the rules as they're set up in the movie. If they weren't internally consistent, that would be another story. It just seems that you're asking too much from the "rules" of the movies, yet readily accepting the premise that they're in service of.
Almost as bad as belittlement: accusing someone of belittlement. Any "belittlement" on my part was in direct responst to the same on your part. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. I certainly took no offense, but in the future, don't make up stuff about what I said - just address my actual arguments, please. Doing otherwise is just rude.
Um... hate to burst your biologist bubble, but EVERYTHING is a mass of chemicals. Everything. Well, save for free-floating elementary particles and single atoms, I guess. Maybe some brushing up on the basics of science is in order?
In any case, you're not reading my argument very well - it doesn't rest at all on saying viruses are "like" neurotoxins. You simply stated that it seemed impossible for something to act that quickly, and I pointed out something that DID INDEED act that quickly - neurotoxins. And if real-life neurotoxins can do it, fictional viruses may be able to do it too. Belaboring my analogy for any other purpose simply fails to address my argument and doesn't help your case.
I'm also mildly amused by how easy the idea of "fiction" can mildly annoy you - you should stick to non-fiction from now on, it should prove less annoying. Before arguing any further, I'd advise you to read up on basic chemistry and the foundations of basic fiction and the rules of storytelling, otherwise it's futile. Have fun - there's lots of cool stuff to learn.
Well, first of all, a virus is not necessarily a living thing (though the majority opinion seems to treat them as though they are these days) but that's academic. A virus, like a neurotoxin, is a mass of chemicals, and while none that I know of make use of neurotoxins, there is no such thing as zombies either. If one assumes that zombies are possible, there is no logic that dictates that they could not transform rather quickly. The neurotoxin example simply points to a real-life example of something effecting rapid change on an organism.
Basically, in fiction, you're allowed one "leap," and everything else has to be internally consistent. It doesn't seem to me that you've pointed out anything that is not internally consistent in these movies - of course they're impossible, but given that, they don't violate any of their own "rules."
Sounds like they're just things that bother you for whatever reason, but there's no real logical problems (save for the obvious ones, like the fact that zombies couldn't exists IRL). And criticism just means I'm interested in what you have to say, so I hope if anything that take it as a compliment.
Let's just look at the very first criticism, for instance - the idea that the change happens "too fast." What would be a "realistic" change speed for a zombie, considering that there's no way there's any hard scientific data on the matter? Since there are many neurotoxins that work almost instantaneously, it doesn't seem to be much of stretch to say that exposure to the infectant can have a near-immediate effect on the afflicted person. Since we're already suspending our disbelief and accepting that zombies can exist in the movie, it doesn't require any real leap to accept the rules as they're set up in the movie. If they weren't internally consistent, that would be another story. It just seems that you're asking too much from the "rules" of the movies, yet readily accepting the premise that they're in service of.
Almost none of the "Holes in Reasoning" are actually holes in reasoning, by the way.