They may not want them to move on to the airport because they still hold out hope that there is still people out there who have planes so they can land on the runway and it may have imporant features near or under it so they do not want to let resistance supporters near.

mabe its too close to the resistance side. still within security lines. but still in possible danger of being attacked

That's also a good point. maybe the founders have a top-secret facility there. OOOH CONTROVERSIAL!

http://brinkthegame.com/ark/island/

Ark map.

I believe its in the top right. Or perhaps mid right.

looks like top left to me, looks like two big runways

This.


Top right is something entirely different.

My principles do not change with scale, and I disagree.



You're entire point is predicated on this idea that because the Ark was intended for a sustainable, self-replenishing, and environmentally friendly solution to the problems that caused the disaster, that the owners/investors/original inhabitants of the Ark somehow owe it to the refugees to let them stay there and make sure they are as comfortable as they are themselves. I find that pretty silly.
The Ark was intended to house 5000 people. It's at 50k now. There's a point where it just becomes rational self-interest to say "sorry, there's just not enough," and let the chips fall where they may afterward. The idea that you think you're somehow "better" or more important than the other guy is not some form of douchebaggy elitism in a survival situation, it's just basic human instinct.
If the poop hit the fan tomorrow, I'm of course going to make sure that my family and I are well-fed and comfortable before worrying about anyone else. Like I said, I would not be opening up my chest freezer and living room up to every Tom, dike and Harry that wasn't as well prepared, because all it would serve to do is degrade my quality of life, and probably not do much good for anyone else for very long. A chest freezer full of food could possibly sustain a family long enough for them to adapt to a ruined earth and learn how to support themselves. It may give them a chance to rebuild humanity. However, split between 50 people, it would last about 3 days and everyone would die.

It has nothing to do with class at all. It's a matter of survival.

+1 to buckshot,

it is almost irrational to give up your life to others in that situation.

scenario: Nuclear Weapons go off in your state/country, you have enough fresh air, food and water for your family, but your neighbors, who didn't prepare are banging on your safe room wanting you to let them in. what do you do?

Me: i will not let them in. if they try to risk the life of my family, i will personally put them down. This is why I support the Security more than Resistance.

Also the plan in case of the Zombie apocalypse.

yup, and i am almost ready for that too...

as am i sir, although it's surprisingly difficult to prepare properly in my area :cryvaultboy:

I like the fact that Buckshot is among of the few folks with a mind that can actually see the bigger picture.

This isn't a matter of "someone doesn't have enough food to survive, should I give them some", this is a matter of the existence of the human race. The decision making is not comparable because of the immense amount of factors involved in the latter.

As for you disagreeing with it being a "by definition" situation, perhaps you have a different definition of the words. For reference, the rough definitions I'm working from...

"e·lit·ism –noun 1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite. "

The founders are an elite, and are in fact enforcing rule. Again, the situation is, by definition a demonstration of elitism.

"class·ism?–noun 1. a biased or discriminatory attitude based on distinctions made between social or economic classes. "

The founders maintain the distinction between "founders" and "refugees", as well as the physical separation, which is, again, a by definition demonstration of classism.

The "why" for which they do it does not change what it is, and I never said that they didn't have reasons for doing it, or that they were bad people for doing so.



At this point I'm fairly sure you're not arguing against a point that I'm making, but rather some misinterpretation, possibly based on your definitions of classism and elitism. At no point am I suggesting that the founders owe it to them to stay there or make them comfortable.

I gave an answer to the question of why they weren't using an airport for housing for the refugees. You "lold" at my response for reasons that again seem to stem from your definition of elitism or classism, or possibly from a perception of negative connotations, so I added further context to the situation which I was describing in the original post, complete with the "facts" as they have been handed to us by SD.

The "point" is that keeping the refugees out of the unused airport goes beyond not wanting to share resources, because the refugees are living on the Ark, in container city or in the airport doesn't change that and doesn't change the resource consumption. There's some other reason at play. There is a reason they wish to keep them separate.

As I said "If the concern is dwindling resources, where the refugees are living is not an issue, the fact that they are living at all is the issue."

Max Brooks "Zombie Survival Guide" great book a how to...to zombies

my guess its close to where the founders are they wouldn't let the resistance so close

I am a proud owner of that book.

Also I hear a movie in the works about the other book called World War Z. Which may feature Brad Pitt, which would be awesome to see him killing Zombies.

coll tidbit, Max Brooks is the son of Mel brooks (made Robin Hood men in tights, spaceballs. and a bunch of good originaly parody movies)

Yeah they are making a movie of WWZ i hope my fav stories are in there from it though love the blind swordsmen

love the books, i read survival guide multiple times and i was hoping zombieland would have been about survival guide but it wasn't. if you want the blind swordsman in, hopefully they make his part like old school Japanese sword fights like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5npny5uHUM

did y happen to see the graphic novel for WWZ, some of those scenes were awesome. The detailed ankle snap made me cringe cause OW lol

I didn't know they came out with a graphic novel, though money is kind of tight till i get my paycheck, graveyard shift is going to be the shiznit.

i found it randomly. it didnt have everything i believe the book did but it had some great scenes in it.

And even from a pragmatic and realist standpoint, it could be argued that the survival of the human race has a much greater chance of success if fewer people are given more time to adapt to their situation, rather than a mass of people thriving for a short time. But again that's irrelevant to me because I see little value in pragmatism or utilitarian arguments/solutions. They often just end in no one actually getting what they want.



I'm not saying that the Founders aren't classists. I'm not saying that they aren't elitists. I'm not disagreeing with you definition of classism or elitism. What I'm taking issue with is your argument that someone is a classist or elitist by nature of not wanting to surround themselves in squalor in order to to make others more comfortable. It's frankly not a very strong chain of logic.

A) Elitists are people that believe they are better than another group of people;
B ) The Founders do not want to degrade their lifestyle by surrounding themselves with people who already have adequate shelter elsewhere, and may possibly have several other reasons for not wanting to convert a commercial airport into living quarters for thousands of people when it may need to be used in the immediate or even distant future;
c) The founders are elitists.

That is a mighty big gap to close there, Mathonn. It's not a matter of differing definitions or a misunderstanding. It's a matter of a giant logical leap you're taking in order to shore up your premise.

Which is one of several things that I pointed out about the behaviors on the Ark. There's something else motivating how the situation is playing out other than simple interest in survival, and thus it doesn't compare well to your rather direct "black and white" argument of survival.



Actually, the logical steps taken are ...

1. The definition of Elite"— n 1. (as plural ) the most powerful, rich, gifted, or educated members of a group, community, etc"
2. The founders exist on the Ark.
3. The Refugees exist on the Ark.
4. The founders maintain control over the refugees.

Therefore the founders maintain a position as the elite.

It is not a leap, it's 4 simple steps from the definition of elite to the founders being elite.

You're trying to take an action that I stated as being caused by them being elite (your B ) and make it into part of my argument for them being elite, which is not the case. It's a result. As I said, it is a demonstration of the definition.

They are, by definition of the word elite, the elite. They are not considering themselves, nor are they considered by the refugees, equals. They are above them on the class structure, they are the ruling party on the Ark. This is a fact, that is then demonstrated by how they maintain the Ark, including the segragation of the refugees.

I don't think you've even read what I've said. First of all, I know it doesn't compare well, since as you may have read, but apparently ignored, I don't find much value in pragmatic or utilitarian arguments or solutions. I evaluate things by whether they are the most conducive to individual life, liberty, and property over whether they produce the best end result for the largest amount of people. I only used that example in order to explain something to you in terms that you might understand.



Sigh. Again, if you had actually read what I said, half of what you've written here would have not needed to have been written. Here, I'll post it again:



So what exactly is your counterpoint to that? Apparently it's repeating what you've said previously even after I offered up no contention to it. As for your logical flaw, let's make this very clear. Here is the question that was posed in the OP of the thread:



Ok, so you answered:




Ok. So now that we've established some context, let's see if you can pick it up this time. This is a classic case of correlation =/= causation. Yes, the founders are elitists. Not once have I contended this, yet you've continued to repeat it several times, even going so far to post dictionary definitions, as though I had.

However, your given answer to the original question is essentially "the founders don't want the refugees in the airport because they are elitists," which I'm sure may play a role in that, but is still purely conjecture. In order for it to be a sound, logical conclusion, it would necessitate you showing that anyone who would make such a decision under the circumstances would also be an elitist. The implication is such:

1. Jim doesn't like to go hiking because he has blue hair = 1. The Founders don't want the refugees in the Airport because they are elitists
2. People who do not like to hike have blue hair = 2. Anyone who wouldn't want the refugees in the airport is an elitist

The only way one could reach such a conclusion as you did, which takes no other possible explanation into account, or at least puts your first position to the forefront of the matter, is if they followed that chain of logic. Now obviously, not everyone that dislikes hiking has blue hair, and furthermore, just because someone has blue hair, it does not necessitate that they dislike hiking- or at least there isn't enough information present to draw such conclusions. In the same manner, you have no specific way of knowing that the founders don't want the refugees in the airport due to their elitism, and the only way one could draw that as their first, foremost, and most objectively logical conclusion is if they felt that anyone who would deny the use of their living space/property to others, under similar circumstances, was an elitist. Which is why I then responded to your first post with:





And now here we are. So see if you can respond without copy/pasting definitions or repeating the same things you already have- which were never otherwise contended- for a 3rd time.

I continue to suspect we are not arguing the same issue as you seem to sound like I feel and it sounds like you feel that I sound like I feel you sound, so it would seem a good time to figure out where the issue first arose.





AND, as in both factors together. The founders are classists/elitists AND don't want this separate class living within their domain. Based on the rest of the discussion that appears to be the point on which our evaluations diverged. It is not a causitive relationship, implied by the use of AND and not BECAUSE.

I did not say that they are classists/elitisits because they maintain that separation.

Everything afterwords may or may not be disagreements based upon us splitting at this point, so I'm going to wait here and we can (if interested) replay the conversation from this point.

Well, I simply don't believe that that was your original intent of the use of the word "and." In modern day English, when utilized in such a way and in such a context, "and" typically serves as an abbreviation for "and therefore," almost 99% of the time; in my experience. Especially since a typical elitist truly wouldn't want to be surrounded by what they felt was riff-raff. If you did indeed mean to be giving two separate reasons in that sentence, then the first part would sound quite odd as a stand-alone reason; almost redundant or superfluous.

I feel like you're just back-pedaling now.