No, but socket wrenches do.

Fitted to my liking.

if u have been dead, u should not be brought back by unnatural procedures...........its just wrong, though its not fair for people getting murdered for no reason, but guess what life isnt fair.

i am totally against this from what i understand about it right now.
CPR and pacemakers and w/e prevents death not bringing it back from the dead although some people have been dead for like 2 mins .....thats different

and blood is vital and cant be replaced....im also agaisnt blood trans. thought organ trans is diff. they clean the organ.

You're against blood transfusions? Wow.

First of all, I don't think that it would be an easy task to "stumble upon" the name Herbert West. So we can rule that out since I've been familiar with the story for nearly ten years. However, the way that you're providing information makes it seem like you just looked it up and pasted what you found here (either that, or you're a Lovecraft fanatic). Secondly, I'm comparing the two because (believe it or not) they both share the same topic. The topic that they share is reviving the dead medically. So imagine now why I would compare the two. Fiction or not, these scientists are apparently taking a fictional idea and making it very real.

You think they don't clean blood? You think the blood you receive in transfusions isn't checked time and time again for diseases and other illnesses?

I don't understand why you are against blood transfusions - the blood is screened, there is nothing "wrong" about it, and it most assuredly saves lives. Even though organs are cleaned in transplant situations, there is still some blood present - does that make them wrong now too?

So you would rather little Timmy die, then give the little slugger a second chance at life? Your a bad, bad man.

Place me in the fanatic category.

And sorry, it sounded like you were using it as a historical reference to base your opposition on.

ttammatt- But.. they didn't die out 'in the field' and then you bring them back.. They're alive when they're brought in..

Yup.

my religion blood is holy, even if it is cleaned and i alrdy knew that

and they clean the organs out, some people dont like organ trans. but thats the person

The entire argument that 'if we had braught back... maybe something wouldn't have happened.' is absolutelly silly. We can agree that [Fate is real wether you believe in it or not; because it's the one concept that simply cannot be proven right or wrong without standing still and watching fate take place] Fate cannot be altered by man, and if it somehow can, than there's no way we can save our fate considering that a single human being did something that alters every other human being's fate from thereon, and so on, and so on [Which prooves that fate can't possibly be 'altered' because everything we do would have to be in an effort to meet that fate, else fate couldn't exsist]. So if this new breakthrough were to change our fate, than so be it. We don't know what our fate is going to be in the first place, and so many things have already altered our fate that it's impossible to say that fate is something that can be offended, or altered.

And to say that this would 'change the world' and is thus 'bad' says that the lightbulb is an bad invention that has spit in the face of fate. Change is necissary for progression, and if progression is wrong, than faith in god above is just as 'wrong' [not 'god isn't real' it's that believing in him must be WRONG and not right] because to become closer to god one must progress.

And you people don't understand the concept of death. We as humans have defined death ourself. Death is defined by our reference point. If a creature is unconcience and is not functioning, we consider them dead. However, if suddenly they came back to 'life' [as we define it] they were only not functioning from our perspective for a period of time. Considering that 'unnatural' is considering the air the trees make to be 'manufactured.'

You have to realize that I'm a naturalist. I don't take pain medications, I don't take cold medications, etc, etc. That doesn't mean I'm a dumbass; I only take a medication if I need it, and only then. Even a naturalist as myself sees this as humanly necissary as possible. The only reason I'm a naturalist is to build up my own defence systems, and keep healthy.

It amazes me at the amount of closed minded people there are in the world. There is literally NO argument that any one human being could make that I couldn't directly turn around to support this medical find. Disagreeing with medical discovery is disagreeing with your own exsistance.

The only time an extension of death is incorrect is when you die of old age or natural suicide [Heart attack etc], because life without death suddenly makes the persuit of life meaningless, and takes the denominator out of the equation of life. Without that, there's no underscore to your acheivements.

JediKirby

There's still blood on the organs...Nightwind said that already.

How do you figure.. people are presumed "dead" alot and brought back to life in emergency situations. I'm not going to say all the time but it does happen already... It seems to me like them using the shock machine on someone to jump start their heart but just in a different. Maybe more effective way.

Ever considered that your religion might be...wrong?

Naah. It proves that dead things can be bought to life. I think the whole dabbling with nature should stop. I dont like the idea of turning dead dogs into zombies. Necromancy should be left alone, and this what it actually is.

~Backburner~

And that, my friends, is natural selection. When I need open-heart surgery they'll pump me full of delicious O+. Then ttammatt needs open-heart surgery he dies.

I wish some people would read the article.

And I also wish the article didn't refer to them as 'zombie dogs,' because they aren't. They're dogs that have been 'killed' in a very controlled situation, and then carefully revived.

Granted, this isn't exactly a supernatural force...but I think it applies still.

That doesn't really make sense. Consider near-death experiences (if you believe in them). Had one myself on the operating table at two years old (perhaps even younger) and still remember it.

I thought they proved that "near-death experience" was just dreaming.

If God picks you to die. You should.
I hate doctor's playing God.

I knew someone would quote a dictionary. But definitions are pretty much meaningless; a word means what people think it means. Asking someone what "zombie" was, they'd describe something like this:



not this:

Well, then we should close down all the doctors offices, hospitals and pharmacies, then. I mean, all this illness and disease and injuries and dying is surely part of God's plan. We wouldn't want to interfere with that.

Correct.

There's a difference between fixing somebody's heart and bringing them back from the dead (more than a few seconds after death, so you don't pull that "what about resuscitation" bs on me.)

And a word means what the dictionary says it means. Just because you might think a syzygy is a type of bird doesn't mean it's so.

You're getting so worked up over nothing. I WAS KIDDING. It's called SARCASM. Jeeze..., I think healing someone through medical practice is totally fine, but if someone has been dead for over 5 minutes... reviving them is just wrong.

I was talking to Vinny. This is one of those magical times when internet sarcasm actually worked :p

simply incredible

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

But dictionaries often disagree. The best definition of zombie that my dictionary (Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition) has is "in West Indian supersition, a supernatural power through which a corpse supposedly is brought to a state of trancelike animation and made to obey the commands of the person exercising the power; a corpse so animated." That hardly describes these dogs, unless the writer actually meant they were an alcoholic beverage. So how can you use a dictionary in an arguement if dictionaries can't even agree with each other? Words are more than just their defination. Since you're so fond of dictionaries, go look up 'connotation.'

Back to my original point though. Regardless of what dictionaries may say, 'zombie' is a just poor word to call these dogs. It's too misleading.

But dictionaries can disagree--there can be varying meanings of a word, depending on context. This context was fine, according to said definition. You're just saying it's a bad definition...for no reason.

I'm just saying it was misleading, because this guy seems to have the wrong idea:

From Wiki:


These dogs aren't undead, aren't revived by supernatural means, don't create dread, and don't cannibalize.

That's not the definition I was using. You seem to have one definition of zombie burned into your mind, and you think all other ones are wrong. Just because it doesn't fit your definition, doesn't mean it's wrong.

But that's the definition I'm using. And that's what a zombie is, becuase that's what the dictionaries most commonly say, and what most people think. But I don't want to argue this anymore, it's pointless, all we can do is throw definitions at each other. It's just a misleading word, and that's all I'm saying.

But it's not. It's misleading to you because you have ONE definition of zombie in your mind as opposed to realizing there are many. It's like saying bear is a misleading word when talking about supporting something, as opposed to the animal.

Isn't it quite the opposite? A word means what people say it means, thats why the meanings of words change over time.

This is sort of true, but it takes an OVERWHELMING number of people to say a word means such and such. As a general rule of thumb, a word means what the dictionary says if the meaning's disputed. I suppose I should've been more clear.

If God really existed and wanted you to die, wouldn't that happen anyways? I mean, if mere humans can thwart God's will then how is he a god?

...except the person isn't "dead" if he/she isn't gone for good.