(June 4, 2012 at 9:03 pm)liam Wrote: It seems pretty logical to assume that he was inebriated
I didn't. I considered that he might have been in the streets due to alcoholism (IE no money because spent all on booze).
I have only speculated as to his survival, as the shock of having one's face chewed off would normally have overwhelmed most people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_%28circulatory%29
I also noted in other articles they talked about his immune system. So I put two and two together and conjectured that the vasodilation of alcohol might have assisted the victim survive the shock of traumatic facial savagery.
(June 4, 2012 at 9:03 pm)liam Wrote: but the fact of the matter that I am focussing on is that he had his face chewed off by another man, I don't think there is really anything that he could possibly have done to warrant what is widely publicised to be a 'zombie attack'.
No one here has spoken about the victim provoking the attack. I'm not certain where you got that idea.
(June 4, 2012 at 9:03 pm)liam Wrote: Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that what is published is wrong but when you place a slant on a story of cannibalistic attack whereby you criticise the victim for being an alcoholicThe media article is written with a slant.
(June 4, 2012 at 9:03 pm)liam Wrote: (which, admittedly, he was) and portray the attacker as a bible-reading christian (which is, in context, supposed to mean he was a moral person, for some obscure reason) it hardly seems right to me.Look at the source -- CHICAGO TRIBUNE. Not exactly Los Angeles Times material...
(June 4, 2012 at 9:03 pm)liam Wrote: Perhaps I'm speculating too much but the emotional state of the man must be pretty fucked up about now, being sans visage and receiving less sympathy than perhaps he deserves. Yes, being an alcoholic is bad, but eating another man's face is worse.
He's lucky to be alive. I do not know what will become of him -- I hope he does receive the best of care.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more