How do you kill what's already dead?

[rutger5000]

Kill it with fire!

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

Not zombies.

If not zombies, then what?

That which should be dead, and is, but continues walking the earth.

So... a Zombie?

 

[kickassfrog]

It's already dead, someone seems to have already done the job.
Failing that, burn it. Ashes can't hurt more than one or two people

 

[tobi the good boy]

Salt and fire

 

[The_ModeRazor]

You BSoD the SoB.

(hehe. lame.)
Sry, been playing Magicka lately.

 

[ramboondiea]

liberal application of fire and gaffa tape.....there is no problem that cant be solved like that

 

[Reallink]

I'm gonna say seal it in a container made of a material that beats it on Moh's scale of hardness. Assuming it is driven by desire to escape, to feed on brains or whatever its purpose is, it will slowly grind itself away until nothing else remains. Or becomes a ghost. Then you might be stuffed

 

[SinisterGehe]

You can't kill that what is not alive. This is a linguistic problem, not logical.
Something that is living is usually considered to be animated some how, it moves and acts, by removing the force that animates the "dead" object we can kill it.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Destroy the brain or whatever controls the limbs. Failing that, destroy all offensive capabilities, the mobility, and incinerate the remains.

 

[Azrael the Cat]

Not zombies.

If not zombies, then what?

That which should be dead, and is, but continues walking the earth.

Shotgun. That which should be dead, in my opinion, are those which should have gone with natural selection (granted they're mostly people), but science/humanity thinks it's cruel to leave them behind.

It's not living but should be dead, it's what is dead, but still moving.

So it's the living dead but not zombies? That's.... Silly.

No. When Romero invented what we call the 'zombie' genre, none of his films, nor his shooting scripts, used the word 'zombie'. At that point, a 'zombie' referred to the Haitian voodoo legend, where the witchdoctor would raise a corpse from the dead, and that corpse would be his loyal servant. In the original '...of the Dead' trilogy in the 60s/early-70s, no character ever calls them zombies, even after the term 'zombie' entered the lexicon following 'Night of the Dead'. Everyone just refers to them as 'the dead'. In the Night of the Dead shooting script's annotations, they're referred to as 'ghouls' - which actually would have been the correct terminology, a 'ghoul' referring to an undead creature that eats the living.

Strictly speaking, you could call any zombie film a 'ghoul film'.

 

[alinos]

With Fire.

Lot and lots of Fire. Hard for an ash pile to be threatening.

yeah but while its chasing you on fire there are some issues

 

[Harveypot]

Hire a dalek.

 

[James Raynor]

Heal it.

 

[Ardenon]

Forget about it

 

[Neyon]

What you really need to do is ask yourself a question. Will it blend?

A perfect example of the destruction of something which should by all means be dead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko

 

[Your once and future Fanboy]

TURN/REBUKE FTW

 

[RelexCryo]

Kill it harder.

^This. Is win. I am just going to go with this.

 

[Jibblejab]

Kill it. Kill it with fire.

 

[Continuity]

Not zombies.

If not zombies, then what?

That which should be dead, and is, but continues walking the earth.

Sooooooooo. A zombie?

You know, I've heard great things about "destroying the brain"

 

[xqxm]

Introduce said being to exact replica of being in anti-matter, get clear.