[Liberator]

I'll sum up my feelings on the matter with the following:

Vampires are horrible, debased, souless killing machines who are an affront to nature and God.  They do NOT under any circumstances sparkle, glow(unless being incinerated in certain situations) or care about anything other than themselves.  They are evil incarnate and should be destroyed in whatever way seems appropriate be it guns, swords, stakes through the heart, flamethrowers, orbital beam weapons, ect.

[Rian]

So when’s your vampire movie coming out? I’d see that.

[iamzack]

Vampires are lame no matter how you play them. What's the word? Oh yeah, overdone.

[Aardwolf]

Vampires are lame no matter how you play them. What's the word? Oh yeah, overdone.

Same goes for zombies.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

Or we could say that the truth of the matter is the fact that I prefer Bram Stoker.  Or even some earlier works, such as Varny the Vampire.  

And Lib, why is a Vampire evil?  Or actually, where do you base this claim?

[SpardaSon21]

Liberator probably bases it off something some religious figure said.  Of course, I doubt even Liberator believes for a second vampires are real.  So that being said, let's all assume vampires do not exist in reality and are purely works of fiction.  Since vampires are of course fiction, that gives us a great deal of leeway to debate on what we would do with them if they existed.  Liberator, if a vampire were little different from a human in terms of needs/wants/desires/concerns, would you still call for their annihilation?

[BloodEagle]

There's actually some sort of genetic defect (I believe) that requires people who have it to drink blood, iirc. So they aren't pure works of fiction.

[iamzack]

Sounds like bull**** to me.

[Liberator]

...if a vampire were little different from a human in terms of needs/wants/desires/concerns, would you still call for their annihilation?

If there were an undersociety of souless bloodsuckers who viewed humanity as little more than cattle for slaking they're various lusts?  Yes, burn them all.
If they were benign asking for what they needed to survive and not actually killing anyone since it makes little logical sense to kill something that makes your food source as a byproduct of it's continued life, then no, I could see a place where a middle ground could be reached.

[SpardaSon21]

Okay then, it seems we are in agreement.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

Hmmmm, I wonder what the Great  American Buffalo would say to that had we not hunted it to extinction.  We don't ask, we don't care how the cow feels about a Big Mac, we just take and take, and why?  Because we can.  That is nature.  A cheetah doesn't ask a baby yak, a hawk doesn't ask a snake, and we don't ask the cow.  So in nature, a species is preyed upon by another.  Not in some benign manner, but violently and painfully.  I would think that a Vampire hunting is exactly natural.  You call it evil because it is hunting humans.  Pretty sure the cow would call you evil for the same reasons. 

The bible says thou shalt not kill.  it doesn't say, thou shalt not kill a human.  I guess in the end we are all evil.  You may not have actually killed, but you certainly have reaped the benefits of it.

[SpardaSon21]

Actually, I think "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation.  I believe it was originally intended to say, "Thou shalt not murder", which says and means something totally different.

And if the vampires are not going around killing humans when they feed, and are not a threat to humanity, is it still right to hunt them down?  They aren't killing us, aren't a food source, and aren't a major competitor for resources.  There's also the small matter of them being sentient.

EDIT: On a somewhat related note, any of you guys seen the previews in theaters for Daybreakers?  I know its coming out next year, but it still looks awesome.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

I agree with that line of questioning.  My thought in all of this goes back to "Why do call them evil?"  or "why do some of us call them evil?"

[gavilatius]

vampires had a name, ones that stalk the night feared by all who believe in them, from vladimir and his castle in what is now russia to blade from marvel, vampires were considered those of great power and wonder, those who stalk the earth damned for eternity... hating humans for they are their only source of survival... now with twilight they shed their faces of horror and put on a gay mask of sparkles and homosexual acts found in tweenie magazines and a whole act of "humans are our friends" attitude... what a waste of a good fable, and a horror story.


twilight saga =  worst parts of the 1950's movie dracula + best parts of beverly hills 90210 (which also sucked)

[Scotty]

I agree with that line of questioning.  My thought in all of this goes back to "Why do call them evil?"  or "why do some of us call them evil?"

Well, this line of thinking most likely (opinion speaking here) results from people thinking, justified or not, that any kind of cannibalism (which vampirism would technically fall under) is an abomination against God/nature/what have you.  Cannibalism (especially against those still living) would be considered evil by people in an age where any and all thought is dictated in some way by Church doctrine, no (speaking of Europe here)?

Old conceptions are hard to break. 

(That, and whether they [vampires] like it or not, killing you is going to seem pretty evil from your perspective.)

[mxlm]

(Now, the gender politics that Twilight describes are problematic on their own, but that's not generally what the scorn is focused on.)

It's amusing that, at least according to the folks who read it, the leaked draft of the book that was basically retelling book 1 from Edward's perspective actually had him acknowledge that he's a scary ****ing stalker. I do wish Meyers hadn't gotten pissed and decided not to write those, as it would have been interesting to see how self aware she actually is, or perhaps is willing to let her characters be.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

Scotty that's my point:  seems evil from my perspective.  I agree it would downright piss me off, but then evil is from MY perspective, much the way that beauty is  in the eye of the beholder.

Which then leaves more questions. 

  Is evil a concept that really is dependent merely on point of view?

If not then what is true evil?

I have my own thoughts on this but I am interested in the thoughts of my peers.

[Scotty]

Well, anyone who followed what I posted when I first showed up on HLP will know that I'm a Christian.  As such, A lot of what the Bible says to be evil I consider to be evil (in most cases.  In others, if it only harms them, they can do whatever the hell they want.).

However, I doubt everyone here will ascribe to my views on evil, even if I were to hold them as universal (which I try not to, but fail at frequently.)  I will still consider it to arbitrarily evil, but it really comes down to whatever floats your boat and doesn't sink mine.

[Liberator]

Put quite simply, Evil is that which works at odds to the Creators design.

There are certain behaviors and actions that have been shown over and over again to be evil or at the very least negative in the long run for the participants willing or not.  But it's certainly just as evil to ignore such behaviors.

[Spicious]

Put quite simply, Evil is that which works at odds to the Creators design.

I thought your version of the creator's design was supposed to be unknowable. How could you determine what is at odds with a certain design without seeing the entire universe anyway?