Lasombra Demon said, January 09, 2010, 04:25:32 am my grandmother still says 'everyone hates the jews!'.Except you only need one sample to prove a rule false, but you need to prove that there is no sample saying otherwise to prove a rule true. You only need to find one person who doesn't hate jews to prove her wrong, while you would need to check everyone on earth before proving her right.If you want your proof, you find the one person who has records of these other vampires older than a century.
Satan's Three Headed Piñata said, January 09, 2010, 04:26:58 amUh lasombra, is it really worthy to do such a complex taxonomic division of fictional creatures?You'll regret you didn't pay attention to Lasombra's lesson on vampirism when the blood thirsty undead are after you.Mark my words! ... on your arm, with a needle.
Satan's Three Headed Piñata said, January 09, 2010, 04:26:58 amUh lasombra, is it really worthy to do such a complex taxonomic division of fictional creatures?Only when people want to impose their particular vision while claiming it to be the ultimate truth, something I never actually did. I merely asked questions. Truth be told, I do enjoy thinking taxonomic divison and these kind of arguments. Being a tabletop RPG fan, trust me, I feel quite at home. You should meet some guys of my D&D crew. They can argue for hours about stuff, trying to figure out 'who is backed by the most worthwhile canon'.'Tolkien said in 1921 that Dwarves didn't use triple-blade axes!''His son publshed a lost letter in 1963 where he acknowledges that there might be exceptions'Byakko said, January 09, 2010, 04:33:00 amExcept you only need one sample to prove a rule false, but you need to prove that there is no sample saying otherwise to prove a rule true. You only need to find one person who doesn't hate jews to prove her wrong, while you would need to check everyone on earth before proving her right.If you want your proof, you find the one person who has records of these other vampires older than a century.Social studies don't work that way... You are asked to have proof before making conclusions, not asking the community to disprove your non-based theory.Anyway- some versions of the Baital- a rotten corpse-like spirit from India, also known as the trickster Vetala, portrait him as a non-damaged by the sun vampire, yet sparkling if cast under it. There.
QuoteYou are asked to have proof before making conclusions, not asking the community to disprove your non-based theory.So you said that vampires could be pretty much anything, before having proof of it ? Again, vampires have a place in popular culture, it's not quite the same if you grab very different concepts from all around the globe and you decide that they're all called vampires. Or cats, or "creatures".QuoteAnyway- some versions of the Baital- a rotten corpse-like spirit from India, also known as the trickster Vetala, portrait him as a non-damaged by the sun vampire, yet sparkling if cast under it.*checks Wikipedia* Last I heard of it, Twilight's vampires were not spirits that slip into random dead bodies.You're saying only half of the truth each time on purpose here.
Last I heard of it, you were asking for vampires that sparkle in the sun, not that fit completely into Twilight's idea. If that's the criteria, then we agree: I think (PLEASE note the 'I statement') they are totally made up. I also don't like them nor their style at al. Byakko said, January 09, 2010, 04:50:19 amSo you said that vampires could be pretty much anything, before having proof of it ? Every time I said vampires can be pretty much anything I quoted diverse examples, which fit the average 20th century western vampire niche enough to be considered a kind of vampire by some anthropoligsts, while keeping their own cultural backgrounds.On purpose? ??? Dude, don't get so defensive.
QuoteEvery time I said vampires can be pretty much anything I quoted diverse examples.Which I already replied to when talking about felines and creatures.QuoteOn purpose? ??? Dude, don't get so defensive.I can't see how it would not be on purpose considering you already know what you're talking about and you're only saying half of it because it fits your point. You already know vampires from popular culture. You should already know that spirits and possessed corpses from different cultures altogether are different things entirely (or you're calling all yor felines "cats" and "creatures"). You're still calling them vampires even though it was originally clearly the work of some moron who decided the foreign name was too complicated and that it should be called the same as something else they alreadfy knew despite being completely different.
Thing is I'm not going to accept your criteria based on a whim. These 'vampire types' I've mentioned are grouped and considered as such by a ton of sources, including anthropologists and a ton of works which point VERY key similarities.For that matter, I can say that the only a subset of what you consider vampires are 'the real' vampires (let's say, the more seductive and well-dressed vamps, instead of the more 'feral' ones; I think the notion of 'popular culture' you refer to englobes these two), and then critique your own lack of specification.
QuoteThese 'vampire types' I've mentioned are grouped and considered as such by a ton of sources, including anthropoligsts and a ton of works which point VERY key similarities.Which you've made a point of not explaining anywhere before, as you say only half of things. Putting this in the conversation that originated this topic, you should have pretty clearly seen what everyone else was talking about right from the beginning. I mean, the guy didn't even want to hear about Melty Blood vampires, so why do you come and talk about spirits and possessed dead bodies which have clearly nothing to do with it, if not just for the hell of starting a stupid discussion like this one.
Byakko said, January 09, 2010, 05:05:15 amI mean, the guy didn't even want to hear about Melty Blood vampiresWrong. Topic starter didn't post after the initial request.Byakko said, January 09, 2010, 05:05:15 amyou should have pretty clearly seen what everyone else was talking about right from the beginning. [..] if not just for the hell of starting a stupid discussion like this one.This whole thing started when Iced said Demitri doesn't fit into being a vampire, but more of a bat demon, and I politely disagreed. Lasombra Demon said, January 08, 2010, 12:25:02 amThe fire thingy is original, but for the rest... I'ld totally list him as a vampire.Notice the 'I statement'?Lolmechy said, January 08, 2010, 07:22:03 pmonly thing that really makes meltyblood chars vampires is that they suck bloodi mean, THEY DONT EVEN DIE IN SUNLIGHTim not saying that ever vampire should be a bat turning cliche. but it would be nice to see the vampires have atleast a bit more stuff related to the good old vampire stories then just the blood part.hell, even Dio does that. his powers are based off an old indian monster that was later called "indian vampire" once the tales spread to western countrysByakko said, January 08, 2010, 09:02:45 pmQuoteTHEY DONT EVEN DIE IN SUNLIGHTNot all vampires do Note the difference in tones? How Lolmechy is expressing himself from a humble standpoint instead of going all 'Vampires are like this! Everyone agree with my own ideas and notions because they are the are the sole truth, and are what everyone thinks, never mind any possible diversity in opinions!'My plan was never to start a discussion, but perhaps a reasonable exchange of ideas. I dunno, that's what the forum is about, right?Then, in your following post... this pretty much sums up your attitude.Byakko said, January 09, 2010, 03:38:53 amYour broad definition sucks very hard. Byakko said, January 09, 2010, 03:38:53 amI don't give a shit if you have other DIFFERENT creatures that have similar things.Byakko said, January 09, 2010, 03:38:53 amIf you don't like it and want to be a smartass, it's your problem.And here we are.
Polite trolling is still trolling. Curse words are not the only way to be insulting (not that you were being insulting, but don't act like my behavior was all black and yours was all white). And all your things about "I disagree" "my 'I' statements" I already replied to that and your differences in definition when saying I would just call all of them "creatures". Stop bringing up your "different definitions" again and again, you already know what the discussion was about.
Agreed. But insults are always insults, and you certainly were the only one using them in the whole topic. I have not purposely insulted nor trolled you, and I would like you to point me to where you thought I was trolling you or insulting you, so I can either fix it or explain what I meant.Now, how about some self-criticism?Actually, I never thought this topic was getting you that pissed! I apologize if you thought I was teasing you. Never meant to, just disagreeing with you.
QuoteActually, I never thought this topic was getting you that pissed!Not pissed per se, I just don't like it when people are too out of place and insisting on purpose. Like, Iced was a bit too specific with the bat-demon thing, but he didn't drag it on for 3 pages. Saying Heidern could indeed be called a vampire was already pushing the humor and being less and less funny.
Then you might want to review your explaining-what-you-think-is-in-place-while-not-losing-your-temper skillz, no offense. And the whole Heidern thing... people were actually asking about it? I never thought it was either funny (never meant it as a joke) nor a boring topic (I personally find it nice), just an entertaining topic which could lead to a polite exchange of ideas. Plus, the topic starter already had our replies in page 1, so no harm done. ???I am a bit of a hardhead sometimes when it comes to asking what people think and why, but 99% of the times it is out of a sincere true attempt to understand them.Lasombra Demon said, January 09, 2010, 05:19:06 amLighten up, it was a joke.Except for that one. That was pure trolling, I confess and admit.
Oh wow at this.My criteria for vampires is pretty broad but...Humanoid sans fangs. FANGS ARE REQUIRED. FUCK TWILIGHT. Red or Yellow eyes. Stronger than human. Awesome superpowers totally possible.SOME reason why they can't go into sun too much, or at all. (Sensitive skin, lol Bursting into flame. Deathly pale skin could work in certain settings too.)Drinking human blood : |. Dio uses the pimp arm method.Turning other humans. Doesn't matter if its forcing them to drink the vampire's blood, or simply biting them. Nrvnsqr is exempt here, as he fucking eats them. As in entrails everywhere oh god gore gore gore RUN.As far as garlic, crosses, running water, etc go, these depend on whether the vampires are undead or biological, and just author crap.Immortality to any extent of the word is pretty much required.So.... uh wow I ranted.Oh, and....[size=50pt]FUCK TWILIGHT.[/size]
To clarify : I wasn't trying to be funny nor asking an honest question when I said that about Heidern. I just wanted to know what would LSD said if a I told him that a "normal" human would fit in his definition of vampires.
Some authors go as far as to fit average serial killers who drank blood/had blood fetishes as vampires. The 'bloody countess' Erzebeth Bathory, being a classic case.My personal criteria of 'Vampire' tends to group 'life-force' predatory drinkers into supernaturals and non-supernaturals. The last ones are grouped into living and undead. Those are grouped into 'spirits' who possess a corpse (be their own or not) and situations were the corpse is immediatly reanimated after 'death' without the 'spirit' leaving the body.So, according to this... do Succubi qualify as a type of vampire? Yup. Do Serial Killers who kill someone to drink blood qualify as vampires? Yep. Do totally shitty Buffy and Twilight qualify as vampires? Yep.Just because I say I consider them to be 'vampires', I never said I liked them all the same, or I think they all are the same.
Twilight has semi human diamond golems fueled by blood. . . . . . . .Suppose than counts.... sorta. I think.Still suck.And while I may have not watched Buffy, I'm pretty positive that shit didn't sparkle.Also, drinking blood has to be a requirement on some level for the vampire to live, maintain their powers, or their immortal looks. Serial killers can't fit because its a choice. Twilight vampires actually didn't fit this because they were stupidly immortal, and couldn't even die of not drinking blood. I think fire was really the only way to kill them.
Sacchin said, January 09, 2010, 06:33:23 amAlso, drinking blood has to be a requirement on some level for the vampire to live, maintain their powers, or their immortal looks. Serial killers can't fit because its a choice.VERY interesting remark. Never thought of that... hum, makes sense. That's the kind of comment I was expecting, now you've forced me to rethink my idea. Hum, maybe I should change the definition from 'just-nourishment-focused' to 'predators driven by a physiological or psychological lustful urge to consume life-force'.
Some Melty blood vampires are different. Arcueid for example, is the origin of all vampires, she is the perfect being of the Earth in every possible way, therefore sunlight doesn't affect her. She is not a clasic vampire, I might compare her to Cars from Jojo's Bizarre Adventure, that guy, even though he can't stand sunlight, wasn't really a vampire, he was the origin of vampires in Jojo's. He wanted to become perfect so he could walk under the sun, and he succeeded
