How many did Lestat kill?

[A. Astrid Scott]

On 29 Nov 1996, Francis Martinstein wrote:
> Yoshiwara <ath...@muenchen.org> wrote:
> > Quoth carolyn hillard <caro...@wko.com> on Tue, 26 Nov 1996

I must interrupt here and add my own thoughts on the matter. I've been
following this thread for the past week and have been trying to make
sense of it. So forgive me if some of my comments seem to be out of left
field.

> > But it's perfectly acceptable (for some people at
> > least) for humans to kill foxes just for fun, and if a fox
> > could kill a human it wouldn't be all joy on the human side,
> > but it wouldn't be called murder either. It would be
> > accounted to nature. Our vampires suffer from not being
> > completely non-human.
>
> Our vampires suffer from being cheerily unethical. And they know it.
> There just isn't any way around that, which was much of the point of IWTV.

Unethical? I'm not sure I can buy that they are unethical. Can you hold
a vampire by the same standards as humans? We can argue till the end of
time, whether vampires retain their humanity, but the fact remains that
they are physically altered into a new form. They are no longer
Homosapiens once the spirit enters the body. I would say that the
ethical choice begins and ends with the initial decision to become a
vampire. After that, is all she wrote.

The vampire has different desires, different needs (both physical and
mental), and different understandings of the world. They no longer see
it the same, every sense has been altered. How can they possibly be
expected to live by the moral code of humans, when "human" is what they
are not?

Angels in the mystic traditions of Judaism and Christianity, where much
like the vampires in Anne Rices stories (save the angst, as they were
certain of God's will), they were feared beings, whom one did not call
upon as it was forbidden, just as it was forbidden to call upon a demon.
They were avenging, powerful, and without regret. They killed entire
populations for the greater good. Are they less evil because it was
God's will?

I would say no. They are spirit beings that see the world in a very
different light. They can't be expected to pity us, or care for us. They
do what they are told. Vampires, on the other hand, have no one to tell
them anything. They, in essence, become the "Ubermench" and must create
their own moral code to live by.

Onto the "death" argument:

Death is death. I agree with Francis. From the perspective of the
victim and the rest of the human world, no form is different then any
other. Who is damnedable, is a different story. Hitler versus Lestat?
It is Hitler, hands down, that would burn first. For I believe that
intention is the key that we are missing here. Hitler's intentions were
to kill off an entire portion of the human race because he didn't like
them. Lestat, no matter what depth he sunk to, was never so malicious.
Lestat's intention, we learn from TVL, was to do good. Even at the
concert, breaking all the rules, etc., his intention was to expose
vampires to the mortal world. Warn them. The road to hell is paved
with good intentions, you say. Perhaps. But look at it this way,
Lestat would have killed a Hitler, just as he would a serial killer.
Hitler would have employed a Lestat to help in the cause. Who is the
more dangerous monster?

Also take into consideration that individiuals, such as Hitler, can lead
an entire country - an entire ideology - astray. Vampires have not
nearly such powers, lone predators that they are.

I'm not sure where that leads us in the discusion of vampires and
ethics. I really don't think that ethics can be dictated, or are by
any means, universal.

<\/><\/><\/>
Astrid "Tonight - we'll build a bridge across the sea and land"
<\/><\/><\/> --U2

[caro...@aol.com]

"A. Astrid Scott" wrote on
Tue, 3 Dec 1996

>I must interrupt here and add my own thoughts on the matter. I've been
>following this thread for the past week and have been trying to make
>sense of it. So forgive me if some of my comments seem to be out of left

>field.

But of course. Always feel free to jump in.

>Unethical? I'm not sure I can buy that they are unethical. Can you hold

>a vampire by the same standards as humans? We can argue till the end of
>time, whether vampires retain their humanity, but the fact remains that
>they are physically altered into a new form. They are no longer
>Homosapiens once the spirit enters the body. I would say that the
>ethical choice begins and ends with the initial decision to become a
>vampire. After that, is all she wrote.

Isn't that a little like saying that because a person happens to be born
into a male body, with all the attendant hormones that kick in, that they
cannot, or should not be expected to restrain their sexual urges and stay
faithful to one woman? That it's just not their nature? I'm arguing from
the viewpoint of seeing the vampire as a person first and a vampire
second. You're arguing from the opposite viewpoint. Seeing them as
vampires first.

>The vampire has different desires, different needs (both physical and
>mental), and different understandings of the world. They no longer see
>it the same, every sense has been altered. How can they possibly be
>expected to live by the moral code of humans, when "human" is what they
>are not?

All that is very true. Their perceptions change drastically. Their
experience of the world changes equally drastically. But Anne Rice's
vampires at least are not totally inhuman and judging by all the angst
they suffer and soul-searching they do, they're the ones who feel as if
they need to live by the moral code of humans. They say otherwise at
times. Lestat's the most egregious case of that. But look at his actions!
He's hardly the big bad killing machine he makes himself out to be! They
hold themselves to that standard. And I shall too...

>Angels in the mystic traditions of Judaism and Christianity, where much
>like the vampires in Anne Rices stories (save the angst, as they were
>certain of God's will), they were feared beings, whom one did not call
>upon as it was forbidden, just as it was forbidden to call upon a demon.

>They were avenging, powerful, and without regret. They killed entire
>populations for the greater good. Are they less evil because it was
>God's will?

Supposedly God's will. I've always had problems with regarding such
stories as being reliable as to what was God's will. I don't believe any
of the "holy books" are totally reliable in that respect. They were
written by humans after all. And humans, like vampires, have personal
agendas. They often use God to explain away or cover their own actions in
a cloak of respectibility.

>I would say no. They are spirit beings that see the world in a very
>different light. They can't be expected to pity us, or care for us. They

>do what they are told. Vampires, on the other hand, have no one to tell
>them anything. They, in essence, become the "Ubermench" and must create
>their own moral code to live by.

But don't we all create our own moral code to live by? Humans as well.
Hmmm... Angels do as they are told. Vampires do as they please. And
humans...do both!...:)

>Onto the "death" argument:

>Death is death. I agree with Francis. From the perspective of the
>victim and the rest of the human world, no form is different then any
>other. Who is damnedable, is a different story. Hitler versus Lestat?
>It is Hitler, hands down, that would burn first. For I believe that
>intention is the key that we are missing here. Hitler's intentions were
>to kill off an entire portion of the human race because he didn't like
>them. Lestat, no matter what depth he sunk to, was never so malicious.
>Lestat's intention, we learn from TVL, was to do good. Even at the
>concert, breaking all the rules, etc., his intention was to expose
>vampires to the mortal world. Warn them. The road to hell is paved
>with good intentions, you say. Perhaps. But look at it this way,
>Lestat would have killed a Hitler, just as he would a serial killer.
>Hitler would have employed a Lestat to help in the cause. Who is the
>more dangerous monster?

I still have a problem with equating killing large numbers of people as
opposed to killing one or two at a time as being intrinsically more evil.
Possibly because I do agree with you both that "Ultimately death is
death", no matter the number. Is it more tragic if 100 people burn to
death in a hotel fire, compared to one person dying in a roadway accident?
I don't see that it is. Is it any more tragic if a baby is killed or a 45
year old man? I don't see that it is.

Lestat's intentions I agree, are often good. It's his manner of execution
that gets all cocked up! His staging of the concert results in Akasha
fairly decimating the vampire population.

> I really don't think that ethics can be dictated, or are by
>any means, universal.

I agree. Partly...;) Ethics can't be dictated. We all follow our own
set. Vampire or human. But I diasagree that there aren't any "universal"
ones. I think there are. I may not follow them either. But they're there.
The universe has a few immutable rules I think. Otherwise it wouldn't make
any sense at all.

Carolyn

[A. Astrid Scott]

On 3 Dec 1996 caro...@aol.com wrote:

>
> "A. Astrid Scott" wrote on
> Tue, 3 Dec 1996
>
>

> >Unethical? I'm not sure I can buy that they are unethical. Can you hold
> >a vampire by the same standards as humans? We can argue till the end of
> >time, whether vampires retain their humanity, but the fact remains that
> >they are physically altered into a new form. They are no longer
> >Homosapiens once the spirit enters the body. I would say that the
> >ethical choice begins and ends with the initial decision to become a
> >vampire. After that, is all she wrote.
>
> Isn't that a little like saying that because a person happens to be born
> into a male body, with all the attendant hormones that kick in, that they
> cannot, or should not be expected to restrain their sexual urges and stay
> faithful to one woman? That it's just not their nature?

My, there's a landmine. I'll set aside my adament contempt of marriage
and monogamy, and get to the crux of the biscuit. No, it's not the same.
These are not merely hormonal or gender differences. This is a radical
transformation of a being's very physical nature. Think of it in these
terms; The transformation of Uranium to Lead. Very different elements
with different properties. We don't expect Lead to behave like Uranium,
even though Uranium was the original element. It is now something else
completely.

> I'm arguing from
> the viewpoint of seeing the vampire as a person first and a vampire
> second. You're arguing from the opposite viewpoint. Seeing them as
> vampires first.

It's an important difference in angle. Which part makes us what we are?
Mind or body? Apply the same question to us. Are we humans first and
fore most, or are we persons? Do we take a monastic approach, in which
biophysiology determines the way in with the brain/mind operates?

Yes, I am arguing from a position that they are vampire first, because
that is what we can know. Physically, they are vampires, not humans. The
rest is based on faith argument.

> >The vampire has different desires, different needs (both physical and
> >mental), and different understandings of the world. They no longer see
> >it the same, every sense has been altered. How can they possibly be
> >expected to live by the moral code of humans, when "human" is what they
> >are not?
>
> All that is very true. Their perceptions change drastically. Their
> experience of the world changes equally drastically. But Anne Rice's
> vampires at least are not totally inhuman and judging by all the angst
> they suffer and soul-searching they do, they're the ones who feel as if
> they need to live by the moral code of humans.

That is only natural. They have been enculturated by the societies that
they were born into. Their memories have not been vacuumed out of their
brain.

> They say otherwise at
> times. Lestat's the most egregious case of that. But look at his actions!
> He's hardly the big bad killing machine he makes himself out to be! They
> hold themselves to that standard. And I shall too...

That is the mistake. Their physical nature is now in direct opposition to
the moral code they learned while still human. It is difficult to give up
what one has always believed. But the old code is no longer functional,
everything breaks down, "The center cannot hold..." as Yeats once said.
This is why so many vampires cannot endure eternity, their world no
longer makes sense. If they don't abopt a new ethics, which accomadates
their new physical nature, then they are comdemned to their own misery and
most likely death.

> >I would say no. They are spirit beings that see the world in a very
> >different light. They can't be expected to pity us, or care for us. They
> >do what they are told. Vampires, on the other hand, have no one to tell
> >them anything. They, in essence, become the "Ubermench" and must create
> >their own moral code to live by.
>
> But don't we all create our own moral code to live by? Humans as well.
> Hmmm... Angels do as they are told. Vampires do as they please. And
> humans...do both!...:)

Society, whether we will admit it or not, sets the code we live by.
Durkheim best discribed it when he stated "Even when I free myself from
these rules and violate them sucessfully, I am always compelled to
struggle with them." For survival, the vampire must rise above, as their
very physical natures compelles them to act in a matter which opposes
human contrived social norms.

> >Onto the "death" argument:

snip

> I still have a problem with equating killing large numbers of people as
> opposed to killing one or two at a time as being intrinsically more evil.
> Possibly because I do agree with you both that "Ultimately death is
> death", no matter the number. Is it more tragic if 100 people burn to
> death in a hotel fire, compared to one person dying in a roadway accident?
> I don't see that it is. Is it any more tragic if a baby is killed or a 45
> year old man? I don't see that it is.

If you really believed that, then you would have no problem with the
sacrificing of the many for the few. These decisions happen in war and
natural disaster situations all the time. There is always an attempt to
save as many people as possible, even if that means sacrificing a
few others to do it.

Is it morally right? Well if its not, at least it is pragmatic.

> Lestat's intentions I agree, are often good. It's his manner of execution
> that gets all cocked up! His staging of the concert results in Akasha
> fairly decimating the vampire population.

There is no way Lestat could have had fore knowledge of Akasha's scheme.
This was something that she had been thinking up for quite a long time.
Lestat was a mere convenience in her plan, had it not been him, she still
would have eventually arose to do what she did.

> > I really don't think that ethics can be dictated, or are by
> >any means, universal.
>
> I agree. Partly...;) Ethics can't be dictated. We all follow our own
> set. Vampire or human. But I diasagree that there aren't any "universal"
> ones. I think there are. I may not follow them either. But they're there.
> The universe has a few immutable rules I think. Otherwise it wouldn't make
> any sense at all.

Perhaps it doesn't make sense at all, and we create rules to give order to
our lives, so that we can get ourselves out of bed every morning.

But it remains that we cannot know these ethical rules for certainty, even
if they do exists as universals.

Respectfully,

[caro...@aol.com]

"A. Astrid Scott" wrote on

Wed, 4 Dec 1996

>My, there's a landmine. I'll set aside my adament contempt of marriage
>and monogamy, and get to the crux of the biscuit. No, it's not the same.
>These are not merely hormonal or gender differences. This is a radical
>transformation of a being's very physical nature. Think of it in these
>terms; The transformation of Uranium to Lead. Very different elements
>with different properties. We don't expect Lead to behave like Uranium,
>even though Uranium was the original element. It is now something else
>completely.

Landmine? <looks around innocently> What landmine?...;) And I do admire
the
way you sidestepped it, by the way...:)
As to vampires and elements...well...if elements have souls then I might
tend
to agree with that line of reasoning. I think that vampires have souls
however and elements do not, which invalidates the comparison to a large
degree.

Of course, that only raises another question... Does the conversion from
being human to being vampire affect the soul in any way or merely the
physical nature of the person? And if it does, in what way? When I refer
to
soul I'm using it as an inclusive term for spirit/intellect. Is the soul
of
a vampire different from a human's. How?

>> I'm arguing from
>> the viewpoint of seeing the vampire as a person first and a vampire
>> second. You're arguing from the opposite viewpoint. Seeing them as
>> vampires first.

>It's an important difference in angle. Which part makes us what we are?
>Mind or body? Apply the same question to us. Are we humans first and
>fore most, or are we persons? Do we take a monastic approach, in which
>biophysiology determines the way in with the brain/mind operates?

This goes along totally with the questions I asked above. At this moment
in
time I believe it's the mind/spirit that makes us what we are, and that
anything to do with the physical may "impel" us to behave in a certain
way,
but it does not "compel" us to. I believe the same holds true for vampires
because I see the soul as relatively immutable, something which will
remain
fairly constant no matter what the changes to the physical container might
be. From that standpoint we are all persons first, before we are either
human or vampire.

>Yes, I am arguing from a position that they are vampire first, because
>that is what we can know. Physically, they are vampires, not humans.
The
>rest is based on faith argument.

Well...not faith argument really...at least in my case. More an internal
certainty in knowing what is the stronger factor in my own existence. If
I
choose to follow my physical inclinations it is no more or less than
because
I did indeed *choose* to do so. It is just really difficult for me to
fathom
that a vampire...with all those other abilities and faculties far superior
to
my human ones, would then be far less able than I am to thwart his own
physical nature. That he would have no choice in the matter.

<stuff snipped for space>

>That is the mistake. Their physical nature is now in direct opposition
to
>the moral code they learned while still human. It is difficult to give
up
>what one has always believed. But the old code is no longer functional,
>everything breaks down, "The center cannot hold..." as Yeats once said.
>This is why so many vampires cannot endure eternity, their world no
>longer makes sense. If they don't abopt a new ethics, which accomadates
>their new physical nature, then they are comdemned to their own misery
and
>most likely death.

If this is the case then the perfect vampires would seem to be children
who
are young enough not to have yet assimilated the moral code...such as
Claudia.

I have a question for you. Have any of the vampires in the Chronicles
managed
to adopt that new ethic successfully?

>Society, whether we will admit it or not, sets the code we live by.
>Durkheim best discribed it when he stated "Even when I free myself from
>these rules and violate them sucessfully, I am always compelled to
>struggle with them." For survival, the vampire must rise above, as their
>very physical natures compelles them to act in a matter which opposes
>human contrived social norms.

Ok...as I was reading this, I was suddenly struck with a rather gruesome
human comparison to what you are saying here. I'm speaking of the
incidents
in history where humans on the edge of starvation and death ate other
humans
in order to stay alive. I think I can see your argument better on physical
compulsion if I think of it in terms of that.

>There is no way Lestat could have had fore knowledge of Akasha's scheme.
>This was something that she had been thinking up for quite a long time.
>Lestat was a mere convenience in her plan, had it not been him, she still
>would have eventually arose to do what she did.

You're right on that methinks. I just chose a bad example of what I was
trying to convey.

>But it remains that we cannot know these ethical rules for certainty,
even
>if they do exists as universals.

I *totally* agree with this! Hey...bet you didn't think that would ever
happen did you?...;)

Carolyn

[Francis Martinstein]

A. Astrid Scott <elsi...@eskimo.com> wrote...

> On 29 Nov 1996, Francis Martinstein wrote:
> > Yoshiwara <ath...@muenchen.org> wrote:

> > > Quoth carolyn hillard <caro...@wko.com> on Tue, 26 Nov 1996

>
> I must interrupt here and add my own thoughts on the matter. I've been
> following this thread for the past week and have been trying to make
> sense of it. So forgive me if some of my comments seem to be out of left

> field.

The more the merrier!

(Oh, and forgive me in advance for maybe becoming too engrossed in the
argument. It sometimes happens that I take something so seriously and try
to treat it as such, that my part in it all begins to smell of legalese.
I'll try to constrain m'self a little more this time)

> > > But it's perfectly acceptable (for some people at
> > > least) for humans to kill foxes just for fun, and if a fox
> > > could kill a human it wouldn't be all joy on the human side,
> > > but it wouldn't be called murder either. It would be
> > > accounted to nature. Our vampires suffer from not being
> > > completely non-human.
> >
> > Our vampires suffer from being cheerily unethical. And they know it.
> > There just isn't any way around that, which was much of the point of
IWTV.
>

> Unethical? I'm not sure I can buy that they are unethical. Can you hold

> a vampire by the same standards as humans?

Ummm, yes, I believe so.... Aren't ethics (more or less) supposed to be
universal?

> We can argue till the end of time, whether vampires retain their
humanity, but the fact remains that
> they are physically altered into a new form. They are no longer
> Homosapiens once the spirit enters the body. I would say that the
> ethical choice begins and ends with the initial decision to become a
> vampire.

I'm not sure that I quite follow your line of reasoning.... I was (mainly)
looking at the matter from the perspective of the people being killed,
though I'm just as aware as any AR reader that her vampires are very
different form humans.

> After that, is all she wrote.
>

> The vampire has different desires, different needs (both physical and
> mental), and different understandings of the world. They no longer see
> it the same, every sense has been altered. How can they possibly be
> expected to live by the moral code of humans, when "human" is what they
> are not?

Oooohhh, now that's a dangerous thing to say. Different perceptions and
states of being would incur completely different ethical codes if you'd
follow up on that. The same excuse could be used for people so high on
drugs that their perceptions would make it ethical for them to do just
about anything....

> Angels in the mystic traditions of Judaism and Christianity, where much
> like the vampires in Anne Rices stories (save the angst, as they were
> certain of God's will), they were feared beings, whom one did not call
> upon as it was forbidden, just as it was forbidden to call upon a demon.

> They were avenging, powerful, and without regret. They killed entire
> populations for the greater good. Are they less evil because it was
> God's will?

<BLUSH> Suddenly I feel ashamed for never having cared much for religion.
You could be right, I really wouldn't know. But ehhh, I also don't really
see where this is relevant?

> I would say no. They are spirit beings that see the world in a very
> different light. They can't be expected to pity us, or care for us. They

> do what they are told.

Sort of like 'Befehl ist Befehl' from the Nazi-period?
Following orders can never be an excuse for loosening morals, never.
Also, if your angels aren't supposed to feel anything of connexion to us
humble humans, then what are they here for anyway? From a christian POV,
mankind is much of the point of God's creation, or so I understood?

> Vampires, on the other hand, have no one to tell
> them anything. They, in essence, become the "Ubermench" and must create
> their own moral code to live by.

Scary stuff, this. Very scary.
Needless to say, I don't subscribe to your 'different ethical codes for
different perceptual species' theory at all. Ethics are (or are at least
supposed to be) universal, no matter the context, no matter the race (as in
human vs. non-human). As I stated waaaay at the beginning of this thread:
from a human point of view the taking of a life cannot be justified easily,
Lestat's cheery comment that humans taste soooo much better than animals is
a VERY poor excuse for killing people, it's really nothing more than gross
self-indulgence.. And if you ask me, so is Louis' no longer caring about
anything just 'cause Claudia died ('Feeding on those who cross my path').

>
> Onto the "death" argument:
>
> Death is death. I agree with Francis. From the perspective of the
> victim and the rest of the human world, no form is different then any
> other. Who is damnedable, is a different story. Hitler versus Lestat?
> It is Hitler, hands down, that would burn first. For I believe that
> intention is the key that we are missing here. Hitler's intentions were
> to kill off an entire portion of the human race because he didn't like
> them.

I certainly agree with you that Hitler's intentions were monstrous. The
whole racial theory was a very cold way of viewing humanity and its
purpose. Although his cruelty could partially be accounted for by his
experiences at the Western Front, nothing can excuse the holocaust. But
when you move on to intention, then I fear that a horrible catch awaits.
You see, it might (and I say 'might') be argued that even Hitler had, in
his own contorted way, good intentions for his intended 'masterrace'. That
the means for assuring its hegemony are inexcusable is no doubt true, but
even his intentions may have been good.

> Lestat, no matter what depth he sunk to, was never so malicious.
> Lestat's intention, we learn from TVL, was to do good. Even at the
> concert, breaking all the rules, etc., his intention was to expose
> vampires to the mortal world. Warn them. The road to hell is paved
> with good intentions, you say.

One of the roads to Hell is. Most of the faster routes are paved with far
worse intentions.
Here's the catch then: I'm not so sure Lestat's intentions were all that
good. The reasons for the concert were mostly his ego and his Captain
Hook-style wish for a 'grand old war' between vampires and humans. As for
most of the extravagant killing he did, I'm not sure it could be seen as
well-intended. The ploy about the 'evildoers' always sounded weak to me,
since it mostly involved petty crime (e.g. highwaymen) and never dared to
approach the question what 'true evil' really is (and who could be held
accountable for it) and if a term such as 'evil' has any validity outside
the linear world of fairy tales. In short I would say that Lestat's killing
was elegantly unethical and Hitler's was at least more than the satiating
of a recurring appetite which could have been appeased without killing.
Hitler had a very bad excuse, whereas Lestat had none at all.
(Oh, and BTW, people like Stalin and Mao killed far more people than
Hitler. With equal intent, yet of their own race. With no more reason than
to clean out the opposition. When it comes to the wanton indulgence of
sheer bloodlust and powerplay, they might make a fairer comparison than an
ideological madman like Hitler.)

>
> Also take into consideration that individiuals, such as Hitler, can lead
> an entire country - an entire ideology - astray. Vampires have not
> nearly such powers, lone predators that they are.

Very doubtful, considering the effect they often have on humans. If they
put their mind to it (e.g. Azim) they could probably greatly outdo Hitler.

>
> I'm not sure where that leads us in the discusion of vampires and

> ethics. I really don't think that ethics can be dictated, or are by
> any means, universal.

Ethics should be sensed instinctively and agreed with logically (that's
called 'Phase III' in ethical awareness, I believe). As I've stated a few
times above, I really do think that they are universal.

Anyone else feel like joining in?

>
>
>
> <\/><\/><\/>
> Astrid "Tonight - we'll build a bridge across the sea and land"
> <\/><\/><\/> --U2
>

Francis
----------

' Treason, like beauty, lies in the Eye of the Beholder ' - Elim Garak
from DS9

[KL]

I won't attach the entire thread because it is coming up too clumsy on
the screen, besides, this is not adding anything to the argument, only
thanking a couple of people.

A. Astrid Scott: you have summated the vampire's lot brilliantly.
This is the essence of what the Vampchrons are all about I feel, these
questions are as relevant to ourselves as to the vampires, and this is
why we are so fascinated by these tales, because we question ourselves
and our own 'truths'. What we must understand is that there is no
universal truth, only what we have created out of essences.
Thank you to both Astrid and Carolyn for a thought-provoking debate.
This is what makes ABAR so good.
===K.L.===

[Lady Black Death]

On 5 Dec 1996, Francis Martinstein wrote:

> A. Astrid Scott <elsi...@eskimo.com> wrote...
>
> > On 29 Nov 1996, Francis Martinstein wrote:
> > > Yoshiwara <ath...@muenchen.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Our vampires suffer from being cheerily unethical. And they know it.
> > > There just isn't any way around that, which was much of the point of
> IWTV.
> >
> > Unethical? I'm not sure I can buy that they are unethical. Can you hold
> > a vampire by the same standards as humans?
>
> Ummm, yes, I believe so.... Aren't ethics (more or less) supposed to be
> universal?

No. And greetings, all! Hope you were serious about "the more the
merrier", Doc. :) I'm sure this has been noted before, I just couldn't
find it in the thread. Vampires are simply higher on the food chain than
humans. If one were to declare the food chain the "natural order", (i.e.
wolves eat deer, deer eat grass, consumption of your specific food source
is in the natural order and therefore not evil) then there is no moral or
ethical code to call into question. Vampires prey upon humans. And
because We are humans, does not make this wrong, just disagreeable. I'm
sure the deer have a few opinions about wolves, but it does not cast
wolves as morally or ethically bankrupt.

There is also the stickier question of judging historical creatures by the
"ethics and morals" of today's standards. It does not necessarily apply
in this case, except to call into question the thought that ethics are
"universal". In no way are they universal. They're not even global. In
some instances, they're not even continental. They change per the people,
and it is a dangerous thing indeed to walk into another way of life and
find it "Wrong" by your own standards.

Yes, the line must be drawn somewhere. I've seen Hitler discussed on this
thread. But, excepting global genocide (which is nothing a vampire
practices anyway) I'd be wary of casting sweeping ethical judgements.

Lisa
Lady Black Death

"I spend every Halloween weekend in the company of creatures far more
dangerous than vampires, werewolves and goblins. I spend it with
writers." - Shawna McCarthy, editor, "Realms of Fantasy"

Now booking for New Orleans Tours - Mail me for details! :)

[A. Astrid Scott]

On 5 Dec 1996 caro...@aol.com wrote:

> "A. Astrid Scott" wrote on
> Wed, 4 Dec 1996
>
> >My, there's a landmine. I'll set aside my adament contempt of marriage
> >and monogamy, and get to the crux of the biscuit. No, it's not the same.
> >These are not merely hormonal or gender differences. This is a radical
> >transformation of a being's very physical nature. Think of it in these
> >terms; The transformation of Uranium to Lead. Very different elements
> >with different properties. We don't expect Lead to behave like Uranium,
> >even though Uranium was the original element. It is now something else
> >completely.
>
> Landmine? <looks around innocently> What landmine?...;) And I do admire
> the way you sidestepped it, by the way...:)

Thank you. You'll find that I'm capable of all sorts of fancy foot work.
And anyway, I think it's too soon for me to disgust the fine people of
this news group with revelations of my hedonistic lifestyle.

> As to vampires and elements...well...if elements have souls then I might
> tend to agree with that line of reasoning. I think that vampires have
> souls however and elements do not, which invalidates the comparison to a
> large degree.

No it doesn't. If anything, you introduced a religious element and have
brought the debate to a halt. I cannot argue with you based on your
beliefs, I can only argue the facts as presented. Show me your soul.
Prove that it exists, then we can continue.

Oh, what the hell, I'll go for it anyway.

You've taken one point of my entire agrument. You have to examine it as a
whole. I was arguing in steps, this being the first. Later, I brought up
the topic of physical nature versus mind & cultural values, and how they
operate as opposing forces on the vampire.

If you don't mind, I would like to toss out the word "soul" and replace it
with "sentience". That is something that both humans and vampires share,
with out all the mysticism attached. But even if we are both self aware,
and can use rational thought, we still have the problem of the physical
nature. You keep bringing up the soul and intellect, but you ignore that
biological/genetic makeup play a large factor in who and what we are. You
and I, being what we are, do not have a craving for blood. Vampires have
that craving. And not only do they need blood, but the spirit (Amel)
demands that it be satisfied with human blood. Remember that Louis tried
to exists on animals for four years, but the misery that it wrought
condemned the ideal to failure.

We're not talking about a biochemical problem that can be fixed with the
right drugs. "Blood drinker" is the very definition of vampire. It is to
the core of their nature. So if their ethic tells them "No, you can't do
that." and their body is crying out to satisfy it's needs, that will make
for a very misrable, irritable, and unstable vampire who has eternity to
look forward to. It becomes understandable why so many of them die by
their own hand.

> Of course, that only raises another question... Does the conversion from
> being human to being vampire affect the soul in any way or merely the
> physical nature of the person? And if it does, in what way? When I refer
> to soul I'm using it as an inclusive term for spirit/intellect. Is the
> soul of a vampire different from a human's. How?

Taking only the word "intellect", no I don't think it changes, except in
the ability to gather more information and to retain it much easier.
Without cell degradation, the brain would operate more effeciently. This,
however, changes nothing in my argument.

> >It's an important difference in angle. Which part makes us what we are?
> >Mind or body? Apply the same question to us. Are we humans first and
> >fore most, or are we persons? Do we take a monastic approach, in which
> >biophysiology determines the way in with the brain/mind operates?
>
> This goes along totally with the questions I asked above. At this moment
> in time I believe it's the mind/spirit that makes us what we are, and
> that anything to do with the physical may "impel" us to behave in a
> certain way, but it does not "compel" us to. I believe the same holds
> true for vampires because I see the soul as relatively immutable,
> something which will remain fairly constant no matter what the changes
> to the physical container might be. From that standpoint we are all
> persons first, before we are either human or vampire.

This still leaves the body in conflict with the soul/mind/intellect.

> >Yes, I am arguing from a position that they are vampire first, because
> >that is what we can know. Physically, they are vampires, not humans.
> >The rest is based on faith argument.
>
> Well...not faith argument really...at least in my case. More an internal
> certainty in knowing what is the stronger factor in my own existence. If

You know this innately? Intuitive knowledge that can not be
rationally/empirically explained, is a euphemism for faith.

> I choose to follow my physical inclinations it is no more or less than
> because I did indeed *choose* to do so. It is just really difficult for
> me to fathom that a vampire...with all those other abilities and
> faculties far superior to my human ones, would then be far less able
> than I am to thwart his own physical nature. That he would have no
> choice in the matter.

They can, and they do at times, as we have seen in the case of Louis'
abstenince. But the misery that it creates for them will not allow it for
a long duration. Something has to give. It's their will, or their life.
And don't forget that the blood hieghtens thier abilities. Here's a neat
irony for you; the less blood, the less strength and will. The more
blood, the better endurance.

> <stuff snipped for space>
>
> >That is the mistake. Their physical nature is now in direct opposition
> >to the moral code they learned while still human. It is difficult to
> >give up what one has always believed. But the old code is no longer
> >functional, everything breaks down, "The center cannot hold..." as
> >Yeats once said. This is why so many vampires cannot endure eternity,
> >their world no longer makes sense. If they don't abopt a new ethics,
> >which accomadates their new physical nature, then they are comdemned to
> >their own misery and most likely death.
>
> If this is the case then the perfect vampires would seem to be children
> who are young enough not to have yet assimilated the moral code...such
> as Claudia.

I didn't say that vampires shouldn't have *any* morals, just different
ones. And the physical disadvantages of a child vampire would far out
wiegh the absense of an ethic.

> I have a question for you. Have any of the vampires in the Chronicles
> managed to adopt that new ethic successfully?

No. The closest thing to success in the Chronicles is Lestat. While he
still wrestles with morality and the consequences of his actions, he still
lives on his terms. But he hasn't broken free of the human code.

Akasha is the only vampire that actually tried to break the human moral
code to form her own. The problem there was that she planned to
subjegate the entire world to it. Had she adopted a less radical,
non-inflicting one, she may have succeeded. She used the power she had
very poorly and was condemned to fail.

Jesse and Daniel may have a shot at it, coming from the 20th century and
not bound as tightly to all the beliefs and customs of the other
centuries. But that remains to be seen.

> >Society, whether we will admit it or not, sets the code we live by.
> >Durkheim best discribed it when he stated "Even when I free myself from
> >these rules and violate them sucessfully, I am always compelled to
> >struggle with them." For survival, the vampire must rise above, as their
> >very physical natures compelles them to act in a matter which opposes
> >human contrived social norms.
>
> Ok...as I was reading this, I was suddenly struck with a rather gruesome
> human comparison to what you are saying here. I'm speaking of the
> incidents in history where humans on the edge of starvation and death
> ate other humans in order to stay alive. I think I can see your argument
> better on physical compulsion if I think of it in terms of that.

Why am I struck with the sudden urge to play rugby? ;)

> >But it remains that we cannot know these ethical rules for certainty,
> >even if they do exists as universals.
>
> I *totally* agree with this! Hey...bet you didn't think that would ever
> happen did you?...;)

Nah, I knew it would. I can't help but inspire enlightenment ;)

Now don't hurt me, I have to look good when I meet the others in the hot
tub later.

(told you I was a hedonist)

[caro...@aol.com]

"A. Astrid Scott" wrote on

Fri, 6 Dec 1996

>Thank you. You'll find that I'm capable of all sorts of fancy foot work.
>And anyway, I think it's too soon for me to disgust the fine people of
>this news group with revelations of my hedonistic lifestyle.

Disgusting hedonistic practices? Now *that* sounds promising...;) Do
tell...

>No it doesn't. If anything, you introduced a religious element and have
>brought the debate to a halt. I cannot argue with you based on your
>beliefs, I can only argue the facts as presented. Show me your soul.
>Prove that it exists, then we can continue.

I'm perfectly willing to debate without the religious element, although I
don't
see that introducing it brings anything to a halt. Religious theories are
some of the most debatable of all. Show you my soul and prove that it
exists?
I will. After you show me a vampire and prove that it exists...:)

>Oh, what the hell, I'll go for it anyway.

>You've taken one point of my entire agrument. You have to examine it as
a
>whole. I was arguing in steps, this being the first. Later, I brought
up
>the topic of physical nature versus mind & cultural values, and how they
>operate as opposing forces on the vampire.

>If you don't mind, I would like to toss out the word "soul" and replace
it
>with "sentience". That is something that both humans and vampires share,
>with out all the mysticism attached. But even if we are both self aware,
>and can use rational thought, we still have the problem of the physical
>nature. You keep bringing up the soul and intellect, but you ignore that
>biological/genetic makeup play a large factor in who and what we are.
You
>and I, being what we are, do not have a craving for blood.

Well...actually, some apparently do. Jeffrey Dahmer comes to mind with his
eating of body parts and drinking of blood. And then there's the very
current
supposed "vampire cult" murders here in the U.S. with murderers who
apparently
drank the blood of animals and each other. Although that perhaps was more
a
misguided craving for attention than for blood itself.

I don't ignore that biological/genetic makeup play a big factor in
determining
who and what we are. If anything I am arguing that the quality that we
call
"character" has a genetic basis. That dare devils like Lestat and
contemplative
wall flowers like Louis are "born" not "made" by their circumstances. The
basic character of a child is apparent from a very early age. Far too
early
to indicate that it has an environmental and not a biological/genetic
origin.
Since it is demonstrated and avowed in the novels that the physical
properties
are enhanced after one becomes a vampire, and since character has a
physical
origin, then the biological-based human character would be fortified after
the
change to becoming a vampire, not weakened. And therein lies another
reason
to hold the vampire to the same "moral" standard as humans.

Vampires have
>that craving. And not only do they need blood, but the spirit (Amel)
>demands that it be satisfied with human blood. Remember that Louis tried
>to exists on animals for four years, but the misery that it wrought
>condemned the ideal to failure.

To use Louis as an example is misleading, in that, you recount his
experience as
a young fledgling vampire, when the impulse and urge to drink blood and
the
need for it to survive is at its peak. Of course he was miserable and his
attempts to restrain himself were doomed to failure! The same would be
true
of any fledgling vampire. My argument is based on the statements in the
Chronicles
that relate that, as a vampire gets older, the *need* becomes less and
finally,
after a long, long period, ceases to be a necessity for physical survival.
It
is under those circumstances that the argument of being "compelled" by
nature
to kill becomes meaningless.

>We're not talking about a biochemical problem that can be fixed with the
>right drugs. "Blood drinker" is the very definition of vampire. It is
to
>the core of their nature. So if their ethic tells them "No, you can't do
>that." and their body is crying out to satisfy it's needs, that will
make
>for a very misrable, irritable, and unstable vampire who has eternity to
>look forward to. It becomes understandable why so many of them die by
>their own hand.

"Blood drinker" is the very definition of vampire in the beginning of
their
existence. It is not, however, the only definition even then, and it
certainly does not continue to be so with the passage of time.

<stuff snipped for space>

>They can, and they do at times, as we have seen in the case of Louis'
>abstenince. But the misery that it creates for them will not allow it
for
>a long duration. Something has to give. It's their will, or their life.
>And don't forget that the blood hieghtens thier abilities. Here's a neat
>irony for you; the less blood, the less strength and will. The more
>blood, the better endurance.

That, I will allow, is an irony.

>
> That is the mistake. Their physical nature is now in direct opposition
> to the moral code they learned while still human. It is difficult to
> give up what one has always believed. But the old code is no longer
> functional, everything breaks down, "The center cannot hold..." as
> Yeats once said. This is why so many vampires cannot endure eternity,
> their world no longer makes sense. If they don't abopt a new ethics,
> which accomadates their new physical nature, then they are comdemned to
> their own misery and most likely death.
>
>> If this is the case then the perfect vampires would seem to be children
>> who are young enough not to have yet assimilated the moral code...such
> >as Claudia.

>I didn't say that vampires shouldn't have *any* morals, just different
>ones. And the physical disadvantages of a child vampire would far out
>wiegh the absense of an ethic.

And what, praytell, do you perceive to be "vampire morals" since you say
the very basis and defining nature is "blood drinker"? What actions would
be unacceptable since killing is not? The few prohibitions that were
introduced
in the books were pretty well all ignored by Lestat. He revealed his own
nature as well as other vampires, to humans. He made a child vampire. Were
there other prohibitions? I can't seem to remember. But I'm sure if there
were, he ignored them too.

As to the physical disavantages of a child vampire...there would be
virtually
none if vampires themselves were a little less close-minded about it. It
was other vampires who were a threat to Claudia, not humans. As a child
vampire she was able to feed rather successfully. She could not create
another vampire, but I don't see that as a particularly big deal. She
seemed
satisfied enough with her relationship with Louis. The biggest drawback
for Claudia was the psychological one of not being like everyone else in
her world
of vampires...of not being able to grow up, so to speak...

>> I have a question for you. Have any of the vampires in the Chronicles
>> managed to adopt that new ethic successfully?

>No. The closest thing to success in the Chronicles is Lestat. While he
>still wrestles with morality and the consequences of his actions, he
still
>lives on his terms. But he hasn't broken free of the human code.

What about Marius? Of all the vampires that we are told much about (the
workings
of their minds and what they are thinking) he seems to be the one who has
truly most come to terms with a way of existing that allows him to feed
both
his vampire nature with a modest amount of remorse *and* his human nature,
with
his artistic endeavors, where he creates something of beauty to replace in

the world what he destroys.

>Akasha is the only vampire that actually tried to break the human moral
>code to form her own. The problem there was that she planned to
>subjegate the entire world to it. Had she adopted a less radical,
>non-inflicting one, she may have succeeded. She used the power she had
>very poorly and was condemned to fail.

Akasha broke the human moral code before she became a vampire, so I'm not
sure
I'd count her. Her experience was already one of power and privilege. She
was
a queen before she became a vampire and was used to having people under
subjection and subject to her whims. Her treatment of the twins shows that
quite completely.

And I think Akasha was condemned to fail in her plans not because she used

her power poorly so much, but because she made the apparently typical
vampire mistake of loving the wrong companion. She chose Lestat and doted
on
him so much, despite her threatening attitude, that she made the mistake
of
allowing vampires to live that he loved when she destroyed virtually all
others. If she
hadn't have done that on his behalf, there would have been no gathering at
the compound where they banded together to thwart her plans...

>Jesse and Daniel may have a shot at it, coming from the 20th century and
>not bound as tightly to all the beliefs and customs of the other
>centuries. But that remains to be seen.

Jesse more so than Daniel I think. I see her as having the stronger will
of
the two.

> >But it remains that we cannot know these ethical rules for certainty,
> >even if they do exists as universals.
>
>> I *totally* agree with this! Hey...bet you didn't think that would
ever
> >happen did you?...;)

>Nah, I knew it would. I can't help but inspire enlightenment ;)

Of course I still believe there *are* universals...I was just conceding
that I agreed that we cannot know these ethical rules for certainty...;)

>Now don't hurt me, I have to look good when I meet the others in the hot
>tub later.

Don't worry...I'm only dangerous when cornered. And hot tubs are usually
round aren't they? So there aren't any corners...;)

>(told you I was a hedonist)

Not yet you haven't...:)

Carolyn

[Francis Martinstein]

Lady Black Death <Ama...@cris.com> wrote:
> > Ummm, yes, I believe so.... Aren't ethics (more or less) supposed to be
> > universal?
>

> No. And greetings, all! Hope you were serious about "the more the
> merrier", Doc. :)

Sure!

> I'm sure this has been noted before, I just couldn't
> find it in the thread. Vampires are simply higher on the food chain than
> humans.

Interesting you should mention that, since that's exactly the concept I had
in mind when I read the VampChrons for the first time. Although I find it
hard to reproduce the exact line of reasoning (I'll try, though) I
discarded it somewhere along the way. I suppose Louis' discovery that
animal blood is a viable alternative really pulled the rug from under the
whole idea.

> If one were to declare the food chain the "natural order", (i.e.
> wolves eat deer, deer eat grass, consumption of your specific food source
> is in the natural order and therefore not evil) then there is no moral or
> ethical code to call into question.

If one were to declare it applicable to the vampire-human thing...
Which I wouldn't do so easily, since...

> Vampires prey upon humans. And
> because We are humans, does not make this wrong, just disagreeable.

No, 'fraid I can't go along with you there. Ever seen a deer metamorphose
into a wolf and happily join the flock? Didn't think so. This is simply
where you're analogy goes astray, to sum it up:
a) there really isn't much to support the theory that vamps ARE the next
step on the food-pyramid, obvious though it may seem and hence
b) people can't be seen as their 'natural' prey (even though they're always
in reach of a paw). <repeat animal blood argument> Who knows, if they tried
they might even suck the life juices from trees? Not very interesting, I
will admit..

> I'm
> sure the deer have a few opinions about wolves, but it does not cast
> wolves as morally or ethically bankrupt.

And of course, deer and wolves are on completely different evolutional
paths, the one clearly herbivorous, the other carnivorous. And, not
withstanding the exception of some cannibalistic ape-races, carnivores
don't usually evolve in a single step from herbivores, as the vamps seem to
do. (And spare me the debate concerning to what degree humans can be seen
as carnivorous, being omnivorous. I haven't eaten meat in years and I never
felt better).

> There is also the stickier question of judging historical creatures by
the
> "ethics and morals" of today's standards. It does not necessarily apply
> in this case, except to call into question the thought that ethics are
> "universal". In no way are they universal. They're not even global. In
> some instances, they're not even continental.

One ethical system is both universal and global. The fact that more than
one can be in operation at a single time does nothing to negate this. The
fact that people in Iran or elsewhere are governed by a moral system which
is ethically damnable from our point of view is a good example of this. Our
(universal) code may not be respected there, but that doesn't mean it
doesn't apply to what happens there. Ask Amnesty International.
In this case the question is whether or not the 'Western human' code can
apply to vampires. Of course it can, even if they have a different code.
And not just because humans are usually on the business end of the fangs...

I'll throw a little quote at you now, if you don't mind:

' (...) from the fact that different people have different moral beliefs,
it does not follow that all moral beliefs are equally acceptable. When two
people have different beliefs, all that follows is that one of them is
probably wrong.' (From Manuel Velasquez 'Business Ethics', page 36, 3rd
edition)

If anything, this shows that ethical codes ARE universal, since they are
mutually exclusive, as this quote implies.

> They change per the people,
> and it is a dangerous thing indeed to walk into another way of life and
> find it "Wrong" by your own standards.

But what else can you do? Smooth over the holocaust and Stalin's and Mao's
mass executions on the grounds that they 'probably had a different ethical
code'? Surely not, I hope? What we CAN do is judge the past as we would
judge the present, always keeping in mind the possibly mitigating
circumstance that at the period in the past people's ethics were simply
less developed than ours are now.
To put this even blunter: I most definitely can and do judge the behavior
of past and present people by my own moral standards, more or less the same
ones underlying the French and American Revolutions. Yes,
Hitler/Stalin/Mao's actions are inexcusable. Yes, the current state of the
Muslim religion is ethically damnable and positively medieval. Yes, the
unimaginable amount of suffering in the bio-industries is futile and
indefensible. And yes, the killing of humans by Ricean vampires is without
question *wrong*.

> Yes, the line must be drawn somewhere. I've seen Hitler discussed on
this
> thread. But, excepting global genocide (which is nothing a vampire

> practices anyway) I'd be wary of casting sweeping ethical judgements.

Define in what way a 'sweeping ethical judgment' differs from a normal one?
As I stated before, death is death. Only very special circumstances (I
won't list 'em again) can justify killing a human being (not that I hold
people in such high regard, but on general principle). Draining people of
all their blood simply because assaulting a cow and taking her blood
doesn't quite take your fancy is obviously NOT such a circumstance. Don't
get me wrong now, I *really* love the VampChrons. Yet I don't defend the
vamps by trying to introduce a special set of ethics for them, nor have any
of them tried themselves in the books. They all think of themselves as
unquestioningly evil. Some of them don't think about it much, others, such
as Lestat, like to revel in it. I also liked 'Natural Born Killers', 'Pulp
Fiction' and 'The Usual Suspects' (I suppose some of you did too), but I'm
not trying to defend their major villains. Although both Mickey and Mallory
as well as Keyser Soze had far better reasons than any of the vamps ever
had.

> Lisa
> Lady Black Death

Francis
----------

' I know you....
I knew I knew you!
But it can't be you...
We killed you dead!
You went out the window...
It can't be you...
This is the really real world.
They're ain't no comin' back!
They're ain't no comin' back...

Abashed the Devil stood
And saw how awful goodness is.
How awful goodness is....'

From 'The Crow'

[Lady Black Death]

On 6 Dec 1996, Francis Martinstein wrote:

>
>
> KL <elaff...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au> praised:

> > I won't attach the entire thread because it is coming up too clumsy on
> > the screen, besides, this is not adding anything to the argument, only
> > thanking a couple of people.
> >
> > A. Astrid Scott: you have summated the vampire's lot brilliantly.

> ....thank you to both Astrid and Carolyn...?!? Aren't you forgetting
> someone? You're not!?!
>
> <Waahaaahaahaa! Booohooo!! SNIFF!!!>
>
> How come I'm not getting any thanks? (Boohoooooo) Didn't I say or do
> something that 'makes ABAR so good' in this whole thread?

Well NOW you've done it!! Honestly. Made the Doc cry and everything. I
hope you're satisfied. *HUGS* Doc... poor baby. It's alright. I'm sure
they didn't mean to cast apsersions to your brilliant logical deductions.

> Oh, and nobody said anything about my spec either. If you hated it or it
> simply left you stoic, why not just tell me so? It would certainly prevent
> any follow-ups...

I didn't get it! You wrote a spec?? What was it about? And if I didn't
get it, I'll bet Heather didn't get it, which means it probably won't get
archived! It's a PLOT! I tell you, it's a PLOT!! And you're at the
middle of it! Run! Hide! I'll divert attention.

"Hey, LOOK! A Brain Scan of Anne Rice! NIFTY!!"

*HUGS* Feel better, Doc. :)

[Francis Martinstein]

KL <elaff...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au> praised:
> I won't attach the entire thread because it is coming up too clumsy on
> the screen, besides, this is not adding anything to the argument, only
> thanking a couple of people.
>
> A. Astrid Scott: you have summated the vampire's lot brilliantly.

> This is the essence of what the Vampchrons are all about I feel, these
> questions are as relevant to ourselves as to the vampires, and this is
> why we are so fascinated by these tales, because we question ourselves
> and our own 'truths'. What we must understand is that there is no
> universal truth, only what we have created out of essences.
> Thank you to both Astrid and Carolyn for a thought-provoking debate.
> This is what makes ABAR so good.
> ===K.L.===

....thank you to both Astrid and Carolyn...?!? Aren't you forgetting
someone? You're not!?!

<Waahaaahaahaa! Booohooo!! SNIFF!!!>

How come I'm not getting any thanks? (Boohoooooo) Didn't I say or do
something that 'makes ABAR so good' in this whole thread?

I meant well, honestly! I really believed what I said and still do! <blows
nose loud and soppily>

It may not sound very exciting, I know, but it makes for a good solid
argument, no? <snifffff>

Both Astrid and Carolyn simply dropped out, no longer responding to my
answers. Others ignored most of what I said in their replies. Technically
that means giving up and leaving the battle ground to me, but that's no
fun!! <ACHOO>

You just don't like me, that's what it is!!!! It's like elementary school
all over again, nobody wants to play with me and nobody much cares for what
I have to say..... <sob, sob>

Oh, and nobody said anything about my spec either. If you hated it or it
simply left you stoic, why not just tell me so? It would certainly prevent
any follow-ups...

Well, if you don't want to play, that's fine. <SNORT> I, uh, I'll go and
play more with my test tubes, and, and perhaps someday I might discover a
cure that really makes a difference! Then you'll see.....

Or why should I bother, on the other hand? I've got more than enough pills
and stuff to lay waste to a legion of elephants, so why not make even
better use of it? Oh well, not 'till after the concert, anyway.

Bye everyone,

Francis
-----------

PS: If I'm not admitted to the concert 'cause I'm crying too loud, it's all
your fault too!!!

[caro...@aol.com]

"Francis Martinstein" wrote sobbed and sniveled
on 6 Dec 1996

>KL <elaff...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au> praised:

> A. Astrid Scott: you have summated the vampire's lot brilliantly.
> This is the essence of what the Vampchrons are all about I feel, these
> questions are as relevant to ourselves as to the vampires, and this is
> why we are so fascinated by these tales, because we question ourselves
> and our own 'truths'. What we must understand is that there is no
> universal truth, only what we have created out of essences.
> Thank you to both Astrid and Carolyn for a thought-provoking debate.
> This is what makes ABAR so good.
> ===K.L.===

>>....thank you to both Astrid and Carolyn...?!? Aren't you forgetting
>>someone? You're not!?!

>><Waahaaahaahaa! Booohooo!! SNIFF!!!>

>>How come I'm not getting any thanks? (Boohoooooo) Didn't I say or do
>>something that 'makes ABAR so good' in this whole thread?

There there Francis...don't go all Lestat on me and start sobbing your
eyes out!...;)
I'm sure they probably just didn't get your brilliant remarks on their
server in a timely fashion...:)

>>I meant well, honestly! I really believed what I said and still do!
<blows
>>nose loud and soppily>

>>It may not sound very exciting, I know, but it makes for a good solid
>>argument, no? <snifffff>

>>Both Astrid and Carolyn simply dropped out, no longer responding to my
>>answers. Others ignored most of what I said in their replies.
Technically
>>that means giving up and leaving the battle ground to me, but that's no
>>fun!! <ACHOO>

Actually...the last post of yours started out referencing Astrid and so I
thought it was meant for him, not me. I see however that you are the type
who would prefer that I *force* my attentions upon you, and so I shall not
observe such niceties as waiting my turn...;)

>>You just don't like me, that's what it is!!!! It's like elementary
school
>>all over again, nobody wants to play with me and nobody much cares for
what
>>I have to say..... <sob, sob>

I thought that was rather a positive thing in elementary school
actually...nobody wanting to play with me and nobody caring what I had to
say I mean. It just gave me more time to read books and draw horses...:)

>>Oh, and nobody said anything about my spec either. If you hated it or it
>>simply left you stoic, why not just tell me so? It would certainly
prevent
>>any follow-ups...

What spec? I don't think that one came over on my server???

>>Well, if you don't want to play, that's fine. <SNORT> I, uh, I'll go and
>>play more with my test tubes, and, and perhaps someday I might discover
a
>>cure that really makes a difference! Then you'll see.....

>>Or why should I bother, on the other hand? I've got more than enough
pills
>>and stuff to lay waste to a legion of elephants, so why not make even
>>better use of it? Oh well, not 'till after the concert, anyway.

>>Bye everyone,

>>Francis
-----------

>>PS: If I'm not admitted to the concert 'cause I'm crying too loud, it's
all
>>your fault too!!!

Just pretend you're Louis instead of Lestat and stop that weeping. Louis
prefers to suffer in tragic silence...with just the occasional little sigh
to remind you of the extent of the injury you've inflicted upon him. I
hear it's very effective... ;)

Carolyn

[MC CORMICK]

> "Francis Martinstein" yodeled:

> >>You just don't like me, that's what it is!!!! It's like elementary
> school
> >>all over again, nobody wants to play with me and nobody much cares for
> what
> >>I have to say..... <sob, sob>
>
> I thought that was rather a positive thing in elementary school
> actually...nobody wanting to play with me and nobody caring what I had to
> say I mean. It just gave me more time to read books and draw horses...:)

Really? You too? How come nobody played with you?
Nobody played with me because I ran with scissors. But I have some
nice horse pictures. They even have antlers, isn't that a treat?

> Louis
> prefers to suffer in tragic silence...with just the occasional little
>sigh
> to remind you of the extent of the injury you've inflicted upon him. I
> hear it's very effective... ;)

So is 'Hooked On Phoenics', coincidentally.
> Carolyn

Love to everyone,
] Amy

[Askarius]

>>a vampire by the same standards as humans? We can argue till the end of
>>time, whether vampires retain their humanity, but the fact remains that
>>they are physically altered into a new form. They are no longer
>>Homosapiens once the spirit enters the body. I would say that the
>>ethical choice begins and ends with the initial decision to become a
>>vampire. After that, is all she wrote.
>
>Isn't that a little like saying that because a person happens to be born
>into a male body, with all the attendant hormones that kick in, that they
>cannot, or should not be expected to restrain their sexual urges and stay
>faithful to one woman? That it's just not their nature? I'm arguing from
>the viewpoint of seeing the vampire as a person first and a vampire
>second. You're arguing from the opposite viewpoint. Seeing them as
>vampires first.
>

Your analogy is a bit off kilter. By comparing human sexuality to a
vampires feeding habits you meanialize the need for blood. A beter
analogy would be You born into the body of a man and must then choose
whether to eat or not. You then choose whether you'll be a vegatarian
or meat eater, much like a vampire must decide whether to feed on
humans or to feed on rats. It is an ethical question true but from the
vampires viewpoint we are here to serve its ends. Think about that
the next time your sanctimonious butt bights into a
double-cheeseburger.

Askarius
______________________________________________________
Is it the beginings of madness when I begin to think
I'm the only sane one left.
____________________________________________________

Askarius

______________________________________________________

[caro...@aol.com]

aska...@prodigy.net (Askarius) wrote on
Sun, 08 Dec 1996

>>a vampire by the same standards as humans? We can argue till the end of

>>time, whether vampires retain their humanity, but the fact remains that
>>they are physically altered into a new form. They are no longer
>>Homosapiens once the spirit enters the body. I would say that the
>>ethical choice begins and ends with the initial decision to become a
>>vampire. After that, is all she wrote.
>
>Isn't that a little like saying that because a person happens to be born
>into a male body, with all the attendant hormones that kick in, that they
>cannot, or should not be expected to restrain their sexual urges and stay
>faithful to one woman? That it's just not their nature? I'm arguing from
>the viewpoint of seeing the vampire as a person first and a vampire
>second. You're arguing from the opposite viewpoint. Seeing them as
>vampires first.
>

>>>Your analogy is a bit off kilter. By comparing human sexuality to a
>>>vampires feeding habits you meanialize the need for blood. A beter
>>>analogy would be You born into the body of a man and must then choose
>>>whether to eat or not. You then choose whether you'll be a vegatarian
>>>or meat eater, much like a vampire must decide whether to feed on
>>>humans or to feed on rats. It is an ethical question true but from the
>>>vampires viewpoint we are here to serve its ends. Think about that
>>>the next time your sanctimonious butt bights into a
>>>double-cheeseburger.

>>>Askarius

My analogy would be off kilter *if* I was referring to a fledgling
vampire, which is not the case. I have indicated at several places in the
thread that my argument is based on the fact that in the Anne Rice
universe vampires no longer *need* to kill to survive after they have been
around long enough. The all-consuming compulsion to feed is no longer a
valid excuse to take human life. It become merely a point of desiring the
pleasure that feeding on humans affords...which is, in my mind, analgous
to the same compulsion to have sex that humans have. It's not a "do or
die" thing.

Your analogy of choosing whether to be a vegetarian or a meat eater works
for me also, in discussing the vampire's moral dilemma. As far as, from a
vampire's view we are here to serve their ends. Well...I think that
depends on the individual vampire what their viewpoint would be. Since I'm
arguing from the stance that they retain a portion of their humanity even
though they are quite unquestionably changed significantly, then I reason
that they are still individual enough not to function purely from "vampire
instinct" all the time.

And it's not my "sanctimonius butt" that bites into a cheeseburger. The
apparatus I use is located elsewhere. If the meat I was eating was made of
ground up human body parts then my mouth might be "sanctimonius".

Carolyn

[Claudel Mercier]

I hope you won't mind if I jump in too. I'm usually a lurker, but I
couldn't resist. :-)

Francis Martinstein wrote:
>
> Lady Black Death <Ama...@cris.com> wrote:

<snip>

>
> > I'm sure this has been noted before, I just couldn't
> > find it in the thread. Vampires are simply higher on the food chain than
> > humans.
>
> Interesting you should mention that, since that's exactly the concept I had
> in mind when I read the VampChrons for the first time. Although I find it
> hard to reproduce the exact line of reasoning (I'll try, though) I
> discarded it somewhere along the way. I suppose Louis' discovery that
> animal blood is a viable alternative really pulled the rug from under the
> whole idea.

Well, I have a problem with the idea of vampires being higher in the
food chain than humans. I mean, they are preternatural beings, they
can't be affected by death or sickness and they don't reproduce
anymore. According to biology, you can't even consider them as being
alive, and therefore they are not compelled to some of the laws of
nature. Death is the most obvious one, and I don't even mention the
theory of evolution. They are the result of a total accident, they
don't belong to the natural world .

<other stuff snipped >

>
> > There is also the stickier question of judging historical creatures by
> the
> > "ethics and morals" of today's standards. It does not necessarily apply
> > in this case, except to call into question the thought that ethics are
> > "universal". In no way are they universal. They're not even global. In
> > some instances, they're not even continental.

* claps her hands * It's exactly what I think !

> One ethical system is both universal and global. The fact that more than
> one can be in operation at a single time does nothing to negate this. The
> fact that people in Iran or elsewhere are governed by a moral system which
> is ethically damnable from our point of view is a good example of this. Our
> (universal) code may not be respected there, but that doesn't mean it
> doesn't apply to what happens there. Ask Amnesty International.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to pretend that our ethical
code is the only one that is right, or at least it's the better. But
the problem with ethic is that you can argue until the end of time,
but you have no way to prove that your point of view is the right
one.
For some circonstances, it's very obvious ( torture is the first thing
that comes in my mind ) but for other cases, it's not. The issue of
abortion is a really good example of this.

> In this case the question is whether or not the 'Western human' code can
> apply to vampires. Of course it can, even if they have a different code.
> And not just because humans are usually on the business end of the fangs...

Yes, we can, but it's rather useless, you don't think so ? I don't
think they would listen to us, anyway.. :-)

> I'll throw a little quote at you now, if you don't mind:
>
> ' (...) from the fact that different people have different moral beliefs,
> it does not follow that all moral beliefs are equally acceptable. When two
> people have different beliefs, all that follows is that one of them is
> probably wrong.' (From Manuel Velasquez 'Business Ethics', page 36, 3rd
> edition)

> If anything, this shows that ethical codes ARE universal, since they are
> mutually exclusive, as this quote implies.

Ethical codes are not ALWAYS mutually exclusives. And even when
they are, how can you be so sure there is a right or a wrong one ?
It's the same matter with personal opinions. I am convinced that
people who have contradictory opinions can be both right, cause we all
think in fonction of our personal education and experiences. IMHO,
the same thing can be apply to moral.

< others stuffs snipped about ethic and history>

What made me jump in this thread at the first place is the opinion
some people expressed that there are universal ethical codes. I can't
explain why exactly, but instinctively, I think this is not true.
Maybe it's because I believe in the savage garden of Lestat. You can
find beauty out there in the nature, but neither moral codes nor
justice.

> > Lisa
> > Lady Black Death
>
> Francis
> ----------

Claudel, who hopes she didn't butcher too much the english
language

***
Seule l'imbécilité humaine peut donner une idée de l'infini.

You're just an empty cage girl if you kill the bird. (Tori Amos)

[Claudel Mercier]

Francis Martinstein wrote:
>

>
> Oh, and nobody said anything about my spec either. If you hated it or it
> simply left you stoic, why not just tell me so? It would certainly prevent
> any follow-ups...
>
>

> Francis

I loved your spec. I thought it was very intelligent and clever. I
liked it so much I kept it on my hardrive. If I didn't congratulate
you before, it's because I don't like to e-mail people who don't know
me, I am always afraid to bother them. Feeling better now ? :-)

Claudel

[Laura]

Francis Martinstein wrote:

> ....thank you to both Astrid and Carolyn...?!? Aren't you forgetting
> someone? You're not!?!
>
> <Waahaaahaahaa! Booohooo!! SNIFF!!!>

Don't cry, please don't cry. I can't stand it when people cry. <sniff>
I'm a very empathetic person. <sob>

>
> How come I'm not getting any thanks? (Boohoooooo) Didn't I say or do
> something that 'makes ABAR so good' in this whole thread?

I never saw it. This is the first post I've seen about this. :(
I hate my server!! <sob>

>
> I meant well, honestly! I really believed what I said and still do! <blows nose loud and soppily>
>
> It may not sound very exciting, I know, but it makes for a good solid
> argument, no? <snifffff>

I believe you believed <sniff>. I never saw what it was you believe!!
Damn, I hate my server <sob>

>
> Both Astrid and Carolyn simply dropped out, no longer responding to my
> answers. Others ignored most of what I said in their replies. Technically
> that means giving up and leaving the battle ground to me, but that's no
> fun!! <ACHOO>

God, how much did I miss? This whole thread will probably show up next
April. Watch for my witty retort around Easter. What fun!

>
> You just don't like me, that's what it is!!!! It's like elementary school
> all over again, nobody wants to play with me and nobody much cares for what
> I have to say..... <sob, sob>

Been there, done that...
I went to a convent school. Even the Nuns were mean to me. <sniff>
I never got to do anything. I was repressed. <sob>
<wipes nose on sleeve>
I can totally relate to what you are saying. What were you saying?

>
> Oh, and nobody said anything about my spec either. If you hated it or it
> simply left you stoic, why not just tell me so? It would certainly prevent
> any follow-ups...

You wrote a spec? I missed a spec? I *demand* a repost. Nevermind, my
server probably STILL won't have it.
Did I tell you I hate my server? <sob>

>
> Well, if you don't want to play, that's fine. <SNORT> I, uh, I'll go and
> play more with my test tubes, and, and perhaps someday I might discover a
> cure that really makes a difference! Then you'll see.....

I see! I want to play.
Test tubes, lab equipment. <rubs hands together>
I *know* the secret to "the cure that really makes a difference". I saw
"Medicine Man" five times. <spoiler> It was the ants! It was the ants!
Do you need a research assistant?
Do you look anything like Sean Connery?

>
> Or why should I bother, on the other hand? I've got more than enough pills
> and stuff to lay waste to a legion of elephants, so why not make even
> better use of it? Oh well, not 'till after the concert, anyway.

Watch it, please, some of my best friends are elephants. :)
No, wait, don't go....

>
> Bye everyone,
>
> Francis

Shesh, ya left just when you were getting interesting!

> PS: If I'm not admitted to the concert 'cause I'm crying too loud, it's all
> your fault too!!!

They won't care, trust me. Once you plunk down the money to get in, you'll
be crying anyway. They'll never know the difference! :)

--

*===*
* * Second Cadet of the Bucket Brigade
* *
\^^^^^^^^^/ Louis' Window
\ Laura / http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/2558/
\ /
\___/ fill 'er up!!

[Francis Martinstein]

Lady Black Death <Ama...@cris.com> wrote:

> On 6 Dec 1996, Francis Martinstein wrote:
>
> > ....thank you to both Astrid and Carolyn...?!? Aren't you forgetting
> > someone? You're not!?!
> >
> > <Waahaaahaahaa! Booohooo!! SNIFF!!!>
> >

> > How come I'm not getting any thanks? (Boohoooooo) Didn't I say or do
> > something that 'makes ABAR so good' in this whole thread?
>

> Well NOW you've done it!! Honestly. Made the Doc cry and everything. I
> hope you're satisfied. *HUGS* Doc... poor baby. It's alright. I'm sure
> they didn't mean to cast apsersions to your brilliant logical deductions.

You're sure? <little sniff> B-b-b-brilliant? Gosh!

> > Oh, and nobody said anything about my spec either. If you hated it or
it
> > simply left you stoic, why not just tell me so? It would certainly
prevent
> > any follow-ups...
>

> I didn't get it! You wrote a spec?? What was it about? And if I didn't
> get it, I'll bet Heather didn't get it, which means it probably won't get
> archived!

You too? Seems like nobody did, apparently. 'twas my variation on the
'Armand's story' idea and may have turned out just a bit too Memnochy in
retrospect. If no one got it I'm rather glad, since there also was this one
really st***d error in it which I can now fish out.

> It's a PLOT! I tell you, it's a PLOT!! And you're at the
> middle of it! Run! Hide! I'll divert attention.
>
> "Hey, LOOK! A Brain Scan of Anne Rice! NIFTY!!"

Yikes! Kapwingggg!!

> *HUGS* Feel better, Doc. :)

Yeah, thanks!
(The concert helped too, :-)))

> Lisa
> Lady Black Death

Francis
----------

Magistrate: 'Don't, don't, don't, don't!
Rincewind: ' Do, do, do, do!'
Magistrate: 'Do what?'
Rincewind: ' Do believe! In dragons! I DO BELIEVE IN DRAGONS!
..........oh, no!'
(Enormous dragon appears out of nothing)
Dragon: 'Nice of you to call me back, really. Or had you forgotten you were
still holding the book of summoning?'

From: Discworld I, the game.

[MC CORMICK]

caro...@aol.com wrote:

>
> aska...@prodigy.net (Askarius) wrote:
> >>they are physically altered into a new form. They are no longer
> >>Homosapiens once the spirit enters the body. I would say that the
> >>ethical choice begins and ends with the initial decision to become a
> >>vampire. After that, is all she wrote.

Well, sort of. They are homosapiens in that they appear
physically the same as the rest- not a different species,
necessarily, but just a different breed. Look at dogs- let us assume
that you have just arrived on the planet, and while you are a cognizant,
intelligent, rational, logical human being possessing of all your mental faculties, you
have never seen a dog before. Then someone points out to you a chihuahua and a
Saint-Bernard. And then they tell you that this is
the same animal, known as a dog. Would you believe them? My sources say no. So really,
it's not so hard to believe that vamps and humans are the same species- they're just
different breeds.
And are the vamps just higher on the food chain? I thik so.
Sure, they tend to black and white the issue by moralizing over whether or not killing
people is natural and correct. It is natural, because, let's face it, if it occurrs at
all, one could automatically assume that nature is the organizational force, since
natural is all-encompassing- man is an animal, undeniably a part of nature, and
everything he constructs- his buildings, his societies, his ethics and mores- are just
as much a part of nature as the ant hill and the bee hive. Wolves probably don't
moralize over eating deer- it's just what they do. And omnivorous creatures such as
bears, well, aren't they sort of like the vamps, in that they kill deer and they eat
berries in the woods- two seperate parts of the food chain being consumed by one
top-level species. One might relate that to the vamps and their dabate over whether to
kill the rat or the human. Or if they should differentiate at all. Killing a human and
killing a rat is the same- it's murder, any way you slice it,
and who is to say which is more worthy of life. Some might argue the human- he is
capable of love and reason, and some argue the rat- he has not the will to do
intentional and calculated harm as the human can. But all of that is a completely
different issue, and the fact remains- vamps are part of nature, and they are on the
food chain, and they do rank a little higher than humans. I think Darwin would agree- or
maybe he'd just put us all under is microscope and have done with it.
-Amy

[caro...@aol.com]

MC CORMICK <isa...@bellatlantic.net> wrote on
Sat, 07 Dec 1996

> "Francis Martinstein" yodeled:

> >>You just don't like me, that's what it is!!!! It's like elementary
> school
> >>all over again, nobody wants to play with me and nobody much cares for
> what
> >>I have to say..... <sob, sob>
>

> I thought that was rather a positive thing in elementary school
> actually...nobody wanting to play with me and nobody caring what I had
to
> say I mean. It just gave me more time to read books and draw horses...:)

>>>Really? You too? How come nobody played with you?
>>>Nobody played with me because I ran with scissors. But I have some
>>>nice horse pictures. They even have antlers, isn't that a treat?

Actually, the part paragraph about reading and drawing horses was from me,
not Francis, in case anybody out there is confused. Maybe Francis drew
horses too for all I know, but he didn't say so...:)

But anywho...a *few* people did actually want to play with me, but they
were as "weird" as I was now that I think about it. I think most kids
didn't quite know what to make of me since I was quiet and shy and on the
rare occasions that I spoke other than when called on in class I usually
spouted something really peculiar...:) About the only time I can remember
that the "popular" kids noticed me was when they realized I could draw and
then they wanted me to draw "dirty pictures" of genitalia for them. I
wisely refused and they promptly went back to ignoring me...:)
You still have your horse pictures? Mine didn't have antlers, but I did
draw clothing items for them to dress up in. Is there such a thing as a
wanabee equestrian clothing designer?

> Louis
> prefers to suffer in tragic silence...with just the occasional little
>sigh

> to remind you of the extent of the injury you've inflicted upon him. I
> hear it's very effective... ;)

>>>So is 'Hooked On Phoenics', coincidentally.

Yes...I think that's what Louis used to teach Lestat to read...;)

Carolyn
http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/2585

[lwei...@aol.com]

In article <19961208081...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
caro...@aol.com writes:

>And it's not my "sanctimonius butt" that bites into a cheeseburger. The
>apparatus I use is located elsewhere. If the meat I was eating was made
of
>ground up human body parts then my mouth might be "sanctimonius".
>
>Carolyn
>
>

I can't help but giggle at this come back.

And thank goodness, too -- I wonder what McDonald's management would
think were it located in your pants. . .

Solarsister

[Francis Martinstein]

Yoshiwara <ath...@muenchen.org> wrote:
> Quoth "A. Astrid Scott" <elsi...@eskimo.com> on Wed, 4 Dec
> 1996 02:52:34 GMT:
> Vampires have never developed a society, not to mention norms and values
> (with the unsuccessful exceptions of the graveyard covens).
> Every single one has to find his/her own way through without
> guidance, but total liberty: None of their actions will ever
> see sanctions, neither positive nor negative ones.

Ah, of course, I forgot: ethics are a matter of the probablity of
punishment, not a statement of what's right and wrong in general. If
there's no sanction, then what the heck? Kill, rape, steal, mutilate, have
a ball! Thanks for reminding me of that deep and profound spiritual
insight. George Orwell had this figured out as well in '1984': an occurence
that has been deleted from public memory has never happened, for all
practical purposes.

Reality, truth, crime and love are not concepts, these are paperweights
which I keep on my desk!!' to quote Darwin Mayflower from 'Hudson Hawk'.

As for 'will ever see sanctions', how can one know? Who can be sure that
there will not be some sort of reckoning some time, or after death? Even
vampires do not live forever...
Besides, 'What is forever, anyway?' to quote Brian May ('Who wants to live
forever?').

> Building
> your own set of values from what you've been taught is bad
> enough - many people never manage to - but building it from
> scratch I imagine as next to impossible.

<SIGH> Begging your pardon, but what do you really mean here? Everyone has
morals, whether or not they realize it. People who imagine they don't
usually have very bad ones. Somewhat analogous to 'Not choosing is also a
choice', in the sense that 'Not having any morals constitutes a set of
morals nonetheless'.
And also, since when has 'imagining that something's next to impossible'
ever stopped you from doing anything? It never much hindered me, even if
failure often was the consequence, nor was Lestat ever bothered by such
considerations.

>
> Yours, etc, Yoshiwara aka His Excellency the Minister of Silly Walks(Mrs)
> Keeper of the Munich Opera Hompeage

Francis
-----------

'We'll even kill the bitch you took to the prom!'
'Really? I could give you an adress on that, if you're serious...'

[pin...@uclink4.berkley.edu]

caro...@aol.com wrote:
<snip, snip, snip>

>
> As to the physical disavantages of a child vampire...there would be
> virtually none if vampires themselves were a little less close-minded about it. It was other vampires who were a threat to Claudia, not humans. As a child vampire she was able to feed rather successfully. She could not create another vampire<<

Well, the question of Claudia's ability to procreate really is only a
question because of her youth as a fledgling and her own self-esteem. I
don't believe that ability was necessarily denied to her...as for the
problem of exchanging blood, wouldn't she be able to make other children
vampires...
I'm questioning physical ability, not Claudia's perception of it,
correct me if I'm wrong...
>

[KL]

Francis Martinstein wrote:
>
> Yoshiwara <ath...@muenchen.org> wrote:
> > Quoth "A. Astrid Scott" <elsi...@eskimo.com> on Wed, 4 Dec
> > 1996 02:52:34 GMT:
> > Vampires have never developed a society, not to mention norms and values
> > (with the unsuccessful exceptions of the graveyard covens).
> > Every single one has to find his/her own way through without
> > guidance, but total liberty: None of their actions will ever
> > see sanctions, neither positive nor negative ones.
>
> Ah, of course, I forgot: ethics are a matter of the probablity of
> punishment, not a statement of what's right and wrong in general. If
> there's no sanction, then what the heck? Kill, rape, steal, mutilate, have
> a ball! Thanks for reminding me of that deep and profound spiritual
> insight. George Orwell had this figured out as well in '1984': an occurence
> that has been deleted from public memory has never happened, for all
> practical purposes.

The whole point is that we all would kill, rape, steal etc. if it
weren't for the fact that we have as a society developed a complex set
of norms, values, etc. It is in the nature of humans to kill, it is
in the nature to steal, to lie to suit ourselves - the only real
'truth's that exist are these very basises of our natures which we, in
order to survive, must repress. It is part of the irony of our whole
condition, the irony which I believe the vampires of Anne Rice
symbolise.

> Reality, truth, crime and love are not concepts, these are paperweights
> which I keep on my desk!!' to quote Darwin Mayflower from 'Hudson Hawk'.
>
> As for 'will ever see sanctions', how can one know? Who can be sure that
> there will not be some sort of reckoning some time, or after death? Even
> vampires do not live forever...
> Besides, 'What is forever, anyway?' to quote Brian May ('Who wants to live
> forever?').

I wish you would stick to the point, it is very hard to debate a set
of tangents. This is why I said in a certain post that I preferred A.
Astrid Scott and Carolyn's debate to anything you said on the subject.
(I also neglected to congratulate Yoshiwara's insights which started
the whole debate in the first place I believe.)

>
> > Building
> > your own set of values from what you've been taught is bad
> > enough - many people never manage to - but building it from
> > scratch I imagine as next to impossible.
>
> <SIGH> Begging your pardon, but what do you really mean here? Everyone has
> morals, whether or not they realize it. People who imagine they don't
> usually have very bad ones. Somewhat analogous to 'Not choosing is also a
> choice', in the sense that 'Not having any morals constitutes a set of
> morals nonetheless'.
> And also, since when has 'imagining that something's next to impossible'
> ever stopped you from doing anything? It never much hindered me, even if
> failure often was the consequence, nor was Lestat ever bothered by such
> considerations.
>

You see, Francis, what is being argued is the issues of values, of
norms. They are socially constructed and vary according to what
society you happen to live in. Since you have somehow turned this
into a discussion on morals, which was not I'm sure Yoshiwara's
intention, I have this to say about morals. A moral is an orientation
to a particular issue. Some involve a whole society, eg. the
murdering of another human being in, for example America, is
considered to be amoral. (To indicate the constructed nature of
morals, may I point out that in some states the death penalty is
practiced). Some morals are not so total. For example, many people
consider homosexuality amoral, for many others it is not even a moral
issue, it is considered to be as 'normal' as heterosexuality. (Because
we can, in fact, question exactly how normal heterosexuality is, but
that is another story.) As for 'bad' morals and 'good' morals, were
there ever two words so overused in the English language? ('Nice'
comes to mind, actually). What is 'bad' or 'good' is not universal,
and does not exist outside of the belief systems we have constructed.
To further emphasise this in a language you may understand, have you
noticed how the very 'moral foundations' of our society change, in
some instances, quite dramatically over time?

> >
> > Yours, etc, Yoshiwara aka His Excellency the Minister of Silly Walks(Mrs)
> > Keeper of the Munich Opera Hompeage
>
> Francis
> -----------

Additions by KL.

[Francis Martinstein]

(To KL: If you'd limited your insulting comments to e-mail I wouldn't be
posting this to the group. But lies must be challenged. Publicly.
To anyone else: What follows can get rather nasty at times, for that I
apologize. I wasn't the one that started this.)

On Wednesday 11 december 1996 11:26, KL wrote:

>
> Francis Martinstein wrote:
>
> > Ah, of course, I forgot: ethics are a matter of the probablity of
> > punishment, not a statement of what's right and wrong in general. If
> > there's no sanction, then what the heck? Kill, rape, steal, mutilate,
have
> > a ball! Thanks for reminding me of that deep and profound spiritual
> > insight. George Orwell had this figured out as well in '1984': an
occurence
> > that has been deleted from public memory has never happened, for all
> > practical purposes.
>
> The whole point is that we all would kill, rape, steal etc. if it
> weren't for the fact that we have as a society developed a complex set
> of norms, values, etc.

I confess I was slightly amazed upon reading the above...
Speaking only for myself I can say that your statement is untrue. Even if
there weren't laws or highly developed systems of ethics I would not commit
any of the crimes you listed, perhaps not in any imaginable circumstance.
But that's just me, of course. This does not mean that I do not respect
your opinion.

> It is in the nature of humans to kill, it is
> in the nature to steal, to lie to suit ourselves - the only real
> 'truth's that exist are these very basises of our natures which we, in
> order to survive, must repress. It is part of the irony of our whole
> condition, the irony which I believe the vampires of Anne Rice
> symbolise.

Perhaps this is true for you, or even for most people. OTOH, when you speak
of these things in the context of 'the need to survive' then you're coming
close to the 'mitigating circumstances', because of which even basically
unethical acts can become defensible. But would you say that killing,
stealing and lying are 'natural' behaviour outside the 'survival' argument?

Interesting you should see this 'irony' reflected in Anne's VampChrons.
Just goes to show what two (obviously) different people can get from the
same book, eh?

>
> > Reality, truth, crime and love are not concepts, these are paperweights
> > which I keep on my desk!!' to quote Darwin Mayflower from 'Hudson
Hawk'.
> >
> > As for 'will ever see sanctions', how can one know? Who can be sure
that
> > there will not be some sort of reckoning some time, or after death?
Even
> > vampires do not live forever...
> > Besides, 'What is forever, anyway?' to quote Brian May ('Who wants to
live
> > forever?').
>
> I wish you would stick to the point, it is very hard to debate a set
> of tangents. This is why I said in a certain post that I preferred A.
> Astrid Scott and Carolyn's debate to anything you said on the subject.
> (I also neglected to congratulate Yoshiwara's insights which started
> the whole debate in the first place I believe.)

I'm sorry that you are apparently unable to realize that I by no means
intended to confuse the issue. Said quotes may seem somewhat grotesque to
you, I found them relevant to the argument. Mayflower's ramblings I deemed
highly reminiscent of the original poster's statement and the question of
whether a day of reckoning may not even come for a Ricean vampire, well,
for me that one line of Queen seemed appropriate. After all, what IS
forever, anyway?

For another thing I at least *react* to most parts of other people's
postings, unlike most of the people you felt it necessary to congratulate.
Most of the people who dropped in simply snipped 90% of what I and the
original poster wrote and simply added their own stuff (often well-trodden
ground in what came before in the thread).

Yoshiwara did nothing more than wonder how many good 'ol Stat killed. A
rather boring exercise in calculation which spawned a far more interesting
discussion (IMHO, at least!) to which I like to think I contributed more
than a bit. All my postings were intended as serious and well-considered
responses. If you perceived them as being 'tangents' then you're certainly
not getting my intention right.

Also, the slightly less boring quotes I wrote above are by no means
representative of my usual semi-legalese style. Since most of that provoked
little reaction, I went for a 'lighter' approach. I therefore don't think
it's very fair of you to judge all my previous writings in this thread by
only this last bit.

If you think I'm some rambling idiot who only ever spews forth lunacy
that's beside the point, then why not just tell me so mail-to-mail? It
would certainly be a lot less cowardly than simply 'congratulating' my
opposite numbers, without adding anything of any value to the discussion
yourself!

I hereby congratulate MYSELF for having done a great job on this thread and
having defended the ideals of truth, clarity and freedom (or whatever). So
there.

> > <SIGH> Begging your pardon, but what do you really mean here? Everyone
has
> > morals, whether or not they realize it. People who imagine they don't
> > usually have very bad ones. Somewhat analogous to 'Not choosing is also
a
> > choice', in the sense that 'Not having any morals constitutes a set of
> > morals nonetheless'.
> > And also, since when has 'imagining that something's next to
impossible'
> > ever stopped you from doing anything? It never much hindered me, even
if
> > failure often was the consequence, nor was Lestat ever bothered by such
> > considerations.
> >
> You see, Francis, what is being argued is the issues of values, of
> norms.

Ah?

> They are socially constructed and vary according to what
> society you happen to live in.

No kiddin'?

> Since you have somehow turned this
> into a discussion on morals

Values, norms, morals, isn't that all semantics, really? Dam' close at any
rate, methinks!

>, which was not I'm sure Yoshiwara's
> intention, I have this to say about morals.

You mean you actually have a point? Cool!

> A moral is an orientation
> to a particular issue. Some involve a whole society, eg. the
> murdering of another human being in, for example America, is
> considered to be amoral. (To indicate the constructed nature of
> morals, may I point out that in some states the death penalty is
> practiced). Some morals are not so total. For example, many people
> consider homosexuality amoral, for many others it is not even a moral
> issue, it is considered to be as 'normal' as heterosexuality. (Because
> we can, in fact, question exactly how normal heterosexuality is, but
> that is another story.) As for 'bad' morals and 'good' morals, were
> there ever two words so overused in the English language? ('Nice'
> comes to mind, actually). What is 'bad' or 'good' is not universal,
> and does not exist outside of the belief systems we have constructed.
> To further emphasise this in a language you may understand, have you
> noticed how the very 'moral foundations' of our society change, in
> some instances, quite dramatically over time?

You don't understand the first thing about ethics, now do you?
All you've stated above is brilliantly true, yet totally irrelevant. I
never questioned all those *annoyingly trivial* differences in
international ethics, or the fact that society's morals develop over time,
what the <beep> is your flippin' point?

And yes, each 'n' every darn system of ethics IS total, by definition! The
fact that they often get limited to certain countries does nothing to
negate this.

As for 'tangents', looks like you're far more practised at 'em than I, eh,
matey?

> > Francis
> > -----------
>
> Additions by KL.

The Voice of Clarity and Reason (aka Francis M'stein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

[Francis Martinstein]

pin...@uclink4.berkley.edu wrote on Dec 10:

> Well, the question of Claudia's ability to procreate really is only a
> question because of her youth as a fledgling and her own self-esteem. I
> don't believe that ability was necessarily denied to her...as for the
> problem of exchanging blood, wouldn't she be able to make other children
> vampires...
> I'm questioning physical ability, not Claudia's perception of it,
> correct me if I'm wrong...

What I always wondered about Claudia's ability to create vampirical
offspring is this: why couldn't she simply do it the way the old Cletic
vamp did it with Marius (yeah, she couldn't know about that, but for
arguments sake?). Had she been given time I think she'd have figured it
out....

Francis
----------

[Carolyn SH]

pin...@uclink4.berkley.edu wrote on
Mon, 09 Dec 1996

<snip my earlier comment>

>Well, the question of Claudia's ability to procreate really is only a
>question because of her youth as a fledgling and her own self-esteem. I
>don't believe that ability was necessarily denied to her...as for the
>problem of exchanging blood, wouldn't she be able to make other children
>vampires...
>I'm questioning physical ability, not Claudia's perception of it,
>correct me if I'm wrong...
>

Actually...you may have something there. Like you, I have wondered if
Claudia might be able to make vampires of other children, due to the
approximation in size. Of course, whether she would want to or not is
another question. I don't think she'd find their company particularly
desirable. She might look like one but she hadn't been a child in decades
when she started questioning her place in the scheme of things. She was
used to the company of adults and had nothing in common with children.

There's also the question of *why* wouldn't she be able to make an adult
vampire? Initially I thought it might have something to do with the volume
of blood required in the exchange. But that was a silly thought on my
account. The volume of blood is the same in an adult or a child isn't it?

Carolyn

[Carolyn SH]

On 96-12-15 at 02:24:59
aska...@prodigy.net (Askarius) wrote:

<my earlier comments snipped for space>

>Sorry this reply took so long but I just started a new job and it's
>time consuming.

That's perfectly fine. I understand completely having a job consume your
time. It's a little like having your own personal vampire siphoning off
all
your excess energy..:)

>Your arguement would asume that the new found vampire
>still feels human.

I not only assume that, I have Louis and Lestat to back me up on that.
They
both express *very* human feelings throughout the Chronicles.

>You don't feel guilty eating beef because cows are
>a lower life form (ie not human)

Some humans *do* feel guilty eating beef or any other meat because they
don't
see the "lower forms" of animals as any less significant than humans. As a
lover of meat, however, I let my pleasure in the taste override any
misgivings I might have about it. That's basically a conscious choice
however, though based on my own hedonistic tendencies. I could stop if I
wanted. I simply choose not to want to.

>a vampire is more than human it's a superior form of life/unlife.

I don't know that I agree with that totally. A vampire is "superior" in
many
of its physical abilities, but I don't think it's superior in any other
way.
Certainly not in reasoning ability, otherwise, Lestat *never* would have
agreed to the body switch in TotBT. Vampires automatically become superior
thinkers when they cross over into vampiric existence, apparently. So it
becomes a case of whether you believe that superior physical ability makes
you a "superior form of life/unlife" or is it superior mental ability? I
admittedly have a bias towards the latter, since I've always valued it
more
highly. Superior mentality can help even out the playing field for a
person
who's confronted by superior physical ability. Not always...but often
enough
to be the more valuable commodity I think...:)

> If you were about to die of thirst in a
>jungle and you knew an ape had water in it's veins you would joyffully
>slit its veins to satisfy your thirst.

Maybe I would...maybe I wouldn't. I think it depends on the individual
personality involved. Some people are psychologically and emotionally set
up
in such a way that they would literally do *anything* to survive
physically.
Some aren't. And some, like me, don't necessarily see "physical" survival
as
all that important anyway. Which doesn't mean I'm going to step in front
of
oncoming traffic anytime soon. I have the same "instinct" for survival as
other humans...and vampires....do. But I also have "consciousness" and
the
ability to think about my connections with other things and to determine
what
is truly important to me. I think just about every line that Lestat was
supposed to have written indicates that he does too. So he's not that far
removed from humans in the most significant way.

>Your arguement only floats if
>vampires still feel kinship to humans (see lious insistence on eating
>rats)

Precisely! I think most obviously do feel kinship to humans. They seek
them
out for food, true... But they also seek others out for reasons other
than
that. Lestat and his conversations with (and admiration of) David, for
instance.

Carolyn

[KL]

Francis Martinstein wrote:
>
> (To KL: If you'd limited your insulting comments to e-mail I wouldn't be
> posting this to the group. But lies must be challenged. Publicly.
> To anyone else: What follows can get rather nasty at times, for that I

> apologize. I wasn't the one that started this.)I wasn't aware that I was being insulting. Sorry. And what lies were
these? Or is that purely emotive? Anyway, let's get on with the
respectable part of this debate.

Yes. How do you explain away all the acts of murder, rape and stealing
that go on in the world? Are these people somehow not human? Perhaps
you are a higher life form if you have never had the slightest urge to
steal, or murder. As for lying, Good God! There is no way it is humanly
possible to not tell lies. Lying is part of having consciousness, part
of our 'priviledge' as being capable of reason. If lies did not exist, I
cannot even contemplate this...Back to murder, rape, etc. these sorts of
crimes, which occur with alarming frequency, usually have nothing to do
with your definition of survival. (I am speaking of the Western world
here) However, I feel your definition of survival may be too narrow.
Could you consider that a person who commits armed robbery is just using
the most immediate method possible to gain what is needed to survive?
Who is to say that murderers are not just defending their territory? My
idea of survival is one's own basic, selfish life instinct. In our
civilised society, it expresses itself in many 'creative' ways.
Finally, there is nothing reasonable about human beings. We are emotive
and instinctual. My opinion is that we are base, we started base, and no
amount of 'civilisation' can change our basic instincts.

WARNING: You have now reached the bit where Mr/Ms Rational Human Francis
Martinstein gets insulting. (ie. the good bit)

> Interesting you should see this 'irony' reflected in Anne's VampChrons.
> Just goes to show what two (obviously) different people can get from the same book, eh?

> For another thing I at least *react* to most parts of other people's
> postings, unlike most of the people you felt it necessary to congratulate.
> Most of the people who dropped in simply snipped 90% of what I and the
> original poster wrote and simply added their own stuff (often well-trodden
> ground in what came before in the thread).

Sorry, I guess once again you are being snipped.

> Yoshiwara did nothing more than wonder how many good 'ol Stat killed. A
> rather boring exercise in calculation which spawned a far more interesting
> discussion (IMHO, at least!) to which I like to think I contributed more
> than a bit. All my postings were intended as serious and well-considered
> responses. If you perceived them as being 'tangents' then you're certainly
> not getting my intention right.
>
> Also, the slightly less boring quotes I wrote above are by no means
> representative of my usual semi-legalese style. Since most of that provoked
> little reaction, I went for a 'lighter' approach. I therefore don't think
> it's very fair of you to judge all my previous writings in this thread by
> only this last bit.
> If you think I'm some rambling idiot who only ever spews forth lunacy
> that's beside the point, then why not just tell me so mail-to-mail? It
> would certainly be a lot less cowardly than simply 'congratulating' my
> opposite numbers, without adding anything of any value to the discussion

> yourself!What is wrong with thanking peole? I highly enjoyed the whole
discussion. (Yes, I did read it all from the start, including your
posts) If I had congratulated you too at the same time, I bet you
wouldn't have had any complaints about my 'not adding any value to the
discussion'. As it was, I instead recall that because I DIDN'T thank you
you decided to 'not add any value to the discussion' yourself by
whingeing about it to everybody else instead of taking it up with
me personally (which is personally my definition of the 'cowardice' you
accuse me of). If you had not whinged, I would not have had to point out
that I deliberately left you out of my congratulatory list because I
didn't think much about what you had to say. I thought I was being
polite to not mention you at all. Do not blame me for 'starting this'.

>
> I hereby congratulate MYSELF for having done a great job on this thread and
> having defended the ideals of truth, clarity and freedom (or whatever). So
> there.

> Lots of snips.
> You don't understand the first thing about ethics, now do you?Well, now who's being insulting?

> All you've stated above is brilliantly true, yet totally irrelevant. I
> never questioned all those *annoyingly trivial* differences in
> international ethics, or the fact that society's morals develop over time,
> what the <beep> is your flippin' point?
> And yes, each 'n' every darn system of ethics IS total, by definition! The
> fact that they often get limited to certain countries does nothing to
> negate this.
> As for 'tangents', looks like you're far more practised at 'em than I, eh,

> matey?I left this bit in because I thought it might make you feel better.
Though I do wonder why rational human complains about being insulted then
goes on to do exactly the same thing.
> > > Francis

> > Additions by KL.
> The Voice of Clarity and Reason (aka Francis M'stein)

>------------------------------------------------------------------------More additions by K.L. who is most thankful not to be a Voice of Clarity
and Reason.
"Good manners have nothing to do with communication." - j. Guest,
'Ordinary People'

[Francis Martinstein]

KL <elaff...@alpha2.curtin.edu.au> wrote...

> Francis Martinstein wrote:
> >
> > (To KL: If you'd limited your insulting comments to e-mail I wouldn't
be
> > posting this to the group. But lies must be challenged. Publicly.
> > To anyone else: What follows can get rather nasty at times, for that I
> > apologize. I wasn't the one that started this.)

> I wasn't aware that I was being insulting. Sorry. And what lies were
> these? Or is that purely emotive? Anyway, let's get on with the
> respectable part of this debate.

Apology accepted.
Perhaps 'lies' was a bit of an overstatement (okay, it was), but much of
what you said later on in the posting I responded to was condescending to
say the least. By that I mean comments such as:

' You see, Francis, what is being argued is the issues of values, of norms'
' I wish you would stick to the point, it is very hard to debate a set of
tangents'
' Since you have somehow turned this into a discussion on morals'
' To further emphasise this in a language you may understand'

> > > It is in the nature of humans to kill, it is
> > > in the nature to steal, to lie to suit ourselves - the only real
> > > 'truth's that exist are these very basises of our natures which we,
in
> > > order to survive, must repress. It is part of the irony of our whole
> > > condition, the irony which I believe the vampires of Anne Rice
> > > symbolise.
> >
> > Perhaps this is true for you, or even for most people. OTOH, when you
speak
> > of these things in the context of 'the need to survive' then you're
coming
> > close to the 'mitigating circumstances', because of which even
basically
> > unethical acts can become defensible. But would you say that killing,
> > stealing and lying are 'natural' behaviour outside the 'survival'
argument?
>
> Yes. How do you explain away all the acts of murder, rape and stealing
> that go on in the world?

I do not have to explain away anything!
From personal experience I can say that much of heavy theft and murder is
indeed committed by people who haven't been able to build a life outside of
crime, or are motivated by other serious 'survival' motives. Would you say
the majority of murders and thefts are done just for the heck of it?
Because of some ingrained genetical urge to do it?
(Of course, such arguments cannot be applied to such an atrocious crime as
rape.)

> Are these people somehow not human? Perhaps
> you are a higher life form if you have never had the slightest urge to
> steal, or murder.

I never said I never had the urge (quite the contrary), I merely stated I
would not commit these crimes lightly. Not for fun, not just to accumulate
unneeded wealth. That's all I said. Tangents, eh? Not my thing at all.

> As for lying, Good God! There is no way it is humanly
> possible to not tell lies.

(SIGHHHHH) I did in fact not include the word 'lie' in my response, nor was
it in the bit by you I was responding to. By way of proof, here it is
again:

"> > The whole point is that we all would kill, rape, steal etc. if it
> > weren't for the fact that we have as a society developed a complex set
> > of norms, values, etc.
>
> I confess I was slightly amazed upon reading the above...
> Speaking only for myself I can say that your statement is untrue. Even if
> there weren't laws or highly developed systems of ethics I would not
commit
> any of the crimes you listed, perhaps not in any imaginable circumstance.
> But that's just me, of course. This does not mean that I do not respect
> your opinion"

See? But anyway, even if I had been speaking of lies, I would not have
claimed to never have told any.( *Quite* the contrary, in fact!).
Especially the 'little white lies' are a specialty of mine, as I suppose
they are of many other people.
What I don't do is lie to intentionally hurt others, to further all sorts
of smelly ploys or because of some 'typically human urge' to do so. Without
intending any pun, if you seriously think lying is a natural thing to do
(beyond the survival argument in the broadest possible sense) then I would
suggest you may have a serious problem. It's called 'pathological lying'
and it's curable (or so I'm told).

> Lying is part of having consciousness, part
> of our 'priviledge' as being capable of reason. If lies did not exist, I

> cannot even contemplate this...

Errr, contemplate WHAT? Some nefarious crime you're considering right now?

> Back to murder, rape, etc. these sorts of
> crimes, which occur with alarming frequency, usually have nothing to do
> with your definition of survival. (I am speaking of the Western world
> here)

You say so often they have nothing to do with the 'survival argument', but
then, if I may beg the question, what do they have something to do with?
(At this point I'd like to except rape, which I would categorize somewhere
between heavy theft and murder, given the terrible psychological damage
often inflicted on the victim. If it's caused by any ingrained human
disquality it's the uncaring satiating of sexual lust without any thought
on what the receiving party is going through. Or it's simply sadism, of
course).

> However, I feel your definition of survival may be too narrow.
> Could you consider that a person who commits armed robbery is just using
> the most immediate method possible to gain what is needed to survive?

Definitely, we have no difference in opinion there.

> Who is to say that murderers are not just defending their territory? My
> idea of survival is one's own basic, selfish life instinct. In our
> civilised society, it expresses itself in many 'creative' ways.

You're being conveniently vague here, some 'creative' examples, maybe?

Once again, I'm willing to bend the 'survival' motive quite a bit, but I
would like to remind you that if you don't succeed in making a believable
case for widely spread ingrained human traits to commit all sorts of
heinous crimes for no apparant reason (beyond survival), then technically
you've lost this part of the argument.

> Finally, there is nothing reasonable about human beings. We are emotive
> and instinctual.

We are certainly ruled by all sorts of unconscious impulses to satisfy a
wide variety of emotional and instinctive needs, but that does not mean
that we're completely without reason. If that were so we'd still be living
in caves wearing bearskins and chasing attractive females with large clubs
whenever the fancy took us.
Also, science would not have come far in a race primarily base and
emotional.
I would dare to suggest that of all our actions, no more than 15-20% are
explainable by such emotional motives. And that is not saying anything
about the relative importance of said decisions, or the (im)possibility of
primarily immoral ones being among them. Following so far?

> My opinion is that we are base, we started base, and no
> amount of 'civilisation' can change our basic instincts.

Agreed, I've played both Civilization I and II absolutely to death and have
not become a better person in any way because of it. Sad but true.

> WARNING: You have now reached the bit where Mr/Ms Rational Human Francis
> Martinstein gets insulting. (ie. the good bit)

You liked it? Hmmmm....
(You may address me as 'Doctor', BTW)

>
> > Interesting you should see this 'irony' reflected in Anne's VampChrons.
> > Just goes to show what two (obviously) different people can get from
the same book, eh?

(These were separate paragraphs, kindly keep them that way when quoting.)

> > For another thing I at least *react* to most parts of other people's
> > postings, unlike most of the people you felt it necessary to
congratulate.
> > Most of the people who dropped in simply snipped 90% of what I and the
> > original poster wrote and simply added their own stuff (often
well-trodden
> > ground in what came before in the thread).
>
> Sorry, I guess once again you are being snipped.

You do indeed display a disappointing tendency to snip parts of a posting
which have moved beyond your capacity to turn them to your favor. Must be
one of those 'human' traits you pride yourself on. And for that I
congratulate you....NOT!

> > If you think I'm some rambling idiot who only ever spews forth lunacy
> > that's beside the point, then why not just tell me so mail-to-mail? It
> > would certainly be a lot less cowardly than simply 'congratulating' my
> > opposite numbers, without adding anything of any value to the
discussion
> > yourself!

> What is wrong with thanking peole?

Apart from being superfluous and (in this instance) somewhat unwarranted?
Nothing.

> I highly enjoyed the whole
> discussion. (Yes, I did read it all from the start, including your
> posts) If I had congratulated you too at the same time, I bet you
> wouldn't have had any complaints about my 'not adding any value to the
> discussion'. As it was, I instead recall that because I DIDN'T thank you

> you decided to 'not add any value to the discussion' yourself by
> whingeing about it to everybody

That was a JOKE, of course! Geez...

> else instead of taking it up with
> me personally (which is personally my definition of the 'cowardice' you
> accuse me of).

I didn't need to take up anything with you. When I opened your first post
in the thread I hoped to find some continuation of the thread in question,
instead I found your childish and grumpy irrelevancies. Why didn't YOU
congratulate those people personally? Did you really expect the other side
to remain silent? I know I wouldn't have, but that's just me, of course.

> If you had not whinged, I would not have had to point out
> that I deliberately left you out of my congratulatory list because I
> didn't think much about what you had to say.

Like I hadn't figured that out the moment I read your congrats!

> I thought I was being
> polite to not mention you at all. Do not blame me for 'starting this'.

I still do, although that does not imply that I much care about what you
wrote one way or another.
I was more disappointed about what you didn't write (i.e. some actual
continuation of the matter at hand) than about what you did. My 'whingeing'
was an attemp to kick some life back into the thread, and to compensate for
the innate dustiness of what I'd written before.
I'm not sure what went wrong, if I missed some posts by Astrid, Carolyn and
Yoshiwara or if they had better things to do and missed mine because of
that. I don't blame them one way or another, but I *do* value their input
and was sorry when I no longer found a reply from them. The fact that I
respond to something means I appreciate what the other person has to say
(yes, that includes you!), even if I don't start waving congrats because of
it.

> Lots of snips.

Oh, and could you try to snip accurately? I've been untangling your words
from mine throughout your entire post!

> > You don't understand the first thing about ethics, now do you?
>Well, now who's being insulting?

I'm only saying it as I see it. What you said (and conveniently snipped, of
course) was not relevant and I said so. If you disagree then say so and
why. I truly could find nothing in anything I'd written before that would
condemn me to read your *annoyingly trivial and beside the point* story
about cultural differences and the development of ethics over time.

The quotes from you I repeated at the beginning of this posting are no less
insulting than what I wrote above...

> > All you've stated above is brilliantly true, yet totally irrelevant. I
> > never questioned all those *annoyingly trivial* differences in
> > international ethics, or the fact that society's morals develop over
time,
> > what the <beep> is your flippin' point?

I said that and you said......nothing!

> > And yes, each 'n' every darn system of ethics IS total, by definition!
The
> > fact that they often get limited to certain countries does nothing to
> > negate this.

I typed that and you thrust back with......nothing!

> > As for 'tangents', looks like you're far more practised at 'em than I,
eh,
> > matey?I left this bit in because I thought it might make you feel
better.

I wrote that and... oh wait, you did say something here:

> Though I do wonder why rational human complains about being insulted then

> goes on to do exactly the same thing.

I wasn't that insulting, now was I? Certainly no more than you were. If
you're interested I could get downright mean and give you something to
compare....but not here and not now.

One thing I do maintain about you: you're a coward!

First the congrats, then the snipping of bits you've lost. Not to mention
all the 'tangents' which could have been easily avoided if you'd actually
read what I said before hammering out a response, examples:
- implying I claimed never to have lied
- not responding to (ie snipping) my point that norms, values, morals etc
are basically the same thing
- your whole treatise on morals which you have snipped without explaining
why you thought it necessary in the first place

I'm not even going to bother with listing all of them, since you'll just
snip them anyway, like the true coward you are.

> > > > Francis
> > > Additions by KL.
> > The Voice of Clarity and Reason (aka Francis M'stein)
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
>More additions by K.L. who is most thankful not to be a Voice of Clarity
and Reason.

With 'clarity and reason' I meant that I at least took the trouble to treat
your post logically and systematically without snipping lots and responding
to and with lots of half-arguments, not that I am some superhuman being who
has never committed any crime, big or small. As you could have realized,
had you half tried.

Dr. Francis M'stein
---------------------------

' To BE or not BE, that is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the snips and blabbers of
outrageous nincompoops
Then to take up arms against a sea of nonsense and by opposing end it?'

William Shakespear? Not really...

[Carolyn SH]

zum...@pib1.physik.uni-bonn.de wrote on
15 Dec 1996

>Not at all ... The person's body weight is one of the parameters going
into
>the amount of blood in a person ... 'M afraid it's been over ten years
since I
>toyed with the idea of becoming an M.D. seriously enough to read into it,
but
>it is something like a liter of blood per kilogram of body weight ... But
it
>was only a rule of the thumb thing. So a child would have lots less blood

>than an adult ...

Ah yes. I wasn't sure about that. But now that you've pointed it out, then
I would suppose that is the reason Claudia might be able to make a child
vampire but not an adult vampire herself. Makes sense to me. A simple
matter of the volume of blood that would need to be exchanged. And of
course, I still contend that Claudia would have no interest in making a
child vampire. They wouldn't interest her intellectually. And they'd be no
use to her as a protector. So why bother. Claudia seems very pragmatic
about things like that. Vengeful, but terribly pragmatic.

Carolyn

Have fun

Harry