Yeah, "They're not us." isn't a justification or excuse. Evil is evil, animals are animals, vampires are not animals. When a vampire offs a random innocent person it's evil just like when a human does it. Or it's not evil for pretty much the same reason it would be ok for a human to off someone. Vampires don't need to kill to feed even, so they have no ground to stand on in that regard. If they randomly feed on people, but left them alive: that can be debated. But they don't get a blanket pardon for being "other".
If i had a crack gland, me selling the crack would be higher on a moral ladder than someone beating me up for the crack, selling it, and giving me none of the money, absolutely.
You're deliberately ignoring every other fact about that situation, which is kinda goosey of you.
Lafayette wasn't beating up Erik to sell his blood. That would be hilarious, though.
But anyway, even if Erik had moral superiority over Lafayette (he doesn't), his response would still be completely disproportionate, illegal, and immoral.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
If i had a crack gland, me selling the crack would be higher on a moral ladder than someone beating me up for the crack, selling it, and giving me none of the money, absolutely.
You're deliberately ignoring every other fact about that situation, which is kinda goosey of you.
Lafayette wasn't beating up Erik to sell his blood. That would be hilarious, though.
But anyway, even if Erik had moral superiority over Lafayette (he doesn't), his response would still be completely disproportionate, illegal, and immoral.
Lafayette wasn't, but other people are and do in the series, and lafayette is dumb enough to get mistaken for one of them. Considering people are hunting them for their blood, what is a proportional response to that? What would you do if someone wanted to tie you down with corrosive ropes and freebase one of your vital organs? A harsh response to that seems fair to me.
When you're hunting something to drain it's blood, you don't get to say it's evil because it drains people's blood, that's what's great because it makes the humans hypocrites.
But as for the issue of proportionality and morality:
Eric's not only not human, and hasn't been in some time, but when he was, his response would have been considered mild, legal, and proportionate. It's an issue of clashing histories and contexts, and antiquated morals (which are still morals). The point is to wonder if its vamparism that's "evil" or people given power that are evil. It's not their differences that make them "evil" - we don't think of predators as evil. It's their humanity that perverts their power. It's why it's not "the wolf" instead of the wolfman, or just doctor jackyl on his own
The fact that it's tied up with "OMG IT'S A DRUG" makes it very complicated, and so does the fact that it heals people (if your kid was sick, would you head to fangtasia with your silver lasso? Bet your ass you would, which is why they actually try to downplay what it does).
Killing a living, sentient being that does not want to die so that you can eat it when you have an alternative that doesn't require you to kill a living, sentient being is pretty damn evil. There's a reason cannibalistic culture has a pretty strong taboo in the vast majority of cultures around the world. Lions and chimps do those things because of instinct, not reasoned intellectual decision making. That's why they're not sentient.
Aren't you saying that everyone who isn't a vegan is evil? Or are you making a distinction here between a cannibal and someone who enjoys some fried chicken for dinner? Those chickens don't want to die either. If you threatened a chicken's life, it would probably at least express its disagreement by trying to run away.
This whole thing is complicated again though by the fact that humans can BECOME vampires, so every human you kill is a potential individual of your own species lost. Which is not the case with chickens.
Killing a living, sentient being that does not want to die so that you can eat it when you have an alternative that doesn't require you to kill a living, sentient being is pretty damn evil. There's a reason cannibalistic culture has a pretty strong taboo in the vast majority of cultures around the world. Lions and chimps do those things because of instinct, not reasoned intellectual decision making. That's why they're not sentient.
Aren't you saying that everyone who isn't a vegan is evil?
What's the confusion here? Barring personal factors Humans=Vampires>>>>Animals. Simple! But then people have trouble accepting Being A Vampire>Being A Human, so I suppose it's par for the course.
Lafayette wasn't beating up Erik to sell his blood. That would be hilarious, though.
But anyway, even if Erik had moral superiority over Lafayette (he doesn't), his response would still be completely disproportionate, illegal, and immoral.
Lafayette wasn't, but other people are and do in the series, and lafayette is dumb enough to get mistaken for one of them.
No, he was dumb enough to be dealing drugs with the cartel operating in the next town. You know what happens when individual operators don't let the cartel in on a piece of the action? Bad things. What are cartels that do bad things? Evil.
Considering people are hunting them for their blood, what is a proportional response to that?
Flawed premise, see above, but the proportional, appropriate response from a non-monster is to call the cops. Lafayette even probably has priors, it wouldn't be hard to shut him down if the local law enforcement tried at the behest of a legitimate Shreveport business owner like Erik Northman.
What would you do if someone wanted to tie you down with corrosive ropes and freebase one of your vital organs? A harsh response to that seems fair to me.
What part of "Erik is the cartel, not the victim" is unclear here?
When you're hunting something to drain it's blood, you don't get to say it's evil because it drains people's blood, that's what's great because it makes the humans hypocrites.
What's the percentage of humans that hunt vampires for their blood on this show? Okay. What's the percentage of vampires that flat out murder people, for food or kicks? Oh, more than that. By a significant amount.
Nope, Erik lives in modern United States and has agreed, by living out in the open as a citizen, to abide by its rules and culture. What happened a thousand years ago is not relevant here, except when trying to understand Erik's (evil) character.
Some people go a long way to excuse someone just because they're cool or pretty. You know what, just go look up Draco In Leather Pants over at TVTropes.
Killing a living, sentient being that does not want to die so that you can eat it when you have an alternative that doesn't require you to kill a living, sentient being is pretty damn evil. There's a reason cannibalistic culture has a pretty strong taboo in the vast majority of cultures around the world. Lions and chimps do those things because of instinct, not reasoned intellectual decision making. That's why they're not sentient.
Aren't you saying that everyone who isn't a vegan is evil? Or are you making a distinction here between a cannibal and someone who enjoys some fried chicken for dinner? Those chickens don't want to die either. If you threatened a chicken's life, it would probably at least express its disagreement by trying to run away.
This whole thing is complicated again though by the fact that humans can BECOME vampires, so every human you kill is a potential individual of your own species lost. Which is not the case with chickens.
Not the best allegory. The truth is, Vampires don't have to kill to feed which was perfectly illustrated by Bill in 80's London where he fed, glamoured and then healed the club goer. Vampires who kill when feeding are evil.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
Lafayette wasn't beating up Erik to sell his blood. That would be hilarious, though.
But anyway, even if Erik had moral superiority over Lafayette (he doesn't), his response would still be completely disproportionate, illegal, and immoral.
Lafayette wasn't, but other people are and do in the series, and lafayette is dumb enough to get mistaken for one of them.
No, he was dumb enough to be dealing drugs with the cartel operating in the next town. You know what happens when individual operators don't let the cartel in on a piece of the action? Bad things. What are cartels that do bad things? Evil.
Considering people are hunting them for their blood, what is a proportional response to that?
Flawed premise, see above, but the proportional, appropriate response from a non-monster is to call the cops. Lafayette even probably has priors, it wouldn't be hard to shut him down if the local law enforcement tried at the behest of a legitimate Shreveport business owner like Erik Northman.
What would you do if someone wanted to tie you down with corrosive ropes and freebase one of your vital organs? A harsh response to that seems fair to me.
What part of "Erik is the cartel, not the victim" is unclear here?
When you're hunting something to drain it's blood, you don't get to say it's evil because it drains people's blood, that's what's great because it makes the humans hypocrites.
What's the percentage of humans that hunt vampires for their blood on this show? Okay. What's the percentage of vampires that flat out murder people, for food or kicks? Oh, more than that. By a significant amount.
Nope, Erik lives in modern United States and has agreed, by living out in the open as a citizen, to abide by its rules and culture. What happened a thousand years ago is not relevant here, except when trying to understand Erik's (evil) character.
Some people go a long way to excuse someone just because they're cool or pretty. You know what, just go look up Draco In Leather Pants over at TVTropes.
Well, they actually have shown organized V harvesters in the show - so there is not just one cartel.
Legality isn't morality - locking someone up for selling your blood may not be legal, but it is arguably not amoral or unreasonable.
Eric may voluntarially sell his blood (morally; legally may be a different thing) - it is less ethical for someone to sell another vampire's blood against that vampire's wishes (yes this would apply to vampires eric forces to participate)
For example, if I have weed, and you steal my weed, that is still theft, even though it wasn't legal in the first place. If I sell the weed I grew, because I want too, i am more moral than you when you make me sell the weed. (Erik has been both sides of this equation, so he's a strange example)
What percentage of vampires on the show murder people "for kicks?" ... ahm...zero? Even the most deranged vampire on the show isn't actually killing people just for fun, yet.
Murdering them for food? The only voluntary lethal draining I recall in the contemporary scenes is
claudette and the trucker
When vampires kill over issues of self control, is that "evil"? Doesn't evil involve choice?
But ignoring that and discussing "evil" and vampires: I'm not disputing that vampires are evil (or 'bad' - to me 'evil' is a term you reserve for people with inexplicable motivations, or no noble impulses whatsoever - cowards, traitors, and profiteers), what I take issue with is the notion that they are so because they are vampires.
What I am trying to tell you regarding eric's history, is part of the intrigue of any vampire story is that they are antiquated. They are forces of chaos and earlier times, like all "dragons" in myth.
Dracula himself was interesting because he acted like a quixotic knight part of the time. His morality both paralleled and painted his struggle with his nature - was he not a "vampire" in life, when he lead men to their deaths, lived off the peasants, and killed who he chose? His victims in life outnumbered his victims in undeath. He was arguably more, or no more, "evil" when his heart was beating. His history informed his manner when not hunting or feeding, caused him guilt at his actions, and ultimately his grisly actions as a noble caused his condition - but they also, enabled his resistance to his nature. A thousand year old creature SHOULDN'T feel all that impressed by the laws of a 200 year old country, any more than you're particularly awed by the conch republic.
The question of whether a character like eric's maleficence stems from his vamparism, his origins in an older time, or if his vampraism simply enables his base human nature to run to excess is the key question of this genre, informing it from the bubblegum level all the way up to more serious examinations of it. Vamparism is nothing but power. Vampire stories are about the interplay of power and ordinary psychology.
PS we are discussing differing opinions about a tv show here, further gay jokes will not be well received or make your case
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
edited June 2012
You know what also makes it interesting? Jessica and boobs.
As mentioned before, I barely take this show seriously. I like the plot lines because they're silly and interesting. I like some of the characters because they're bad ass and do cool things. I like the women because they get naked. This isn't exactly the most thought provoking show on TV.
I fully enjoyed reading this thread as it sunk its fangs deep into nature vs nurture of the fictional vampire - its originally in part what made the show interesting to me in its first season.
I fully enjoyed reading this thread as it sunk its fangs deep into nature vs nurture of the fictional vampire - its originally in part what made the show interesting to me in its first season.
I uh. Really enjoyed it too. Then I felt weird because it was true blood.
Just because something is intentionally trashy doesn't mean it can't have anything to say.
One of the best things about True Blood is that it manages to be crazy-ass shitballs nutzo while maintaining a straight face and a coherant plot. Actually a lot of coherant plots. Too many, maybe.
Just because something is intentionally trashy doesn't mean it can't have anything to say.
One of the best things about True Blood is that it manages to be crazy-ass shitballs nutzo while maintaining a straight face and a coherant plot. Actually a lot of coherant plots. Too many, maybe.
Furthermore, even if something doesn't have anything to say on its own doesn't mean people can't use it as a basis for discussion. (The reason I always get irritated when someone makes a "why are we even having this argument, it's ___" comment.)
Jessica only gets half credit. She only showed up because she wanted to jump some other guys (great, more fairies...) bones and wanted to jump Jason and may still be angling that direction.
Jason also only gets half credit because he's not supposed to get all...aware. Does he not realize he turned down Jessica?! Isn't that a crime? If he's going to help create this shit pile and force us to see Hoyt in makeup he needs to make up for it. By NOT getting ladies naked he's screwing that part up!
As was said, all the C and D and E etc plots were handled well/briefly. I expect something to come of Nora being left to die/confessing besides just killing her.
Tara gets a gold star for effort. I assume by Pam's reaction, though, she fucked it up. If Tara was dead Pam would be happy if anything. Instead, Tara will bungle this too, Eric will find out Pam left her in the gutter and more Sad Pam. Fucking Tara.
0
Options
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
Jessica only gets half credit. She only showed up because she wanted to jump some other guys (great, more fairies...) bones and wanted to jump Jason and may still be angling that direction.
Jason also only gets half credit because he's not supposed to get all...aware. Does he not realize he turned down Jessica?! Isn't that a crime? If he's going to help create this shit pile and force us to see Hoyt in makeup he needs to make up for it. By NOT getting ladies naked he's screwing that part up!
As was said, all the C and D and E etc plots were handled well/briefly. I expect something to come of Nora being left to die/confessing besides just killing her.
Tara gets a gold star for effort. I assume by Pam's reaction, though, she fucked it up. If Tara was dead Pam would be happy if anything. Instead, Tara will bungle this too, Eric will find out Pam left her in the gutter and more Sad Pam. Fucking Tara.
I really liked the opening scene.
Being shown what it's like to see through a vampires eyes in this universe (well in any canon) was pretty awesome. I'm pretty excited to see where they go with this.
Favorite line, "Arlene, what the hell is this?! This soup is colder than titties in a brass bra!"
Because if you're going to attempt to squeeze that big black monster into your slot you will need to be able to take at least 12 inches or else you're going to have a bad time...
I also found this episode to be entertaining all the way through. And it seems my wife and I are sold on The Newsroom now. Sunday evenings are looking good - between this and past Sundays with Game of Thrones and The Wire reruns, HBO is knocking it out of the park as far as I am concerned.
Most surprising thing of the evening, Tara finding the willpower to overcome her blood lust/hunger pains, I thought that lady was done for sure. And I don't know why but I find vampire politics fascinating. Pam's flashback reminded me of something, doesn't it seem like Bill's maker not giving him the low down on vampire power structure he is repeating with Jessica? He really hasn't done a whole lot to take her under his wing. Bill, Eric, and Eric's "sister" seem to be in a rather unique power position that other vampires don't get, they don't have a maker who can make them do whatever they want. I hope they figure out how to get those stake devices off pronto.
I was really glad to see Sookie blast away and to have Sam's hilarious "Think about the boobs!" thoughts. I haven't been that happy to see her story for a while now, as far as I am concerned, her faerie blasts and Sam's thoughts make a great show.
I could do without the "Andy's awkward love life" subplot. Unless he's playing buddy cop movie with Jason, I really don't care what he's up to.
But then I enjoy the Terry stuff because I just like Terry that much, so I guess I can't complain about tertiary characters getting too much screen time...
Loved the Salome background info.
0
Options
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
Only now did I realize that the Salome woman, who bonked Eric and Bill, is in the god damned bible. I just thought they made her character up for the show
Interesting that age plays such a role in the vampire hierarchy, but there are Authority vamps that are older than Roman (Salome and the kid, and possibly Nora).
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Interesting that age plays such a role in the vampire hierarchy, but there are Authority vamps that are older than Roman (Salome and the kid, and possibly Nora).
Yeah, it's some function of age and politics. Godric was old as shit but uninterested in playing power games, for example, versus the old queen of Louisiana who wasn't that powerful of a vampire.
Kinda thought Bill and Tara would've had more of a talk, seeing as he'd be most able to sympathize with her disgust at becoming a vampire.
Pam's whole "As your maker, I forbid you from killing yourself" bit kinda punches a hole in Bill's leverage against Lorena though. Didn't he win his freedom from her by threatening to stake himself?
Also: Tara is dumb. If you're gonna kill yourself, you don't pick the slowest, most horriblest method you can think of. That's like deciding to dissolve yourself in acid instead of just shooting yourself in the head. WTF.
Posts
You're deliberately ignoring every other fact about that situation, which is kinda goosey of you.
Lafayette wasn't beating up Erik to sell his blood. That would be hilarious, though.
But anyway, even if Erik had moral superiority over Lafayette (he doesn't), his response would still be completely disproportionate, illegal, and immoral.
Lafayette wasn't, but other people are and do in the series, and lafayette is dumb enough to get mistaken for one of them. Considering people are hunting them for their blood, what is a proportional response to that? What would you do if someone wanted to tie you down with corrosive ropes and freebase one of your vital organs? A harsh response to that seems fair to me.
When you're hunting something to drain it's blood, you don't get to say it's evil because it drains people's blood, that's what's great because it makes the humans hypocrites.
But as for the issue of proportionality and morality:
Eric's not only not human, and hasn't been in some time, but when he was, his response would have been considered mild, legal, and proportionate. It's an issue of clashing histories and contexts, and antiquated morals (which are still morals). The point is to wonder if its vamparism that's "evil" or people given power that are evil. It's not their differences that make them "evil" - we don't think of predators as evil. It's their humanity that perverts their power. It's why it's not "the wolf" instead of the wolfman, or just doctor jackyl on his own
The fact that it's tied up with "OMG IT'S A DRUG" makes it very complicated, and so does the fact that it heals people (if your kid was sick, would you head to fangtasia with your silver lasso? Bet your ass you would, which is why they actually try to downplay what it does).
I host a podcast about movies.
Aren't you saying that everyone who isn't a vegan is evil? Or are you making a distinction here between a cannibal and someone who enjoys some fried chicken for dinner? Those chickens don't want to die either. If you threatened a chicken's life, it would probably at least express its disagreement by trying to run away.
This whole thing is complicated again though by the fact that humans can BECOME vampires, so every human you kill is a potential individual of your own species lost. Which is not the case with chickens.
Living, sentient being.
No, he was dumb enough to be dealing drugs with the cartel operating in the next town. You know what happens when individual operators don't let the cartel in on a piece of the action? Bad things. What are cartels that do bad things? Evil.
Flawed premise, see above, but the proportional, appropriate response from a non-monster is to call the cops. Lafayette even probably has priors, it wouldn't be hard to shut him down if the local law enforcement tried at the behest of a legitimate Shreveport business owner like Erik Northman.
What part of "Erik is the cartel, not the victim" is unclear here?
What's the percentage of humans that hunt vampires for their blood on this show? Okay. What's the percentage of vampires that flat out murder people, for food or kicks? Oh, more than that. By a significant amount.
Nope, Erik lives in modern United States and has agreed, by living out in the open as a citizen, to abide by its rules and culture. What happened a thousand years ago is not relevant here, except when trying to understand Erik's (evil) character.
Some people go a long way to excuse someone just because they're cool or pretty. You know what, just go look up Draco In Leather Pants over at TVTropes.
Not the best allegory. The truth is, Vampires don't have to kill to feed which was perfectly illustrated by Bill in 80's London where he fed, glamoured and then healed the club goer. Vampires who kill when feeding are evil.
Well, they actually have shown organized V harvesters in the show - so there is not just one cartel.
Legality isn't morality - locking someone up for selling your blood may not be legal, but it is arguably not amoral or unreasonable.
Eric may voluntarially sell his blood (morally; legally may be a different thing) - it is less ethical for someone to sell another vampire's blood against that vampire's wishes (yes this would apply to vampires eric forces to participate)
For example, if I have weed, and you steal my weed, that is still theft, even though it wasn't legal in the first place. If I sell the weed I grew, because I want too, i am more moral than you when you make me sell the weed. (Erik has been both sides of this equation, so he's a strange example)
What percentage of vampires on the show murder people "for kicks?" ... ahm...zero? Even the most deranged vampire on the show isn't actually killing people just for fun, yet.
Murdering them for food? The only voluntary lethal draining I recall in the contemporary scenes is
When vampires kill over issues of self control, is that "evil"? Doesn't evil involve choice?
But ignoring that and discussing "evil" and vampires: I'm not disputing that vampires are evil (or 'bad' - to me 'evil' is a term you reserve for people with inexplicable motivations, or no noble impulses whatsoever - cowards, traitors, and profiteers), what I take issue with is the notion that they are so because they are vampires.
What I am trying to tell you regarding eric's history, is part of the intrigue of any vampire story is that they are antiquated. They are forces of chaos and earlier times, like all "dragons" in myth.
Dracula himself was interesting because he acted like a quixotic knight part of the time. His morality both paralleled and painted his struggle with his nature - was he not a "vampire" in life, when he lead men to their deaths, lived off the peasants, and killed who he chose? His victims in life outnumbered his victims in undeath. He was arguably more, or no more, "evil" when his heart was beating. His history informed his manner when not hunting or feeding, caused him guilt at his actions, and ultimately his grisly actions as a noble caused his condition - but they also, enabled his resistance to his nature. A thousand year old creature SHOULDN'T feel all that impressed by the laws of a 200 year old country, any more than you're particularly awed by the conch republic.
The question of whether a character like eric's maleficence stems from his vamparism, his origins in an older time, or if his vampraism simply enables his base human nature to run to excess is the key question of this genre, informing it from the bubblegum level all the way up to more serious examinations of it. Vamparism is nothing but power. Vampire stories are about the interplay of power and ordinary psychology.
PS we are discussing differing opinions about a tv show here, further gay jokes will not be well received or make your case
I host a podcast about movies.
I host a podcast about movies.
As mentioned before, I barely take this show seriously. I like the plot lines because they're silly and interesting. I like some of the characters because they're bad ass and do cool things. I like the women because they get naked. This isn't exactly the most thought provoking show on TV.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
I host a podcast about movies.
I uh. Really enjoyed it too. Then I felt weird because it was true blood.
One of the best things about True Blood is that it manages to be crazy-ass shitballs nutzo while maintaining a straight face and a coherant plot. Actually a lot of coherant plots. Too many, maybe.
Watching Newsroom now.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
Furthermore, even if something doesn't have anything to say on its own doesn't mean people can't use it as a basis for discussion. (The reason I always get irritated when someone makes a "why are we even having this argument, it's ___" comment.)
Jason also only gets half credit because he's not supposed to get all...aware. Does he not realize he turned down Jessica?! Isn't that a crime? If he's going to help create this shit pile and force us to see Hoyt in makeup he needs to make up for it. By NOT getting ladies naked he's screwing that part up!
As was said, all the C and D and E etc plots were handled well/briefly. I expect something to come of Nora being left to die/confessing besides just killing her.
Tara gets a gold star for effort. I assume by Pam's reaction, though, she fucked it up. If Tara was dead Pam would be happy if anything. Instead, Tara will bungle this too, Eric will find out Pam left her in the gutter and more Sad Pam. Fucking Tara.
I really liked the opening scene.
Favorite line, "Arlene, what the hell is this?! This soup is colder than titties in a brass bra!"
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
I clapped a little.
Really enjoyed this episode. The more we see of the Authority the happier I am, really.
Most surprising thing of the evening, Tara finding the willpower to overcome her blood lust/hunger pains, I thought that lady was done for sure. And I don't know why but I find vampire politics fascinating. Pam's flashback reminded me of something, doesn't it seem like Bill's maker not giving him the low down on vampire power structure he is repeating with Jessica? He really hasn't done a whole lot to take her under his wing. Bill, Eric, and Eric's "sister" seem to be in a rather unique power position that other vampires don't get, they don't have a maker who can make them do whatever they want. I hope they figure out how to get those stake devices off pronto.
I was really glad to see Sookie blast away and to have Sam's hilarious "Think about the boobs!" thoughts. I haven't been that happy to see her story for a while now, as far as I am concerned, her faerie blasts and Sam's thoughts make a great show.
But then I enjoy the Terry stuff because I just like Terry that much, so I guess I can't complain about tertiary characters getting too much screen time...
Loved the Salome background info.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
:shock:
Really interesting cliffhangers on this one.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
Yeah, it's some function of age and politics. Godric was old as shit but uninterested in playing power games, for example, versus the old queen of Louisiana who wasn't that powerful of a vampire.
Pam's whole "As your maker, I forbid you from killing yourself" bit kinda punches a hole in Bill's leverage against Lorena though. Didn't he win his freedom from her by threatening to stake himself?
Also: Tara is dumb. If you're gonna kill yourself, you don't pick the slowest, most horriblest method you can think of. That's like deciding to dissolve yourself in acid instead of just shooting yourself in the head. WTF.