Vampirism

[fanatacist]

Okay? My explanation for both does not warrant my belief in them. Just because I can explain scientifically (though hypothetically) a POSSIBLE reason for their existance doesn't mean I believe that possibility has been realized and that it actually happened. I can scientifically explain why the world would end in 2012, but that doesn't mean I believe in it because it's not absolute certainty. Just because there is a possibility for something to occur doesn't mean that it will or has, which also means that I can choose to believe in it or not.

[Anonymous]

Getting back to vampires... the reason why the theory of vampires started was because of some plague in europe where people grew fangs and looked horrific and they bit people because the plague they had screwed up they're head.. because of that, that is the reason why we have The Vampire, The wolfman, the mummy, frankenstien... just fictional creatures that were over exaggerated

yeah its pretty vague but thats all i really know about it

[fanatacist]

That is complete nonsense... People never grew fangs or bit people due to some plague... How right was I in predicting that you would say something like this... The only reason I am not deleting your post is because I want to use this as an example of what NOT to say... Simply wow...


Any response of yours that does not have a citation link of some sort will be deleted. Please refrain from saying anything else of this nature, ever again.

[Anonymous]

no not grew fangs.. just that they're teeth deteriorated and looked like fangs

[fanatacist]

Please cite a source for this. Not wikipedia either.

[John]

Please cite a source for this. Not wikipedia either.

UrbanDictionary.com doesn't count either.

[Anonymous]

i cant find a source... i just thought i remembered hearing that along time ago.. anyway i dont believe in vampires becuz a human being just like us doesnt need blood to survive

[fanatacist]

John or Camel, we need moderators for this section, because of posts like that.

Have you read any of the past posts? At all? I am so tempted to point out how retarded and ignorant you sound, but it says "no flaming" so I won't. Just stop posting stupid smurf that was already mentioned earlier, that has no backing of any kind, and that which you can't find a source for. Jesus christ, is it that hard to do that? Maybe it is for you, but in that case, stop posting at all.

[John]

Origin of the Vampire as per: why-war.com

The vampire originated as a political metaphor used to critique tyranny. In 1725 and 1732, two villages in the occupied territories of Serbia suffered an outbreak of a vampire that spurned the threat of a mass nonviolent uprising and a collective demand for respect of their cultural practices. Perhaps fearing that a shadowy monster would challenge their rational-imperial might, the Austrian Habsburgs sent in the scientists and seven years later another report was received. This report by five medical officers confirming the existence of vampires must have quickly spread quickly; within three months the London Journal was discussing the episode. Thus, it was the London Journal that introduced the vampire into English in 1732 and used it explicitly as a metaphor for the abuses of the dominant noble class. It was an attack levied at a time that Jürgen Habermas describes as a transition between a politicized public society developed by the coffee house culture to a public constructed by the newspaper, or “World of Letters”. This historical coincidence places the origin of the vampire myth at a crucial moment in both the formation of the press and the psyche of the public.

The first account of the vampire came in 1725, fifteen years before the War of the Austrian Succession and the demise of the Austrian Habsburg Empire. The Imperial Provisor wrote to inform “the most laudable Administration” of the bizarre actions of their Serbian subjects who had demanded the right to exhume the corpse of Peter Plogojowitz as he was a vampire. Attempting to exert his control over their affairs, the Imperial Povisor tried to stop the procedure until the Austrian Empire was notified. The resulting clash between indigenous custom and occupation law brought about the emergence of nonviolent resistance.

The villagers, unwilling to delay their own customs in deference to the foreign occupier replied that they would vacate the city unless they were able to act. They made it explicit to the Provisor that they were contesting his authority and demanding “legal recognition to deal with the body according to their custom”. The demand for legal recognition and threat of nonviolent resistance was augmented by the implication that they, or someone, would use force. The Provisor was told that “by the time a gracious resolution was received from Belgrade, perhaps the entire village […] could be destroyed by such an evil spirit”. The Provisor was forced to allow the procedure but placed the blame fully on “the rabble”.

One can imagine the reaction this report must have elicited in the Austrians. Aware of their tenuous political position, the Spanish Habsburgs had fallen only 25 years before, the Austrians must have been alarmed. For the Austrians, the vampire likely appeared as a political entity that could hasten their demise, or at least frighten their subjects out of obedience, and thus worth investigation. Charles VI’s response was to send a medical team to investigate in 1732. The report titled Visum et Repertum (Things Seen and Reported) that was sent back was de-politicized through scientific discourse. Unlike in the earlier account, minimal time is spent explaining confrontations of the villagers with Austrian rule. Instead, the vampire was treated as a scientific problem, which explains why the report spends the majority of its time detailing the case histories of the various victims. The report did, however, add one crucial detail to the vampire. It was infectious: “all those who were tormented and killed by the vampires must themselves become vampires.”

From the reports of a military occupation force the vampire was borne. In 1732, within three months of the second report, the London Journal began to report on the phenomenon. This came at a time when the press was beginning to create a politicized public. It was a development brought about by several factors. Jürgen Habermas identifies one in particular that immediately gave the press added political power: the end of censorship with the expiration of the Licensing Act of 1662. The act whose title read “An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses” expired in 1695. The result was that “compared to the press in the other European states […] the British press enjoyed unique liberties.” Although the press may have had greater powers, it wasn’t until 1722 that the political opposition, the Tories, gained control of a leading newspaper. That leading newspaper was the London Journal.

The London Journal was the first major newspaper to be owned by the opposition. Purchased in 1722, the London Journal was “the most important and widely read journal at that time” and “created political journalism in the grand style”. It also marks the formation of a politicized public with uniform political views. Habermas supplies an informative quote on this subject that is worth citing at length:

    The innovation brought about by the opposition was the creation of a popular opinion. Bolingbroke [the Tory leader] and his friends knew how to form such a public opinion that, aimed at the same objective and furnished with likeminded impulses of will, could be mobilized for political use. It was not demagoguery and sloganeering, uproars and mob scenes that were novel…. Also, there were still no regular public meetings…. Rather, this public opinion was directed by another factor: by the establishment of an independent journalism that knew how to assert itself against the government and that made critical commentary and public opposition against the government part of the normal state of affairs.

Concretely, we could say that for the first time the public, constituted by those who were reading the papers, was being taught political attacks against the dominant forces. It was an attack often framed in metaphorical terms: four years after the formation of the London Journal, the opposition printed “Swift’s Gulliver, Pope’s Dunciad, and Gay’s Fables”. It is in this context that vampirism was given to the public by the opposition in the form of “Political Vampyres”.

The London Journal piece uses the vampire as a symbolic through which the public is taught to understand political affairs. Accepting the above discussion about the historical context of the vampire, we can imagine that the public’s political consciousness was relatively unformed. The role of the article, then, seems to be to provide the public with a basic metaphor for the relationship between the people and the nobles that will benefit the Tories, who were wealthy but typically not nobles. Thus, the vampire is treated not as a problem for science nor for fantasy. This is established in the opening of the piece which contrasts the opinions of a “Doctor of Physick” and a “beautiful young Lady, an Admirer of strange Occurrences”. The doctor takes the literal approach and insists that corpses cannot “torment the Living by sucking their Blood” while the lady takes an apolitical, fantastic position and argues for their existence. The author of the piece then teaches the public the correct political interpretation - the vampire is a metaphor for oppression:

    I must agree with the learned Doctor, that an inanimate Corpse cannot perform any vital Functions; yet, agree with the Lady that there are Vampyres. This Account, you’ll observe, comes the Eastern Part of the World, always remarkable for the Allegorical Style. The States of Hungary are in Subjection to the Turks and Germans, and govern’d by a pretty hard Hand; which obliges them to couch all their Complaints under Figures.

The author then goes on to insist that vampires do exist, namely in the form of the noble classes, the Whigs: “History, especially our own, supplies us with so many Instances of Vampyres in this Sense, that it wou’d fill Volumes to enumerate them. The Gavestones, Spencers, De la Poles, Empson and Dudley, Wolsey, and Buckingham, and were Vampyres of the first Magnitude…” The vampire was generalized from a phenomenon of military occupation to the taxation of the public. The vampire served as crude propaganda for the opposition, a way to attack the dominant class while basing the attack in something of base interest to the public: the living dead. The result is manipulative propaganda used to inflame the passions of the public against the political enemies of an only slightly less politically powerful social force. However, this does demonstrate the revolutionary potential of the vampire myth to function as a basic metaphor that aptly explains the oppression of government.

[BNU-DogBoy]

To BNU-DogBoy:

If it is a condition, as you said, that would mean they contract it either genetically or first-hand, like some diseases we have today, correct?

It is currently argued within current vampire communities weather any act of 'turning' or passing of the condition is possible. We have no idea what causes it though most theorize it is a DNA mutation of some sort. Some have even gone as far as to say its an evolutionary step in some senses because of the sensitivities and some beneficial traits that can result from the condition.

 The reason I can assume this is because such a dependency would almost indefinitely be the result of a change in DNA, altering the human's needs from our standard dosage of calories, proteins, fibers, vitamins and all that to INCLUDE blood or "aura". I can say this with confidence because though not all humans eat the same things, 99% of us eat things that fit into the food pyramid or what not, and require the same nutrients because we are genetically the same. Alterations in necessary diet would stem from a change in that basis of our similarity. So, if you agree with me to this point, then you will surely agree that if it is genetic it can pass from parent to child.

In my experiance it is theorized that it is a dormaint recessive gene or mutation that can either occur or not occur. We have no idea if everyone has it and only to some it 'awakens' or if it is specific to the person. Again, we dont have medical backing.

 Purely as a disease, condition, genetic malfunction, or whatever, I agree with that. Many diseases pass genetically and alter the DNA of the children. However, I find it difficult to believe that any external cause could change a person's DNA after birth. Of course there is radiation and probably chemicals of sorts, but those are all 20th century developments that could not be, chronologically, the cause of any vampires in the past (moreover, I have never heard of radiation poisoning to cause special dietary needs, but that's besides the point).

Agreed.

 The reason I use for ruling out other ways of contracting this condition, such as virus or bacterial disease, is because if this has happened for hundreds of years, there would have to be some documentation at some point on it. It's almost certain that at one point a vampire, maybe an orphan or a scared one in general, would be unsure of why he needs these things and would thus go to a physician or doctor or something. Many underground societies or secret unions are known about, and those that are hundreds of years old would be even more evident.

I cant tell weather your implying the organizations age or the vampires, as immortality or extended life is a general misconception.

That whole paragraph was leading to this statement: even if vampirism could pass parent to child, I find it scientifically impossible for to have spread in the first place externally (as a bite or any other transfer of the malady). So, this leaves only one possibility: a person was born with this genetic mutation naturally, like Down's syndrome, and it was passed down to his children and the children of his children. Though this probably contradicts your belief of them not being a seperate race, this is the only possibility I could see of vampirism existing. Therefore, all vampires are related (though all humans are related, that bloodline started tens of thousands of years ago).

A certain mutation or gene could be happening in many people over spread amounts of time allowing the passing down, and making the number of vampires we appear to have today. I will say as to numbers we havent the faintest clue of concentrations or density, however i am researching in this area. I know of atleast 15 within three states of me, and thats just from the three or four sites i go on.

So, if you do not agree completely with the aforementioned conditions, then to me your sense of vampires is impossible. However, if you agree whole-heartedly to those conditions exclusively, I can see a relatively reasonable origin for your belief.

I agree with you in nearly all instances of the above.

Not saying that I'd believe it any more, because like I said the chances of it being scientifically documented are high, I just think it's more believable and realistic :]

Sorry if I asked or said something that is on that website, I just don't feel like reading a website for the precise information that you could possibly retort with. Most of what I said is based on non-vampire information anyhow.

I believe anyone who was observed by anyone in a high enough medical position to study them would call them mentally unsound long before taking the time to listen, wouldnt you?

Its okay, most people dont read the entire thing and its really fine. I gave the base work and you expressed opinion, thats discussion and thats exactly what i wanted.

Also to DogBoy:

Also, being atheist, I don't believe in any aura or spirit of sorts, much less one that anyone can feed off of. Just thought I should close that point.

I dont believe in any sort of spirit either. In truth Psi Vampires and I have always been on a very akward sort of plane. I dont adress them because most of them associate some type of belief or energy-working that they do with their feeding, which i do not believe in. However, when i must talk about such things, i remain open minded and try to remember that im only human and i can indeed be wrong.

Fanatacist, youve been amazing. +1 Cookie.

[fanatacist]

John, I thought the concept of vampires went back to Ivan the Impaler? I might be wrong, anyone can correct me on this.

To BNU-DogBoy:

It is currently argued within current vampire communities weather any act of 'turning' or passing of the condition is possible. We have no idea what causes it though most theorize it is a DNA mutation of some sort.

So we both can logically rule out the stereotypical bites as of now.

In my experiance it is theorized that it is a dormaint recessive gene or mutation that can either occur or not occur. We have no idea if everyone has it and only to some it 'awakens' or if it is specific to the person. Again, we dont have medical backing.

That seems far more plausible than the vampires we have all grown to know. But again, like I said earlier, the possibility of something is not the same as a mandate. I need that medical backing or evidence to convince me, a specimen of some sort.

I cant tell weather your implying the organizations age or the vampires, as immortality or extended life is a general misconception.

I was implying that vampires had been around for a few hundred years in general. However, since you brought up that you think it's a recessive gene (though I have no evidence or opinion of its dominance), it is possible that it has been around longer. But, it seems more likely to me that the larger amounts of recessive gene bearers is shown when more people show the dominant characteristics due to increased concentration in a certain area. Therefore, whenever the first vampires appeared, that is the time that I would mark as the beginning of the true spreading of the trait, because for a true vampire to be born that means that at that time the gene-carrying population was condensed to a single place. Only since then would there have been any spreading. If so, then there can not be that many people with it, recessive or dominant. However, I still believe in a single mutated individual.

A certain mutation or gene could be happening in many people over spread amounts of time allowing the passing down, and making the number of vampires we appear to have today

That is certainly possible in many cases since that is how evolution began, with the survival of the fittest weeding out weaker genes. However, I do not think it is possible for vampires. My reasons are as follows:

1. There is no environmental stimuli necessitating this change. Genes and DNA "mutate" over time because some strains are more successful in the environment they are currently in, and are passed on more and more through each successful generation, until they become the basis of nearly everyone's genetic make up. I find this impossible to say for vampires because there is no external stimuli for them to respond to that would necessitate a change to blood-dependency. I think if it is a real thing, it would have to be a single mutation for whatever reason that happened in a single individual that passed it down genetically.

2. Survival of the fittest has not been true for mankind (to the degree necessary) for a while, thus such a weeding out of genes is unlikely. People no longer need to be the strongest, fastest, or smartest to survive. Therefore, the likelihood of similar genes to be uniting rather than spreading out is lower than back then. (Example: a blonde blue-eyed person from Sweden marrying a blonde blue-eyed person from Sweden is union; a blonde blue-eyed person marrying a brown-eyed brunette is spreading.) This is because there are no genes in our modern world that cause one person to be superior to another, and if there are, we don't know of them / consider them in marriage. As you said, you believe it to be a recessive gene; if so, the carrier probably does not know about it unless he shows symptoms. But, as we both know because of standard schooling, for symptoms for any recessive allele to show, it has to be combined with another recessive allele to become evident. This means that both parents must be carrying the recessive gene, and if we can agree on my first point, the chance of that is pretty slim if one person is the origin of vampirism from a few hundred years ago. Coupled with the spreading of genetic information as opposed to its forced unification as per survival of the fittest, I believe that the chances of a vampire showing symptoms of a vampire are very slim at best. And, I will say once again, even a possibility to me is not a certainty, even if it seems logical.

I believe anyone who was observed by anyone in a high enough medical position to study them would call them mentally unsound long before taking the time to listen, wouldnt you?

Yes, to study it would seem absurd, especially in modern times. But I have read books (on other topics, such as statistics, math, history, etc.) that use data from doctors from the 1700's. Back then something as vampirism would probably be a much more reasonable concern, with all the quackery that happened in those days. It would have been documented by some unknowing physician at some point. However, if we return to my recent points of the unlikelihood of a true vampire appearing, it may be true that there would be no documented cases. On another note, this would mean that as time passes, even though there are more people with the recessive gene, the likelihood of two of them having a child is becoming LESS likely rather than more, because the population of the world is increasing at a greater rate, as well as the spreading of the genes that I talked about earlier.

And we settled the spirit/aura point, so we're done there :]

Thanks I like cookies n_n

[BNU-DogBoy]

So we both can logically rule out the stereotypical bites as of now.

That was ruled out from the start.

More cookies to come. ^^

[Scott]

If you can't stay on topic, I'm deleting this forum. Don't be that guy, RD.