- Joined
- Jan 21, 2013
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 35
Most proponents of the Inquisition of vampires state that vampirism is a disease, and thus those with the disease need to be either cured or killed. This premise relies on the idea that vampirism is not a choice, but only a disease. Though that argument is flawed, since many who become vampires choose to do so, and as such they become 'diseased' by choice, so it is by their own free will that they take on this burden. Which begs the question, can it rightfully be called a disease if people choose to become vampires, of their own free will?
As every person chooses which god(s) to believe in, or not to believe at all, vampires who choose that life-style, act much in the same way. They have chosen to become vampires, and have chosen to live with every burden and benefit that entails. For those who have chosen to become vampires, is should not be considered a disease. A disease is an abnormal condition that affects the body of an organism, and is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, distress, social problems or death. Vampires do take damage from sunlight, but this is a easily manageable problem, and one that they choose to have. The only way this could be considered a disease, is if those who are involved in the inquisition, will it to be so, by causing pain, distress, social problems and death upon those who are vampires. In this way, it could be said that vampirism is not in itself a disease, until set upon by the inquisition forces. And if that is the case, any race could be considered a disease if set upon by opponents to that race.
Lets discuss the implications that an inquisition against the diseased means. It is a motto of those involved in the Inquisition that vampires must be either cured or culled. Much like the Salem Witch Trails from 1962-1963, people are first supposed to be put up in front of a court of their peers and judged to determine if they are indeed a vampire, and then given the 2 options, become cured of their vampirism, or be killed. There is a flaw in this system that makes it inherently unfair to the accused. Their peers should include fellow vampires, but since vampires are sought out and given this treatment, it is impossible to ensure that the trail is fair for the accused, if they are indeed a vampire. It also follows, again paralleled with the Salem Witch Trails, that with a court filled with those opposed to vampires would apply pressure to the accused to renounce vampirism, even if they did not truly feel opposed to it, simply so that they did not get killed or tormented any longer by the general public. For those that hold their views and choose death over a cure, it only further displays that vampirism could be questioned to actually be a disease, if people choose to live with it, going so far as to die for their choice.
The other half of the motto, culled, is a curious word which I'm not sure many people using it understand it's full meaning. Culling is the process of removing breeding animals from a group based on specific criteria, such as killing the runt of a litter to ensure stronger offspring, but is broadly referred to as the selective killing of wild animals. We can assume this is meant to be an insult, to debase vampires lowering them from equal beings, to animals, and perhaps that they are little better then livestock. So should vampires be called animals? Since vampires where once human until they contracted the vampire disease, this can be likened to calling someone with leprosy little better then an animal. Or someone with any given natural disease a lesser human being because they are diseased. Perhaps even calling someone who is 'diseased' from birth, such as being crippled or mental handicapped little better then livestock. If vampirism is a disease, should they not be shown compassion to try and allow them to be cured? If vampirism is not a disease then using this term would be considered less offensive to not only vampires, but anyone with a disease.
If vampirism is a disease or disorder, such as being crippled, shouldn't vampires be treated as equals? They should be shown compassion if people truly wanted to cure them they would not show such despise and cruelty but an understanding of their disorder.
However, if vampirism is a choice, and they choose to remain the way they are, then it would be much more logical for people to feel uncomfortable or upset at their choice, rather then at the disease that has been set upon them.
Seemingly forgotten is that there is a third option, beyond curing or killing. People could just leave vampires alone, the same way they leave anyone in a particular race to their own devices. It is often impossible to determine if someone is a vampire from a human upon looks alone, so even if the Inquisition become a huge success and they believed they had cured or killed all the vampires, the point would be moot because vampires could still be amongst them and they would not know the difference.
In conclusion, if someone chooses to be a vampire, it is not disease. It could be better likened to a race, and people who despise vampires who choose to be vampires, can be likened to racists. And that's why the Inquisition can be likened to genocide.
As every person chooses which god(s) to believe in, or not to believe at all, vampires who choose that life-style, act much in the same way. They have chosen to become vampires, and have chosen to live with every burden and benefit that entails. For those who have chosen to become vampires, is should not be considered a disease. A disease is an abnormal condition that affects the body of an organism, and is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, distress, social problems or death. Vampires do take damage from sunlight, but this is a easily manageable problem, and one that they choose to have. The only way this could be considered a disease, is if those who are involved in the inquisition, will it to be so, by causing pain, distress, social problems and death upon those who are vampires. In this way, it could be said that vampirism is not in itself a disease, until set upon by the inquisition forces. And if that is the case, any race could be considered a disease if set upon by opponents to that race.
Lets discuss the implications that an inquisition against the diseased means. It is a motto of those involved in the Inquisition that vampires must be either cured or culled. Much like the Salem Witch Trails from 1962-1963, people are first supposed to be put up in front of a court of their peers and judged to determine if they are indeed a vampire, and then given the 2 options, become cured of their vampirism, or be killed. There is a flaw in this system that makes it inherently unfair to the accused. Their peers should include fellow vampires, but since vampires are sought out and given this treatment, it is impossible to ensure that the trail is fair for the accused, if they are indeed a vampire. It also follows, again paralleled with the Salem Witch Trails, that with a court filled with those opposed to vampires would apply pressure to the accused to renounce vampirism, even if they did not truly feel opposed to it, simply so that they did not get killed or tormented any longer by the general public. For those that hold their views and choose death over a cure, it only further displays that vampirism could be questioned to actually be a disease, if people choose to live with it, going so far as to die for their choice.
The other half of the motto, culled, is a curious word which I'm not sure many people using it understand it's full meaning. Culling is the process of removing breeding animals from a group based on specific criteria, such as killing the runt of a litter to ensure stronger offspring, but is broadly referred to as the selective killing of wild animals. We can assume this is meant to be an insult, to debase vampires lowering them from equal beings, to animals, and perhaps that they are little better then livestock. So should vampires be called animals? Since vampires where once human until they contracted the vampire disease, this can be likened to calling someone with leprosy little better then an animal. Or someone with any given natural disease a lesser human being because they are diseased. Perhaps even calling someone who is 'diseased' from birth, such as being crippled or mental handicapped little better then livestock. If vampirism is a disease, should they not be shown compassion to try and allow them to be cured? If vampirism is not a disease then using this term would be considered less offensive to not only vampires, but anyone with a disease.
If vampirism is a disease or disorder, such as being crippled, shouldn't vampires be treated as equals? They should be shown compassion if people truly wanted to cure them they would not show such despise and cruelty but an understanding of their disorder.
However, if vampirism is a choice, and they choose to remain the way they are, then it would be much more logical for people to feel uncomfortable or upset at their choice, rather then at the disease that has been set upon them.
Seemingly forgotten is that there is a third option, beyond curing or killing. People could just leave vampires alone, the same way they leave anyone in a particular race to their own devices. It is often impossible to determine if someone is a vampire from a human upon looks alone, so even if the Inquisition become a huge success and they believed they had cured or killed all the vampires, the point would be moot because vampires could still be amongst them and they would not know the difference.
In conclusion, if someone chooses to be a vampire, it is not disease. It could be better likened to a race, and people who despise vampires who choose to be vampires, can be likened to racists. And that's why the Inquisition can be likened to genocide.