To prevent them from killing obviously. Unless you think this infringes on their rights as "undead Americans". Does a rabid dog deserve to be killed? Not really, its not the dog's fault it got rabid but if there isn't another way to stop it from harming others this needs to be done. How do you propose vampires should be treated?
Yes, it does infringe on their rights. Seeing as they are intelligent, sentient people (unlike your strawman...strawdog...whatever), who, as a whole race/species, do not have the empathy that is the entire basis human ethics, we should overthink the question of whether it's really so bad to be killing. Going into "kill on sight" mode about them stinks of arrogance and human supremacist attitude. I don't see a logical reason to consider it bad, per se, when a vampire kills a human.
By being a part of the "Buffy insults everyone" arc rather than your imaginary "Buffy for once acknowledges vampires have a right to exist" arc?
That has absolutely nothing to do with each other. If the subtext of discrimination wouldn't exist, it wouldn't be an insult in the first place. But I guess by your logic, it wouldn't have changed the scene
one bit if Buffy had said "and your hair looks stupid" instead of the "undead American" line.
🙄
Vampires aren't treated differently for some arbitrary reasons, they are treated differently for the same reasons convicted felons are treated differently.
And that's just not a valid policy. The vampire
does not violate a norm by acting the same way that would be a felony if a human does it. He's different, so applying our norms to him is just arrogance. (And thus, yes, the difference made
is an arbitrary one.)
I wonder how you can say all that with a straight face and not realize it's the exact same situation as with denying gay marriage on grounds of "cannot procreate". Keeping in mind that the same bunch of people who cite that as a reason against it - like, fundamentalist Christians - use it against sex between heterosexual people who are infertile or using contracep, too. How is denying gay marriage suddenly "unfair", when doing the exact same thing, with equally "plausible" reasons, regarding blaming vampires and killing is "common sense" to you?
There isn't really a real life equivalent of vampires but if there was a human race whose members were all vicious supernaturally powered killers, trying to kill them or put them in jail on sight wouldn't be racism, just common sense. Or maybe it would technically be racism but totally justified as all vampires are ruthless killers, this isn't merely some legend used to justify atrocities as is the case of real life persecution against ethnic or religious groups. Might as well claim that if a man applies to be a Victoria's Secret model or a wet nurse and be denied, he would have a genuine claim of being unfairly discriminated against.
And that's just humanocentric arrogance, IMO. If such a race exists, it should challenge our conception of "killing people is bad" because said race
obviously proves beyond a doubt that it's just a culturally relative notion. Treating such race like felons is pretty much hardcore cultural imperialism, I don't see any real difference between your "common sense" and the swordpoint conversions the conquistadores pulled off. (Which I assume, you - quite
inconsistently - consider to have been "a (morally) bad thing".)
Except that we see them kill or torture or rape without any need for food. They do it because they enjoy it. Whether this makes them "evil" or not is a matter of semantics, I consider it evil, you don't...no big deal.
It becomes more than a matter of semantics once you
intend to punish them for it, especially preemptively. I don't see why it should automatically be considered "bad/evil/a felony" to kill, torture, and rape for the fun of it when you are part of a race/species who doesn't have the same empathic basis for an ethical makeup as humans. Whether anything (and yes, that includes murder, torture, and rape for the fun of it) is bad
depends on who does it. There's no such thing as an "objective evil act", at least until the (very, very,
very hypothetical day) that a physical, objective entity starts showing up to issue its commands - and then, "objective evil" will be defined
solely by that entity. (If said "God" shows up and says "burn the babies", then you better be ready to comply and pull out the gasoline if you want to be a morally good person. Morality equals obedience to authority.) Until then, I can't be bothered to care about the "good and evil" claptrap, as it all amounts to someone's subjectivity presuming to be objective. And that's an insult to my intelligence and critical thinking.
That's great...too bad there isn't actual evidence that supports that idea.
A vampire's personality being not too different before and after siring isn't evidence enough for you? If anything, it's crystal clear evidence for the Council spouting untrue propaganda - Giles' S1 party line of "it's not him, it's the thing that killed him" sure gets disproven
a lot. Including even by the verse's number one go-to
dissociation guy!
I complain, yes, but I also point out how incredibly hypocritical the Scoobies are because of the coddling of Spike and Anya. I don't see the inconsistency in my position. Spike and Anya were accepted because the Scoobies (stupidly) believed them to be different than the average vampire or demon. You are the one jumping from this to "the show proved that evil vampires are Council propaganda". No character in the show makes that leap, IIRC.
They don't make that leap, but they sure are consistently approaching towards it. Buffy (and even GILES) growing ever critical of the Council and its by-the-book, black-and-white morality, including building a core group with vampires, a werewolf, an ex-VengDemons, and the most powerful and dangerous witch on the planet, actually booting out the Council out of the show (a thoroughly morality-defying action which is presented as awesome and empowering), and of course the absolutely kick-ass moment I mentioned before ("What's more: I'll let him"), showing just how far Buffy has matured in seven years... It all sure seems that your view has far less hold in the actual show than mine. Unless you just disregard the vast majority of it, like, pretty much everything
past around midway season two. If that's consistency to you, we have a pretty different defition of that term.
Let me give you a hypothetical example - imagine a show where the protagonists crack jokes while they kill members of some persecuted minority. In almost every episode. Then for some wacky reason a member of that minority becomes their ally. But the protagonists keep on killing those poor persecuted people anyway. For extra wackiness let's name it "[Protagonist name], the killer of [minority name]". If someone describes to you a show like that would you be willing to believe that despite all that that, this show isn't totally messed up and contradictory in its message? Even ignoring the morality issues, there is the internal consistency problem and the characters looking like complete idiots for not noticing something that you claim to be painfully obvious.
It's a base convention of the genre, so I take it with a grain of salt. Much like when I watch SciFi, I accept things like FTL travel without demanding an explanation for it that would convince Einstein to amend his theories.
Once you think about it too much, then yes, the vampire fiction genre is intrinsically "totally messed up and contradictory in its message", chock full of unfortunate implications in the subtext. (And unlike the "petite blonde = designated victim" thing, Joss
didn't deconstruct that part, even though he half-heartedly played with it where it applies to the main cast. What measure is a guest star, aynway?
😉) Doesn't mean I can't still watch vampfic if it's pulled off entertainingly. I guess, to a moralist, that makes me a bad person for my viewing habits. Great then that I'm no moralist, and thus not all that worried about being "a good person", eh?
😛
