Vampires and Evil, a philosophical rabbit hole.

[Shift8]

Of course thats my entire argument. It seems your just disagreeing on the order.

Seriously guys klingons and orcs what board are we on. They're different genres with different focuses. Besides tolkien was just a little racist. Star trek has more anthropology but still it's focus is intellectual. Dresden files is about heroism superheroism in fact. A closer fandom analogy would be marvel. But an even closer one is the actual aztec mayan and inca cultures for Red Court. Etruscan roman greek for white
 Slavic russian and lower germanic cultures for black court.

I fail to see how Tolkien was racist

[DonBugen]

Ok, so to answer a few things:

To you question about plants: If plants had Human-level intelligence, and human moral capacity, then yes we could not eat them. If your only food source is a person, your only valid choices are to die or find some alternative. Anything else makes you a monster. But plants dont have human-level intellect or persona, so it is not relevant really.

Please don't dodge by saying that "it's not real so it doesn't matter." None of this is real. I'm asking you if you're stating that in a clear case of predator/prey in which one MUST kill the other to survive, that it is the predator that must be exterminated. That instead of enduring the occasional death of members of one species, that it is preferable to go with mass genocide. And if you would willingly and happily consign yourself to the same fate if you found homogeneous sapiens in that boat.

Besides, it's a big universe. You literally don't know if the same thing cannot be said of us. If dolphins are discovered to be sentient and mankind is killing them by polluting the oceans and causing climate change, does that mean that if man won't give up industrialization, we must be exterminated?

As for Liverspots: Who cares if he was a person? I have never understood why anyone finds this significant. Hitler was a person. What of it? Your life no longer has ANY value if you commit acts that nullify its value.

Michael would disagree with you. Nicodemus is arguably a worse person than Hitler, having done more damage over his thousands of years and committing more atrocities. And yet Michael risked his life, Harry's life, Uriel's grace, to offer the chance of redemption. No one has gone so far as to not turn back.

If you disagree, OK, that's your opinion. Dresden - at least, Dresden as he is now, and certainly early Dresden - would agree with you. But just because you say that he's a monster and should be wiped out without a second thought doesn't make it gospel truth.

[Arjan]

I fail to see how Tolkien was racist

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Racism_in_Tolkien's_Works

[Shift8]

Ok, so to answer a few things:
Please don't dodge by saying that "it's not real so it doesn't matter." None of this is real. I'm asking you if you're stating that in a clear case of predator/prey in which one MUST kill the other to survive, that it is the predator that must be exterminated. That instead of enduring the occasional death of members of one species, that it is preferable to go with mass genocide. And if you would willingly and happily consign yourself to the same fate if you found homogeneous sapiens in that boat.

Besides, it's a big universe. You literally don't know if the same thing cannot be said of us. If dolphins are discovered to be sentient and mankind is killing them by polluting the oceans and causing climate change, does that mean that if man won't give up industrialization, we must be exterminated?
Michael would disagree with you. Nicodemus is arguably a worse person than Hitler, having done more damage over his thousands of years and committing more atrocities. And yet Michael risked his life, Harry's life, Uriel's grace, to offer the chance of redemption. No one has gone so far as to not turn back.

If you disagree, OK, that's your opinion. Dresden - at least, Dresden as he is now, and certainly early Dresden - would agree with you. But just because you say that he's a monster and should be wiped out without a second thought doesn't make it gospel truth.

I didn't dodge your question at all. I very clearly answered it, and then clarified additionally that the example you gave isn't actually the case. I don't know why you are bothering with claiming I dodged anything when I very clearly answered your question.

Genocide is irrelevant If the species in question is not worthy of existence. Life does not have value simply because it is alive. Life of a certain nature has value. You cant assert value equivalence between two different species, because they are by definition not the same.

And I don't really care what Micheal did. Micheal was a imbecile for risking his life in a comabt situation to see if he could turn Nick. He risked his in life, that of hisncomerades, and the mission for complete foolishness. Nick needs to be wiped out like a dog in the street and his memory blotted from existence. Nick's life has about as much value as a rock

[Shift8]

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Racism_in_Tolkien's_Works

 Seen if before. All nonsense. Essentially a bunch of drivel that implies a euro centric setting must be racist in nature, amongst other simplistic thinking.

[Shift8]

Ok, so to answer a few things:
Please don't dodge by saying that "it's not real so it doesn't matter." None of this is real. I'm asking you if you're stating that in a clear case of predator/prey in which one MUST kill the other to survive, that it is the predator that must be exterminated. That instead of enduring the occasional death of members of one species, that it is preferable to go with mass genocide. And if you would willingly and happily consign yourself to the same fate if you found homogeneous sapiens in that boat.

Besides, it's a big universe. You literally don't know if the same thing cannot be said of us. If dolphins are discovered to be sentient and mankind is killing them by polluting the oceans and causing climate change, does that mean that if man won't give up industrialization, we must be exterminated?
Michael would disagree with you. Nicodemus is arguably a worse person than Hitler, having done more damage over his thousands of years and committing more atrocities. And yet Michael risked his life, Harry's life, Uriel's grace, to offer the chance of redemption. No one has gone so far as to not turn back.

If you disagree, OK, that's your opinion. Dresden - at least, Dresden as he is now, and certainly early Dresden - would agree with you. But just because you say that he's a monster and should be wiped out without a second thought doesn't make it gospel truth.

Just an FYI, the fact that Dresden would agree with me one of the reasons I love this series. You rarely see heroes like Dresden anymore because too many people who write stories have a morality system where the only true crime is to dare call anything evil, or anything good.

[Arjan]

Seen if before. All nonsense. Essentially a bunch of drivel that implies a euro centric setting must be racist in nature, amongst other simplistic thinking.

The writer mostly concludes he was not a racist but it describes why people would think so.

It is not a crazy question especially since racism was everywhere in pre war europe, not just in germany and there are themes in his books that can and have been be abused in that way.

[Shift8]

The writer mostly concludes he was not a racist but it describes why people would think so.

It is not a crazy question especially since racism was everywhere in pre war europe, not just in germany and there are themes in his books that can and have been be abused in that way.

I get what you are saying. But I do think it is a unfair question in light of the very clear values espoused by Tolkien throughout the books whenever they actually come up. Not to mention the very clear opinions he gives in his letters. Had Tolkien been Japanese and wrote a Fantasy where the heroes come from a Shogunate and the baddies are from a western European kingdom, nobody would have accused him of anything.

[Kindler]

Just an FYI, the fact that Dresden would agree with me one of the reasons I love this series. You rarely see heroes like Dresden anymore because too many people who write stories have a morality system where the only true crime is to dare call anything evil, or anything good.

I tend to agree; I really don't like the way false moral equivalency has spread through much of modern fiction. Functionally, I understand the need to have a heroic protagonist agonize over killing a bad guy—because emotional torment is useful to the narrative—but, really, too many characters make outright idiotic decisions because they simply refuse to recognize evil when they see it.

Dresden is a good compromise. He makes the hard choice, but feels bad about it. For reference, see his emotional state in Proven Guilty, after killing Corpsetaker. He's still guilty (pun unintended) about it—funny enough, not so much with Cassius, which he should feel guiltier about, considering the guy was down for the count when he had Mouse off him.

As for morality and vampires... well. You know. Murderers, seducers, and so on. There are likely outliers in terms of moral code, like Thomas, but they're functionally evil, because they do evil things. You don't have the right to someone else's life or liberty. Being born or forced into taking it doesn't relieve culpability in my book.

[Con]

I said a little racist and I thought I wrote something about being progressive for his time, but I must of deleted it.

At the very least Tolkiens treatment of Eastern peoples and "Black Numenoreans" are a lil suspect as a race war against all the "white races."

However I do agree that the said white races have a diversity of cultures that have diversity of cultures within their cultures.

Theirs also evidence to suggest Numenor the Tolkien Atlantis was predominantly Black.

I just think within the books themselves their is a very west vs east attitude, which you can make arguments about the morality of the Ottoman Empire all you want but thing is Tolkien fought the Germans and came to respect them not hate them. Why couldn't he apply that to eastern peoples?

Though again it's implied that Aragorn himself gained respect for said eastern peoples when her travelled their fightin with and against them going as far south as Haradrim.

[Shift8]

I said a little racist and I thought I wrote something about being progressive for his time, but I must of deleted it.

At the very least Tolkiens treatment of Eastern peoples and "Black Numenoreans" are a lil suspect as a race war against all the "white races."

However I do agree that the said white races have a diversity of cultures that have diversity of cultures within their cultures.

Theirs also evidence to suggest Numenor the Tolkien Atlantis was predominantly Black.

I just think within the books themselves their is a very west vs east attitude, which you can make arguments about the morality of the Ottoman Empire all you want but thing is Tolkien fought the Germans and came to respect them not hate them. Why couldn't he apply that to eastern peoples?

Though again it's implied that Aragorn himself gained respect for said eastern peoples when her travelled their fightin with and against them going as far south as Haradrim.

For some reason you seem to think that cardinal directions and cultural differences that happen to be on opposite ends of a narrative MUST have some evil motive.

There is a much simpler explanation: Tolkien was English. He started his world building from a English/European setting. It makes complete sense to write from things you know. When you design nation that are hostile to the nations your heroes are based in, it makes perfect sense that their cultures would be different from the ones you started with. And it in turn makes sense to draw from real world cultures to help make them seem authentic.

And in the light of the values system espoused in the LOTR, insinuations of racism are asinine. Essentially nothing more than witch hunting.

[Shift8]

I tend to agree; I really don't like the way false moral equivalency has spread through much of modern fiction. Functionally, I understand the need to have a heroic protagonist agonize over killing a bad guy—because emotional torment is useful to the narrative—but, really, too many characters make outright idiotic decisions because they simply refuse to recognize evil when they see it.

Dresden is a good compromise. He makes the hard choice, but feels bad about it. For reference, see his emotional state in Proven Guilty, after killing Corpsetaker. He's still guilty (pun unintended) about it—funny enough, not so much with Cassius, which he should feel guiltier about, considering the guy was down for the count when he had Mouse off him.

As for morality and vampires... well. You know. Murderers, seducers, and so on. There are likely outliers in terms of moral code, like Thomas, but they're functionally evil, because they do evil things. You don't have the right to someone else's life or liberty. Being born or forced into taking it doesn't relieve culpability in my book.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. There is altogether too much moral fiddle faddle in modern fiction for the sake of being "edgy." IIRC, Jim made a comment a few years back about not being very much into a Song of Ice and Fire because he felt there was no one to root for. I hope I am not misquoting him, it has been a long time since I recall reading that.

One slight nitpick : I dont remember the details of Cassius really. But a enemy who is down is precisely where I want my enemy. If Dresden finished off Cassius, it was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. You dont shoot to wound, you shoot to kill. Once lethal combat is engaged, it is justifiable to end it lethally. The only enemy who is not a threat is a dead one.

[Snark Knight]

Don't look at me that way when I mention Whampires eating animals. It's icky, sure, but no more morally wrong than foie gras. Which is ALSO morally wrong, sure, but we don't arrest and kill folks coming out of French restaurants.

In general, they would probably get something, but very little compared to a human. Like, sure, we can eat lettuce and get some nutritional value from it, but if you try to subsist on lettuce alone for years at a time, you're going to starve to death. Probably roughly proportional to how animals are next to useless for necromancy compared to humans, unless you go to absurdly old specimens like Sue.

In specific, I would also expect some variance by feeding mode. Relatively few species (bonobos and a few others) have sex for fun, so the Raiths would probably be hard pressed to survive on animals (also, yeah, yeck). Despair requires higher cognitive function - animals just don't commit suicide - so the Skavis' are right out of luck. House Malvora is probably the best off since plenty of animals feel survival-based fear when put in danger (still also yeck, albeit of a different variety).

[Con]

Bunnies screw for fun. Elephants and Wales commit suicide so big meals for Skavis. Deer for Malvora.

The problem isn't the emotion. It's the Soul.

 Arguably Elephants and Wales do have enough of a Soul in every definition that counts, but Whampires need to feed on souls that will fuel their soul so that thei darkness can feed off their soul.

I think thats what causes the slow descent into evil for White Court. Their soul is being fed on, just as they feed on other souls.

Think of Ghost Story the entire book is about Harry's Soul. At the end Uriel comments it's hard for half born half immortals. They deal with the pressures of immortal, along with the free will and soul of a human.

Humans souls have both good and bad in them (which is WOJ btw). We can make the choice of good and evil.

White Court have demons inside them that feed off of souls, particularly when they haven't fed on someone elses soul.

Having a soul eater in your body that either nibbles away at your soul or you feed it others. Thats bound to have an effect on someones morality.

Apply it to real world addictions all of which arguably tear at a person soul. Drug addiction you become a shell of who you are and evantually die. Sex addiction your incapable of forming relationships with fellow humans on a funcional level, which is damaging to the soul as humans need to interact to feed their soul. Just ask Bob.

Finally the big one Killing. Killing does become an addiction and sooner or later life holds little value to you. At best you have a callous disregard for it. At worst you actively seek to end life to feed your addiction.

All of these are damaging to the soul and result in a corruption of morality.

[Snark Knight]

Elephants and Wales commit suicide so big meals for Skavis.

It's ... extremely debatable ... whether that's deliberate self-destruction because of despair in the sapient sense of suicide, or a result of sickness.