Over the last decade or so there have been countless TV shows, “Buffy”, “Angel”, “Charmed”, “Supernatural”, erm… (see, countless) where the central premise is goodies hunting down baddies who happen to be demons, devils, ghosts or other supernatural critters. A number of these creepies aren’t evil for the sake of being evil but rather seem to be acting on instinct, e.g., zombies gotta have brains to fest on and vampires have to feed on blood. It’s these ones that form the basis of this post in that don’t they deserve the right to live? Sure, a lot of these are just plain evil, killing for no reason, setting events in motion to bring about the end of the world and what not. Now these are the ones that deserve hunting down and deserve to be slain, but what about the others? Things like the aforementioned zombies and vampires, along with werewolves, wendigos, cupacabras and others are only out for a bite to eat. Now, it’s unfortunate that humans happen to be on the menu, but does that mean that they, the supernatural beasties, deserve to be wiped out? I mean animals such as bears, crocodiles, sharks and even the humble canine have all attacked and eaten people and we haven’t hunted them to extinction for revenge or in the name of fighting the good fight. In fact a lot of these animals and their habitats are probably protected by law. So why do supernatural ghoulies get the bad rap? Take for example a season two episode of “Supernatural”, a group of vampires are being hunted down and slaughtered despite them choosing not to harm humans and instead feeding on the blood of cattle. A commendable effort on the vampire’s part but, a particular hunter only saw that they were vampires and therefore should be killed. It didn’t matter to him that they had changed their diabolical ways. Also in an episode of “Angel” our titular hero put down a demon who was in actual fact a good guy who was protecting the life of some pregnant girl, whose child was going to go on and do good things or something. The simple fact that he was a demon and looked all demony was enough for him to be singled out and executed. What do you think?
Vampires say they have to live on blood. I've yet to see any kind of study determining if it has to be human blood, or for that matter, whether blood is necessary at all. It's in vampires' own interests to determine whether they might survive without dining on living humans... and their own lack of research in this area seems to be a pretty good indication that there is another agenda going on here.
That's hardly an indication of specism. There are plenty of odd looking characters in 'Angel' who aren't summarily executed.
Well zombies are the un-dead. To quote Supernatural "the dead should stay dead". So they deserve to die. In other cases zombies are created by becoming infected with an incurable disease or virus. They also should die. For the greater good of course. Plague must be stopped in it's tracks at all costs. Vampires or vampyres are the creation of evil. In Buffy lore a vampire is actually a demon that infests a human corps. So obviously that type of vampire is just plain evil. The master even had plans to "harvest" humans like cattle. So he clearly needs to be killed stone dead. In other instances vampires are either the result of a viral infection or mutation caused by some traumatic experience. In yet other cases vampires are actually demons or zombie like creatures who delight in the torment of man kind. So in all cases vampire need to die. Stone dead. Even Blade. We know he's just binding his time to take over the world. Wendigos if I remember rightly is created when a man indulges in a little too much cannibalism. So that's multiple counts of murder then. They must all be burned to death. Werewolves are cute and cuddly. Especially the werechick in Supernatural. Although some people might think she was a dog. In any case a werewolf will not only eat your intestines, it'll probably rape you to boot. They are know for being somewhat horny. Not only that, but they are seriously contagious. One scratch and you're chompin' down on milk-bones and resisting the urge to chase cars along the street for life with no cure. Sadly they must die. Keep your silver bullets handy folks. Cupacabras don't exist. The difference between midnight nasties and wild animals is that wild animals only attack humans when we enter their domain without the proper respect. And even then it's often accidental. Demons and other creatures on the other hand deliberately torment and kill people. Wild animals caught doing the same thing are put down. Now I think you need to stop watching DVDs and go out and meet real people. Ask the office hottie out. The worst that can happen is total and utter humiliation.
This is true, but in this particular episode, this creature was, sadly, put down simply for being all demony in looks. Fair enough it was an earlier episode and it is true that in later series demons took on a more Mos Eisley Cantina look and feel about them and weren't set upon with pitchforks and torches. With regards to vampires they don't have to drink human blood. As mentioned, in an episode of "Supernatural" a group of vampires decided not to drink the blood of humans any more and instead drank from cows. Similarly, in "Interview with the Vampire", the Brad Pitt vampire regaled a tale on how he fed on rats. Also, I'm pretty sure that some vampires drank blood stolen from blood banks in "Angel/Buffy" and didn't Blade have some sort of serum to stave off the bloodlust? Now these vamps are doing good by not hunting down humans yet they were still vampires and seen by some as evil baddies.
Actually in the episode you're talking about Angel killed the body guard demon because he thought it was chasing the woman and going to kill her. It was an honest mistake. Like when US fighter bombers take out one of their allies units.
Ahhhh yes, I remember now. The fact remains that he still saw demon and decided to take it out. However, I do see the parallels between the Buffy/Angel-verse and friendly fire incidents... Also, office hottie left weeks ago to begin her teacher training. Such a waste... :cry:
And all the rest do ??? I always took Angel and Buffy to be fiction stories with cute chicks in, not documentaries!!! Never did I realise!!! I'll have to make sure I have my assorted religious symbols, holy water, garlic, wooden stakes, silver swords/knives (not allowed hand guns in the U.K. therefore silver bullets are out!!!), cats, (apparently mummies don't like cats!!!) and assorted pole arms and maces handy to firght the legions of the undead and demon-kind that are loose about the place. OMG!! Edit: What is the best way to kill a Mummy, and are they a subset of Zombie, or do they have an intrinsic intelligence based upon their persona when alive?
Isn't there like a backup option? Like a number 2 hottie? The fact remains demons are generally bad news. Unless you "know" they are good then you stake first and ask questions later. You seldom get a second chance. Demon is also a fairly overly used term in the likes of Buffy and Angel. In western and middle eastern cultures demons are actually fallen angels. Angels who have been cast down from above for some reason or another. Apparently regime change doesn't go down to well with God. In far eastern and other pagan cultures demons are supernatural beings equal to gods. But who are evil. Evil gods if you like. A demon isn't as Buffy would have us believe just any Tom, Dick or Harry who happens to look a bit funky and hail from a parallel dimension. Although in Buffys case I think she made her decision to kill based on weather or she wanted to hump it or keep it as a pet rather than if it was good or evil. Typical dumb blonde really.
Depends on the type of Mummy. If it's a bandage job then a zippo lighter does just fine. Or you could delight in letting a cat loose on the banadges. On the other hand if it's a Mummy as in THE MUMMY. Then that's a little harder.
"The dead should stay dead" is a conclusion, not evidence. This is a circular argument. Circular argument again... you're just saying "They're evil because they're evil." A little too much cannibalism? Is there an acceptable amount?
Backup currently has a boyfriend, but don't worry I'm working on a way to remedy that... Okay, it's a given that some demons, devils and other critters are bad news, especially as they are able to think for themselves and the majority choose evil other good, but what about your general unthinking beastie? Can't they be grouped under "bad news if you get too close, otherwise we're able to live with them", like sharks? Sharks aren't hunted because they've killed people, (well, in "Jaws" they are), but generally for their meat. Meanwhile if a hungry monster eats some dude then immediately the whole nest or whatever should be wiped out. Surely they should be afforded the same status as sharks, though I'm not sure who'd eat monster meat - erm, no pun intended... With regards to mummies, I think the classic (i.e. real) mummies can be counted as a subset of zombie, though I'm not sure I've ever seen one pull someone limb from limb or eat brain. However, the recent Hollywood (i.e. fake) mummy (in the movie "The Mummy") would have you believe that it is the reincarnation of some wizard dude who happened to love the wrong woman...
I say live and let un-live. If we start discriminating against monsters for being evil then it's the start of a slippery slope, at the end of which we'll be sending little boys up chimneys again.
My initial reaction, now that I have got over the shock of discovering I live in a world full of beings out of fantasy, was, "Kill 'em all" or the equivalent for the undead (which would presumably something like "Un-undead them all"). However, I have realised that this is my prejudice coming in here. I have arbitrarily decided that because they are: flesh eating; blood sucking; coniving; brain draining; brain eating; shape shifting; lycanthropic; decomposing people killers, then they are automaically evil. Now this is "evil" by my standards, but in this day and age of PC and inclusivity, should we not consider that there demonic kind are entitled to their own existance, in the same way as any other minority group? Are they not entitled to the same kinds of rights that other minority groups have striven long and hard for and are only just beginning to achieve? Just because their existance, or un-existance does not match our steriotypical "humanistic" lifestyle, doesn't mean that their lifestyle or undead-style is any less valid than ours. Are we denying rights to the "demonkind" just because they are different? After all, just because I have my definition of "evil", doesn't mean that it is a fair definition. Who decides what is evil these days??? In an increasingly secular world, potentially we should put away our prejudices and embrace (not necessarily literally) our demon brothers and sisters (and assorted other genders of demon), and learn to live in harmony with them. This may mean a little collatoral damage, when whole towns and villages are infected with zombieism, or whole districts are unsafe to walk down because of vampire feeding frenzies. But hey what price inclusivity? Or we could go with my first instinct and just "Kill 'em all" .
No. CPR really only works before actual brain death has taken place. So when CPR has a chance of working you're not actually dead.
Too much hassel. Move on to the hottie rated number three on the list. Then number two will want you and you can have both. Well the trouble here is that demons and beasties specifically see people as prey and go out of their way to find, kill and eat people. Not always in that order though. So they are deliberately endangering the survival of roughly 6 to 8 billion humans. They all need to die.
What about this dude here? Undead? Alive? He was declared dead, so much so that they were about to autopsy his resurrected ass...
