OK, Here’s some really screwed up political thinking, but since we’re still talking about monsters every Sunday, and these guys somehow think vampires have something to do with American politics, have a gander. This is a topic that has hopped around on the internet, starting out with the most bizarre question, “Are liberals vampires?”Â
Before you go below the fold for an excerpt, I feel obliged to counter with this picture from a site that talks about REAL VAMPIRES–both political and supernatural, where Skunks indirectly asks “Are conservatives vampires?” I definitely recommend it for sheer entertainment.
(UPDATE: Hmm. Perhaps this is more appropriate than I’d originally thought. I just read this: “Only in America .. do we use the word ‘politics’ to describe the process so well: ‘Poli’ in Latin meaning ‘many’ and ‘tics’ meaning ‘bloodsucking creatures’.”)
So there’s this study showing that conservatives are more honest than liberals, and I’m pretty sure it’s true because it confirms my prejudices. And I remember there are also studies showing that liberals donate less money than conservatives and are generally less happy. So liberals are basically a bunch of dishonest, selfish, unhappy people with dumb monkey faces. Sometimes I wonder if we should reclassify liberals as some sort of subhuman, evil creatures like vampires. And, much like vampires, they freak out if they see crosses. Also, they die if you put a stake through their heart.
From there the topic is expanded by John Shaff at Keloland.com, who asks, “Are vampires sub-human?”
Let’s consider the ontological status of the vampire. The vampire is certainly non-human, but is it sub-human? The vampire has certain characteristics in common with humans, such as the ability to reason, self-awareness, the capacity to experience pain (especially in the day time). By the standard advocated by many ethicists (especially defenders of abortion and euthanasia), it is not humans that have rights, but persons. It is self-consciousness and ability to reason that, they say, defines a personality. Vampires are not human, but they are persons. By this measure, vampires have rights and it should be wrong to kill them without due process. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, far from being a heroine, is in fact a genocidal maniac. This is partially the theme of Richard Matheson’s story I Am Legend (I have not seen the movie, so can’t comment).
Shaff also asks, “Could the vampire actually be super-human, rather than sub-human?”
And finally, at least as far as I was able to follow the thread, Jonah Goldberg at the National Review asks, “Do atheists think vampires have rights?” (To keep with the political theme, he also considers whether the US founding fathers would have thought vampires have rights.)
Now, the interesting question would be, do atheists think vampires have rights? I think I’m safeÂ assuming that most atheists ground their understanding of rights and citizenship as stemming from sentience, consciousness, etc. Well, vampires have all of those things in their favor. Presumably, an atheist would reject the premise of the question. They would argue that vampires either do not exist at all (strong case there) or that vampirism is a biological state, a disease of some kind (backed up by many sci-fi portrayals of vampires). In which case, I assume they would argue that vampiresÂ doÂ have rights because having a disease does not amount to a surrender of your humanity or rights.Â
I’m not sure what I can add to this illustrious discussion. As a proud blood-sucking, cross-hating liberal, I’m at least glad to know that logically I have the same rights as conservative human beings. Maybe I’m even a super hero!
To be honest, I can’t tell if any of these posts are serious or if they’re all jokes. What do you think?
Hat tip to Peter Nunn.