Atlanta Vampire Alliance [AVA]

Vampires & Vampirism => Vampire Community & Subcultural Discussion => Topic started by: CJ! on January 02, 2011, 11:45:14 PM



Title: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: CJ! on January 02, 2011, 11:45:14 PM
My intentions for writing this treatise are admittedly selfish. However, they are selfish intentions that I believe many sanguinarians share: the hope that in the future fresh and clean blood would be easily accessible or that we will no longer feel the need to consume blood for our own well-being. I intend this treatise to be the catalyst and blueprint to achieve those ends.

   The importance of the “vampire” (I put the word vampire in quotes since all of us, whether by design or by coincidence, are ersatz versions of the archetype as seen in popular media) community was lost on me when I had a donor. Other than the intermittent consumption of blood from my donor, being a sanguinarian had no bearing on my everyday life. The only interest I had in the “vampire” community was more based out of curiosity rather than personal stake, wondering what the current zeitgeist was. I felt as if as long as I treated this part of my life with discretion; that I need not worry about what others within the community were doing. However, now that I do not have a donor, while I endeavor to stay well despite this fact, I have realized how my fate is tied in with the rest of the community. Thus when I feel that a major facet of the community is pathological to my well-being, I have a duty to speak about it.

   By far the one way that the “vampire” community affects my life is in the public perception of the community affixed to all who belong. Public perception is the most important factor in determining whether or not I can get a donor or whether or not if I were outed I would lose some sort of standing in my life. The current status of public perception of our community is, to put it mildly, quite embarrassing. The vast majority of the community, whether through intracommunity internet message boards or appearances in the mainstream media, professes an inalterable belief of themselves as vampires, often accompanied by belief and practice in metaphysical concepts such as psi, chi, prana, auras, and the like which in itself has no basis in natural reality; a blind faith in matters that have to be believed to be seen. In essence this is a religious conviction and by extension optional. In my opinion, the most telling outsider assessment of our community is the all too accurate portrayal in the South Park episode “The Ungroundable,” especially the part where the vampire clique was sitting on the gym bleachers arbitrarily deciding what names they should adopt and what kind of vampires they should be. We were most likely laughing in spite of ourselves or busy deflecting the characterization upon the “poseur.”

   Sanguinarians need not the burden of these outrageous metaphysical claims and baseless new age beliefs as professed by the vast majority of the community. Our claim, namely that the consumption blood is the most potent vessel in treatment of a host of symptoms is a falsifiable claim as blood is a tangible part of material reality. Unlike the metaphysical adherents who consciously and often sincerely placate us with substitutes for knowledge, we can find, no matter how hurtful it may be to our pride, true knowledge about the nature of our condition, whether the genesis is physiological, psychological, or both. Such knowledge can decrease the stigma associated with being a sanguinarian, dispel the misconceptions the public may have upon us and that we have upon ourselves, and also be quite instrumental in reaching the aforementioned goal of having fresh, clean blood more accessible or finding a way not to feel as consuming blood is a necessity.

   However, such knowledge cannot be found within the community, but must come from outside the community. In order to garner respect from the scientific community as a group worth doing clinical tests upon; we must prove ourselves to be credible and of sound mind. The status quo makes us very easy to dismiss. A process of reforming the entire community to a more materialist and scientific paradigm would be impossible as the beliefs of “vampires” of a more metaphysical persuasion as their perspectives are inherently unscientific. The path of least resistance would be simply for sanguinarians to leave the “vampire” community and start their own community with no affiliation of the old community whatsoever. It is imperative that if a sanguinarian truly wants to be delivered from the bondage of societal stigma and the perceived need to consume blood that any metaphysical preconception has to be let go and disavowed. Thus partition from the “vampire” community is of the utmost importance to the sanguinarian.

Partition
   Before I discuss what courses of action may be necessary for partition to happen and the benefits of partition, I have to narrowly define what it is and what it is not. What partition pertains to is sanguinarians as an interest group separating ourselves from the rest of the “vampire” community in an effort to disassociate from the claims and the beliefs of the “vampire” community and assert our own protocols, In short, to establish ourselves as something else entirely. This is not an attempt to assert any sort of sanguinarian dominance or to insist that sanguinarians and metaphysical practitioners of vampirism must never associate on a personal level. In this instance, partition only pertains to the communities as interest groups: people allied together with a common aim for specific social change. I feel I have outlined the case on why the current aims of the “vampire” community are detrimental to the preferred aims of the sanguinarian community. I would like to present an example of being freed from the shackles of the metaphysical bent can allow us to do.

   In the 1980s, AIDS activists where often shut out of the conversation among scientists in terms of how to study and treat the illness. The activists’ motivations were mainly from emotion and desperation for increased access to treatment. However, they did not have the scientific knowledge and where withal to effectively steer the discourse. However, AIDS activists read studies from the current field of knowledge and framed their arguments from within that paradigm. This approach helped shaped National Institute of Health studies closer to the ideals of the AIDS activists. For more information on this subject refer to the book “Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge” by University of California at San Diego professor Steven Epstein.

   With the current baggage of vampirism as an inalterable identity and continuation of professing untestable and unconfirmable metaphysical beliefs, we are already shut out of the scientific discussion. However, if we drop these pretenses and associates, we can inquire about the current body of knowledge there may be on the subject (what happens when humans consume blood, if there actually is a study proving that a placebo is just as effective as blood in treating sanguinarianism), or make a case to build a body of knowledge in correlation with scientific authorities.

   I can understand why many would be hesitant to leave what has been already built. Sanguinarians for the most part are the ones who have built the foundation of the “vampire” community and by the fact that we feel the need to consume blood have more ownership of the term “vampire.” However, in the context of the community, the term “vampire” has mutated to the point where it no longer describes us. The great foundation currently supports up a crumbling dilapidated building caulked with metaphysical nonsense. It is time to move to a steadier edifice.

Science
   Science is not a belief system. It is a method of determining what is and what is not. Since the enlightenment it has been by far the superior method in obtaining knowledge. The fact that there is an internet for us to have banded together and create a wide-ranging community is a testament to the end results of scientific inquiry among countless of other medical, technological, and historical discoveries. With this track record, scientific inquiry upon our sanguinarianism would give us the most accurate insight on what may really be the source of our shared experiences.

   I do want to touch upon some anticipated objections. First of all, some detractors may say that since the answers and explanations in science are subject to change, they are somehow less valid. There are two problems with this objection. First, it presents a false dichotomy when the objection is applied, usually by someone who has a pre-existing belief that they feel must be justified: there is a flaw in this system, so mine must be correct. Even if the scientific explanation is incorrect, it could be the case that a third alternative may be correct. Second, what some people may perceive as a weakness is actually a strength. Given better evidence, a scientist would rework the answer to fit the evidence rather than maintain the obsolete answer. Often in this community, data is cherry picked in order to support pre-conceived notions, which is really a backwards way of making conclusions.

   Many metaphysical practitioners of vampirism profess a belief that psi/chi/prana/energy is something that science will eventually catch up to. I often hear the analogy of alchemy becoming chemistry cited in support of this viewpoint. However, the problem with this analogy is that alchemy did not become chemistry, chemistry completely supplanted alchemy. It is also very likely that chemistry would have emerged without the existence of alchemy. Robert Boyle, one of the fathers of the field of chemistry, was once labeled as an alchemist; he sincerely tried to transmute metals, but found more interest in the physical properties of chemistry. Alchemy failed, and the field of chemistry resulted. However in this instance, the sentiment is that science will confirm it rather than refute it, as opposed to what actually happened in their alchemy to chemistry analogy. A related argument is the principle that “lack of evidence does not mean evidence of lack.” This may be true; however it does not give one license to make up anything without a basis in material reality. Sanguinarians do not have that burden, blood is tangible, and thus a perceived need to consume blood can be tested under scientific conditions.

   I would now like to introduce not an objection, but a fear many sanguinarians may have who would be hesitant to submit themselves to clinical trials: the fear that we are really “crazy.” I would argue that in the event that sanguinarianism is found to be some sort of delusion, that being cognizant that your mind is giving you false information about your physical needs (the human mind is imperfect in interpreting internal and external stimuli) and admitting as such would give one far more credibility than one who insists without any physical evidence some sort of paranormal or metaphysical reasoning behind the need. I myself have framed this as a speculation of a reason behind my own needs to some hardened skeptics. They have found me unusual, but not insane or unreasonable.

   Such testimony may be useful in tracking societal sentiment about a matter, but is not nearly sufficient into claims of what is and what is not physical reality. Testimony is helpful in constructing history, but in science it is merely anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not an end, but merely a beginning to setting up an experiment based on observable phenomena. Metaphysical claims cannot make this step, but the claims of the sanguinarian can.

Engaging Those Outside of the Community
   It is impractical for sanguinarianism to remain underground (and as compared to the more accessible community of “energy vampirism,” sanguinarianism is still very much underground). We are too far small a minority to create our own in person society, and such an experience would be far too limiting in comparison to all the excitement the entire world possesses. In addition, the vast majority of our donors come from outside the community, and it is our knowledge (although anecdotal) that the blood of other sanguinarians is ineffective in treating what ails us. We as an interest group have to duty to testify about our experiences as sanguinarians, but with the trajectory that such revelations would be beneficial toward the goal of clinical trials (academics who have demonstrated they are approaching the subject with an open mind) or in the short term, obtaining a donor. It is very important not to share your sanguinarian status for the sake of revelation (mainstream/tabloid media, those who engage us with a noticeable and unshakable pre-conceived belief).

   We cannot do clinical trials within the sanguinarian community either. Our findings can very well be biased by as well as dismissed by those outside of the community as confirmation bias. Even if we tried very hard to remain objective in our studies about ourselves, the fact is that we have a personal stake in the matter and subconsciously we can corrupt the resulting data. In addition, it is rather smart to be skeptical about studies done by organizations to support their religion, political ideology, interest group, etc. As an example, many people dismissed the reports coming from Vatican researchers that small writing on the Shroud of Turin was proof of its authenticity on the grounds that the Vatican had a great stake involved in proving the authenticity of the shroud. What has to be done by the sanguinarian community is to share our experiences, without pretense of pre-conceived belief (anonymously, pseudonyms, real names, whichever preferred method) to a sizable volume of testimony to which the scientific community must take notice.

The “Hybrid” Question
   The concept of the “sanguinarian-psi hybrid” is a disingenuous falsehood that is sincerely believed and propagated by metaphysicist practitioners who desired admittance into the early “vampire” community, feeling that they owned part of the term themselves. I do not discount the idea that there can be sanguinarians who are also practitioners of metaphysical vampirism, however to call this being a “hybrid” is analogous to saying someone who is female and Christian is a mixture between a female and a Christian.

   I myself am an “ex-hybrid.” I found the world of energy vampirism very early on in my realization that I was a sanguinarian (I called myself a vampire back then, I no longer call myself a vampire anymore for semantic and political reasons). I was quite freaked out at the bizarreness of the realization and at the thought that for the rest of my life I would have to consume blood if I no longer want to be consumed by the hunger, lethargy, and sensual sensitivity that I have in the past taken for granted. I was quite desperate for any substitute for that dire fate and was willing to accept nearly anything that seemed reasonable. I was taught energy feeding and eventually taught it to others, whether vampire identified or not, since anyone can do it. The energy feeding was quite effective for me, and the subjects I was teaching the energy feeding to could feel the energy course through them. Two or three years later I disavowed any belief in the existence of psi/chi/prana/etc.

The mundane reasons for its effectiveness became quite apparent. Many of the feeding techniques that I employed had a lot in common with meditation, deep breathing, and other stress-relaxing techniques. Stress has been scientifically proven to be related to health: less stress, better health outcomes. It would be folly for someone who meditates to counteract hypertension to claim that they are a “meditation-hypertension” hybrid. As for about my subjects feeling the energy when I taught energy feeding techniques, this can not only be attributed to its similarities to stress relaxers, but also it is a tacit, unspoken agreement that this metaphysical energy exists and that teacher and student alike are conditioned to find energy to keep the agreement. It is analogous to people using a Ouija board; those using it have a tacit, subconscious agreement to spell out words. However, when blindfolded and the Ouija board reoriented, nothing but nonsense results.

Those who are sanguinarians and practitioners of metaphysical vampirism are welcome to be part of the sanguinarian community. However, it is necessary not to equate the two, which would defeat the purpose of partition and greatly hinder the effort to reach our common goal of decreasing stigma, increasing understanding of ourselves, and possibly be delivered from the burden of having to find a donor to sustain yourself.

An Advised Code of Conduct
   When discussing one’s sanguinarianism, it is of the utmost importance to preface your testimony as reflective of your personal experiences rather than a claim of truth. Be honest about not knowing the reasons behind why the way you are. Also I would advise that in describing your sanguinarianism, focus on what changes when blood is consumed. These are the things that will be measured and quantified in clinical trials. Fixed states such as skin complexion, having “fangs”, eye iris colors, and the like are most likely irrelevant and probably far too varied among us. If a sanguinarian does have an interest or engages in the occult or the metaphysical, it is also advisable to maintain discretion with that facet of life as the sanguinarian community has little margin of error in the quest to obtain credibility in order to engage in clinical trials.

In Conclusion
   I do realize that my words are strong and may be quite offensive. To a degree I intend to offend and shock. I hope to shock sanguinarians and “hybrids” who are currently satisfied with the status quo to realize that their needs are not being met. I hope to shock metaphysical vampiric practitioners into doubting their own assumptions. Unlike the “sanguinarian v. psi” wars of the 1990s, which was about ownership of the term “vampire,” this is my favored course of action on a different question that only sanguinarians can answer: “Should we sacrifice community unity for the sake of finding out more about ourselves?” My answer is a resounding yes. A second “sang/psi war” would merely be an unfortunate side effect in the greater goal of delivering ourselves from the stigma associated with sanguinarianism and/or the perceived need to consume blood. There is nothing gained or lost by leaving a community in which has been redefined to the point that it no longer pertains to us. The term “vampire” now belongs to the metaphysicists. They can have it and its Halloweenish connotations. If there is any benefit to the media appearances the “vampire” community had, it is that it added the term “sanguinarian” to mainstream lexicon. Sanguinarians do not need the term “vampire” nor the community which claims the term. The domain of the sanguinarian should be and must be reality.


Title: Re:A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: childofthespiral on January 03, 2011, 12:17:07 AM
I had to go look up the word "Ersatz". Then I read about a third of the way and got lost in all the lingo. Sorry.

Is the point of all this to try and say that psi-energy vampires don't actually need energy, or hybrid vampires (like myself) don't exist, or that only sang vampires are truly vampire... or something similar?

Good luck telling me I don't exist.

Alright, I did my best to actually finish reading all of your post, but I still found it intolerably dense. As I've said in another response to science not proving vampiric need is real, science can only prove that which is already true; things do not suddenly become true simply because science can prove it. Yes, blood is real and tangible, but the claim that a sanguine vampire needs to consume it hasn't been proven any more so than my need for psi energy. All we have to prove this need is the exact same evidence that all vampires report - that without this energy consumption, whether it be blood or Psi energy or elemental energy or sexual energy - they begin to feel various illnesses and symptoms which can include migraine headaches, lack of energy with no medical explanation, sensitivity to sunlight, irritability... all these things have been reported by all types of vampires as symptoms or indicators that they have a need which nothing else can fill. When a vampire of whatever type obtains this energy, by whichever method works best for them, they all report immediately feeling better. The symptoms improve or disappear altogether and their entire quality of life is improved.

Oh, and before you say that there's absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever to back up the claim of metaphysical power, why don't you check this link out http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8142192/Humans-do-have-psychic-powers-study-claims.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8142192/Humans-do-have-psychic-powers-study-claims.html)

Simply put, there are thousands of psi, sexual, elemental, and hybrid vampires out there. Not all of us claimed the need for energy after finding out about the vampire community. I was deeply in need of psi energy for years before I learned how to obtain it, bounced from doctor to doctor during my teenage years with no definable reason as to why I should be so sick, lethargic, and pained as I was. Believe me, I went though an exhaustive battery of tests, all of which came back normal or close enough to normal that the doctors were unconcerned. I learned, completely on my own and *gasp* without so much as the internet or a local bookstore, how to absorb and put to use the energy that my body apparently doesn't manufacture on its own. It was only about 3 1/2 years ago that I learned there was such a thing as the vampire community, and I wasn't alone in what I believed about myself or what I did about it, that there were others who felt the same way.Yes, I awakened as a sang, but I learned to take Psi energy. I was 13 years old when I began to awaken. I lived 4 miles outside of a hick-ville (for lack of a better term) town of less than 5,000 people. We didn't have internet and cable TV didn't run along the county roads. Still doesn't. I didn't have much of a choice.

And yes, for the record, I believe that once scientists decide to get their collective butts in gear and start studying this phenomenon, there will be a real and tangible explanation for all of this.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: display on January 03, 2011, 01:17:04 AM
Holy Shit!
First, well written...
Second, are you trying to surpass myself as a hated Vampire?  well this should certainly fill your inbox with hate mail...lol
Third... Well written , CJ!


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: RKCoon on January 03, 2011, 01:39:02 AM
Greetings, and excellent post, CJ. I recently wrote an article myself, to some what similar lines, which can be found here -- http://rkcoon.xanga.com/738305276/a-sangs-pov/ (It was also posted to the face book group vampire community news).

To respond to spiral's comment first - the facts boil down to this. There IS a biological exchange of energy when one feeds sang. Thats basic biology really- the human stomach digests and utilizes the blood for the body. IF there is something beyond that, science has yet to find it -- however, science has yet to find sufficient evidence to state that anyone possesses the ability to draw or give energy, past what would be called moral support or moral bashing. While science MAY find it in the future, it does not look likely.

Now, beyond that, CJ - my question to you is, why might you hope that we might 'cure' what we are, out of curiosity?


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Demzon on January 03, 2011, 01:53:07 AM
Excellent points. Some I have made myself in the past and been shouted down for them. It would seem that we have a small base to start with. If you are serious on getting something going let me know; I'm a bit busy recently, but I'm sure I can find time if it meens getting to some reality again.
Also, I will respond to that first response from 'childofthespiral' as well: you touched on a major pet peeve of mine; "tl;dr." if you can't take the time to read something, or admitidatly do not understand it, why would you even waste someone's time with telling them how wrong they are? You don't even know what was said. Please turn on your brain before blindly responding as this is part of the problem causing the degradation of intelligent discussion on the Internet.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Octarine Valur on January 03, 2011, 02:10:13 AM
Right, so it seems we've just thwarted one attempt to undermine the foundations and unity of the VC, when someone else comes along to do the same thing.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: indigofemme on January 03, 2011, 02:57:42 AM
Well written; well stated.

I am new to the community as an active member, but I have been hearing both sides of this argument for a while now.  You have put forth your contribution to the discourse in an intelligent and well-thought out fashion, and I believe it merits some thought.

As I understand it, your main concern is that sanguinarianism is not being taken seriously enough to merit true scientific research because the physical reality is being impacted by the metaphysical aspects imposed on it.  I certainly do understand your concern.  I'm not looking to be "cured" as a Sanguinarian, however I am always seeking to understand.  I agree with you whole-heartedly that we can more effectively treat the negative aspects of not feeding (et al) by understanding what causes us to be Sanguinarians. And this quest will be taken more seriously by those outside the community, whose research will be taken with more respect, if we do not load it down further by attaching metaphysical properties which will firstly remove credence from our quest and secondly, make the research nearly impossible to do, simply because there are too many variant factors.

I am wary of dividing the community because community is vital to the function of any homo sapien sapien.  As "vampires", we are often ostracised, or we ostracise ourselves.  Regardless of how it happens, we need all the community we can muster.  However, when the community is no longer serving the needs or representing a portion of the members, it is time to question the situation.  Will we, as Sanguinarians, ever be taken seriously if we are presenting ourselves as creatures with both a physical need and a tie to the metaphysical?  Will we ever find a scientifically tested and proven basis for our physical needs if we lump it in with spiritual/metaphysical ones?  And does our community continue to represent us in the fashion to which we wish it?

While your Treatise provokes a great deal of strong emotion, I very much hope your readers will take a moment to simply think about the situation and the point you are trying to make.  I thank you for presenting your argument in an intelligent and serious manner, and I hope it will bring forth some serious discourse and perhaps a reevaluation of the current situation.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Sylivia on January 03, 2011, 03:38:15 AM
Sounds like a crock to me.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Oblivionburns on January 03, 2011, 03:41:09 AM
While I can understand the idea of the concrete tangiablility of sanguinarianism, I still think there's a lot to be said for PV replenishing among prospective donors for the sangs, & PV's shouldn't be discredited out-of-hand.  I for one do not meditate or use any of the "mumbo-jumbo" methods cited in the Treatise.  I have always been able to spot the energetic over-acheivers & skim what I need off the top, so to speak.  Now if sangs & PVs are so different, maybe sangs could look within the VC for donors who can replenish themselves & all would be empowered.  That way the sangs wouldn't be "feeding off their own kind".  Cheers!  Good luck!   ;)


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Kaiya Shadow on January 03, 2011, 05:19:20 AM
Really CJ!, you could convey the exact same message without all the superflous words and showy syntax, and reach a far larger audience. If people have to verbally wade knee deep through unnecessary polysylabic words, especially in such a long article, you're going to loose the majority of your audience before you've made your point. I made it less than halfway through, not because I'm not interested, but because it's been a long day at work, and I'm not in the mood to have to operate at a top mental level simply to read an article pertaining to Sanguinarianism.

Contact us again when you've made the reading user friendly.

Yours sincerely,
~Kaiya Shadow


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: paindancer on January 03, 2011, 08:30:36 AM
Responding from the airport via Droid so excuse the typos and brevity.
 
First, with the likes of js and others, I don't think you can really assign incredulity to any group.  Simply put, vampirism does not seem to attract the most stable or socially adept in all cases.

Reading over your declaration of war... I find myself wondering what is really the goal here.  You want to be able to define a elite group based on physical characteristics and similar ideology?  I am pretty sure that has been tried before.

Ultimately, you need to look at a mechanism.  Provide a theory defining the mechanism of this vampiric transfer.  I have yet to hear a sang based theory than does not get to arm waving, recorded psi theories, or fantasy.  Yes, you can digest a little blood (I was surprised someone needed to write an article on that 'new' knowledge) but on a mass balance bias its impossible to assign the energy gathered to the quantities.  Frankly, the psi theories are often better thought out and encompassed sang.

I will agree with one of your concepts that I was able to pull from your work:  its easier to test on sangs.  We are talking about a physical feed producing physical results.  But aside from signing up sang folks I care about to be guinea pigs... what do you want?

I don't see statements like yours to be much more than a reflexive power grab in the face of a dwindling popularity pool, and unfortunately expect to see more.  Luckily for me I knew how I worked long before vampirism became popular.

Edit:  forgot to add... eastern science has no problem validation many forms of energy work.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Darklilone on January 03, 2011, 09:19:48 AM
i don't like it. but if you think it'll work, if you think it's worth a shot, that you'll have support and people willing for this, then i wish you luck and hope something positive comes of it. If nothing else, it would be something to observe and learn from.

about the Ouijia thing, that is interesting, i've found (as i'm often using it by myself) that if i look away and not focus, basically "blind fold" myself, it works better than when i focus on it and wait anxiously for something to happen. When i let go of the control. It's quite often is.. or at least starts off as, a bunch of meaningless jumbles of letters for me.. but that doesn't really have anything to do with what you're talking about here.

Your mention of your early "awakening"/development/finding your vampirism, however you want to term it, you started believing you were psi then you stopped.
you mentioned a fear (or something) of believing you needed blood.
That's about what i've been going through for the past four years. Though it's not just feeding method i question, find relief from and deny, but "Vampirism" itself.

I stick to psy, because.. i guess it is easire. I'm terrified to try blood as an official feeding. I've only tried blood maybe twice, though it was incredibly small amounts, i found it much more helpful than auto and ambient feeding via psy methods.
I avoid actively feeding via either method, though i have found relief and sensation in both.
Won't lie, could be placebo, could be mental/psychological, anything.. it's these doubts, as well as commonly held beliefs (for example, society may see it as bad, and i have some very close people to me who would view drinking blood as wrong), that make me question it entirely.

With arguments and such scenes as has gone on, with one side making claims and putting themselves, in some way, in a position above the other, it's incredibly confusing, heartbreaking and frustrating.
If i can't identify anywhere (because they can't agree or get along or accept each other) or relate to anyone, where do i go?

The vampire community as a whole (not separated) is the closest i've got. Get rid of that and i fear i'll be back at square one with not even a clue.

I discussed with one psychologist about being empathic, she seemed to believe me. I discussed with another about people who believe themselves to need energy, she never stated that they sounded crazy, and even seemed to agree that life energies existed at the least.
I've never been found to have any sort of disorder and to be of a healthy mind. i may not have the amount of expeience as some in the community, but  i'm working on it as best i can. i want to know what's wrong with me and since 13 have found no answeres.
I did have blood taken one night when i was taken to the hospital during one of my mood drops. I'm sure if they found something wrong (though they were probably looking for particular things) they woul dhave mentioned it.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: WingedWolfPsion on January 03, 2011, 09:51:34 AM
The primary issue I see with this is...what will you do if the medical establishment, after thorough searching, turns up no positive evidence to support a medical cause for vampirism?
They will declare it to be psychological (as they always do when medical investigation turns up nothing).  Psychological avenues HAVE been explored by some vampires, and they have not been known to bear any fruit.  Psychology is far from an exact science, and it may well make many assumptions, but produce no solutions.

Where does that leave you?

Now, I understand where you're coming from, truly--people who are rejecting metaphysical explanations will look more appealing to the medical community.  The problem, however, is that few vampires are able to reject the metaphysical entirely, because the vast majority are psychic in some way (whether they take energy or not).  Those who are willing to engage in a state of denial, or who don't have any psychic perception, are in a small minority of the sang community.

If you want to take such folks and secede, and seek medical answers, more power to you--I'm quite sure the rest of the community will (largely) be willing to let you be, and see what results you can get.
Recruiting from among the psi-sensitive vampires, however, isn't likely to get you anything.  You can't really argue someone into a state of denial--it requires substantial psychological gymnastics to explain away a host of previous validated experiences.  Nor should you try, because you must ALWAYS remember that you might be wrong.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: the pink lady on January 03, 2011, 10:13:45 AM
I guess what you're trying to say is, in order to scientifically and/or clinically define vampires and vampirism, there needs to be clear separation between the different types and clear definitions of each? From what I understand, the reason for typing and defining (besides narcissistic posturing) is entirely based on whether or not blooddrinkers and energy consumers need something in the medium or the medium itself.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: deacongray on January 03, 2011, 10:57:54 AM
Much of this seems well reasoned from the POV of Sanguinarinism being metabolic or physiolgical in nature. lt would stand to reason that if one believes that to be the case, that being connected to others who are looking for a metaphysical, spritual, energy, or even religious answer could hinder the goal of finding researchers, doctors and scientist that would be willing to dig into subject and find a treatment for the disorder. After all if you present a group of say...100 people with the same complaint and symptoms a medical responce seems more warrented then if you present 100 people who have totally different beliefs, and means of dealing with a undefinable problem. Yet there are a lot of social reasons people would not want to see this happen, but that doesn't make some of the points less valid.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Cheri on January 03, 2011, 11:25:55 AM
I started to do a point by point reply to this . But the more I read, the more I started to see this as a well worded, with some good points, effort to shatter what tiny peace there is in the VC in general. I do agree that there needs to be open dialog and more effort by the part of the community that feels “it is all energy” to understand that this is not how many sang vampires feel.  I myself do not have enough training or experience in the metaphysical side of things to do more then guess at what is happening.

So while I personally feel this is a bad idea, I will simply address a few points that stand out to me as needing a reply.

The segment of the “Community” that would have to separate from the rest is relatively small. I do not know if there is a large enough group to actually get what the stated goals, done. 

It was stated that the science can not be done within the community, and if you look at only pure blood vampires as a group. You are most likely right, by separating from the community in general, you also leave behind a large number of the very people most likely to start those studies. We have a surprisingly large number of medical people in the general community, or that have friendly relationships with the community. I believe this is where the push for true studies will come from. If for no other reason then to show that one feeding method or another is fake, wrong or misguided. The smaller population of pure sangs on their own, is not going to have that access to the large number of medical and scientific people that we have begun to build in the general community.


The point was also made that your ability to obtain a donor is directly related to the perception of the community as a group. Sorry, but that is simply not true for most donors I know. Very few I know in real physical life, have any part in the community. And the few that would have been interested in contributing to the community in general, read stuff like this and see it as yet another reason to simply stay in the shadows. They met their vampires without knowing there was even a 'community” to be a part of. For my part, I see divides like this as one more reason that we do not have more donors in the community, I know if I were new to the entire concept of real vampires, something like this would only make me less likely to want any part of it. It sends a bad message out to any prospective donors. And hey a lot of the very donors that now donate Sang, started into the community as Psi donors. So you stand to loose a good chunk of your donor population if you separate from the community and make them choose between Sang and Psi.

You say there is nothing lost by leaving the community as it is now. I think you are wrong. I Think you will find you have lost a great deal of the very respect and chance of real discovery that you state as your goal. I wish you luck if you press forward in this. I do not believe this is the answer to the issues presented and I feel it will cause more harm then good, but I still wish you luck in it. Just do not expect this donor to make a choice between the two communities. I may be a primarily sang donor, but I am friends with many that are not sang.

You did have some valid points on some of the issues, but I Think the way it was presented makes it less likely to do more then feed flames already burning bright.

With respect,
Cheri


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: childofthespiral on January 03, 2011, 12:33:10 PM
Excellent points. Some I have made myself in the past and been shouted down for them. It would seem that we have a small base to start with. If you are serious on getting something going let me know; I'm a bit busy recently, but I'm sure I can find time if it meens getting to some reality again.
Also, I will respond to that first response from 'childofthespiral' as well: you touched on a major pet peeve of mine; "tl;dr." if you can't take the time to read something, or admitidatly do not understand it, why would you even waste someone's time with telling them how wrong they are? You don't even know what was said. Please turn on your brain before blindly responding as this is part of the problem causing the degradation of intelligent discussion on the Internet.

If you had continued reading my post beyond the first sentence, you would have seen the part where I said "I did my best to finish reading your post, but I still found it intolerably dense". Practice what you preach before you tell someone else they aren't using their brain okay?

Really CJ!, you could convey the exact same message without all the superflous words and showy syntax, and reach a far larger audience. If people have to verbally wade knee deep through unnecessary polysylabic words, especially in such a long article, you're going to loose the majority of your audience before you've made your point. I made it less than halfway through, not because I'm not interested, but because it's been a long day at work, and I'm not in the mood to have to operate at a top mental level simply to read an article pertaining to Sanguinarianism.

Contact us again when you've made the reading user friendly.

Yours sincerely,
~Kaiya Shadow

This is what I was talking about when I used the words "intolerably dense". the point could easily have been made in less than half the writing.

If one is serious about trying to prove that only sang vampires have a need and psi vampires are either faking it, looking for attention, are possibly sang vampires in hiding, or have some sort of disorder, then one would have a VERY hard time doing this. Like I said in my first post, good luck telling me I don't exist.
As to the post that science will probably never be able to explain why some people have a vampiric need, just remember it wasn't very long ago that infertile women had no hope of ever becoming pregnant, it would NEVER be possible... and yet just a few decades ago the very first successful in vitro fertilization was performed. That baby is now a woman in her mid 30's and there have been millions of babies conceived in this way. When the right people have the right resources and put their minds to it, they can achieve amazing results.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Demzon on January 03, 2011, 01:03:08 PM
This is what I expected to see; a smattering of 'that's a good idea' comments, and a whole bunch of 'no! I don' wana' complaints. So, here is what I see so far to respond to:
First, most that have responded have not read the entire thing thus pointing out that they are not the target audience for such an idea as they can not read a short, concise letter addressing a basic idea. also, I still do not see how some one can see them selves a qualified to render an opinion when they have not taken the time to understand what is being said. To paraphrase something Bill Mahrer said on his show once "one side says we need better data with less false information from persons carrying through a role acting scenario utilizing elements of truth while avoiding anything that would definitively show they are in such a roll, and that means removing all that have no verifiable method of transfer; and the other side says I like turtles."
Second, this undermines nothing. This, as I read it, is a call to reason and proper inquiry. I remember hearing similar complaints when the VEWRS was announced in quite a few places; now it is lauded as great work, the best study done. Why not do better studies and continue the research to more verifiable information than asking a bunch of strangers to fill in the boxes with no verification past that the subject believes this to be true?
Third, the possibility of there being a psychological explanation was addressed in this if it had been read. The idea seems to be to find out the facts rather than continuing on assumption.
Fourth, that Ouija experiment has been done time and again; as changing the orientation of the board, and changing the order of the letters without those interacting with it being able to see. Every time it produces the same nothing, unless the orientation is returned to where the user thought everything was. Ouija is, at best, the same a the Rorschach test; a study of what the person in really thinking with the least amount of filter possible.
Fifth, it is necessary to remove those with out verifiable intake of anything to remove possible contamination of the data. If there is not a measure of x amount of substance a produces  y reaction but x of substance z is nul or reaction b there is no validity to the experiment. if you can find a way to measure chi definitively then it would be a break through in many ways. Good luck with that though; I tried for a long time. Also, I challenge you to tell me some other way of "psi feeding" that does not involve "concentrating on the source and remove all other things from your mind, then feel the energy moving over." This is that same instruction given for meditation for beginners; find an object to concentrate on to the occlusion of all else, and feel the (insert belief system's energy type here) flowing around you. This is also the same method to start out in hypnosis either by another or self. Now, that said; I do think that there might be something to the Traditional Chinese Medical concept of chi. I do not however confuse that with verified science as it is not verified by the standard scientific method in use today; even by those certified TCM. There have been hints, but not enough to call it verification.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Demzon on January 03, 2011, 01:17:22 PM
Excellent points. Some I have made myself in the past and been shouted down for them. It would seem that we have a small base to start with. If you are serious on getting something going let me know; I'm a bit busy recently, but I'm sure I can find time if it meens getting to some reality again.
Also, I will respond to that first response from 'childofthespiral' as well: you touched on a major pet peeve of mine; "tl;dr." if you can't take the time to read something, or admitidatly do not understand it, why would you even waste someone's time with telling them how wrong they are? You don't even know what was said. Please turn on your brain before blindly responding as this is part of the problem causing the degradation of intelligent discussion on the Internet.

If you had continued reading my post beyond the first sentence, you would have seen the part where I said "I did my best to finish reading your post, but I still found it intolerably dense". Practice what you preach before you tell someone else they aren't using their brain okay?

Really CJ!, you could convey the exact same message without all the superflous words and showy syntax, and reach a far larger audience. If people have to verbally wade knee deep through unnecessary polysylabic words, especially in such a long article, you're going to loose the majority of your audience before you've made your point. I made it less than halfway through, not because I'm not interested, but because it's been a long day at work, and I'm not in the mood to have to operate at a top mental level simply to read an article pertaining to Sanguinarianism.

Contact us again when you've made the reading user friendly.

Yours sincerely,
~Kaiya Shadow

This is what I was talking about when I used the words "intolerably dense". the point could easily have been made in less than half the writing.

If one is serious about trying to prove that only sang vampires have a need and psi vampires are either faking it, looking for attention, are possibly sang vampires in hiding, or have some sort of disorder, then one would have a VERY hard time doing this. Like I said in my first post, good luck telling me I don't exist.
As to the post that science will probably never be able to explain why some people have a vampiric need, just remember it wasn't very long ago that infertile women had no hope of ever becoming pregnant, it would NEVER be possible... and yet just a few decades ago the very first successful in vitro fertilization was performed. That baby is now a woman in her mid 30's and there have been millions of babies conceived in this way. When the right people have the right resources and put their minds to it, they can achieve amazing results.

First, you said "I had to go look up the word "Ersatz". Then I read about a third of the way and got lost in all the lingo. Sorry." admitting that you read one third of the entirety. If that is not what you were intending to say perhaps you are a little too conservative with your word usage and should expand more to provide clarity. Second, you were not the only one that has done so since and it was directed at them as well.
As for your example, that was science at work. There were attempts to make pregnancy possible for many reasons that someone can not get pregnant over a very long time. The method that came about eventually was not now, it was just new applications of the same tools. This is not a miracle; it was someone taking the time to study the problem and coming up with a different solution than had been tried in the past; it just happened to be the correct answer. I don't see much praise for those that tried other ideas that seemed to make sense for the medical understanding of the problem at the time such as various chemical compounds ingested or inserted, or the one of placing a low amp electroshock rod in the uterus for a time.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Octarine Valur on January 03, 2011, 01:21:27 PM
I'm simply too tired to argue with people all too eager to label each other as posers and wannabes. I literally don't have the energy right now.

And just by the way, as a Sang feeder, I'm pretty certain it is energy in the living blood that feeds me. Why? Because while eating a piece of medium rare or blue steak is tasty, it sure doesn't have the same effect.

If you look at blood you get from a donor, and what you get from a butcher shop, what is the difference? What is missing from one that is in the other? Science or no science, that much is obvious. And so we fight among ourselves because of the methods we employ to satisfy a need we all display.

Some of us want to call it quits and start over as a new group because suddenly what was good enough for decades, what many of them helped shape, suddenly isn't good enough for them anymore. We can't stop people from doing that, and I certainly don't see the reason in keeping people involved in a group they don't want to be a part of anymore.

I have to say at this point that I'm so glad this divide between PSI's and Sangs has never manifested in my area, and I will do my utmost to see that it doesn't. I've been spending my time trying to build an environment where both feel welcome and safe and equal. My fledgling is a talented young PSI and I am teaching him as best I can about vampirism and the community because there are no other PSI's out and available in our area. You can bet I won't be letting any of this filter down to him.

I'm all for scientific and medical analysis of the sanguine need and feeding. There is a variety of reasons people may need to drink blood, which means that as diverse as energy feeders appear to be, there are also different kinds of blood feeders.

As trying as the disagreements around this topic appear to be, perhaps this will lead to a kind of community "awakening" or "renaissance" where Sangs will diversify in terms of reasons why they feed on blood as well?


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: SangSavvy on January 03, 2011, 01:23:36 PM
Greetings,

Firstly, I am going to state that I find it mighty intriguing that, although this seems like it has apparently been thought through extensively, as if prepared like a beautiful thanksgiving dinner for hours upon hours, some parts a few days in advance, in order to make your points so eloquently and heard, it also lacks basic fundamental information that most in the vampire communities, online and off, garner through their experiences that they typically go through on their journey in the OVC.  It feels as though you've decided to post this really from mere personal opinion and agenda, and spent most of your time siphoning and tailoring your argument to fit a "well thought out" treatise based on persuasion. 

Personally, one of the things I find most offensive about your post is that you saw fit to walk in here with what seems to be no prior experience with any of us here.  I'm also shocked that no one here stated their impatience with this fact so far.  Agreeance and following through with something so drastic as what you have stated, I would think, would require a lot of scrutiny on the part of those reading, so that they can make educated replies.  Most all of what I've seen here has been off-topic, or some loving a chance to hop onto what *might* be a promising bandwagon, adding their own ego to the mix. 

But what else would you expect from vampires. 

Secondly, I hope you don't think you were going to get 100% compliance in all facets from this post, or even a majority, because I'll be frank, you're talking about the personal experiences of thousands of people here.  Although, a lot of people are pretty dim, and do respond well to brainwashing these days.....so I guess you've got a good running shot at it after all.  As long as you use large words that mystify and astound, I'm sure most will be entertained enough, hu? 

Thirdly, a lot of the replies here have been centered around wondering out loud if it "can be done" or not.  Um......Of Course it can be done.  People get *very* resourceful when they want something badly enough, it does not matter what it is. 

I am not saying that needing scientific proof is an unfounded, misguided approach, or goal.  But you have supported no evidence of your OWN claims here, such as YOUR biased comments of the work gone into the surveys done by Merticus and many others, and have no examples to back it up, or perhaps some responses to the evidence that Suscitatio enterprises has shown to make it as unbiased as possible, and then perhaps compare that to the lengths that the Vatican (as you sited) went through to make sure their efforts were unbiased as well.  What work have you done so far to make your case aside from reading a thesaurus really well?  Do you even know the people your claiming to know so much about? 

Most importantly, I find it *absolutely vile* that you have decided to even *attempt* to put every single one of us on one side, or the other, at our own expense.  How dare you.  To tell any one of us who we are, or what where about, according to *your* definitions, and that we must under the guise of our "own best interest", is DISGUSTING. 

I don't know who you think you are to intimidate, judge, manipulate, or satisfy, but I'm calling bullshit on this post.  I think you have an agenda, and I think you're hiding it. 

I hope you will have to try harder than that to convince anyone to go along with you, because if you don't, then the community members that read this and "drink up the kool aid" from this are already lost causes.  I know that sounds harsh, but that is my opinion. 

Lastly, if you are a dedicated, seasoned member of the community, and are simply newly registered to the AVA forums, well then I think it's even more appalling that you would make these claims, and this stance, and try to insult the intelligence of everyone here.  In this case, I would like to know to what ends you are trying to accomplish. 

Otherwise, take your "well thought out points" somewhere else.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Octarine Valur on January 03, 2011, 01:31:19 PM
I wish there was a "Like" button on here... ;) 'cos I really "like" SangSavvy's post


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Rav on January 03, 2011, 04:07:26 PM
I agree with SangSaavy. There is an agenda here, not terribly well-hidden. It seems to me, it's just a strike at psis and hybrids because of Sappho's interview and misinformation about sangs.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: childofthespiral on January 03, 2011, 04:18:33 PM
I do too. I don't need science to prove to me that what I am and what I need is real. I know from 12 years of personal experience what I am and what I need, and for the second time now, I had absolutely no contact or knowledge about any kind of vampire community anywhere, whatsoever, when I began to experience the symptoms so well documented and associated with living vampirism. I learned on my own how to get the energy I needed without a shred of training outside of trial and error. And I existed in this way for 8 full years before I finally read, on a wiccan forum, about a group of people who called themselves otherkin and believed that they were non human souls living in a human bod. I started researching otherkin, and by association on various otherkin related websites, found the vampire community. It was at that point, that for the first time, after 8 years of knowing I had something going on in me where I was falling asleep at 11:30 am after having already slept 9pm to 9am, or suffering from migraines so debillitating that I literally had to be led to the toilet in order to throw up because I couldn't see, with NO medical cause whatsoever (and believe me, when I was a teenager I had medicaid and I USED it. Wish to hell I had insurance now) even after seeing 6 different doctors and 4 specialists, all who said I tested normal.... after 8 full years of trying to deny my need and suffering, or giving in and fulfilling the need and then feeling healthy for a few days but truly thinking I was a horrible person for doing it, I FINALLY found, by accident or guidance, the online vampire community. Imagine my relief when I learned I wasn't alone, there were others out there, hundreds of others, perhaps thousands, who felt the same symptoms and experienced the same relief when they employed similar methods I had already worked out on my own.

Again, for the third and final time: Good luck trying to convince me that I am not real. Good luck trying to convince me that 12 years of my life, the first 8 years of which are hard won experience, aren't real.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Rav on January 03, 2011, 04:52:16 PM
My experience is very similiar. I didn't even know about an online comunity until a little over a year ago. I had been awakened for 17 years with no outside help. I had a blood donor when I was younger and it certainly helped the blood hunger. However, there was always something else gnawing at me that would wax and wane. Eventually, not just I, but several friends noticed that I would get all hyper while they would get tired. I learned to shield and my friends were no longer tired in my presence. I learned to get the energy I needed from other sources. And this was all before the advent of my experience with online stuff. Just because someone cannot, for whatever reason, experience something for themselves does not make it fake. For example, I have horrific pain when I ovulate. Of course, only I can feel this and know how bad it is. Even my doctor says I shoudn't be in that much pain. Does that make my pain less real because I am the only one who can feel it? No.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: LadyOfPales on January 03, 2011, 08:47:09 PM
This.
This, is every word, every keystroke I ever, ever hoped to get across to the community one day.
it's everything I ever wanted to say. And I would be so willing- even more than willing to want to do this. I have been keeping an eye on myself; writing, waiting, testing things- I even threw away my own ideas and beliefs (well, at least set them aside so that they would not interfere with what I thought was going on) so that I could one day maybe show people that there maybe some basis to what is going on deep down (a real, factual cause) if people could just let go of their preconceived notions about the metaphysical and spiritual. Oh I want this to happen SO, so bad!


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Sylivia on January 03, 2011, 09:20:18 PM
 I have to say cheers to SangSavvy's post. She said everything I was thinking so eloquently.  Blessed Be


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: WingedWolfPsion on January 03, 2011, 09:24:38 PM
The question, then, becomes whether this is important enough for the community to accept a division/secession in the name of getting real answers.

If the answers aren't forthcoming, then chances are the secession is only temporary anyhow.  I doubt there would be difficulty in getting together a group of sanguinarians who would be willing to do this, and forgo metaphysical explanations (or pretend that they have, anyhow, which is all that would actuallly be needed).

The real problem would be getting enough of them to interest a medical professional into looking into this without the group being able to provide any funding.

I support the basic idea behind this, because I support anything that furthers understanding, particularly when it's done scientifically.  (This does not mean I expect it to bear fruit--I'm actually eager to see this effort produce nil results, because it will help put to bed a physical ailment as an explanation for sang vampirism).

You do not have to support the idea of sanguinarian vampirism being purely physical to support this proposal.  Carrying this out would be beneficial to the community regardless.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: paindancer on January 03, 2011, 09:46:26 PM
If that really were their intention, psion, it was lost in the hyperbole.

Yes, I agree sangs are easier to potentially test.. but now we are getting to lab monkies.

I dunno.. prove that vampirism does anything....

Get stronger after feeding?  Prove it.
Stay younger?  Prove it.
Get faster?  Prove it.

Get some data showing that something actually happens outside of a feel good effect.. and you got something to go on.  Otherwise, there is no difference in the potential fantasy factor for sangs or psi.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: CJ! on January 03, 2011, 10:04:56 PM
Well whether you agree with content or not I would like to thank those who took the effort to read the entire treatise as it is and took the time to respond. The high praise and vitriol received so far is understandable as it is an impassioned piece. I feel I have a lot of points to cover so I will do the best I can to answer all the relevant pieces. The format will be subjects addressed to be followed with those who had addressed such concerns. Oddly enough many of the queries toward me can be answered by reading the treatise again. I will pull up relevant quotes when necessary.

Tone & Style of Treatise (childofthespiral, Kaiya Shadow)
I have a very deliberate style of writing: I do whatever I can to make sure my argument is airtight and each word I use I use with a purpose to mean exactly what I mean to the point that it cannot be hijacked to mean any other thing.  My word choices are very deliberate in mind of what I want to illustrate as well as connotations outside of the dictionary definition of the word. For example one sanguinarian seemed to get very upset under the assumption that I was supposedly speaking for all sanguinarians. The title of this piece is called "A Sanguinarian Treatise." I used the indefinite article because I know full well that I do not speak for all sanguinarians, just myself. Subtle differences can go a long way and sometimes I may rely on a rather lofty word as I feel it is the best word to use to convey my sentiment. If I settled for anything less I fear it would compromise my argument. I would hope that those who take their sanguinarianism (or just the topic of general vampirism in general) seriously would take the time to consult their dictionary when they encounter an unfamiliar word and appreciate (but not necessarily agree) the argument in its pure form.

The Goal (Paindancer and others)
No hidden agenda here. In fact my goal is explicitly stated in the very first paragraph of the treatise:
Quote
However, they are selfish intentions that I believe many sanguinarians share: the hope that in the future fresh and clean blood would be easily accessible or that we will no longer feel the need to consume blood for our own well-being.
The train of thought is that with knowledge gained about ourselves via clinical trials (physical, psychological or some blend of both possibly) sanguinarians would have a better range of options to manage or possibly eradicate their sanguinarianism. In addition non-sanguinarians would no longer be able to rely on misconceptions as an excuse to dismiss us.

Why Cure Sanguinarianism? (RKCoon)
A sanguinarian isn’t what I am. A sanguinarian isn’t who I am. It is just something extra I have to deal with: consume blood or pay the consequences. Although we may behave like an identity group I feel it is way too soon and rather pretentious to say that we are one. There are no hard facts about sanguinarianism yet. All we have is testimony and anecdotal evidence. There is nothing that confirms that sanguinarianism is necessarily a permanent condition although if we never get access to clinical trials that may end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sanguinarianism isn’t like homosexuality. The only detriment to being gay was the biases and prejudices of other people. Sanguinarianism have problems outside of social sentiment: if we don’t feed, we get sick. Wouldn’t it be nice to be rid of this extraneous need and the stigma that goes along with it? On the flipside, and speaking in a hypothetical situation given that clinical trials were done, should the medical and/or psychological community offer a treatment that seems worse than just managing my sanguinarianism, this could more solidify sanguinarianism as an identity.

Obtaining donors and # of sanguinarians onboard (Cheri)
Cheri stated some of her first hand experience with fellow donors on how “vampire politics” drives away donors from wanting to donate. However I would counter that with greater knowledge on a solid and mundane footing people who may have not necessarily have ever heard of or participated in the current “vampire” community may be more apt to feel sympathy for our plight and perhaps donate. Perhaps butchers may find a niche market to cater to sanguinarians. There will be incentive on behalf of pharmaceutical companies to create medicines. Perhaps we will never feel the need to consume blood for our physical and mental health again. I just see a potential for more opportunities to satiate our needs if we put ourselves in position to get better knowledge of ourselves.
   As for the number of sanguinarians needed for a study there was an instance of twin girls who were the only people ever in history to have this rare disease. Only two people were needed in order to pinpoint and study that illness. (link: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/955349/fields_condition_the_rarest_disease.html?cat=5)
 However in terms of social perception they do not have the baggage of the sanguinarian. Quoting the treatise again:
Quote
The vast majority of the community, whether through intracommunity internet message boards or appearances in the mainstream media, professes an inalterable belief of themselves as vampires, often accompanied by belief and practice in metaphysical concepts such as psi, chi, prana, auras, and the like which in itself has no basis in natural reality; a blind faith in matters that have to be believed to be seen. In essence this is a religious conviction and by extension optional.
Why on earth would the scientific community want to come to the aid of a community whose suffering is seen as optional?

Quote from: the pink lady
I guess what you're trying to say is, in order to scientifically and/or clinically define vampires and vampirism, there needs to be clear separation between the different types and clear definitions of each?

What I am trying to say is that sanguinarians cannot actively define themselves underneath the vampire umbrella if they desire enough credibility to gain access to clinical trials. Despite my strong use of language to illustrate the state of self-inflicted disrepair the vampire community my aim was never to assert any superiority of sanguinarians over metaphysical practitioners of vampirism but rather to show that sanguinarians have a distinct advantage in terms of access to scientific studies to learn about ourselves: the tangibility of blood. In contrast the psi vampire has to actively believe in the existence of this energy first (or retroactively believe that you were feeding on it before awakening) in order to feed. If we keep the connection that we are all “vampires” it would appear to the potential scientific researcher that sanguinarians necessarily believe in metaphysical energies. Once again why on earth would the scientific community want to come to the aid of a community whose suffering is seen as optional?

Assigning incredulity, mechanisms, and “Eastern science” (Paindancer)
For the purposes of scientific study the claims of the psi vampire are incredulous. A scientific mind isn’t going to buy a necessary premise on faith alone. It is also quite interesting that you brought up mechanisms as a strength for psi theory. I actually see it as a weakness. Since psi/chi/prana/etc is intangible theories and mechanisms are as far as psi can go. Since blood is tangible sanguinarians do not need pet theories. The facts are out there. It is just up to us to put ourselves in the best position to obtain them. In the meanwhile the best answer for us is “I don’t know.”
   Science is science regardless of geography. Perhaps you meant Eastern philosophy. I analogize the inventions of vital energies as akin to Judeo-Christian creation theories. As we have progressed with our knowledge in medicine and the natural world, such antiquated ideas are really of no use anymore as universal fact. However if it is in part of a personal spiritual persuasion which enriches one life perhaps such ideas could be useful.

In closing, yeah, the tone of the piece is quite harsh and I wrote it with the skeptical outsider in mind despite the content being very much an intracommunity matter. However I feel it is a lens that we should look through now and then. This is the prism the outside world looks at us and we can’t live our entire lives underground. Despite our best efforts at discretion people will find out and we have to be prepared.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: JayceeMoon on January 03, 2011, 10:23:36 PM
Ok, I have only one question for you...  First of all, let's start with your own words... below is a quote you wrote:

Quote
I myself am an “ex-hybrid.” I found the world of energy vampirism very early on in my realization that I was a sanguinarian (I called myself a vampire back then, I no longer call myself a vampire anymore for semantic and political reasons). I was quite freaked out at the bizarreness of the realization and at the thought that for the rest of my life I would have to consume blood if I no longer want to be consumed by the hunger, lethargy, and sensual sensitivity that I have in the past taken for granted. I was quite desperate for any substitute for that dire fate and was willing to accept nearly anything that seemed reasonable. I was taught energy feeding and eventually taught it to others, whether vampire identified or not, since anyone can do it. The energy feeding was quite effective for me, and the subjects I was teaching the energy feeding to could feel the energy course through them. Two or three years later I disavowed any belief in the existence of psi/chi/prana/etc.

If you started out as a psi-vamp, experienced it yourself, and admittedly fed that way for years... you even took it to the point of being able to teach others how to feed from energy so that others could "feel the energy course through them"... then how in the world can you "disavow" any belief in the existence of psi/chi/prana/etc???  You are a walking contradiction.

As far as your statement about sanguinarians being easier to "test study," that is probably true.  But that doesn't "lessen" the way any psi, pranic, tantric vampyre feeds.  But in all reality, real vampyres are already segregated enough, no matter what "type" of vampyre you are, and we are even more segregated from the rest of the world who do not understand the physical need that vampyrism causes...  So what exactly do you hope to gain in segregating the vampyre community even more than it already is???  Is it not in our best interests to come together and educate the world about us... about all of us...



Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Jurence on January 03, 2011, 10:25:42 PM
This entire situation is so dumb from a third party perspective.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: JasonConstantine on January 03, 2011, 10:28:10 PM
Its been a while since I have posted and I have been lurking from time to time around here just to see whats going on. This post came to my attention from a friend and being ronin nowadays I dont know why I feel I have to speak out on this ....

Firstly let me say its an extremely well written post, unfortunately that is where my appreciation for it ends.

Next I think you should know that for my first 10 or so years in the Vampire community I was one of those "Psi / Hybrid" "vampires" you seem to have an issue with. Now I am strictly Sanguine in my feeding practices not by choice but by necessity. While I do applaud your efforts for attempting to rid the negative stigma that surrounds the "vampire" community and the term "vampire" in general, I believe you are going about it in the completely incorrect fashion.

Being a member of the "vampire" community since the mid 90's when it all came in to "vogue" publicly, I have seen the rifts the differences of opinions of it members creates. That being said the main issue with the community today is the "I am king hear me roar" syndrome. So with this being said I pose a few questions .....

What makes you think separating Sanguine's out from the rest of the community will make it any better? The Nazi's tried to segregate themselves from the rest of the Germans and look where they ended up.

What makes you think that segregation is the answer? Wouldn't just having the community as a whole drop the entire "vampire" moniker be better for everyone? No more Twilight or Anne Rice fans claiming they are some sort of royalty or deity. No more people claiming to be at war with the Lycans or being Daywalkers. Personally i think we should move toward the latter.

Just my 2 cents .....


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: display on January 03, 2011, 10:34:40 PM
i agree jason...

im a blood drinking tele-tubby btw...


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: JasonConstantine on January 03, 2011, 10:38:43 PM
Quote
i agree jason...

im a blood drinking tele-tubby btw...

Really! DUDE THATS AWESOME!


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: paindancer on January 03, 2011, 11:01:51 PM


Assigning incredulity, mechanisms, and “Eastern science” (Paindancer)
For the purposes of scientific study the claims of the psi vampire are incredulous. A scientific mind isn’t going to buy a necessary premise on faith alone. It is also quite interesting that you brought up mechanisms as a strength for psi theory. I actually see it as a weakness. Since psi/chi/prana/etc is intangible theories and mechanisms are as far as psi can go. Since blood is tangible sanguinarians do not need pet theories. The facts are out there. It is just up to us to put ourselves in the best position to obtain them. In the meanwhile the best answer for us is “I don’t know.”
   Science is science regardless of geography. Perhaps you meant Eastern philosophy. I analogize the inventions of vital energies as akin to Judeo-Christian creation theories. As we have progressed with our knowledge in medicine and the natural world, such antiquated ideas are really of no use anymore as universal fact. However if it is in part of a personal spiritual persuasion which enriches one life perhaps such ideas could be useful.


But a mechanism would still exist.  If there is some chemical 'X' in human blood that you lack or gives you extra ability 'A', that, for some reason defies mass balance issuses.. then yes, that can be worked with.

To date, I do not believe anyone has even been able to prove feeding gives anyone extra ability 'A' or what extra ability 'A' even is.  When I feed, for example, I am greatly less in pain and my body dosnt feel like I am a left handed glove on a right hand.  But that is totally subjective and useless when it comes to proof.



Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: vampirengel666 on January 03, 2011, 11:18:21 PM
This has been mulling around in my cranium all day, and quite frankly I have a headache now thankyouverymuch.  Sadly this kind of post is one of the main reasons I choose not to engage within the OVC.  Seriously? This community was built on the foundation of Psi and Sang vampires joining together, not trying to prove who is better than the other. Personally I am one who believes that all vampires are the same in their need for prana, but the METHOD at which we come to that means determines what we call ourselves (whether it be Sang, Psi, Elemental, Empath, etc.).  These posts bashing one half of the community or the other seem to be stemmed from egotistical and narcisistic insecurities within individuals.  If you are not happy with who or what you are, too bad - don't take it out on me.  I've also noticed that some who have come out to the media have done so profusely.  Again, these individuals have an ego that screams for attention, and could potentially threaten the stability of this community.  

I miss the days when it wasn't all so complicated.  I wish I could say that we should "all just get along," but that of course would be impossible.

Get off your pedestal, we're all in this together.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: theUVUP on January 04, 2011, 12:22:59 AM
WOW, Im not really here I am just a figment of everyones imagination LOL. I know If only, kidding. I believe quite the opposite that all Vampyres (are born) have the ability to feed in all ways but most chose a preferred or easiest to achieve method of feeding. THAT IS JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION and am not going to tell you you do not exist because you choose to believe differently. We are all free to believe what we wish or are able to.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Oblivionburns on January 04, 2011, 01:32:39 AM
I agree, Father JP!  Some in the community are getting sidetracked from the prime objective:  we should feel FREE.

As we bicker away, nit-picking points & pigeon-holing/typing we lose sight of what it means to be what we are.  None of us have any ability to dictate what causes another's needs or methods of feeding.  Safety first & let's LIVE!


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Darklilone on January 04, 2011, 02:50:01 AM
i don't have time to read through all of the replies right now.
however i wanted to reply.

first off, about the agenda.. he mentioned quite clearly that his intentions for writing it are selfish. I would assume that means he has an agenda.

also,
Quote
"psi feeding" that does not involve "concentrating on the source and remove all other things from your mind, then feel the energy moving over.

I actually just experienced this last night. For the first time in my life i fed off someone in person and they were able to confirm it.
I was not focused on her, i was not clearing my mind, it was not meditative.
i was sitting, if a little anxious as this was only my second time meeting her, and we were having a conversation. my mind was focused on what was said and what i was going to say.
I felt what i believe to indicate that i was pulling energy. Part of me, as i always do, wanted to stop it, but i let it continue.. I wondered if it was real, if i was just anxious and experiencing my gut tense up or if i was imagining it..
She wound up stopping me, mid thought, and said something to the effect of "by the way, you've been taking a LOT of energy from me". When i reacted with "i'm sorry" and tried to indicate i'd try to stop, she said it was ok.
My friend last night, has stated that she has fed both sang and psi, and finds blood to be better for her.

Most of hte time when i feel like i'm taking energy there is no one, in person, to verbally confirm it to me. most of the time, ifi feel it, because i hate doing it, i will mention to whoever i'm talking to that i could be drawing and apologize if i am, and often ask that they protect themselves from it if they don't want it as i try to stop it.
I was not focused on my "source" i was focused on the conversation. I did not clear my mind, granted i also did not feel the energy flowing through me, as it's often described, but i could feel that i was pulling it into myself, and she was able to identify and confirm (without any indication of it from me previously) that she could feel her energy being drawn from her.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: childofthespiral on January 04, 2011, 03:08:43 AM
That's similar to how I was able to confirm what I am. My husband has known for a while what I am. However whenever we've planned for me to get energy, he swears he cannot feel it. Yet there have been a few times when I wasn't watching what I was doing and suddenly he will look at me and say "honey, you're taking a little too much energy from me".                                                 


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: deacongray on January 04, 2011, 10:01:55 AM
Well for a moment lets take away the US against THEM thought process. If you believe you have a blood disorder that can be treated if it can be identified, then it would only seem logical to do everything within your power to get it identified and treated. What wouldn't be logical is putting the term vampirism into the mix if you want doctors to take it seriously.  Telling a doctor that you crave blood and think it might be caused by some kind of a blood disorder...well that is a lot more reasonable.

There are after all a lot of blood disorders, and considering the amount getting the basic testing done, and perhaps looking to see if there are others isn't unreasonable.  (  link to list of blood disorders) http://www.telemedicine.arizona.edu/patient_info/benign_disorders/alpha_list.html

I don't see it as a US vs Them.                                   


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: LadyOfPales on January 04, 2011, 12:36:03 PM
ITT
metaphysical ass pain


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: paindancer on January 04, 2011, 12:41:15 PM
Interesting take grey.  Of course the assumption being that this an medical condition.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: giselle on January 04, 2011, 04:01:34 PM
Here is my two cents on the subject: I think sangs need heme. I believe a healthy sang donor's system process heme to a form the sang can use. I have worked in surgery in 15 years and have seen how blood supports life. Been a sang donor for over 5 years now. Have seen the physical changes in the sangs skin tone,eye color and energy level. Do I think this can ever been proved? More than likely not.  Just remember this Osmosis (spelled wrong) is the area of greater concentration moving to an area of lesser concentration.  Matter being blood, energy or whatever obeys this physiology rule. 

My question is WHY does it matter? Is it to prove to  "regular" society, "Hey, look I have a legit reason to be a vampire." To make it known you are not crazy because you drink blood? How is different than eating beef or chicken? one way it can be looked at is you are eating animal flesh. Why can not PSI and Sangs BOTH be vampires? Everyone's body has a their own special way of processing what we put into into our bodies to be at optimal health. One of the many reasons there is not one pill or one set of prodicals to cure everyone of any dieases they may have.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: SangSavvy on January 04, 2011, 05:05:45 PM
Thanks to the support on my previous reply, I appreciate it.  

@jayceemoon, ya didn't read the op thoroughly enough hun.  CJ is claiming that her past experience with psi feeding has helped her to "see the light", as it were, that it's actually just a bunch of bollocks.

@Jurence, care to elaborate, and care to add what third-party you're referencing?

@Jason, good to see you around, I'm glad you've joined the conversation.  

Ladyofpales, I like your new avatar caption...very cute, I had to chuckle a bit.  But it does stand to reason that we *still* don't know who CJ! is, as "she" seems to have avoided almost all of my questions and points.  My reply must have not been important enough to bother with, hu?  ;-)  

Although I do not agree with most of your reply, CJ, I must say, I can at the very least appreciate more of where you're coming from now, even though I still think it's absolutely absurd.  

Basically, because you having no donor at the moment after having one constantly as your main problem, now you feel you have the right to make your problem *Everyone's* problem, again I state, at the expense of us ourselves.  You have decided to suggest that others put themselves up as lab monkeys (I agree with paindancer on that) because you want to ensure that you solve your problem in such a way where it never has to happen again.  Well, I'm sorry but, your mighty "highness" isn't going to get her way all the time.  Good on you that you've never had to go without blood till now, but that doesn't mean that you have the right to throw some unseen weight around because your mad about that, and try to sacrifice half of the communities safety, and almost all of it's values, for yourself.  You're "airtight" language does nothing but make it that much more sick and twisted to read.  It turns my stomach to think of the forethought you've put into this, when it's really hardly any forethought at all, and only forethought for yourself.  

I see a lot of people here stating replies that include a perception that CJ! is trying to discredit psi vampires at the same time as segregating sanguines for medical research in order to have a better chance at obtaining blood.  I have to say, I really agree with this.  The things she has said seem to say at point blank that she sees no credit to psi feeding, and is really trying hard to "politely" disqualify any reason for psi's to have any credit, while giving more credit to sanguinarians.  

The fact of the matter is that, across the board, humans are not absolute.  The very essence of a human being is extremely subjective, and not at all concrete.  Human beings are not black and white, which is why you also see statements being made that psychology isn't an exact science.  One of the issues that I really take with purely science-biased efforts is that "belief" in and of itself is looked at as a reason why it is fallible, insecure, and has no basis.  I don't know about anyone else, but I think that slights why we are human beings in the first place.  We are unique because we have the ability to think of things in the mind, and feel things from a place that has nothing to do with the mind, or science.  Currently, we have no way to measure both the mind, and the heart (the heart I refer to being something more than that thing that I *hope* is physically pumping away inside of you, CJ).  

I just want a "solution" that seeks to 'tide us over' until something better comes along.  You're proposition not only puts the lives of those that elect and subject themselves to clinical trials at risk in ways big and small, but it also puts the entire vision of what we stand for as vampiric humans at risk, and potently so, for those that do not participate, and/or are not in agreeance with it.  I know that's been one of the concerns many people have had an issue with in the past when vampires, poser and not, have put themselves in the mainstream eye.  Yes, it does stand to reason that even through the best efforts of any organization, a part of the success or failure falls on people to know across the board that everyone is different, and quick judgement is wrong.  However, I think this proposition falls into a realm of "avoidable problems", which is in part why I take so much issue with it.  

You said:
"...blind faith in matters that have to be believed to be seen.  In essence this is a religious conviction and by extension optional."  "Why on earth would the scientific community want to come to the aid of a community whose suffering is seen as optional?"

You know, it's interesting you stated this when you also tried to cite the Vatican as reason why your proposition is that much more valid.  I'll give you an example.  Lets take a journey through the last 50 years of the Catholic church.  The scientific community has done a great deal to try to prove that Catholics have an option to suffer or not, in relation to their beliefs in Jesus Christ, and all affiliates, in ways which have been extremely controversial in nature.  

My belief is not optional just because it's belief.  Belief is the term that what I feel has been given, as a result of their not being any way to rightly measure that which cannot be seen.  And just because you don't believe it, or it cannot currently be proved, doesn't mean I've lost the argument.  

I'm *NOT* saying that to indulge in only one or the other (science, or belief in energy) is the solution.  A combination of both needs to be addressed and satisfied, because that is what humans are - a combination of both science, and energy.  

*IF* this was ever something that a vampire would entertain participating in, the *HOW* is very important, something which you seem to be giving no thought to.  How can I say that when you've put so much energy to making your language so "airtight" you might ask?  Because you're missing entire pieces to the argument, of a community that you seem to know nothing about, and think you know enough.  


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Belfazaar on January 04, 2011, 05:30:09 PM
*shrugs*  I said pretty much what I was thinking on the VCN facebook launch of this...  I can cut and paste it here, doesn't matter...

I think the thing that matters is that.. Is there a need for sanguines to have their own space for discussions that would not be disturbed by other forms of vampirism?  Yes.  But the moment it becomes anti-psy, I would draw a line and leave.  Sorry... I don't think anyone has a corner market on Vampirism and all avenues thereof...


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Belfazaar on January 04, 2011, 05:56:35 PM
Do I think we need true medical/clinical study? Yes. 

Is psychic vampirism bullshit? No.  I have my reasons for believing this and what convinced me may not convince the next 150 people down the line...

Is there a need to segregate from the rest of the community?  To an extent.  Sanguines need a SAFE place to discuss issues.  All too often we are being forced to deal with psychic vampirism and all of its offshoots, yet when we discuss having an area of our own, we are wrong.  When we strike back at psy vampires who stated things such as "sangs are psys on training wheels", "psys are more enlightened" or "blood is a metaphor", we are wrong. 

We, sanguines, are already being forced out of the community.  Look how many threads on ALL of the boards come up where all but battle lines are drawn between the sanguine and psychic portions of the community.  I've heard, personally, from more than one member of the European community that sanguine ARE being disallowed from attending events.  At first I thought it was just Sebastiaan's ramblings, but got reports from others, including a French member of the House of Mystic Echoes...  People are literally shoving sanguines OUT of the community.  Donna (WWP) and others try to say it is a non-issue or "making a mountain out of a mole hill" but guess what... If it is happening across ALL boards, it is more than just a mole hill...  It is a serious issue and needs to be dealt with as a whole community...

You want to stop us from having our own space.  Give us a damned good reason why.  Do I think CJ is right?  Yes and No.  Yes because we do need a place where we feel safe to discuss OUR issues without the advent of perpetual crap.  No because, even though I think this is a physiological condition, it will only be "solved" (as in the mystery will be shed light upon and answers finally attained) if we ALL work together.

Medical/clinical studies are needed.  Currently, all we have available to us is information passed by each other where "HOME studies" have been done, even by those, such as myself, with medical knowledge (11 1/2 years of nursing). 

This is what I wrote on the FB group VCN...
*********************************************************************************************
*********************************************************************************************


OK... I've read through the post, and remember VVC members, there was the suggestion of something similar after all of the Sappho Wolf crap.

I also mentioned in RK's rant that when sangs suggest a place of our own we are wrong. When we bitc...h about the treatment we are receiving FROM OUR OWN COMMUNITY, we are wrong. We are EXPECTED to merely sit here and be phased out of the community without so much as a "how do you do?"

Think we're not being phased from the community... Bullshit. Psychic vampirism and ALL of its offshoots has been forced down our throats for more than 25 years and it all started with ONE phrase... "Sangs are psys on training wheels"... People like Sebastiaan have latched on to this and escalated it to new heights within his own works with such phrases as "the blood was just a metaphor"... Which was mimicked in "Vampires in their own words" under the guise that "psychic vampires are more enlightened than sanguine..."

AND PEOPLE ARE PERPETUALLY BUYING INTO THIS CRAP.

Vampirism is NOT a validated condition, despite the fact that we have labeled it as such in our own beliefs/minds. There have been no true medical/clinical studies which set us apart. There is only "hearsay" and limited medically oriented HOME studies. Some of us who have worked in the medical field have experimented.

I've even done studies where I used animal blood and human blood in degrees of fresh, frozen and days old... Got news for ya... Days later, all it did was curb my hunger... It didn't sate it in any way, shape or form. Frozen tasted like shit. Animal blood... I simply don't feel right about because the animal cannot grant permission. This is not to say that an animal hunted for its meat can't be used... I just don't relish taking the life of anything myself (I get lost in the eyes and then the pain... I am empathic... I just don't feed that way).

The conclusion I came to... Blood too long outside its host body does NOT have what I require. Hence, my belief and steadfast clinging to "there is something IN the blood"... Do I say that the others who spout that it is JUST THE BLOOD are fake. NO. Do I think they are misguided... Yes and No... Yes because of my own personal beliefs. No because I am not the end all in vampiric knowledge and there might even be an offshoot or two of sanguine vampires...

Whatever... I'm rambling. The point is that sanguine vampires NEED a place where we can SAFELY discuss our particular branch of vampirism WITHOUT shitheaded psys trashing us for our particular strain of vampirism. I would welcome such people as Sylvere, Michelle and other psy vampires that I personally like and/or trust, because they are eager to learn about our vampirism so that they know where to send people who ARE like us... But there are those in the community who are only out to start shit because they thrive on the drama... They live for it. Because their minuscule little world isn't filled with all that THEY dream...

The moment it became an anti-psy site, however, would be where I would personally draw a line and leave...


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: sphynxcatvp on January 04, 2011, 07:06:09 PM
Quote from: Belfazaar
We, sanguines, are already being forced out of the community...You want to stop us from having our own space.  Give us a damned good reason why. 

Q.
F.
T.



Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: masticina on January 04, 2011, 08:16:53 PM
Looks like you have rubbed some people the wrong way and personally I wouldn't want the community to break up. Yes there are posers and troublemakers what community DOESN"T has them.

Zeta here has some good points :) You can as you desire contact her at Zeta@lesvampires.org if you want to deal with her questions. Now she has made a LOOOOONG reply post :( Sorry all there is no easy to way to do this! She for some reason can't make an account here to react so I posted it for her.

Really if anybody desires to talk to her about it talk to her. Don't shoot the messenger with a sawed off shotgun! And again sorry for the long post but the original post was rather big to!

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Zeta <zeta.omega@gmail.com> wrote:

> > http://www.atlantavampirealliance.com/forum/index.php?topic=2234.0
> >
> > "A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire
> > Community<http://www.atlantavampirealliance.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=566e7b26f36a7408d5b32b2f44409c4e&topic=2234.msg17550#msg17550>
> > "
> > by CJ
> >
> > My intentions for writing this treatise are admittedly selfish. However,
> > they are selfish intentions that I believe many sanguinarians share: the
> > hope that in the future fresh and clean blood would be easily accessible or
> > that we will no longer feel the need to consume blood for our own
> > well-being. I intend this treatise to be the catalyst and blueprint to
> > achieve those ends.
> >
You've already stated selfishness as a main driving reason you've chosen to
write this treatise; it would be redundant to point out that your own
perspective cannot possibly be thought to comprise the whole of the
assembled sanguinarians. Still, being of a paranoid bent, I do believe
that's the underlying read-in you intended. More on that to come.


> >    The importance of the “vampire” (I put the word vampire in quotes since
> > all of us, whether by design or by coincidence, are ersatz versions of the
> > archetype as seen in popular media) community was lost on me when I had a
> > donor. Other than the intermittent consumption of blood from my donor, being
> > a sanguinarian had no bearing on my everyday life. The only interest I had
> > in the “vampire” community was more based out of curiosity rather than
> > personal stake, wondering what the current zeitgeist was. I felt as if as
> > long as I treated this part of my life with discretion; that I need not
> > worry about what others within the community were doing. However, now that I
> > do not have a donor, while I endeavor to stay well despite this fact, I have
> > realized how my fate is tied in with the rest of the community.

This isn't entirely true, actually. One can easily point out that since you
had a donor previously, without any connection to the community, you can
find one again. You're not held by the community whatsoever now that you do
not have a donor. You got one without the influence of the community and you
can get another without the community's influence. You are choosing to
associate your "fate" with the rest of the community.


> > Thus when I feel that a major facet of the community is pathological to my
> > well-being, I have a duty to speak about it.
> >
Again, personal opinion without direct evidence supporting. Possibly an
improper use of the word "pathological" however.


> >    By far the one way that the “vampire” community affects my life is in
> > the public perception of the community affixed to all who belong. Public
> > perception is the most important factor in determining whether or not I can
> > get a donor or whether or not if I were outed I would lose some sort of
> > standing in my life.

No, not really. Reputation of a group can easily be overruled by personal
conduct. The most important thing determining if you can get a donor, and if
being outed would lose you standing, is you.


> > The current status of public perception of our community is, to put it
> > mildly, quite embarrassing. The vast majority of the community, whether
> > through intracommunity internet message boards or appearances in the
> > mainstream media, professes an inalterable belief of themselves as vampires,
> > often accompanied by belief and practice in metaphysical concepts such as
> > psi, chi, prana, auras, and the like which in itself has no basis in natural
> > reality; a blind faith in matters that have to be believed to be seen. In
> > essence this is a religious conviction and by extension optional.

Ah, there we go! I was wondering when personal biases would begin to show up
in earnest. While I can go on for ages with evidence that mainstream science
is *ignoring* the evidence of psychic phenomena (even to the point of
denying nobel prize winners positions in scientific conventions once thier
beliefs in paranormal phenomena are exposed) that would be counter
productive. Simply put, there's ample evidence for the existence of such
metaphysical concepts as you've broadly dismissed. Tribal peoples have long
told of creatures which scientists dismissed... until they saw them
themselves decades later. And the Chinese have believed in "Chi" for the
better part of six thousand years. Just because "Western Science" refuses to
acknowledge something  others acknowledge does not mean that Scientists are
right and the people experiencing are wrong, as you've just implied.


> > In my opinion, the most telling outsider assessment of our community is the
> > all too accurate portrayal in the South Park episode “The Ungroundable,”
> > especially the part where the vampire clique was sitting on the gym
> > bleachers arbitrarily deciding what names they should adopt and what kind of
> > vampires they should be. We were most likely laughing in spite of ourselves
> > or busy deflecting the characterization upon the “poseur.”
> >
Yes, I have to agree with you there. There are a lot of people pretending in
the VC, and there are a lot of people who are confused about their own
identities, trying to find meaning in a suit that does not fit them. This,
again, is not a reason to class the entirety of a group as "posuers" or the
like. I laughed genuinely at the South Park episode, actually. You know your
group is being recognized when South Park has made fun of you. *shrugs*


> >    Sanguinarians need not the burden of these outrageous metaphysical
> > claims and baseless new age beliefs as professed by the vast majority of the
> > community.

Opinion. And again, an opinion that, while toeing the scientific party line,
completely ignores personal experience, the work of the AVA and the fact
that psychic phenomena *is* a valid study that scientists *consciously
choose* to ignore.


> > Our claim, namely that the consumption blood is the most potent vessel in
> > treatment of a host of symptoms is a falsifiable claim as blood is a
> > tangible part of material reality. Unlike the metaphysical adherents who
> > consciously and often sincerely placate us with substitutes for knowledge,
> > we can find, no matter how hurtful it may be to our pride, true knowledge
> > about the nature of our condition, whether the genesis is physiological,
> > psychological, or both.

I'm going to sidestep the philosophical debate that tries to define "truth"
here in favor of pointing out, again, that this is your bias talking and not
a reflection of "reality".


> > Such knowledge can decrease the stigma associated with being a
> > sanguinarian, dispel the misconceptions the public may have upon us and that
> > we have upon ourselves, and also be quite instrumental in reaching the
> > aforementioned goal of having fresh, clean blood more accessible or finding
> > a way not to feel as consuming blood is a necessity.
> >
So you think. Unfortunately no one finds people with Renfield's syndrome any
less disturbing now that there's a medical name for it. No one finds the
sudden death of an infant any less traumatic now that we label it SIDS.
You're talking about an emotional reaction to the consumption of blood;
people won't be effected by it any differently knowing there's a "syndrome"
than they are now. The only thing that'll really change is your personal
feelings of validation. Which is, really, what this whole post is about;
your need to feel validated by modern medicine.


> >    However, such knowledge cannot be found within the community, but must
> > come from outside the community. In order to garner respect from the
> > scientific community as a group worth doing clinical tests upon; we must
> > prove ourselves to be credible and of sound mind. The status quo makes us
> > very easy to dismiss.

Again, status quo is to ignore or outright dismiss evidence to the contrary.
They wouldn't TAKE someone like Michelle Belanger for study even if she
volunteered. Hell, the aforementioned woman regularly submits to tests of
her abilities for various documentaries and consistently generates abnormal
results. You've seen the Kirlian photography they did with her, right?
Kirlian Photography doesn't photograph the "aura" at all, but there's still
a consistent change that follows in line with exactly what Michelle
describes happening. I'm positive that there are people out there who
scientists could test on claims of "energy" vampirism. There's enough of a
bias against anything perceived as metaphysical that it just wouldn't
happen. As noted, bias does not conform to "truth"


> > A process of reforming the entire community to a more materialist and
> > scientific paradigm would be impossible as the beliefs of “vampires” of a
> > more metaphysical persuasion as their perspectives are inherently
> > unscientific.

Value judgement, see above for why it's untrue.


> > The path of least resistance would be simply for sanguinarians to leave the
> > “vampire” community and start their own community with no affiliation of the
> > old community whatsoever. It is imperative that if a sanguinarian truly
> > wants to be delivered from the bondage of societal stigma and the perceived
> > need to consume blood that any metaphysical preconception has to be let go
> > and disavowed.

Translation for anyone who wasn't following what was actually being said
here: "It is imperative for my feelings of validation that we be accepted by
modern medicine. Only then will the people who think I'm creepy or wierd
finally understand that it's not me, it's my disorder, I have to be
different from them!"


> > Thus partition from the “vampire” community is of the utmost importance to
> > the sanguinarian.
> >
> > *Partition*
> >    Before I discuss what courses of action may be necessary for partition
> > to happen and the benefits of partition, I have to narrowly define what it
> > is and what it is not. What partition pertains to is sanguinarians as an
> > interest group separating ourselves from the rest of the “vampire” community
> > in an effort to disassociate from the claims and the beliefs of the
> > “vampire” community and assert our own protocols, In short, to establish
> > ourselves as something else entirely. This is not an attempt to assert any
> > sort of sanguinarian dominance

You just spent most of the above paragraphs stating there was no grounds for
the validity of any of the claims made by those who believe themselves to be
metaphysical vampires, but you're not saying that Sanguinarians, the only
ones with any "real, verifiable" basis are better? Am I the only one
catching this, or was this another intentional "under the radar" precision
strike?

Let's lay it out on the table now. I wasn't around for the first Sang/Psi
debate, but even an imbicile can feel the underlying tensions with enough
accuracy to realize that the old debate is simply waiting to rage anew. This
is largely for the reasons you've just listed, and it comes down to
accepting or denying the validity of metaphysics.  There cannot be a
"verfiable" answer in a culture that regularly chooses to ignore the
evidence of experiences which exist outside of it's own (disgustingly
narrow) view of reality. Yet the debate is waiting because we are raised in
a culture that chooses to deny the spiritual and place the material on a
golden cloud. If you wish to be tested against modern medicine you feel
free. Do not attempt to break apart a support network because of your own
beliefs. Even skepticism and science are themselves matters of blind faith.


> > or to insist that sanguinarians and metaphysical practitioners of vampirism
> > must never associate on a personal level. In this instance, partition only
> > pertains to the communities as interest groups: people allied together with
> > a common aim for specific social change. I feel I have outlined the case on
> > why the current aims of the “vampire” community are detrimental to the
> > preferred aims of the sanguinarian community.

The current aims of the vampire community are to find, create and promote
acceptance in society, promote healthy and safe donor-vamp relationships and
treat/cure the vampiric hunger. There is no dissonance between the goals
you've stated and the aims of the modern community save that the modern
community chooses to pursue this path with the inclusion of a group who's
validity you do not support.

And, as I mentioned earlier, there is no "sanguinarian community" you are
speaking for. You are speaking for yourself only. While you may be trying to
rally people to your cause, you are not an appointed spokesman for all
sanguinarians. See the above about my paranoia.

I would like to present an example of being freed from the shackles of the
> > metaphysical bent can allow us to do.

Wow, you've got it bad here. Pray tell, step out of your own box for a
second and tell me what will happen if you don't find the "real" causes.
Suppose all this "metaphysical" stuff is what the "reality" is? No, on
second thought, don't. I really don't want to read more diatribe on anything
you don't consider "real."


> >    In the 1980s, AIDS activists where often shut out of the conversation
> > among scientists in terms of how to study and treat the illness. The
> > activists’ motivations were mainly from emotion and desperation for
> > increased access to treatment. However, they did not have the scientific
> > knowledge and where withal to effectively steer the discourse. However, AIDS
> > activists read studies from the current field of knowledge and framed their
> > arguments from within that paradigm. This approach helped shaped National
> > Institute of Health studies closer to the ideals of the AIDS activists. For
> > more information on this subject refer to the book “Impure Science: AIDS,
> > Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge” by University of California at San
> > Diego professor Steven Epstein.
> >
AIDS was starting from a relatively different position. Vampires, psychic or
sanguine, have nothing more than a list of symptoms to describe without the
addition of the hated metaphysical flavoring. AIDS patients have this thing
inside their blood that's pretty easy to find: HIV. You're comparing unlike
things and telling the community that they can become alike if only we drop
a paradigm that actually works for a large majority. It doesn't work that
way, and you know it.


> >    With the current baggage of vampirism as an inalterable identity and
> > continuation of professing untestable and unconfirmable metaphysical
> > beliefs, we are already shut out of the scientific discussion.

Hmm. Well, lets see. The symptoms are certainly testable. Sunlight
sensitivity, lethargy, stomach pains, craving for human blood, etc. And as
noted above, given that there are several rather vocal vampires who
regularly allow themselves to be tested according to thier own paradigms, I
hardly see how the beliefs matter.


> > However, if we drop these pretenses and associates, we can inquire about
> > the current body of knowledge there may be on the subject (what happens when
> > humans consume blood, if there actually is a study proving that a placebo is
> > just as effective as blood in treating sanguinarianism), or make a case to
> > build a body of knowledge in correlation with scientific authorities.
> >
There is a case to make a body of knowledge in correlation with scientific
authority, namely that so many people report the same symptoms, and the same
working treatment for the symptoms. Nice of you to ignore the body of
knowledge the AVA has been working on, though. As for the placebo study?
That'd work either way, and would actually be a point in favor of your
"metaphysics is a lie" position if it does work.


> >    I can understand why many would be hesitant to leave what has been
> > already built. Sanguinarians for the most part are the ones who have built
> > the foundation of the “vampire” community and by the fact that we feel the
> > need to consume blood have more ownership of the term “vampire.” However, in
> > the context of the community, the term “vampire” has mutated to the point
> > where it no longer describes us. The great foundation currently supports up
> > a crumbling dilapidated building caulked with metaphysical nonsense. It is
> > time to move to a steadier edifice.
> >
You're welcome to do whatever you want, and I don't particularly care who
follows either. Perhaps you didn't realize when you stopped sounding like
someone interested in finding scientific backing to someone interested in
gathering up a cult and moving to Birmingham, but it started right about
here.  I'm aware of who built the community. It's such a power play to feel
the need to address the roots of the community and ownership of the word
"vampire" that I almost had to laugh. You're trying to rekindle some of the
old anxiety sanguines felt when psychic vampires started pushing for
acceptance. Wonder if it's working...



> > *Science*
> >    Science is not a belief system.

Carried to the extent you and many others take it, yes it is. You have your
set beliefs and if anything challenges them then it's "unscientific,"
"doesn't exist" or "nonsense." When scientists will dutifully ignore
evidence that does not correlate with preconceived notions about the nature
of something they are no longer practicing objective science but indulging
in blind dogmatic faith. Yes, Science is as much a Religion or a Belief to
you as anything spiritual or philosophical is to anyone else.


> > It is a method of determining what is and what is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
*Science* (from the Latin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin> *scientia*,
meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes
knowledge<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge>
 in the form of testable
explanations<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory>
 and predictions <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions> about the
world<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(philosophy)>
.[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-0>[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-Popper-1>
[3] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-2>[4]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-3>
 An older meaning still in use today is that of
Aristotle<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle>,
for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be
logically and rationally <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason> explained (*
see "History and etymology"
section<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#History_and_etymology>
 below*).[5] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-4>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Science is not a measure of what "is" and "is not," it is a system of making
predictions and organizing results, as well as comparing outcomes. What "is"
and "is not" is more correctly derived from philosophy than from science. To
believe that science has all the answers, or can even *provide* all the
answers, is a matter of pure, blind faith in a system. Welcome to Religion
101, please get a name tag and sit down next to Patty in the desk on the
left. Your course books can be picked up tomorrow.

Since the enlightenment it has been by far the superior method in obtaining
> > knowledge. The fact that there is an internet for us to have banded together
> > and create a wide-ranging community is a testament to the end results of
> > scientific inquiry among countless of other medical, technological, and
> > historical discoveries. With this track record, scientific inquiry upon our
> > sanguinarianism would give us the most accurate insight on what may really
> > be the source of our shared experiences.
> >
Again, opinion. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. If you want to try it,
you go right ahead.


> >    I do want to touch upon some anticipated objections. First of all, some
> > detractors may say that since the answers and explanations in science are
> > subject to change, they are somehow less valid. There are two problems with
> > this objection. First, it presents a false dichotomy when the objection is
> > applied, usually by someone who has a pre-existing belief that they feel
> > must be justified: there is a flaw in this system, so mine must be correct.

Oh dear gods, have you looked in a mirror since third grade?


> > Even if the scientific explanation is incorrect, it could be the case that
> > a third alternative may be correct. Second, what some people may perceive as
> > a weakness is actually a strength. Given better evidence, a scientist would
> > rework the answer to fit the evidence rather than maintain the obsolete
> > answer. Often in this community, data is cherry picked in order to support
> > pre-conceived notions, which is really a backwards way of making
> > conclusions.
> >
Someone please, dear god, get this person a mirror. I'll even do it myself
if you tell me to ship it.

Everything you've just stated you are, yourself, doing. And furthermore,
scientists do it all the time. For decades, in some cases.


> > Many metaphysical practitioners of vampirism profess a belief that
> > psi/chi/prana/energy is something that science will eventually catch up to.
> > I often hear the analogy of alchemy becoming chemistry cited in support of
> > this viewpoint. However, the problem with this analogy is that alchemy did
> > not become chemistry, chemistry completely supplanted alchemy. It is also
> > very likely that chemistry would have emerged without the existence of
> > alchemy. Robert Boyle, one of the fathers of the field of chemistry, was
> > once labeled as an alchemist; he sincerely tried to transmute metals, but
> > found more interest in the physical properties of chemistry. Alchemy failed,
> > and the field of chemistry resulted. However in this instance, the sentiment
> > is that science will confirm it rather than refute it, as opposed to what
> > actually happened in their alchemy to chemistry analogy. A related argument
> > is the principle that “lack of evidence does not mean evidence of lack.”
> > This may be true; however it does not give one license to make up anything
> > without a basis in material reality.

Somehow several thousand years of experience, without hundreds of pages of
text, with various cultures around the world, are being easily written off
as "without a basis in reality." I'm not really sure how you're managing to
do that. You're completely ignoring all personal experience, either
individual or group, and assigning it as worthless for the purposes of
evidence. Not to mention various people around the world who can and
regularly do accomplish amazing things based on their thousands of years of
experience, by doing exactly what they're instructed to do, following this
"metaphysical nonesense" training they receive.

And I've already mentioned the blatant bias of Western Science.  Do I need
to draw pictures or find examples? Let me know, I'm sure I can find half a
dozen with very little effot.


> > Sanguinarians do not have that burden, blood is tangible, and thus a
> > perceived need to consume blood can be tested under scientific conditions.
> >
Which still doesn't require sanguinarians to split from any paradigm they
choose to hold, does not require them to leave the community and really has
nothing to do with the metaphysical argument. Science can test the effect of
blood consumption on vampires all they like without ever having to touch the
validity of metaphysics.


> >    I would now like to introduce not an objection, but a fear many
> > sanguinarians may have who would be hesitant to submit themselves to
> > clinical trials: the fear that we are really “crazy.” I would argue that in
> > the event that sanguinarianism is found to be some sort of delusion, that
> > being cognizant that your mind is giving you false information about your
> > physical needs (the human mind is imperfect in interpreting internal and
> > external stimuli) and admitting as such would give one far more credibility
> > than one who insists without any physical evidence some sort of paranormal
> > or metaphysical reasoning behind the need. I myself have framed this as a
> > speculation of a reason behind my own needs to some hardened skeptics. They
> > have found me unusual, but not insane or unreasonable.
> >
Ahhh, back to the "I need validation, I need acceptance" chant now. Hey,
whatever works honey. I'm certainly not saying that it's impossible that
sanguine vamprirism is physical or psychological in nature. I am however
making the point that you're invalidating a huge number of people with no
reason other than superiority issues, a love of western science, a
disturbing need to be accepted by  "normal" society and, as usual for one of
a "scientific" bent a blatant disregard for anything that doesn't support
your own position that metaphysical reality is utter rubbish.


> >    Such testimony may be useful in tracking societal sentiment about a
> > matter, but is not nearly sufficient into claims of what is and what is not
> > physical reality. Testimony is helpful in constructing history, but in
> > science it is merely anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not an end,
> > but merely a beginning to setting up an experiment based on observable
> > phenomena. Metaphysical claims cannot make this step, but the claims of the
> > sanguinarian can.
> >
Yes, metaphysical claims can make that step. Scientists usually just ignore
the ones that do and publish the ones that fail. Oh, and the "the claims of
the sanguinarian" line you keep chanting? You're speaking for the group
again. You realize you're just a peon with an opinion, not the spokesperson
for the entire sanguine group, right?


> >
> > *Engaging Those Outside of the Community*
> >    It is impractical for sanguinarianism to remain underground (and as
> > compared to the more accessible community of “energy vampirism,”
> > sanguinarianism is still very much underground).

Don't know what circles you're running in, but it's not all that underground
to me.


> > We are too far small a minority to create our own in person society, and
> > such an experience would be far too limiting in comparison to all the
> > excitement the entire world possesses. In addition, the vast majority of our
> > donors come from outside the community, and it is our knowledge (although
> > anecdotal) that the blood of other sanguinarians is ineffective in treating
> > what ails us. We as an interest group have to duty to testify about our
> > experiences as sanguinarians, but with the trajectory that such revelations
> > would be beneficial toward the goal of clinical trials (academics who have
> > demonstrated they are approaching the subject with an open mind) or in the
> > short term, obtaining a donor. It is very important not to share your
> > sanguinarian status for the sake of revelation (mainstream/tabloid media,
> > those who engage us with a noticeable and unshakable pre-conceived belief).
> >
> >    We cannot do clinical trials within the sanguinarian community either.
> > Our findings can very well be biased by as well as dismissed by those
> > outside of the community as confirmation bias. Even if we tried very hard to
> > remain objective in our studies about ourselves, the fact is that we have a
> > personal stake in the matter and subconsciously we can corrupt the resulting
> > data.

Finally a point I don't have an issue with.


> > In addition, it is rather smart to be skeptical about studies done by
> > organizations to support their religion, political ideology, interest group,
> > etc.

Or treatise's for that matter.


> > As an example, many people dismissed the reports coming from Vatican
> > researchers that small writing on the Shroud of Turin was proof of its
> > authenticity on the grounds that the Vatican had a great stake involved in
> > proving the authenticity of the shroud.

Again, point to you. The Shroud, if I remember correctly, has been disproved
via mircoscopic analysis of the "blood." It's turned out to be paint after
all.


> > What has to be done by the sanguinarian community is to share our
> > experiences, without pretense of pre-conceived belief (anonymously,
> > pseudonyms, real names, whichever preferred method) to a sizable volume of
> > testimony to which the scientific community must take notice.
> >
> > *The “Hybrid” Question*
> >    The concept of the “sanguinarian-psi hybrid” is a disingenuous falsehood
> > that is sincerely believed and propagated by metaphysicist practitioners who
> > desired admittance into the early “vampire” community, feeling that they
> > owned part of the term themselves. I do not discount the idea that there can
> > be sanguinarians who are also practitioners of metaphysical vampirism,

Except in that you've already repeated ad nauseum that metaphysics
is nonsense. Again, this placation attempt is inherently flawed to the point
of almost being a veiled attack.


> > however to call this being a “hybrid” is analogous to saying someone who is
> > female and Christian is a mixture between a female and a Christian.
> >
> >    I myself am an “ex-hybrid.” I found the world of energy vampirism very
> > early on in my realization that I was a sanguinarian (I called myself a
> > vampire back then, I no longer call myself a vampire anymore for semantic
> > and political reasons). I was quite freaked out at the bizarreness of the
> > realization and at the thought that for the rest of my life I would have to
> > consume blood if I no longer want to be consumed by the hunger, lethargy,
> > and sensual sensitivity that I have in the past taken for granted. I was
> > quite desperate for any substitute for that dire fate and was willing to
> > accept nearly anything that seemed reasonable. I was taught energy feeding
> > and eventually taught it to others, whether vampire identified or not, since
> > anyone can do it. The energy feeding was quite effective for me, and the
> > subjects I was teaching the energy feeding to could feel the energy course
> > through them. Two or three years later I disavowed any belief in the
> > existence of psi/chi/prana/etc.
> >
Generally when this happens it's because some type of personal revelation
took place that leaves the person somewhat bitter and antagonistic to
whatever they were formally in favor of.


> >
> > The mundane reasons for its effectiveness became quite apparent. Many of
> > the feeding techniques that I employed had a lot in common with meditation,
> > deep breathing, and other stress-relaxing techniques. Stress has been
> > scientifically proven to be related to health: less stress, better health
> > outcomes. It would be folly for someone who meditates to counteract
> > hypertension to claim that they are a “meditation-hypertension” hybrid.

Of course, you've got lots of vampires who also meditate, both psychic and
sanguine, who derive no benefit of satiation from meditation or like
practices. You're making a pretty broad judgement.


> > As for about my subjects feeling the energy when I taught energy feeding
> > techniques, this can not only be attributed to its similarities to stress
> > relaxers, but also it is a tacit, unspoken agreement that this metaphysical
> > energy exists and that teacher and student alike are conditioned to find
> > energy to keep the agreement. It is analogous to people using a Ouija board;
> > those using it have a tacit, subconscious agreement to spell out words.
> > However, when blindfolded and the Ouija board reoriented, nothing but
> > nonsense results.
> >
Again, my milage, and the mileage of various other people, differs from
yours on this account. Both the Ouija board and the energy one, by the way.


> > Those who are sanguinarians and practitioners of metaphysical vampirism are
> > welcome to be part of the sanguinarian community.

Oh, now you're not just the spokesperson of the entire sanguine community
but also the rule maker? Interesting. I think I'm going to go over your post
with Bonewits Cult Evaluation when I'm done posting, just for laughs.


> > However, it is necessary not to equate the two, which would defeat the
> > purpose of partition and greatly hinder the effort to reach our common goal
> > of decreasing stigma, increasing understanding of ourselves, and possibly be
> > delivered from the burden of having to find a donor to sustain yourself.
> >
> > *An Advised Code of Conduct*
> >    When discussing one’s sanguinarianism, it is of the utmost importance to
> > preface your testimony as reflective of your personal experiences rather
> > than a claim of truth.

Such as you're doing here by claiming that the truth is completely physical
and the metaphysics are nonsense.


> > Be honest about not knowing the reasons behind why the way you are. Also I
> > would advise that in describing your sanguinarianism, focus on what changes
> > when blood is consumed. These are the things that will be measured and
> > quantified in clinical trials. Fixed states such as skin complexion, having
> > “fangs”, eye iris colors, and the like are most likely irrelevant and
> > probably far too varied among us.

Completely aside from my other points, that's another thing I've noticed
differs. Most of the changes you've just listed do happen with the
consumption of blood and the "metaphysical nonsense", but have never
happened with outright relaxation techniques, meditation, skin contact or
the like. Your Mileage May Vary, of course.


> > If a sanguinarian does have an interest or engages in the occult or the
> > metaphysical, it is also advisable to maintain discretion with that facet of
> > life as the sanguinarian community has little margin of error in the quest
> > to obtain credibility in order to engage in clinical trials.
> >
> > *In Conclusion*
> >    I do realize that my words are strong and may be quite offensive. To a
> > degree I intend to offend and shock.

Well, at least you're honest. You haven't shocked many, but you have
offended many.


> > I hope to shock sanguinarians and “hybrids” who are currently satisfied
> > with the status quo to realize that their needs are not being met.

Personal value judgement based on your own preconceived notions and
experiences.


> >  I hope to shock metaphysical vampiric practitioners into doubting their
> > own assumptions.

Because it's "obviously" rubbish. Right?


> > Unlike the “sanguinarian v. psi” wars of the 1990s, which was about
> > ownership of the term “vampire,” this is my favored course of action on a
> > different question that only sanguinarians can answer: “Should we sacrifice
> > community unity for the sake of finding out more about ourselves?” My answer
> > is a resounding yes. A second “sang/psi war” would merely be an unfortunate
> > side effect in the greater goal of delivering ourselves from the stigma
> > associated with sanguinarianism and/or the perceived need to consume blood.

See my above about emotional reactions.


> > There is nothing gained or lost by leaving a community in which has been
> > redefined to the point that it no longer pertains to us.

See ya, and don't let the door hit you on your way out.


> > The term “vampire” now belongs to the metaphysicists. They can have it and
> > its Halloweenish connotations. If there is any benefit to the media
> > appearances the “vampire” community had, it is that it added the term
> > “sanguinarian” to mainstream lexicon. Sanguinarians do not need the term
> > “vampire” nor the community which claims the term. The domain of the
> > sanguinarian should be and must be reality

Couldn't resist that last dig there, could you?


> > -Zeta
> > ---
> > AIM: Damnedsoulno7
> > Yahoo: zeta_the_devil
> > ~One life held fast to another
> > Love lives... And I will defend her~
> >
> >

-- -Zeta --- AIM: Damnedsoulno7 Yahoo: zeta_the_devil ~One life held fast to another Love lives... And I will defend her~


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: childofthespiral on January 04, 2011, 08:29:51 PM
I'm not active in a large number of OVC message boards, so I don't have the experience others here have. However after reading the posts here recently, it seems to me that those sangs who feel like they've been shit on by psys are only quoting the words and actions of a very small number of them. I had no choice but to feed strictly psy for most of my vampire life, but I have never for a second thought that the blood was just a metaphor. I have never thought, or said, that any vampire type was above any other.

NO ONE is any better than anyone else. We are all EQUAL! When will people get that through their heads?

If the sangs of this community feel like they need to have their own community which completely excludes psys altogether, then I will probably have to leave the OVC for a while until heads get turned back straight. When shutting others out becomes the order of the day, open discussion and equal rights are no longer considered and that's NOT a community I want to have even the most remote of connections with. The line "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" comes to mind.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: masticina on January 04, 2011, 08:55:25 PM
I'm not active in a large number of OVC message boards, so I don't have the experience others here have. However after reading the posts here recently, it seems to me that those sangs who feel like they've been shit on by psys are only quoting the words and actions of a very small number of them. I had no choice but to feed strictly psy for most of my vampire life, but I have never for a second thought that the blood was just a metaphor. I have never thought, or said, that any vampire type was above any other.

NO ONE is any better than anyone else. We are all EQUAL! When will people get that through their heads?

If the sangs of this community feel like they need to have their own community which completely excludes psys altogether, then I will probably have to leave the OVC for a while until heads get turned back straight. When shutting others out becomes the order of the day, open discussion and equal rights are no longer considered and that's NOT a community I want to have even the most remote of connections with. The line "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" comes to mind.

*purrs*

My Point pretty much to! We vampires are stuck together because of what we are! The method of feeding should matter less then that we are able to support new vampires into a stabilized life. Able to deal with their life without their vampirism getting in the way! Oh well it is a big community .. and sadly hardly as good running as it can. :( But it is in member participation and ability to put energy into shared needs projects. Yup sounding quite like a religion almost that way.. but just saying that breaking up the Vampire Community would not be the best for new awakened. After all many do roll in through the Gothic/Vampire Poser community.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: CJ! on January 04, 2011, 08:58:30 PM
It's a partial repost from my prior one but I feel it is something that was overlooked and really should be considered by those who are raising doubts or inferring about my motivation.

Why Cure Sanguinarianism? (RKCoon)
A sanguinarian isn’t what I am. A sanguinarian isn’t who I am. It is just something extra I have to deal with: consume blood or pay the consequences. Although we may behave like an identity group I feel it is way too soon and rather pretentious to say that we are one. There are no hard facts about sanguinarianism yet. All we have is testimony and anecdotal evidence. There is nothing that confirms that sanguinarianism is necessarily a permanent condition although if we never get access to clinical trials that may end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sanguinarianism isn’t like homosexuality. The only detriment to being gay was the biases and prejudices of other people. Sanguinarianism have problems outside of social sentiment: if we don’t feed, we get sick. Wouldn’t it be nice to be rid of this extraneous need and the stigma that goes along with it? On the flipside, and speaking in a hypothetical situation given that clinical trials were done, should the medical and/or psychological community offer a treatment that seems worse than just managing my sanguinarianism, this could more solidify sanguinarianism as an identity.

I'll do a full on rebuttal (and even some concurrences) later on tonight or tomorrow. Keep the hits coming.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: LadyOfPales on January 04, 2011, 09:32:19 PM
NO ONE is any better than anyone else. We are all EQUAL! When will people get that through their heads?


LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU

PRETEND THE BLUE ONE REPRESENTS PSI
PRETEND THE RED ONE REPRESENTS SANG
HE WANTS THIS
(http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j100/Ayashige_Gankotsu/THIS.jpg)

NOT THIS
(http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j100/Ayashige_Gankotsu/NOTTHIS.jpg)

I should draw pictures for everyone, since it seems that the diction is just too big and "wordy" for you to finish a few paragraphs.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: NyteMuse on January 04, 2011, 09:54:31 PM
If the sangs of this community feel like they need to have their own community which completely excludes psys altogether, then I will probably have to leave the OVC for a while until heads get turned back straight. When shutting others out becomes the order of the day, open discussion and equal rights are no longer considered and that's NOT a community I want to have even the most remote of connections with.

All right, I was a little guilty of this myself before...a sang-only forum isn't just about excluding psis. I know several sangs who have told me about trying to discuss sang-specific traits on mixed forums and got unpleasant responses from the psis (like "EWWWW" or "that's just crazy talk" or "you need to see a shrink"). I think it's shitty that the OVC is like that, but I can believe it. I've seen alleged psis make some pretty out there claims on forums, and much of the time they're not challenged because of the metaphysical hard-to-prove aspect. But still, overall psis don't get challenged as much that's I've seen, or not in the same way.

So no, I don't begrudge letting sangs have some private places where they work out their particulars, provided there isn't a total worldwide secession. And Belfazaar even said that he would consider allowing psis who have proven they want to learn respectfully, which sounds fair to me. But even if they didn't, fine. For the most part of what I've seen, it's not about excluding psis, or anyone...it's about creating a safe space to talk about their issues without having to censor or worry about what others will say.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: RKCoon on January 04, 2011, 11:42:32 PM
A few comments, as I wanted to focus and give this topic more proper attention --

Sangsavvy - do you normally get this offended when someone offers their opinion that doesn't gel with your narrow view? You've done this to me in particular, and one or to others actually, and  CJ has as much right to make an article to state her beliefs as you or I do here, so kindly, get off your damned high horse,or, as you would instruct to others, feel free to take your snooty ass elsewhere.

CJ - to me, vampirism is not a be all nor end all of what or who I am, nor do I personally see a need to 'cure' it. In all actuality, I consider vampirism something of a reflection of the very darkest traits of humanity itself, not to be rejected or removed or cured, but respected for what it is.

Octarine -- I realize you havent a lot of experience with western vampirism, so I think i should point out that this rift has been there, practically made (not sure if it WAS or not, but it definitely got a massive boost) by people like MB pushing their ideology and going out of their way to minimize sangs every chance they had. this rift is a very deep, rather old one, and as of late, the sangs have been growing both impatient and flat out intolerant of the psionic plague, as it has been called.

Darklilone -- Ultimately, its a case of you BELIEVING you fed, with a sympathetic person on the other end eager to go along with it. Sangs, if nothing else, can physically PROVE the action of feeding. It may of been real to you, but conversely, there are those that fully believe a god or some deity speaks to them, telling them to go on murder sprees and the like.

Zaar - i tend to agree with you that many of the psis, while not admitting it, would be quite pleased to see sangs dissapear. Yeano not gonna happen.

Zeta, via Masticina -- regarding the comment that theres evidence to support metaphysical energy workings and such - Prove it. Show us the scientific studies (and no, not MBs crap that was handily obliterated by yours truly)  that state unequivocally  that yes in fact it exists as a measurable form. much like god and such, you cant.

Spiral - while I would agree we are all born equal, it is actions that differentiate us - and when the psis as a whole can get off their ivory towers and admit that, the sangs will take the apology i believe.

General comments - Firstly, I am not sure which tweaks the noses of psis more - the not so spoken fact that psionics is seem as optional as compared to sang, or the fact that for all their bluster, even the queen of psi herself, MB, had her ass handed to her (including but not limited by to yours truly) when she attempted to 'scientifically' prove psionics, OR the stark realization that psionics has more to do with religion - and in particular, FAITH - than sanguine vamps do.  Secondly, eastern 'science' is not what would be considered science in its purest sense - a lot of conjecture with less than substantive evidence to back it up. Granted, I am talking a bit out of my ass on this one, this is simply my experience and knowledge on the matter. (IE, Philosophy does not a hard science make).

I should also mention that when I first came onto the scene at DD&D, I had no clue why it was i felt how and what i felt. I began learning and researching, and then began to believe i was a psi - which got abruptly terminated when i first had blood. All doubts, all questions, gone in a night. These days, a decade later, I look back at the energy experiments - and, more derisively, all the nonsense Ive been accused of, and I cant help but realize what a placebo trying to do energy work was for me. And, as pointed out here, I aint the only one with similar experiences.   Though I certainly WISH certain psis were only a figment of my hallucinations, it would make my and others lives much simpler to not have to weed out the fluff.

And ya know whats really telling about all this? few nights ago myself and Nadia had a little 'discussion' with JP and his followers -- well, ok, more of Nadia and I slaughtering idiocy with logic, reason and ration -- and she and I, a pair of sangs, were accused of every sin under the sun (according to psis); negativity feeding, attacking energetically,and so on - all for point out inconsistencies and illogical comments made by certain individuals. This went on for well over two hours, in the end, yea, Nadia and I nailed the goofs to the proverbial and online cross - just by using our brains rather than letting our emotions and imaginations run free.  Ultimately, more and more, it is showing to be that when there is an issue with the ageless 'sang vs psi' debate, it is started by either an oversensitive psi not liking their illogical comments pointed out, OR, similarly, a sang catching a psi in double talk.


oh, as a final note, CJ wasnt being a bitch -- I however, AM being one. ;)


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Mistress Mikyla on January 04, 2011, 11:58:28 PM
I had to take a few days to digest this because the language comes across as intentionally offputting, despite what others might state to the contrary. Plus, I feel it is best to weigh my words carefully. I am not intending to ostracize anyone here - I just want to state my opinion. I will not be responding to the post in its entirety - just portions of it, so please excuse the snipping.

CJ states:
" By far the one way that the “vampire” community affects my life is in the public perception of the community affixed to all who belong. Public perception is the most important factor in determining whether or not I can get a donor or whether or not if I were outed I would lose some sort of standing in my life. The current status of public perception of our community is, to put it mildly, quite embarrassing."

I reply:
Why? If the vampire community is only of use to you when you don't have a vampire, then why is it so embarasssing? If you are not an active, regular participant within the community, why should public perception matter to you? Also, unless you are in here using your real name, how would public perception even affect your life? I am more embarassed by people who come in here and flat out state they use the community only when it suits their purpose, but that those of us who do not align with their personal opinions are posers. Pfft.

You know, right now this is the only thing I have to say. I am sure I'll speak more on this later but we're on mandatory overtime right now and I am dead ass tired.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: display on January 05, 2011, 01:09:12 AM
you know... this may not came to this point if it wasnt for  Slapphowolf....
y'all can thank her if ya like
bitch all you want too.... but she is all yours!
lmfao


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: CJ! on January 05, 2011, 01:40:39 AM
This is a reply to the rest of the people who posted after my first mass reply with the exception of the Zeta rebuttal. I feel since he (she?) put in some effort in a point by point reply I should respect this person with a similar level of attention.

First just a few direct responses with our initial contestant being the one in the back frantically raising her hand trying to get my attention. That would be you SangSavvy. I understand you would like to know a little more about me. Well you know my moniker here and you can tell by my avatar that I hail from the Great City of Chicago. I enjoy cooking and rock music. One of my favorite bands is Bad Religion and I would like to offer a quote from them as my response to you: You're a sidewalker cipher speaking prionic jive. So I give you me. I give you nothing.

Quick note on paindancer's statements. You are correct about a mechinism still existing. This could be applied to not only a medical paradigm but a psychological one as well. It is just a matter of getting ourselves as a group in position to find those mechanism.

Which leads me to the main point of this rebuttal. What really seems to bother me is that so few people seem to even want to consider my stated end goals (better access to blood or not needing blood anymore) for face value. It's as if these goals are so bold and unprecedented within the community as if they were unbelievable and some more familiar explanation is the true hidden reason. I have no problem putting the status of sanguinarian or "vampire" on the line or having it deconstructed. It means nothing to me. The metaphysical practitioners should have now worry; science can't touch them.

Unfortunately science won't touch us sanguinarians either given the status quo. The sad thing is that we CAN'T all work together. Psis and hybrids are outside the paramaters of modern science since psi/chi/prana are intangible. My biggest fear is that if sanguinarians maintain their ties to the greater vampire community that we will be dismissed under the same grounds. The reason I posted the AIDS activist example was to demonstrate that access of knowledge is a political process. We, mostly by our own design, left ourselves no room for error. I am being black and white because I have to be. The slightest tint of grey and the gatekeepers will shut us out. Why be in the fringes when you don't have to be?


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: RKCoon on January 05, 2011, 02:02:09 AM
Well, I agree with you totally, CJ, regarding the psis - the only risk they have is when they open their mouths. (Although, amusingly enough, if one were to accept their feeding without consent or permission, they would be the very leeches some see vamps as, bottom feeders, those that take without consent. Good thing for them its not provable, eh?)

However, regarding the availability of blood, or more to the point, not needing blood at all - Personally, despite having not fed in a while, it is still not something I would want to trade in. Would this 'cure' you seek, cj, only eliminate the need? or would it also take the positives one gets from a feed? I wonder. Further, I do have to ask - why do you call yourself a vampire, if you dont WANT to be one? If you want to cure the need to feed, it would seem to me that you dont want to BE one at all. In all reality, to me, the problem of exposure is more of a concern to me than the concern of lack of feeding, a concern that would rise, not lower, with efforts to make us 'more acceptable'. What is your response to this?


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: childofthespiral on January 05, 2011, 02:34:26 AM
It still seems that the assumptions being made that psi vampires are doing their best to prove themselves better than sangs, or disprove sangs altogether, are being made based on a very small number of sangs. As to whether or not some psis are trying to do this... well, I've read some of the articles written by Sappho Wolf, but other than that I haven't seen it.
Yes, some psi vampires take energy without consent, but many do not. I don't. I cannot say that I never have. When I was a teenager with no access to any kind of information on vampirism, I had no idea there was such a thing as donors who would be willing to give of themselves in that way. I did my best not to feed and would literally feed only once every month or longer, and suffered horrible debilitating migraines as a result. When I gathered energy, I did not get these migraines. I could actually enjoy vision during my waking hours. Did I enjoy taking energy without permission? Hell no! If I did then why would I put myself through so much suffering by not feeding? However once I learned about the OVC and read about some vampires' ability to elemental feed, I figured I would try it and see if it would work for me... the end result being that if it did I wouldn't have to take others energy. In the four years since I first attempted it I've only been successful 3 times. I am extremely lucky that my husband is my willing donor.

I also want to ask why should we assume that a sang is more vampire than a psi because they're taking real physical risk? If a sang is smart and responsible, and gets their donor tested regularly, and engages in safer bloodletting practices, then there is very little risk involved. From what I've read, the human stomach destroys most blood borne pathogens, so it seems to me that drinking blood is no more dangerous for a sang than having sex is for a psi. Remember, condoms aren't guaranteed, and a mouthful of blood will never end in an unwanted pregnancy.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: CJ! on January 05, 2011, 05:00:44 AM
On second thought Zeta's rebuttal didn't warrant the point by point response I thought it did. Three fatal flaws permeate the entire argument.

1.  Whining about Opinion and Bias:  This is an editorial. Of course there are going to be opinions and bias on my part. Soon you will be telling me the grand revelation that water is wet. The most important thing to point out though is that not all opinions are equal. Some are obviously better than others. To reference a scene from the Lion King Timon and Pumbaa are staring at the stars. Pumbaa postulates that stars are burning balls of gas that are millions of miles away. Timon offered the idea that they are fireflies stuck in the sky. Basically Zeta's attitude throughout the entire rebuttal is that the firefly hypothesis is just as valid as Pumbaa's.

2. Whining about Metaphysical failure: It isn't that the scientific community is ignoring metaphysical evidence. It is just that what is presented as evidence simply has never been compelling enough to warrant consideration. It is the metaphysicists’ fault that their claims collapse in the light of the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny. Take some responsibility! There could be a million dollars waiting for you.

and finally the most fatal flaw

3. The assumption that I am committed to my opinion at all costs: Just because something is forcefully argued and a certain paradigm is held above the rest that the author under all circumstance will do everything to protect that paradigm. Quite honestly, if there was a better way than science to determine facts about tangible reality given a compelling argument I would be on board. It was that open mindedness to better ideas that got me from metaphysical believer to really an overall skeptic even when it pertains to my sanguinarianism.

Before I go I do want to correct one factual error: The only thing from House Kheperu ever scientifically proven to suck was Urn.

Good night everybody!


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Cheri on January 05, 2011, 10:30:18 AM

Obtaining donors and # of sanguinarians onboard (Cheri)
Cheri stated some of her first hand experience with fellow donors on how “vampire politics” drives away donors from wanting to donate. However I would counter that with greater knowledge on a solid and mundane footing people who may have not necessarily have ever heard of or participated in the current “vampire” community may be more apt to feel sympathy for our plight and perhaps donate. Perhaps butchers may find a niche market to cater to sanguinarians. There will be incentive on behalf of pharmaceutical companies to create medicines. Perhaps we will never feel the need to consume blood for our physical and mental health again. I just see a potential for more opportunities to satiate our needs if we put ourselves in position to get better knowledge of ourselves.
   As for the number of sanguinarians needed for a study there was an instance of twin girls who were the only people ever in history to have this rare disease. Only two people were needed in order to pinpoint and study that illness. (link: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/955349/fields_condition_the_rarest_disease.html?cat=5)

I think you missed the point in part I was trying to make. The stigma of drinking blood for any reason being wrong and evil, is not going to change  just because you get scientific proof of the medical need.
I would ask this question of the current donors in the community, If you now donate Sang, did you when you first entered the community?  I think you will find that many of them started into the idea of becoming a donor as a Psi donor, and when they learned more about the need for Sang donors were willing to try it. You cut your self off from a large pool of new, open, willing and clean blood from donors that have spent time in the community and learned how to be safe at it.

You can do all the studies you like and get all the proof  you want. It is not going to change many peoples opinion about you needing to drink blood to remain healthy.

I do agree that studies are needed, and that to get valid results  you have to  test the feeding types apart from each other. But I do have a question for you CJ. If science creates this cure you seem to hope for, they are going to push and insist people take it. To not choose to be cured will most likely make a person even more at risk then they are now. To cure yourself and be free for yourself, would you really force every Sang Vampire to either take your cure, or become even more hated and mistrusted then they are now in general society?
RK hit the nail on the head when he said:


In all reality, to me, the problem of exposure is more of a concern to me than the concern of lack of feeding, a concern that would rise, not lower, with efforts to make us 'more acceptable'. What is your response to this?


I would like to hear the response to this myself.

With respect,
Cheri



Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: CJ! on January 05, 2011, 12:58:53 PM
I'm heading out of town shortly but before I do so I'd be glad to answer some of RK and Cheri's questions.

Quote from: RKCoon
Personally, despite having not fed in a while, it is still not something I would want to trade in. Would this 'cure' you seek, cj, only eliminate the need? or would it also take the positives one gets from a feed?

Well of course we cannot assume what courses of action the mediical and/or psychological community would recommend for us after clinical trials so I really can't answer that.

Quote from: RKCoon
I wonder. Further, I do have to ask - why do you call yourself a vampire, if you dont WANT to be one?

I actually don't consider myself a vampire, just a sanguinarian. As now however when people think of blood drinkers they think vampires. For some of the people who know about my sanguinarianism no matter how down to earth I explain things or never use the v-word, I'm not a sanguinarian, I'm a vampire. Of course I'd hope to change that and posting something like the treatise is an effort to turn the tide.

Quote from: Cheri
I think you missed the point in part I was trying to make. The stigma of drinking blood for any reason being wrong and evil, is not going to change  just because you get scientific proof of the medical need.
I would ask this question of the current donors in the community, If you now donate Sang, did you when you first entered the community?  I think you will find that many of them started into the idea of becoming a donor as a Psi donor, and when they learned more about the need for Sang donors were willing to try it. You cut your self off from a large pool of new, open, willing and clean blood from donors that have spent time in the community and learned how to be safe at it.
You can do all the studies you like and get all the proof  you want. It is not going to change many peoples opinion about you needing to drink blood to remain healthy.

No I got the point I just disagree with you. The stigma about blood drinking certainly isn't going to soften if we remain in the status quo. At least by pressing through there is some sort of hope or opportunity. Don’t get me wrong here I hold donors in the highest esteem. To allow someone to cut you in order to help someone else avoid illness is just so amazingly generous. I love you guys. However I absolute hate feeling I have to jab a sharp object inside one of my friends to maintain stasis. I don’t like hurting my friends. I also abhor the feelings of helpless and co-dependency when I get to near desperate levels. I’d love to be friends without having to slice your skin with a razor. I think the most likely scenario would be that some sort of treatment would be proposed to supplant the need for donors.

Quote from: Cheri
If science creates this cure you seem to hope for, they are going to push and insist people take it. To not choose to be cured will most likely make a person even more at risk then they are now. To cure yourself and be free for yourself, would you really force every Sang Vampire to either take your cure, or become even more hated and mistrusted then they are now in general society?

I have maintained for a while that as long as the sanguinarian is happy with his/her self and is able to stay lucid and manage their sanguinarianism on their own they should be left alone. However I think options need to be made available for those who are having a hard time managing his/her symptoms or just wants to be free of the extraneous need. Also if the proposed treatment appears to be worse than the status quo of being sanguinarian it may affirm sanguinarian as an identity.

Quote from: RKCoon
In all reality, to me, the problem of exposure is more of a concern to me than the concern of lack of feeding, a concern that would rise, not lower, with efforts to make us 'more acceptable'. What is your response to this?

In short mainstream and to a certain extent scientific studies are sensational because we are sensational. We are the ones perpetuating the stereotypes. For example if one took a look at the roster of members at places like lesvampires and the VVC don’t most of them aesthetically and in terms of beliefs professed appear that they fit right into the South Park gym bleacher vampire clique? The little progress the community has made was through very unsensational approaches. What got Joseph Laycock interested in the community were not our beliefs and gothy flair but the fact that a group commonly dismissed as a new religious movement actually initiated a survey to find out demographically who we really are. This is a social science example of the team effort that I am advocating. The reason Ryan Dube turned around was the quality of reasoned and grounded replies from those within the community. Judging by the transcripts he offers sympathy to the idea that what we describe as vampirism could be some sort of physical or psychological ailment explained by science; an unsensational reason. None of these efforts sparked some mass media extravaganza; our privacy is still intact. I just want to get in the position where those interested in investigating the world of “real vampires” and by extension sanguinarians to find as little reason for sensationalism as possible and thus much reason to initiate further inquiry.
 




Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: LadyOfPales on January 05, 2011, 03:27:56 PM

Ladyofpales, I like your new avatar caption...very cute, I had to chuckle a bit.  But it does stand to reason that we *still* don't know who CJ! is, as "she" seems to have avoided almost all of my questions and points.  My reply must have not been important enough to bother with, hu?  ;-)  


I'm very blatant, so
I don't like you, and you are not flattering; And I just don't care, what you had to say was really of no use. Personally, it sounded like bickering.
The fact that who "CJ!" is doesn't bother me either. That's like seeing a crackwhore who came up with something deserving the nobel prize, and a scientist who came up with something deserving the nobel prize. The fact that they are different people does not matter, it's the idea that they came up with that is important to people.
The intentions of the writer were made clear, and by the letter alone I agree with it wholly and there is no reason not to at least try what she suggested. the letter isn't meant to represent the ideas of the entire community. That's why it was titled "A sanguinarian treatise"
IMO, I don't like the idea of the proposal of the letter getting cockblocked by people who just can't let go of their "identities". If you want to be a "vampire", sure, that's ok. It didn't say that you had to let go of it. It didn't say that psi vampires couldn't be a part of the community as a whole. But there does need to be a clear distinction between the ways both psi and sang acquire their needs so to speak.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Rav on January 05, 2011, 04:22:39 PM
So here's an idea: go start a sang only website where no metaphysics or spirituality of any kind is allowed. You can whine all you like but if you really want something done, you need to step up and do it. Don't expect the community or any of the current sites to change just because you want them to. If this is what you really want, get to it and do it yourself.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: SangSavvy on January 05, 2011, 05:07:47 PM
I've always felt that concidering the source of anything is an important thing to pay attention to, in addition to the words themselves.  Do I need to say the word Obama? 

I'm not going to sit here and take the badgering from all of those that (also) support this treatise.  I'm an easy target, because I've been adding to the discussion with points that needed to be said, and so I said them without hesitation.  Instead of personally attacking me, why don't you tell me which points that I made were off-base. 

To LadyofPales, "just being honest" with me isn't a rational reason to get out of being responsible for how you speak to or treat someone else.  Furthermore, your analogy of crackwhores as opposed to a scientist is not realistic or relatable to this argument.  It's also basis circular reasoning, and an easy copp-out.  The details of this situation do absolutely matter.  I also like how you spoke for "the people"...speak for yourself. 

If you will check out the specific quotations cited and replied to by Zeta, you will notice that there was more than one instance where CJ attempted to speak for the entire community, as well as all sanguinarians. 

Regardless of the pretend politeness that this treatise carries regarding the notion of "hey, I'm not forcing you to do anything here", it *DOES* imply and infer a bias across the board to anyone that disagrees, and goes so far as to imply that those who do not participate are only 'harming themselves'. 

Yes, RK, CJ is entitled to her opinion.  I'm also entitled to object, and the reasons why I objected include when anyone decides to place me on one side of a proverbial fence, or the other, without need of my involvement whatsoever.  That is extremely rude, and extremely counterproductive, no matter how many nice words are included in the argument.  I will genuinely state that I didn't mean to come off "snooty", and if I did, I absolutely apologize for that, as that's absolutely not my intention.  I do feel impassioned when I feel offended, and no, I do not usually "get this offended", which should tell you something, and should also tell you that you don't really concern yourself with what my real concerns are, or my genuity.  Then again, you don't seem to do that with anyone aside from those that kiss your ass.  If CJ decides she doesn't like something you said, you'll hate her forever too.  It's the same old cycle. 

Aside from that, I've "got nothing", because CJ decided to sidestep *my* questions with a poor attempt at reverse psychology. 


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: LadyOfPales on January 05, 2011, 07:13:15 PM
So here's an idea: go start a sang only website where no metaphysics or spirituality of any kind is allowed. You can whine all you like but if you really want something done, you need to step up and do it. Don't expect the community or any of the current sites to change just because you want them to. If this is what you really want, get to it and do it yourself.
well, isn't that why the treatise was written? as a proposal? I am willing, but not able due to my situation- fuck, i'm only 18- no car, no job, but I would still be willing to go on board with anyone seriously willing to do anything of the like
chill out.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Rav on January 05, 2011, 07:22:05 PM
Why do you need a car or job to make a website? There are networks that offer free websites.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: LadyOfPales on January 05, 2011, 07:27:27 PM
To LadyofPales, "just being honest" with me isn't a rational reason to get out of being responsible for how you speak to or treat someone else.  Furthermore, your analogy of crackwhores as opposed to a scientist is not realistic or relatable to this argument.  It's also basis circular reasoning, and an easy copp-out.  The details of this situation do absolutely matter.  I also like how you spoke for "the people"...speak for yourself. 
I don't think you know what "circular reasoning" is
   a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic
for example,

A: He is mad right now.
B: How do you know?
A: Well, because he is really angry.

Basically it's not circular considering that the scientist and the crackwhore were independant of eachother. I could have changed either variable of the analogy and still got the same point across. What you were doing was simply Ad Hominem.
And you know what, sometimes I really just don't care about what others think. But that's being human, it doesn't make me any less able to be nice. She didn't say she was speaking for everyone else. It was a proposal. A sanguinarian treatise. A treatise from 1 sanguinarian. She's not speaking for so much as speaking to other sanguinarians.
Care to tell me where I said I was speaking for other people?


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: LadyOfPales on January 05, 2011, 07:28:57 PM
Why do you need a car or job to make a website? There are networks that offer free websites.
I mean, if anything were to be carried out say a clinical trial. As far as networking goes, i just don't have the knowhow. I suppose that doesn't make it impossible for me to learn, but regardless.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Rav on January 05, 2011, 07:51:36 PM
Nice to see you actually read what I wrote which you didn't. I was addressing sangs needing a place of their own. Having a place that was only for sangs so that they could talk about their issues and support each other without the interference of spirituality or metaphysics would more than likely require a website dedicated to sangs and only them. Personally, I have no problem with this. But I do think instead of whining something should be done to make this happen, it should be done. I live by the philosophy of put up or shut up. Either do something or quit whining.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: LadyOfPales on January 05, 2011, 08:06:01 PM
Nice to see you actually read what I wrote which you didn't. I was addressing sangs needing a place of their own. Having a place that was only for sangs so that they could talk about their issues and support each other without the interference of spirituality or metaphysics would more than likely require a website dedicated to sangs and only them. Personally, I have no problem with this. But I do think instead of whining something should be done to make this happen, it should be done. I live by the philosophy of put up or shut up. Either do something or quit whining.
Stop saying how everyone is whining. We're still trying to find enough support to even get the idea off of the ground, and at this rate, it ain't goin' at lightnin' speed,
also define whining. At the moment, we're just talking. There's not much to be done when only about 3 or 4 people are defending the idea and the others practically are "whining" about the proposal, trying to find faults in it and keep it grounded  :<


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Cheri on January 06, 2011, 11:08:46 AM

I only have one part of your reply to my question to comment about. As to the rest of it, well I hope you can find the answers you are looking for. I would also love to know that the many Sang friends I have made over the years have a choice that is not making them choose between remaining sick, and hurting a friend. I just do not agree that society will be as open to the idea as you seem to think it will.


I have maintained for a while that as long as the sanguinarian is happy with his/her self and is able to stay lucid and manage their sanguinarianism on their own they should be left alone. However I think options need to be made available for those who are having a hard time managing his/her symptoms or just wants to be free of the extraneous need. Also if the proposed treatment appears to be worse than the status quo of being sanguinarian it may affirm sanguinarian as an identity.

The issue I take with that idea is that if there is a cure, or treatment found that eliminates the need for blood or a donor, society will pressure anyone that is not interested in taking it to "Be cured". I will have to look up the actual situations that demonstrate this trend in our society, but in general you can look at how society treats anyone that chooses to not get a vaccination,even if that vaccination is not yet proven to be safe or effective. This is a very mild example, but it is still the general idea. If someone chooses to not take the cure or treatment for something already so distrusted in society, well they will be in a much greater risk of being labled mental, sick in the head and /or a danger to society. A diabetic that chooses to not seek treatment is seen as someone mentally ill. And while I myself would choose to seek treatment if it were me, I value the personal choice of the right to not do so.

I do agree that there should be options to those that want them. I just feel it should be very carefully considered as to the impact it will have on more then just the lives of those that want to be cured. I know some that would love to be cured, but I also know many that have no intrest in changing what they see as a big part of who they are.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: sphynxcatvp on January 06, 2011, 02:59:13 PM
I had a ginormous reply originally typed out. But after sitting on it for a couple days, I decided it would be better to keep it (relatively) short and to the point.

So. Point ONE.

Those of you who think that this psi-sang conflict is new? It's not as new as you think, it's been going on, in various venues, for over a decade, without any real significant progress over the years (as evidenced by the rampant butthurt in this thread alone):

http://www.necronomi.com/users/akrieytaz/real/social.html
http://sphynxcatvp.nocturna.org/articles/anon-s-history.html
http://www.sanguinarius.org/articles/history.shtml

Now that THAT is out of the way...On to point TWO!

Those of you complaining about the sanguines having their own space? Let me see if I can put it in more understandable terms, since the more vocal ones seem to be MISSING THE POINT. COMPLETELY.

Example 1:
Diabetes support groups. Generally, these are open to diabetes patients, and family members of same, and not always to anyone else.

Example 2:
Medical conferences. Generally open to doctors and medical staff only, rarely open to anyone else.

Example 3:
Chronic pain support groups. Generally open to patients with chronic pain issues, and rarely open to anyone else.

Would you say that any of these groups consider themselves "superior" to anyone else? I wouldn't. People who are not in any of those categories just DON'T have the frame of reference needed to understand the issues at hand.

As an aside, anyone with chronic pain will understand what I mean when I say "People Just Don't Get It" when you say you're unable to do something. I know when the pain gets bad enough, you don't WANT to walk from the far end fo the parking lot, much less at all - the pain-free people just DON'T understand how bad pain can get if someone's not continually whimpering in pain, and don't understand why the pain sufferers want to be dropped as close to the door as possible.

Now....on to point THREE! 

For those who are still insisting that "you're all saying psis don't exist"...

Why do Sanguines want a space of our own?

Because we want to understand what makes us tick.

Once we understand what makes US tick, then we can figure out how to (or if we should) get medical research done, like CJ! was referring to.

Am I saying we're sick or ill? No, definitely not. (Though others likely will be, if only because of the rampant butthurt. *shrugs*) But if this is something that can be medically defined, wouldn't it be nice to have that information? Something definite to point to when people say "you're nuts"?

Clinical researchers in this (western) part of the world do not count anything metaphysical as something they can measure. If they did, then it wouldn't be as imperative to have sanguine-only spaces.

Say you wanted to study diabetes patients. Would you also include patients who have multiple sclerosis? Not if your goal was to understand diabetes, you wouldn't.

This is not about "Keeping out the psis" or saying that "psis aren't real" - This is simply, "Let's find out if being sanguine is due to something clinically measurable".

If you seriously want to whine about being left out? Set up your own study groups and your own studies - we're not stopping you!


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: childofthespiral on January 06, 2011, 03:16:29 PM
CJ made it pretty clear in her original post, despite the pointless over-wording, that psis aren't real because their need is metaphysical, and anything metaphysical is all made up.

Coon has been making it pretty clear that since psi's need isn't currently scientifically provable, and that because sangs risk their lives every time they drink blood (because, you know, AIDS and hepatitis and pregnancy during sexual feeding AREN'T an issue) and in his words "a psi only takes a risk when they open their mouth".

Did you know that your entire post is a link?

That's all.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: LadyOfPales on January 06, 2011, 05:00:51 PM
CJ made it pretty clear in her original post, despite the pointless over-wording, that psis aren't real because their need is metaphysical, and anything metaphysical is all made up.

Coon has been making it pretty clear that since psi's need isn't currently scientifically provable, and that because sangs risk their lives every time they drink blood (because, you know, AIDS and hepatitis and pregnancy during sexual feeding AREN'T an issue) and in his words "a psi only takes a risk when they open their mouth".

Did you know that your entire post is a link?

That's all.

As far as the scientific community handles it, it isn't real because it hasn't been proven. We need to work with what we (we as in sanguine, not psionic) can actually use with our 5 senses instead of our feelings. CJ! wasn't trying to say that psi needs weren't real, she said that they can't be proven as real (yet, if that satisfies you) and therefore can't be recognized in a scientific standard.
~


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: sphynxcatvp on January 06, 2011, 05:09:51 PM
Quote from: childofthespiral
Did you know that your entire post is a link? That's all.

Erp. No, I didn't. :( I logged in to fix it, and I guess one of the mods fixed that already for me? It should be more readable now.





Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: SangSavvy on January 06, 2011, 05:19:47 PM
Segregation is not required to figure out what "makes us tick".  And it would only cause more disrepair and discontinuity, as well as impressions and perpetuation of bias.  I think for social standards, having a section for each major type of vampire in any given forum is great, for the variations of each class to relate to others.  

Psi or Sang, we are humans first.  And humans interact and exchange energy all the time.  To say anything otherwise is foolish.  That's my opinion.  


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: childofthespiral on January 06, 2011, 06:19:12 PM
As far as the scientific community handles it, it isn't real because it hasn't been proven. We need to work with what we (we as in sanguine, not psionic) can actually use with our 5 senses instead of our feelings. CJ! wasn't trying to say that psi needs weren't real, she said that they can't be proven as real (yet, if that satisfies you) and therefore can't be recognized in a scientific standard.
~

CJ was also saying that psis are the specific reason why sang aren't being taken seriously, and that separating sangs and psis is the only way to get sangs any recognition from the scientific community. Later on she changed her wording to disregard the word vampire, which to me would be more of the reason why more serious research hasn't yet been done.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: paindancer on January 06, 2011, 09:00:59 PM
I suppose there are two distinct schools of thought here:

1)   Vampirism is a biological/physical issue.
2)   Vampirism is a metaphysical issue.

I can see CJs perspective that they want to weed out the psis whom, from their perspective, are fakers as vampirism is a biological condition.

Considering that currently, my body is in so much pain because it is convinced it is in the wrong shape, I would say there is a metaphysical issue at play.  Metaphysical or perhaps meta-science in that science cannot capture what ails me.

Of course.. on big issue I think the VC gets into is the assumption that anyone who claims vamprie is the same thing.   I think.. vampirism is a method.. not a definition.  Pranivore might be more accurate for myself. 


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: RKCoon on January 06, 2011, 10:18:49 PM
I suggest, spiral, you refrain from putting words in my mouth. I did not state that sex was without risk, In fact, I stated that of all the self titled psis out there, the only one that puts themselves at ANY risk are those that engage in sex; that said, I also pointed out that such risks are manageable and somewhat reduced when compared to consuming blood.   However, THAT risk, the risk of STD's while engaged in sex, is precisely the same risk every OTHER person that has sex takes, risks which these self titled feeders would be engaging in weather they claimed to be feeding or not.



Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: display on January 06, 2011, 11:12:30 PM
It still seems that the assumptions being made that psi vampires are doing their best to prove themselves better than sangs, or disprove sangs altogether, are being made based on a very small number of sangs. As to whether or not some psis are trying to do this... well, I've read some of the articles written by Sappho Wolf, but other than that I haven't seen it.
Yes, some psi vampires take energy without consent, but many do not. I don't. I cannot say that I never have. When I was a teenager with no access to any kind of information on vampirism, I had no idea there was such a thing as donors who would be willing to give of themselves in that way. I did my best not to feed and would literally feed only once every month or longer, and suffered horrible debilitating migraines as a result. When I gathered energy, I did not get these migraines. I could actually enjoy vision during my waking hours. Did I enjoy taking energy without permission? Hell no! If I did then why would I put myself through so much suffering by not feeding? However once I learned about the OVC and read about some vampires' ability to elemental feed, I figured I would try it and see if it would work for me... the end result being that if it did I wouldn't have to take others energy. In the four years since I first attempted it I've only been successful 3 times. I am extremely lucky that my husband is my willing donor.

I also want to ask why should we assume that a sang is more vampire than a psi because they're taking real physical risk? If a sang is smart and responsible, and gets their donor tested regularly, and engages in safer bloodletting practices, then there is very little risk involved. From what I've read, the human stomach destroys most blood borne pathogens, so it seems to me that drinking blood is no more dangerous for a sang than having sex is for a psi. Remember, condoms aren't guaranteed, and a mouthful of blood will never end in an unwanted pregnancy.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: RKCoon on January 07, 2011, 12:40:26 AM
Your quote makes it unclear weather the second paragraph is you or spiral, but either way, something needs clarifying -- While it is true that stomach acids do destroy most virii, the fact remains, when drinking blood, it has to pass by the lips, teeth, gums, tongue, throat and esophagus - any of which can easily absorb a virus if there is any damage/abrasions/similar to them - ergo, the risk is higher, not lower, of contraction.  I am not sure which of you made that comment, but some further medical education is in order.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: display on January 07, 2011, 12:45:31 AM
soz RK
i was stating the Civil things only... the rest was her's


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: paindancer on January 07, 2011, 07:29:01 AM
I suggest, spiral, you refrain from putting words in my mouth. I did not state that sex was without risk, In fact, I stated that of all the self titled psis out there, the only one that puts themselves at ANY risk are those that engage in sex; that said, I also pointed out that such risks are manageable and somewhat reduced when compared to consuming blood.   However, THAT risk, the risk of STD's while engaged in sex, is precisely the same risk every OTHER person that has sex takes, risks which these self titled feeders would be engaging in weather they claimed to be feeding or not.



I read your posts several times and the context led me to the same conclusion so I dont think the fault is spiral's.  You are intentionaly confrontational in your posting style... which will drown out subtle points like the one you clarified. 

There are specific cases which may disagree with your statement however, such as sexual feeders who need a variety of patterns to source from, greatly complicating relationships and emotional well being.  I will agree, Sangs probably lead the pack when it comes to physical risk factors.. but conversely, I have also seen the physical effects of not feeding from some pranics be more acute than sangs.  (I have never heard of a sang experincing the level of pain from ghost limbs that I do, for example)


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Belfazaar on January 07, 2011, 04:40:23 PM
First... To clear a few things up...

1) I do NOT believe that all psys feel that "sangs are psys on training wheels", yet it has been more than 25 years of fighting the same overwashed shit that has been perpetually swept under the rug that has caused this fracture.  People have always tried to sweep this under the rug with phrases like "making a mountain out of a mole hill"...  When it happens by the SAME voices across EVERY board, it is not making a mountain out of a mole hill... It is a problem.  One that we as a community NEED to deal with.  We can only do that if we stand together.

2)  Sangs DO need a place where they can gather and discuss things.  Like it or not there are places for every other group of vampire out there, so why can't we have it?  Why does it have to be seen as sangs leaving the community instead of sangs creating a more sang oriented space?  I, for one, don't plan on pulling out of anything simply because of a few stupid people who want to perpetuate the rift between members of the community...

3)  If you do not think that it is an issue, you've been hiding under a rock for too long.  Sorry guys and gals, but it has been pressing and pressing for years.  It ebbs and flows harsher with each passing incarnation.  The ONLY good thing is that it seems that the brighter the flames burn the quicker it burns out.  With the advent of people such as Sylvere, Sphynxcat, Lono and a whole list of others, both psy and sang, calling foul this time, it didn't burn for as long as it could have...  For which I am completely grateful...  I've been personally fighting this issue since 1985 when the first "volley" (if you will) was launched.  This is 2011... It is time for this issue to die...  Both sides have to let it go...

4) I've stated that I think we DO need medical/clinical testing, but I don't think I need a cure...  It would just be nice to know that this isn't all in my head and to possibly verify some of the "home experimentation" that I have done...  11 1/2 years of nursing have set some good parameters, but there is nothing like solid medical/clinical testing to set things at a better pace...

5)  There have been SEVERAL on BOTH sides of the line fighting this issue...  Instead of fighting separately, it would be nice to stand side by side, don't you think?


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: paindancer on January 07, 2011, 06:41:49 PM
First... To clear a few things up...

1) I do NOT believe that all psys feel that "sangs are psys on training wheels", yet it has been more than 25 years of fighting the same overwashed shit that has been perpetually swept under the rug that has caused this fracture.  People have always tried to sweep this under the rug with phrases like "making a mountain out of a mole hill"...  When it happens by the SAME voices across EVERY board, it is not making a mountain out of a mole hill... It is a problem.  One that we as a community NEED to deal with.  We can only do that if we stand together.

2)  Sangs DO need a place where they can gather and discuss things.  Like it or not there are places for every other group of vampire out there, so why can't we have it?  Why does it have to be seen as sangs leaving the community instead of sangs creating a more sang oriented space?  I, for one, don't plan on pulling out of anything simply because of a few stupid people who want to perpetuate the rift between members of the community...

3)  If you do not think that it is an issue, you've been hiding under a rock for too long.  Sorry guys and gals, but it has been pressing and pressing for years.  It ebbs and flows harsher with each passing incarnation.  The ONLY good thing is that it seems that the brighter the flames burn the quicker it burns out.  With the advent of people such as Sylvere, Sphynxcat, Lono and a whole list of others, both psy and sang, calling foul this time, it didn't burn for as long as it could have...  For which I am completely grateful...  I've been personally fighting this issue since 1985 when the first "volley" (if you will) was launched.  This is 2011... It is time for this issue to die...  Both sides have to let it go...

4) I've stated that I think we DO need medical/clinical testing, but I don't think I need a cure...  It would just be nice to know that this isn't all in my head and to possibly verify some of the "home experimentation" that I have done...  11 1/2 years of nursing have set some good parameters, but there is nothing like solid medical/clinical testing to set things at a better pace...

5)  There have been SEVERAL on BOTH sides of the line fighting this issue...  Instead of fighting separately, it would be nice to stand side by side, don't you think?

See, thats the point that I just dont get.

Why IS is that sangs get all butthurt over the concept that they may be more limited versions of pranics, and need a blood medium to extract what they need.  It makes sense on many levels.  I have never understood the level of animocity, outside of the threat to a fabricated internal mythology.. which can be very entrenched and powerful in the individuals psyche.

I mean.. I cant eat shrimp.  I dont hate people who can eat more things than I do... I dont write posts citing why shrimp eaters are stupid and idiotic, etc.

Just dont get it.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: sphynxcatvp on January 07, 2011, 07:01:23 PM
Quote from: paindancer
See, thats the point that I just dont get.

Why IS is that sangs get all butthurt over the concept that they may be more limited versions of pranics, and need a blood medium to extract what they need.  It makes sense on many levels.  I have never understood the level of animocity...

Why do some pranics get butthurt over the idea of us having *A* space of our own? Why is it misinterpreted as being "we're pulling out of the community, screw you guys"?

For that matter, why are sangs being thrown out of some vampire forums at all? (which only encourages people to step away from the community...)

Why do some pranics get butthurt over the idea that they may be wrong about sangs?

I don't get these, either.

I can answer your question, though...the number of times "blood is a metaphor for energy", "you could use energy if you just TRY", and "No, what you're really getting is the energy out of it" gets kicked around by people apparently not listening when some of us say "It. Doesn't. Work!" *really* frustrates the fsk out of us.

Pretend your a parapalegic and are stuck in a wheelchair. Wouldn't you get just a weeeee bit pissed off after a while if lots of people kept saying "Oh, just get up and walk"?

*slight edit to fix tense...sorry about that*


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Cheri on January 07, 2011, 08:03:00 PM

Why IS is that sangs get all butthurt over the concept that they may be more limited versions of pranics, and need a blood medium to extract what they need.  It makes sense on many levels.  I have never understood the level of animocity, outside of the threat to a fabricated internal mythology.. which can be very entrenched and powerful in the individuals psyche.

I think it is the fact that the people constantly pushing the idea of “it is all energy” are not hearing the facts that this is simply not true for all Sangs.

As a donor to both Sang and Psi Vampires, I know there is a difference in what is being taken from me in a donation. With a few sangs, yes there has been the feeling of energy transferring while they feed. But with most there is not. With those that do not create this feeling it is a pure physical drain I get. It is nothing like the way a psi, or hybrid makes me feel during a donation.


For that matter, why are sangs being thrown out of some vampire forums at all? (which only encourages people to step away from the community...)

I have to say the number of forums where there is no blood talk allowed  is very high. It makes it hard for sangs or sang donors to even have a lot to add to the conversations in those places.  Having to watch every word you say to avoid mentioning blood, feeding on blood or blood letting is just.. well frustrating. The number of times in just the short time I have been involved in the OVC where someone comes seeking factual safe information on blood feeding , and not being able to tell them what they need to know, has made me want to pull my hair out.

Now I made the choice to be part of one of those sites that only allow discussion on energy feeding and such. That is my choice and I follow the rules of that site. It is the growing number of this type of restricted site that worries me.

So yes some can try to say that sangs are making a mountain out of a mole hill over this issue, but the reality is that pure sangs are being forced to either agree they only use energy out of the blood, or not say anything at all in many places on the OVC.

Why do some pranics get butthurt over the idea that they may be wrong about sangs?
And I would love to hear an answer to that question also Sphynxcat. 

I love all the vampires I have donated to over the years, sang, psi and hybrid but there is a difference in the types. Like it or not, everyone has the chance to be wrong when talking about another persons needs.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: display on January 07, 2011, 09:26:21 PM
@ PD
Do you get pissed at Tall people?  how about Taller Females (above 5'3")?
My wife was 5'3" and she hated being short...  i am just a bit taller (6'4") but i used it for many things, although cumbersome at times... And she used her stature aswell... My point being... How the fuck would a short ass know what it is like for some one who is above average?
No more than it is for me knowing the trials of a mini me...
See , it is not brain surgery.... The thing I don't get, is Why the hell Y'all stopped using "Energy Worker"
Guess it wasn't as Posh as " Psi Vampire"
 That's what the hell I don't get...


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: RKCoon on January 07, 2011, 09:37:40 PM


See, thats the point that I just dont get.

Why IS is that sangs get all butthurt over the concept that they may be more limited versions of pranics, and need a blood medium to extract what they need.  It makes sense on many levels.  I have never understood the level of animocity, outside of the threat to a fabricated internal mythology.. which can be very entrenched and powerful in the individuals psyche.

I mean.. I cant eat shrimp.  I dont hate people who can eat more things than I do... I dont write posts citing why shrimp eaters are stupid and idiotic, etc.

Just dont get it.

Why? because simple physics wins out. One will absorb significantly more energy and nutrients from food by eating it, rather than simply holding their hands over it. Its logical, its reasonable, and it is something no psi can ever hope to match. The whole idea of 'subtle' is NOT EASILY NOTICEABLE, which is ultimately the argument i have heard every psi make - "Oh its subtle, you have to pay attention to it. " Right. Sorry, but no.  There is nothing subtle about consuming blood, or what it does for and to those that need to.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: display on January 07, 2011, 09:50:24 PM


that equates to "coming up short" does it Koon?
Vampirism through Osmosis...


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: display on January 07, 2011, 11:27:37 PM
lmfao!
it wasnt posh enough in other words...
before you get pissed...
the term "energy worker" was good enough for HRH and HM belanger and daddy tood...
that wont fly hun . sorry


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Darklilone on January 08, 2011, 09:54:27 AM
Quote
before you get pissed...
the term "energy worker" was good enough for HRH and HM belanger and daddy tood...
that wont fly hun . sorry
=/ why would you assume i'd get upset?
Energy worker is just not the same as an energy vampire.
Vampires can work with energy, but being a vampire doesn't mean they are energy workers.
Mundane can be energy workers, though they aren't necessarily vampires.
ability to use something does not mean you need something.

You can eat all you want, your body will still use it, but you only need to when you are hungry. (probably a bad example)


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: paindancer on January 08, 2011, 12:28:53 PM
Quote
@ PD
Do you get pissed at Tall people?  how about Taller Females (above 5'3")?
My wife was 5'3" and she hated being short...  i am just a bit taller (6'4") but i used it for many things, although cumbersome at times... And she used her stature aswell... My point being... How the fuck would a short ass know what it is like for some one who is above average?
No more than it is for me knowing the trials of a mini me...
See , it is not brain surgery.... The thing I don't get, is Why the hell Y'all stopped using "Energy Worker"
Guess it wasn't as Posh as " Psi Vampire"
 That's what the hell I don't get...

Huh?  Being mad at people taller than me would be silly.   Why be angry over differences?

Energy worker vs psi vamp... one needs to take in order  to stay in balance.. the other can manipulate without the need for external sources.



Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: paindancer on January 08, 2011, 12:37:44 PM


See, thats the point that I just dont get.

Why IS is that sangs get all butthurt over the concept that they may be more limited versions of pranics, and need a blood medium to extract what they need.  It makes sense on many levels.  I have never understood the level of animocity, outside of the threat to a fabricated internal mythology.. which can be very entrenched and powerful in the individuals psyche.

I mean.. I cant eat shrimp.  I dont hate people who can eat more things than I do... I dont write posts citing why shrimp eaters are stupid and idiotic, etc.

Just dont get it.

Why? because simple physics wins out. One will absorb significantly more energy and nutrients from food by eating it, rather than simply holding their hands over it. Its logical, its reasonable, and it is something no psi can ever hope to match. The whole idea of 'subtle' is NOT EASILY NOTICEABLE, which is ultimately the argument i have heard every psi make - "Oh its subtle, you have to pay attention to it. " Right. Sorry, but no.  There is nothing subtle about consuming blood, or what it does for and to those that need to.

Hm.. that dosnt really address my question on the butthurt bit.

There is nothing subtle about consuming energy, either.  There are many, who are indeed unable to sense it, but they still react even if they are not able to feel the drain.

Ah.. but lets get to your simple physics (although I think you mean biology) argument.  So.. you are stating that a few drops of blood, maybe up to even a few ounces, contains some missing biological compliment that a vamp needs to maintain their physical well being for.. the weeks, or even months many report being able to go between feeding?  Please elaborate.  You seem to be a main proponent of the aggressive stance against  pranics lately, so I am genuinely interested in the well thought out theory you must have to support such a strong stance.



Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Lillith Darkwraith on January 08, 2011, 08:45:02 PM
Me, I've been getting my transfusions since age 2. Doctors don't like us to call ourselves Vampires the modern politically correct term is Porphyria patient and I've been this way all of my life. I've watched this little community grow since the days of the BBSs and at first it was just a larp and a few life stylists. Then Michelle Belanger came out with her book for psychics and then the race was on to see who would win.

Now a days every 13 yr old wants to be a vampire because its the in thing but in my day you had to be a freak of nature or a sideshow freak to be mocked and abused because of. So I kind of laugh at this whole thing because most of this tiny community has their ego's in a knot expounding my way is better than your way. It reminds me of how little children respond.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: display on January 08, 2011, 08:55:39 PM
@ PD,
you need to take your aggressions tward RK to PM... (as you so instructed nadia to do) you know the story, stones and Glass houses?  anyways...
enough is enough...
im sure you feel that you "run" things around here... (seen you post that)
but thats going to change soon enough...
have a nice day!
;)



Admin:  This has been addressed privately between involved parties.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Cheri on January 08, 2011, 08:56:52 PM
Me, I've been getting my transfusions since age 2. Doctors don't like us to call ourselves Vampires the modern politically correct term is Porphyria patient and I've been this way all of my life.

My understanding is that most sang vampires do not identify as porphyria patients, and in fact many I know have had that condition ruled out in their efforts to fina a medical cause for their need for blood.

I am happy that you were able to find the cause and can get medical treatment that allows you to not need a donor.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: display on January 08, 2011, 09:02:08 PM


@cheri
i know i dont have porphyria...


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: paindancer on January 09, 2011, 01:31:32 PM
Me, I've been getting my transfusions since age 2. Doctors don't like us to call ourselves Vampires the modern politically correct term is Porphyria patient and I've been this way all of my life.

My understanding is that most sang vampires do not identify as porphyria patients, and in fact many I know have had that condition ruled out in their efforts to fina a medical cause for their need for blood.

I am happy that you were able to find the cause and can get medical treatment that allows you to not need a donor.

Curious... do you know if they were tested for all variants?


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Cheri on January 09, 2011, 01:45:57 PM
Curious... do you know if they were tested for all variants?

Out of the ones I personally know that have been tested, the two I could contact with short notice say yes their doctors tested them for all possible causes they could think of and that were mentioned to them as ideas for what may have been causing their issues. It will take me a while to contact the others that I know


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: deacongray on January 10, 2011, 02:35:25 PM
I am disappointed to hear you talk like that, but I suppose that doesn't really matter. Though your argument can be applied both ways.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: CJ! on January 12, 2011, 03:14:33 PM
I'm really glad that all along this thread and other forums in which the treatise was posted that it furthered the divide between sanguinarians and the metaphysical practioners of vampirism. It also furthered the divide with those who take their condition seriously and those who cling onto the identity. This was an argument for partition after all.

Truth be told I originally wrote the treatise in December of 2009. I shared it with some trusted friends and acquaintances within the community to get feedback and discuss a strategic way of releasing the treatise as well as how to execute its aims (I do want to mention that few of the people I shared the treatise with agreed with me on all points). After the feedback I decided to put the idea on the backburner. However once the fallout from the initial Sappho interview happened fellow sangs I've chatted (most of which have never read the treatise beforehand) with started making statements that coincided with the sentiments of the treatise. Sanguinarian sentiment, while always frustrated by the metaphysical line of "sangs crave the energy within the blood" as well as being defined by psis in general, was at a high against such impositions. Sappho ultimately failed to discredit sanguinarians, in fact she motivated them. The treatise proposed a direction to carry the momentum toward: scientific research in order to gain truer insight into ourselves as well as possible treatments toward sanguinarianism. The strong language was intentional: I wanted exclusivity and a unified message. Those put off by it just aren't cut out to be part of my vision of the sanguinarian community. I also wrote this with the outside if not skeptical observer in mind. I want the outside world to know that people within the "vampire" community can be self-critical to a very harsh degree.

 So far it seems as if the treatise directly and indirectly inspired or affirmed a strong base of sanguinarians to take action. I'd imagine the next course of action would be to discuss tactics in terms of jockey for position to gain access to clinical trials. I proposed methods of doing just that but I am sure that we as a group can come up with ideas that improve upon them or different approaches that are better. Obtaining knowledge is inherently a political process; don't be shocked if more feelings are hurt in the process.

Take care. Have fun.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: SangSavvy on January 12, 2011, 05:46:01 PM
So, in short, you are willing to try to sacrifice the pre-existing unity that we have of this community/subculture/family so that you can foist your own views on everyone and make people take sides. 

Nice. 

It's all about you, it seems. 

This isn't about *our* partition, this is about *your* partition.

This isn't about creating better dynamics for sangs and psi's, this is about your own personal gain, and it has been from the get-go. 

This isn't about creating more competent social change for the better for all of us, this is is *really* about your person agenda to stimulate demonstrative interactions between one another in some sort of glowing effort to "help". 

You and whatever efforts you stimulate in the future do not speak for mine.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Catori on January 12, 2011, 06:19:00 PM
-doing her best Southern Belle act fanning herself- Well I do declare Savvy, you nailed her perfectly.  ;D


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: paindancer on January 12, 2011, 07:24:35 PM
*tried to post from phone earlier*
cj,

Ya know.. I always find it strange, how some of the most intense voices for pure sang seem to employ drama feeding methods that only a poorly mannered pranic would use.  Its ironic.. but  its also clear you 'get' something from all the strife, considering the gloating in your opening paragraph.  And thats all we see.  Even if you really did feel you were doing something good.. its lost in your words.

But drama be drama, and ya, you caused it.. even  here.. things got nasty.. untill some of us realized we were doing more harm fighting than good.  Hell, Koon and I have even been discussing opposing theories without nary a insult of jibe lately. 

Maybe the division you caused dosnt run as deep as you think, maybe the VC isnt quite as fragile as you hoped.  Flash in the pan, I suppose.  But at least you came back to try and stir the pot a bit.  I feel loved.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Catori on January 12, 2011, 07:38:26 PM
-choking on coffee laughing- I dunno PD, if I want this sort of love she has to share, I could just go hang out with some of the inmates at Alto. As far as the phone, probably just a momentary glitch. If it keeps happening I guess we can figure out if it is your phone's internet connection or a problem here.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: RKCoon on January 12, 2011, 07:58:44 PM
*tried to post from phone earlier*
cj,

Ya know.. I always find it strange, how some of the most intense voices for pure sang seem to employ drama feeding methods that only a poorly mannered pranic would use.  Its ironic.. but  its also clear you 'get' something from all the strife, considering the gloating in your opening paragraph.  And thats all we see.  Even if you really did feel you were doing something good.. its lost in your words.

But drama be drama, and ya, you caused it.. even  here.. things got nasty.. untill some of us realized we were doing more harm fighting than good.  Hell, Koon and I have even been discussing opposing theories without nary a insult of jibe lately. 

Maybe the division you caused dosnt run as deep as you think, maybe the VC isnt quite as fragile as you hoped.  Flash in the pan, I suppose.  But at least you came back to try and stir the pot a bit.  I feel loved.


Tooo much irony right there.  Wow.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: display on January 12, 2011, 11:01:39 PM
let me chime in on this...it will be short and sweet
CJ! ...
 i do respect your passion . I for one am Sang, and as bothered as i was of the Sappho fiasco, this has went beyond the scope of a sad attempt to shatter a already divided community...
The attempt very well could have worked if wasn't so premature.. You see, although many of us were pissed off , but we were very cautious..
Now I can't speak for anyone but myself when I say, if you focus this destructive energy on a positive you will be a asset...
Btw, once upon a time.. Sappho wasn't a bad person... We all get lost sometimes.. And I guess this could be a second chance for you...
Just think it over... But word of caution, not everyone will be accepting, you just have to earn the respect


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: RKCoon on January 13, 2011, 01:09:17 AM
Needed to get a little more into this --

Quote
I'm really glad that all along this thread and other forums in which the treatise was posted that it furthered the divide between sanguinarians and the metaphysical practioners of vampirism. It also furthered the divide with those who take their condition seriously and those who cling onto the identity. This was an argument for partition after all.

Truth be told I originally wrote the treatise in December of 2009. I shared it with some trusted friends and acquaintances within the community to get feedback and discuss a strategic way of releasing the treatise as well as how to execute its aims (I do want to mention that few of the people I shared the treatise with agreed with me on all points). After the feedback I decided to put the idea on the backburner. However once the fallout from the initial Sappho interview happened fellow sangs I've chatted (most of which have never read the treatise beforehand) with started making statements that coincided with the sentiments of the treatise. Sanguinarian sentiment, while always frustrated by the metaphysical line of "sangs crave the energy within the blood" as well as being defined by psis in general, was at a high against such impositions. Sappho ultimately failed to discredit sanguinarians, in fact she motivated them. The treatise proposed a direction to carry the momentum toward: scientific research in order to gain truer insight into ourselves as well as possible treatments toward sanguinarianism. The strong language was intentional: I wanted exclusivity and a unified message. Those put off by it just aren't cut out to be part of my vision of the sanguinarian community. I also wrote this with the outside if not skeptical observer in mind. I want the outside world to know that people within the "vampire" community can be self-critical to a very harsh degree.

 So far it seems as if the treatise directly and indirectly inspired or affirmed a strong base of sanguinarians to take action. I'd imagine the next course of action would be to discuss tactics in terms of jockey for position to gain access to clinical trials. I proposed methods of doing just that but I am sure that we as a group can come up with ideas that improve upon them or different approaches that are better. Obtaining knowledge is inherently a political process; don't be shocked if more feelings are hurt in the process.

Take care. Have fun.

I have a hard time buying that you , CJ, had any direct influence on the already wide rift within the OVC. Simple fact is, the rift has been there for a decade plus, fed by psis that cant let go of their egos, cant accept that sangs need more than they do, and that these days, the sangs are just plain getting tired of putting up with heavily shoveled nonsense, everything from long distance turning to the plethora of terms they dream up for themselves - yet, ultimately, it is the sangs that still hold the cards on risk, on putting their lives and livelihoods on the line JUST to fill a rather mysterious need; all of which , psis do not NEED TO. I cant emphasize this enough - Psis do NOT need to risk themselves to feed (and those that claim to be sex feeders can pull their heads out of their asses, FYI).  Many sangs I know, while not wanting to say it for risk of public distress, feel that psis are nothing more than emo leeches, along for the ride.   While I DID like your treatise, dont let it go to your ego too much  ---- especially NOT when one factors in one simple point you have made abundantly clear --

You reject being a vampire yourself.

That, ultimately, leads to your total discreditably, and totally sucks the wind out of your posts - and makes you look just as bad as the psis that shove their crap at the sangs as well.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: deacongray on January 13, 2011, 09:50:31 AM
Shockingly there are some points of which I can agree with coon. He is right about Sangs and Risk. I don't see how anyone can deny that reality. For Sangs there is a constant up hill struggle both in maintaining their feeding, as well as their identity. To say "Its purely biological" is difficult because to do so would indicate that they are some how ill, and thus treatable and consequently  not actually vampires at all. To say it is not purely biological puts them on even footing with PSIS in their claim to vampirism, but doesn't really allow for any solid ground to stand on otherwise. There remains one simple truth, Neither side can prove shit.

PSIS this PSIS that...Sangs this Sangs that...hell people stop pissing into the wind, it is all theory, conjecture, and philosophy. If you really cannot stand the PSIS or SANGS no one is forcing anyone else to stick around the community. We enjoy a lot of each others company, but not just to listen to them piss and moan about feeling picked on, or mistreated because of some stupid debate with points neither side can prove.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Darklilone on January 13, 2011, 10:10:24 AM
Quote
PSIS this PSIS that...Sangs this Sangs that...hell people stop pissing into the wind, it is all theory, conjecture, and philosophy. If you really cannot stand the PSIS or SANGS no one is forcing anyone else to stick around the community. We enjoy a lot of each others company, but not just to listen to them piss and moan about feeling picked on, or mistreated because of some stupid debate with points neither side can prove.

This.
Though i may have worded it differently, i can't think of how right now, and think the way Deacon worded it is just fine.
I've watched the crap fly to and from both ends, not just psys saying sangs aren't legit or vice versa.
It's all crap and i wish it would stop. I'm glad when many can put their perceived differences aside and work, or at least, coexist together within the community.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Zerochan on January 13, 2011, 11:49:34 AM
I'm really glad that all along this thread and other forums in which the treatise was posted that it furthered the divide between sanguinarians and the metaphysical practioners of vampirism. It also furthered the divide with those who take their condition seriously and those who cling onto the identity. This was an argument for partition after all.

Truth be told I originally wrote the treatise in December of 2009. I shared it with some trusted friends and acquaintances within the community to get feedback and discuss a strategic way of releasing the treatise as well as how to execute its aims (I do want to mention that few of the people I shared the treatise with agreed with me on all points). After the feedback I decided to put the idea on the backburner. However once the fallout from the initial Sappho interview happened fellow sangs I've chatted (most of which have never read the treatise beforehand) with started making statements that coincided with the sentiments of the treatise. Sanguinarian sentiment, while always frustrated by the metaphysical line of "sangs crave the energy within the blood" as well as being defined by psis in general, was at a high against such impositions. Sappho ultimately failed to discredit sanguinarians, in fact she motivated them. The treatise proposed a direction to carry the momentum toward: scientific research in order to gain truer insight into ourselves as well as possible treatments toward sanguinarianism. The strong language was intentional: I wanted exclusivity and a unified message. Those put off by it just aren't cut out to be part of my vision of the sanguinarian community. I also wrote this with the outside if not skeptical observer in mind. I want the outside world to know that people within the "vampire" community can be self-critical to a very harsh degree.

 So far it seems as if the treatise directly and indirectly inspired or affirmed a strong base of sanguinarians to take action. I'd imagine the next course of action would be to discuss tactics in terms of jockey for position to gain access to clinical trials. I proposed methods of doing just that but I am sure that we as a group can come up with ideas that improve upon them or different approaches that are better. Obtaining knowledge is inherently a political process; don't be shocked if more feelings are hurt in the process.

Take care. Have fun.

AKA: You are an elaborately worded, yet ultimately drama mongering troll. You do realize that not all sangs are going to follow you, right? What about the ones who LIKE the vampire identity? And you certainly wont get any hybrids on your side, seeing as you completely denied the fact we have a dual need. I really have no support, or respect for you. You admitted yourself that you can't accept being a vampire, and therefore want everyone else to reject it as well. You wrote this treatise for the sole purpose of trolling, and getting everyone more pissed off. The fact that you said it was written specifically to further the divide is proof of this.

Though I must say for the purpose of being a troll, good show. You got drama going, that's for sure. But know this, you're not going to succeed in what is ultimately your plan to discredit hybrids and psis as well as destroy the vampire community. Unfortunately, it's not fragile enough for a simple minded, self-rejecting troll like yourself to break.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Devil of Russia on January 13, 2011, 05:00:50 PM
I'm really glad that all along this thread and other forums in which the treatise was posted that it furthered the divide between sanguinarians and the metaphysical practioners of vampirism. It also furthered the divide with those who take their condition seriously and those who cling onto the identity. This was an argument for partition after all.

Truth be told I originally wrote the treatise in December of 2009. I shared it with some trusted friends and acquaintances within the community to get feedback and discuss a strategic way of releasing the treatise as well as how to execute its aims (I do want to mention that few of the people I shared the treatise with agreed with me on all points). After the feedback I decided to put the idea on the backburner. However once the fallout from the initial Sappho interview happened fellow sangs I've chatted (most of which have never read the treatise beforehand) with started making statements that coincided with the sentiments of the treatise. Sanguinarian sentiment, while always frustrated by the metaphysical line of "sangs crave the energy within the blood" as well as being defined by psis in general, was at a high against such impositions. Sappho ultimately failed to discredit sanguinarians, in fact she motivated them. The treatise proposed a direction to carry the momentum toward: scientific research in order to gain truer insight into ourselves as well as possible treatments toward sanguinarianism. The strong language was intentional: I wanted exclusivity and a unified message. Those put off by it just aren't cut out to be part of my vision of the sanguinarian community. I also wrote this with the outside if not skeptical observer in mind. I want the outside world to know that people within the "vampire" community can be self-critical to a very harsh degree.

 So far it seems as if the treatise directly and indirectly inspired or affirmed a strong base of sanguinarians to take action. I'd imagine the next course of action would be to discuss tactics in terms of jockey for position to gain access to clinical trials. I proposed methods of doing just that but I am sure that we as a group can come up with ideas that improve upon them or different approaches that are better. Obtaining knowledge is inherently a political process; don't be shocked if more feelings are hurt in the process.

Take care. Have fun.

AKA: You are an elaborately worded, yet ultimately drama mongering troll. You do realize that not all sangs are going to follow you, right? What about the ones who LIKE the vampire identity? And you certainly wont get any hybrids on your side, seeing as you completely denied the fact we have a dual need. I really have no support, or respect for you. You admitted yourself that you can't accept being a vampire, and therefore want everyone else to reject it as well. You wrote this treatise for the sole purpose of trolling, and getting everyone more pissed off. The fact that you said it was written specifically to further the divide is proof of this.

Though I must say for the purpose of being a troll, good show. You got drama going, that's for sure. But know this, you're not going to succeed in what is ultimately your plan to discredit hybrids and psis as well as destroy the vampire community. Unfortunately, it's not fragile enough for a simple minded, self-rejecting troll like yourself to break.
...Really now? You don't agree with her ideals so she must be a troll? With the amount of work and thought she's put into the treatise I find that hard believe. You may find what she's said disagreeable, and it may have caused a bit of a stir, but to just desultorily start calling troll, No offense, but with all the praise you received from everyone else for being wise beyond your years, that last lash out really made you seem quite your age : /

If you're going to criticize her, at least say something something substantial, because when you basically just say something along the lines of, "HEY YOU YOUR JUST A BIG DUM TROLL GIT OUTTA HERE YOU, DUN YOU BE  SPLITTIN MY COMMUNITY!!!11!!", it's just...I see these kind of remarks, "crying troll" far too often to really think highly of what anyone says when they have to resort to what is basically nothing more than name calling.
 
She's already stated her stance and how she's wants go about undergoing an effort to further research on sanguines, and rather clearly cut, I honestly don't see how people are viewing the language as "wordy and misleading", from an outside point of view it sorta just comes off as "i dont like what you're saying and im too lazy can't be bothered to read through it all"

tl;dr If you're going to counter someone's argument, do so with more forethought into what they're actually saying, instead of calling troll in an attempt to discredit them.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Catori on January 13, 2011, 05:33:51 PM
What you have missed Devil is where she said she had posted the treatise for the sole purpose of dividing the community further. I am also thinking that there is an edit that was done to what you quoted or I am not finding the post I saw earlier where she stated she wanted nothing more than to cause problems and dissention amongst everyone. By her own words plus her actions, it reeks of troll. I mean, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck.....it's a freaken duck.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Syrion Deathvow on January 14, 2011, 10:27:23 PM
Excuse me. Metaphysicality actually HAS been proven. There was a Russian ( I believe) study done based on auras. They screened the test subject's fingers for an energy signature. One being a self-proclaimed psivamp, the other a "mundane". The "mundane"'s energy signature came off as a blue glow surrounding her fingertip. The psivamp's signature was red and very small. They put the psivamp and mundane together for the next test and the red aura was actually piercing the blue aura and removing segments of it whilst growing bigger. After the feeding, the blue aura had holes, and was greatly reduced, while the red aura was swollen and vibrant. There you have it folks, this poster is blowing off unwarrented steam from being ashamed of their self.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: RKCoon on January 14, 2011, 11:08:15 PM
Prove it then; demonstrate links and such for us to see, dont just make claims about it.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Persephone on January 15, 2011, 06:12:59 AM
@ Syrion
The researcher you're refering too is Joe Slate, who ran studies for the US army in the 1970's, following Soviet studies using Krilian photography. The colors you refer to were added to the origianl photos to differenciate the self-professed psychic vampire from the mundane target.

Part 1 of a radio interview of Joe Slate:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRpG8o4W9HQ

A visual for this study starts at 1:45 of this video clip from the documentary "The Secret Life of Vampires"
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuttpJ4T8Tc

Note: Krilian photography is not direct proof of auras or energy transfer, though it may be useful as indirect evidence.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Persephone on January 15, 2011, 06:26:01 AM
Actually, I think the documentary is "Vampire Secrets", from 2005.

( Has editing our posts has been disabled? I couldn't find the edit tab.)


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Darklilone on January 15, 2011, 07:09:29 AM
Quote
Excuse me. Metaphysicality actually HAS been proven. There was a Russian ( I believe) study done based on auras. They screened the test subject's fingers for an energy signature. One being a self-proclaimed psivamp, the other a "mundane". The "mundane"'s energy signature came off as a blue glow surrounding her fingertip. The psivamp's signature was red and very small. They put the psivamp and mundane together for the next test and the red aura was actually piercing the blue aura and removing segments of it whilst growing bigger. After the feeding, the blue aura had holes, and was greatly reduced, while the red aura was swollen and vibrant. There you have it folks, this poster is blowing off unwarrented steam from being ashamed of their self.
Prove it then; demonstrate links and such for us to see, dont just make claims about it.

I'm also interested. though it sounds more like kirlian photography or something to me (maybe an infrared camera?) which wouldn't exactly be proving it.. i believe that method was infact debunked to some extent.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Darklilone on January 15, 2011, 07:11:24 AM
>.< didn't even notice there was a whole nother page. sorry ):


( Has editing our posts has been disabled? I couldn't find the edit tab.)

i think so.. 'cause i haven't been able to find the button for days.


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Darklilone on January 15, 2011, 07:12:13 AM
>.< didn't even notice there was a whole nother page. sorry ):


( Has editing our posts has been disabled? I couldn't find the edit tab.)

i think so.. 'cause i haven't been able to find the button for days.
>.<

There may have been some mention about it.. i just didn't pay attention and can't remember exactly (if it was via email, pms or if it even happened).


Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: sphynxcatvp on January 15, 2011, 10:48:01 AM
Good thing I paid attention. Last sentence in the AVA email that went out on the 9th, as a matter of fact. :)

Quote
Yes, post editing has been disabled - we may elect to bring this back in the coming months after the Psi/Sang "conflict" has died down.



Title: Re: A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community
Post by: Syrion Deathvow on September 17, 2011, 01:10:17 AM
Hm.. sorry if I came off ornery. I must have been upset about something. Anyway, I wouldn't ut much stock into the research itself though. But who knows. I'm skeptical as it is.. I just often play devil's advocate. (no pun intended)