Question:
Do vampires exist today?
anonymous
2010-01-31 10:28:04 UTC
Not like in Twilight or in True Blood.
Sixteen answers:
MusicalDisaster
2010-01-31 10:35:54 UTC
Yes, they do.



You should probably read my blog about them.



http://learnthebloodytruth.blogspot.com/
.
2010-01-31 11:37:03 UTC
No they don't exist.Many story's were made to give religions more power the cross and holy water can defend you from a vampire.So when a village is scared to death of these story's where do you think they go for help?The people fund and build places of worship for protection and living forever in the clouds is a bonus.
?
2010-01-31 15:11:03 UTC
Exist today? If they had ever existed the entire human population would have become vampires years ago.
anonymous
2010-01-31 10:33:43 UTC
Role Playing vampires exist.
GryphonsAerie
2010-01-31 11:18:35 UTC
Listen to the Nurse - unlike the others here claiming to "know" vampires exist, Bearclaw can prove that they don't.
anonymous
2010-01-31 11:07:58 UTC
Yes, they do. You're other answers are crap and I gave them all thumbs down. I can prove to you that they do but not in this public forum. I have taken a code of secrecy. You've shown curiosity and that shows to me that you have a willing and open mind. They do not, however, exist as those so-called Hollywood vampires on 'True Blood' and 'Twilight'. I don't even watch that crap anyways. Feel free to email me anytime and we can discuss this further. Take care.
Bella Swan
2010-01-31 10:33:12 UTC
no they don't, there are however people who claim to be vampires and they drink blood but they aren't immortal or out of the ordinary like we think vampires should be.
musics_best
2010-01-31 11:22:08 UTC
In a metaphoric sense, sure - there are many people who live like parasites.
anonymous
2010-01-31 15:57:06 UTC
Events in the last several decades have clearly indicated just how dangerous some religious and secular groups (usually called “cults” by those opposed to them) can be to their own members as well as to anyone else whom they can influence. “Brainwashing,” beatings, child abuse, rapes, murders, mass suicides, military drilling and gunrunning, meddling in civil governments, international terrorism, and other crimes have been charged against leaders and members of many groups, and in far too many cases those accusations have been correct. None of this has been very surprising to historians of religion or to other scholars of what are usually labled “new” religions (no matter how old they may be in their cultures of origin). Minority groups, especially religious ones, are often accused of crimes by members of the current majority. In many ways, for example, the “Mormons” were the “Moonies” of the 19th century — at least in terms of being an unusual minority belief system that many found “shocking” at the time — and the members of the Unification Church could be just as “respectable” a hundred years from now as the Latter Day Saints are today.



Nonetheless, despite all the historical and philosophical warnings that could be issued, ordinary people faced with friends or loved ones joining an “unusual” group, or perhaps contemplating joining one themselves, need a relatively simple way to evaluate just how dangerous or harmless a given group is liable to be, without either subjecting themselves to its power or judging it solely on theological or ideological grounds (the usual method used by anti-cult groups).



In 1979 I constructed an evaluation tool which I now call the “Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame” or the “ABCDEF” (because evaluating these groups should be elementary). A copy was included in that year’s revised edition of my book, Real Magic. I realize its shortcomings, but feel that it can be effectively used to separate harmless groups from the merely unusual-to-the-observer ones. Feedback from those attempting to use the system has always been appreciated. Indirect feedback, in terms of the number of places on and off the Net this ABCDEF has shown up, has been mostly favorable. For example, it was chosen by and is now displayed on the website of the Institute for Social Inventions, who paraphrased it for their “Best Ideas — A compendium of social innovations” listing.



The purpose of this evaluation tool is to help both amateur and professional observers, including current or would-be members, of various organizations (including religious, occult, psychological or political groups) to determine just how dangerous a given group is liable to be, in comparison with other groups, to the physical and mental health of its members and of other people subject to its influence. It cannot speak to the “spiritual dangers,” if any, that might be involved, for the simple reason that one person’s path to enlightenment or “salvation” is often viewed by another as a path to ignorance or “damnation.”



As a general rule, the higher the numerical total scored by a given group (the further to the right of the scale), the more dangerous it is likely to be. Though it is obvious that many of the scales in the frame are subjective, it is still possible to make practical judgments using it, at least of the “is this group more dangerous than that one?” sort. This is if all numerical assignments are based on accurate and unbiased observation of actual behavior by the groups and their top levels of leadership (as distinct from official pronouncements). This means that you need to pay attention to what the secondary and tertiary leaders are saying and doing, as much (or more so) than the central leadership — after all, “plausible deniability” is not a recent historical invention.



This tool can be used by parents, reporters, law enforcement agents, social scientists and others interested in evaluating the actual dangers presented by a given group or movement. Obviously, different observers will achieve differing degrees of precision, depending upon the sophistication of their numerical assignments on each scale. However, if the same observers use the same methods of scoring and weighting each scale, their comparisons of relative danger or harmlessness between groups will be reasonably valid, at least for their own purposes. People who cannot, on the other hand, view competing belief systems as ever having possible spiritual value to anyone, will find the ABCDEF annoyingly useless for promoting their theological agendas. Worse, these members of the Religious Reich and their fellow theocrats will find that their own organizations (and quite a few large mainstream churches) are far more “cult-like” than many of the minority belief systems they so bitterly oppose.



It should be pointed out that the ABCDEF is founded upon both modern psychological theories about mental health and personal growth, and my many years of participant observation and historical research into minority belief systems. Those who believe that relativism and anarchy are as dangerous to mental health as absolutism and authoritarianism, could (I suppose) count groups with total scores nearing either extreme (high or low) as being equally hazardous. As far as dangers to physical well-being are concerned, however, both historical records and current events clearly indicate the direction in which the greatest threats lie. This is especially so since the low-scoring groups usually seem to have survival and growth rates so small that they seldom develop the abilities to commit large scale atrocities even had they the philosophical or political inclinations to do so.



Real Vampire Real Experience
?
2010-01-31 10:35:17 UTC
Yes, there are people that live the vampire lifestyle.
ƦƟӾŸ
2010-01-31 11:27:18 UTC
yea, there's an episode on the tyra banks show

you can youtube it

it explains how real life ones are
the emperor
2010-01-31 19:25:48 UTC
What Lord Bearclaw says...over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ad nauseum.



His Utmost Excellency, the Emperor, has spoken!
Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods
2010-01-31 10:38:50 UTC
Vampires do not exist, and this can be proven with the application of logic, critical thinking skills, and verified scientific and medical data:



1. Vampires, defined as a humanoid being that MUST consume blood or energy to survive do not exist. Cut and paste time, as it is too much work to type this out over and over and I "recycle" my own answers instead of retyping them so here goes. A brief discussion of the human digestive system and then the probable vampire population given an exponential growth rate should explain why vampires are not possible.



2. The human body is not designed to process large amounts of blood for nutrition. There is not enough protein, carbohydrates, and fats present in blood to maintain a complex creature such as Homo Sapiens or any theorized offshoot mutations. When a human ingests food it is first broken up into a bolus by chewing, then churned up in the stomach with digestive juices to form a mass called chyme. It then passes through the pylorus into the duodenum, part of the small intestine where it mixes with bile salts and secretions from the pancreas and liver which continue breaking it down on a molecular basis, mostly affecting fats at this point. The broken down nutrients pass through the wall of the intestines and into the bloodstream where they are carried to each cell or stored for later use. Indigestible bulk continues through the intestines, turning a dark brown from the bile. Water is absorbed from this mass in the large intestine depending on the needs of the body - a well-hydrated person will usually have a softer stool than a dehydrated person will. Water also enters the bloodstream, and this is what helps to maintain blood pressure. The pressure tends to balance itself in a healthy person because the bloodstream goes through a formation in the kidney called the Loop of Henle, where the narrowing blood vessel forces excess water and cellular waste such as urea out through the cellular wall into the kidneys, where it is excreted through the ureters into the bladder, and then out of the body via the urethral passageway.



3. IMPORTANT - A person physically unable to process his own food for nutrition therefore also could not process blood - it's the same process. Ingested blood does not transmit directly to the veins anyway - it would be chemically broken down by the digestive system.



4. Theoretical ingestion of blood to supply these nutrients would therefore have to occur at least once a day, and would require the ingestion of the entire blood supply which could not happen as the stomach is far too small to hold that much liquid volume. Hold up your clenched fist - under normal conditions your stomach is about that size. Furthermore, such a mass would be difficult to pass thru the intestines as it has no fibrous bulk, would create an intestinal impaction, causing massive vomiting from the large concentration of iron present, and any "real" vampire would have to eventually expel the waste, which would come out as a black, tarry, smelly goo, just as stool does when blood is present from a upper GI bleed.



5. These humans that affect the whole "vampiric lifestyle" are NOT vampires. They are simply humans playing their own little game, in their own little fantasy world, usually pandering to their own little sexual fetish, which may or may not actually be sexual. I too, play my own little game, in the SCA, but mine is a game where the deeds that I do are determined by the strength of my arm and sword - I am a warrior, with just as much skill and ability as any warrior of ancient times. The difference is that I am claiming to be something physically possible: a warrior, and I prove it everytime I strap on my armor and walk onto a SCA battlefield. The so-called "vampires" are claiming to be something physically impossible: a walking corpse, and all they prove is that black Victorian clothing, a pair of false fangs, and a little makeup make for a good Halloween costume - it does not make you a vampire.



6. Even if a vampire feeds once a week, and his victim also becomes a vampire, that is exponential growth, with four iterations a month. First iteration: One makes one, total two. Second iteration: Two make two, total four. Third iteration: Four make four, total eight. Fourth iteration: Eight make eight, total sixteen. 16 vampires at the end of one month, 256 at the end of the second month, 4096 by the end of the third month, 65,536 by the end of the fourth month, 1,048,476 at the end of the fifth, and 33,572,832 vampires at the end of half a year! By way of comparison, there are currently approximately 33 million people who have HIV/AIDS and the disease is a world-wide epidemic. I see people every day in the hospital with AIDS, but never has there been one documented case of a vampire attack. Do the math - vampires are a mathematical impossibility.

As for the idea that vampires existed "a long time ago" consider the estimated global population 5,000 years ago - using the above mathematical rationale, a single vampire could have converted every human on the globe in less than six months. This falls therefore, under the logic of Occam's Razor - which states that when you have removed every impossible answer, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Since there is no "vampiric plague" swarming the earth, the logical deduction is that they don't exist.



7. Point of clarification about "vampire" bats: vampire is simply the name we have given them because they do drink blood, same as a flea, mosquito, leech, or spider. Are these creatures vampires? No. They are living creatures, not legendary monsters. They can subsist on blood because of their smaller size and proportionately larger stomach volume. Drinking blood does not make you a vampire anymore than eating raw meat makes you a werewolf, although it might make you a mosquito.



8.The humans who profess to be vampires are victims of an all-encompassing self induced delusion. They are as human as you or I, regardless of their claims, and if they ingest HIV tainted blood they can most certainly contract the disease, esp. if they have any cuts, sores, or lesions in and or around their mouth. It is a very dangerous delusion to be laboring under. Note that there is absolutely no scientific or medical proof that these people derive any benefit at all from the ingestion of blood, and even worse are the so-called "psychic" vampires, because their delusion is one that they cannot substantiate with any concrete evidence at all.



9. There is no "vampire" gene. People are not "born" as vampires. When a woman goes to the hospital for prenatal care there are many tests done on mother and child, even while still in the womb, to check for many things, including genetic anomalies that result in deformities and birth defects. If such a gene existed, in today's world with today's technology it would have been found - we have already completely sequenced the human genome. It would also have to follow Mendel's law of dominant/recessive gene theory. Again, the odds on that many "vampires" all escaping the notice of the medical/scientific community are so low as to be almost nonexistent. The idea that there is a global "vampire community" engaging in controlled breeding to keep the "bloodline pure" is delusional in the extreme.



10. There is no "vampire virus" - as I have already pointed out, HIV is a virus, and look at how fast it has spread - virtually everyone knows someone with the affliction. According to the "vampire websites" there are "thousands" of vampires running around. If that was so then at least one of them has ended up in a hospital for bloodwork when they became pregnant, had a bloodborne infection, was injured in a car wreck, etc, etc, ad nauseum. The anomaly would have been detected and medical science would have isolated it, studied it, applied for research grants on it, published papers on it, and turned it into the talk of the medical and scientific community, as well as making its "discoverers" celebrities and rich beyond their dreams. A virus cannot alter your DNA in such a radical fashion without killing you.
anonymous
2010-01-31 10:54:26 UTC
Not on this planet.
anonymous
2010-01-31 10:41:36 UTC
no
*c0nFuSeD*
2010-01-31 10:33:45 UTC
ummm.....no


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...