Thread: Are vampires real?

It's the evidence on which he's basing his investigation - he didn't claim it was good solid evidence. So sure - you can say the evidence is poor and Ill agree in a heartbeat - but all he said was "this is the evidence". And you can't argue that fact - it certainly is his evidence. Your criticism applies only to the validity of the evidence itself - again he hasn't made the positive claim that he believes vampires are real - he merely said "I'm investigating it and here's the evidence".

And I definitely agree with your last statement - OP is trolling hard here, but I think he's trying to demonstrate that a lot of skeptics are really hardliner disbelievers who claim to be skeptical but don't take a true skeptical approach. At least that's my take on another of OPs mysterious and aggravating threads.

** Edit:

See, if I'm right, this thread is totally meta. It's not at all about whether vampires are real - it's about how people respond to statements that aren't quite what they seem. He never made a positive claim and yet everyone is responding only to the claim they think he made.

Isnt' trolling against the rules? Even more on this sub forum. But yes, it wouldn't be the first coming from op lol, no matter his intentions. But it's not hard to see that the op made positive claims in his late replies, guess not everything went according to the plan. Weird topic, but I'd certainly think there are easier ways to teach that lesson. Despite everything, is a good one ^^

Edit: no darkmatters, if you keep reading, he did make claims - about psychic vampirism for example. But that's not the point: if you're trying to intentionally deceive people, how come you expect to have a neutral discussion? If I trick people into thinking something, am I having a neutral position? I forgot the name in english but that isnt promoting a discussion, but a sophism.

I don't think the kind of trolling he's doing here is against the rules - the rules are more against trolling that violates the wishes of the OP (ironic, aint it?) or impedes progress of the thread deliberately. And he's definitely not doing that! So it's really not trolling. Or rather he's trolling an idea, not a person.

And yeah, I stopped reading before getting to the later posts - I ought to check them out.

To think I'd find a thread twice as interesting after being trolled by the op xD

Originally Posted by zoth00

If I trick people into thinking something, am I having a neutral position?

[/quote]
That made me think. Thank you.

I hope you guys don't mind if I step in. I've been watching.
I agree with a lot of what Darkmatters is saying.
This is a sticky one. I'm really not sure what op's intentions are, here. I'm not sure that it truly matters.
The initial post does seem almost humorous (sorry op), but you must admit that the conversation went south right away. In fact, the very first three words in the first response were "Are you serious?" That is a blunt and reasonable question, however, PlanesWalker pounced on his beliefs, with a disproportionate display of attention, for the circumstances. Then you jumped in too, zoth.
My point is that if he is trolling, I think he got you guys.

I don't know if there was a point. I don't know him, but:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Who said I believed they were real? I merely presented the notion they were real, and then you jumped to conclusions.

caught my attention.

zoth, you have made the accusation that OP's evidence is not evidence at all. I don't know if I would agree with that yet. Do we need to break down the definition of the word into concept? If one says "I have evidence." is the truth of that statement correlated with the strength of that evidence? If it isn't evidence, what shall we call it for the duration of the conversation?

On the other hand, OP stated "That evidence is solid." which is silly. I'm sorry again, op, but it's hilarious. And I have to pick on you some more.
The captions for the videos were:
"This is an interview with a vampire"
"Here are some vampire bones"
"Here are a group of vampires protesting against Twilight"
All of those are stated as facts. This is catastrophic, because now it must be PROVEN that that interview was really with a true vampire.
I won't list them all off, but each one is a "fact" that is going to be very hard to prove.

An intense challenge is warranted, but not to what op believes or doesn't believe. It doesn't matter. Let us focus on the point of the thread.

I agree that the presented evidence is .. bad. I don't feel that the ultimate question can ever be answered, if that answer is no. The god question, alien question, and chupicabras of course, may some day be proven to be true. However, they can never be proven to be false. We can continue to search for aliens for all eternity and never find the answer. This is a major disadvantage to the skeptic, of course. lol
I must feel that we have to consider anything to be a possibility.
Perhaps that is why doubt works the way it does. You must prove that something is "real", and not that it isn't.

Though op's evidence was hilariously awesome, I personally don't see adequate evidence to conclude the existence of supernatural vampires, people with special powers contributed to whatever causes vampirism, or mage vampires with increased stats and spells.

Yeah Darkmatters had it right, I was doing something meta. Then it kind of dissolved into seeing how long it would take for zoth to realize I was kidding. I mean seriously, did you watch the 3rd video? It was stated at the end of the video that the book burning was a promotion for a haunted house. FFS, guys