My Vampire Argument; Disrespectful To Fellow Students?

[InPersonaChriste]

So I was in class this morning and we were working on student arguments and putting them into logical form, everyone in the last 2 weeks has been able to go over 2 of their arguments. That is excluding me because they went over time last week.

In this weeks class I was really excited to work on my argument, but the students after reading 'vampire' deemed this a dangerous thing and would not even look at the small 2 paragraphs I had. My argument was that against Stephenie Meyer's vampires and how they should not have the capacity to love.
The teacher after seeing the other students freak out over the sudden prospect of working with a vampire argument decided to put it up to vote. Only two people wanted to do the argument.

My question; Is making a perfectly sound vampire argument disrespectful?

For those interested here is my in class argument (please excuse the bad wording i did not have very much time to construct a 'perfect' argument):
Twilight, I seriously do not understand this book. If we look at the definition of a vampire in the classical sense. It essentially a body and a mind, hardwired for blood and night crawling. Stephenie Meyers Vampires seem to be vegetarian. Which is fine, I can totally see that happening even though I don't understand why a vampire would go for something they so vicioucly disgust. But what really bugs me is that Stephenie Meyer's vampires seem to express love.
What is love? In the most classical sense of the word it is a virtue.
If vampires are those which have no souls and who long to do what makes them *feel* good. Then why would they have the capacity to love?
If you are a vampire you do not have a soul and you have no conscience. Stephenie Meyer's vampires aren't really vampires at all. More like eternally living heroin addicts with supernatural tendencies.
Vampires cannot love, therefore nothing is real in this story. They are truly animal beings who kill and hunt for pleasure. They are slaves of their flesh, the demons of the night. You cannot empathise with something that doesn't have the capacity to feel remorse.
Vampires cannot love.

Logical Form [note invalid]
No [Twi Dead] is [Twi able to love]
All [Stephanie Meyer's Vampires] are [twi dead]
.'. No [Stephenie Meyer's Vampires] are [twi able to love]

Sorry maybe I am just in a really bad mood...

[4588686]

What?

[kujo]

Don't even know what I just read.

[Nihil Obstat]

I do not see how that could be construed as disrespectful, except perhaps if Stephanie Meyer were your professor.
Maybe kind of inane though. And I do not mean that disrespectfully, because some of the best and/or most lasting philosophical thought experiments are extremely inane.

[Nihil Obstat]

Undead=A
Soul=B
Ability to Love=C
Vampire=x

A(x)
A=¬B
¬B(x)
B=C
¬B=¬C
¬C(x)
Quod erat demonstratum.
(proof based on indiscernibility of identicals)

Kind of simplistic, perhaps. But it is valid based on how you are setting up the meanings of your predicates.

[InPersonaChriste]

Some people had worse arguments, haha I am feeling better now, I had some coffee and such. But Yeah I just needed someone to look over it I am having an interesting time making up arguments that actually work. Most students made the logical form first, but I just made a conclusion and then worked through that.
Thanks for your notes, yeah I know it is a little inane. But the point was to construct an argument, it didn't matter if it was stupid

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='InPersonaChriste' timestamp='1350060522' post='2492788']
Thanks for your notes, yeah I know it is a little inane. But the point was to construct an argument, it didn't matter if it was stupid
[/quote]
For sure, that is how it is done. Like I said, there is not anything necessarily wrong with a simplistic argument. Professional philosophers write weirder stuff all the time.
In some situations when I have to construct examples and whatnot, I might use the most outlandish or silly example I can come up with. I remember referencing My Little Pony in a paper in Buddhistic philosophy last year...

Edited October 12, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[stevil]

Loved your argument.

You are basically pondering does one need a soul in order to experience love and remorse?

As an Atheist I don't believe a soul is anything more than a conceptual abstraction based on humans trying to understand complex aspects of our lives.
Do non human animals experience love and remorse? I think they do. Could a Vampire?, I don't see why not. If they have the need to exist from generation to generation, if they need to mate up and procreate then love is an enabler, if they need to take care of their young then again, love is an enabler. If they merely replicate by biting and infecting and don't need to nurture then love might be unnecessary.

The Vampire argument is a great (fun), a contemporary approach to this very debatable topic.

Anyway, well done on your argument and I can understand your disappointment in not being allowed to discuss it in class.

[r2Dtoo]

Vampires are soo last fall. It's all about zombies people, [b]zombies[/b].

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1350060723' post='2492789']
For sure, that is how it is done. Like I said, there is not anything necessarily wrong with a simplistic argument. Professional philosophers write weirder stuff all the time.
In some situations when I have to construct examples and whatnot, I might use the most outlandish or silly example I can come up with. I remember referencing My Little Pony in a paper in Buddhistic philosophy last year...
[/quote]
To follow up on this, I referenced My Little Pony twice in my six page paper on the relevance of death vis a vis a general theory of well-being.

[r2Dtoo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1351128230' post='2497266']

To follow up on this, I referenced My Little Pony twice in my six page paper on the relevance of death vis a vis a general theory of well-being.
[/quote]
Oh come on, this topic screams ZOMBIES!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='r2Dtoo' timestamp='1351128333' post='2497271']
Oh come on, this topic screams ZOMBIES!
[/quote]
Not so much. The pony references were more related to my attacking of Ben Bradley's hedonistic theory of well-being, and zombies are really only relevant in the context of post-humous harm, which I did not really feel the need to address.

[r2Dtoo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1351128847' post='2497281']

Not so much. The pony references were more related to my attacking of Ben Bradley's hedonistic theory of well-being, and zombies are really only relevant in the context of post-humous harm, which I did not really feel the need to address.
[/quote]
Ever play Pet Zombies for the 3DS? Zombies need a theory of well being too.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='r2Dtoo' timestamp='1351130158' post='2497298']
Ever play Pet Zombies for the 3DS? Zombies need a theory of well being too.
[/quote]
I do not play much in the way of video games. Mostly just SSBB. I am pretty amesome as Game&Watch though.

[r2Dtoo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1351130373' post='2497305']

I do not play much in the way of video games. Mostly just SSBB. I am pretty amesome as Game&Watch though.
[/quote]
I think pop culture references in college papers are da bomb. Currently, I'm working on an definition essay on trolls. Blaise Pascal and Stephen Colbert, and my own exploits shall be highlighted and featured in my definition.