How about: Vampires are humanoids that can sustain themselves only by drinking blood? That excludes blood-drinking when done occasionally or as a cultural practice.
If it turned out that there was a rare degenerative illness that prevented sufferers from absorbing nutrition from any source other than blood, would you agree that sufferers of that illness were vampires?
Ack. Okay, I guess I have no choice but to add yet another qualifier. :-)
How about: Vampires are very long-lived humanoids that derive their longevity from drinking blood. I can’t think of a mundane example that fits that description. Which I suppose was Phil’s original point: the only useful definition of “vampire” is one which excludes everything that could plausibly exist.
Vampires are very long-lived humanoids that derive their longevity from drinking blood.
Vampires are humanoids that don’t have a functioning heart and which retain the memories of the human host whose death was necessary for their creation. (And they sure as heck don’t glitter—that part is critical!)
What about a human with altered biochemistry, such that they could synthesize all needed biological materials from compounds found in blood? Is that a vampire?
I’d call them a vampire, but it’d be partly in jest. DSimon’s below would give me even less pause, and with a fuller list it seems to become entirely uncontroversial.
How about: Vampires are humanoids that can sustain themselves only by drinking blood? That excludes blood-drinking when done occasionally or as a cultural practice.
If it turned out that there was a rare degenerative illness that prevented sufferers from absorbing nutrition from any source other than blood, would you agree that sufferers of that illness were vampires?
Ack. Okay, I guess I have no choice but to add yet another qualifier. :-)
How about: Vampires are very long-lived humanoids that derive their longevity from drinking blood. I can’t think of a mundane example that fits that description. Which I suppose was Phil’s original point: the only useful definition of “vampire” is one which excludes everything that could plausibly exist.
Vampires are humanoids that don’t have a functioning heart and which retain the memories of the human host whose death was necessary for their creation. (And they sure as heck don’t glitter—that part is critical!)
What about a human with altered biochemistry, such that they could synthesize all needed biological materials from compounds found in blood? Is that a vampire?
“Only by”, not “by only”.
Fine. Humans that are incapable of metabolizing anything other than hemoglobin. Does that count?
I’d call them a vampire, but it’d be partly in jest. DSimon’s below would give me even less pause, and with a fuller list it seems to become entirely uncontroversial.