Pixie Trix Comix & Hiveworks Community

New strip! http://www.eeriecuties.com/strips-ec/si ... g_11_of_12

I am CLEARLY the worst at remembering to set up Monday updates!

Oh great. A whimsical serial killer. How nice.

He may well develop that syndrome where the only girls who attracted to him are dangerous or strange.

Spidrift wrote:Oh great. A whimsical serial killer. How nice.

She's no more a serial killer than a lion that eats gazelle. It sucks for the victim, but they've both gotta eat.

Uh... no.
HELL no.
It's not the same thing at all. The gazelle isn't sapient, so killing her isn't murder - at most it could be called animal abuse, and even that's pushing it. The lion isn't sapient, it literally has no choice.
Marine is sapient and free-willed. She's choosing to murder thinking, feeling, sapient human beings. She's a monster and she deserves to be locked up for the rest of her life. Buuut, since none of the people she murdered or will murder in the future are named characters whom we got to know, a lot of readers won't care.
Funny thing... Before this chapter, considering how the "monsters" of Eerie Cuties never seemed to actually kill anyone, it was easy for me to think the monster-hunters from Magic Chicks were simply operating on outdated prejudice... but if serial killers like Marine exist, then it looks like, no, there really is a present need for Buffy-types to put them down. (Which, of course, still doesn't justify trying to kill a non-murdering creature like Layla.)

Quote removed. The DAMNed

sun tzu wrote:Uh... no.
HELL no.
It's not the same thing at all. The gazelle isn't sapient, so killing her isn't murder - at most it could be called animal abuse, and even that's pushing it. The lion isn't sapient, it literally has no choice.

They're both sapient, so what? It doesn't change the fact that one has to eat the other to sustain herself. Saying she has a choice is an assumption.

Abstaining may be possible for some, like Brooke, but even she admitted that it isn't easy for her to do, because she's constantly fighting her own nature. Just as it's in Tia's nature to feed off other people's misery, or else she'll cease to exist. Or how Layla can eat human food, but still needs blood.

So yes, it sucks for the victim, but ultimately, it cannot be helped.

Murder? Is it murder if a lion or a shark kills a human being to eat them? What about a vampire? Murder is, at least in our world, a crime that is defined only for human beings killing other human beings. Since human beings are, at least according to our definitions, the only sapient creatures, the definition is easy. But what if there were others? Would cross-species killing still be murder?

It may well be that it only counts as murder if there is some kind of agreement among the species. We don't know what the rules are in the EC universe. It is not because it is "murder" that the monster hunters hunt monsters, but because of the killing, in the same way that humans will hunt down a lion or shark that has been killing human beings.

FuzzyFace wrote:Murder? Is it murder if a lion or a shark kills a human being to eat them? What about a vampire? Murder is, at least in our world, a crime that is defined only for human beings killing other human beings.

Here's how I see it: if it were a malicious act*, sure. But if it's done out of necessity, then no.


*note: for example, someone who kills simply for the sake of it, or someone who does it for sport, etc.

Mutant for Hire wrote:He may well develop that syndrome where the only girls who attracted to him are dangerous or strange.

Worked for Xander

Aw, she's pretty cute herself... when she's not luring guys to their deaths, anyway.

(Also: turtle!)

They're both sapient, so what? It doesn't change the fact that one has to eat the other to sustain herself.

Hunger doesn't make the killing of a sapient being acceptable.

It does if you need to in order to survive. If she could feed off of other creatures, she undoubtedly would, as it would be much easier and less risky. Humans are the most dangerous game, after all.

As, through technological development, the top species on the planet and the only ones with confirmed full consciousness, moral compass, and sapience (though some people may attempt to look for similar traits in extremely 'smart' animal species, like dolphins and some primates), we don't really have any experience in regards to what it's like to be forced to feed on *other sapient species*.

If, for whatever reason, it's an absolute requirement for a fictional species, then I guess we're set up for a tragedy-from-the-start scenario where the monster that does that is indeed 'predator' and not 'evil'.

However, if their dietary needs don't have to include sapient species, or don't need to be fatal, creatures that make a conscious decision to kill another sapient being (because of convenience or it being considered a 'delicacy') would only not be considered evil if there's a clear cultural barricade and alienation between the two sapient species, which is *clearly* not the case here.

Worry not, however, she's not the only monster. After all, *someone* came up with all the effects that a mermaid's blood, ashes, or liver were mythologically supposed to have, and let us not forget Soylent Green is people.

Why is it only bad if you kill a sapient creature? It's no less murder if a lion eats a gazelle. "Free will" you say? Yeah, except monsters tend to have instincts that can completely override their thought process. You become hungry enough, you'll remorselessly kill anything if you can eat it. Nature isn't pretty, but it's usually not outright evil either.

You want to see a serial killer? Look at humans. We kill... pretty much everything. For fun, out of hatred, sometimes for no reason at all. We kind of don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the whole "killing is bad" thing. We invented killing, perfected it. It's why monsters in most stories hide from humans, not the other way around.

Yeah, yeah, Humans Are Monsters, we're all so terrible, angst, angst, woe is us that we are so awful. Isn't misanthropy so wonderfully cool?

Doesn't matter a wet slap in this sort of case, though. If there's a sapient monster that can only survive by killing humans, then that's just a set-up for that tragedy plot. Some humans may feel sorry for it, but sooner or later it's going to be hunted down and put down like a rabid dog. Which, funnily enough, makes the humans a whole lot less horrible than when they're hunting whales for poor-quality meat or shooting small birds for giggles - because if killing for survival is okay, than humans killing obligate anthropovores must be just fine. We cop the self-defence plea.