THE PACK Message Boards

Vuldari, I don't think our views are so different as you seem to think. Different sides of the same coin, really.

You seem to be saying that there is no 'werewolves in general' and that we are each speaking about our own preference, and that misunderstanding is causing people to think that others are forcing their opinions on them.

I'm saying that we each are bringing our own preferences and that we need to realize and respect that others don't share the same basic assumptions that we do. Conflicts are occurring when people try to discuss the subject, thinking that the other person shares the same assumptions when they don't. This leads the other person to feel as if the first person is trying to force their opinions on them.

It might seem as if we are disagreeing about whether or not 'werewolves in general' exists, but I don't think our views are too dissimilar. I think that 'werewolves in general' does exist, but not in the same sense as you are using it (the two views are not mutually exclusive). I think it exists in the sense that if each of us brings our own perspective to the table, we will all, ultimately, be talking about werewolves in general. Not with each person talking about werewolves in general, but by each person sharing their own views.

And this is all I have ever suggested.

I would agree that trying to discuss 'werewolves in general' in the sense that you are using it is a mistake because there is no set of unconflicting assumptions that makes up 'werewolves in general' (except the name ^_^). We are stuck with the fact that each of us comes with our own unique view, and that there are precious few things that are shared by every single one of us.

Hence, I will reiterate my suggestion (and I don't think it's much different than yours): We need to realize that we DON'T share the same assumptions, and recognize and respect that others are talking about their own preferences.

We can say, "I prefer this," or, "I prefer that and this is why," but if we want to pursuade someone else of a point, we need to do it with their assumptions and not our own. Or, at least, with some small set of shared assumptions.

This is, unfortunately, difficult to do. Ever wondered why this forum leans so strongly toward scientifically accurate werewolves? If you ask me it's because there's not much to talk about when it comes to pure opinion, but adding science and eliminating magic gives us a basic set of assumptions we can share: this is right; that is wrong, and this is why.

For a discussion to be successful, the assumptions ('rules') need to be understood from the very beginning. If someone starts a thread, they need to specify, for example:

"Given a purely scientific basis, what do you think the upper limit of a werewolf's strength might be?"

or:

"I was wondering, from a cinematic perspective, how strong do you think werewolves ought to be? What would it please you most to see in a movie?"

or:

"I love all these neat-o new powers that werewolves have been getting in movies lately (I think wall-climbing is my favorite :3). If werewolves had superpowers, which ones would you like to see most?"

So long as some assumptions to work with are stated beforehand, there should be no problem discussing all different types of werewolf without conflict. And only once we attain that kind diversity will we really be talking about werewolves in general.

(I'm sure this post would have been more cohesive if I weren't half-asleep. Sorry 'bout that.)

-- Vilkacis

Vilkacis wrote:I don't think our views are so different as you seem to think. Different sides of the same coin, really.

You seem to be saying that there is no 'werewolves in general' and that we are each speaking about our own preference, and that misunderstanding is causing people to think that others are forcing their opinions on them.

I'm saying that we each are bringing our own preferences and that we need to realize and respect that others don't share the same basic assumptions that we do. Conflicts are occurring when people try to discuss the subject, thinking that the other person shares the same assumptions when they don't. This leads the other person to feel as if the first person is trying to force their opinions on them.

It might seem as if we are disagreeing about whether or not 'werewolves in general' exists, but I don't think our views are too dissimilar. I think that 'werewolves in general' does exist, but not in the same sense as you are using it (the two views are not mutually exclusive). I think it exists in the sense that if each of us brings our own perspective to the table, we will all, ultimately, be talking about werewolves in general. Not with each person talking about werewolves in general, but by each person sharing their own views.

And this is all I have ever suggested.

I would agree that trying to discuss 'werewolves in general' in the sense that you are using it is a mistake because there is no set of unconflicting assumptions that makes up 'werewolves in general' (except the name ^_^). We are stuck with the fact that each of us comes with our own unique view, and that there are precious few things that are shared by every single one of us.

Hence, I will reiterate my suggestion (and I don't think it's much different than yours): We need to realize that we DON'T share the same assumptions, and recognize and respect that others are talking about their own preferences.

We can say, "I prefer this," or, "I prefer that and this is why," but if we want to pursuade someone else of a point, we need to do it with their assumptions and not our own. Or, at least, with some small set of shared assumptions.

This is, unfortunately, difficult to do. Ever wondered why this forum leans so strongly toward scientifically accurate werewolves? If you ask me it's because there's not much to talk about when it comes to pure opinion, but adding science and eliminating magic gives us a basic set of assumptions we can share: this is right; that is wrong, and this is why.

For a discussion to be successful, the assumptions ('rules') need to be understood from the very beginning. If someone starts a thread, they need to specify, for example:

"Given a purely scientific basis, what do you think the upper limit of a werewolf's strength might be?"

or:

"I was wondering, from a cinematic perspective, how strong do you think werewolves ought to be? What would it please you most to see in a movie?"

or:

"I love all these neat-o new powers that werewolves have been getting in movies lately (I think wall-climbing is my favorite :3). If werewolves had superpowers, which ones would you like to see most?"

So long as some assumptions to work with are stated beforehand, there should be no problem discussing all different types of werewolf without conflict. And only once we attain that kind diversity will we really be talking about werewolves in general.

(I'm sure this post would have been more cohesive if I weren't half-asleep. Sorry 'bout that.)

-- Vilkacis

One of these days, I'm going to sit here and write a very long post.


I didn't say there are "no werewolves in general." All I'm saying is that there are so many types out there.

What if they were all in one film? The classic style wolfman, Goldenwolf's style werewolf. Lupin's style, your style, the one from Harry Potter, Van Helsing, Underworld, ETC. What kind of werewolf movie would it be?

An odd one I can tell you that.

All I care is that there is one style with different appearances. Short, muscular, fat, tall. ETC. Something that'll make all werewolf fans happy.

Now, what style are we going to go with? Lets just wait and see what they are going to provide.


Underworld 2 is not out yet. Those pictures of werewolves from the set tells me nothing of the movie. It just tells me how the werewolf in that film will look like. I have to see the film to say if its great, or it sucked.


If I see pictures of the Freeborn werewolf, it'll be the same way. It may look cool, but will it tell me if the movie is worth watching? Maybe...maybe not.

But there is a difference between Freeborn and the other werewolf films. Freeborn is the only one thats backed by werewolf fans before it hits the screen. Not after.

Figarou wrote:I didn't say there are "no werewolves in general."

I'm sorry, I should have specified. I was talking at Vuldari, who did say that, heh.

-- Vilkacis

Well, I can't say that I actually know what werewolves (in general) actually are. But, IMO, I know what they are not.

Maybe its like that line in Young Frankenstein:


Inga: Werewolf
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Werewolf?
Igor: There.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: What?
Igor: There wolf. There castle.

Shadowblaze wrote:naw- see, i go with jamie's def of a werewolf. the others, are, imo, not actually werewolves- they're not humans that turn into wolves or vice versa. i'm not sure what to classify them as, though, just not werewolves. Mot discussinos can include them because they have the same basis- 'how would a gestalt ww's chest look' wold also count for furries, and all other half-forms. they're just nto werewolves, though they are realted.

For the most part, I agree. All beings that do not shapeshift in any way are not werewolves, though they do still count as werewolf-like creatures and most of them are of interest to us here and should be discussed here. I just don't think of them as werewolves, even with as wide as the definition has currently been stretched.

Of course, there is wiggle room even here. It is still impossible to draw a precise line between werewolves and werewolf-like creatures such as werewolfish furries. As the best example of something that straddles this line, consider the main characters in "Wolf's Rain". I personally consider them to be werewolves, even though they do not fit in my definition of "general werewolf" I outlined earlier, and they also count as werewolf-like creatures.
Why are they on the line? They are magical wolves with the ability to create sophisticated illusions that make them seem to turn human. These illusions are not just visual, but audible and sometimes have other qualities that make them seem more robust and real than the average illusion. Nevertheless, they are still illusions.
Then, consider this. During the witch persecutions, the Catholic Church taught that werewolves had only illusory powers. They were said to create an illusion involving aspects of sight, sound, touch and even scent. Some of the peasants believed this too, though others clung to the idea of corporeal transformations.
Also, in Japanese folklore, the native shapeshifters such as kitsune and tanuki were often thought to have transformation powers that were entirely based on illusion.
Thus, even in folklore there is a strong precedent for shapeshifters with only illusory powers being thought of as real werewolves, werefoxes and so on, despite not "really" changing.
So, when you look at all that information, it is easy to see that there is quite a bit of wiggle room even beyond the definition of a werewolf as a being that transforms back and forth from a human form to a second form that is either an ordinary wolf, a monster wolf or a "wolf man".
Werewolf-like creatures can be awfully close to "the general werewolf", and most werewolf-like creatures are of interest to many of us here.

Vilkacis wrote:Vuldari, I don't think our views are so different as you seem to think. Different sides of the same coin, really.

You seem to be saying that there is no 'werewolves in general' and that we are each speaking about our own preference, and that misunderstanding is causing people to think that others are forcing their opinions on them.

I'm saying that we each are bringing our own preferences and that we need to realize and respect that others don't share the same basic assumptions that we do. Conflicts are occurring when people try to discuss the subject, thinking that the other person shares the same assumptions when they don't. This leads the other person to feel as if the first person is trying to force their opinions on them.

It might seem as if we are disagreeing about whether or not 'werewolves in general' exists, but I don't think our views are too dissimilar. I think that 'werewolves in general' does exist, but not in the same sense as you are using it (the two views are not mutually exclusive). I think it exists in the sense that if each of us brings our own perspective to the table, we will all, ultimately, be talking about werewolves in general. Not with each person talking about werewolves in general, but by each person sharing their own views.

And this is all I have ever suggested.

I would agree that trying to discuss 'werewolves in general' in the sense that you are using it is a mistake because there is no set of unconflicting assumptions that makes up 'werewolves in general' (except the name ^_^). We are stuck with the fact that each of us comes with our own unique view, and that there are precious few things that are shared by every single one of us.

Hence, I will reiterate my suggestion (and I don't think it's much different than yours): We need to realize that we DON'T share the same assumptions, and recognize and respect that others are talking about their own preferences.

We can say, "I prefer this," or, "I prefer that and this is why," but if we want to pursuade someone else of a point, we need to do it with their assumptions and not our own. Or, at least, with some small set of shared assumptions.

This is, unfortunately, difficult to do. Ever wondered why this forum leans so strongly toward scientifically accurate werewolves? If you ask me it's because there's not much to talk about when it comes to pure opinion, but adding science and eliminating magic gives us a basic set of assumptions we can share: this is right; that is wrong, and this is why.

For a discussion to be successful, the assumptions ('rules') need to be understood from the very beginning. If someone starts a thread, they need to specify, for example:

"Given a purely scientific basis, what do you think the upper limit of a werewolf's strength might be?"

or:

"I was wondering, from a cinematic perspective, how strong do you think werewolves ought to be? What would it please you most to see in a movie?"

or:

"I love all these neat-o new powers that werewolves have been getting in movies lately (I think wall-climbing is my favorite :3). If werewolves had superpowers, which ones would you like to see most?"

So long as some assumptions to work with are stated beforehand, there should be no problem discussing all different types of werewolf without conflict. And only once we attain that kind diversity will we really be talking about werewolves in general.

(I'm sure this post would have been more cohesive if I weren't half-asleep. Sorry 'bout that.)

-- Vilkacis

wha...hunh...eh...


It seems like you understand and don't understand what I am saying at the same time...as it feels like you are not quite sure what you are saying yourself, contradicting yourself in your own response.

Overall though, I think we are actually on the same page, and feel essentially the same way about this topic Vilkacis. (Even if we disagree about the applicablility of the phrase "Werewolves in General")



Your suggestion that we should all specify what type of werewolf we are talking about is EXACTLY what I was talking about.

...because even when we forget to say so, we ARE always talking about one specific interpretation or another.




Assuming that our views are NOT very different, I think is adding to the problem.


The views and opinons I share here are usually only those that I think are the most compatable, or potentially acceptable to the others I've seen here.

I have many opinions and ideas of how a werewolf could be interpreted, (including ones that are not related to wolves at all, and don't have tails), and my personal preferences are actually VERY different from some pack members here, while similar to others. (For Example...I personally HATE Blood and Gore...HATE Horror movies...and prefer the Harry Potter werewolf over the Underworld one in every way, including it's inherant "pathetic"ness.)



Specifying what version/topic we are talking about will be a very good idea, and something I highly suggest we all do from this point on, because otherwise, I fear more unnecisary misunderstandings will occur.


You keep saying that we need to learn to "Respect" each others opinions.

...well, I think most of us allready know how, and have been doing so all along. The only reason that any of us has felt that our opinions have been disrespected is because it has not been clear what we are actually talking about...often talking about two slightly different things, but mistakenly thinking we are on the same topic.

I totally respect everyones opinions, and support their right to ask for, and enjoy werewolf interpretations that I don't like myself. (Like 9-foot tall, hairless chested, bulging muscled, invincible to humans, uber-hunters who regularly disembowel thier enemies as messily as possible as a form of amusement.)


If you still insist that you really ARE talking about "Werewolves In General"
...somehow...
...at least know this.

I am not.

I am NEVER talking about "WwIG". Know that, and stop assuming that I was. If you are ever not sure what I AM talking about...Ask Me. ...please...just ASK before you get angry at me, becasue I probobly have a good explanation.

~Vuldari

Vuldari wrote:wha...hunh...eh...


It seems like you understand and don't understand what I am saying at the same time...as it feels like you are not quite sure what you are saying yourself, contradicting yourself in your own response.

Would you be willing to elaborate on where you see the contradiction? I've reread my response a few times (especially the highlighted areas), and I'm having a hard time seeing it.

Vuldari wrote:You keep saying that we need to learn to "Respect" each others opinions.

...well, I think most of us allready know how, and have been doing so all along. The only reason that any of us has felt that our opinions have been disrespected is because it has not been clear what we are actually talking about...often talking about two slightly different things, but mistakenly thinking we are on the same topic.

I agree -- to a certain degree. We have, in the past, been very good about respecting others' opinions. It's only in the more recent arguments that I've been seeing people arguing on and on without listening to each other... about opinions!

I think the biggest disagreement between our two views is this: you're saying that these arguments have been occurring because people have been getting things mixed up about this 'werewolves in general' business, while I think that's only a small part of the real problem. And perhaps that's why it seems like I understand you, yet don't. To me, I don't see that as the real source of the problem.

To use your own argument with Excelsia as an example: why was it so important to you to get her to say that a human might stand a chance? As I see it, you are correct in pointing out the issue of this 'werewolves in general' in that both of you were trying to discuss werewolves 'in general,' but were failing because your views on what that entailed didn't quite mesh up. While I agree that that was an issue, I don't think it's the whole story. I also see it as an issue of respect. It may not have been intentional, and perhaps you simply didn't see it (being fixated on this idea of 'werewolves in general' at the time), but I still think you weren't respecting the fact that her idea of werewolves was different than yours (or, perhaps, you were simply not considering that it might be). Whether you intended it or not, what I saw was someone relentlessly pushing their opinion on another.

I'm seeing this kind of thing in many of the arguments that have been occurring lately, which is why I think it important enough to mention (and, I think, why you thought it important enough to make a thread about it).



In any case, whether we agree on the details or not isn't really all that important in this situation. We both seem to agree that the best solution right now is to be more explicit about what we are talking about in order to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. And I think that's a good idea, not only because it helps avoid arguments, but also because it opens up a world of different discussions we've never considered before.

-- Vilkacis

Vuldari wrote:I am NEVER talking about "WwIG". Know that, and stop assuming that I was. If you are ever not sure what I AM talking about...Ask Me. ...please...just ASK before you get angry at me, becasue I probobly have a good explanation.

What's "WwIG"?
I have a pronounced allergy to acronyms...
I break out in general confusion.

Apokryltaros wrote:

Vuldari wrote:I am NEVER talking about "WwIG". Know that, and stop assuming that I was. If you are ever not sure what I AM talking about...Ask Me. ...please...just ASK before you get angry at me, becasue I probobly have a good explanation.

What's "WwIG"?
I have a pronounced allergy to acronyms...
I break out in general confusion.

WwIG =Werewolves In General.

Figarou wrote:

Apokryltaros wrote:

Vuldari wrote:I am NEVER talking about "WwIG". Know that, and stop assuming that I was. If you are ever not sure what I AM talking about...Ask Me. ...please...just ASK before you get angry at me, becasue I probobly have a good explanation.

What's "WwIG"?
I have a pronounced allergy to acronyms...
I break out in general confusion.

WwIG =Werewolves In General.

Some people have acrophobia...
Not only am I one of them, I also have acronymophobia, too.

Apokryltaros wrote:I also have acronymophobia, too.

Well, I have acronymophobophobia, so stay away!

Creepier than spiders, they are, those acronymophobes.


BTW, AFAIK TANSTAAFL, IYKWIM, but WTH is this? IITYWTMWYBMAD?

OTL! LOL!

TTYL

-- Vilkacis

Vilkacis wrote:

Apokryltaros wrote:I also have acronymophobia, too.

Well, I have acronymophobophobia, so stay away!

Creepier than spiders, they are, those acronymophobes.


BTW, AFAIK TANSTAAFL, IYKWIM, but WTH is this? IITYWTMWYBMAD?

OTL! LOL!

TTYL

-- Vilkacis

No hablo espanol?
No hablo englis?

EVERYONE IS BANNED FROM THIS THREAD CAUSE I SAID SO

we all have our beliefs in werewolf in general, Im not shure if should share of what we think to much.

Vilkacis wrote:Would you be willing to elaborate on where you see the contradiction? I've reread my response a few times (especially the highlighted areas), and I'm having a hard time seeing it.

The first two higlighted quotes.

In the first, you say that our opinions are "Not too dissimilar", and then in the second, Emphisise that we all need to realise and accept that they Are.

Vilkacis wrote:I agree -- to a certain degree. We have, in the past, been very good about respecting others' opinions. It's only in the more recent arguments that I've been seeing people arguing on and on without listening to each other... about opinions!

I think the biggest disagreement between our two views is this: you're saying that these arguments have been occurring because people have been getting things mixed up about this 'werewolves in general' business, while I think that's only a small part of the real problem. And perhaps that's why it seems like I understand you, yet don't. To me, I don't see that as the real source of the problem.

You're right. It is not the WHOLE or ONLY problem, but I frequently see that this kind of miscomunication is the "catalyst" for most heated argumants more often than not.

For example:

Vilkacis wrote:To use your own argument with Excelsia as an example: why was it so important to you to get her to say that a human might stand a chance? As I see it, you are correct in pointing out the issue of this 'werewolves in general' in that both of you were trying to discuss werewolves 'in general,' but were failing because your views on what that entailed didn't quite mesh up. While I agree that that was an issue, I don't think it's the whole story. I also see it as an issue of respect. It may not have been intentional, and perhaps you simply didn't see it (being fixated on this idea of 'werewolves in general' at the time), but I still think you weren't respecting the fact that her idea of werewolves was different than yours (or, perhaps, you were simply not considering that it might be). Whether you intended it or not, what I saw was someone relentlessly pushing their opinion on another.

Indeed.

This was a sistuation of ME falling into my own trap of false assumptions and misunderstandings.

It is true that I was caught-up in my thoughts of the "WereWolves in General" problem at the time.

I was assuming that Excelsia was referring to ALL werewolves in General, and what She would be willing to tolerate seeing in the future. When she said that she thought that the idea of a Werewolf being defeated by a human was "Insulting", I was reading beyond her words and was seeing future conversations in my mind that Might occur as a result of her attitude on the subject.

I just didn't want to see her starting a protest or anything like that if (as a hypothetical example), it was revealed that a werewolf was supposed to have a tense, one on one standoff with a human in "Freeborn", and the human was represented as being a formidable match for the Lycanhropic opponent.

I personally would look forward to such a match up/ movie scene, and so was more than a little disturbed to see that Excelsia was not only unfond of the idea, but was straight out declaring that it should Never happen...EVER.

...I mean...it's one thing to say that it would be so rare as to being essentially Unheard Of...but to completely deny the very possibility that a Werewolf would ever loose to, or have reason to be concerned about a Human character in a story...

...anyway...My response was emotionally charged, and more than a little unreasonable.

I reacted the way I did because I FALSELY concluded that my personal view of Human Potential, and Werewolf Mortality was being publicly "INVALIDATED" by her insistance on 'Unwavering Werewolf Superiority'.


I was being unreasonable.

I was wrong.

Vilkacis wrote:I'm seeing this kind of thing in many of the arguments that have been occurring lately, which is why I think it important enough to mention (and, I think, why you thought it important enough to make a thread about it).

In any case, whether we agree on the details or not isn't really all that important in this situation. We both seem to agree that the best solution right now is to be more explicit about what we are talking about in order to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. And I think that's a good idea, not only because it helps avoid arguments, but also because it opens up a world of different discussions we've never considered before.

-- Vilkacis

I am quite exited about this suggestion, and the possibilities it represents.

If the authors of future threads remember to specify unique guidelines to each discussion, it will theoretically become possible to have multiple parallel, yet completely different discussions about the same, or similar topics as applied to different kinds of werewolves.

EX:

*What should/would a purely biological, scientifically probable, Shapeshifting werewolf look like?

*What do You think would make a Great Spiritual (Native American style), werewolf Story/Character?

*What do you like the most/least about Cursed, Demonic Werewolves?

*If we were to make an action Comic-Book/("Graphic Novel") with a Werewolf that battles against supernatural foes with super powers, what kinds of extra "supernatural" abilities should the Werewolf Anti-Hero have?

...etc. etc.

Sounds like fun to me.

~Vuldari

Vuldari wrote:

Vilkacis wrote:Would you be willing to elaborate on where you see the contradiction? I've reread my response a few times (especially the highlighted areas), and I'm having a hard time seeing it.

The first two higlighted quotes.

In the first, you say that our opinions are "Not too dissimilar", and then in the second, Emphisise that we all need to realise and accept that they Are.

Ah!

That's a simple misunderstanding to resolve ^_^

In the first case, I was talking specifically about my view and your view on whether or not 'werewolves in general' existed. Even though I say that it does, it's in a much different way than the way you use the term. So different, in fact, that I didn't see them as disagreeing. Hence: I didn't think our views in that particular situation were too dissimilar. Except, perhaps, I added a bit.

In the second case, I was no longer talking about just you and me, but everyone. I was saying that everyone needs to realize that we don't have the same assumptions as everyone else, etc. In that case, I was no longer talking about 'werewolves in general.'

... Does that resolve the contradiction?

-- Vilkacis

Vilkacis wrote:

Vuldari wrote:

Vilkacis wrote:Would you be willing to elaborate on where you see the contradiction? I've reread my response a few times (especially the highlighted areas), and I'm having a hard time seeing it.

The first two higlighted quotes.

In the first, you say that our opinions are "Not too dissimilar", and then in the second, Emphisise that we all need to realise and accept that they Are.

Ah!

That's a simple misunderstanding to resolve ^_^

In the first case, I was talking specifically about my view and your view on whether or not 'werewolves in general' existed. Even though I say that it does, it's in a much different way than the way you use the term. So different, in fact, that I didn't see them as disagreeing. Hence: I didn't think our views in that particular situation were too dissimilar. Except, perhaps, I added a bit.

In the second case, I was no longer talking about just you and me, but everyone. I was saying that everyone needs to realize that we don't have the same assumptions as everyone else, etc. In that case, I was no longer talking about 'werewolves in general.'

... Does that resolve the contradiction?

-- Vilkacis

That makes sense.