I figure selective dining is selective dining. Give it human morals and we say that Edward's eating "bad guys" is slightly less wrong than the vampire eating pregnant women. But it's still choosing who lives and who dies, and not just getting a meal because you're unbearably thirsty, which I would find more understandable.Cocoa wrote:Playing with Tennyo's argument alittle. I find this facinating, could you can lump Edward into the same catagory as a vampire who say...has a thing for Pregnant women and only dines on them? This vamp too would be selective dining.
This actually is related to something I've been thinking about...I notice that when the newborn army is springing up, there are no (once again operating on early morning memory, feel free to correct) deaths reported of children. Some of these deaths are the newborns themselves, and it's understandable not to want kids in Victoria's army. On the other hand, many of tehse deaths are solely the newborns having a meal.
So why abstain from children? Rationally I would say it's because they don't contain enough blood, or maybe your scent has to "ripen" or something before you smell really tasty. But perhaps there is some vestiges of humanity in vampires that sees the killing of children as vile, and when faced with the choice, even a REV will take the old guy over the little kid (do I think that they never eat children? No, but I think maybe if they have a choice they won't).
I'm not bolding this question because the other discussions are ongoing, and I'm not entirely sure my information is right here. Maybe some kids did get killed and I overlooked that part...