[Raynor]

Once its established & agreed upon, not when one simply assumes that which is to be proved.

Ok, let me ask you again: if a person considers that rape, torture unnecessary killings and destructions, & co are immoral, then isn't it a contradiction in terms between <<to derrive pleasure from tales of rape, torture, etc>> and <<claiming to be moral>>?

But you didn't mention anything about presenting them as role models - you talked about having a 'fascination with them'.

The first question was about fascination with vampires, the second was about books on vampires. I don't see the problem with my answers, perhaps you could clarify your comment.

I think 'personal convictions' are all well & good, but to simply throw one into a discussion (one in which, I might add, you have repeatedly demanded that other posters supply 'evidence' & justify each single point they make) is hardly likely to further the discussion

I didn't throw this conviction; you requested that I present it.

No, you see, what you're doing is making all encompassing statements ('x' is a truism) & when the statement is challenged you respond to the effect that 'I was only referring to situations where said person accepts this to be the case.'

First of all, I mentioned truism in my very last post. Second of all, which of my posts can be interpreted as to mean that I was not in fact reffering to a person who already accepts these moral values (i.e. that ideas/feelings/propensities of torture,rape, kilings are immoral)?