Rumia: Extra Stage material but doesn't understand?

[NekoNekoRex]

And by that I mean no consensus - not about mirrors, or sunlight, or garlic, or running water, nor even drinking blood. The vampire is a myth found in many, many countries around the world and they all have hugely different properties.

I mention this to avoid the kind of tiresome derails about Vampire Do's and Don't's that any talk of Flandre and Remilia almost always derails into. Whatever you want to say about either character, citing the non-existent "traditional" vampire as per Wikipedia isn't going to help much.

I'm quoting the vampire traits that specifically relate to touhou, though. Stuff that's already canonically known about Touhou Vampires, of which you can find a comparison chart (along with other fictional vampires) on wikipedia. Most of the stuff is assumedly taken from canon material. I'm not a touhou expert (I really should read the print works), though, so I've just been paraphrasing the subject from touhouwiki and wp.

IIRC there are actually mentions of these things in the games or print works, I haven't mentioned anything they aren't proven to be weak to (aside from the below). I AM following the canon.

I found it odd that Wikipedia said that Remilia couldn't be caught on film, since that would make her stage in Shoot the Bullet  a lot of bunk. I was wondering what it was that made someone "confirm" that on the comparison chart.

I'm not trying to debate stuff that's in the air, at all, I'm literally just quoting stuff that's been proven or is apparently so.

[Tengukami]

Ah, the use of "Wikipedia" as opposed to "Touhou Wiki" threw me off, and made me think you were talking about vampires in general. My apologies.

[Starxsword]

The Devs Didn't Think Of Everything

Traditionally, Vampires don't cast a shadow, among other superstitions, like:
-They don't have a reflection
-Can't go in a house uninvited
-Can't cross running water
-Dislike garlic

etc etc there's a lot of them, and they're all weaksauce weaknesses.

Well, there are several stuff in the air. Remilia is pretty much the only example, because Flandre is rarely seen.

Shadows are iffy, I don't think it is ever mentioned, but hey there are shadows in the games.
I'm not sure if that reflection thing was ever mentioned, so assumed true.
I think Remilia invites herself to Reimu's house, so I am assuming vampires can go in a house uninvited.
Running water is true, as it is mentioned in Silent Sinner in Blue.
I don't think she has interacted with garlic, so assumed true.

[Sagus]

I'd say that the things that aren't mentioned should be assumed false, not true, since, well, they aren't mentioned. There's no reason to believe they apply. Being common in "normal" vampire folklore doesn't mean anything.

I mean, come on. Akyuu mentions a weakness as specific as roasted beans (she also mentioned the water thing, both for crossing rivers and rain, btw). If she didn't mention those other characteristics, I really doubt they apply at all. And don't "Akyuu is unreliable!" on me. If nothing in canon contradicts her word, and she herself doesn't present it as a mere hypothesis, then it's reliable.

[Cybeast710]

I'd say that the things that aren't mentioned should be assumed false, not true, since, well, they aren't mentioned. There's no reason to believe they apply. Being common in "normal" vampire folklore doesn't mean anything.

We have strayed off topic here, haven't we? Heh, this is pretty cool.

BUT: :objection!:

In statistics, we have a null hypotheses and an alternate hypotheses. We start from the null, and until it is too improbable to believe, we hold it. The null can never be proved, only fail to be disproved.

In this case, the null is that classic folklore is true when it comes to Remilia and Flandre. There are nulls for each one of these tenets.

Let's look at evidence to contradict these.

The shadows in the fighters are precedent as Remilia does indeed cast a shadow. Therefore, she DEFINITELY casts one. (Don't give me that it was an unintended consequence, you have no evidence to support your argument unless you have a statement from the creators themselves. Guess who's been playing Ace Attorney.)

As a shadow and a reflection are derived from the same thing (light rays), reflections are believable, but not outright proven. This one I fail to reject based on inconclusive evidence.

Forget Remilia inviting herself into Reimu's place, she outright BROKE INTO EIENTEI in Imperisahable Night (Sakuya/Remilia), thus definitely proving that she doesn't need an invitation to enter someone's home.

The cross? Hmm... that's one that has no proof in canon, but fanon ITSELF holds she doesn't, if all the CHRISTMAS STUFF is to be believed. By the way, I don't believe it.

Dislike Garlic: 0 evidence to the contrary, assumed true.

Yeah, but like you said, there's very little evidence, and this thread was about Rumia. Although its entertaining to watch this discussion, reminder that the only point that had anything to do with the original topic was SHADOWS.

[Sagus]

The cross? Hmm... that's one that has no proof in canon, but fanon ITSELF holds she doesn't, if all the CHRISTMAS STUFF is to be believed. By the way, I don't believe it.

Touhou vampires don't have problems with crosses, going by Aya's comment on Flandre's 2nd spellcard on StB (which use cross-shaped danmaku): "I was fairly sure vampires were weak to the cross symbol, but it doesn't seem like it. She just came out and played with it..."

And I really have to disagree with your initial point. It simply doesn't make sense to assume something that was never mentioned to be true just because it's common in other media. Touhou vampires already differ from "traditional" vampires by being immune to crosses and being burned by roasted beans. And I have to insist, if Akyuu, a youkai specialist who's writting a book specifically to aid humans combat youkai, didn't talk about such obvious and "traditional" weaknesses while mentioning something as weirdly out-of-place-in-a-vampire-article as being burned by roasted beans, then it simply means they don't have them.

[Tengukami]

Dislike Garlic: 0 evidence to the contrary, assumed true.

There is a tiny, invisible dwarf living in your stomach that makes you type over-caffeinated blather.

0 evidence to the contrary, assumed true.

[NekoNekoRex]

Dislike Garlic: 0 evidence to the contrary, assumed true.

This is actually a logical fallacy known as "Burden of Proof", you shouldn't ever do this in debate.

also, it's stated she hates garlic in her IN profile.

It goes without saying that she is weak against sunlight, can't cross flowing water, hates garlic, and despises sardine heads. Crosses have no effect on her. It puzzles her to hear that her kind are supposed to be weak against such a thing.

[Drake]

In this case, the null is that classic folklore is true when it comes to Remilia and Flandre. There are nulls for each one of these tenets.

Wat. No it isn't. "Touhou vampires follow classic vampire folklore" is what the claim is.

The cross? Hmm... that's one that has no proof in canon

yes it does

[Sagus]

also, it's stated she hates garlic in her IN profile.

Huh, so it does. Could be just a personal dislike, though, not a weakness in the traditional sense. Unless it's worded differently in the orignal japanese...? (drake help here plz)

[Drake]

苦手, which is specifically "not good with". Can range from "I'm bad with money" to "I'm uncomfortable around clowns" to "I have a lactose intolerance" and the like, but not a weakness exactly.

[Cybeast710]

Wat. No it isn't. "Touhou vampires follow classic vampire folklore" is what the claim is.

That is the NULL ASSUMPTION for a vampire. That's like saying the claim is "The client is innocent." Sure, it may be true, but there is almost no way to reduce the probability of guilty to 0. Likeways, we can't prove that there is no way they don't. For there are many, many ways they could not follow it, but only one way they can. We can, however, DISPROVE that they do.

yes it does

OK, Mr. Wright.  Please display the evidence. (Again, I'm playing Ace Attorney, and you are giving a statement without the supporting evidence.

[Sagus]

OK, Mr. Wright.  Please display the evidence. (Again, I'm playing Ace Attorney, and you are giving a statement without the supporting evidence.

Me and NekoNekoRex just did that.

Me:

Touhou vampires don't have problems with crosses, going by Aya's comment on Flandre's 2nd spellcard on StB (which use cross-shaped danmaku): "I was fairly sure vampires were weak to the cross symbol, but it doesn't seem like it. She just came out and played with it..."

NekoNekoRex:

also, it's stated she hates garlic in her IN profile.

"It goes without saying that she is weak against sunlight, can't cross flowing water, hates garlic, and despises sardine heads. Crosses have no effect on her. It puzzles her to hear that her kind are supposed to be weak against such a thing."

Also, this is not a "real life case", so to speak. All the data that is avaliable regarding the subject is already known. Nowhere it's stated that Touhou vampires are weak to garlic (as Drake just showed, that line in her profile can simply be interpreted as a personal dislike). Therefore, it makes no sense to say that they do. It really, REALLY doesn't matter what "normal" vampire folklore says. What, are we also gonna say that Remilia can turn into a wolf, too? Into mist? That she has 6 fingers in each hand, all with the same length? That she has a monobrow and hair on her palms? All these things are part of vampire folklore, from one place or another. By your logic, we can assume all of the above applies.

[Drake]

That is the NULL ASSUMPTION for a vampire. That's like saying the claim is "The client is innocent." Sure, it may be true, but there is almost no way to reduce the probability of guilty to 0. Likeways, we can't prove that there is no way they don't. For there are many, many ways they could not follow it, but only one way they can. We can, however, DISPROVE that they do.

No, that's just an assumption; that is, you are making the claim. There are two possibilities: "Touhou vampires follow classic vampire folklore" and "Touhou vampires do not follow classic vampire folklore". If you were to positively assert either of these they would be claims on their own, as does your assumption. By saying that Touhou vampires follow classic vampire folklore, you are making the claim. You now have a set of attributes of classic vampires possess that you are required to show evidence of, you do not get to assume that they hold.

I think you're just mixed up, since you seem to mostly understand how this goes. Because we can disprove "Touhou vampires do not follow classic vampire folklore", by showing said attributes hold, this is not the claim to make, this is the null hypothesis. We cannot disprove that they adhere to classic vampires since there is no evidence that could possibly do this (well, a few of the attributes you might be able to, but that is a separate claim).

If I were to put this as a different example, you have this medicine that works on rats and uses the same mechanisms that humans have. Cool. You are claiming that the medicine works on humans and that this should be the null. You do studies, and you can show that the medicine works on humans, or you receive no evidence that the medicine works on humans. The lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence that the medicine does not work on humans, but the null hypothesis regardless is that the medicine doesn't work on humans. This is what we're saying. Now, in this case you could provide enough trends showing a distinct lack of any result that the medicine works on humans that you could reasonably say that the medicine doesn't work on humans, but this is not the same as making the claim with certainty that the medicine doesn't work on humans (whereas you seem to think this is what we're doing).

Please display the evidence. (Again, I'm playing Ace Attorney, and you are giving a statement without the supporting evidence.

I had it ready but the post literally one above mine had it already and I figured you could read.

[Kwak]

In statistics, we have a null hypotheses and an alternate hypotheses. We start from the null, and until it is too improbable to believe, we hold it. The null can never be proved, only fail to be disproved.
In this case, the null is that classic folklore is true when it comes to Remilia and Flandre.

That sounds backwards. Wouldn't a null hypothesis be to assume that the relationship between the Scarlets and traditional vampires is, well, null? If we're going to pick some sort of canon source to assume they adhere to, I think it'd make more sense to stick to Akyuu's section on vampires a null, rather than this nebulous "classic folklore" thing. What does that even mean, anyway? Do we have to assume Flandre sparkles in the sunlight until we see evidence to the contrary?

[Cybeast710]

That sounds backwards. Wouldn't a null hypothesis be to assume that the relationship between the Scarlets and traditional vampires is, well, null? If we're going to pick some sort of canon source to assume they adhere to, I think it'd make more sense to stick to Akyuu's section on vampires a null, rather than this nebulous "classic folklore" thing. What does that even mean, anyway? Do we have to assume Flandre sparkles in the sunlight until we see evidence to the contrary?

*chuckle* I agree with Drake and you on further review. Also, don't even GO THERE about Twilight. GAH, they don't count.

[Starxsword]

Some stuff about Rumia.
On the new moon, she inexplicably cannot use her powers. That is one of the few times you will see her without the globe of darkness.
Also, the globe of darkness can block light from the inside, so it is likely magical darkness.

[Drake]

Mistranslation, good thing you pointed that out, I'll fix that. It says she doesn't use her powers, not that she can't. Of course, in BaiJR she says that in moonlight she doesn't need to use her powers, so it doesn't really matter one way or the other. There's a very small disconnect though, since PMiSS notes specifically during the new moon rather than just at night, but that isn't a big deal.

[Zerviscos]

I find it rather odd how this thread derailed to Remilia, and vampires. Searching this page, you'll only find two posts that has "Rumia" it it.
Edit: Make that three...

If we're sticking to Touhou Canon(like we did numerous times), then no real logic actually applies here.

[Cybeast710]

I find it rather odd how this thread derailed to Remilia, and vampires. Searching this page, you'll only find two posts that has "Rumia" it it.
Edit: Make that three...

If we're sticking to Touhou Canon(like we did numerous times), then no real logic actually applies here.

It derailed because the topic of shadows came up.

[Error]

So, what if some jerk turned Rumia's ability upside-down?

[Drake]

so what if some jerk turned the universe upside-down lololol

you know because she can turn anything upside-down right

right

[Cybeast710]

So, what if some jerk turned Rumia's ability upside-down?

Yeah, then she gains power from light and lack of shadows, and then we're even MORE fucked.

[Sagus]

So, what if some jerk turned Rumia's ability upside-down?

Instead of materializing from top to bottom, Rumia's magic dark bubble would start materializing from bottom to top.