Considering none of the actual members of Millennium who are worth anything in the long run are never even shown drinking blood I'd say yes
No notable vampire in the series is shown drinking blood aside from Alucard and Seras, both skilled vampires.
They're vampires, they live on blood. The priest drained multiple people and still only had one life. If every vampire gained a new life every time they drank a new person you'd think someone else other than Alucard might have a large stockpile, or any stockpile. And yet no other vampire is ever shown to have multiple lives. It's very questionable claiming that absorbing blood means absorbing it the same way as Alucard when only he has gained extra lives from it.
And yet none of your argument is founded upon any anti feats, rather your basing them on whataboutism's and
Every other vampire dies once and stays dead, proof they don't have more than one life. That is an anti-feat that contradicts them all absorbing extra lives.
First of all I don't dislike you, I have no reason to dislike a literal stranger I've hardly interacted with before. Now stop letting your emotions clout your judgment and get back to the topic.
You may have noticed I'm calm this time. Last time I was stressed after months of dealing with that thread and all the crap that came with it. This time I was just stating what's obviously true. You can't claim you were ever civil with me when you were always rude and aggressive, and you did come in at the end after that damned thread had gone on for months and now you've essentially continued it... You're well within your right to make a thread, but a few months to recover from the last one would have been nice...
I am not using any headcanon for saying only Alucard was effected whenever the Major outright states it.
This is the problem, you've asserted that erasing the blood erases the souls in the blood, and yet the souls in the blood weren't erased. We can't say souls in blood are erased but only Alucard's, nor can we say that because the major never specifies the other souls as well that means erasing the blood only erases Alucard and not all the other souls in the same blood.
1: No, it's literally contained within the blood hence why Alucard is able to absorb souls and minds upon drinking blood. The blood is where the soul and mind reside, this is stated and shown by Alucard accessing familiars.
That is one interpretation, indeed. He can certainly use blood to draw out the soul from the body. Still, other vampires can't seem to do it, the other souls in Alucard's erased blood weren't erased... This is a wacky situation.
3: Again the 3 millions souls is irrelevant as they were not targeted by the Major, Alucard was targeted directly as the Major literally bolds out.
The Major directly states Alucard was the one effected, not his soul stock. And FYI I never changed my argument, I've said the soul-stock was irrelevant from my first reply.
The problem is that you have been asserting that erasing the blood necessitates that the soul is also erased. By that rule, we can't really say that the blood of 3 million souls was erased but only Alucard was erased while the others weren't just because the major targeted Alucard and stated he would disappear.
"this is you literally ignoring arguments since I've already explained why regenerating from the Erasure of blood would be mid-godly. The blood statement doesn't have a lot of ways to be interpreted, it's pretty straightforward." (my keyboard erased the quotation, because it's ornery)"
Currency or coinage is not as straightforward as saying it contains it. It could, but it's not as clear-cut as it could be. As I said, currency doesn't necessarily contain the value it transfers. It can be used to transfer it via other powers at work, but doesn't automatically contain it.
your attitude has been enough and I'm tired of it already.
In fairness, you insulted me first calling me ignorant and saying I failed all the time. If you get to be aggressive as stated by Crabwhale who said you were being aggressive, then me being defensive and recognising that aggression shouldn't be seen as unreasonable.
And I wasn't gaslighting. When I said it was contrary, I meant that we can't say blood being erased also erases the souls and then say it can erase all the blood of millions while only erasing one of the millions of those souls, just because someone targeted them.
anyway I don't have the time nor the patience to be going back and forth with you. As I said I'll leave it up to the other to see who they agree with.
Imagine how I feel... This is right after I was heavily involved in that last thread... Couldn't we have waited a few months or something? Oh well.