Real child abuse/ Snape again

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 145593

> Miles:
> You are talking about emotional abuse - but the prerequisite for 
emotional
> abuse is a emotional connection between abuser and abused. Typical 
emotional
> abuse happens between parents and children. Sometimes an adult 
builds up a
> situation of trust, security and love to a child and exploits this 
emotional
> relationship later - teachers can do this.
> There is no such thing like an emotional relationship between 
Neville and
> Snape, and Snape is far away from a position to emotionally abuse 
Neville.

Alla:

IMO, there is no such thing as typical emotional abuse - it can 
happen between different parties in very different situations - 
parents and children, husband and wife, as you acknowledge between 
teachers and children. I would also disagree about no emotional 
connection between Snape and Neville and I see that you did not 
argue that there is no emotional connection between Snape and Harry, 
so I take we DO agree that there is an emotional connection between 
them - in fact I would argue that Snape purposefully increased such 
connection and made SURE that Harry knew about it.

Those kids are in boarding school, they don't see their parents for 
many months, in fact Harry and Neville have NO parents to see and 
teachers stay in loco parentis for all of them anyway.

I would argue that teachers have HUGE emotional power over those 
kids and gross misuse of such power is in fact emotional abuse.


Miles:
> Another necessity for abuse is that they cause or could cause 
serious
> behavioural, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorders. We never 
saw any
> student of Snape's classes that suffers from any of this.

Alla:

You may have not seen it, but I definitely did - to me Neville's 
boggart is a metaphor for all that. IMO of course.


Miles: 
> We can agree, that Snape is a nasty person and an unfair teacher, 
far away
> from treating his students equally and respectful. But abuse - no 
canon
> support for this, if we do not use very private definitions of 
child abuse,
> but scholastic ones.

Alla:

Sorry, Miles, but I am not sure what you meant by "private" 
definition of emotional abuse. I hope you don't mean that I evaluare 
abuse by definitions "written" by me or something, because then it 
is simply incorrect. The  definition of emotional abuse I brought up 
was  actually in response to your post and I was not the author. :-)

There IS a huge canon support for Snape being an emotional abuser, 
IMO. 

I gave multiple quotes recently and will send them to you again, if 
you wish.

You interpret that differently, I understand and that is your right. 
Actually at this point I am just arguing against the idea that 
people who DO see Snape as abuser somehow make "outlandish" 
arguments. I understand the other interpretation, it is certainly 
reasonable, but mine is reasonable too IMO.


Jasmyn:
> Harry is a loose canon who doesn't care about the consequences of 
his 
> actions, who leads his friends onto danger, his monstrous ego 
believing 
> he can defeat Voldemort as nothing more then a kid.

Alla:

Do you have any canon support for Harry's monstrous ego? 

Jasmyn:
   Harry should be 
> locked up before he gets anymore people killed or worse.  


Alla:

MAHAHAHA! I suspect the whole Wizarding World will disagree with 
you. Because without Harry they are doomed, don't they?

But that is of course strictly my opinion,

Alla