Snape's abuse (Re: Would an "O" for Harry vindicate Snape?)

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 131689

Chris labmystc wrote:
"So, if person A is doing what he is doing, person B just has to deal
with it? What about person C, D, E, F and so on and so forth. When
enough people get together to say one thing is wrong, or that they
feel person A is a problem, usually that is enough to prove there is
in fact a problem, right?"

Del replies:
It depends on what you call "enough".

If "a lot of" people get together to say one thing is wrong, then it
means that that thing is quickly becoming not morally acceptable by
their society's standards anymore.

But if "a few" people get together to say they disagree with
something, it might only mean that they are misfits. It does not
necessarily mean that they are visionaries who have a higher morality.

For example, if a couple of students argued that a fat person is not a
good role-model, and that consequently no fat person should be allowed
to teach kids, would you call them visionaries or misfits?

Chris labmystc wrote:
"If Harry and the rest come out and say that Snape is unnecessarily
abusive toward them, that's enough. Regardless of what the society's
rules and morality are, if there is a widespread problem with enough
people complaining, something has to be done."

Del replies:
I quite agree. However, NOBODY is complaining about Snape to ANYONE in
power. IIRC, not even Harry or Neville ever talked to DD or McG about
Snape. And I can't remember any other student ever saying that they
had a real problem with Snape.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"People stood up when they had a problem regardless of what society at
the time thought, and enacted change! Why can't Harry and the other 
students do the same?"

Del replies:
I never said they can't do the same! In fact, I encourage them to do
the same. But the problem is that they don't WANT to! NONE of them has
 EVER tried to enact such a change. And if THEY won't fight, why
should anyone else fight for them?

Chris labmystc wrote:
"Really? I always thought that the collective consciousness of a 
society was based on the individual consciounesses of the society at 
large."

Del replies:
Agreed. And the general WW morality seems to be that Snape's methods
are fine...

Chris labmystc wrote:
"But do these "repulsive" things of a society personally impact upon
an individual? Society generally accepts homosexuality, but there are
many who find this lifestyle repulsive. Does this lifestyle have a
personal impact on these people? No, it does not. Homosexuals live out
their lives without ever being around or involved with these 
individuals."

Del replies:
I disagree. When homosexuality is taught as normal in school to
children, then they are impacted. And yes I know that it hasn't
happened yet, but it will. I read an article recently about a school
that tried to do just that in the US. It was stopped by the parents
getting in league to prevent it. Which goes to show that accepting
homosexuality DOES ALREADY impact everyone.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"Not so with Snape and the students. He is personally impacting each
one of the children that he is in contact with."

Del replies:
Agreed. But is he *traumatising* all of them? I don't think so. And
*that* is what matters. The fact that the kids have a teacher they
don't like is of no importance (think of Hagrid and the Ravenclaws, or
the boys and Lockhart). It's the fact that some of them are
traumatised or abused by him that matters. And so far we know of only
one kid who is traumatised by Snape, and a second one who is abused.
By Muggle standards (and by mine, make no mistake), this is already
way too much, but it seems to be acceptable by WW standards. Now, I am
ALL for someone, anyone, in the WW to argue the case that the WW
standards stink, and that a no-casualty rule should be implemented.
But as long as nobody does it, then our criticising Snape for having a
few casualties is pointless.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"The wizarding society may accept this behavioe as a whole, but
individuals like Harry, Neville, and the others do not."

Del replies:
Actually, they do. They don't complain, do they? They don't band
together, they don't take action, they don't write a Letter to the
Headmaster, or to the Board of Governors. Nothing, they do absolutely
nothing.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"But Harry doesn't have a problem with the way Snape looks at him. He
has a problem with the way he is being treated and spoken to. Does
looking at someone really cause them harm in anyway, whether they 
like the way you look at them or not? No. But verbally abusing and
mistreating someone does."

Del replies:
No, it doesn't necessarily. Many kids are not hurt by verbal abuse or
mistreatment. They don't like it, sure, but they are not hurt by it
either. Honestly, Neville seems to be the only one hurt by Snape's
verbal abuse. Even Harry is not really *hurt* by Snape's treatment. He
is angered and upset by it, sure, but he's not hurt by it. As others
have pointed out, he doesn't have nightmares about Snape, Snape is
nowhere in the list of his worst fears, and so on. And when Snape
leaves him alone, Harry has no problem going to Potions lessons.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"But the WW, in absence of a constitution would use these educational
decrees and any other orders by the Ministry as law. Who decides that
these laws are immoral, the people enacting them or the people in
society that have to live by them? Obviously, Umbridge didn't think
that these decrees were immoral, so they must not be. Oh, wait.
Everyone else thought they sucked, but that's ok. It's acceptable
because she's the High Inquisitor."

Del replies:
Technically, yes. This is precisely why nobody at school, not even DD,
could do anything: they had their hands tied by the fact that those
Decrees were perfectly legal. Sure they were immoral, and the teachers
clearly showed they disagreed with them, but they had no legal
recourse against them. 

What is badly needed in the WW is something like a Constitution.
Something that states the basic rights of people, and the basic
acceptable and non-acceptable beliefs. As long as there is no such
Constitution, the WW is at the mercy of the current political powers :
Crouch sending people to Azkaban without a trial, Umbridge and her
Decrees, Fudge having a suspect soul-sucked without a trial, and of
course the DEs freely spouting their purebloodist trash.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"Who says you have to swallow it? Did Ghandi, did Martin Luther King?
Did Martin Luther in his Protestant Reformation? Did Abraham Lincoln?
Are we as individuals so small that we cannot do what we can to enact
change? The answer is no. The reason things stay the same is because
nobody has the guts to stand up and try to change it. We should just
deal with what we can, and ignore everythig else that bothers us? No."

Del replies:
It's not just the guts, you know :) It's also the means and the
support. Not to mention the will to risk one's life, and even more
others' lives...

Chris labmystc wrote:
"UH, I'm not in the books. I believe Harry, Neville, Hermione, 
Lavender, Patil, all the Weasleys, Sirius, Remus Lupin, Mad-Eye Moody,
more than likely James AND Lily were they alive...sounds like they
have a problem with it. I think I have fictional back-up on this  one..."

Del replies:
I'd like to see it. I'd like to see where any of them ever indicated
that they wanted to take action against Snape, or even that they were
truly disturbed by Snape. Sure they don't like him, but apart from
James, Lily and Sirius, I don't remember any of them actually DOING
something against Snape, not even reporting him.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"Who is asking him to act like or be a convict? I'm just saying he 
should start treating the children a little bit better, as most adults
would do in a "civilized" society."

Del replies:
Careful ;) Are you saying that the British society of a few decades
ago was not civilised?

Chris labmystc wrote:
"You're right. He has no obligation to be nice, treat children with
respect, teach in a constructive manner, be a good human being and 
role model for his students, or in any way act like a respectable
adult in a position of power. He should continue abusing his
authority, lower children's self-respect and esteem, berate those with
less authority and power than himself, and overall act like a general
ass. I applaud him!"

Del replies:
Using sarcasm won't get you anywhere. You know perfectly well that I
am not saying I approve his behaviour, nor am I encouraging him to
keep at it. Moreover, you still haven't demonstrated that Snape DOES
have ANY obligation to be nice. Can you do so?

Chris labmystc wrote:
"Since these books are called "Harry Potter and the..." and you say 
Potterverse, I think Harry has a little say too. :-)  "

Del replies:
Too bad he doesn't say anything then...

Chris labmystc wrote:
"Unusual for most of the rational, free-thinking adults. Yes."

Del replies:
I'm not sure what you mean by that?

Chris labmystc wrote:
"You're right. The first thing I plan on teaching my children when
they're older is that they can walk over anybody, make fun of less
fortunate people, criticize anyone and anything they wish, and be
little monsters if they feel like it. As a matter of fact, I will save
my copies of the books and tell them I hope they are more like Snape
when they are adults.
Oh yeah. Then again I won't. Because the last thing I want to do is
add more pieces of crap into what we call society."

Del replies:
Useless sarcasm again.

Am I advocating that we teach kids to be like Snape? You should know
that this is not what I mean. I am going to teach my son to be nice,
because as a Christian I "believe in" niceness.

But does that mean that I have a right to impose this standard on
anyone else? No. Other people have a RIGHT to choose to be un-nice if
they want to. If you can prove otherwise, then please do so.

Del