On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virt

[puduhepa98 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 169629

Betsy Hp:
And that is something the 
> Trio has shown they don't  have a grasp of yet. Marietta, for 
> example, has been punished without  benefit of a trial. Hermione 
> removed Marietta's right. IOWs, as per  Hermione, Hermione is more 
> equal than Marietta, because Marietta is  "other" and not quite as 
> human as Hermione is.

Nikkalmati
 
Can you possibly explain how Marietta could have been given a trial?   
Besides this is not a matter of breaking a law, unless it is the law of the  
playground.  We have been told in other threads that the worst thing one  can do at 
this age is rat on your friends (and I wrote a post expressing  the opinion 
that the real theme of the books is loyalty not love).   Marietta did that and 
exposed her friends or at least her "friend" Cho and  a lot of people she knew 
to expulsion.  That much was foreseeable.  In  fact, the consequences could 
have been much worse, but I won't insist on  that.  In the WW expulsion from 
Hogwarts is pretty much a life-long  punishment.  Everyone in the DA knew they 
were taking that risk by the time  the group had met.  Hermione was not 
self-appointed judge, jury and  executioner.  She set a trap.  Anyone who set it off 
was clearly  guilty of a violation of the contract.  The result was automatic, 
like  having your water or phone cut off for nonpayment.  IMHO Hermione did  
give enough warning - in the context of the WW - that there would be  
"consequences" for exposing the DA.  Maybe the penalty would have been a  more effective 
preventative if she had explained more clearly, but it did  work.  Umbridge 
says when Marietta saw the pimples on her face, she  refused to say any more.  
The memory charm was necessary only because  Umbridge was about to take 
extreme measures against Marietta.   
 
I don't see any real excuse for Marietta.  There is evidence that her  mother 
works for the Ministry, yes, but no sign she consulted her mother or that  
her mother put pressure on her.    
 
Nikkalmati
 

Alla:

We will just agree to disagree here, although probably to  a degree. I 
do not subscribe completely to dan(?) idea that JKR supports  
anarchists values that strongly, but I think to a degree she does.

I  think she shows that in corrupt system justice needs to be taken in 
own  hands sometimes. Of course there is always question of the degree 
and when  it is taken too far. IMO of course.


Nikkalmati
 
Setting a trap of this type in the RW would be illegal, but the WW is  more 
Libertarian. Everyone is expected to look out for him or herself more  or less. 
 I certainly agree the JKR supports direct action in cases where  it is 
warranted.  The stakes here are very high.  It is not fair to  look at the DA as a 
study group, regardless of what some of the members  thought.  We know it is a 
strike against LV and an attempt to save the  world. It was an emergency 
situation. 
 
Nikkalmati
.

> Betsy Hp:
> Which is easy. Of course  Bellatrix and Fenrir and Voldemort are 
bad 
> and deserving of  punishment. One doesn't tolerate the killing of 
> children, torture,  murder, etc. (Though that doesn't or shouldn't 
> allow one to torture and  murder in turn.)
> 
> But Marietta is not a Voldemort supporter.  Zach Smith is not a 
> Voldemort supporter. Rita Skeeter is not a  Voldemort supporter. 
And 
> yet, Harry and co. all enjoy (and  sometimes seem to rather relish) 
> the physical and emotional pains they  put those characters 
through. 
> Why is that okay? Because they're  different enough, in their 
> beliefs, in their methodologies, that they  register as "other".
 
Nikkalmati
 
Marietta is not being attacked for her beliefs or her political  opinion.  
She suffers from the consequences of what she  did.
 
Nikkalmati

Montavilla47:
> A better example: Snape is frustrated because  Harry doesn't give 
him respect. 
> But Harry doesn't give Snape  respect because Snape started their 
relationship by 
> humiliating  him. If Snape had showed an even basic respect for 
Harry, Harry 
>  would have returned basic respect in return. Whether they hated 
each other  or 
> not would be irrelevant.

Alla:

I am not sure I  understand the relevance of this analogy. Because in 
my view Snape did not  give Harry basic respect precisely because he 
hated him. So, how can their  hatred (now mutual) can ever be 
irrelevant to the evaluating potential  tolerance between them?

JMO,

Alla
 
Nikkalmati
 
I know we are poles apart here.  Snape asked some hard questions of  Harry, 
which he did not expect him to be able to answer and made a few remarks  about 
"fame isn't everything."  I don't see that as lack of respect.   What Harry 
did was show lack of respect for a teacher.   Now don't get  me wrong, I thought 
his remark about "why don't you ask Hermione, I thing she  knows" was 
hilarious and I still get a chuckle out of it, but it is clear Harry  has a smart 
mouth for a first year student and an arrogant attitude - what I  would call a 
chip on his shoulder.  In my school (ages ago) a student would  be sent to the 
principal for answering back to a teacher (one 4th grade teacher  liked to rap 
students' knuckles with a ruler, ow! ,but not me of course))  Remember, we 
don't know and Harry doesn't know, Snape has any reason to hate  Harry in SS/PS. 
JMHO
 
Nikkalmati




************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]