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

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 169542

> > >>Alla:
> > Well, sure, everyone has a right to be on the *right* side, I 
agree 
> > and should be accepted if they want to.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Ah, but houyhnhnm is saying everyone has a right *to be*. 

Alla:

HA. I definitely misunderstood then.

Betsy Hp:
 Your 
> political choices shouldn't determine whether or not you have the 
> right to exist as a human being.  Whether you share basic human 
> rights like a right to a fair trial, etc.  

Alla:

Sure, on the other hand your political choices will often lead to the 
consequences of them IMO and I do not subscribe to the absolute moral 
relativism idea ( not saying that you do, just in general) and think 
that some political choices make you a bad person. So, yeah, 
every murderer and torturer has a right to fair trial, at the same 
time if I see enough evidence that this IS a murderer and torturer, 
then in fiction ( certainly not in RL), I will condemn them freely. I 
believe (sorry, just bring Snape here for one second) that for 
example when I read about someone firing Avada in somebody, that for 
me in fiction truly enough to condemn somebody. It is as if I am 
eyewitness to the crime. If I am wrong later on, oh well – it is 
after all just fiction.



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.

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.

Betsy Hp:
> Harry and Co. think they can dictate what all is involved in being 
on 
> the "right side".  And apparently it's not merely being against 
> Voldemort.  One must also be against the Ministry, for Dumbledore, 
> for the Gryffindor quidditch team, personally positive towards 
Harry 
> and his friends, and I *think* that's everything.  Oh, and of 
course, 
> you need to be willing to turn on your family the *moment* they 
> question any of the above.  Then you come close to rating as being 
on 
> the "right" side.

Alla:

See above.


 
> 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".
> 
> Imagine if someone blackmailed Hagrid into quitting his job.  
Imagine 
> if Hermione had a word written across her face in purple pustules.  
> Imagine if Ron was hexed and then assaulted by a member of an 
opposing 
> quidditch team.  Would that be okay?  What if the perpetrators 
> thought their actions valid?
<SNIP>


Alla;

Nope, to me it is not always okay, but very understandable because 
their actions are bad to me.

I am fully convinced that she knew what Umbridge was capable of and 
she still went to her. Bad judgment in my opinion, very bad.  So, 
yes, not a Voldemort supporter, but her action IMO is worthy of 
junior Voldemort supporter.

Sure, Zach Smith is a very good example of what trio needs to learn 
as I mentioned upthread. He did not commit anything which I believe 
can be characterized as *absolutely bad*, he just questioned Harry.

So, here I agree.

Rita Skeeter IMO while obviously not a Voldemort supporter was 
printing deliberate lies for nothing else except profit. I think it 
is very bad, unless any sort of noble purpose existed there.

I think JKR herself enjoyed punished her, but sure she is not a 
Voldemort supporter.


Now,whether it would be okay if somebody blackmailed Hagrid to quit 
his job. Um, no, it would not be IMO, but if the reason for that 
would be Hagrid spreading out deliberate lies about somebody else, in 
other words, committing something that bad, I would totally 
understand 
the blackmailer.

And hypothetical with Hermione is the easiest - YES, believe me, if 
Hermione would betray her fellow students to Umbridge, I would say 
she completely deserved pustules on her face.

Snipping everything else, we are so very very different on this.

Alla.


> Alla:
> > So, suppose Malfoy decides that being with DE and Lordie Voldy 
suits 
> > his fancy better. Does that mean that Trio should applaud him and 
> > accept his choice? I mean, applaud probably is the wrong word, 
but 
> > you know what I mean.
> > 
> > Are they still obligated to think that he is a wonderful person 
to be 
> > considered you know, tolerant?
> 
> Montavilla47:
> No, actually.  The definition of tolerance is not thinking that 
people are 
> wonderful if they aren't.  The essence of tolerance is treating 
with respect 
> people you *don't* think are wonderful.  
> 
> It's the Golden Rule thingy.  "Do unto others as you would have 
them do 
> unto you."


Alla:

Um, yes, I know that rule. And as I mentioned upthread to me it is 
one thing to treat with respect people with different beliefs than 
yours and totally different to treat with respect the people who 
commit awful things, who commit evil. So I suppose I think there are 
some people in Potterverse who do not deserve respect at all ( 
Voldemort, Bella, Malfoy Sr, I will reserve my judgment on junior, if 
he does something worthy of respect and yes, Snape in my opinion)



Montavilla: 
> In other words, if you would prefer that the Death Eaters not laugh 
at you 
> when the Dark Lord is Crucio'ing you, you give their children 
enough respect 
> not to laugh at them when they are being bounced up and down on 
stone 
> floors.

Alla:

Even if that person just tried to attack you before teacher ( or DE 
masquerading as teacher) came to your help? You still have to show 
respect to this person? What if Fake Moody did not come on time and 
Harry got hurt, still he needed to be respectful to Malfoy?

I strongly disagree with it.

Montavilla: 
> (Please note:  I'm am *not* saying Harry deserved anything that 
happened to 
> him in the graveyard because he enjoyed the ferret-bouncing.  He 
didn't 
> deserve it for any reason.  None at all.)

Alla:

But you just said that if you prefer DE not to laugh at you, you give 
their children enough respect? So, if you are not saying that Harry 
deserved Graveyard because he laughed at Malfoy, could you please 
clarify what **are** you saying?

Oh, and of course I respect your right to evaluate any scene as you 
see fit, I am just trying to see if I have to agree to disagree now 
or we still have some common ground in this discussion.


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