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

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 169544

> 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.

Montavilla47:
One of the ironies I enjoy about that scene in GoF is that Croody 
punishes Draco for attack Harry while Harry's back is turned.  But 
if you look at how the scene is described (Harry turns around to 
see Croody running up to the ferret), it turns out taht Croody was 
attacking Draco from behind.

In other words, he's doing the exact same thing that he's accusing
Draco of doing.

And yes, I think that the Universal Schoolboy Code says 
(Section 24.d) that you can still respect an opponent that attacks 
you while your back is turned--if you have both been in conflict 
immediately beforehand.  Especially if you just took a parting shot
at his mother.  

That falls under the special "Mama" clause (Section 37.a) that states
that any insult to one's mother *must* be followed by an equally 
offensive insult, or else physical attack.  One may *not* circumvent
an attack by turning one's back.

All insults about girlfriends, incidently, are covered under the 
"Ginevra Conventions."


> 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:
I'm saying that if you want respect, you give respect.  But I'm not
going to blame a victim for something that happens to him and
try to connect it to another event.  

I'm simply comparing the two situations and noticing that--in both 
situations--an adult inflicting physical pain on a children evoked 
amusement from the onlookers.


> 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?
> 

Montavilla47:

Of course Snape didn't give Harry basic respect because Snape hated
Harry.  What I'm saying (obviously not clearly enough), is that if Snape
hated Harry and yet still had shown him some decent human respect
in that first class,  then the fact that Snape hated Harry would be 
irrelevant.  Because they would have been able to both hate and respect
each other in (oh dear) peace.