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

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 169553

[Mike: I don't usually join these conversations, so if I fail to plug 
in those "IMOs and IMHOs" please forgive me. Let me forewarn that 
everything that follows is my opinion and therefore may 
sound 'preachy'. Now, on to the fun.]

> > > houyhnhnm:
> > > I will accept anyone who is one my side?  That is 
> > > not tolerance.  Tolerance is a commitment to the 
> > > the belief that *everyone* has a right to be.
> 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Ah, but houyhnhnm is saying everyone has a right *to be*.  Your 
> political choices shouldn't determine whether or not you have the 
> right to exist as a human being.    <snip>

Mike:
Ah, but by that reasoning Voldemort has a "right to be". Alla was 
saying, and I agree with her, that those political choices will 
result in other people passing judgement on your *human-ness*. Did 
Hitler, Tojo, Stalin have a right to be? Were the "others" that 
disagreed with them wrong for opposing them with the ultimate force 
they could muster? It *is* a matter of degrees as to what the 
appropriate response is to those "others".

You "tolerate" anyone who has not wronged you. (I agree with Betsy's 
interpretation of the term "tolerate" and how she applied it 
versus "appreciate"). If you have no reasonable grounds to oppose the 
other, you follow the Golden Rule. Once you've been wronged, your 
response should be measured by what degree that wrong against you 
rose to. Again, all my opinion.


> Betsy Hp:
> Whether you share basic human 
> rights like a right to a fair trial, etc. 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.

Mike:
I think Hermione treated Marietta, and by extension everyone else in 
the DA, exactly like a human. She held them responsible for their 
actions when their actions wronged the rest of the DA. Once that 
educational decree came out, everyone was free to not participate in 
what was clearly an illegal (by Ministry standards) group. Hermione 
warned everyone, "So, if you sign, you're agreeing not to tell 
Umbridge - or anybody else - what we're up to." (Ootp p.346, US)

This was before the group was strictly illegal. If anyone felt queasy 
about the group after the decree, they *should* have quit but held 
their tongue. BTW, I agree with Cho insofar as Hermione should have 
warned the DA that the parchment was hexed. Then it would have been a 
deterrent, not just a security alarm.


> 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.  

Mike:
Why shouldn't Harry and Co. get to choose who they think is on 
the "right side"? Who would you (generic) have dictate to them who 
they should agree with? We want them to mature but we aren't ready to 
allow them to use their own judgement?! Should they be responsible 
for their choices? Hell yes, just like everybody else. That's being 
treated like a human, not like some lesser being.

This whole DA thing is deadly serious to the Trio. It's about 
fighting Voldemort, and Hermione caused everyone to spill their 
drinks when she told them so in the first meeting. If you don't agree 
with the Trio, walk away. But don't turn on them, because they're not 
going to take it lying down.


> Betsy Hp:
> 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.

Mike:
If you are referring to Marietta - all she needed to do was walk 
away, she didn't need to turn on her family. If you are talking about 
Quidditch, you'll have to convince me where any of the Quidditch 
stuff rose above your average sport rivalries (putting it in the 
context of a wizarding school). If you are addressing the "liking" 
Harry or Dumbledore, show me where any of the Trio responded any 
other than 'in kind' to being on the "right" side.

If you are talking about opposing Voldemort - you're damn right, 
the "others" have the choice of being on the "right" side or not.


 
> Betsy Hp:
> <snip>
> 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".

Mike:
Marietta *turned* on the DA. She violated their trust, went back on 
her word. She suffered the consequenses of her actions. Zach Smith 
got hexed by Ginny and ran into after the Quidditch match. Big deal. 
Hexing in the hallways is not a practice restricted to Gryffindors. 
And who's genius idea was it to allow an opposing Quidditch player to 
do the commentary on an opponents match? Besides, he didn't exactly 
get hit by a Crucio. This is kids stuff rising to the level of, well, 
kids stuff.

I don't know that Rita Skeeter isn't a Voldemort supporter. But if 
she decided to illegally become an anamagus, use it to spy on then 
write vindictive columns, and was afraid to be found out - then 
Hermione beat her at her own game. Rita was dealing in other people's 
secrets and using her secret ability to gain an edge. Rita was free 
to continue her anti-Harry columns. But Hermione was going to respond 
in kind and reveal one of her secrets.



> Betsy Hp:
> <snip>
> For Harry it *did* change.  On the train ride into Hogwarts in HBP, 
> Draco's kung fu trumped Harry's, and it was Harry lying alone and 
> forgotten in a dark train compartment. <snip>

Mike:
I'd like to address the previous train scenes that Harry got his 
*comeuppance* for in the HBP train scene.

GoF: Imagine you are out jogging with a friend. Someone kidnaps both 
of you, drives you to a graveyard, kills your jogging partner, 
tortures you, and then tries to kill you in some ritualized contest. 
By some miracle you escape. 

A week or so later, the sons of the participants in the ritual come 
into your train compartment and one begins to taunt you, that your 
experience was just the beginning. Oh, btw, all of you know that 
these guys fathers have done this before, all of you know that the 
fathers are members of a terrorist outfit (though the sons have a 
different view of that outfit, they know what their fathers do).

Tell me you wouldn't punch them in their noses? 

Yeah, I know, the sins of the father. But if the sons don't want 
retribution, stay away. Don't seek out the kid that your father help 
torture and begin to taunt him. If you go looking for trouble, 
sometimes you find it.

OotP: This one is rather simple. Draco attempted to ambush Harry. The 
DA members saw what was happening and pre-empted the ambush. 
Perfectly legitimate response, imo.



> Betsy Hp:
> The other way, is a rule of law where *everyone* is understood to 
> have the same basic rights, no matter their political beliefs or 
> quidditch team.  And no one, *no one*, is free to take the law into 
> their own hands.  I *think* that's the way Dumbledore is supposed 
> to be going.  (I'll admit that sometimes it's hard to tell. <g>)  
> But it is the way the books will hopefully support in the end.

Mike:
And who is Harry suppose to cede "the rule of law" to uphold? The 
Ministry of Magic? This is the group that spent a year riddiculing 
Harry, trying to convince everyone he was crazy. This is the Ministry 
of Umbridge, who takes it upon herself to order Dementors to attack 
an innocent boy and his Muggle cousin. The same Umbridge that makes 
Harry write lines in his own blood, who is prepared to use 
unforgivable curses to get what she wants. And she is the #2 person 
in this Ministry!

The same Ministry that threw Harry's innocent godfather into prison 
for life without a trial. And they are still imprisoning people like 
Stan Shunpike for being a loudmouth. This is where Harry is suppose 
to get Justice?

It's all well and good to speak to ideals, but Harry doesn't have 
that kind of system to fall back on. Dumbledore knows it. He operates 
his own organization according to his own ethics. Though the Trio 
falter in places, their goals seem to be ethically based, and they 
have a better handle on "justice" than the MoM. They aren't out there 
attacking people that haven't wronged them in the first place. And 
some may think their responses to those "wrongs" are over-the-top. I 
don't, in all but one case.

IMO, of course.

Mike, who leaves his "one case" to the guessing. <bg>