Difference in society. Its accieptable there probably because its so well imbedded into that society that its expected. Like ritual sacrafice might seem barbaric to us, but is completely acceptable by the Mians for exaple.

In the memory where we watch Merlope beaten being abused by her father and brother (emotionally, physically) the ministry official does nothing to remove her from the house. In western society an officer would call the poliece and the child (under 18) will be out of there within the hour. In the wizarding world? Nothing. Its a 'mind my own business' sort of thing.

I dont think they're cruel or even unkind. I just think its a cultural thing. Us mere mortals are taught differences in social behaviour as well. The difference between right-winged and left-winged America; the difference between demoractic, religious, or communist dictatorship; if you've been born and raised in that society and you follow a certain given structure than beliefs and rules become similar in everyone - essentially a form of brainwashing.

We all have it. We cant avoid it. The magical world may be different from ours but its not 'wrong', just like we're not 'right'.


Susan // Ravenclaw

Aa, but the problem with "differences in society" is that there's always a purpose. That's usually what defines something as moral - if it serves a purpose deemed to be for the greater benefit of society. Ritual sacrifice kept the Gods pleased, and therefore was good. Beating Merope kept the child under control, and so was acceptable. As society's needs change, so does morality. In a hundred or two hundred years, what we consider "good" may be considered terrible. That doesn't change the fact that we have reasons for what we do.

But what about Amotentia? What possible good can it do for society? It's a potion designed to toy with a person's emotions and crontrol them THROUGH those emotions. Is it really all that different from Imperio?

Moon Faery//Slytherin

I disagree. Sometimes there isn't a purpos. There could have been a purpops way back when, but there doesn't need to be one now.

Like Punpkin Juice, for example. Thats a cultural thing. There might have been an abundance of punpkins in Great Britain ans thats why its so popular now, but the fact is that it doesn't server much of a purpose now other than 'just the way we are'.

Beating Merope kept the child under control, and so was acceptable.
Ah that is wrong. I read that chapter just this morning and the Ministry Official knew that she was being unfairly treated. He helped her and tried to reason with the father but he didn't really try hard enough and even ended up running away by the end of and letting her fend for herself.


That doesn't change the fact that we have reasons for what we do.
Not always. Like I said, sometimes we did, but that doesn't mean we do.
Shaking hands, for example. That is one of the most unhygenic things you could every do with someone you dont know. Even hugging is more hygenic. Personal space! We dont hug strangers because of it, but even 'personal space' is a cultural issue. North Americans seem to be very concious about their personal space, but if you go as far east as China you'll notice that that doesn't exist. Even in europe you see a different among the men. Here you'll notice that males wont get within an arms length of eachother in a group unless their facing very opposite directions. Thats not true in most other places in the world.

All these little things lead to an acceptance of bigger things. For example, its fesable to note that if a society were 100% accepting of gays that eventually the people will grow to see everyone as bi - or at least not assume that someone is strait when meeting them. It is then easier to assume that these societies would support gay marraige and gay adoption. In the Western world, someone is considered 'left-winged' if they accept gay marriage. Leftist are considered "liberal enough" to accept gays. But if the society accepted gays for a long time and moves (or stays) conservative, than they may be a right-winged society that is gay-friendly. This concept is of course unheard of in the current world. To have a conservative right-winged society that accepts gays and gay rights seems like complete opposites to us; but inactuality 'gay' has nothing to do with 'left-winged'. Its just that our society needs time to adjust.

Why is this important here?
Because the entire time I was making mention of 'left winged' and 'right winged' I was saying a medaphore for 'liberal morality' and 'conservative morality', ie. "morals".
A society can have a certain type of morals, but as someone who's not appart of that society, we dont understand those morals (pending they have any origin at all; and considering we're talking about the magical world - a very old society indeed - even if there was an origin it would probably be long lost).
Further, we dont understand the spells. Remember that magical folk go to school for 7 years to study this stuff. We have 6 books that barely touch appon the subject. We cant possibly comprehend why a love potion is acceptable and why Imperio is not.


Susan // Ravenclaw

We can speculate and try to put ourselves in a position to understand - thus, this thread. ^^ Just like I'm not native Japanese, but I can understand in theory why suicide is acceptable under certain circumstances in their culture. At the very least, it can be explained within the context of that culture, though we may not agree.

In the case of Merope, then, it could have simply been the moral failing of a single person. He failed to intervene. That's not a social statement "child abuse is acceptable". Actually, looking at how people react to Harry's situation, I'd say that wizarding people seem to have similar views to Muggles in regards to child welfare.

Pumpkin juice has a very good reason: it's tasty. But that's not a moral issue. Yes, sometimes cultural things exist and we can't put our finger on why (example: why are the buttons on mens and womens shirts reversed?). Historically, there's probably a reason behind hand-shaking that's long been forgotten, and now it's simply the custom. The "why" is no longer active, and because it really doesn't make a big difference, the custom continues. But morality tends to have an actice "why" behind it. Think of ANY moral statement, and you can see that we always have reasons behind them at the most primative levels, even if it's only that you/I don't want it tto happen to you/me. Examples (NOT that I endorse these or don't endorse these): "Stealing is wrong because it takes something someone else has worked for without compensation." Another, "Gay marriage is wrong because God created man and woman as compliments." Another, "We ought to respect our elders because age gives them wisdom beyond what we have available to us." "We ought to kill ourselves once we're past the age of childbearing or use as a soldier because old people are an unnecessary drain on society." (That last is Spartan.)

There is always a "because", even if it's just "God said so" or "so it doesn't happen to me". Even in those cases (gay marriage), you can go back to a more primative reason. Back before civilization, procreation was vital to the continuation of the species, and a person who simply wouldn't procreate was a threat. When the "why" is no longer pertinent, morality starts to change accordingly. Abortion, for example. People used to NEED 7 or 8 children, because only 1 would survive. Now we're over populated in many areas and the idea of a woman's right to her body is taking the place of the need for multiple children, because it better serves society. In cultures where a woman's place in the home is more important than population, abortion is still very much taboo.

In the cases of Avada Kedavra, Imperio and Crucio, you can easily see the "because". If anyone could kill anyone else freely, the human race would be in danger of dying out. Similarly, if anyone could completely control another person, we'd never be certain of our government, our friends or our families, which would result in chaos. (This would also apply to "we ought not lie".) Torture tends to be one of those "because I don't want it to happen to me!" rules.

When it comes to Amortentia... Well, I honestly can't think of a single reason why it's allowed as we know it. The ONLY possibility I can think of is if it's easily reversable (and I can't remember if it is) or temporary. Maybe if it's diluted it works as an aphrodisiac, in which case it would be beneficial but still have the potential for misuse. Then it would fall under nasty but not actually dangerous pranks (like TPing a house - stupid and pointless, but not deadly). In that case, it's probably only the extreme misuse that's handled legally.

Moon Faery//Slythern

Actually, looking at how people react to Harry's situation, I'd say that wizarding people seem to have similar views to Muggles in regards to child welfare.

I quite think the opposite. Expecially since so much stake is put into 'your family' and 'purebloods' and 'honourable wizards'. There doesn't seem to be much sympathising with Harry's situation by the other students. Yes Dumbledore did say he regretted putting Harry into that home, but he continues to send him there!

Think of ANY moral statement, and you can see that we always have reasons behind them at the most primative levels, even if it's only that you/I don't want it tto happen to you/me.

I don't think you're taking the naieve person into account. Or the arrogant. Or the abused.
It is morally correct in Hungary to expect a woman to sleep with you after you buy her a drink. The only defence this view has are naieve (eg. women are just objects to sex and should give in. men are superior. a drink shows that you've spent money on her, thus she should put out in return).
Another example: it is morally wrong for a woman to interrupt in 'man talk'. In Western countries its more of a social thing; in many tribal non-western countries its an issue of the woman being too stupid/unimportant to speak with the men.
Thats not to say that this is wrong or right. Its a cultural thing. Personally I cant accept either of these things but I've known people - women - who not only accept it but understand and encourage it. I havent grown up in such societies. I cant begin to comprehend it.

There is always a "because"
Well technically we could say that about everything. I'm refering to presently, in the for-front, a reason. I dont have reasons for giving money to the homeless when I walk by; I dont have reasons for going to the library if I happen to be in the area; I dont have reasons for smoking a joint if the mood strikes me; I dont have reasons for appologising to someone if they walk into me. Sure, on some minute level there's a reason. But most of it is because I was raised that way. That is who I am. I will always appologise to someone if they walk into me on the street (I also expect them to appologise to me). I know many people who find this odd - americans in paticular - but its common curtasy and I expect if I run into someone for them to also appologise.

When the "why" is no longer pertinent, morality starts to change accordingly.

I think this is the core of where we disagree. I dont believe things will always change when the 'why' disappears. Personally I view religion as the biggest 'ritual that hasnt disappeared when it was no longer needed'.

In cultures where a woman's place in the home is more important than population, abortion is still very much taboo.
Could you name a place and give statistics? Because the way I see it, abortion is on my side of the argument. In places where abortion is required it is not there due to traditions and moral opinions that havent developed when they should have.


In the cases of Avada Kedavra, Imperio and Crucio, you can easily see the "because".
Yes you can. But you're also assuming that that is the only because.

If anyone could kill anyone else freely, the human race would be in danger of dying out.
People can do that. I have two sleeping people in the same house as me. If I wanted to I could go upstairs and kill them both. I wont, of course, but I could. Just like someone could avada kadavra someone.

Similarly, if anyone could completely control another person, we'd never be certain of our government, our friends or our families, which would result in chaos.
But we barely know anything about the Imperius. Notice how Harry can shake it off. He's had much more powerful legal curses affect him. There has to be other reasons that we're not aware of.

I suppose we could argue their relivance or irrelivance, but we know so little about it that it wouldnt even resemble canon.

(laughing) I love a good debate! Just to let you know, even if we never agree on anything, it's been a pleasure debating with you!

This might be easier to understand if I admit to using a consequentialist morality in this thread.

When I refer to "because" and "why", I'm talking on a cultural level. On a personal level, we often do things simply because we were raised to do it. However, that cultural tradition/action started somewhere for some purpose, and as long as that purpose continues to be useful or at least not harmful, it stays in place. I'm not arguing for a universal morality. I'm simply saying that it's possible to think outside our own teachings and understand the morals of others, even though we may disagree. I'm in no way assuming that the "because" I list is the only one - simply that it's the major one I can percieve. I don't accept "Action A is morally right/wrong because it is morally right/wrong".

For abortion, I'd say look at predominatntly Muslim countries and fourth world locales and patriarchal religions. Many fundamentalist monotheistic religions (Christianity) view the woman's place as in the home under the control of her husband. Those same religions generally oppose abortion and birth control because they always have as methods of keeping a strong population while reinforcing male dominance. It's only a casual connection, but "God says" is often a reason for maintaining the status quo, because the status quo in that culture is more important than such things as women's rights. As those cultures develop in the area of women's rights, population control will start to become an issue. Really, on this one I think we're saying the same thing. I just tend to go waaaaay back when looking for causality, because morals do change very slowly, even if conditions don't. But the conditions have to be present before tradition changes. If people still needed to have large numbers of children to ensure that the species survived, abortion would probably be a non-issue. (Yes, this is speculation.) The major issue in countries without women's right is that the dominant power (men) have succeeded in using concepts that once were useful but no longer are to keep themselves in power. There's an elongated historical disconnect between necessity and culture.

Avada Kedavra, as murder, IS illegal and morally wrong. Yes, we could all go and kill everyone around us, but society frowns on that and provides for unpleasant consequences as a deterent. We CAN, but the consequences are such that we DON'T, and are thus raised to think murder is wrong. We never question this because we were raise that way, but culturally there is still a reason for it.

Imperio is one of those strange things where Harry seems to be an exception to the rule. We don't know why, but it seems to work that way. Sirius says that back in the first war, you never knew who was on Voldemort's side or who was being controlled by him. Lucius got off by claiming he was under Imperio. But the fake Moody seemed to think that resistance to it could be taught, though nothing says that directly. Still, that resistance (if it can be learned) seems rare enough that Imperio is a serious worry.

Moon Faery//Slytherin

[I'm enjoying this too hehe. Sorry I took all day to reply to this. I wanted to make sure I put reasonable effort into this response lol]

I'm simply saying that it's possible to think outside our own teachings
No its not. Very very few people are able to spontaneously do that. Most/all people have to first be shown that they can contradict, then that they can contradict authority, and finally how to contradict it.

I know most north American parents wont agree (mostly out of spite) but a misbehaving child is taught to misbehave. I'm not going to get into the nature/nurture debate (personally I think its a mix of both) but the concept of a questioning public is more-or-less an illusion. I will use North Korea as an extreme example. People there don’t question their government because they don't even realize they can. They've been working very hard to make sure that South Korean movies dont get across the boarder (which is their Kim Jong Il's biggest problem). Education. Their public will not revolt if they dont even know they can. Nor will they revolt if they dont know theres anything to revolt against (as they have been subject to brainwashing and actually think they live in a paradise).

Technology has always (through my knowledge) been the catalyst for change. New technology, new knowledge, new beliefs.
If we take a look at caveman civilizations you'll notice that their ways haven’t changed in thousands of years. Their customs, beliefs, and education. Nothing beyond 'the wheel' has made a breakthrough. Every time we discover a group we're torn between annexing the land and assimilating them into our culture (or at least non-cave age culture) or leave them be to their ignorance. We cant even ask them to make the decision because educating them enough to make the decision would permanently take them out of their culture.

But that is what works for them. That is their belief. Its not right, its not wrong, its their way.
And most importantly, it may be counter-productive.
I cant remember the society for the life of me (so I cant cite myself) but in the Roman era they used to put children to live out on their own at the age of 6. The theory was that if the 6yearold survived than they were strong enough to live in that society; if they werent than they were better off dead.
...this eventually ended up killing off their entire society and I believe the remainder of the people just started calling themselves something else.
Oh I wish I could remember who they were. I'll try to find out tomorrow from my history major friend.


But the conditions have to be present before tradition changes.

I though that was my point. lol. Its just a matter of how conditions change and what kind of rules currently apply to the culture.

using concepts that once were useful but no longer are to keep themselves in power.

Actually, they're still useful. Thats why it hasnt changed.
I'm not saying its useful as a whole (for women in particular) but its what works and the society still exists because of it. If that were suddenly taken away than the entire thing would crumble (sad truth).


but society frowns on that and provides for unpleasant consequences as a deterent.

No, society does not frown upon murder.
YOUR society frowns upon murder.
Wizarding society frowns upon Avada Kaedavra. Apparently it doesnt appon something else. But its not our society so we cannot possibly know why that is.

btw, I'm caught on whether throwing Imperio off is learned. Why would the fake moody want Harry to learn how to do that? I assume that was a test to see if he could throw it off.

Maybe its a scar thing.

Susan // Ravenclaw

No problem. I'm supposed to be cleaning and doing homework, so.. *whistles* Might be a few hours before I get back to you again.

Most/all people have to first be shown that they can contradict

I'll agree that spontaneously ging outside your own "circle" of information and culture is pretty well not happening, but people can do it with some work. It takes effort and some pretty deep thought, along with an example, but it's still possible. If I hadn't had as open of an education as I've had, I never would have thought to disagree with my culture. Still, in a world as interconnected as ours, it's actually difficult for people in industrialized nations to avoid outside influence. Look at China. It's starting to give into capitalism, simply because it can see the benefits.

North Korea isn't a very good example. The people there are starving, and hungry people aren't concerned with civil liberties. They're more focused on that next meal. :/

I think we're sliding sideways up to an agreement here.

Actually, they're still useful. Thats why it hasnt changed.

They're still useful as a way of maintaining power for the people on top, but not for the purpose it probably started for. Like keeping women uneducated. A few thousand years ago, education was a big deal, so it went to the boys who would use it to support their families. At the time, it made sense to keep women uneducated and at home popping out kids. Now it's just a way of keeping women in the home, nevermind that we no longer need the population boost. Another example would be the American election system. Originally it made sense to set it up so that only wealthy men had a chance at being elected, because only wealthy white men really had the education to do the job. Now it's just a way of keeping wealthy white men in power. The system is changing, but not at the same rate society has. It's fallen behind necessity.

But its not our society so we cannot possibly know why that is.

Again, I'm not Japanese, but I can understand the logic behind Japanese customs. That's what the entire subject of history and anthropology is about - trying to understand people that aren't us. It might actually be easier to understand the logic behind some customs from the outside, because we haven't enshrined the beliefs and values that keep that custom in place. We see it in action, rather than just doing it because we always have.

Sirius Black was put in Azkaban for murder (supposedly killing a dozen Muggles along with Lily, James and Peter). So the wizarding world frowns on murder in general. Avada Kedavra is probably unforgivable based on that standard. Other cultures might have a different definition what constitutes "murder" (example: some places find it acceptable to kill unwanted female children), but it's not considered murder as we think of it ("the deliberate killing of an innocent person") because the purpose behind the act is considered more important than that human life. (Usually it's population control.) As far as I know, there is no society anywhere in the known world that accepts the pureposeless and deliberate killing of an innocent as acceptable.

I'm caught on whether throwing Imperio off is learned

I always thought that fake!Moody was just being cruel. He didn't think Harry could throw it off. Maybe he intended to keep him under the spell without anyone knowing, and it gave him a chance to cast it without being caught. I think it might be learnable, but probably incredibly difficult. No proof though.

Moon Faery//Slytherin

It takes effort and some pretty deep thought, along with an example, but it's still possible.

Hence my point of having to be shown how to do it.
Take a look at Feral children (children that have been raised by animals or in isolation all their lives). A girl in (Poland, I believe?) was 18 when she was finally 'rescued' from the doghouse (literally). She saw other people, but 'thought' like a dog. She walked on all four's, she ate from the dog bowl, she could bark like a dog and to this day has to resist the urge to do so. She cant construct anything more than simple sentences, and she gets confused very easily simply because she doesn’t have the mental capacity to comprehend human behaviour well (this is for sociological reasons which have nothing to do with the topic at hand, I just figured I'd throw that tidbit of information in any way). But most importantly, she was happy 'as a dog' and is confused by the complexity of human behaviour and social structures; she has very primitive emotions and thoughts.

Now had she not been rescued she would have lived her entire life as a dog. She wasn’t shown to break away, she didn’t even notice that she was different from them and similar to the humans (her parents) who left food in the dog bowl for the pups (her parents thought her long dead. Apparently they had no idea she was living in the dog house with the other dogs when they either left her there when she was two, or she crawled there on her own).

And I beg to differ, North Korea is a great example. Not everyone is starving (though in the 90's nearly everyone was). Speaking of which, it was during the famine that people started to question KJI, showing that extreme distress and trauma can lead to a push in mindsets (which we both agree does happen).


At the time, it made sense

I'm going to have to beg to differ.
As you pointed out, things haven’t changed much in the past couple of thousands of years socially, just in mindset. I am quite strongly under the impression that the bible/old testament was a form of 'population control' to 'keep people in line'. In the bible (ok back then they were scriptures, but I’m going to say 'bible' as a simplification) the demon qualities of women were stressed (it is correct, women are portrayed as more evil people any other peoples in that thing).

I find it hard to believe that in a time where religions were fighting to be in the forefront, that a major faith to be selected is one that takes half of the population and randomly demonizes it. Clearly, women must have already been treated like that before the bible came along.
[Note that I’m not touching the bibles religious worth, but rather its social progress in time]

This is important because this is incredibly counter-productive. Both then, and now, to treat women like dirty. Its one thing to have a housewife, its another thing to kill her for talking to another man (counter productive. Who's going to raise the kiddies now?).
And women beat women down in that culture. Its not just men beating the women down; women make sure that other females 'know their place'. Not because they fear retaliation from men, but because they - in their heart of hearts - think that’s right.
[I accept that this isn't on all issues, but in general its a sad truth that Amnesty is fighting to prevent]

[continued]

Again, I'm not Japanese, but I can understand the logic behind Japanese customs.
I ignored this the first time for a reason and I'm sorry for having to address it now.
I don’t know how old you are, nor do I know your personal experiences, but this isn’t the most educated of comments.
Assuming that you've never lived in Japan (yes, I mean lived, not 'visited'), and assuming you aren’t integrated into a very Japanese culture where you currently are (and this is actual Japanese culture I'm talking about, not 'internet' or 'fandom' culture, not 'knowing what my Japanese friends' family is like') than you may be correct in saying that you understand Japanese customs.

However, I doubt this. The fact is that very very few people in the world truly understand anything other than their own backyard. They just think they understand it. Why do you think anthropologists have such a terribly hard job? Very few people can do what they do - myself included (I know. I've tried).
Any educated person who basis their salary on cultures and getting to know them will tell you that you cannot know a culture without living there. 100%. And I can guarantee it through personal experience. My journal kanadaicsaj is based on my move to Hungary (a culture not too much different than North America, when viewed from the outside). I had visited there all my life, it was my second home. But I still did not truly UNDERSTAND it until I moved there. I used to spend every other summer there, I used to 'live' there in as much of the sense as one can while visiting family. But once again, it wasn’t until I dropped my life in Canada and took up life in Hungary that I actually got to know what the country is like, what the social structure is like, what the culture is like.

So I'm going to have to disagree again and say that you don’t understand Japanese culture (at least not if you learned it vicariously).



I also like to say that I doubt Harry Potter is well integrated into Wizarding culture (and I somehow doubt he'll ever 'fully understand it'. Same with all the muggle-born students. I don’t agree with the 'purebloods forever' mantra many of the Wizarding families have. But I do understand the 'this is my world' - almost a victim mindset - when someone who doesn't understand them starts learning how to do their magic tricks in their schools and doesn’t even understand their customs. Harry has been in that world for 6 years and he still doesn’t fully understand it.

Immigrants run into this problem too. Very few people (like Swarchenager(sp) for example) fully integrate. Most people never fully do, and that’s why we see this 'immigrants banding together' a lot. They don’t feel fully apart of their new country, but no longer feel 100% apart of their old country. They are a people without a nation, always trying to fit in.

The fact that the book is written by Harry’s perspective shows that we'll never 'fully' understand the wizarding culture, because he probably never will either.

Susan // Ravenclaw

One of my areas of study used to be Asian culture and languages, with a focus on Japan. I recently changed it for a more political bent, but I'm still very much active in studying Japanese culture, language, history and civilization. No, I've never lived in Japan (poor college student), so I can't "get" the culture at a gutteral level. I can't say "this is how it feels to live as a Japanese person in Japanese culture". However, as someone who studies the culture, I can say "I can understand why Japanese people in Japanese culture behave this way" from a purely scholarly perspective. Yes, there's a difference, and I can definitely say that I don't agree with every aspect of the culture, but I can understand it.

The same concept can be applied to wizardings society and ethics. We can approach it from a scholarly perspective and rationalize why they do what they do. I still think that, as Muggles, we have an advantage in that. A native-born person raised within a society would have a much harder time rationally examining their own lives and culture, because there's so much that can be taken for granted when you've lived with it every day of your life. (Like hand-shaking. I never even thought of it, but now I'm curious because you mentioned it.) We, from an outside perspective, can see where and how it differs from what we're accustomed to, and try and understand those differences without societal pressure or beliefs getting in the way. An example would be highly religious people. They seldom think of the world outside the boundries of their religion, because for them their religion defines the world, and they seldom thing to question it. Non-religious people can look at that religion and question more easily, because there's no stigma attached to questioning for them.

Moon Faery//Slytherin

Well if you exclusivly study a culture than thats a little different. So yes, you might understand some of the culture, but the same cannot be said for most people. Although the anime-chicka down the road thinks she knows everything about Japan, the fact is she knows Japan fandom... and its disgusting to watch. But none of us know the magical world no matter how hard we try. We have one boys (who's an outsider no less) and his perspective. Thats our only source. So I dont see how we can possibly rationalize why the rules are what they are. We're not in the culture (or, granted, not exclusivly studying it from +1000 sources and legal documents).

Susan // Ravenclaw

I study Japanese language and culture, too. It's very interesting. :)

Delfeus / Slytherin

Every culture is interesting if you ask me. Japanese is just the fad now. Everyone on the internet thinks they're an expert on it. Its annoying. Have any of these people looked into Mayan culture? Or the history between India and Pakistan? Any of them!?! I didn't think so.

*goes all pissy teenage-chick*

Susan // Ravenclaw

Close to the cut-off point, so I'm picking and choosing my replies!

I admit to having picked up Japanese culture because of the fad. I'm still hugely into anime, which was my driving force, but I went the scholarly route. However, I think most people who really start digging into a foreign culture tend to be led to more global concerns, simply because we do have a very interconnected global community now. Japan isn't "that place on the far side of the world", it's a major component of the global economy. The suffering in Africa isn't a rumor on the wind, it's documented and evident on every news channel and in every newspaper. Once your perspective broadens a little, it's hard to keep it from broadening farther.

In that, I think the anime/Japanese fad is a good thing. Even if it's accidental or of only minor immediate effect, anything that gets people looking outside the boundries of their own country is a good thing. That it's happening in the younger generation, the people that still have the majority of their lives to push for change, is an excellent thing.

Okay! That's the end of that speech!

Moon Faery//Slytherin

That example can come from within the culture. That's how traditions change. A single person tries something different, it works and they tell their friends. In a few generations, it's a newly established tradition in that region.

The Bible reflects the culture it was created in. Going back to hunter-gatherer cultures, it made sense for women to gather and take care of children because they had to breast-feed infants anyway. This left the hunting and defense up to men. It was convenient for things to work that way. As people became civilized, this adjusted so that women cared for the home/children and men cared for crops and domestic animals. It created a division between supporter and supported, and in those cases the supported is always in teh weaker social position. As time went on this solidified, and male-dominance became an end unto itself. Women were kept unable to support themselves to ensure men stayed in power, and men told themselves that women were morally and physically weaker. They justified their actions by calling it "protection" instead of "subjugation", and women let then because there was no immediate harm being done, and it's easier to let someone else define ones existence than to define your own. It becomes a case of tradition existing for the sake of tradition, and anything that challenges that is suspect and threatens the security people have built up around those beliefs. (Yes, I am studying feminist ethics at the moment, which is probably why I'm usuing women as an example so much.)

Moon Faery//Slytherin

A single person tries something different,

This is what I'm arguing.
Why would a single person try something different? As we've already established (and these are your words now):
"It takes [...] an example".
"It becomes a case of tradition existing for the sake of tradition, and anything that challenges that is suspect and threatens the security people have built up around those beliefs."

I dont even remember why I'm arguing this any more :S

Susan // Ravenclaw

Shhh..... that puts my theory down the shitter....

Susan // Ravenclaw

lol. That's all I have to say. ^~ Thank ye Tori!

Moon Faery//Slytherin

You know, I was one of the people going on about how irresponsible it was to give the cloak to Harry and let him go around on his own, and take care of whatever big problem was at hand, while the adults sat and watched, but book 6 changed my view. After book 6, when Dumbledore came clear about everything, and especially after Dumbledore's death, I realized that he was preparing Harry for the fight against Voldemort. The prophecy says that it is him against Voldemort, so he will have to learn to deal with pressure, to go against those stronger tham him, and to learn that he is always on his own, no adult will step in to help. That will help him to beat Voldemort. And well, the Dursleys can be seen as a part of that. If he had grown with e.g. the Weasleys, he probably would trust Molly and Arthur to be there for him, but now it's different. Sirius dies, Dumbledore dies... the only ones who really stay for support are Ron and Hermione, and he can't hide behind them.

Delfeus / Slytherin

I agree that he could have been more honest. However, I think that it's possible that he was trying to let Harry be a kid for a while, without having to worry about the biggest issues. *shrug* Still, he should have told him more.

Delfeus / Slytherin

When the gay marriage law was discussed here in Finland, most people against it were Christians, quoting Bible. However, there were a few, even priest, who took the standpoint that people should be allowed to love. After all, it is a law to allow the registration of gay marriage, not a Christian marriage, so the church really should not go on about Christian values. Not all people are Christian. Part of the reason why I left the church was that I got so fed up with that.

In the wizarding society I could see it going two ways. Either gays are something very much not accepted because the wizarding folk really need more children to be born, and it is not considered something suitable for purebloods. Or, it could be that being gay is not an issue, as long as you produce children someway; for example, organized marriage or something. Because of the small size of the wizarding society, I do think that there would be some unacceptance simply because it doesn't bring in more wizarding children. Even in the Muggle world it is viewed a bit strange if people don't want to settle down and have children at some point.


Delfeus / Slytherin

People here in America arguing against it tend to quote the Bible too. (twitch) It annoys me to incredible ends, because I don't want or need their religion running my life.

You forgot the third option: Gay couples are acceoted unconditionally because there's some magical means of facillicating procreation. (MPreg works in this case.) Still, it tends to hinge on creating heirs. There's so much emphasis on blood and passing on the magic in HP that I can't see the community going "just let them be happy!". It would be "just let them be happy as long as they meet these standards!". >>

Moon Faery//Slytherin

Indeed! It infuriates and scares me how things go in America sometimes. I mean, I heard that there's been talk about replacing the evolution theory with the Christian version in schools in some states. It puzzles the mind.

*nods* I agree.

Delfeus / Slytherin

The theory of Creationism is being touted as a viable scientfic alternative to evolution, and not religious at all. That's obviously bunk, since it presupposes the existence of a Creator (or Creators), which IS religion. The American government has been hi-jacked by the minority religious right. Again, their religion, my life. Even worse, most people in America don't agree, but politicans are pandering to the minority in religious matters. Then people wonder why I'm so publically vocal about my opinions. It's because if I don't speak against them, it's assumed that I agree with them and I'm not willing to let people make that assumption.

Moon Faery//Slytherin

I can't understand how something like that can be accepted. It's frightening! And isn't America supposed to not have a set religion? Doesn't really seem that way to me!

Delfeus / Slytherin

I think Harry can "hear" Moody telling him what to do in his head, and he has a strong urge to do it... But recognizing that it's someone else trying to control you is a big step in not being controlled. I should look this up in the books, but I really just don't feel like it. I'm having a lazy moment.

I tend to think that I'd rather have someone pulling my strings rather than someone making me pull my own. The idea of being completely and totally devoted to someone like that is just frightning. Imperio, I think I could handle. Amortentia is the stuff of nightmares for me. (shiver)

Moon Faery//Slytherin

I tend to think that I'd rather have someone pulling my strings rather than someone making me pull my own.

Perhaps thats why Imperio is illigal. Its asking/telling the person to do it, rather than making them do it. The caster gets inside the victims head and makes them feel relaxed and 'perfect' if they comply...but doesnt physically make them do it?

meh

Susan // Ravenclaw

Feelings usually make people act in ways that are not always recommendable... if someone else is controlling you, there is some control in your actions, but if it feelings that is controlling you, it gets quite horrifying. Rational mind is a wonderful thing.

Delfeus / Slytherin

Yeah. It's like a loss of your mind.

Delfeus / Slytherin

I totally agree about that! It's a horrifying thought to be controlled and not be able to do anything about it, or even know it yourself.

Delfeus / Slytherin

Ignorance is bliss.

...but knowledge is power.

Susan // Ravenclaw

Amen to that!

Delfeus / Slytherin