|
Post by smjjames on Mar 23, 2012 19:53:27 GMT
Is anybody having problems viewing the main GC page? I'm getting a cannot connect to server error.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 23, 2012 20:27:29 GMT
Antony's abandonment and lack of communication with Annie is unquestionably shitty, and is very clearly hurting her.
The question is: to what degree does he have a choice in the matter? He's still such a mysterious character, that we don't know if he even has the option of visiting or calling her to actually talk. Whether his limitation is physical or psychological or whatever.
It really might be that he's only avoiding her because he selfishly can't get past his own hang-ups to help his daughter. But the block may be something much deeper than that, or the problem may be something very different. It could even be that there is some really crazy reason he shouldn't talk to his daughter, and he genuinely wishes he could but if he did something even worse would happen to her.
We're getting to know Young Antony, but there are still too many questions about the person he grew up to be. We can only judge him based on guesses, because we know essentially nothing about what he does, where he is, and what his situation is.
So far, we've only seen negative effects of his present-day actions. But since all of the adult characters who we consider to be good in turn consider him to be a friend, I think there has to be much more to the situation that redeems him -- even if only a tiny bit.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 23, 2012 21:16:26 GMT
Replying to and elaborating on the posts of several people here…
I’m sure that Anthony has a number of redeeming qualities. The characters in GC seem to be complex and well-fleshed. Even Diego has some. I still have a negative view of Anthony and will attempt to explain why.
People have different preferences about showing affection. Some people like to do things for other people, others are good at saying what they’re feeling and do it often. Some people give gifts. Some people give hugs or grab your shoulder.
I don’t think any of these ways is superior to any other. It’s a mark of emotional maturity when a person starts to figure out that the ways they prefer to express affection are not always appropriate to the circumstances, or are simply ineffective ways to communicate with particular people. Teasing the girl or boy you like and chasing him/her around with dog doo on a stick may work fine at age 4 but perhaps not at age 34. When you are an adult dealing with a person who hasn’t learned this then you must shoulder the burden of figuring out what will work and what won’t, because if you don’t misunderstandings are guaranteed to happen. Sometimes they will figure out that whatever you’re doing represents affection, sometimes they won’t even if you explain. If you try telling them that what they’re doing isn’t what you’d prefer they may understand or they may not. That may or may not be fair but that’s how it works.
However, if we are talking about a parent and a young child then the burden is entirely on the parent. With infants you are required to provide affection in ways that infants can understand [fed, burped, changed, played with, etc]. As they get older you can try other ways but if you do/say something they’re not ready for then it’s not the child’s fault. Grandpa’s gold pocket watch might mean the world to you but a toddler won’t see it as anything other than another shiny toy; if you gift aforementioned watch to a said child and they don’t take care of it you (the parent) have no grounds to take that as a personal rejection. Likewise when they communicate badly or negatively you do not have the liberty to react in a knee-jerk fashion.
So, even if Anthony’s coded message is intended to express affection and support for Antimony, and even if he is choosing this method because he is afraid that Antimony will say something mean to him, I would argue that as a father he does not have the luxury of withdrawing from the situation as he has done. He has an obligation to communicate to Antimony in a way she can understand. Anthony has pushed his responsibility as a father partly onto Donlan in that Donlan has to interpret the phone call to Antimony. If Donlan is not correct and Antimony was just used to deliver the message because her name is Antimony (which was useful for the code) then Anthony is a douchebag in addition to being a bad dad.
Admittedly there are special extenuating circumstances in this case. The closest real-life comparison I can think of is a terminal hereditary disease. From Anthony’s perspective his wife died despite his efforts to save her and all else held equal his daughter will die of the same disease. Family should pull together and support each other in times like that, but Antimony was a child at the time. Antimony was not able to offer support to her father at the time of Surma’s death. Children don’t know how to do that. It is tough to make yourself comfort someone else when you’re experiencing that level of pain but it in this case Antimony is arguably the cause of Surma’s death. It may be irrational for Anthony to feel that way but feelings are not rational. Even so, he's still Antimony's father. Nobody said being a dad was easy.
There’s also the probability that there is some espionage game afoot. Presumably it is important, perhaps even on an epic save the world (or at least the Court) level. Even if he’s saving the world from blowing up, has this task really taken every minute of his time in the last two years? Or is it more likely that being there for Antimony as a father is hard so Anthony has quit trying, or is placing filters between himself and his daughter that amount to the same thing? We may yet learn that there is some weird etheric reason why he can’t contact his daughter but even if that’s the case Anthony seems capable of finding tricky ways of getting messages across. It stretches the bounds of credulity to imagine that he couldn’t find a work-around if he really wanted to. I hope he was building a time machine because even if he starts now Antimony may be unable to accept his affection because of his absence these last couple years.
Maybe Anthony will try to have an actual conversation with Antimony using the satellite. It would be more secure than a cellphone and if she says something that hurts his feelings he can just push a button and the talk’s over. However, if he and Antimony have a stilted conversation via satellite link it’s going to be hard to avoid the Gendo Ikari comparison (front-running candidate for worst cartoon father in the history of the world).
Also welcome to the forums shygaladriel and any other new people!
|
|
|
Post by lunarluminesce on Mar 23, 2012 21:18:06 GMT
Is anybody having problems viewing the main GC page? I'm getting a cannot connect to server error. I can't access the main page either, nor read the comic.
|
|
|
Post by pgilman on Mar 23, 2012 21:50:01 GMT
Is anybody having problems viewing the main GC page? I'm getting a cannot connect to server error. yes, same problem here. very worrying in light of tom's recent announcement about leaving his job.
|
|
|
Post by Clouds on Mar 23, 2012 22:07:34 GMT
I'm fairly sure it's a problem with the site's host. Tom has stated in the past that Gunnerkrigg is hosted on Dreamhost, and another site I visit with the same host is currently having the same problem. EDIT: Seems to be back now. So is the other site.
|
|
pasko
Full Member
Objection!
Posts: 224
|
Post by pasko on Mar 23, 2012 23:37:08 GMT
it’s going to be hard to avoid the Gendo Ikari comparison (front-running candidate for worst cartoon father in the history of the world). eh, this line cracked me up, I still laugh when I think to the mockery that are evangelion characters.
|
|
Ender
Junior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by Ender on Mar 24, 2012 0:52:41 GMT
I know some fans dislike Anthony and think that he hates Annie and just abandoned her because he blames her for Surma’s death but to me this seems too simple and doesn’t ring true to Anthony’s character we’ve seen so far. That's how I feel. I don't like that Anthony left Annie, but I want to hear why he left Annie before I judge him at all. Right now I pity the guy. He never struck me as someone who was a spiteful, arrogant, bastard. He wouldn't have married Surma and been such close friends with Kat's parents if that were the case, and he was clearly affected by his wife's death so I don't think he's emotionless cold hearted. I'm really curious to se more about his character. I pretty much agree with this. To the people that are baffled how he could reject Brinnie so much and put so much effort into it, I don't think he has some secret reason for not getting into a relationship with her, he's just very scared of being in a relationship and doesn't know what to do. People with low self-esteem convince themselves they are not good enough to be in a relationship with anyone. If anyone were to like them, they would be certain that, upon getting together with whomever, that person would end up hating them as soon as they saw how they really are. This can be very hard for people without low self-esteem to understand. I'm actually kind of more curious as to why Brinnie likes him. Certainly not because of his personality, otherwise she would be more accepting of his nature. Does she just think he's handsome?
|
|
|
Post by Georgie L on Mar 24, 2012 1:42:34 GMT
First thought: how many boys have nails long enough to do that to their palms? Anyway. So Anthony is obviously putting a lot of effort into stopping himself from reciprocating Brinnie's affections. If he didn't care or wasn't interested he wouldn't have gone all Wolverine on his palms just from a simple "no thank you." So he's got a very good reason to avoid romantic entanglement despite apparently wanting to. Words cannot express how creepily interested I am in knowing what this reason is. My thoughts on your first thought: The nails don't really need to be that long, just uncut (thus sharp) and with him clenching hard enough for his hand to go white-handed (which amazingly is actually detailed in panel 3, Tom and his attention to detail is awesome.) I believe Anthony is actually incredibly anxious and doesn't know how to react to him not feeling the same way about her. Though I could be entirely wrong.
We're getting to know Young Antony, but there are still too many questions about the person he grew up to be. We can only judge him based on guesses, because we know essentially nothing about what he does, where he is, and what his situation is. So far, we've only seen negative effects of his present-day actions. But since all of the adult characters who we consider to be good in turn consider him to be a friend, I think there has to be much more to the situation that redeems him -- even if only a tiny bit. I agree wholeheartedly with this plot hypothesis. Then again I'm all in the "Anthony isn't a monster, just misunderstood" camp. Mostly cause I believe Tom wouldn't write such a clear cut character as a Monster, his characters are always more complex than that and most morality displayed seem to be shades of grey morality (except for Coyote and some other members of the forest seem more like Orange and Blue.)
|
|
cass
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by cass on Mar 24, 2012 1:51:42 GMT
Is he a bad father? (Yes)
Is that excusable? (Maybe)
He might just be so emotionally retarded that he doesn't realise what effect his actions have.
|
|
|
Post by wynne on Mar 24, 2012 7:41:37 GMT
Reynardine said that everyone knew that if Surma was to have a child she would eventually die. Anthony was aware of this as well but perhaps thought that he could counteract ethereal magic with human medical treatments. He failed and Surma died. It does make sense that he would blame HIMSELF, since it was HIS decision to try to cure Surma and HIS failure. Would he truly hate Antimony? He is a man of cold logic; it just doesn’t seem in character that he would transfer the blame like that. Perhaps initially he formed an aversion on Annie while the realization of his failure is upon him, but in the current context his prolonged absence still does not make sense. And, as a man of cold logic who happened to be Surma's husband, it's quite possible that he blames himself for her illness in the first place. After all, if he hadn't fathered Antimony then Surma would never have gotten sick. Combine that with paternal instinct, and you've got a whole boatload of conflicting emotions. And conflicting emotions, as this chapter shows, are not exactly Anthony's strong suit. Still, for all the analyzing, we still know next to nothing about grown Anthony. I'm not going to condemn or sympathize with him until we know more about him and the reasons behind the two year silence. Younger Anthony, I will admit to empathizing with, if only because I've known similar people and similar situations, but for grown Anthony I'm holding off on the verdict.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Mar 24, 2012 11:37:03 GMT
disregarding HIS OWN DAUGHTER'S HEART. He's so much of a selfish jerk. "Oh, don't judge me! I'm imcapacitatingly shy!" "don't judge..." You know the drill, right? I know some fans dislike Anthony and think that he hates Annie and just abandoned her because he blames her for Surma’s death but to me this seems too simple and doesn’t ring true to Anthony’s character we’ve seen so far. I think it's not that simple. It's even simpler. I noticed this effect too, but Anthony is not the only character and Gunnerkrigg is not the only fandom in which this can be seen. Much like with shipping, once it started, all opportunies to repeat the same are taken and all arguments to the contrary are simply disregarded. Here, the only thing that matters is "rehearsing the righteous rage". Ladies, gentlemen and critters, the thing more ludicrous than shipping is finally found! I'm "happy" to officially proclaim existent the new fandom fashion hereby. High-horse crusade: choose a windmill conveniently close to a moral high ground and beat it to death with a stick. Cheap sense of moral superiority, at least as long as you can write off curious glances the very need of it inevitably provokes.
|
|
|
Post by Georgie L on Mar 24, 2012 12:42:22 GMT
I'm sorry TBeholder, your points are normally quite concise and easy to understand. But I'm not entirely sure what that was about, it was somewhat disjointed.
I do agree that there is a moral high horse fandom that's worse than shippers.
|
|
|
Post by Mishmash on Mar 24, 2012 13:09:33 GMT
I really want to like Anthony. I feel quite sure that one day we'll get a good explanation for why he has abandoned his daughter!
Also, I was incredibley impressed by the first panel of this page. I love how you can tell so much about each kid's personality and what they are thinking just from their body language. Anja is in her own head, probably feeling guilty that her plan went wrong and worrying about Brinnie, Donny is looking back sadly at his friend, Eglamore is completely disinterested, probably just thinking "Jeez, who acts like that?" and looking forward to his date with Surma... while Surma is the only one we can't be sure of. Is she looking back because she also feels bad? Or is she curious about why Anthony acted the way he did? Or something else?
It's so cool how Tom can convey so much in a single panel without even any dialogue!
|
|
|
Post by Georgie L on Mar 25, 2012 0:13:37 GMT
To be fair I don't think we shall ever get a good explanation, but I still think he is at worst a emotionally detached person unaware of the pains he inflicts. Not a monster, but not wholly a nice person either.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 25, 2012 5:03:00 GMT
Perhaps I should add to my wordy previous post that I am still withholding judgment on Anthony as a person, though I am reasonably sure that he is not a good father. We may not have all the facts but we have some and a timeline that doesn't make him look good at all.
"Kids can be so cruel" is a common phrase because everybody starts out unaware of how their actions/inactions impact other people. However, after a while kids are expected to figure that out and rein in their behavior a bit. If you're still acting like a kid in this arena when you reach full adulthood I think it's fair to apply a label like "jerk."
I don't think anyone starts out as a great father. Like anything else you learn to be good by starting out bad. However, if a number of years have passed and you're still bad it's time to admit there's a problem and focus on getting better. If more years pass and you're still crapppy it was your choice to stay that way. If a decade and a half have rolled by and your best parenting technique is the Ikari Gendo silent stare, then you're a bad dad; maybe you're a bad dad with many mitigating factors but you're still bad.
By the way, I don't hate bad dads. If it weren't for bad dads there'd be damn few dads.
|
|
|
Post by secondofnone on Mar 25, 2012 14:14:55 GMT
I feel the need to weigh in on the "Is Anthony a bad father?" question. I'd have to say, no, he isn't a bad father. Sure, he's not Ward Cleaver, but that doesn't make him bad. And I wouldn't say he's 'abandoned' Antimony either: he's seen/is seeing to it that she is fed, clothed, housed, and educated, all at a private boarding school. That's not 'abandoning' or even 'neglecting'. If Antimony was going hungry so Anthony could keep himself in cigarettes, that would be neglect. If he wasn't supporting her in any way, that would be abandoned. But she isn't, and he is, so: perfect dad? No. Bad dad? Also no.
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Mar 25, 2012 16:30:18 GMT
It could just be he's not interested but still worried about hurting her feelings. That situations never fun to be in. Seems so. It can be stressful to be stuck between wanting to give it a try and being afraid that the friendship would end. By the way. Did you ever see this idea mentioned outside of Protestant traditions? Because it looks from outside extremely, uh, alien. And mentioned so often and offhandedly. It must be one of those basic behaviour stereotypes. Which in itself may explain a lot if we can find its borders. Anja is in her own head, probably feeling guilty that her plan went wrong [...] Surma is the only one we can't be sure of. Is she looking back because she also feels bad? Or is she curious about why Anthony acted the way he did? Or something else? It's "Surma and Anja arranged", so probably "share the victory, share the defeat" here. "Kids can be so cruel" is a common phrase because everybody starts out unaware of how their actions/inactions impact other people. However, after a while kids are expected to figure that out and rein in their behavior a bit. If you're still acting like a kid in this arena when you reach full adulthood I think it's fair to apply a label like "jerk." "expected to"? and he is, so: perfect dad? No. Bad dad? Also no. I'd say "not much of a dad". In that yeah, it seems that he does his best as he understands it. But my guess is that excluding himself is also an intended part of it. Based on him both being a medic and wanting flawless explainations to everything.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 26, 2012 0:34:01 GMT
[H]e's seen/is seeing to it that she is fed, clothed, housed, and educated, all at a private boarding school. That's not 'abandoning' or even 'neglecting'. In seeing to her requirements for food, clothing, and shelter I agree that Anthony has met her basic physical needs. Doing less would be criminal neglect. As to education, the Court appears to be a place where a child could get an excellent one but I have some concerns. Early in the comic Antimony appears to be on her own a lot. Is Antimony studying and doing well in school or is she cheating her way through and skipping classes? What good does it do to be at a great school if the latter is the case? And are there hidden costs associated with this education that Antimony will have to pay later? But more importantly, isn't adult supervision a basic need for children as well? Presumably the Court has some manner of councilors or residential advisers for each house who are responsible for making sure the younger kids do their homework and keep out of dangerous areas and away from delicate experiments, even if these councilors are robots. These haven't been shown in the comic. I assume they could swing into action after a problem has manifested and grown large enough, but even if that is the case isn't it evidence that the Court as an institution does not fill a parental role? To rise to the level of mediocrity as an absentee dad I believe Anthony should have hired a governess (or whatever) to make sure she kept up with her studies and stayed out of trouble. That would've given Antimony someone to stay with over vacation as well. If he couldn't afford to hire one then couldn't he have made arrangements with the Court for a live-in arrangement or even a robot? And if such arrangements are impossible at the Court then should Antimony have been parked there in the first place? Everyone starts out as a kid, and kids are jerks, therefore everyone starts out as a jerk. Implicit within the concept of raising a child is bringing them to at least a minimal degree of emotional and intellectual maturity as they grow to physical maturity. I would advance the idea that to be a jerk as a full adult is to fail to meet basic social expectations, though there are different types and levels of jerkiness one can achieve.
|
|
|
Post by Molly the Sleepless on Mar 26, 2012 7:22:09 GMT
Perhaps I should add to my wordy previous post that I am still withholding judgment on Anthony as a person, though I am reasonably sure that he is not a good father. We may not have all the facts but we have some and a timeline that doesn't make him look good at all. I kind of question whether he ever wanted to be a father at all. He just doesn't seem fatherly, and todays page seems to suggest that Annie never really had a close relationship to him. He was father, bt he was never dad. The way she says he seems almost human makes me think that he was just a figure in her life that she loved and respected because he was her father, but that she never really knew or was close to. Considering that, I wonder if it was Surma's desire to have a child and Anthony agreeing reluctantly because he cared about her and wanted her to be happy.
|
|
|
Post by Molly the Sleepless on Mar 26, 2012 7:29:50 GMT
[quote author=imaginaryfriend board=general thread=1504 post=65365 time=1332722041To rise to the level of mediocrity as an absentee dad I believe Anthony should have hired a governess (or whatever) to make sure she kept up with her studies and stayed out of trouble. That would've given Antimony someone to stay with over vacation as well. If he couldn't afford to hire one then couldn't he have made arrangements with the Court for a live-in arrangement or even a robot? And if such arrangements are impossible at the Court then should Antimony have been parked there in the first place? [/quote]
Well, he and Surma's closest friends do live and work in the Court and they know about his daughter and her situation. He probably assumed, or even cleared it ahead of time, that they would watch over her and ensure that she was taken care of during the school year. Still dickish that he never contacted her or anything, or explained who Kat's parents are, but it could be worse.
|
|
|
Post by tetracycloide on Mar 26, 2012 12:31:12 GMT
Anthony literally killed Surma and knew it ahead of time. Probably did it because she asked him to. I don't know if I'd want to be around Antimony after that either. Sure it's selfish but who would want to hang around the living reminder that you help someone kill themselves? I think it's easy to pretend 'good' people wouldn't do something like that but I just don't think that's true in many maybe even most cases. Add to that everyone else knew what a child would do to her and it's not just Antimony he's likely avoiding but everyone he knows. He doesn't like showing emotion in front of others as it is and every time he's with his friends he'd be overwhelmed with shame likely convinced that no matter what they said they'd judge him for it (who wouldn't really?). Running away certainly seems like a really normal thing to do at that point even if it is selfish.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 26, 2012 14:48:59 GMT
He probably assumed, or even cleared it ahead of time, that they would watch over her and ensure that she was taken care of during the school year. I believe it was formspring'd that the reason why Anja is crying when she sees that Antimony is on the class roster is that this was when she learned that Surma had died. In the course of people asking about that it was also mentioned that there wasn't any contact between when Surma left the Court and when Antimony arrived. So if Anthony was counting on the Donlans to take up the slack with Antimony he didn't mention it to them beforehand. It's also possible that he assumed Antimony shares his preferences for being left alone despite her age. He was father, bt he was never dad. The way she says he seems almost human makes me think that he was just a figure in her life that she loved and respected because he was her father, but that she never really knew or was close to. I think that happens to most kids. At some point they start to notice that the mommy and the daddy are PEOPLE and not just parents. Unless other evidence surfaces I'm cutting Anthony the benefit of the doubt on Antimony's earliest years. I think it was formspring'd that their early relationship was "normal" or something to that effect. [edit] I noticed in passing on the Wiki a formsrpring ref that said they weren't particularly close. Things could've been better than they were now, though.[/edit] I kind of question whether he ever wanted to be a father at all. He just doesn't seem fatherly, and todays page seems to suggest that Annie never really had a close relationship to him... Considering that, I wonder if it was Surma's desire to have a child and Anthony agreeing reluctantly because he cared about her and wanted her to be happy. The forum has been good lately so I will spare it the story of a couple I knew who worked themselves into a similar situation. Suffice to say it was unpleasant to even be near that drama. But it may also be the case that Anthony was sure he could find some way around this birth/death cycle, or that he didn't believe in it because it wasn't "scientific." One of my oldest wildspecs on this forum is that Eggers and Surma broke up because Eggers either wouldn't give Surma a child or couldn't handle the whole situation.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Mar 26, 2012 14:54:19 GMT
As to education, the Court appears to be a place where a child could get an excellent one but I have some concerns. Early in the comic Antimony appears to be on her own a lot. ...and it's horrible? Is Antimony studying and doing well in school or is she cheating her way through and skipping classes? Thanks for good laughs. ;D But more importantly, isn't adult supervision a basic need for children as well? Or what happens? They are tormented by growing with (gasp) modicum of self-reliance or start to object at excess of supervision later? Presumably the Court has some manner of councilors or residential advisers for each house who are responsible for making sure the younger kids do their homework and keep out of dangerous areas and away from delicate experiments, even if these councilors are robots. These haven't been shown in the comic. I assume they could swing into action after a problem has manifested and grown large enough, but even if that is the case isn't it evidence that the Court as an institution does not fill a parental role? If the Court as an institution tried to fill a parental role, local fledgling mad scientists would probably have it slagged long ago. So it's kind of self-evident. As it is, they merely disable some (not all) tracking measures sometimes, as it was repeatedly shown. He has an obligation to communicate to Antimony in a way she can understand. Everyone starts out as a kid, and kids are jerks, therefore everyone starts out as a jerk. Implicit within the concept of raising a child is bringing them to at least a minimal degree of emotional and intellectual maturity as they grow to physical maturity. I have feeling that our ideas on jerks, and probably organic life in general, don't match. As to the part where imaginary incorporeal observer tells about "an obligation to communicate" in understandable way... would you claim ability to do so even with the present company, let alone a very unusual kid? Anthony literally killed Surma and knew it ahead of time. Probably did it because she asked him to. I don't know if I'd want to be around Antimony after that either. Sure it's selfish but who would want to hang around the living reminder that you help someone kill themselves? ...and the next step is taking into consideration that this state would obviously prevent him from being a good father. And he knew this. Still selfish?
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Mar 26, 2012 16:07:18 GMT
One of my oldest wildspecs on this forum is that Eggers and Surma broke up because Eggers either wouldn't give Surma a child or couldn't handle the whole situation. I've always liked this bit of spec.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 27, 2012 1:43:01 GMT
...and it's horrible? Thanks for good laughs. ;D Or what happens? They are tormented by growing with (gasp) modicum of self-reliance or start to object at excess of supervision later? Horrible? No. Irresponsible? Yes, considering Antimony's age and circumstances when she first arrived at the Court, though as others have written he could've done much worse. It sounds like you and I might agree with whoever once said, "Children grow up when parents aren't there." But if you say that we must choose between supervision and no supervision, this is a false dilemma. For purpose of discussion I have been treating Antimony as if she were a person and not a cartoon character. As readers we can have the luxury of enjoying Antimony's adventures as she explores the mysteries of the Court. The more time she spends away from studies in dangerous places doing dangerous things the better the story will be. There are many stories about tweens and young teens left to their own devices. For such stories that have happy endings, read fairy tales or popular fiction. For stories with unhappy endings, watch your local evening news. If the Court as an institution tried to fill a parental role, local fledgling mad scientists would probably have it slagged long ago. So it's kind of self-evident. As it is, they merely disable some (not all) tracking measures sometimes, as it was repeatedly shown. Does this make Anthony's choice more respectable or less? I have feeling that our ideas on jerks, and probably organic life in general, don't match. Like I hinted at in a previous post, I believe in a wide rainbow of possible types and levels of jerks. Because of that I am sure there is some overlap between your ideas and mine. ;D As to the part where imaginary incorporeal observer tells about "an obligation to communicate" in understandable way... would you claim ability to do so even with the present company, let alone a very unusual kid? As an imaginary person myself I feel both comfortable and qualified to speak for another imaginary person who represents society, at least to the extent of saying that all else held equal people would prefer fewer jerks instead of more, and to this end parents should prepare children to interact well with others instead of warehouse them until they reach majority. If we say that parents have no obligation to communicate so that their children can understand, doesn't that mean that it is acceptable for a parent to tell a child to do something in a confusing manner and then punish them for the parent's mistake? Or to otherwise punish them without explanation? Like I said before, I don't think anyone starts out as a good parent. However, a dogged strategy does not require genius. Anyone can do it as long as they don't quit... ...which Anthony possibly has.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Mar 27, 2012 4:54:02 GMT
...and it's horrible? Thanks for good laughs. ;D Or what happens? They are tormented by growing with (gasp) modicum of self-reliance or start to object at excess of supervision later? It sounds like you and I might agree with whoever once said, "Children grow up when parents aren't there." But if you say that we must choose between supervision and no supervision, this is a false dilemma. An answer by putting the words (and beside the point at that) in the opponent mouth. How quaint. ^_^ There are many stories about tweens and young teens left to their own devices. For such stories that have happy endings, read fairy tales or popular fiction. For stories with unhappy endings, watch your local evening news. ...speaking of false dichotomies? Does this make Anthony's choice more respectable or less? More, obviously: he left her in a decent place It was also an observation on how people not allowing themselves to scared into helplessness tend to act - adapted to the setting in question. And probably the most polite thing i can say involving "institutions trying to fill a parental role" in general. As to the part where imaginary incorporeal observer tells about "an obligation to communicate" in understandable way... would you claim ability to do so even with the present company, let alone a very unusual kid? As an imaginary person myself I feel both comfortable and qualified to speak for another imaginary person who represents society, [/quote] Oh. I did read the "Featherbedders" report. I'm sorry your ship crashed, but generally don't find Slorin ideals admirable. The point of my note on the imaginary "objective" position in mid-air, though, was that while it's good for attacking, it's rather indefensible. In the 'net, this trick is perpetuated mostly by wikimedia fans and one of the reasons why they are derisively called "digital maoists" by those who does not play this game.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 27, 2012 10:07:32 GMT
An answer by putting the words (and beside the point at that) in the opponent mouth. How quaint. ^_^ When I wrote, "Isn't adult supervision a basic need for children as well?" you replied, "Or what happens? They are tormented by growing with (gasp) modicum of self-reliance or start to object at excess of supervision later?" I assumed your objection was rhetorical but if you really don't know, try typing "lack of adult supervision" and "teen" into a search engine. You should find some sites with interesting statistics. And in my defense I did write " if you say." ...speaking of false dichotomies? I admit it was a sweeping over-generalization, because I am sure there must have been stories of unsupervised tweens and young teens that have good endings on the local news, and it is true that there fairy tales or pop fiction about unsupervised tweens and young teens that have bad endings, like horror movies. But I think my point about the possible bad endings that unsupervised children and young adults can meet has been made. I notice the examples from the comic you are using are from after Antimony had been at Court for quite a while. When she first arrived she was younger and recently berieved. But I suppose I can agree with "decent" in that the Court is neither terrible nor a great place for her. Oh. I did read the "Featherbedders" report. I'm sorry your ship crashed, but generally don't find Slorin ideals admirable. Slorin may be imaginary but not all imaginary beings are Slorin. And my ship is fine, thank you. The point of my note on the imaginary "objective" position in mid-air, though, was that while it's good for attacking, it's rather indefensible. In the 'net, this trick is perpetuated mostly by wikimedia fans and one of the reasons why they are derisively called "digital maoists" by those who does not play this game. That was in response to your question, "expected to?" by which I assume you meant "expected to by whom?" Perhaps you were asking for a resource on obligation theory? I thought it was a clever and fun joke on my username but maybe not. But is it "indefensible?" Let's see if I can quickly generate such a hypothetical person for you. Borrowing Rawls' veil of ignorance, say we place a rational person behind it. This person is now completely unaware of their own circumstances including age. This person is made to believe that whatever he or she agrees to he or she will have to abide by as a norm when they leave. Now suppose we tell this person that when they return to reality they will either be a parent, a child, or a member of society who will have to interact with the child someday. If we ask this person if parents should advantage their children, I believe they will say yes for the following reasons which should produce the best consequences and minimizing their risks. They could be a child, in which case they would want to be advantaged. They could be a parent, in which case they may be inconvenienced but they will likely believe they love or value their child and therefore would want to advantage their child. They may also believe that if they advantage the child while he or she is young then the child will help support them in their old age. They could be another member of society who is neither the child nor parent, in which case I think they would benefit more by interacting with an advantaged child instead of a non- or disadvantaged child. Then if we ask the person if regular adult supervision would advantage or disadvantage a child they will probably say "advantage" for the following reasons: If they are the parent they may become liable for damage the child does while unsupervised, and if the child comes to harm then they will lose any advantages the child might provide to the parent in the parent's old age. If they are another member of society then they will not wish to be inconvenienced by unattended children running around. If they are the child they will not want to be restrained, but they may recognize that there is potential for them to come to harm by their own actions when without adult supervision and that plus the possibilities that they may be in the other two roles should ensure an answer of "yes." If we then ask them, "Should parents have an obligation to communicate with children in ways they can understand?" I believe that the answer will again be yes. Children will want to understand what the parents are communicating, parents may be inconvenienced but will recognize the utility, and other members of society will see advantage in interacting with children who are better socialized through communication with parents. Hmm, not bad for a fast job, yes?
|
|
notacat
Full Member
That's not me, that's my late cat Mimi: I'm not nearly so cute
Posts: 188
|
Post by notacat on Mar 27, 2012 12:55:30 GMT
In the 'net, this trick is perpetuated mostly by wikimedia fans and one of the reasons why they are derisively called "digital maoists" by those who does not play this game. Leik whut? I'm a big fan of Wikimedia: are you perhaps thinking of something else?
|
|
cass
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by cass on Mar 27, 2012 14:41:55 GMT
I thought it was a clever and fun joke on my username but maybe not. But is it "indefensible?" Well, I've not done any philosophy but.... Yes? It seems to me rhetorical questions can be answered in ways that don't support your argument - and probably will be if the person doesn't already agree with you. ^^; It's not clear the person you're talking about really is objective. They just don't seem to know precisely what their interests are going to be. You keep invoking things they'll probably want... but the information for that comes from their knowledge of the distribution of people and relationship types in their potential society, and once they have that information they can start to play the odds. They may not wish to be a child who's getting screwed over, but since there are many adults and relatively few children, they probably won't be.... And in order to counteract that you have to say that they'll adopt the wants and needs of whoever they end up being in that society. At which point, what's an objective truth just becomes a manifestation of social norms. Or to put it more bluntly: You're using Rawl's argument to argue for a particular set of norms, to then invoke their existence as data in the argument just makes your reasoning circular.
|
|