[1496] Inconveniences.

[anisky]

Apr 5, 2015 5:19:40 GMT fwip said:

Apr 5, 2015 2:46:02 GMT anisky said:

Well, it physically put Annie in a coma. There was nothing etheric about her being unable to get up and move around. She was literally physically incapacitated.

You think you can out-pedant me, young man?  You merely adopted pedantics.  I was born in it, raised in it - (Quite literally.  In a family with six siblings arguments get really silly really fast.)

What makes you think I am either young or male?

Also, I don't think there's anything pedantic about it. You claimed that Anthony never physically hurt Annie. He obviously did. Explain how pointing that out could possibly qualify as pedantic, please?

Edit: You had siblings? OK. I majored in analytic philosophy, with a minor in math and concentration in logic. Specificity and precision are everything to me [in this context].

[csj]

Morality and ethics are subjective. There is no 'correct' answer, so demeaning someone for having a differing opinion is not really productive. We can't be objective about a situation where we as readers don't have the full store or complete picture. That goes for both sides of the Anthony argument. Calling anyone that doesn't say 'anthony is terrible and abusive' an 'apologist' is therefore pretty silly.

[sherni]

I've done a lot of thinking about the last few pages. From what I've seen so far of Anthony I got the impression that he does care about Annie. However, he places no value on her own thoughts or feelings. As far as he is concerned, he knows best. It is his right to leave her completely alone for three years without letting her know where or how he is, just as it is his right to suddenly come back into her life and lay down the law on her. He is completely convinced of his own superiority, at least as far as his daughter is concerned. Perhaps he does love Annie, but just loving your child does not make you a good parent. He has made no attempt to get to know her and in fact goes so far as to flatly dismiss her interests- and her duties as the medium- which is something she has actually earned! His only interest lay in punishing her for her misdemeanour. Which she certainly deserves, but which should not be the only thing he find to talk to her about.
That said, his punishments have also been niggling at me. I do know something about educational institutes, and Anthony's handling of the situation seems both extreme and somewhat... fishy. Keep in mind that Annie is still a child. She was left completely in the guardianship of the Court, which was in charge of both her and her education. If Annie has failed as a student, then the Court, by being aware of her cheating and not dealing with it, has failed as her guardian. There were plenty of ways they could have put a stop to Annie's cheating, the simplest of which being to tell Kat. Even if they felt themselves incapable of exerting their authority over Annie (which I do not believe for a second- the Court has ample resources and Annie is not that strong yet) her best friend would have been able to knock some sense into her, perhaps give her some much needed academic help. In my opinion, by knowing about her cheating and not stopping her, the Court is equally complicit in it. Moving on to Anthony's restrictions, I find the lack of procedure very strange. A student who is caught cheating is at the very least given a warning, likely along with a punishment and the promise of a more severe penalty if she is found to have repeated the offence. This was obviously not done. In fact, Annie was allowed to pass into Year 10. However, this is part of the protocol for making a student repeat a year. The Court, whatever else it is, also acts as an educational institute and is therefore bound by these rules. It cannot simply play with a student the way Anthony is doing now. Which also makes me question his authority. A parent cannot dictate whether or not a child is to be held back, even if the child is theirs. A single teacher cannot do that either. That decision is taken jointly by the child's other teachers and then finalised by the Head. Yet, judging by Anthony's words, it seems he has done exactly that. Similarly, his statement that she will not be permitted to return to the forest cannot have any authority behind it. Annie was hired by Coyote, and unless Anthony has actually gone into the forest and spoken to Coyote himself- which I very much doubt- he cannot prevent Annie from carrying out her duties. Which makes me wonder just how much of what he has said so far carries any weight.
I really, really, really want Annie to stand up to him and tell him where he gets off. Sadly, I'm fairly certain that's not going to happen. She's spent the last few years standing up for him in his absence and believing in him. She's idealised hi in her mind, and that is going to take a while to break. If it does at all. I really hope Kat's gone for reinforcements. Her parents, Eglamore, Jones, Reynardine... preferably all of them!

My first post (novel) here! Hallo, Gunnerkrigg fans!

[youwiththeface]

Apr 5, 2015 5:06:43 GMT TBeholder said:

Apr 5, 2015 0:01:43 GMT snipertom said:

I think it's quite interesting to see that some of the people who have jumped to Anthony's defence then condoned all kinds of emotionally and physically abusive behaviour.

...and anyone who condones a heretic or a witch is likely to be a heretic or a witch, too! "For those it may concern in the Holy Inquisition..."
The thing you do with this torch is rather entertaining, but your appendages are a little too thick and short to get through internet connection. No, still short even with pitchfork.

That's good. They totally needed that help you provided getting them up on that cross. 

Apr 5, 2015 6:41:53 GMT csj said:

Morality and ethics are subjective. There is no 'correct' answer, so demeaning someone for having a differing opinion is not really productive. We can't be objective about a situation where we as readers don't have the full store or complete picture. That goes for both sides of the Anthony argument. Calling anyone that doesn't say 'anthony is terrible and abusive' an 'apologist' is therefore pretty silly.

Demeaning someone probably isn't productive, but it's not demeaning to point out that some things Anthony's strongly hinted to have done are not morally or ethically subjective in the eyes of the law, or at least the eyes of our law. And honestly I don't know what to say about someone who thinks operating on someone without their knowledge is okay. Even if you think that's morally okay (How?) legally it's obviously not and would be defined as abuse, or as something even worse with an even more severe punishment. 

[csj]

Apr 5, 2015 11:38:10 GMT youwiththeface said:

Apr 5, 2015 6:41:53 GMT csj said:

Morality and ethics are subjective. There is no 'correct' answer, so demeaning someone for having a differing opinion is not really productive. We can't be objective about a situation where we as readers don't have the full store or complete picture. That goes for both sides of the Anthony argument. Calling anyone that doesn't say 'anthony is terrible and abusive' an 'apologist' is therefore pretty silly.

Demeaning someone probably isn't productive, but it's not demeaning to point out that some things Anthony's strongly hinted to have done are not morally or ethically subjective in the eyes of the law, or at least the eyes of our law. And honestly I don't know what to say about someone who thinks operating on someone without their knowledge is okay. Even if you think that's morally okay (How?) legally it's obviously not and would be defined as abuse, or as something even worse with an even more severe punishment. 

He was operating, or is that simply a theory?

That is one interpretation of what we have seen in the comic. We don't know what he was doing. We don't know his full motives, what he was attempting to do, what Zimmy's intervention accomplished.

As it turns out, there are actually laws whereby the guardian of a minor has the final say on matters such as their mental and physical well-being. Parental decisions about healthcare are made all the time and often, without relying or requesting the consent of the patient. Is that 'right'? What if they don't know what is wrong, or cannot comprehend the need for whatever action is being taken, let alone what it actually entails? Is painful or risky surgery justifiable? How can we call it 'right' or 'wrong'?

I'm sure a number of people duped into visiting the dentist would have differing opinions on the matter. But hey; at least they did give you a lollipop at the end.

[Refugee]

Apr 5, 2015 12:19:22 GMT csj said:

[Anthony] was operating, or is that simply a theory?

Not even a theory; a bit of wild speculation by way of suggesting that we in the peanut gallery have no idea what was actually going on in that chapter.

As it turns out, there are actually laws whereby the guardian of a minor has the final say on matters such as their mental and physical well-being. Parental decisions about healthcare are made all the time and often, without relying or requesting the consent of the patient.

Spang on. Educational decisions, even more so.

Certainly, these powers can be used for ill, but my sense is that parents, even fathers, by and large care more about their children than bureaucrats or idle bystanders, who very often do not know all the circumstances and personalities involved.

[fwip]

Apr 5, 2015 6:14:43 GMT anisky said:

Apr 5, 2015 5:19:40 GMT fwip said:

You think you can out-pedant me, young man?  You merely adopted pedantics.  I was born in it, raised in it - (Quite literally.  In a family with six siblings arguments get really silly really fast.)

What makes you think I am either young or male?

Also, I don't think there's anything pedantic about it. You claimed that Anthony never physically hurt Annie. He obviously did. Explain how pointing that out could possibly qualify as pedantic, please?

Edit: You had siblings? OK. I majored in analytic philosophy, with a minor in math and concentration in logic. Specificity and precision are everything to me [in this context].

I apologize for not making it clearer that I was joking.  I used the term "young man" because it seemed like it would be funnier that way - I was trying to call to mind the 'crotchety old man' trope.  I believe that what I said was pedantic because whether the attack (operation) was physical or etheric the ethics remain the same - Anthony did operate on Annie without her consent.  I believe that your message was pedantic because it referenced a side effect and used it as evidence to call the whole operation physical.

Anyway, I was doing my best to humorously discontinue what I saw as a silly argument.  I'm sorry that I failed - Poe's law, perhaps?

[zimmyzims]

Apr 4, 2015 23:02:11 GMT Vilthuril said:

Apr 4, 2015 19:00:07 GMT TBeholder said:

As opposed to comissars, who are entitled properly to use everything (such as this forum) as a platform to shamelessly push their witch-hunting misanthropic speeches promoting their little business - which is okay.
Oh, yes. How frequently? Secret. And not only children. What really happened to Nancy Schaefer, again?

Ah, the good old, All Government Workers (or people who work in non-profits under government contracts) Are Commissars and Murderous Schemers And EVERYTHING IS AN EVIL PLOT theory. This is, indeed, exactly the kind of thing that needs no 'rebuttal' because belief in it cannot be swayed. A small portion of any population will always believe things like this, and everyone else will not.

Well that is the good old straw man method of countering a particular argument by turning it into a universal conspiracy theory. The point that TBeholder and Refugee make is not that every government worker is a wrongdoer but that there are people in executive positions abusing their position and when the institutions allow it, then it indeed is inevitable that it will happen (I let you do the math as to why this is so). Secondly, there is a point that you personally sound like a person who might abuse his/her position in a witch-hunt type of action - albeit perhaps not so much because of bad intentions as because of bad judgement.

[zimmyzims]

Apr 5, 2015 6:14:43 GMT anisky said:

Apr 5, 2015 5:19:40 GMT fwip said:

You think you can out-pedant me, young man?  You merely adopted pedantics.  I was born in it, raised in it - (Quite literally.  In a family with six siblings arguments get really silly really fast.)

What makes you think I am either young or male?

Also, I don't think there's anything pedantic about it. You claimed that Anthony never physically hurt Annie. He obviously did. Explain how pointing that out could possibly qualify as pedantic, please?

Edit: You had siblings? OK. I majored in analytic philosophy, with a minor in math and concentration in logic. Specificity and precision are everything to me [in this context].

For the sake of the educational institution you have passed through, I hope that didn't make you pedant, although with that exact combination that is to be feared.

By the way, explain how Anthony obviously did hurt Annie physically. Maybe the concept you lack precision with is 'hurt'.

[fwip]

Apr 5, 2015 14:56:12 GMT zimmyzims said:

Apr 5, 2015 6:14:43 GMT anisky said:

What makes you think I am either young or male?

Also, I don't think there's anything pedantic about it. You claimed that Anthony never physically hurt Annie. He obviously did. Explain how pointing that out could possibly qualify as pedantic, please?

Edit: You had siblings? OK. I majored in analytic philosophy, with a minor in math and concentration in logic. Specificity and precision are everything to me [in this context].

For the sake of the educational institution you have passed through, I hope that didn't make you pedant, although with that exact combination that is to be feared.

By the way, explain how Anthony obviously did hurt Annie physically. Maybe the concept you lack precision with is 'hurt'.

Not you too... Anthony did operate on Annie without her permission.  This is bad.  I don't think there's anything more to discuss here, whether it's etheric, physical, mental, spiritual, or geological.

[pxc]

Lots of logical and ethical gymnastics happening in this thread. Can't wait to move on from this nonsense.

[sable0aria]

Maybe it's just me, but I've been wondering what exactly has been so disgusting to me about Mr. Carver's behavior toward Annie. I finally figured it out rereading the chapter. I keep waiting for him to ask Annie "Why?", but he never does. What made her think cheating was a better option than asking someone for help? He seems far more invested in dolling out the punishment than finding the source of the problem.

I can't remember a time I was reprimanded for something that I wasn't asked why I had done it. I didn't always know the answer to that myself, but the question was always asked. So again, maybe it's just me and my experiences growing up, but that leaves me feeling that Anthony is a definite lack of concern for his daughter.

[sherni]

Apr 5, 2015 16:41:40 GMT sable0aria said:

Maybe it's just me, but I've been wondering what exactly has been so disgusting to me about Mr. Carver's behavior toward Annie. I finally figured it out rereading the chapter. I keep waiting for him to ask Annie "Why?", but he never does. What made her think cheating was a better option than asking someone for help? He seems far more invested in dolling out the punishment than finding the source of the problem.

I can't remember a time I was reprimanded for something that I wasn't asked why I had done it. I didn't always know the answer to that myself, but the question was always asked. So again, maybe it's just me and my experiences growing up, but that leaves me feeling that Anthony is a definite lack of concern for his daughter.

Perhaps I'm reaching here, but I think he simply doesn't care. What matters is that she's done wrong, disappointed him and now needs to be dealt with. There are no reasons or justifications- only excuses. 

I could be completely wrong, though. This storyline has stirred me up because it reminds me (horribly) of a particular teacher who essentially made my life hell in school when I was a little younger than Annie is now. The same cold dismissive attitude, the same way of continuously keeping the other person off-balance, even the way she used to cut off whoever she was talking to.

Does anyone else wonder if Coyote would stand up for Antimony, if matters came to that? I keep getting a nasty feeling that he might decide to go along with Anthony, just for laughs, or because it fits in with whatever scheme he's cooking. Coyote is nobody's friend. 

[TBeholder]

Apr 5, 2015 12:19:22 GMT csj said:

He was operating, or is that simply a theory?

Brief summary of the previous series: Anthony Carver, renowned for (and now confirmed) distrusting and detesting all that magic nonsense as much as possible and tendency to ignore or shoo away things he isn't comfortable with (such as Brinnie, magic or Kat), have built MAGICAL BONELASORS on his moonbase on the Moon with the help of handless Enigmarons. Offscreen, but something Zimmy have seen after the glorious vision of hat-pigeon worn by Kat can possibly be interpreted as evidence, if you squint at it hard enough.
Yes... I know... But the very fact of being accused by the Inquisition proves the guilt. Didn't you read Malleus Maleficarum?

Apr 5, 2015 12:19:22 GMT csj said:

That is one interpretation of what we have seen in the comic. We don't know what he was doing. We don't know his full motives, what he was attempting to do, what Zimmy's intervention accomplished.

Well, obviously. We agnostics are double-heretical, though.

Apr 5, 2015 12:19:22 GMT csj said:

I'm sure a number of people duped into visiting the dentist would have differing opinions on the matter. But hey; at least they did give you a lollipop at the end.

Point. Speaking of which... Lolly?

Apr 5, 2015 15:48:11 GMT fwip said:

Not you too... Anthony did operate on Annie without her permission.

When? Links, please?

[machival]

Apr 5, 2015 17:04:56 GMT sherni said:

Apr 5, 2015 16:41:40 GMT sable0aria said:

Maybe it's just me, but I've been wondering what exactly has been so disgusting to me about Mr. Carver's behavior toward Annie. I finally figured it out rereading the chapter. I keep waiting for him to ask Annie "Why?", but he never does. What made her think cheating was a better option than asking someone for help? He seems far more invested in dolling out the punishment than finding the source of the problem.

I can't remember a time I was reprimanded for something that I wasn't asked why I had done it. I didn't always know the answer to that myself, but the question was always asked. So again, maybe it's just me and my experiences growing up, but that leaves me feeling that Anthony is a definite lack of concern for his daughter.

Perhaps I'm reaching here, but I think he simply doesn't care. What matters is that she's done wrong, disappointed him and now needs to be dealt with. There are no reasons or justifications- only excuses. 

I could be completely wrong, though. This storyline has stirred me up because it reminds me (horribly) of a particular teacher who essentially made my life hell in school when I was a little younger than Annie is now. The same cold dismissive attitude, the same way of continuously keeping the other person off-balance, even the way she used to cut off whoever she was talking to.

Does anyone else wonder if Coyote would stand up for Antimony, if matters came to that? I keep getting a nasty feeling that he might decide to go along with Anthony, just for laughs, or because it fits in with whatever scheme he's cooking. Coyote is nobody's friend. 

I think coyote would side with antimony, if only because he's been pretty consistent about pushing annie towards interaction with the forest. It'd be odd for him to turn around and suddenly side with someone whose trying to keep annie out of the forest.

[antiyonder]

Apr 5, 2015 5:06:43 GMT TBeholder said:

...and anyone who condones a heretic or a witch is likely to be a heretic or a witch, too! "For those it may concern in the Holy Inquisition..."
The thing you do with this torch is rather entertaining, but your appendages are a little too thick and short to get through internet connection. No, still short even with pitchfork.

And there are times when abuse is legitimately part of the equation, but still not dealt with because the abusive parent doesn't seem like the sort who would commit abuse or just because of the idea that the parent is always right.

So yeah, it's possible to do harm (or more appropriately, allow harm to occur), by trying to dismiss the claims against the parent as much as witch hunters who might be condemning an innocent individual.

But even then, I myself and even several other posters stopped with requesting violence toward Anthony and have been willing to give credit when due.

That said, I'm still looking for a rebuttal to these:
1. Anthony's first and only thing to tell Annie since they've been back together the "reasons she sucks".
2. Insulting her makeup, rather than giving a more professional worded demand like "I don't allow makeup to be worn in my class.  Remove it immediately."
3. Claiming she has no business in being concerned with the well being of a family member (him).  If he didn't want to answer her question, he could have simply said "I don't care to discuss what happened to my hand".

Anyway, while I still agree on Annie getting punishment for cheating, I think it's a fair point that Anthony would be a little more curious about her cheating.  Had she been doing so on all subject, then laziness could be attributed, but the fact that she does legitimately well should raise some curiousity with him

[Kitty Hamilton]

Apr 5, 2015 17:43:57 GMT machival said:

Apr 5, 2015 17:04:56 GMT sherni said:

Perhaps I'm reaching here, but I think he simply doesn't care. What matters is that she's done wrong, disappointed him and now needs to be dealt with. There are no reasons or justifications- only excuses. 

I could be completely wrong, though. This storyline has stirred me up because it reminds me (horribly) of a particular teacher who essentially made my life hell in school when I was a little younger than Annie is now. The same cold dismissive attitude, the same way of continuously keeping the other person off-balance, even the way she used to cut off whoever she was talking to.

Does anyone else wonder if Coyote would stand up for Antimony, if matters came to that? I keep getting a nasty feeling that he might decide to go along with Anthony, just for laughs, or because it fits in with whatever scheme he's cooking. Coyote is nobody's friend. 

I think coyote would side with antimony, if only because he's been pretty consistent about pushing annie towards interaction with the forest. It'd be odd for him to turn around and suddenly side with someone whose trying to keep annie out of the forest.

Hmm. It really could be either or. Coyote does love turmoil...but I think he has plans for Annie. He wants to keep seeing her, and, as you said, get her closer to the forest.

I honestly don't think Anthony has the authority to take away the forest's chosen medium. If the forest wasn't a force to be reckoned with, there would be no mediums because the court would have no incentive to negotiate.

I could see Coyote getting very annoyed with one of his favorite playthings being taken away.

[quark]

Apr 5, 2015 16:41:40 GMT sable0aria said:

Maybe it's just me, but I've been wondering what exactly has been so disgusting to me about Mr. Carver's behavior toward Annie. I finally figured it out rereading the chapter. I keep waiting for him to ask Annie "Why?", but he never does. What made her think cheating was a better option than asking someone for help? He seems far more invested in dolling out the punishment than finding the source of the problem.

I can't remember a time I was reprimanded for something that I wasn't asked why I had done it. I didn't always know the answer to that myself, but the question was always asked. So again, maybe it's just me and my experiences growing up, but that leaves me feeling that Anthony is a definite lack of concern for his daughter.

I haven't even thought of that, but now.. you're completely right. I don't think it's because he likes punishing her or something, though. He thinks he already knows what's up with Antimony (she cheats because she's lazy, she wears make-up because she does like breaking the rules and so on).
I've been thinking about Antimony's cheating too - she's smart and pays attention, so why would she need to? sheer laziness? She spent a lot of her early school years in the hospital with her mother; we know that they needed to be near each other. She probably didn't have a lot of education, and that's she's doing her own work in biology and history (which she could have picked up from being around medical staff and Psychopomps) suggests that she at least tries. I don't know how well Kat's doing in history, but her work in biology has to be very good, too, judging by the ideas she's getting from bird wings.

[youwiththeface]

Apr 5, 2015 12:19:22 GMT csj said:

Apr 5, 2015 11:38:10 GMT youwiththeface said:

Demeaning someone probably isn't productive, but it's not demeaning to point out that some things Anthony's strongly hinted to have done are not morally or ethically subjective in the eyes of the law, or at least the eyes of our law. And honestly I don't know what to say about someone who thinks operating on someone without their knowledge is okay. Even if you think that's morally okay (How?) legally it's obviously not and would be defined as abuse, or as something even worse with an even more severe punishment. 

He was operating, or is that simply a theory?

That is one interpretation of what we have seen in the comic. We don't know what he was doing. We don't know his full motives, what he was attempting to do, what Zimmy's intervention accomplished.

That's why I said he was strongly hinted to have done those things.

Apr 5, 2015 12:19:22 GMT csj said:

As it turns out, there are actually laws whereby the guardian of a minor has the final say on matters such as their mental and physical well-being. Parental decisions about healthcare are made all the time and often, without relying or requesting the consent of the patient. Is that 'right'? What if they don't know what is wrong, or cannot comprehend the need for whatever action is being taken, let alone what it actually entails? Is painful or risky surgery justifiable? How can we call it 'right' or 'wrong'?

I hope you can see the difference between taking a kid to the dentist and deciding a child is going to have an operation without even telling them. Especially when the kid in question is fourteen years old and can be made to understand the procedure and can figure out and express whether or not she wants it.

Besides which, the thing about Annie's surgery is that it isn't even something she would need to survive, so you can't even use that as an excuse. Annie's elemental side can only kill her (so far as the comic has told us) if she has a child, and since Annie was obviously not pregnant during Divine, we know that whatever was happening to her there was not being deployed as a desperate attempt to save her life. What Anthony Carver might have done to her is the equivalent of a parent deciding they want a daughter and signing their son up for a sex change, or a parent of a child beauty pageant contestant forcing their kid into getting cosmetic surgery, which, I probably shouldn't have to tell you, would be absolutely hideous things for a parent to do.

[fwip]

Apr 5, 2015 17:35:20 GMT TBeholder said:

Apr 5, 2015 15:48:11 GMT fwip said:

Not you too... Anthony did operate on Annie without her permission.

When? Links, please?

It's an assumption - one that it was reasonable for me to state given that everyone involved in that subconversation has accepted it to some degree.

[Sky Schemer]

Apr 5, 2015 10:04:18 GMT sherni said:

There were plenty of ways they could have put a stop to Annie's cheating, the simplest of which being to tell Kat.

The simplest would have been to tell Annie, and told her to stop or there would be consequences.

Similarly, his statement that she will not be permitted to return to the forest cannot have any authority behind it. Annie was hired by Coyote, and unless Anthony has actually gone into the forest and spoken to Coyote himself- which I very much doubt- he cannot prevent Annie from carrying out her duties. Which makes me wonder just how much of what he has said so far carries any weight.

Well, Antimony is a minor so he does have the legal authority. But that's just authority. To actually stop Annie from going to the forest, he would have to physically stop her. That would be no easy task. On top of that, Coyote is the trickster and would sieze any opportunity to get her into the forest if he were so motivated.

My first post (novel) here! Hallo, Gunnerkrigg fans!

Welcome!

[zimmyzims]

Apr 5, 2015 15:48:11 GMT fwip said:

Apr 5, 2015 14:56:12 GMT zimmyzims said:

For the sake of the educational institution you have passed through, I hope that didn't make you pedant, although with that exact combination that is to be feared.

By the way, explain how Anthony obviously did hurt Annie physically. Maybe the concept you lack precision with is 'hurt'.

Not you too... Anthony did operate on Annie without her permission.  This is bad.  I don't think there's anything more to discuss here, whether it's etheric, physical, mental, spiritual, or geological.

I am asking how is it obvious that he hurt her physically. I am not merely being pedant, I do not see any point in Divine where Annie is obviously hurt physically. On the contrary, she sleeps calmly without complications, she wakes up happy as from a good sleep, and feels fine. Nothing suggests that she was hurt. And even "etheric" forms of hurting are disputable, not obvious (as Refugee has demonstrated by well disputing them).

And it is precisely this attitude "he operated her without her permission and this is bad regardless of what all it was about and what were the circumstances" that is utterly unethical.

[youwiththeface]

Apr 5, 2015 21:25:36 GMT zimmyzims said:

Apr 5, 2015 15:48:11 GMT fwip said:

Not you too... Anthony did operate on Annie without her permission.  This is bad.  I don't think there's anything more to discuss here, whether it's etheric, physical, mental, spiritual, or geological.

I am asking how is it obvious that he hurt her physically. I am not merely being pedant, I do not see any point in Divine where Annie is obviously hurt physically. On the contrary, she sleeps calmly without complications, she wakes up happy as from a good sleep, and feels fine. Nothing suggests that she was hurt. And even "etheric" forms of hurting are disputable, not obvious (as Refugee has demonstrated by well disputing them).

The only reason Annie woke up happy was because of what Zimmy did, namely undoing what her father apparently had.

Did you know that if you punch someone low in that back, in the kidneys, it doesn't bruise? Or at least, it doesn't bruise nearly as heavily as it would if you'd punched them somewhere else. Smarter abusers can make a habit of kicking or punching someone where there'll be no bruises and it will be harder to tell the abused was hurt. In short: just because someone looks fine doesn't mean they are. I would figure that would be obvious. Some of the most vile child abuse imaginable leaves no visible scar. And just because abuse doesn't leave a scar does not mean it's not abuse.

Besides, in a non-etheric situation, a parent putting their kid into a coma probably counts as hurting them physically. Even if they didn't put them there by beating them into it, I'd say it still counts. And we don't even know yet what those bone things were doing to her. For all we know, things were even worse than they looked.

Apr 5, 2015 21:25:36 GMT zimmyzims said:

And it is precisely this attitude "he operated her without her permission and this is bad regardless of what all it was about and what were the circumstances" that is utterly unethical.

No. It's not. There was no reason for him to do anything to her without telling her first, or asking her first. The very fact that he didn't suggests he knew that she was going to refuse and since he cared more about getting to do what he wanted to her body/soul than about how she felt about it he didn't contact her first. (Gee, wanting to do things to her whether or not she consents. What does that sound like?)

Annie being part elemental is a part of her she's choosing to embrace. Her father trying to remove it from her, even if it was to save her (and hell if we know yet) is not justified. If you had a kid who was passionately in love with a dangerous career (maybe signing up for the army) you would not be justified in locking them up in your basement 'for their own good'. Parents send their kids to de-gayification camps 'for their own good'. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and good intentions alone don't excuse abuse. Ever.

[Deleted]

Anyone who presumes a dichotomy between the Court and the Forest, or by extension between the physical and the etheric, reinforces a representation of the fictional world that has been created by Coyote, whimsically or purposefully so. Therefore, if Anthony does indeed believe that the Forest produces nothing but "nonsense", the overlords of either side could not have wished for a more obedient servant.

I have this urge to play the Grand Inquisitor and ask whether arguments about Anthony's "narcissism" etc. make much sense at all. Suppose that such an illness cannot be cured by behavorial therapy, then all moral judgment passed on Anthony is but the laughter of the (slightly healthier, slightly less self-coherent) gods; suppose that such an illness can be cured by behavorial therapy, then I should think that the people who pass said judgment are unspeakably aware of the danger they approach in reflection. I'm still hoping that someone can learn from my mistakes, lest I have no illusions that we shall all remain trapped in samsara the Internet.

[zimmyzims]

Apr 4, 2015 15:54:36 GMT warrl said:

I have a somewhat simpler explanation for Annie's cheating (while noting that several of the explanations are mutually non-contradictory and may all be true).

Lack of reason to care.

Annie's interested in biology and mythology/history. Her other subjects, not so much. Her personal incentive in those classes was not to learn the material, it was to get along with minimum effort. She cheated once, nobody seemed to care, she saw that breaking the rules seems to be accepted (she even had a teacher telling her to be more careful to not get caught) - great, an easy way to get along in the classes she doesn't care about!

Up until this I do not see at all how this is any different from what others, e.g. myself have said. But then comes this:

We have no reason to think she couldn't have passed those classes. We don't even have specific reason to think that she didn't study enough to pass most of them, possibly even all of them. Because she was sure of passing them and getting decent grades if she copied Kat's work. Why take the chance of failing, when cheating is so easy and accepted, and she doesn't really care about the material?

Oh, we have a plenty of reason: the reason you state above, the evidence of her constant practice of cheating and underwhelming homework that would not have passed anything, and then the lack of knowledge.

Simple educational truth is applicable to Antimony's case: lack of reason to care leads to lack of motivation leads to lack of work leads to lack of learning leads to lack of mastery.

[zimmyzims]

Apr 5, 2015 21:50:11 GMT youwiththeface said:

Apr 5, 2015 21:25:36 GMT zimmyzims said:

I am asking how is it obvious that he hurt her physically. I am not merely being pedant, I do not see any point in Divine where Annie is obviously hurt physically. On the contrary, she sleeps calmly without complications, she wakes up happy as from a good sleep, and feels fine. Nothing suggests that she was hurt. And even "etheric" forms of hurting are disputable, not obvious (as Refugee has demonstrated by well disputing them).

The only reason Annie woke up happy was because of what Zimmy did, namely undoing what her father apparently had.

That you simply do not know. There was no moment where she hurt.

Did you know that if you punch someone low in that back, in the kidneys, it doesn't bruise? Or at least, it doesn't bruise nearly as heavily as it would if you'd punched them somewhere else. Smarter abusers can make a habit of kicking or punching someone where there'll be no bruises and it will be harder to tell the abused was hurt. In short: just because someone looks fine doesn't mean they are. I would figure that would be obvious. Some of the most vile child abuse imaginable leaves no visible scar. And just because abuse doesn't leave a scar does not mean it's not abuse.

Having been in army, I know a lot about hurting without leaving marks. However, here she feels fine. You do not feel fine after getting soapsock or a punch in the kidneys. She has not been punched anywhere, and inventing such analogies is ridiculous.

Besides, in a non-etheric situation, a parent putting their kid into a coma probably counts as hurting them physically. Even if they didn't put them there by beating them into it, I'd say it still counts. And we don't even know yet what those bone things were doing to her. For all we know, things were even worse than they looked.

Doctor anaesthetising a patient for the time of the operation does not count as hurting.

Apr 5, 2015 21:25:36 GMT zimmyzims said:

And it is precisely this attitude "he operated her without her permission and this is bad regardless of what all it was about and what were the circumstances" that is utterly unethical.

No. It's not. There was no reason for him to do anything to her without telling her first, or asking her first.

That again you do not know. If it is revealed afterwards that there were reasons that would have undermined the operation if he had come to talk about it (or that he could not come to mention it), makes such complaints vanish completely. But as we've heard for a hundred times, nothing can justify it, which is the absolutely unethical position. See my post from earlier thread and try to answer it. I challenged you to come up with an ethical theory to justify your position: no one has taken the challenge.

[Refugee]

Here's the post suggesting that Anthony was performing some kind of etheric surgery:

Apr 4, 2015 21:58:35 GMT zimmyzims said:

By the information we have, what happened in Divine may likely have been a medical operation of some sort, for which Anthony anaesthetised Antimony. Which surely would not be abuse of any sort (on presumption that medical operation was made for Annie, that is, to benefit her).

This is not a possibility I dispute, but even so, we do not KNOW that what Zimmy saw was anything like surgery, that it was Mr. Carver performing it, or even that he was the one who put Annie into a coma.

This, like almost all of the possibilities that zimmyzims, I, and others have proposed, are mere speculative alternatives to the presumption that Mr. Carver, without his daughter's consent or even her knowledge, anesthetized her and committed etheric surgery against her with possible ill intent.

The accusation now being raised is there is no excuse for a parent to perform such an operation without informed consent.

Without budging from my point that this is all speculative, let me propose a scenario favorable to Mr. Carter: He was working against an entity who had been malignantly tampering with Antimony, Court or Coyote or some unknown, take your pick. It was essential that Annie not know that he was one the one doing this, or even that these plans were being acted against--otherwise, Annie might have been killed or neutralized in ways unfavorable to her.

Another possibility is that we're seeing something like emergency treatment of a sucking chest wound--no, if you're not a doctor, you'd better not try to actually fix the hole, but you'd damn well better put a temporary packing in it to seal it off--a wet tshirt will help, better still if it's covered in Saran Wrap. (And you need to occasionally open it, to let trapped air and fluid out.) Go ahead, you try to rouse the victim to explain things and obtain consent. When that doesn't work, call for a 'bolance and a pizza, see which one gets here first. I'm going to go ahead and try to stop the sucking.

Again, I'm not speculating that this is what's going on. I'm pointing out that we do not know what is going on, and that are scenarios that do not automatically cast Mr. Carver into the role of Abusive Father.

[zimmyzims]

Apr 5, 2015 22:50:07 GMT Refugee said:

Here's the post suggesting that Anthony was performing some kind of etheric surgery:

Apr 4, 2015 21:58:35 GMT zimmyzims said:

By the information we have, what happened in Divine may likely have been a medical operation of some sort, for which Anthony anaesthetised Antimony. Which surely would not be abuse of any sort (on presumption that medical operation was made for Annie, that is, to benefit her).

This is not a possibility I dispute, but even so, we do not KNOW that what Zimmy saw was anything like surgery, that it was Mr. Carver performing it, or even that he was the one who put Annie into a coma.

This, like almost all of the possibilities that zimmyzims, I, and others have proposed, are mere speculative alternatives to the presumption that Mr. Carver, without his daughter's consent or even her knowledge, anesthetized her and committed etheric surgery against her with possible ill intent.

The accusation now being raised is there is no excuse for a parent to perform such an operation without informed consent.

Without budging from my point that this is all speculative, let me propose a scenario favorable to Mr. Carter: He was working against an entity who had been malignantly tampering with Antimony, Court or Coyote or some unknown, take your pick. It was essential that Annie not know that he was one the one doing this, or even that these plans were being acted against--otherwise, Annie might have been killed or neutralized in ways unfavorable to her.

Another possibility is that we're seeing something like emergency treatment of a sucking chest wound--no, if you're not a doctor, you'd better not try to actually fix the hole, but you'd damn well better put a temporary packing in it to seal it off--a wet tshirt will help, better still if it's covered in Saran Wrap. (And you need to occasionally open it, to let trapped air and fluid out.) Go ahead, you try to rouse the victim to explain things and obtain consent. When that doesn't work, call for a 'bolance and a pizza, see which one gets here first. I'm going to go ahead and try to stop the sucking.

Again, I'm not speculating that this is what's going on. I'm pointing out that we do not know what is going on, and that are scenarios that do not automatically cast Mr. Carver into the role of Abusive Father.

Yes, indeed, my point as well is just that if there happened an operation (which is something that I also think is a plausible although very unproven scenario), it does not mean that there was no good reason to it (I'd say it already suggests that there was a one), nor that there happened abuse. We lack information, and we should not make judgments of type "regardless of what other information will be given what he has done is x".

I also find myself disillusioned with the fact that most of the forum seems to be completely unable to think of scenarios in which Anthony could not have asked Annie about the operation for the exactly same reason that he was gone those years (e.g. crazy military mission; healing Annie), or even those reasons why he was gone. Really seems like most of the people have forgotten about these events taking place in a fudging magical-mystical-etherical Gunnerverse.

[Deleted]

Apr 5, 2015 23:00:49 GMT zimmyzims said:

We lack information, and we should not make judgments of type "regardless of what other information will be given what he has done is x".

That sounds reasonable to me. But in turn, I find myself disillusioned with how everyone who rejects the opinion of "most of the [public]" nonetheless proceeds to pronounce categorical imperatives in everybody's name, while raising their own assumptions above such self-imposed principles. Even a Cartesian prescription of mandatory doubt can be fit into the given blank; simply let "x" be "potentially justified by the outcome", implying that any "good" result proves that the process is also "good" (further implying pre-established harmony and all that), which now constitutes a mindset that defines the thinking circles of humanity. In time, it becomes a weapon, and then it all begins again. I don't know if I can avoid it for myself.

Edit: I want to make clear that I like your speculation, particularly how you highlight that no reader knows about Anthony's motives and possible dangers he was facing when he presumably left Annie behind, or when he presumably performed some "surgery" on Annie in Chapter 38, or whether these bones even indicate any tampering with Annie on Anthony's part (can it be proven at face value that Annie was the target of those bonelasers, rather than the origin?).

By the way, if you want people to challenge any morality that employs "no harm felt, no foul" as a sufficient criterion by itself, I do intend to take you up on it, if with an extreme example: Do you think it's possible to rape a person who remains fast asleep, and thus oblivious, throughout the act? If yes, you must concede the point; if not, I will have thrown you to the wolves. Or can you rise above that dichotomy? That would be interesting.

[todd]

Apr 5, 2015 18:30:45 GMT Kitty Hamilton said:

I honestly don't think Anthony has the authority to take away the forest's chosen medium. If the forest wasn't a force to be reckoned with, there would be no mediums because the court would have no incentive to negotiate.

I wonder if Anthony thinks the whole notion of negotiating with the forest pointless. Jones mentioned, back in Chapter Seventeen, that a lot of the people at the Court (including the Headmaster) look upon the forest's inhabitants as mere animals and dismiss them accordingly. Anthony could well share their opinion and view the idea of diplomatic meetings with Gilltie's inhabitants as if they were humans with their own sovereign nation-state absurd - so why hold them? (And if the end of those meetings leads to worsening relations - the approaches to the Court such as the bridge are no doubt well-guarded enough (even if you don't know about Jeanne - and hardly anybody does) that it would be difficult for a forest army to break in.)