|
|
Post by aquamafia on Apr 11, 2015 20:41:25 GMT
It's hardly demonization when his actions have seriously negative effects on his daughter, effects that have been documented to harm a child's well being throughout a lifetime.
Neglect IS a form of abuse. All children have a psychological need of love and affection from their parents. It's ingrained upon them from birth. Anthony neglected Annie's need for love, plain and simple. The context of his actions are what make them so heinous, not necessarily the actions themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Apr 11, 2015 21:47:38 GMT
Does the phrase "demonization" have meaning to you? So being critical of someone automatically means demonization? And even if it isn't abuse, his decision to leave her alone for several years did cause her emotional damage. That said, I wouldn't be quick to say/insist that liking Annie prevent one from critiquing her. Cause as it stand the same could be said about you liking Anthony, thus you're unwilling to consider him to be flawed (and not necessarily evil or abusive flawed). Then you feel incorrectly. I know it's easy to label someone who doesn't agree with you as a troll, but try to resist. Maybe not for being disagreeable, but there are arguments which you've refrained from responding to like how even if emotional care shouldn't come at the expense of a child's academic upbringing or safety, that it shouldn't be neglected either as I said here: gunnerkrigg.proboards.com/post/117261Now some people like Anthony might be lucky enough to be a success without having to deal with people, but others might actually have to be able to interact with customers and thus requires being able to talk to them without feeling withdrawn or acting like having a stick up one's ass. Hence, lack of nurturing from parents can cause serious problems and has in this case. And if you don't think Annie has had any problems socially speaking, look Chapter 32: "From the Forest She Came" where she's really desperate for Kat's forgiveness. Or look at Chapter 45: "The Thread". Annie expresses a fear that she will be alone someday, and she expresses that by running off when faced with Kat and Paz forming a relationship. Not something that a person would do unless they were abandoned. |
|
|
|
Post by AnUpliftedCuttlefish on Apr 12, 2015 0:03:02 GMT
Two years of no contact whatsoever. Dick move, but not abusive. Finally calling, but only to use her as a tape recorder.See previous. See previous. So in acknowledging them as dick moves, you are in fact questioning Anthony's parenting techniques, correct? Or you're saying it doesn't matter if parents are dicks to their kids, providing they're not dickish enough to break laws? See, this doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Just because Annie's cheating can't be ignored/justified, doesn't mean Anthony shouldn't still look into what's behind it. Looking into what's behind it doesn't mean you have to ignore/justify it. Talking to her though lets you understand and tackle the actual issues the cheating is rooted in. It's a "dick move", as you put it, not to. I t raises questions about the effectiveness, and motivations, of Anthony's strategies. And qualities as a parent. Such hyperbole. But anyway, you're running a defense that argues Anthony is doing this out of a genuine desire to correct Annie's schooling issues. But we have a whole day wasted, at least. The criticism there is that Anthony's execution was about the least optimal it could be, if one is trying to help a struggling child. It ensures that - from the outset - Annie will have to be playing catch up, and doing so while running at reduced capacity due to having to deal with the emotional disruption of less than a day before. Now all this could have been avoided if she'd been given the news a day, a week, a month earlier. So either Anthony deliberately chose to do it in a way that isn't actually conducive to Annie succeeding academically - for whatever reason - or he couldn't do it in a better way. Why do you continue to substitute your own justification for Anthony's? We've now heard, on numerous occasions, why you would not allow Annie to interact with the forest - because it's dangerous. But we heard Anthony's reason - not that it's dangerous, but because it's nonsense. His objection sounds more like a parent telling a child they're to quit their band because it wont help them become a lawyer (which is what the parent wants). Or, as others have suggested - an individual trying to isolate someone from support networks/sources of strength. So really, I'd ask you to justify the decision based on the reason Anthony actually gives. Not "it doesn't matter what his motivations are, it's for the best because the woods are dangerous". No, it isn't an excuse - it's a legitimate question that raises doubt that Anthony's motivation is "because Rey's dangerous". If you legitimately believe your child is in danger from their possessed toy, you don't wait over 2 years to do something. It suggests Anthony does not think Rey is especially dangerous to Annie, per say, and wants him away from her for other reasons. And we don't have evidence for that. Eglamore dislikes Anthony*. Donald does not*, Anja has displayed no indication she does either*. We have no idea about the rest of the court, but we know initially they didn't want Annie to have Rey (plus they're apparently like Anthony enough to make him a teacher). Besides which - Annie has shown she'll pretty much do whatever her father wants. He didn't need to go to the court (especially since the Court can't take Rey). He just had to call her and say "give Donald control of Rey". *And all three of them didn't want Annie to have Rey initially, over 2 years ago, for the reason you're trying to give to Anthony (over 2 years late). Well, actually he couldn't - Annie needs to give him control first. But - that was only one scenario Rafk was proposing under a "Anthony might be motivated by something more than Antimony's academic welfare, hence his presence at the court." He could be motivated by her welfare (but still be potentially wrong headed about it), and have other goals at the court as well. He could etc etc etc Doesn't have to be an either/or situation. |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Apr 12, 2015 0:28:38 GMT
I've been trying to keep out of the debate over Anthony (partly because what's most grabbed my attention throughout this chapter is "How will all these big developments affect the long-term future of the comic?", partly because it's often become quite ugly), but:
Throughout this chapter, the way the story's been told clearly indicates that the author's voice is siding with Annie and Kat rather than with Anthony. Anthony behaves throughout in a cold, remote manner. Not one other character in this chapter has supported him, spoken up on his behalf, etc. (We've speculated that the Court faculty is working with Anthony, but Tom hasn't shown that happening - which is what matters.) The story has shown throughout Annie and Kat both feeling and acting increasingly devastated - and Kat, despite being shocked to learn that Annie's been copying off her, still remains far more upset with what Anthony's doing. Whatever the readers might think when they approach this through a detached state, the emotional atmosphere of the story is clearly designed to get the audience to feel for Annie and Kat, and to look upon Anthony's actions with horror and disgust.
Perhaps Tom feels enough for his leads that he sided with them as he wrote this chapter and didn't give Anthony's actions enough objective consideration. (He wouldn't be the first author to do such a thing.) We don't know - only Tom can say. For all we know, he's got a surprise twist later in the chapter that will make the readers re-assess what they've seen so far. Or maybe the readers speaking up for Anthony have spotted a flaw in the chapter that they haven't yet recognized as due to Tom (since none of them have, as far as I can tell, called Tom out for "protagonist-centered morality" in writing this chapter).
|
|
|
|
Post by AnUpliftedCuttlefish on Apr 12, 2015 0:44:37 GMT
Onomatopoeia: Does the phrase "pattern of abuse" have meaning to you? That would need to involve a pattern. And you can't get a pattern off a single incident, and neglect-control is not a pattern either (unless it repeats itself, which we have not yet seen). I'm not saying that Tony can't be abusive, but that it's really hard to make the call one way or another off this single interaction. ------ Part of me wonders if part of the reason Tony hasn't really spoken to Annie is because of the emotional maelstrom she causes in himself. His failure to save Surma, leaving his daughter without a mother... and the fact that Annie may well die before he does.
Tony became withdrawn over whether or not he liked Brinnie - what would feeling responsible for the death of his wife do? Could well be it - it doesn't excuse his conduct, but it would make it understandable. |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 12, 2015 1:06:03 GMT
Dick move, but not abusive. So in acknowledging them as dick moves, you are in fact questioning Anthony's parenting techniques, correct? Or you're saying it doesn't matter if parents are dicks to their kids, providing they're not dickish enough to break laws? Speaking for myself, correct, especially given that we do not know Anthony's side of the story. Double-especially because of the Court situation, and Anthony and Antimony's family history. And frankly, I think many of our current laws are broader and more numerous than they need to be, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this forum. Parents have to be allowed to make mistakes, huge ones, or no one will risk becoming a parent. |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty Hamilton on Apr 12, 2015 1:20:05 GMT
So in acknowledging them as dick moves, you are in fact questioning Anthony's parenting techniques, correct? Or you're saying it doesn't matter if parents are dicks to their kids, providing they're not dickish enough to break laws? Speaking for myself, correct, especially given that we do not know Anthony's side of the story. Double-especially because of the Court situation, and Anthony and Antimony's family history. And frankly, I think many of our current laws are broader and more numerous than they need to be, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this forum. Parents have to be allowed to make mistakes, huge ones, or no one will risk becoming a parent. "Side of the story" doesn't really come into it. Generally, when we talk about there being two sides to a story, we're referring to something that happened being described from two different perspectives. Crucial details may be left out by either side. For example, one kid might claim a classmate hit her while leaving out the fact that she'd been tormeting him beforehand. However, we aren't getting any of this information second-hand. We know exactly what has happened in this chapter. THere may be many mysterious surrounding Anthony, and we may not know the reasons for his bevhavior, but we basically know what has happened. What do we mean by "allowed to make mistakes"? Literally everything someone does wrong can be described as a "mistake". A parent is legally allowed to be awful to their child, but that doesn't mean we can't condemn them for their behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by machival on Apr 12, 2015 1:24:30 GMT
Onomatopoeia: Does the phrase "pattern of abuse" have meaning to you? That would need to involve a pattern. And you can't get a pattern off a single incident, and neglect-control is not a pattern either (unless it repeats itself, which we have not yet seen). I'm not saying that Tony can't be abusive, but that it's really hard to make the call one way or another off this single interaction. ------ Part of me wonders if part of the reason Tony hasn't really spoken to Annie is because of the emotional maelstrom she causes in himself. His failure to save Surma, leaving his daughter without a mother... and the fact that Annie may well die before he does. Tony became withdrawn over whether or not he liked Brinnie - what would feeling responsible for the death of his wife do? Anthony might very well have graduated from the Gendo Ikari school of parenting.  |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Apr 12, 2015 1:41:31 GMT
Parents have to be allowed to make mistakes, huge ones, or no one will risk becoming a parent. That's true. The problem is when a person whether it's kid/teen/adult has too much arrogance to consider that they are capable of making mistakes. After all the first (and arguably too important to skip) step towards improvement is being able to accept that one makes a mistake and is no more perfect than his/her fellow people. |
|
|
|
Post by rafk on Apr 12, 2015 2:22:03 GMT
Parents have to be allowed to make mistakes, huge ones, or no one will risk becoming a parent. Where in the world is this an issue? This is a gigantic strawman. There is noone in the world going "Oh, I want to have kids but I don't want to risk going to jail if I make a mistake!". And nor is there any risk of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Vilthuril on Apr 12, 2015 2:24:44 GMT
I hope the next page is Reynard eating Anthony. Om nom nom! You know, with enough ketchup it all tastes like ketchup! Though come to think of it, that's probably not a consideration for Reynardine.  |
|
|
|
Post by forsquilis on Apr 12, 2015 2:53:23 GMT
Since the beginning of the chapter, I've been itching to see Tony in the Ether. What does he look like there? Does he look simple and practical, or is he something complete unexpected? Zimmy's punch, and acts of etheric surgery/sorcery, just makes me want to see it more. Presently I'm counting on the sighting of Anthony's ether form (Annie's view, maybe even Zimmy) being the clincher of the chapter. I've been speculating about this, too. And more importantly, Antimony can eavesdrop from the ether. I've been wondering if Kat will badger her into doing that and Annie will discover unpleasant facts coming out of Anthony's own mouth that hurt her and trigger rebellion. When I saw that the Tree on the title page was an apple tree, my first thought was of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden. Metaphorically, one could say that story's message is that knowledge gives you power but can also bring pain and suffering. If Antimony is faced with evidence that her father is a jerk that she can't explain away, she'll be in that precise position. It may give her the strength to stand up to her father, and later, to begin facing the anger and insecurities that lie behind the mask Zimmy saw her desperately trying to keep in place. But she's going to be in emotional hell while she's working through all that. I'm hoping that this is what Tom is setting up. Antimony has grown her innate power. She's grown socially. She's recognized that running and hiding from problems is not good. Hopefully, she's about to start growing emotionally and to stop hiding (or hiding from) her pain. |
|
|
|
Post by legion on Apr 12, 2015 2:56:25 GMT
Onomatopeia deliberatedly ignored the informative post about what legally constitutes child neglect and child abuse in the UK, while continuing to be flippant and dismissive of everyone in the thread..
Textbook troll.
*plonk*
|
|
|
|
Post by ninjaraven on Apr 12, 2015 3:18:13 GMT
Parents have to be allowed to make mistakes, huge ones, or no one will risk becoming a parent. Where in the world is this an issue? This is a gigantic strawman. There is noone in the world going "Oh, I want to have kids but I don't want to risk going to jail if I make a mistake!". And nor is there any risk of it. Because people are asking for Anthony (who is as much a person as Annie is, in-comic) to be punched, beaten, burned alive, mauled, eaten alive, kicked and outright killed, despite finally coming back into his daughter's life. "welcome back, Pa, ya done goofed, it's the Alligator pit for you!" We don't even know if he's being callous because he's sadistic, or if he's trying to impress on her the gravity he feels about the situation and just honestly doesn't realize the effect he's been having on his daughter. We have not seen one whit of Tony's internal thought process. Does someone get the right to beat the snot out of you if you cause another pain due to your own ignorance of the situation? Tom tends to write very balanced characters - good guys end up being not so good, bad guys not so bad. The Court is under suspicion, but then so is the Forest. The fact that he's started off with such an unbalanced character feels like Tom is baiting us in a sense (though it seems to have worked a little too well). Obviously he wants us feeling as much shock as Annie... and to give us a sense of Tony's callousness... but I can't see Tom deciding on writing such an obviously one-dimensional person. There's been more to everyone else; I want to see what other dimensions Tony "I have work to do" Carver has. If Tony isn't sadistic (and, though I could be wrong, I suspect he isn't), then to remove him from the story isn't the correct solution - he needs to be TOLD what effect he's been having on her. He needs to grapple with his emotions and his preferred responses for the sake of his daughter's welfare. And THAT is a more interesting story than "oh hey, it's Carver Senior! He's a Jerk! Bye, Jerk!" I mean, sure, Tom might be telling that particular story. but I hope not. |
|
|
|
Post by guitarminotaur on Apr 12, 2015 3:20:32 GMT
It's going to be really interesting, if potentially heart-breaking, to hear what Annie has to say about Anthony next update. Especially in regard to the whole "Is Anthony misunderstood or a bag of disembodied schlongs" question. Though given her current emotional state, I don't know how reliable a testimony she can give.
Guys this is a scary thought. I hope Annie doesn't lash out at Kat in defence of her father. I don't know how much more emotional strain Kat can take before she starts fraying.
EDIT: And as for the "question" itself, please note that both options can be true. Anthony may be a misunderstood bag of dicks. |
|
|
|
Post by kelantar on Apr 12, 2015 3:21:19 GMT
Why on earth wouldn't he want her to go to the court? After all, it is a school of science that seems to be extremely advanced. Plus, it's unclear whether he even has to pay for her to attend. Zimmy clearly isn't paying her way, and since the Court produces it's own clothes and food and can cover the cost of the school, they might just recruit kids with special talents free of charge. I've theorized in my mind for a bit that maybe, just maybe, Anthony is an old-world kind of man, not a Gunnerkrigg citizen. Some things about Gunnerkrigg Court tells me that people are far more lax regarding their morality - between the killing and cover-up of Jeanne's death, the non-chalant attitude the guards have when pursuing Jack in the halls, the massive surveillance program that is radically 1984-esque (or worse!), and (dare I say) the fact that the Donlan teachers themselves never were aware of (or opted to ignore) Annie's academic track-record for copying homework... Reynard says as much about the Court moral compass as being far more laxing than the outside world, though I'm inclined to believe that's for the worse... the far worse, if my thinking is right. It's no secret that Surma worked for the Court in the past. Whether Anthony did as well, I'm not sure we can really say, but maybe - just maybe - Surma indulged on whatever crazy-juice allows the Court to operate the way it does, and Anthony did not like that one bit. Perhaps he vowed to raise their daughter outside of the Court and away from the craziness that laid within, but as we all know, Surma - NOT Anthony - wished for her to go there. And therein lies the rub: while Anthony may be willing to work with the Court, he may have despised the fact that his daughter was allowed to be raised in such a moral cesspit. It's hard to imagine what Anthony's truly thinking, but if my guess is right, he's seen his daughter be raised as some regular Court citizen who was allowed - even told, in some cases - to get away with far more than would be tolerable outside of the Court. Maybe Anthony really, REALLY, hates the Court - more than he can show (some semblance of) his love to Antimony. Yeah, but Anthony seems like such a control freak, I don't see him letting her go to the school if he hated it that much. And if he wanted to pull her out of the Court, this would be the perfect excuse to do it (transfer her instead of holding her back a grade). I mean, if he wants her away from distractions, the wood, and etheric stuff, why sign up to work there AND keep her at the Court at all if he doesn't like it? Plus, maybe it's just me, but I don't see him as a bastion of moral character himself. Whatever happened in Divine seems to be especially unethical, and although some say "he had his reasons," that sounds like the exact kind of judgment that makes the Court so morally questionable. I think we won't see a loss of her fire, per se, unless we see the Blinker stone shattered. I don't think the blinker stone would be much of a problem a this point. She has some tricks she can probably still only do with it, but I get the feeling that it was more like training wheels for the fire related abilities; she's still a fire-elemental without it, after all, and seems to be capable of quite a bit without the stone. Because if all Tony ultimately wants is control of Annie, he NEVER would've given up that control and remained silent for 3 years. And Annie would not be able to question Tony about it being "all about him" because if he is a big ol' manipulator and control freak, it IS All About Him, and their relationship would have always been About Him - which is why she would have to be broken and re-subsumed into his persona now. So why would he even give her a chance to develop a persona of her own? Why even give her even the smallest avenue to make it Not About Him?? He was her primary guardian - why even send her to school in the first place? He could've made a pretext to keep her with him and homeschooled her. If he felt pressured to send her to school, he'd have likely moved back to the Court himself, just to keep tabs on her - to make sure that their relationship remained All About Him. Instead she's had 3 years all to herself. I seriously doubt Tony's ability to be that clever and subtle a master manipulator, given his inability to react appropriately on relational matters from Microsat 5. It just doesn't add up. Well I never said that his primary goal was to control Annie. In fact, I have a similar opinion as you on that point, if he wanted to control her, he'd have been there (of course, I also think if he cared about her, he'd have been there). But just because he's self-centered doesn't mean that he wants everyone under control. It was selfish of him to abandon his daughter for two years, and he might have had a selfish reason to come back. I think his goal in their previous interaction was to get his hands on Rey, not to get Annie under his control, but since he knows how to deal with Annie, that's the easiest way to do it. Your username is so appropriate right now... Does not make them wrong either. You're right, it doesn't. They are though. Why, because you said it? And you wonder why people are "mistaking" you for a troll. So in acknowledging them as dick moves, you are in fact questioning Anthony's parenting techniques, correct? Or you're saying it doesn't matter if parents are dicks to their kids, providing they're not dickish enough to break laws? Speaking for myself, correct, especially given that we do not know Anthony's side of the story. Double-especially because of the Court situation, and Anthony and Antimony's family history. And frankly, I think many of our current laws are broader and more numerous than they need to be, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this forum. Parents have to be allowed to make mistakes, huge ones, or no one will risk becoming a parent. So you acknowledge that Anthony is making huge mistakes? And once again, just because we don't know Anthony's side of the story doesn't mean that we have to wait until we know every detail about him to pass judgement on his current actions. There would be no way to tell an effective story if we were expected to not be able assess characters based on what we've seen and on the fact that "maybe they might kinda have a decent excuse sorta." In addition, we've seen how damaging this is to Annie, so there's really no way around that. Whether he meant to emotionally cripple her or not , he did, of his own free will, and that's inexcusable. |
|
|
|
Post by AnUpliftedCuttlefish on Apr 12, 2015 3:43:32 GMT
It's going to be really interesting, if potentially heart-breaking, to hear what Annie has to say about Anthony next update. Especially in regard to the whole "Is Anthony misunderstood or a bag of disembodied schlongs" question. Though given her current emotional state, I don't know how reliable a testimony she can give.
Guys this is a scary thought. I hope Annie doesn't lash out at Kat in defence of her father. I don't know how much more emotional strain Kat can take before she starts fraying.
EDIT: And as for the "question" itself, please note that both options can be true. Anthony may be a misunderstood bag of dicks. It'd be like a nuke to the heart if Annie went off on Kat like she did Rey, in defense of Anthony. Though I don't think that'd happen (but it would show she still had fire in her if she did get angry - like how Zimmy & Jones both pushed that button, or tried). Heh, a misunderstood bag of dicks. That's where I've penciled in my wager. |
|
|
|
Post by creepingone on Apr 12, 2015 4:27:14 GMT
Parents have to be allowed to make mistakes, huge ones, or no one will risk becoming a parent. Abandoning a child for over 2 years is more than just a mistake. As I see it, there are 3 possibilities for his absence in her life: 1) Tony knew that abandoning his grieving daughter would do her immense psychological harm, and did it anyway. 2) Tony was completely oblivious to the damage his neglect would cause. 3) Tony was kidnapped by terrorists/in a coma for the past 2 years If 1 is true, than he is selfish man who has placed his own wants above the needs of his child. This borders on criminal, and shows him to be an unsuitable guardian. Number 2 is marginally better in that he doesn't intend to inflict harm. The fact that he could be so emotionally disconnected that he can't see how neglecting a child for two years could be harmful calls into question his fitness as her guardian. In number 3, he was physically prevented from being with his daughter through no fault of his own, thus he is innocent of any neglect or abandonment. The first 2 possibilities raise serious concerns about whether he should be her legal guardian. The 3rd is pretty unlikely, he's not acting like a man who's been forcibly kept away from his daughter for 2 years. He needs to explain his disappearance to the authorities and be held accountable before he even thinks about getting custody of Annie again. There is no evidence thus far that he has faced any consequences for his actions. Personally, I think that a grown man abandoning his child following the death of the weather is several of orders of magnitude worse than a 13 year old cheating in middle school. |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Apr 12, 2015 4:29:36 GMT
Heh, a misunderstood bag of dicks. That's where I've penciled in my wager. As have I, if you check out my earlier posts: I think that what Anthony is doing is wrong, I'm angry with him because he is harming Annie in ways she didn't deserve, but Tony almost certainly has his reasons...but conversely, I very much doubt his reasons will be sufficient. |
|
|
|
Post by Onomatopoeia on Apr 12, 2015 6:09:44 GMT
So being critical of someone automatically means demonization? No. Painting him as a monstrous abuser because Antimony severely overreacts to legitimate punishments means demonization. Labeling objectors to this tract as trolls is just icing on the demonic cake. So because Antimony is weak, Anthony is a child abuser? Why, because you said it? And you wonder why people are "mistaking" you for a troll. Not because I said so. Because it's true. Self evidently so. |
|
|
|
Post by kelantar on Apr 12, 2015 6:17:43 GMT
Why, because you said it? And you wonder why people are "mistaking" you for a troll. Not because I said so. Because it's true. Self evidently so. If it were so self evident, the majority would agree with you. Which they don't. Maybe the others weren't mistaken at all. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Apr 12, 2015 6:19:19 GMT
So being critical of someone automatically means demonization? No. Painting him as a monstrous abuser because Antimony severely overreacts to legitimate punishments means demonization. Labeling objectors to this tract as trolls is just icing on the demonic cake. I'm talking about how she has abandonment issues because her father left her for several years. My discussion had nothing to do with her legit punishments in class. Seriously do you keep forgetting about the fact that we're talking about his actions before he became a teacher? |
|
quark
Full Member
Posts: 137
|
Post by quark on Apr 12, 2015 6:19:44 GMT
Where in the world is this an issue? This is a gigantic strawman. There is noone in the world going "Oh, I want to have kids but I don't want to risk going to jail if I make a mistake!". And nor is there any risk of it. Because people are asking for Anthony (who is as much a person as Annie is, in-comic) to be punched, beaten, burned alive, mauled, eaten alive, kicked and outright killed, despite finally coming back into his daughter's life. "welcome back, Pa, ya done goofed, it's the Alligator pit for you!" We don't even know if he's being callous because he's sadistic, or if he's trying to impress on her the gravity he feels about the situation and just honestly doesn't realize the effect he's been having on his daughter. We have not seen one whit of Tony's internal thought process. Does someone get the right to beat the snot out of you if you cause another pain due to your own ignorance of the situation? Okay, I think you misunderstand. People screaming bloody murder aren't arguing 'Anthony's a bad parent, so I think all bad parents should be eaten by a spirit possessing a wolf toy; this is an appropriate response to child abuse'. They are expressing what they feel, and that is pretty close to what Kat's feeling: anger that somebody hurts Antimony, who they care about; a sense of helplessness as they see it getting worse (much worse). What makes 'parents should be allowed to make mistakes, huge ones' a strawman is this: nobody argues this. The only thing people argue is that Tony's mistakes are big enough that they justify him losing custody of his daughter, and backed up their argument by quoting the law. Furthermore, if he did put his daughter into a coma trying a medical procedure that isn't in any way proven to work without her consent or knowledge (for which there are strong indicators), this is a criminal offence in countries where children are seen as more than possessions of their parents. Yes, it's more interesting, but wouldn't it be interesting too if Tony is removed from his position of power over Antimony as guardian, and only held emotional power over her? When Annie herself could decide whether to follow his commands, or try and free her friend Reynardine she might have already put under her father's control? When all the relationships she's made pay off when people rise to her defence, in a myriad of ways? |
|
|
|
Post by Onomatopoeia on Apr 12, 2015 6:23:59 GMT
Not because I said so. Because it's true. Self evidently so. If it were so self evident, the majority would agree with you. Which they don't. Maybe the others weren't mistaken at all. Majority belief does not constitute truth. Large numbers of people persist in believing that vaccination causes autism. Why do you continue to substitute your own justification for Anthony's? Why do you continue to fabricate reasons for Anthony's actions? Hey Annie, give me Reynardine. kthxbai. |
|
|
|
Post by Onomatopoeia on Apr 12, 2015 6:28:46 GMT
Onomatopeia deliberatedly ignored the informative post about what legally constitutes child neglect and child abuse in the UK I skimmed. In short, he wouldn't be found guilty, but you think he should because because HE WAS MEAN TO ANNIE!!!!! Then some irrelevant drivel about US laws. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Apr 12, 2015 6:29:19 GMT
Why do you continue to substitute your own justification for Anthony's? Why do you continue to fabricate reasons for Anthony's actions? Even if he considered himself unfit to raise Annie or he did have business to attend to which legitimately required him to be apart from her, why not ask any of his friends to care for her in his place? Just saying that people with different opinions can come to some understanding and respect when both sides are willing to listen carefully and respond to any argument their way. |
|
|
|
Post by Onomatopoeia on Apr 12, 2015 6:33:53 GMT
Seriously do you keep forgetting about the fact that we're talking about his actions before he became a teacher? I actually do. You people tend to blur together. The lack of unique avatars isn't helping.  So, he left her at school for two years and went away on business and because of this she's experienced emotional trauma. I'm not seeing how this is Anthony's fault in the slightest. Could he have contacted her during those two years? Yes? No? Maybe? We don't know. Does his failure to do so constitute abuse in any way shape or form? No. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Apr 12, 2015 6:41:28 GMT
Seriously do you keep forgetting about the fact that we're talking about his actions before he became a teacher? So, he left her at school for two years and went away on business and because of this she's experienced emotional trauma. I'm not seeing how this is Anthony's fault in the slightest. Could he have contacted her during those two years? Yes. Does his failure to do so constitute abuse in any way shape or form? No. At this point I won't have much to say, so I think this will be my last post towards you with several questions. And please read my questions thoroughly as you'll see in my second question, you made a claim contradicting a previous post: 1. To answer your question, kids need parential support when they grow up, and not just for discipline or protection from danger. And Anthony is the parent. How is he not at fault? 1A. And no, you can't claim that I find Kat's parents to be guilty of the same since they are available for their daughter to contact and actually enjoys being with her even when they don't have to. 2. And I even said that it may not be abuse in the second sentence of this post: gunnerkrigg.proboards.com/post/1172872A. For that matter, is abuse, lack of proper care for their children (financially and health wise) or lack of willing to discipline the only situations in which a parent can be wrong enough to merit criticism? 3. Unless you actually dislike Anthony (despite heavily defending him) accusing people of defending Annie out of bias could easily apply to you. Heck, even Annie defenders are about to admit she's in the wrong for slacking off her academic life and that she needs to be punished. 3A. Heck, as you were asked several times, do you actually believe that Annie's cheating makes Anthony's previous abandonment of her okay in a retroactive fashion? |
|
|
|
Post by rococozephyr on Apr 12, 2015 10:28:47 GMT
Onomatopeia deliberatedly ignored the informative post about what legally constitutes child neglect and child abuse in the UK I skimmed. In short, he wouldn't be found guilty, but you think he should because because HE WAS MEAN TO ANNIE!!!!! Then some irrelevant drivel about US laws. This is what the post we're talking about said (emphasis mine): His actions absolutely meet the criteria for neglect, at least how the relevant civil authorities in the UK define it.Furthermore, the same document defines abuses as: "A form of maltreatment of a child. Somebody may abuse or neglect a child by inflicting harm, or by failing to act to prevent harm. Children may be abused in a family or in an institutional or community setting by those known to them or, more rarely, by others (e.g. via the internet). They may be abused by an adult or adults, or another child or children." This is what the authorities in the UK, where GC takes place, use to determine abuse. According to them, neglect is abuse.Fortunately for Anthony, the UK's criminal laws regarding child abuse are from 1933 and woefully outdated, so he'd probably avoid criminal charges for neglecting her, though the crown might try anyway. This is a real problem in the UK, I'll post some links at the end going into more detail about the negative effects that neglect has on children, and the effort to bring UK child welfare laws into the 21st century. Anthony has not just been "mean" to Annie. He has neglected and abused Annie, and the fact that charges would not necessarily be brought against him does nothing to change that. A lack of justice does not indicate a lack of crime. You're either a troll who thinks it's funny to defend abuse, in a space where there are likely people who have survived abuse and who may actually be upset or hurt by this callousness, or you're somebody who honestly doesn't believe that harming others should be considered wrong when you can get away with it. Actually, those sound like pretty much the same thing, huh? Either way, don't expect anyone to respect your arguments when you're obviously going to as little trouble as possible to actually listen to what others have to say and backing up your own opinions by purposefully misrepresenting the opposing view. |
|
|
|
Post by AnUpliftedCuttlefish on Apr 12, 2015 11:03:18 GMT
If it were so self evident, the majority would agree with you. Which they don't. Maybe the others weren't mistaken at all. Majority belief does not constitute truth. Large numbers of people persist in believing that vaccination causes autism. You're not wrong that majority consensus does not automatically mean something is correct*... but you're using a minority that is wrong, to prove a majority can be wrong? Because anti-vaccination people are both a minority, and wrong. So in that case - the majority is right. But they're not right because they're the majority, they're right because they're on the side of the evidence. So really you're just saying "lots of people can be wrong - or right - regardless of whether they're in the majority or minority". Which is absolutely true. Further information could prove everyone criticizing Anthony (which includes myself) is wrong to some degree. Same for everyone defending him (which includes you). You agree, yes? *'Cause Coyote knows that majorities have believed plenty of things that have proven incorrect throughout history. Am I? I thought I'd been criticizing the actions themselves, and therefore questioning Anthony's motivations. Or rather the claim that his motivation is purely concern about Antimony's schoolwork (because we don't actually know his motivations). On the other hand pretty much every time you talk about why cutting Annie off from the forest is a fair response to her cheating you say the forest is dangerous. Which is not why Anthony said he was doing it, and the reason he gave =/= fair response to her cheating (nor, for that matter, is it being dangerous). Now if the reason she was cheating was because she was sinking all her time into the forest, and allowing none for her schoolwork then it'd be a fair response. Even a constructive response. But the cheating began before that. So... So you're missing my point, that was made when you missed rafk's point, intentionally? And we don't know that he wont disappear now. But if he doesn't it could mean A. Rey isn't in any way what he's there for, B. Rey is only a part of what he's there for, C. Rey is completely what he's there for, but there's a reason he's going to stay, D. controlling Ray is about controlling Annie, E... |
|
