You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Velorien comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 15, chapter 84 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: FAWS 11 April 2012 03:39AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (1221)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Velorien 13 April 2012 05:26:30PM 0 points [-]

You seem to argue that the majority of teenagers would act in the way you suggest if it were a natural part of the culture they were brought up in. I agree.

However, I don't think we have evidence to believe that British wizarding culture is such. And even if it were, this would not account for why Muggleborn students (including pet cat owner Hermione) act no differently to their pureblood counterparts.

Comment author: DanArmak 14 April 2012 02:16:56PM 2 points [-]

[...] if it were a natural part of the culture they were brought up in. [...] However, I don't think we have evidence to believe that British wizarding culture is such.

They routinely have children kill (vanish) animals in class to learn a spell. Their parents presumably did the same when they were in school. Isn't this pretty much the definition of it being a natural part of the culture?

As for Hermione, I agree with the interpretation "Rowling is a bad writer" over "she is making a subtle point here".

Comment author: Velorien 14 April 2012 10:16:31PM -1 points [-]

Circular argument, I think. "It's presently OK to kill animals in class, therefore it must have been the same in the past, therefore it must be part of the culture, therefore it's presently OK to kill animals in class".

Comment author: DanArmak 16 April 2012 07:53:41AM 0 points [-]

Read "is OK to ..." to mean a cultural norm, not a judgement made by my or yours real values.

My argument is then: It's presently OK (in their culture); therefore (all else being equal) it's likely to have been OK in the recent past, and is not a recent innovation; therefore it matches the definition for being a part of their culture.

The last link to "therefore it's OK" that you propose is simply not necessary, I have already reached my conclusion.

Now if you read "it's OK" as meaning I, User:DanArmak, think it's OK for wizards to kill kittens, that would be a circular argument, and also a wrong one (because I don't think so). But that's not what I was saying.