You seem to imply that, if it could be done in a suitably clean and convenient fashion, the average teenager would happily slaughter their own cows, chickens, lambs etc. for dinner on a daily basis, without a preceding process of desensitisation (which the majority do not go through). I disagree.
Up to a few hundred years ago, almost all teenagers lived in a rural context and did just that. A big part of the world population still does.
The necessary desensitization occurred simply by growing up there—being aware of it and considering it to be a normal part of life. Maybe if normal young children (11yo) are placed in an environment where their peers, upperclassmen and instructors all do it and act like it’s perfectly normal, then they’ll get used to it in a couple of days and it’ll be normal for them too. Why do you expect otherwise?
I agree that killing species preconceived of as pets rather than food, pests, etc. could require more desensitization for some children.
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.
[...] 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”.
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”.
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.
Up to a few hundred years ago, almost all teenagers lived in a rural context and did just that. A big part of the world population still does.
The necessary desensitization occurred simply by growing up there—being aware of it and considering it to be a normal part of life. Maybe if normal young children (11yo) are placed in an environment where their peers, upperclassmen and instructors all do it and act like it’s perfectly normal, then they’ll get used to it in a couple of days and it’ll be normal for them too. Why do you expect otherwise?
I agree that killing species preconceived of as pets rather than food, pests, etc. could require more desensitization for some children.
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.
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”.
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”.
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.