Not any more than you and Anne Kate can (which seems to be some, since you claim to know how much they enjoy what they do).
However, I have spoken to bullies, and am friends with some, and this is that consistent response to people fighting back at them. Ask them yourself if you want - you'll find they think people who stick up to them are being mean to them.
posted
Ah. But the victim's meanness isn't unprovoked. The bullies meanness to the victim IS unprovoked.
And I know what I know from research, working in the field, classes, and my own experience with bullies. The subject of bullies is quite well-researched.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think maybe some of us are finding themselves caught on one side of this argument because they can't forget that this is Ender we're talking about. Abstract away from the fact that this kid is the hero of your favorite (2nd favorite in my case) series of books. If your little boy killed a bully at school, what would your reaction be?
"Good work, little Andrew. That was just one of the Stilsons you sometimes run into in this life. I know it was hard, but you did the right thing."
Huh?
I've had a pretty unexciting life, but even I have run into worse bullies than Stilson. One time somebody picked me up by the throat in a locker room. I'm sure I could've figured out some way to kill him, people aren't that hard to kill if you know what you're doing. But I had at least the minimal amount of human empathy and decency required to spare his life.
Ender does awful stuff. That's part of the point of the book: is he responsible for the evil that he wreaks, or was it the fault of the people who brought him up this way, to be used as a weapon?
It was also about how war and conflict alters the way we view others. It makes us look at them as embodied threats, without concern for the fact that they're people, and our only goal is to get them out of our way. That's one of the prices we pay when we fight each other. I can't tell you how surprised I am that OSC, who helped teach me how to recognize this fighting attitude, seems so eager to adopt it these days.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except the bully thinks the reaction was unprovoked, and often that his original attack WAS provoked. This I know, first and foremost, from my two brothers and my younger cousins - if one was messing with the other, and the other fought back, the first always refuses to believe he did anything wrong to provoke it. Furthermore, the original culprit always says the other deserved the original attack - if only because he was being annoying.
posted
Perception determines behavior though, and how we judge that behavior. If both parties percieve the other as mean and inhuman, then we pretty much know what's going to transpire between the two of them, and that feud is what we're hoping to prevent.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perception doesn't entirely determine behavior. Also included are wants, needs, and desire. Studies have found that bullies crave the power found by bullying, often to cover up their own weaknesses. When a bully is confronted by a victim, of COURSE they're going to think the victim is being mean. They're calling the bullies' bluff.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I have yet to see any approach work for "bullies" to get them to stop bullying other than a taste of their own medicine. Sad, but true (IMHO) -
I think it's just one of those "the burnt hand teaches best" and no matter how much time we spend trying to analyze the motivations behind the behavior, there are two important points:
Everyone has the right to be safe from violence (of any sort) and everyone has the right to protect themselves from being violated.
Nice little conundrum, isn't it?
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Destineer, this isn't Ender and Stilson we're talking about. It's ourselves. <laughs> At least I know it is for some of us. Or at least our younger selves. Talk about caught on one side of the argument, yes!
[ December 30, 2003, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
In 7th grade I was being bullied. I usually didn't fight back because I had anger problems and was afraid I would end up mauling someone. Anyways, this time I fought back...it wasn't much...I slapped him across the face about 10 times in a 2 to 3 second period. Then I walked away and, well, cried. My favorite teacher (in retrospect-I didn't know he was my favorite at the time) told me he was proud of me for walking away. When asked by the principle to explain my actions, I said that I was sick of getting picked on, and that the school bullies needed to know that I wasn't toothless. The principle said that while my strategy could be effective (that ended up being the case) and she understood my reasoning, she had to give me a disciplinary referral because it was her "policy" to give referrals to people who fight. I asked why she had such a policy. She dodged the question.
More background: I was a veeeeery skinny and relatively weak child for as long as I can remember. I started developing into a teenager before most of my friends did, so during that school year I went from being one of the weakest to being among the strongest. The bully was still stronger than me, though. Also...there's tons of backstory on this...suffice it to say that my school has conservative views, and at the time I was in idealogical revolt against everything that everyone said at any time.
There. I've added my material to the discussion. Draw what conclusions you wish.
Evene though the thread has turned more to individual behavior, I like to advise caution when drawing parallels between individuals and countries. ...and when attempting to "decode" a text that the author might never have encrypted.
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had the same experience of bullies. That nothing whatsoever will stop them, no means at all, other than force or credible threat of force.
I'm reading now about the civil rights movement, and thinking about that in the context of this discussion, too.
There were several facets to the struggle. 1) The legal arm. The supreme court declared integration to be the law of the land. 2) The direct action arm. People had to be willing to defy custom, convention, brutality, death, and local law to test the power of the federal law. 3) Then there was the essential enforcement. Three presidents had to be willing to send out the 101st Airborne Infantry (in Little Rock), or other troops to enforce the law. Otherwise, law or not, integration would never have happened. One president was assassinated over it, one presidential candidate, and many many great leaders of our people and of our democracy. (Integration STILL is very provisional and incomplete, particularly in the North.) 4) There was the backlash. There were people who killed, assassinated, bombed, etc. to maintain the status quo. 5) Then finally there was the backlash against the backlash. The mainstream of America who finally, finally, way later than they should have done, took a stand against the bombers and the hatemongers and in favor of law and order.
Did the bullies (the segregationists, bombers, and lynchers and so on) ever give up before they were forced to by overwhelming force? I would say they did not.
I think non-violent struggle can be a huge part of an overall struggle. But there must be a struggle, a fight. There must be force involved. Power must be revealed. Goodness can never prevail without a struggle.
[ December 30, 2003, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stilson was a bully. Irami, it disturbs me that you consider preying on those weaker than you to be normal and excusable behavior.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it just disturbs him that some consider killing to be a normal and acceptable response to such behavior.
I'm certainly not willing to say the Columbine killers were justified in trying to shoot those who bullied them at their school.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not talking about myself, just to be clear. I was three years advanced in school; tiny, scrawny, passive-aggressive: an intolerable know-it-all who routinely got hijacked on the way home by kids resentful of the fact that I was younger and did better on tests and didn't want to have anything to do with them.
And, sure, I learned to pick my battles -- to fight back some times, and to take a beating and walk away other times.
I'm not even commenting on the wisdom or lack thereof of Ender's decision; he was manipulated into being a monster by people who expected nothing less.
I AM, however, commenting on Anne Kate's assumption that bullies are these cruel, inhuman, power-obsessed monsters who will never see reason and, inexplicably, deserve to die.
This is, as far as I can tell, considerably more evil than being a bully; most bullies, in my rather extensive experience, would never -- EVER -- have contemplated actually killing me. I see nothing to suggest that Stilson was any different.
Years later, I wound up friends with a handful of the people who used to beat me up; some of them actually apologized for it, and others just never brought it up -- and I let it slide, because I understood what it's like to feel different and want to hurt somebody, even if I'd never made that choice myself.
To think that I might have lashed out and killed somebody who turned into my best friend -- and that Anne Kate would have considered this to be a wise and understandable course of action -- makes me a little sad.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Goodness can never prevail without a struggle.
You mean without overwhelming violence.
________________________________________
quote:I will shoot someone dead who breaks into my home.
I'm sure you will tell his/her family about it unabashed when we find out that the burglar was unarmed. It's tough talk and it sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to my ears, and I do think it would take a toll on the shooter, as well. ________________________________________
Chapter One:
Arendt's starts her book on comparative revolutions using the American and French Revolutions as examples of the new phenomena. She argues that the material success of the colonies, Locke's theories that man is blessed with an abundance of resources as opposed to cursed to a scarcity, and Adam Smith's principles shifted the value of work from the duty of the poor, as a punishment for not having property, to the fundamental source of all wealth, thereby making it more socially expected to work at every income level. She argues that these weren't prevailing social attitude before colonial America. "America had become a symbol of a society without poverty long before the modern age in its unique technological development had actually discovered the means to abolish that abject misery of sheer want. which had always been held to be eternal."
In America, at least on the surface, the "natural" order of have's and have not's seemed to not be proved eternal and essential to society, flying in the face of the traditional belief that every society must have a class the shiftless rich and the working poor.
This American individual entitlement involved the neutering of class distinctions, for they were no longer perceived as necessary for society to attain "surprising prosperity", but rather, those class distinctions were indulgences for the rich. She goes on to talk about the Christian influence in secularizing America, and it's interesting to think of the Civil right's movement and the women's movement as casting off or sharing the same burden that the lower classes carried during in France. She also argues that the America didn't have a revolution, more of a comeuppance because the Old regime that was being cast off was never really entrenched. The American Civil War and the French revolutions were more complete revolution.
quote:I think non-violent struggle can be a huge part of an overall struggle. But there must be a struggle, a fight. There must be force involved. Power must be revealed. Goodness can never prevail without a struggle.
AK, I can just picture Sam saying that on Mount Doom or something. You can't win without a struggle. "Goodness" cannot prevail without people dying. While this logic works fabulously in stories, it doesn't translate too well into real life. Here's why:
The logic only works if you demonize the opposition. It only works if your opponents are not human. This rarely happens. Also, in real life it's a lot harder to tell what on earth "goodness" is. Except that it's always your side. The idea that there's good and evil, black and white, has killed and continues to kill a LOOOT of people. It's also horribly, horribly wrong. I find your civil war example to be off the wall. Both sides need to pummel each other into exhaustion before peace can be made? That's true if primates are fighting over a meal, but I would have thought that mankind evolved in that respect. The idea that the other side is evil and that war is the only option should have died THOUSANDS of years ago. It hasn't. Can you say, "Ooga mooga booga?"
Personally, I'd prefer to keep it in the Stone Age, and talk about the problem until a manageable solution has been reached. But that's just me.
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The other problem I see here is comparing childhood bullying to social violence against oppressed minorities. There are some parallels, certainly, but in a lot of cases a bit of bullying is normal little-kid behavior -- a bit of deviancy on the way to developing into a social adult. I don't think it deserves comparison with racial violence.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comparing the two is certainly a long-shot unless you have some longitudinal studies to back it up with - however, bullying is NOT normal kid behavior. (Coming from the early childhood education standpoint - let it go on unchecked for years and then you have other issues)
Nor should it be treated as such.
Children imitate what they see - let's start there. And it's our job to model appropriate behavior and to "discipline" (as in guide/teach/lead/nurture) appropriate methods of dealing with feelings, and how we treat others - particularly when we are angry or scared -
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:1) Does this mean OSC is guilty of murdering Stilson? 2)Does this mean that if I do something wrong, it is God's fault for having me do it?
One: Certainly not. Quite silly. Two, also not, if you believe in free will respected by God.
quote:Stilson is a nine-year-old human being, that's what - although the mere fact that he's a human being should be sufficient to explain why he can't see the concept of justice and fairness very well, despite being taught it again and again.
As for why it is fun for him and why he gets joy out of it, we don't have any indication that that's the case. That's just the conclusion Ender jumps to, as a tormented six-year-old.
Certainly Stilson is a human being. I have to wonder, frankly, at anyone being so judgemental and unforgiving as to say he's not a human being...and then to ask them what the qualifications for that title (or condition) are. But no one is saying Stilson gets pure, unadulterated joy out of bullying Ender. No one, either, is not saying he couldn't be happier doing something different. But he certainly enjoys it. Or have you no experience with bullies? Or rather is this another perspective on good and evil, in which no one really chooses to do something evil, they just convince themselves it's good? ---- Banna,
quote:I think Ender was Extremely Aware of his own mortality. This is why he reacted so violently.
It's clear Ender is aware he can be hurt, that he is not as some people subconciously believe the sacrosanct superstar of their own life-long movie. But that's different from being "Extremely Aware of his own mortality". For Ender to have that kind of wisdom is for him to be within a hair's breadth of understanding other people's mortality extremely well...and nothing written to that point lends credence to this idea. This is all guessing what Ender should have known, and then evaluating his morality on that basis.
quote:Ender hadn't actually studied self-defense at the time. So while still being knowledgable, his killing of Stilson is far more innocent than what happened with the Bonzo Madrid in Battle school, simply because he hadn't made a study of lethal techniques used in killing. He was using advanced logic in wanting a complete victory over Stilson so the rest of the kids didn't bother him. There are six year olds that are more than capable of that kind of logic, and I think you are underestimating them Mack.
Well...Bonzo was surely going to kill Ender in the bathroom. Ender did not intend to kill him, either. That was also an accident-an unintentional act-taken in desperation, because he was within an inch of losing the fight...and then, for all he could reasonably be expected to know, die.
Yes, there are perhaps some six year olds who are capable of that kind of logic. But then ask how many of them are capable of that kind of logic under great stress and fear for one's well-being. Then ask how many of them are capable of that kind of logic under those circumstances in such a short time. Then ask yourself how many would be capable of such logic under such conditions in such limited time if their only experience with something similar was Peter.
This sort of thins the contenders, don't you think? I also think-and I mean no specific criticism-that far few people were such precocious children than they think they are. Time has a way of forgetting childhood, as does adulthood.
---
quote:I do see the humanity of the aggressors, yet when choosing between the life of the aggressor or of the victim, I choose the life of the victim.
If that makes me a monster in your eyes then so be it.
Yet you do not weep for the violation of not just their own humanity, but that of their victims? Is it not a sad, tragic thing when someone becomes so misguided / wicked / stupid (your mileage may vary) that they become a villain, a harmer of the innocent?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not the sort to philsophize thus when an innocent is being bullied (at least, I think I'm not). In the short-term, by all means stop the behavior. But even I, who am known for an utter contempt and disgust for bullies and a willingness to endorse massive, painful force against them to stop their behavior...even I don't just write them off. ----
quote:I'm sure you will tell his/her family about it unabashed when we find out that the burglar was unarmed. It's tough talk and it sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to my ears, and I do think it would take a toll on the shooter, as well.
Here's where your argument breaks down. You want people to risk their lives, and thereby that of their families, before taking lethal action...when the situation that precipitated the decision was completely not their fault, and in fact a violation of their rights as a human being.
That's just nonsense. This is why I said you think in an ivory tower, because you're expecting people to have more regard for the personhood of someone who breaks into their home at night than for the personhood of their own loved ones and themselves. You want the benefit of the doubt to go to the one threatening rather than the one threatened. This assumes, of course, that it's not a well-light room where the burglar's hands are exposed and clearly unarmed-as if such an ideal situation would ever occur anyway.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
...or, you could try to remove the threat to your life with as little damage as possible. It all depends on the exact situation, but I feel that if it came to a shooting I would shoot to wound, and not kill. After all, the target is a person, even if he/she's been acting animalistic lately.
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is why I said you think in an ivory tower, because you're expecting people to have more regard for the personhood of someone who breaks into their home at night than for the personhood of their own loved ones and themselves. You want the benefit of the doubt to go to the one threatening rather than the one threatened.
This I agree with.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has been years since I've read Ender's Game, and time has skewed my memory of the first chapter, but I've have a book now, and the Stilson described is a insecure bully. Here is the moment:
quote:But they let go of him. And as soon as they did, Ender kicked out high and hard, catching Stilson square in the breastbone. He Dropped. It took Ender by surprise-he hadn't thought to put Stilson on the ground with one kick. It didn't occur to him that Stilson didn't take a fight like this seriously, that he wasn't prepared for a truly desperate blow.
For a moment, the others backed away and Stilson lay motionless. They were all wondering if he was dead. Ender, however, was trying to figure out a way to forestall engeance. To keep them from taking him in a pack tomorrow. I have to win this now, and for all time, or I'll fight it every day and it will get worse and worse.(Emphasis added)
Stilson is on the ground and death is on the table, in the minds of all of the onlookers. If Ender has the savvy to repeatedly kick Stilson, he has the savvy to take better advantage of the situation. He has a captive audience, a rostrum, and a classmate who everyone wonders could be dead. He could start barking orders, sending two onlookers to the teacher for help, unbuttoning Stilson's shirt to check out the bruise, and having another cronie make sure Stilson is still breathing. That way, when all is told, four people have a share in "saving Stilson's life," while Ender assumes the magnanimous position of a person who was more concerned with Stilson's health than his own vengeance.
The only down side is that Stilson could still resent Ender for being a do-gooder, but now that Ender has co-opted a portion of Stilson's crew, the dynamic has changed.
________________________
Back to Arendt:
Arendt goes on to trace the origin of the term revolution back to the Greeks ascribing the orbit of the stars and the sun, whose paths were impervious to human volition or violence. And in 1688, William and Mary's Glorious Revolution described the power of the monarchy which would ascend it's rightful place despite any human's violent acts.
This irresistability of revolution as a political force was exemplified in 1789, at the storming of the Bastille "The famous dialogue that took place betwen the king and his messenger is very short and very revealing. The king, we are told, exclaimed, 'C'est une revolte', and Duc de La Rochfoucauld-Liancourt corrected him: 'Non, Sire, c'est une revolution.' Here we hear the word still, and politically for the last time, in the sense of the old metaphor which carries its meaning from the skies down to the earth; but here, for the first time perhaps, the emphasis has entirely shfted from the lawfulness of a rotating, cyclical movement to its irresistibility. The motion is still seen in the image of the movements of the stars, but what is stressed now is that it is beyond human power to arrest it, and hence it is a law unto itself."
____________________
Arendt also makes a distinction between liberty and freedom which I find terribly intriguing and pertinent. She sets the liberation of a people equal to the throwing off of an over-arching entity, either a government or a foreign oppressor, while freedom is inextricably tied to to a positive power of a citizen to affect public business. One can have liberty in a benevolent monarchy-- though not in a tyranny--, but one can not have freedom. She points to the freedom of assembly in the Bill of Rights, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," as the most important positive right in regards to freedom.
We may have liberated Iraq's people, but they are not free in that their public business has just changed masters from Hussein's tyranny to our whatever we want to call it, somehow the US has become a dictator, though arguably benevolent, still an impinger of Iraqi freedom.
This idea of linking freedom to public business is terrifically compelling. Banks increase an enterprenuer's freedom by allowing him/her to take part in the public sphere.(When Arendt speaks about the public sphere she uses the Greek connotations where the distinction was between the public sphere and the household.) Our ability to enter into commerce, government, or interact at a wide range with whomever we desire with an incredible level of influence is where our freedom resides.
posted
Ender is a "third," a child who has been scorned and pitied by adults; taunted and teased by classmates; has a brother who he believes would likely kill him if not for the (now gone) monitor and the sister who protects him.
He has never, in his entire six years of life, had anyone who would LISTEN to him and do what he said -- except maybe Valentine, and that's because of love. And he is somehow supposed to become a leader in 30 seconds or less?
Look how difficult that was for him several years and quite a bit of training later!
You are overestimating his under-pressure reasoning and leadership abilities, and underestimating his sheer terror and desperation.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The moment after the quote, Ender had the wherewithal to clearly and purposefully decide to kick Stilson repeatedly in his most sensitive areas when Stilson was in his most prone position for the express reason to scare any would be bullies away. I do think that if he can reason such a distinct solution to his problem, he had the ability to reason the other solution.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He may have had the ability to think so, but that does not mean he would psychologically have been inclined to do so. He was not concerned with the welfare of others at this point in the book, only his own. That you think this morality is natural to smart people is shocking to me and seems a bit naive. Spend some time around little kids. They have to be taught to share and to care for the welfare of others above their own. If they don't have that example and teaching, then they will be more likely self absorbed. Kids are not born as Gandhis and then corrupted by the world. They are born as animals, and learn their humanity from their environments.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He may have had the ability to think so, but that does not mean he would psychologically have been inclined to do so. He was not concerned with the welfare of others at this point in the book, only his own.
This is why I blame him.
quote: Kids are not born as Gandhis and then corrupted by the world. They are born as animals, and learn their humanity from their environments.
I've seen kids do some mighty altruistic deeds in the absence of compulsion.
posted
Rakeesh has already made all the arguments I would have, although he does so much more eloquently than I could have. *throws two cents in* Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I'm not saying the outcome of killing Stilson was the best outcome, of course. I'm not saying Stilson is not a human being either. If I implied that by anything I said, I did not mean it. What I do mean is that Stilsons don't acknowledge the humanity of the people they bully.
They do definitely get enjoyment out of it, even if it's a sick twisted unhappy sort of enjoyment. They aren't doing it out of a sense of duty or anything. They are mostly doing it because they are bored and it's entertaining, or because they are miserable and it eases their misery to see someone else squirm under their hand. They're doing it, so far as I can tell, because they find that a pleasing way in which to use the power they are given.
And, yes, the essence of what I am saying was summed up by Jeff. You ask that we take MORE attention and care to preserve and consider the feelings and the life of the attacker than those of the attacked. I say that is nonsense. If the attacker would like to be safe, then he or she should consider not attacking others, not breaking into my home, not being the aggressor. If they do those things anyway, then I will think primarily of my own life, and that of my family, or that of the weaker person being attacked.
I will not seek to cause more harm than necessary, yet I will not apologize for accidentally causing more harm than necessary, or for causing more harm than it TURNS OUT AFTER THE FACT was necessary, when it's completely unclear at the time how much of a threat there actually is.
I do think that breaking into someone's house is a life-threatening act in itself. Anyone who trangresses all the laws and rules of our society, of justice, of right, to that extent, might do anything at all. They might be planning to rape and murder as well. They obviously are an enormous threat to me and my loved ones. I will not assume they aren't only to find out I was mistaken. How do I know for sure they aren't armed, or they can't overpower me with martial arts training even if unarmed? How do I know these things when they have already shown that they do not consider my humanity? Yes, I will shoot to kill, and not apologize to their family. They voluntarily incurred the risk when they chose to violate me in that way.
I believe also that a bully voluntarily incurs the risk of being hurt badly or even killed when he or she chooses to beat up someone for fun. They mostly stay clear of such risk by picking only on the helpless, in fact.
There was a story I read about in the news once where a kid took a gun to school and shot someone who had been beating him up him badly for a long time. I felt this was a good illustration of my point. The ender in this case told the stilson to stop bothering him many times, and he wouldn't. He finally told him if he didn't stop bothering him he would bring a gun to school. This brought only laughter and more of the same treatment. He actually brought the gun and showed it to the stilson and to his other "crabbe and goyle" cohorts. The bullies continued to just laugh at the ender and still beat him up. So then the ender shot the stilson dead. Again, I had no sympathy for the stilson. It's a sad situation but it's his own fault. Stilsons of the world, take note. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.
[ January 02, 2004, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What I do mean is that Stilsons don't acknowledge the humanity of the people they bully."
The thing is, AK, by saying this, you dehumanize Stilson in exactly the way you are saying that you don't. He ceases to be a full human -- one worthy of your respect or concern -- and becomes one of the "Stilsons," a category of varelse deserving of violence.
I would like to submit that Stilson was, in his own way, even more aware of Ender's humanity than Ender was of his -- and that Stilson, if he's anything like the schoolyard bullies I grew up knowing, would never have even considered killing Ender.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing is, AK, by saying this, you dehumanize Stilson in exactly the way you are saying that you don't. He ceases to be a full human -- one worthy of your respect or concern -- and becomes one of the "Stilsons," a category of varelse deserving of violence.
Incorrect. Deserving of violence after they have done something violent, such as breaking or entering or bullying. This is not the same thing.
Questions of "full human being" status don't enter into it.
quote:I would like to submit that Stilson was, in his own way, even more aware of Ender's humanity than Ender was of his -- and that Stilson, if he's anything like the schoolyard bullies I grew up knowing, would never have even considered killing Ender.
What way is that? And I submit that Stilson would never have considered killing Ender not just because he was possessing of some human decency-although this is more than possible, it's probable-but because he would never have thought of it because he was stupid.
And nor did Ender consider killing Stilson. It was an accident, and however much Irami insists that Ender should have known things he had never known before with only a few moments to consider them, he nonetheless did not know them when he acted. His intention was to inspire a fear greater than the lust for bullying, simply to make Stilson and his group too afraid to try and bully Ender again. He never considered killing Stilson.
But given a good while to think about it, while he was six years old, he almost certainly would've. Among the tragedies of the story is that, as he grew older, the time needed to reach that thought drastically decreased.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Deserving of violence after they have done something violent, such as breaking or entering or bullying. This is not the same thing."
So, just to be clear, it's okay to use overwhelming -- even deadly -- force against bullies, because bullies don't think you're human?
I disagree with that latter assumption; I think the vast majority of bullies, with the exception of genuine psychopaths, are very aware of the humanity of the people they bully.
quote:I do think that if he can reason such a distinct solution to his problem, he had the ability to reason the other solution.
This is where the problem with attaching real world theories on fictional world children presents itself. Ender can reason this way because he was written to. Ender does not reason to the other solution because his writer chose not to in order to drive the story forward.
quote:He may have had the ability to think so, but that does not mean he would psychologically have been inclined to do so. He was not concerned with the welfare of others at this point in the book, only his own. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why I blame him.
Ender is developmentally inconsistent, even within his own inconsistencies. Yes, Ender is a brilliant genius prodigy, but psychological and cognitive development does progress in a certain manner in stage years. The times of development of certain abilities can vary, but in most cases, within a span of a few years (a stage).
Ender's all in one stage and completely out of another and stage hopping all over the place.
Ender is six. Pretty much, his world is himself. Sure, Ender can be blamed for only thinking of himself. But when immediately threatened, you have fight or flight.
Ender chose to fight. Ender, as written, chose to fight.
We can throw this around all we want, but it still comes down to the fact that Ender is a fictional character written by an adult human being. Ender's thoughts and logic and actions don't exist. They are contrived situations written to fit a story (or, in a character driven story, the story is written to fit the character).
If we're going to apply these theories, why don't we apply them to a human being who lived and/or died in the real world?
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I alluded to earlier, just because OSC wrote what ender chose does not mean Ender didn't choose them. Ender chose to fight Stilson just as much as you or I make choices.
And whether or not Ender's world is fictional and contrived makes no difference to our analysis. After all, it COULD happen in reality, and thus we can analyze it as if it did.
quote:Ender's all in one stage and completely out of another and stage hopping all over the place.
Oh come on... since when has there been a theory of cognitive development (or any psychological theory for that matter) that didn't have plenty of exceptions and variation?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ender chose to fight Stilson just as much as you or I make choices.
Well, I can't speak for you, but I know that I'm not written by some other adult human being other than myself.
quote:And whether or not Ender's world is fictional and contrived makes no difference to our analysis. After all, it COULD happen in reality, and thus we can analyze it as if it did.
No, it couldn't. That's why it's called science fiction.
quote:Oh come on... since when has there been a theory of cognitive development (or any psychological theory for that matter) that didn't have plenty of exceptions and variation?
All of them have exceptions and variations. But those are the ones you throw out--the anomalies. When you're analyzing, you look at the mean, mode, range. You look at where the strongest data is found and then you make your theory. If you have too many exceptions and variables, your theory falls apart. If you base a theory on one exception or variable, it isn't a solid theory.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I can't speak for you, but I know that I'm not written by some other adult human being other than myself.
quote:No, it couldn't. That's why it's called science fiction.
You're overstating your knowledge of what's possibile in both cases, especially the second one. Some kid could very easily kill a bully tommorrow for exactly the reasons Ender did.
quote:But those are the ones you throw out--the anomalies. When you're analyzing, you look at the mean, mode, range. You look at where the strongest data is found and then you make your theory. If you have too many exceptions and variables, your theory falls apart. If you base a theory on one exception or variable, it isn't a solid theory.
But Irami is not giving a scientific theory about the likelihood of a kid with Ender's mental state arising. It's a moral theory about what such a person should do in such a situation. All that he needs to show is that the situation is possible, even if only as an anomaly.
quote:Some kid could very easily kill a bully tommorrow for exactly the reasons Ender did.
So this kid had an implanted monitor, had a tyrant for an older brother, a loving older sister, and was a government order Third child?
quote:It's a moral theory about what such a person should do in such a situation. All that he needs to show is that the situation is possible, even if only as an anomaly.
The situation so far is possible in fiction. So this moral theory (a theory is still a theory no matter what qualifier you put in front of it) is thus far applicable only to fiction. So why not expand to the real world and use human beings living or dead who HAVE fought against bullies and analyze actions and reactions that way?
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So this kid had an implanted monitor, had a tyrant for an older brother, a loving older sister, and was a government order Third child?
Sure, why not? There's no contradiction in the situation.
quote:So this moral theory (a theory is still a theory no matter what qualifier you put in front of it) is thus far applicable only to fiction. So why not expand to the real world and use human beings living or dead who HAVE fought against bullies and analyze actions and reactions that way?
Well I think the idea is that the situation is sufficiently similar to all those real life situations that we could apply the same conclusion. I mean, the whole idea of using examples to illustrate moral issues is that you can generalize a conclusion from that example to apply ro a wide array of real-life exampls. Presumably, if it's okay for Ender to kill Stilson in this example, we would be able to generalize and say in all situations of bullying, extreme acts to counter the bullying are acceptable. There's nothing unique about this example that would change the ethics of it from those other situations.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Y'all act as though it was some kind of fair fight. But it was NEVER meant to be a fair fight. Stilson was NINE, and he and his crabbe-and-goyles were willing to GANG UP in order to beat the tar out of a SIX year old. One who was SMALL for his age. You act like Ender could count on having the advantage again. Like Stilson and his crew wouldn't use any dirty trick in the book against him. Like this was just some ordinary give and take playground situation. That's never what it was. I'm NOT dehumanizing Stilson, but, let's face it, he's not a very nice kid at ALL. Ender isn't the first child he's done this to, and he wouldn't have been the last, either, except for Stilson's fatal mistake.
Remember what Christ said about it being better if a millstone were hung around your neck? He spoke the truth. Stilson got his come uppance. Most of his sort don't, but sometimes things work out and they do. I weep for all the many many Enders who aren't brilliant strategists, who instead are trapped by their circumstances and can't get away. Many of THEM are killed, far more of them in real life than in fiction. I weep not for the Stilsons. They are just reaping what they sow.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I weep not for the Stilsons. They are just reaping what they sow."
Anne Kate, this is dehumanization. Are you willing to admit to it yet, or do I need to keep reminding you?
BTW, have you ever actually been bullied? Because let me point out that very rarely do bullies choose to enter fair fights -- but the fact that it is or is not a fair fight does not mean that the person being bullied has the inherent right to escalate the violence.
What you're essentially trying to do, Anne Kate, is justify Columbine.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
And the science fiction elements ARE crucial, because they are the elements that made up Stilson's case to bully Ender.
Was it moral for Ender to fight Stilson?
Yes. It's what he was WRITTEN to do.
Was Columbine moral?
Of course not. Those boys chose their own actions, no matter how they were driven.
Is it moral for an adult who was abused as a child to repeat the cycle with his own kids?
Of course not.
Is it moral for the small child to fight back?
Well, according to this theory, if the child is fighting against a bully, the child should have the ability to assess the situation and reason with the abusive parent.
The kid CAN'T. The bully is in a position of power. With that position of power comes control.
How about we drop the fictional analysis and look at some real life stuff? So far we've applied a moral theory to fiction book. Contrived characters in a contrived situation where they didn't have choices because it's how they were written. No, it wasn't moral for Ender to kill Stilson. Yes, it was moral for him to fight back and not get the crap beat out of him for verbally fighting back in the first place. No, Ender had no other choice of action because it's a critical plot point in his book.
Real life people have a vast selection of choices in every situation. When crisis situations present themselves, most often people either go into problem solve mode or revert back to fight or flight instincts.
If a woman is confronted with an attacker with a knife, is she supposed to reason with him, convince him not to rape her?
I wouldn't think so. So she fights back against this adult type of bully. In the scuffle, the knife goes astray. Fatally stabs the attacker.
Is she in the moral wrong?
No. Her intent wasn't to kill the attacker, her intent was to stop the attack. The attacker had the first choice of choosing to attack this woman. This woman had her own choices of run away from a biologically faster and more powerful man who was in a position of power and control or to fight back. She was forced to play her hand by the attacker.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not dehumanization. I can imagine myself in the same circumstances, for instance, of reaping what I sow, and still see it as some form of justice, even if in this particular case it happened to go beyond what was necessary.
You don't understand. We don't dehumanize Peter. We love Peter. We don't care about beating Peter, we just want him to love us. All that is completely true.
I believe you guys are doing Stilson a great disservice by refusing to give him responsibility. And because of that, you end up joining Stilson in dehumanizing Ender instead.
And as for Columbine, the killers struck out at everyone. And they weren't responding to an immediate threat. They came to school that day having made the decision to kill everyone. That is not the same thing at all.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do believe that Stilson has responsibility--he bullied Ender to the point where Ender had to show his cards.
Ender's intent wasn't to kill Stilson, it was to stop Stilson. I don't think Stilson deserved to die. But I don't think Ender had a moral responsibility to let Stilson beat the crap out of him.
Argh. But it's a contrived fictional circumstance!
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For every action you make, there are negative and positive consequences. Stilson bullied Ender. The positive consequences for him was whatever he got out of continuing to bully. The negative consequences came when the victim fought back. To excuse Stilson from facing the negative consequences of his actions is to remove an ability for negative actions to stop.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mac, would you say that an expected and deserved negative consequence of schoolyard bullying is death?
------
"And they weren't responding to an immediate threat."
Neither was Ender. The reason he continued to kick Stilson once Stilson was down was NOT because he thought Stilson was going to get up and continue to hurt him, but because -- even after his immediate safety was assured -- he wanted to become known for such outrageous violence that no one would ever dare hurt him again.
posted
Yeah, let's talk about something real! What do you think about Rodion and the old pawnbroker woman? Did she deserve it in any way? Was he justified in any sense at all?
***
Wow, this thread is moving fast! I meant that to be a response to mac's remark a few posts up about it being a contrived fictional situation. Oh well.
[ January 03, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mac, would you say that an expected and deserved negative consequence of schoolyard bullying is death?
quote:Sure, Ender defended himself and killed his tormenter because that's what he's best at. That still makes him a killer.
Maybe I didn't speak clearly enough. Ender is NOT moral in killing Stilson. That is not a reasonable negative consequence for Stilson's actions. Ender fighing back, yes, that's a reasonable consequence. But Ender killing Stilson is not.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, just to be clear, it's okay to use overwhelming -- even deadly -- force against bullies, because bullies don't think you're human?
This is just a personal opinion, but I'd say a qualified yes to the first one and a no to the second one. Just to be clear, I never said that use of violence in response to bullying had anything to do with whether or not a bully considers you a human being.
Qualifying the first yes. Let's say I'm being bullied, I get pushed off my bike, ganged up on, beat up, swirlied, whatever the case. Some rules can be bent. Others can be broken. The rule that says, "Be chivalrous in behavior at all times," can be bent if one's opposition has already outright broken that rule. I'm no one's chump. I'm not about to be Joe Chivalry when the other guy is Snidely Whiplash and shows no signs of stopping. Along with that goes things like, "Kicking a man when he's down."
I'm not going to fault someone else for doing that when it's obvious it's only going to get worse, that simply beating-in a brief skirmish, mind you-the head bully won't stop it in the future. Would I do that myself? I don't know. I flatter myself that I wouldn't, perhaps.
As for killing, that's not at issue with me since Ender didn't intend to kill Stilson and cannot, I believe, have been reasonably expected to know what he was doing in the circumstances would've killed Stilson.
As to how much bullies are aware of the humanity of the people they bully...I wonder why you think that, and what exactly you mean by it? I agree to the extent that I believe all but the most deranged or evil people are at least somewhat aware of teh humanity of the people around them-whether or not they choose to ignore it. Second, that they're aware of their humanity and derive some pleasure from exercising their will-forcibly-on another human being.
quote:Anne Kate, this is dehumanization. Are you willing to admit to it yet, or do I need to keep reminding you?
BTW, have you ever actually been bullied? Because let me point out that very rarely do bullies choose to enter fair fights -- but the fact that it is or is not a fair fight does not mean that the person being bullied has the inherent right to escalate the violence.
What you're essentially trying to do, Anne Kate, is justify Columbine.
How is it dehumanizing to say that there are potential natural consequences for one's actions? I don't understand how it follows that that is dehumanizing, Tom.
Why doesn't the person have the right to escalate the violence? Why is it you are insisting that the victim always be reactionary instead of proactive? Is it so crucial that the victim be blameless throughout a fight? I don't know if it is, I'm asking for clarification. For me, though, it's less important than the victim not getting his ass kicked any more than necessary.
And nonsense to the last, and offensive nonsense to boo.
The Columbine murderers (note that word cannot apply to Ender, there's the first reason it's nonsense) didn't just kill their bullies. Anne Kate addressed that. They also didn't just escalate the violence within the arena of injuring violence, they went from violence that bruises to violence that kills. Ender did not intend to, no matter what people may think he should have known. They had the option of exercising nonlethal force, and were educated enough to know that sometimes it works. You `rackers who want Ender to be aware of people like Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, well you can be sure those two knew about nonviolent resistance.
Ender did not want to kill. The Columbine killers did, and relished it-at least such as we can tell. Big honkin' difference, Tom. The underlying philosophies bear some resemblance, but that's all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
