DADA: Nature V. Nurture Discussion

[mrdavismd.livejournal.com]

Hello DADA-ers!

I hope that you have gotten a lot of rest since our obstacle course and are ready for you next Challenge!

This challenge is fairly simple, all you have to do is express your opinion this may be hard for my fellow Slytherins just kidding!

Points:
This is a long debate, therefore there will be 10 pts awarded for first comment. 2pts for each additional comment. Initial comments must be 3-4 sentences and contribute to the on-topic conversation for credit. Follow up comments must consist of at least 2 sentences.

Deadline:
February 21, 2009 at 11:59 pm EST



Details:
Was Tom Riddle born evil or did he grow to be evil? Was Harry Potter innately good or could he have turned out bad? We heard some ideas from Dumbledore and Sirius when talking to Harry but what do you think?

Are people born being who they are or do they become who they are? Why are people good or evil? If Harry grew up like Tom Riddle would he have become Voldemort?

Participants will discuss and debate the idea of nature v. nurture and how one become good or evil. There are no sides for this discussion.

This suggestion was from thesamanthahope so extra 5 points if you participates.

Bonus Points
In your first comment please tell me if you own any of the following books:
#019 The Dark Arts Outsmarted
#024 Defensive Magical Theory
#031 The Dark Forces: A Guide To Self Protection
#032 The Rise And Fall Of The Dark Arts
#047 Practical Defensive Magic And Its Use Against The Dark Arts

Owners will get 2 points per book!


You have to be a member to participate so
Join Us

Comments

[pretty-liquor.livejournal.com]

This very argument is why I hate the tag 'evil'. If we are given to assume that nature is the truth of it, then Voldemort was born with a set of factors that will determine his life (driving ambition, disregard for friendship, obsession with immortality). If we factor in the insinuated lines of incest going on, then I suppose it all could lead to a brain structure that is approrpriate for someone like Voldemort. So does this negate him of responsibilities in this area? Should he be scorned for an inability to love, anymore than someone with a genetic disorder should be scorned for their illness? I know that it's always said "it's the choices that count" but if Voldemort's brain forces him to behave this way, there is no choice.

On the other hand, if we're blaming his 'evil' on nuture, then the neglect of others is to blame. I find it a little difficult to believe 'lack of nuture breeds evil'. Lack of nuture could breed low self-esteem, but I don't think that Voldemort went on a take-over-the-world spree on account of being sensitive about his being.

I think that people who grow up to do things with society considers to be wrong, either: are disposed to do so, due to the make up of their mind. Or are forced/inclined to do so because of their environment. I mean, people with mental illness kill, and are still branded 'evil'. Equally, a man losing his job and killing his whole family is deemed to have done something 'evil'. It's just a catch all term for things we don't like, and I think it's a rather unfair one.

Sam//Slytherin

[silveredaccents.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, the tags "evil" and "good" are extremes and the gray area is so very wide.

It is said that those who lack the ability to feel guilt (feeling bad when one does something to harm or hurt others) are sociopathic. However, shame is something that can be taught and used to curb sociopathic behavior (shame being feeling bad because what you did will push away the ones you love).

I like how you bring up the mental illness argument as well as how complex this whole argument really is when you're discussing something this grand.

Kimberly / Slytherin

[mrdavismd.livejournal.com]

END OF COMMENTS FOR POINTS