Care of Magical Creatures - Lesson Posted(see announcements)

[IzzyTheBeazt]

1. Your Magical pet, if you have one. A baby dragon,( MY DAD IS ALLOWED TO OWN ONE, I AM NOT BREAKING WIZARD LAWS!) because my father is a dragon breeder.
2. Your favorite Magical animal and why it's your favorite. Pegasus, I love the fact that a horse can have wings!
3. What is your favorite Gaia item that you own? If there's an item you don't own that you want more than any other? What is it? I like my orc potions the best, and the Item I want to have is a large axe.  

[vivacious_red]

Calliope starts to read the welcome note but part way through she gets a gobsmacked look upon her face...

eek "Uh... Written Permission did you say? For different-- uhm pets........." *stealthily slides her pet chicken behind her back*

 

[Hope Maxime Hagrid]

gonk

Alright, so, the fates apparently are hell-bent on not letting me finish my lessons in any sort of reasonable time. I'm forced to fall back on my old lessons from the first time I taught this class (about five years ago).

crying crying crying

This stuff is mostly what is going to turn into the first year's curriculum, so I'm just going to post the lessons there. I'm going to leave the other year's post's up, however, to help my figure out what, exactly, I need to do before next term to be able to have a proper term ready for you guys. I set up the welcome letters and what-not, so if you're curious about what's to come next term, feel free to look-y-loo. wink

But take note that I'm only posting lessons in the First-Year's post and these lessons are meant for all students.

Sorry for all the inconvenience.

 

[Hope Maxime Hagrid]

Lesson posted!


I'll return tomorrow to take inventory of the last of the extra credit that I handed out last week.

 

[vivacious_red]

"Oh dear... did you only want 18 inches for our responses?? I only ask because when I did it, I wrote 28 inches... will that be a problem?" ((tee-hee embracing the Granger in me...)) *looks down at roll of parchment that is homework* "Well, I've actually already answered most of these extra credit questions in my homework, but it wouldn't hurt to reiterate it here so others might start sharing too... "

Quote:

Try to justify the ideas behind some of the very first attempts to distinguish “being” from “beast”?
What is your opinion of the currently accepted stand on defining a “being” and the problems with it so far?

"Erm, well, I know from a muggle standpoint, the ability to walk on two legs is huge, I mean apart from birds, bipedal movement is an exclusively human characteristic, the fact that we're built taking gravity into account while standing upright, other creatures may stagger on two from time to time, but no other creature truly walks like humans. Again from a muggle viewpoint, so I can see how that definition might have merit. And language is something that requires a higher thought process, it's just we wizards get into our ethnocentric ways, feeling that it has to be something we can understand. And in needing to understand it, we forced ourselves to accept creatures such as jarveys (bless them!) as beings! The idea has merit, if only they hadn't limited it to wizard-language, and if they hadn't forgotten that language is made up of sentences not of words..."

*scratches head* "Blimey, I'm talking quite a bit, and I still have one more thing to respond to... "

"Erm- It's difficult to say about my standing on the current issue... there's one thing about the centaurs that I'm not quite clear on... you said they have a slot in the 'Beast division' that is instead of the 'being division'? Because of their refusal to acknowledge wizard laws have they put in with acromantulas and sphinxes? You know, 'incapable of overcoming their brutal nature' or whatever it was... That was the bit that got me. It think I'm a mind of the enlightenment, feeling like we should have the policy of 'all beings created equal.' But then, we're back again to the argument of defining the term 'being.' ... Ah well..."

 

[Yukina101]

Quote:

Try to justify the ideas behind some of the very first attempts to distinguish “being” from “beast”?
What is your opinion of the currently accepted stand on defining a “being” and the problems with it so far?

Well, to be honest I rather like how the goblins handled the first conference by inviting all that walk on two legs because I'm sure the wizards were only looking forward to goblins, dwarves, maybe a troll, and the occasional garden gnome. Not all beings walk on two legs just like not all rational beings speak the "human language." Merpeople technically speak a form of english when underwater, just because we won't take the time to understand them above it doesn't mean they should be sorted into beast. I honestly don't mind having some trolls listed under the beast category but then that wouldn't really be fair because not all of them are really beasts, just like all humans aren't really evil. And really what is the human language? Humans speak a wide range of languages including some that are considered dead in both the Muggle and Wizarding world. So, who's to say that all creatures speak some sort of human language? Because technically we as humans could learn to speak their language and then it could become human language. It's kinda like how me mum back at home can understand what da says when he's drunk as a skunk an we can't and.....oops. Kinda trailed didn't I? Anyhoo, what I would like to say is that I don't think there should be a category for beasts because that's not who they are it's just what we have categorized them as being. And if they are being a beast, wouldn't they also have to be a being?  

[Riku Masen]

Quote:

Try to justify the ideas behind some of the very first attempts to distinguish “being” from “beast”?
What is your opinion of the currently accepted stand on defining a “being” and the problems with it so far?

To justify the very first attempts on 'being' and 'beast' I would say they had the right idea. The ministry however seemed to forget that not all 'beings' have two legs, or that some of those creatures with two legs would probably be placed into the 'beast' category if they examined more closely before distinguishing.
Personally, I think the current definition of 'being' could use some work. Like for example, Centaurs and Merpeople, in my opinion, would fit very well in the 'being' status. I think the fact that they even have to classify some of these intelligent creatures is wrong. They should be left alone if they're peaceful, it's not like they classify us. And that is the problem with this so far, some of these creatures don't want to be classified, and I really think they have a right not to be.

 

[Jitterbug5x5]

Try to justify the ideas behind some of the very first attempts to distinguish “being” from “beast”?
I suppose that the two original attempts to classify a 'being' were simply some of the most obvious ways things are usually grouped, by whether they look or sound the same. Therefore, the council probably thought this would make the most sense for this classification as well. It started out as trying to use their common sense, but did not really end up that way. Perhaps they were only thinking of humans, goblins, and house elves when they set the original guidelines?

What is your opinion of the currently accepted stand on defining a “being” and the problems with it so far?
It is certainly an improvement over the past criteria, but is still lacking in that judging on the basis of a species' intelligence seems rather subjective.
I also have issues with the apparent ranking system of the beings that they do acknowledge, such as no one but humans being allowed wands. Of course, the other beings seem to be talented at magic without them, such as goblins and house elves, but it just seems like a way for wizards to try to prove their own superiority. (I do have a problem with the sheer existence of house elves as they are now, but that's a whole other discussion; that wizards must have done a lot in the past to make an entire species forcibly subservient to them, and that it is still accepted in society, is rather disturbing.)