Umbridge / Blaise's mother / evil author / Snape

[Mike]

> > Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34246>:

<< wondering why Blaise's mother's reputation would cause Slughorn
to want to "collect" her son >>
 
> <snipperino>
> Catlady:
> 
> By the way, this goes along with my over-used old opinion that the
> wizarding folk view good and evil as matters for each wizard's 
> private conscience; each wizard can choose which he prefers. I 
> usually say that when asserting that most wizards would consider 
> Arthur's objections to Lucius's Dark Magic to be a bit fanatic 
> and intolerant, but now I'm saying that most wizards view a few
> murders as a private conflict between the murderer on one hand
> and the Department of Magical Law Enforcement and the victim's 
> bereaved ones on the other.

Mike:
I'd say that this would be Voldemort's view on the matter, especially
after he has control of the DMLE. I don't think not having the 
courage to stick ones nose in is the same as saying one doesn't have
a vested interest in seeing justice done to the murderer. The fact 
that the WW has a pathetic response to Voldemort, doesn't mean they 
don't care what's happening to their world, imo. I believe Kingsley's
comment about every life being valuable was more mainstream in the WW
than dear Delores' attitude.


> Catlady:
> Like A can be friends with both B and C even tho' B and C currently
> hate each other, because the B and C conflict is a private conflict
> that no one else has to take sides in. It's easier to view murder 
> that way when she only kills her husbands -- her bridge partners 
> and tennis opponents need not fear for their own lives.

Mike:
I know this is OTC, but have you got a canon example of this 
phenomena? Could you possibly be referring to Fudge and his 
acceptance of both Arthur and Lucius into his World Cup box? 
Because then I'd have to say, well, that's Fudge. He introduces
them to each other as if Arthur and Lucius have only a passing 
acquaintance. That would make him clueless, not accepting of their 
conflict as a private matter.


> > Mike wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34295>:

<< anybody that makes the argument that JKR is evil, I'm going to
dismiss as giving themselves too much credit in the ability to read
minds. >>


> Catlady:
> Well, look, I surely don't think she's evil, but suppose someone 
> said that her writing deliberately spreads the message that people 
> should use their own judgment about what is good and what is evil 
> instead of just believing whatever an authority tells them about 
> what is good and what is evil, and deliberately spreads the message
> that people should do what they believe is good and avoid doing 
> what they believe is evil, even if that means disobeying an 
> authority, and that is an evil message, and therefore she is evil 
> for spreading an evil message.

Mike:
Oh, can this one be multiple choice?
a. This person has a serious problem
b. This person would have loved Joseph Stalin
c. This person thought Voldemort has the right idea, even now
d. This person doesn't seperate their laundry before washing

Which do you think?


> Catlady:
> I don't think it takes mind reading to see that message about
> 'choosing to do what is right' while dissing Professors and 
> Ministers of Magic.

Mike:
Well, yeah, after all the exact quote is: "Remember, if the time 
should come when you have to make the choice between what is right 
and what is easy,..." I kind of think this eliminated pretty much
any need for mind reading to get that message.


> Catlady:
> I don't think it takes mind reading to see that that message
> was put there on purpose. 

Mike:
Yeah, it was my guess that JKR did mean to write that, too.


> Catlady:
> I don't think mind reading has anything to do with the opinion 
> that people who deliberately spread evil messages are evil 
> people regardless of how polite or whatever they are in person.

Mike:
Was your first paragraph your example of how JKR was spreading an 
evil message? Because, if that's your basis for this last sentence,
I guess I'm missing the connection (to say the least). So here's 
mundane me stuck on the notion that anyone that calls JKR herself
evil has jumped off the diving board before checking if the pool
had water in it.


> Catlady:
> That's not the same thing that Carol was complaining about, because
> this hypothetical person didn't say they didn't enjoy reading and
> re-reading the books just because the author is proselytizing an 
> evil belief.

Mike:
What you've got yourself here is a double negative, with a adjunct  
clause on the end. You're gonna need a part number 4NK8 stroke WTF to 
fix that, and supply is all out of them at the moment.

Meaning, I am at a loss as to what this sentence is saying. Who's 
proselytizing an evil belief? Or is that part of this hypothetical 
person's hypothetical belief?