Immortal vapour? MAGIC DISHWASHER

[grey_wolf_c]

No: HPFGUIDX 40061

Eloise wrote:
> Ethical/moral problems?
> This is the WW we're talking about here, the WW that uses 
> soul-sucking Dementors as the ultimate deterrent, that imprisons 
> without trial, that lets DEs walk free if they are useful as spies, 
> that even lets people off punishment if they happen to have been 
> successful Beaters! Come, on, the WW isn't going to have any qualms 
> about putting away the most evil wizard the world has ever known, 
> even if he *is* debilitated. 

Um, I wasn't talking about the MoM, I was talking about the *light* 
side: Dumbledore and the old gang. Hopefully, the conduct of the MoM 
will change thanks to Dumbledore et al. before the end of the books. I 
realise that the MoM would have no trouble to imprison Voldemort by 
using the Imperious, appart from slight problems I'll refer to later 
on, but they have neither the spying capability nor the intent of doing 
so. I firmly believe that half the MoM is in DEs' pockets (specially 
Malfoy's).

> And even in the real world, I don't see the problem. Plenty of 
> elderly, debilitated folks have found themselves on trial for war 
> crimes. Plenty of (now) totally harmless people have been imprisoned 
> because of the crimes they have commited in the past. Most societies 
> accept the concept of punishment. Doesn't Voldemort deserve 
> punishment? Even in my most liberal moments I would have problems 
> arguing that he didn't; with the best will in the world, I can't 
> really see him being rehabilitated. Doesn't society have a *duty* to
> protect other citizens from one, who if he was allowed to regain  
> strength, would inevitably carry on wreaking havoc and seeking 
> ultimate power.
>
> And what's the problem with Imperius? The Aurors were permitted to 
> use the Unforgivables in pursuit of his supporters; why shouldn't 
> they use it to control *him*?

I'm tackling both questions at the same time. I have no problem with 
taking away liberty as a punishment for crime (even more so than death 
sentence, which nonetheless I defend in Voldemort's case), and in RL I 
accept it, sice there are two determinant factors. 

One, there is possibiliy with most delinquents, of rehabilitating them 
(this funtion is most of the time not used to it's full potential. In 
RL, jails are more like universities of crime). I, like you, don't 
think Voldemort can be changed. For one thing, it's too star-wars-y. 
For other, he's just too evil (although I'll admit Darth Vader looked 
even more evil). 

The second factor is the most important, anyway. The punishment is for 
some time (how long depends on the charateristics of the crime), and 
it's main objective is to wait until the delinquent is too old to do it 
again, in the worst cases.

Unfortunately, here's where the problem comes: Voldemort, in 
Vapour!Form, is inmortal, and that's where my moral sense comes kicking 
in. You cannot let him free, since he's not going to stop trying to 
take over the world. Thus, you have to keep him imprisoned *for ever*. 
That's too horrible punishment, even for Voldemort. Worse people have 
got off with less. Eternal imprisonment is something truly horrible to 
contemplate.

And of course, my logical mind points out, there is a slight technical 
problem with the whole "eternal imprisonment". Sooner or later, someone 
in chage of keeping him in line will make an error, and Voldemort will 
be free again. Or someone who wants to use Voldemort's knowledge for 
his own reasons will come by and liberate him (which is what I 
originally pointed out as a reason to destroy him). The base line is 
that you cannot hope to keep him jailed for ever, and you don't want 
him to be free or to fall in bad hands. You really have only one 
option. And Dumbledore has followed it.

> <snip Albaina gravitational theory>
> Eloise:
> <tentatively waves yellow flag, hoping this doesn't have the same 
> effect on wolves, as red rags are supposed to on bulls>
> 
> Look, I'm not sure about this, but Albania having some kind of 
> magical gravity effect sounds awfully like a yellow flag violation to 
> me. I admit that you've been terribly clever in pre-empting me in 
> pointing out that it's terribly odd that he needs a body to return 
> from Albania, but seems to get back there no problem.
> But.....We don't actually know *how* Quirrell brought him back. I 
> don't think it was *in* his body, or if it was, then he must have 
> moved out whilst Harry met him at the Leaky Cauldron: Harry's scar 
> didn't hurt and Quirrell was able to touch him.

Point accepted. I introduced the gravitational idea as a half joke in 
another poost. I knew I should have repeated the disclaimer: I don't 
believe it either. I spuned the whole thing out of cloth in a quick way 
to explian how (and why) he keeps going there when defeated. I accept I 
haven't the faintiest of how he manages. Oh, and I did say there was no 
canon in the whole idea.
 
> Grey Wolf:
> > 
> > Canon does tell us what the Unicorn blood is for: "Unicorn blood 
> > has strengthened me, these past weeks" (PS, US ed., ch. 17). 
> > 
> > 
Eloise:
> That tells us an effect, but Firenze says its purpose is to keep you 
> alive (PS, UK ed, p188). Stronger reason to accept a cursed, half 
> life.

And it does: it keeps Quirrell alive for a full schoolyear, and with no 
signs of inminent mortality in the Stone's chamber. We know that 
Voldemort's possesion technique shaprly reduces the life expectancy of 
his avatar, so the unicorns blood served several functions. The one 
that didn't serve was keeping *Voldemort* alive, since he's *inmortal* 
while in vapour form

> Grey Wolf:
> 
> > did drink a combination of Unicorn's blood with Nagini's poison 
> > when in Fugly baby form.
> 
> Eloise:
> Sorry, what's Fugly? I thought it was a typo in you last reply.

A not-very-nice word a fellow listee (mostly lurker) taught me the 
other day. It means F***ing ugly, and it's a word that fits Voldemort's 
baby form very well indeed. Oh, and when she first used it, I also 
thought it was a typo.

> Eloise
> Signing off with a relevant quote from Keats:
> 
> "Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, 
> Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason."    
> 
> (which I forget in my LOON moments.)

Good quote. I like it

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf