TBAY: MD's third strain QB(a side venture from Spy!Snape)

[bluesqueak]

No: HPFGUIDX 47047


The Pipsqueak sits quietly in the invisibility cloak she'd borrowed 
from Stoned!Harry, listening to Abigail get rather heated. Melody is 
holding her own, however (and the Pipsqueak is glad to see that 
George hasn't tried serving alcohol to her – she hates to think what 
some of TBAY's Very Special Old Bloodthirsty Brandy would do to that 
little body).

Melody is explaining to Alla that DISHWASHER is disprovable:
"If, in fact, we find out in future books that Dumbledore has not 
been scheming and planning and it is proven that he in fact has not 
helped bring about the rebodiment of Voldemort, then MD is disproven 
and there would be a big party thrown by Marina at the tavern I 
assure you."

Melody then spots Abigail holding forth, and with a look of 
determination on her face, strolls over to confront her.  The 
Pipsqueak, meantime, drifts over to Alla, and sits down on a 
(fortunately) empty chair.

"Melody's right, you know"

Alla jumps about a foot in the air at the disembodied voice speaking 
in her ear.

"TheresNothingToIt!" She gasps.

"Sorry, but no." says the Pipsqueak. She lets the invisibility cloak 
fall onto her shoulders, so that Alla can see it's her. Judging by 
the look on Alla's face, she preferred the disembodied voice to the 
disembodied head.

"Alla, you're going to have to get used to this sort of thing in 
TBAY. Look around you. Is anyone else bothered?"

Alla looks. Dicentra, in her red Sirius Apologist outfit, has just 
burst in the door and announced `Nobody ever expects the Sirius 
Apologists', in blatant defiance of the fact that the entire bar had 
been wondering when they were going to turn up. Captain Cindy is 
doing a cabaret act in the back room. 

A large dog is wandering around the two rooms, sitting in front of 
the tables and wagging his tail hopefully. Every so often people 
notice him, and a mass shout goes up of `WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING THE 
PRANK!' At which point the dog whines, and someone feeds him a crisp 
[US: potato chip]. Grey Wolf has wandered into a dim corner and is 
discussing large, red, bloody steaks with Pippin [or should that be 
large, red, bloody stakes?]. Elkins is in a corner, writing 
frantically, and providing quotes on request. Eileen is getting a 
certain glint in her eye. Stoned!Harry, tired of tripping over his 
Sirius Apologist outfit, has decided it's easier to float several 
inches above the floor.

Nobody is the slightest bit bothered about the disembodied head.

"I see your point." says Alla. "So DISHWASHER is disprovable?"

"Yes. The difficulty is that it's largely a `secret background 
conspiracy' theory. The problem with these theories is that they're 
about things that are, well, secret. Going into metathinking for a 
moment


"I'm sorry, but what IS metathinking?" says Alla. "And why is it 
supposed to be so bad?"

"Ah. Well, metathinking isn't bad in itself." Says the Pipsqueak. 
She pulls out the Safe House issue voice recorder. "I'm sure I've 
got a little record somewhere of an off-list chat I had with 
Phyllis – she liked the definition I gave there."

The Pipsqueak plays the recorder at high speed, listening 
intently. "Ah, here it is!" she says. The Pipsqueak's own voice 
issues from the recorder:


" 'Metathinking' - it's a question of levels. DISHWASHER is based on 
a 'within the book ' viewpoint, where the books and characters are 
treated as if they are real events, real characters, and real 
motivations. In that context, going up a level so you're looking at 
the books from the OUTSIDE is regarded as 'not fair play' simply 
because the theory doesn't have that viewpoint. 

DISHWASHER wouldn't take into account the quite clear thrust within 
the *books* that killing people is wrong, though it might argue that 
Dumbledore or Harry appear to believe it because of their actions 
*within* the text."

The Pipsqueak switched the recorder off.

"So you see," she says, "When I tried to show within DISHWASHER that 
Snape and Dumbledore wouldn't assassinate Karkaroff because that is 
morally wrong, I couldn't use the fact that the *books as a whole* 
believe that. Instead ( in 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/46945 ) I have 
to list the canon actions of Snape and Dumbledore and say, judging 
by their actions so far, they try not to kill *anyone*." 

The Pipsqueak grinned.

"On the other hand, when the DISHWASHER is switched off, [she clicks 
her fingers, and the whirring sound that has been heard softly in 
the background suddenly stops ] Grey, Melody and I are as capable as 
anyone else of using a higher level `outside the books' viewpoint."

"Uh, huh." Says Alla. "So why does that make something like 
DISHWASHER difficult to disprove?"

"Because DISHWASHER is like LOLLIPOPS. It's a backstory theory. 
Backstories are things worked out by the author that may never 
actually make it into the published novels. JKR may well have 
decided that Snape was in love with Lily Evans (later Lily Potter), 
but unless it becomes vital to the *plot*, we might never read about 
it. 

And LOLLIPOPS is also going to be incredibly difficult to disprove, 
except by direct canon contradiction. Face it – Snape says he hated 
Lily? He's embarrassed by his feelings for her (Draco-Hermione 
shippers have no problem with that one). Snape turns out to be gay? 
Lily was his gay icon, so to speak. Dumbledore tells Harry that 
Snape was never in love with Lily? We go into the `just good friends 
variant'. 

Practically the only thing that could disprove LOLLIPOPS absolutely 
is if Harry refers to his mother as `Lily Evans' and Snape stares 
blankly at him and says `Who?'

Similarly, DISHWASHER is an attempt to explain the backstory, to 
connect up what has so far seemed to *Harry* to be a series of 
unconnected events – that he goes to school and finds people trying 
to commit theft and general mayhem every year. Plus people seem to 
try and kill him a lot.

The DISHWASHER theory, like LOLLIPOPS, has developed a lot of 
variants. But basically, as Melody says, it is saying that both 
Voldemort *and* Dumbledore are doing a lot of scheming and 
planning. "

The Pipsqueak plays her voice recorder again. This time it's 
Melody's voice which comes out:
"MD's hands are completely tied to the fact that Dumbledore is a
general of war and that he has made aggressive strategic plans to end
the war."

Pipsqueak continues:
"One of the schemes by Dumbledore is the `Flawed Potion' plan. And 
if it is shown that Dumbledore did NOT intend Voldemort to re-embody 
himself at all, that Dumbledore never made any strategic plans to 
put a final end to the Voldemort threat, then the DISHWASHER gets 
chucked out of the Safe House."

"So the DISHWASHER is not the same thing as the Safe House?" says 
Alla, obviously puzzled.

"NO! The Safe House is a haven for spies, conspiracy theorists, and 
fans of Agatha Christie. It's very much associated with the 
DISHWASHER because DISHWASHER *is* based around the idea of an 
intelligence war – so DISHWASHER supporters usually have a room in 
the Safe House. But residents can always wash their own dishes if 
they like – you don't have to use any magical kitchen appliances at 
all to move into the Safe House."

The Pipsqueak suddenly realises that she may have been a little 
vehement. Alla is shrinking back into her chair, trying to make 
herself look as small and harmless as possible.

"The reason the inhabitants keep saying that the Safe House is canon-
proof," she says, trying to keep her voice as gentle as 
possible, "is that the Safe House is built out of canon. Spies are 
canon. That Dumbledore has used spies in the past is canon. That 
Voldemort has used spies and undercover agents is canon. The 
DISHWASHER is not proof against Hurricane Jo. The Safe House is."
[ see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/45528 ].

The Pipsqueak grins cheerfully at Alla. For some reason this seems 
to make Alla feel even more nervous.

"You'll get used to this, Alla." She says. "Try some of the brandy, 
why don't you? Or perhaps you'd prefer a cup of tea? Or George's 
Turkish Coffee?'

She wraps Stoned!Harry's Invisibility cloak back round her head and 
drifts gently over to the bar, where Abigail is trying to persuade 
George to give her credit.

"Oh, buy her a drink, George. Or I'll pay if you're too stingy."

George blinks thoughtfully, but is quite used to disembodied voices 
in his bar. "I'd like to actually *see* some money first, please."

"Oops. Sorry, George." The Pipsqueak unwraps the cloak, and hands 
over some cash. "Do you actually happen to have a teapot this time, 
George?"

"All in use, I'm afraid. Pina Colada for the lady, and a pint of tea 
for you, then?"

"Fine." The Pipsqueak turns to Abigail, who started slightly on 
being called a `lady'. "About this `ends justifies the means' 
argument." She clicks the voice recorder:

Abigail smiles impishly. "MAGIC 
DISHWASHER is rather firmly based in the character of a pragmatic 
Dumbledore, who believes that sacrifices are necessary in order 
for the greater good to prevail - that sounds like putting the ends 
before the means to me. "

"You know, it's amazing how many people will smugly say `that sounds 
like putting the ends before the means' to me, and think that this 
immediately implies that the person concerned will condone having 
babies for lunch if it's for a good enough reason." says the 
Pipsqueak. 

George arrives with the tea and Pina Colada. "Thanks, George. My 
change? Take a drink yourself, why don't you?"

She sips the tea. "Personally, I feel that the only correct answer 
to `do the ends justify the means' is to ask yourself `which ends, 
which means' and then proceed on a case by case basis. End: Ridding 
the world of a very powerful, evil and immortal megalomaniac. Means: 
letting him become temporarily *more* powerful because that will 
ultimately make him more vulnerable. Alternative: Do nothing, allow 
Voldemort to continue murdering Albanian peasants and stray DADA 
teachers, hope Voldemort doesn't find his own re-embodiment 
solution. Leave the entire problem to the next generation. Yup, the 
alternative sounds really moral to me."

"That is not what I am actually talking about!" says Abigail in 
exasperation. "why it's best to resurrect Voldemort now rather then 
wait in the hopes that he is never resurrected - I know that 
argument and it makes sense to me, but it's hardly germane to this 
discussion. The point for me is that Dumbledore set events in motion 
that brought about people's deaths." The fact that he isn't 
responsible for those deaths doesn't exonerate him from complicity 
in them. Or at least it shouldn't. And here I *am* going to make a 
moral determination. A Dumbledore who could look at the deaths of 
Bertha Jorkins, and Frank Bryce, and Cedric Diggory, and the many 
deaths that are coming and say 'I had no hand in that' *is* immoral, 
and I want nothing to do with him."

The Pipsqueak glares. "And my point is that the alternative he had 
was to leave a sequence of events in motion that would still have 
resulted in people's deaths. Voldemort is a killer. Voldemort has no 
need whatsoever to kill Cedric. He could have had Pettigrew use 
Snape's rope trick, tied Cedric up, and had him completely unable to 
help Harry in any way. But he just orders `the spare' killed.

Note that in the graveyard scene Voldemort says "I could possess the 
bodies of others 
 I dared not go where other humans were 
*plentiful*
  I *sometimes* inhabited animals
I could not hope that 
I would be sent another *wizard* to possess
" [GoF Ch.33 pp.567 – 
568 UK hardback, all my emphasis]. Or in other words, Voldemort can 
possess the bodies of humans, he went where there were some humans, 
not no humans around, he only *sometimes* used animals and he was 
really after a wizard, not a muggle.

So if a stray muggle had wandered in Voldemort's way when 
Vapormort's current animal body was nearing the end of its useful 
life, what exactly do you think happened to them? "

"That's not explicitly canon,"said Abigail. 

The Pipsqueak shrugs. "No, it's not explicitly stated in canon that 
Frank Bryce was not the first muggle that Voldemort killed since 
Harry vaporised him. It's simply implied. And we know Voldemort 
killed people as Vapormort, because he killed Quirrel by possessing 
him. Dumbledore in PS/SS thinks post Quirrel Vapormort might 
be `perhaps looking for another body to share' [PS/SS p.216 Ch.17 UK 
paperback] – I don't really think Dumbledore means that Voldemort's 
looking for a handy hampster.

So Dumbledore has a choice: he can look at the deaths of Bertha 
Jorkins, Frank Bryce and Cedric Diggory and say `If it wasn't for my 
plan you might not have died, but I am trying to give your deaths 
some point, trying to destroy the evil that killed you'. Or he can 
look at the other, unnamed deaths that Voldemort has caused and 
(given Voldemort's nature *will* cause) and say – `I have done 
nothing about this at all. Sorry. Personally I don't want to get my 
hands dirty. It's unfortunate you died, of course, but it wasn't as 
a direct result of any plan of mine, so it's nothing to do with me.'"

The Pipsqueak pauses, and takes a swig of tea to moisten her 
throat. "You cannot avoid moral choices by inaction. Inaction is 
itself a moral choice."

Abigail gives the Pipsqueak an old-fashioned look.
""You know, I don't think you DISHWASHER people are as morally 
relativist as you like to think. And, boy, do you ever have a 
persecution complex!"

"I think it's always been our detractors who regard Dishwasher!
Dumbledore as morally relativist, actually," says the Pipsqueak. "I 
think that to be making pragmatic decisions, hard choices, 
assessments that these particular means are justified by this 
particular end, Dumbledore would need a very solid moral core indeed.

It is not moral relativism to say that sometimes you may have to 
commit a sin to prevent an even greater sin. It's a fact of life. 
But to wade your way through this minefield you need to have a very 
clear idea of what is, in fact, the greater evil. So Dishwasher!
Dumbledore has allowed one murderer to escape and allowed an 
innocent man to continue wrongly accused – because what he is trying 
to prevent is ultimately the rise of another megalomaniac who will 
kill and torture millions. Read the canon history of what it was 
like in the Voldemort Wars Phase I. [Various places in GoF] *That* 
is what Dumbledore is trying to stop."

Abigail sniffs. "Melody's already argued that Dishwasher!Dumbledore 
is still working within a moral compass. My point  is that he no 
longer has the luxury of saying 'this is a line I won't cross'. 
Dumbledore passed the point of no return long ago - he is now 
committed to this course of action and *must* - if he is to maintain 
any credibility - stop at nothing to achieve his goal."

 
"Nuts." Replied the Pipsqueak firmly. "There is no point in 
defeating Voldemort if you've made yourself exactly like him. Nor 
is `ends justify the means' necessarily a philosophy of life. Again, 
it's a question of are these particular means justified by this 
particular end. Would the purpose of getting Snape back into 
Voldemort's camp justify the murder of Igor Karkaroff? No."

"Why not?" says Abigail.

"Two reasons. One, Dumbledore believes in second chances. Killing 
Karkaroff means he no longer has any chance at all – nor does he 
have any chance to make future choices, choices that might, unlikely 
as it seems, be to fight on Dumbledore's side against Voldemort. 
Second, it might not work. Voldemort would certainly be happy to 
murder anyone to get a spy in Dumbledore's camp – why should he 
believe that Snape wouldn't be prepared to do the same? Snape's an 
ex-DE for goodness sake! Why do you think he's so flaming hot on 
teaching kids antidotes if it isn't because he's cooked up and 
*used* a lot of poisons in his time?

So, Karkaroff's death would be a) evil and b) not certainly 
successful. Also, it really might not have a good effect on Snape 
himself, who currently seems (as Elkins argues) to avoid physical 
violence with the grim determination of the reformed alcoholic 
avoiding a little drop of whisky. No, these particular means would 
not be justifiable by the end of getting Snape back into the DE's 
happy circle."

"Isn't that three reasons?" says Abigail.

"Well, two reasons why killing Karkaroff  isn't justifiable, and an 
additional point about its moral effect on Snape."

The Pipsqueak pauses. "You see, when I said that the route back in 
for Snape is providing Dumbledore's head on a platter, I was only 
half joking. I don't think Dumbledore is actually going to ask Snape 
to kill him. But I do think he might well send Snape back to 
Voldemort (and this may be Book 6 rather than Book 5 – Snape's 
current mission might have nothing to do with going back to 
Voldemort), with some really juicy information about some weakness 
of Dumbledore's. For example, that Dumbledore is really atrocious at 
fighting balrogs, and has never mastered the levitation charm that 
protects you when you fall off bridges.

There, the means are justified by the ends. Snape will be in – 
Voldemort is not going to believe he's a Dumbledore supporter when 
he's just supplied the information that killed Dumbledore. It isn't 
evil - Dumbledore has consented willingly to supplying this 
information, seeing his own death as necessary in this war. [Plus 
going on a necessary mission that's 99 percent certain to kill you 
isn't actually suicide, just as removing artificial means of 
preserving your life isn't actually suicide].  And it provides the 
ultimate answer to the ghosts of all those people who have died as a 
result of Dumbledore's plans. Yes, he's partly responsible for their 
deaths. But he is willing to die himself in the war against 
Voldemort."

The Pipsqueak stops, takes a sip of tea, and looks thoughtfully at 
Abigail's Pina Colada.

"Tell me," she says "how do you actually manage to drink that stuff?"

Pip

Hypothetic Alley:

http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hypotheticalley.html

Inish Alley:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?
method=reportRows&tbl=13

The DISHWASHER has two major 
posts 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39662

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/40044

A summary post:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39854

plus nearly two hundred posts arguing for and against it.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/40421
for the introductory Safe House post.