[HPforGrownups] Re: Harry in NEWT Potions Class? (Was: Is Snape confident?)

[Kathryn Cawte]

No: HPFGUIDX 87664

Alla

> Another very strong disagreement, no matter what physical and
> emotional hell they had been through, they are fifteen year old
> children and at the beginning of the books were eleven year olds.
> Do you think that in the first book Harry was not a child either?
>

K

I agree that Harry is still a child - which is why I dislike the way
Dumbledore tends to not do anything about it when he suspects Harry is about
to do something ridiculously dangerous. Last time I said that someone said
that since the prophecy only said that Harry could defeat Voldemort but not
when he had to let him in case he succeeded in killing him and I didn't get
a chance to reply. I strongly disagree with that - the prophecy says that
Harry can kill Voldemort of Voldemort can kill him (if you interpret it that
way and assume it's definitive truth, which personally I don't), the fact
that it *doesn't* say when means that Dumbledore would be perfectly
justified in trying to keep him away from Voldemort until he was old enough
to survive not just physically but mentally. By carelessly allowing Harry to
get in danger in the hopes that a child can kill Voldemort for him (when he
himself chose not to in OoP) Dumbledore is, in my opinion, failing in not
only his duty of care as a teacher but in his moral responsibility as a
decent human being!

However, the fact that Harry is still a child is to me far more of a reason
why Harry should be punished regardless of why he is breaking the rules. He
isn't old enough yet (or at least he wasn't at the beginning of OoP, he
*may* be developing the ability) to distinguish when he has a *good* reason
to break the rules and when breaking the rules simply coincides with what he
wants to do. By letting him get away with it so often Albus is deliberately
or not giving Harry the impression that rules can be broken at will and you
won't get punished for it, or at least you won't if you're Harry Potter. And
worse he may well end up encouraging that idea in the heads of the rest of
the students. I have no problem with Harry being punished despite the fact
he had a good reason for doing the right thing. If I feel my government has
passed a law which was wrong and chose to disobey it I would still expect to
be punished for that - and it is right that I would be, if everyone
disobeyed laws willy nilly just because they didn't like them the result
would be anarchy. Being punished when we do something wrong for the right
reasons is part of taking responsibility for our own actions. Frankly if
Harry isn't willing to sit detention for breaking a rule in the cause of
what is right, then he obviously doesn't feel strongly enough that what he's
doing is right, Knowing that he will be punished for doing something might
make him think a little harder before rushing in headlong every time.

K