[HPforGrownups] Re: The Train Stomp: What does it say about the Trio?

[Eileen]

No: HPFGUIDX 51441

Dicentra wrote:
>So can we *please* pretty please not call this 
>the *stomp* anymore, because that's not what
happened.  >The Prank was most surely a prank (as far
as we can >tell), but there's a world of difference
between a
>step and a stomp.

<looks around desperately>

But, Dicey, I was only joking! I just love the
absurdity of that little phrase. It's like "Dissin'
The Slyths." Very funny. 

Well, at least I thought it was. But then my sense of
humour is thought to be rather peculiar. 

Dicentra further wrote:
>There's no indication here that stepping on those 
>guys was an act of violence.  For an act to be 
>violent, there must be an intent to cause real 
>harm.  You can step on *me*, a weakling Muggle, and 
>not cause me any harm if you step in the right 
>place (between the shoulder blades).I've been 
>stepped on in this way without being hurt by it.  
>It looks as if the twins were expressing disdain 
>for the anti-Trio, not trying to grind their flesh 
>into the floor.

Very likely. I don't remember ever calling the Train
Stomp.... errr... the Train Step an act of violence.
It's an act of disdain, as you said. 

But as Elkins said, not exactly one that the culture
so intent on the proper forms of dueling would approve
of. Harry steps neatly over Draco. The twins walk on
him. I know whose behaviour suits me better there. I'm
not that keen on people treading on unconscious bodies
as an act of disdain. Where I come from, that was
generally frowned on. 

Achilles, on the other hand, would have no problem
with it, so maybe we're dealing with Tough and Steely
Homeric Twins. 

Dicentra wrote:
>His response: "No harm, no foul."  It's hard for me 
>to get upset about the stepping upon for that
>reason--no one got hurt. 

Well, the knocking out certainly hurt them. At least,
knocking people unconscious is a pretty serious
result. True, this is the magical world, and
everything can be fixed. But I'm not sure that the
fact that things can be fixed makes the act more
morally correct. Just as I don't like my brothers
fighting, whether they're badly hurting each other or
not, even if a bloody nose will stop bleeding quite
soon. 

I can't get very, very upset over the end of GoF for
Draco's sake, because as you said, it's hardly that
serious, and he's hardly an innocent child who was
attacked out of the blue. He goaded them into that
attack. But as a fall from a moral standard and a
premonition of things to come, I do find it
disturbing. 

I wrote:
> Harry and Ron fail my standards so often during the
> books, that's it's incredible, but I still think
> they're inherently good people, and they'll grow up
to
> be decent adults.  

Susanne wrote:
>I noticed that you left out Hermione.
>
>Does she not fail your standards at all, much less
>often...?

Well given that I achieved a certain amount of infamy
by calling Harry and Ron inconsiderate idiots, I am
not going to take on Hermione, am I?

Seriously, I do have my problems with Hermione, but
they are usually not of the same kind as Harry and
Ron. For example, Hermione's behaviour throughout much
of GoF irritates me, eg. her seemingly casual attitude
towards Winky's suffering, but I think her problem is
not so much failing to meet a moral standard as not
being aware of how to properly interact with other
people. 

Hermione does fail my standards, but not as often as
Ron and Harry, who seem to be making a career of it.

Boys... ;-)

Jim wrote:
>Their flaws - their variance from an ideal - make
>them human.  Those 'flaws' - Harry's willingness to
>go outside rules, for example - serve him well, 
>and they've served his friends and his school well.

That's the one side of it. Sometimes, it's not that
nice. 

PoA 

"Don't expect me to cover up for you again, Harry. I
cannot make you take Sirius Black seriously. But I
would have thought that what you have heard when the
Dementors draw near you would have had more of an
effect on you. Your parents gave their lives to keep
you alive, Harry. A poor way to repay them - gambling
their sacrifice for a bag of magic tricks." 

Sometimes, his flaws are just that. Flaws. 

>Harry is not sadistic or cruel, nor does he prey on 
>the weak. By default, he is good and friendly. Same 
>for Ron.  If in the future Draco leaves Harry alone
>(fat chance), Harry will leave Draco alone.
>He always would have left Draco alone. That's enough.
>I will not hold Harry, Ron, or Hermione (about as
>non-violent a person as there is in canon)
>to standards no one can achieve, because 
>unattainable standards have no validity.

They're not unattainable. Do you think Albus
Dumbledore would have cursed Draco? Or Professor
McGonagall? Or Lupin? 

Or Cedric Diggory, for that matter? 

They're just standards that demand more effort than
most people, including our heroes, are willing to
give. 

Just like it must have been an effort not too jeer
when the crowd began cheering at the Lestranges and
Crouch Jr. being dragged away. 

>Peacemakers are brave and pay a high price, 
>usually, but they are not the answer for every
>situation.  There is no peace with Voldemort or
>his supporters, any more than you could use conflict
>resolution against smallpox. The irredeemable can 
>at least learn their venom has consequences.

To quote Eowyn, "Those who do not wield a sword can
still die on one." 

But hateful remarks are not the same as the
Unforgivable curses. I don't think hateful remarks
should be returned with fisticuffs. 

Plus, it seems to me that Albus Dumbledore is keeping
peace with Draco and company, so is he in the wrong
for keeping peace with Voldemort and his supporters?

>No, it doesn't say bad things about you, Eileen, 
>it just says you have heart and passion. It's the 
>qualities of caring and your moral compass
>outraged by the unbearable.  You would be less 
>human and alive if you didn't 'lose your temper,' 
>just as the Trio couldn't help themselves.

The human predisposition to violence is troubling, I
think. Don't get me wrong. I'm no pacifist. I was
taught early to value the great sacrifice of those who
give up their lives to defend life and liberty by my
maternal grandfather, who landed on Juno Beach the
sixth of June, 1944, and received near-fatal wounds at
Caen. 

But I don't think objectively that hateful words are
an excuse for violence. It doesn't fit the Just War
Theory requirements, for one thing. (Everyone groans
as Eileen clunks her well-worn Just War Theory down on
the table.)

Cursing Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle didn't confront a
"real and certain danger." ie. It did not protect life
or liberty.: Fail

All peaceful alternatives had not been exhausted. :
Fail

It did have a high chance of succeeding, as it did. :
Pass

And the good achieved was out of proportion to the
damage inflicted, since it achieved absolutely
nothing. : Fail

Violence which can't even pass the old Just War theory
is not violence I'm prepared to condone. 

On the other hand, the war against Voldemort passes
the Just War theory with flying colours...

Eileen

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca