Good Slytherin - Plus an old debate

[Kathryn Cawte]

No: HPFGUIDX 71284

 bboy_mn:

First, a mild apology; I may have come across a little harsher than I
intended. I was going to send you an email directly and soften...
well, if not soften my position.. but at least, soften my attitude a
bit, but you've responded already, so here and now I will say...
'sorry, nothing personal'.

K:

Oh by all means don't worry about it. I don't take offenseasily and if I was
going to then honestly there's a whole queue of people over on another
thread that are way ahead of you in the most-likely-to-offend-me stakes :)
Frankly as an historian and therefore a lover of arguements my reaction to
your response was to rub my hands in glee and prepare a new salvo in the
traditional Slytherin v Gryffindor fight :)

bboy_mn:
Let me also add that I am in no way condemming all rules; I'm not an
anarchist. But history and OoP are full of rules that have nothing to
do with what is right, and are rooted in power and greed. So, I am all
for rule, I'm just not for all rules. 

K:

And  in that vein let me assert that I'm not saying all rules are right.
However it seems to me that before learning that it is sometimes the moral
thing to do to break the rules Harry (and children in general) needs to
learn that the rules exist for a reason and that our actions have
consequences. While I actually agree with Harry's actions (based on the
knowledge he had at the time) at the end of OoP I feel that if he had learnt
that disobeying the rules (whether they be the rules of a society, the laws
of the land or merely school rules) is wrong then he would have tried harder
at his lessons with Snape and also not have invaded his privacy by peering
in the Pensieve. (Please don't misunderstand me I am not absolving Snape of
blame here. Snape is supposedly a responsible adult and as such should not
have cancelled the lessons. He certainly should have punished Harry but he
knew even if Harry didn't why the lessons were important and should have
acted in a responsible manner) Harry *knew* that he should be practicing -
but he did not know why and because his casual disregard of any rule he
doesn't like has often been rewarded in the past he did not bother to
practice. he *knew* that he should not look in the pensieve, he even thinks
that to himself, but he does it anyway because he has not learnt any kind of
discipline in the past 4 years. Harry has never learnt to take
responsibility for his own actions - while it can be the right thing to do
to break the law (or a school rule) if we have the moral courage to say that
this law is wrong and so I will break it we should also have the courage to
take responsibility for those actions and accept any punishment. 

bboy_mn responds:
See, this is the root of the problem between the opposing sides on
this issue. Slytherin hadn't won the House Cup, they were only in the
lead and expected to win. Dumbledore is well within his rights and
well with in the rules to award last minute points. So, if Snape can
dock 50 points (or 20 or 10) for minor infraction, then certainly
Dumbledore can award 50 points for extreme acts of selflessness and
courage, even if it wasn't tempered with the best of wisdom.

But... I guess that's pretty much the standard postion on my side of
the fence.

K:

And the standard position from my side of the fence is not that we don't
think the points should have been awarded (although I don't, but I do take
your point that Snape deducts points on a whim so why shouldn't Dumbledore
add them for the same reason) but that it was not necessary to do it in that
manner. He could easily have given them out before the feast , points are
usually awarded after all as soon after the event as possible, and as such
ensured that they were already registered before th hall was decorated. The
manner in which it was done seems to me to have been calculated to humiliate
the Slytherins as much as possible. But this is not something we're ever
going to agree on.

bboy_mn now responds:

Yeh, I see the house system creating lifelong hositilities and
rivalries that really don't need to exist. But the same thing happens
with school and home team allegiance. You could be given job hiring
preference (unofficially) in the real world because you went to Yale
instead of Harward, or because you suport the Cubs instead of the
Yankees, or just as easily looked upon with distain for those same
allegiances.

K :

Well I think that there's a difference of scale bewteen awarding someone a
job based on the old school tie system and writing off a quarter of your
population as evil at the tender age of eleven but basically I agree with
the points you made here.

bboy_mn also said :

The worst part of this is probably the isolation; a cunning ambitious
Slytherin-type may learn that hard work and wisely applied efforts can
help him achieve his ambition much more effectively that being
ruthless, if he were exposed to Hufflepuff types in a setting the
brought them together. They could all learn from each other. Certainly
a group of blended personalities and talents merged together to form a
business, can produce a much more effective business then one made
from common personality types and talents. 

K :

Exactly the Hat stresses the positive aspects of each house - Ambition,
Courage, Wisdom, Loyalty but conversely each house also has it's weaknesses
- Ambition can lead to a disregard for the rules and for other people,
Bravery can also be foolhardy if one dives into action without forethought
(*cough*Sirius*cough*), the search for knowledge can lead to people being
slow to act and needs to be tempered by the understanding that just because
you know *how* to do something doesn't mean you should do it, loyalty is all
very well but blind loyalty leads to well Percy actually.

bboy_mn now responds:

The time to choose between what is right and what is easy is not in
the luxury of hindsight. The time to choose is when Harry/Ron/Hermione
are in the common room and they seem to have discovered that the
'thief' had found out how to get past all the obsticals and that
Dumbledore has left the school. 

K:

That is true but they did not (imo) break the rules out of purely moral
courage but out of arrogance - they ignored Hagrid when he said that Snape
wasn't evil (of course he also said that a Hogwarts teacher wouldn't steal
the stone so I suppose they were sort of correct there), they ignored
McGonagall when she assured them that the stone was safe (and resumbly since
she was responsible for some of the defences she should know). They ignored
every warning they were given that they were wrong and that they were
breaking the rules and carried on regardless and no one ever bothered to
point out the consequences of their actions to them. It is not so much that
they broke the rules that annoys me but that they were rewarded for it and
did not learn that the rules are there for a reason or that there are always
consequence to our actions and we need to take responsibility to them. As
far as I can tell no one pointed out to Harry that if he hadn't been there
in the first place the stone wouldn't have been in danger. I agree that they
were acting with the best of intentions but so, (if we can believe what she
said) was Umbridge. Now admittedly we don't know what punishment she is
going to receive for her deeds at the school but at the very least it looks
like she will lose not only her position at the school but quite possibly
her job too. 

K