The Unforgivable Curses on animals?

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 95037

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
> Good question, Del. (I think it was you. If not, it's still a good
> question.) I personally think what Crouch!Moody did to all the spiders
> was Unforgiveable, maybe not in a literal sense but because he's
> sadistic, indifferent to the pain or death of humans or animals, using
> them all for his own purposes. (I'm sure half the board will disagree,
> but bear with me.) 
> 

One of the other half replies.
This thread seems to be in grave danger of becoming an excuse for 
posters to re-interpret aspects of canon to suit their  own personal
philosophies. And when you go back to the canon there appears to be
little justification or support for their stance. Wishful thinking won't
change canon.

1. An Unforgivable' is only classed as such when used against another
human being. You personally may  find this deplorable, but in canon 
JKR apparently doesn't. IMO this is deliberate. It warns the reader
that the WW is not a fluffy bunny environment.

2. A sadist  is someone who *enjoys* inflicting pain. Indifference is 
not sadism.

3. In the past Aurors have used the 'Unforgivables' and have now, it
seems, been forgiven. So they're not  so unforgivable after all.

4. If DADA means anything, it means studying Dark Magic in order
to counter it. That means *it must be demonstrated* otherwise you're
back to Umbridge's "you can get it all you need to know from books"
version of the subject,  which, again from canon, is considered to be
a totally  ridiculous idea. 

Anyone  can disagree with  ideas and concepts in the books - there're
a few I don't like myself, but to tie one's self into theoretical knots in
order to try and make it  come out in a way to fit your own prejudices
seems faintly farcical.

Kneasy