Harry Potter for GROWN-UPS

[slytherinspirit]

No: HPFGUIDX 120182



> Mcmaxslb wrote:

> 
> Right and wrong are not as subjective as you like to think.
> 
> 
<snip>
> 
> Good people do not do evil things. I too know abuse victoms and 
they 
> have never hurt anyone.
>

K

Right and wrong are very subjective and good people frequently do 
evil things, either as an aberration or 'for the greater good'. For 
example (and I swear I'll bring this back to the books by the end of 
the paragraph, List Elves) - I think most of us could agree that the 
deliberate killing of large numbers of civilians is wrong, but 
probably only a minority of people would consider the pilots who 
dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki to be evil. Right and 
wrong depend greatly on context and your personal beliefs. 
Personally I think burning someone at the stake for witchcraft is 
evil - the WW certainly seems to use it as an argument for keeping 
their world hidden from muggles - yet leading theologians at the 
time would have explained it not simply as being a 'necessary evil' 
(as with my earlier real world example) but as actually being a 
*good* thing to do as it both protected others and was a means of 
saving the witch in question's soul.

Since you are so convinced that right and wrong are utterly 
immutable, tell me how Harry is meant to defeat Voldemort - I'm 
assuming since you think Snape's verbal abuse of Harry is evil that 
you would consider killing someone to be evil as well. And if we 
give Harry a pass on killing Voldemort (which we can't because 
killing is evil and good people never do evil deeds ergo Harry must 
be evil if he kills Voldemort), how is he supposed to go about it? 
AK is after all illegal.

JKR very rarely writes situations that are black and white. Snape is 
a deeply flawed individual but I certainly wouldn't say that he is 
evil, merely that he is capable of evil acts, but so are most of the 
main characters. Sirius is another example, personally I think he 
had a rough deal over his life with more than his share of bad stuff 
being thrown his way - but I'm sure people could make a good 
argument for this being bad karma on his part since he's certainly 
not a plaster saint. Harry is our 'hero' but breaks rules with an 
abandon whcih almost seems to justify Snape's belief that Harry 
thinks he is 'above the law' (so to speak) because of who he is. Ron 
alters between being a loyal and heroic sidekick on the one hand and 
a brat who I could cheerfully dropkick of a cliff on the other. 
Hermione's heart is clearly n the right place but she comes across 
as being arrogant and shows a blatant disregard for the feelings and 
opinions of anyone who disagrees with her - even when they happen to 
be the same people she is allegedly trying to help. For me Remus is 
one of the least flawed and even he has a bad habit of standing by 
and watching when he should be standing up for what he believes is 
right. And don't even get me started on Dumbledore - frankly if he's 
an example of the people who're going to be in charge if the 'good 
guys' win then I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer Voldemort. None of 
this is to say that I dislike these characters - although if I met 
them in real life I suspect I'd have to strongly resist the urge to 
throw heavy objects at some of them. The only character I actively 
dislike at the moment is Draco - and that's because he seems to be 
such a 2D panto villain that it's not funny.

And as for the deaths of the Potters - I have to say it's one of the 
few sane things I've seen Voldemort do, although while the plan 
itself was reasonably sound he does lose points on technical merit 
for getting his body killed. Had he sent his trusted lieutenants to 
kill them instead of doing it himself that would havebeen better but 
unfortunately (for him) he doesn't seem to have *trusted* 
lieutenants.


> 
> > Mcmaxslb wrote:
> "And if you can't handle someone challenging you instead of 
agreeing
> then you are going to be the unhappy one, deal with it."
> 

K
Pot meet kettle. You weren't challenging her or anyone else - you 
were simply issuing a blanket condemnation of anyone who holds a 
different viewpoint to you on the subject of Snape. If your reaction 
to anyone who doesn't agree with you is going to be to imply that 
they are somehow morally inferior to you I suspect it's you that's 
going to be unhappy around here - since most of the rest of the 
group would probably be more upset if everyone *did* agree with them 
(after all what would happen to all the interesting discussions if 
we ever found something where we all thought alike?).

K