On the other hand (was Re: Disliked Uncle Vernon)

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 93034

Suehpfan :
> > IMO, the Dursleys are awful.
 
Del :
> In mine, they are Different. They are indeed awful by my moral 
> standards, but I have no right to force those standards on them. 
> They were landed with a baby whose very idea they hated, and they 
> received no help. Not that they would have accepted it, mind you :-
> ), since they didn't think they needed it.

Susan:
Playing devil's advocate a bit here....  You have no right to force 
moral standards on the Dursleys?  Why not?  Are there no universal 
moral standards for treatment of others?  I find that unpalatable.  
Civilization depends upon certain mores and legalized moralities, 
does it not?  

If the poor Dursleys really hated the idea of taking Harry in, if 
they really felt they could not bond with him, why didn't they move 
him along to an orphanage and wash their hands of him?  I don't think 
it could be simply that they were too afraid of DD if they did so.  
Clearly DD didn't come crashing in when they abused Harry [yes, 
forcing a child to live in a cupboard is abuse in my book] and tell 
them to cease & desist.  They seemed to have been pretty free to get 
away w/ whatever they liked.  So could they really have been 
frightened of DD?

I can understand--really I can--how upset the Dursleys were at having 
this child foisted upon them, but their treatment of Harry was truly 
despicable, and if they felt they couldn't abide his presence, why 
*didn't* they "pass on the offer"?  And I don't think you can argue 
that, deep down, they do [or Petunia does] care...because if that 
were true, they wouldn't have treated Harry as they did/do.

I suspect the tomatoes are about to fly in my direction....  Oh, 
well, it's a foggy-brained Monday morning; have at me.

Siriusly Snapey Susan