The Dursleys *are* guilty (was : On the other hand )

[Doriane]

No: HPFGUIDX 93213


> Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote :
> And **regardless** of that, I do NOT believe that one party is 
> absolved of guilt simply because another party or parties did not 
> fulfill their moral or legal responsibilities. The fact that no 
> one else stepped in doesn't mean that the Dursleys are relieved of 
> any responsibility for their own moral or immoral behavior!  To 
> me, arguing that is like saying, "Well, that store clerk didn't 
> care when those three guys stole 10 cartons of cigarettes, so it's 
> okay if I steal some, too."  

Del :
Okay, I've been suspected several times already of trying to absolve 
the Dursleys by putting the guilt on everyone else. So let's be 
clear : that's NOT what I'm trying to do. It's not okay to steal 
just because someone else did it. But if I do it, and nobody comes 
after me, I'll be reinforced in my idea that I can do it and not 
suffer any consequences. And when I've done it long enough, I might 
get conditioned to thinking that's okay after all, and forget that 
most people don't think that way and be very surprised when someone 
tells me so. After all, if they didn't find it okay, why didn't they 
tell me so earlier ? It doesn't change the fact that it was wrong to 
steal to start with, but it does put part of the responsibility for 
my stealing *again* on the society (police, clerk, whoever). As we 
say in France : "qui ne dit mot consent" : who doesn't say a word 
agrees.
I'm not trying to discharge the Dursleys. I'm trying to add guilt on 
other people who are partly responsible for the Dursleys' 
*continuous* abuse of Harry. If DD had popped up next to Dudley the 
first time he hit Harry, or next to Petunia when she didn't give him 
enough to eat, or next to Vernon when he gave Harry one of Dudley's 
discarded clothes, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have done it 
*again* !

Del