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

[annemehr]

No: HPFGUIDX 93230

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" <delwynmarch at y...> wrote:
> 
> > Annemehr:
> > 
> > Similarly, in the case of the Dursleys, the first thing to do is 
> > put a stop to their abuse of Harry.
> 
> Del :
> Why wait 15 years then ?

Annemehr:
They shouldn't have.  Better late than never, though.  Of course, for
the first ten or eleven years, only Dumbledore really knew about it.
> 
> Annemehr :
> > After that, you can try to change the underlying cause of the 
> > abuse, which is in the hearts and minds of the Dursleys 
> > themselves.  You may be successful, or they may flat-out
> > refuse to change, but at least the abuse will have stopped.
> 
> Del :
> The abuse could have stopped years ago, and it would have been much 
> easier for the Dursleys to come to love a little boy than a teenager.

Annemehr:
True.  See above.
> 
> Annemehr : 
> > At the end of OoP, Harry's friends took steps to stop the abuse.  
> > I'll admit it doesn't look likely anyone's going to have a heart-
> > to-heart with the Dursleys anytime soon, but perhaps they figure 
> > the Dursleys should know better.
> 
> Del :
> Maybe they should, but obviously they don't, and they won't if 
> nobody helps them.

Annemehr:
I'm not at all sure they don't know better.

> 
> > Annemehr:
> > Obviously, that's not what the Dursleys thought was the way to 
> > raise a child, because that's not how they raised Dudley.
> 
> Del :
> Dudley is their child, Harry is not. Big difference.

Annemehr:
It's no difference at all.  "How to raise a child" is a general idea.

> 
> > Annemehr:
> > Dumbledore has nothing to do with what the Dursleys did to Harry 
> > *once he was in their care.*
> 
> Del :
> Yes he does. That's called "follow-up". That's what he didn't do. He 
> apparently just dumped Harry at the Dursleys', and forgot about him 
> for 10 years. He could have put a stop to the abuse very early, but 
> he didn't.

Annemehr:
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.  Dumbledore has nothing to do with
the Dursleys' decision to treat Harry as they did.  If he had stopped
their abuse earlier, he would have merely *overridden* their wrong
decision, but the Dursleys would still have been responsible for
making that decision.
> 
> > Annemehr:
> > Yes, there are just wars (IMO!), and you've just given the example 
> > of one: a nation defending itself from attack.  I would add the 
> > equally just examples of a strong nation defending a weak one from 
> > an ongoing invasion, and one nation defending another from its 
> > tyrannical ruler who is killing and torturing hundreds of 
> > thousands within his own borders.
> 
> Del :
> It mostly depends on whether or not that nation *asked* for help. 
> Otherwise, you're overstepping your privileges and trying to 
> forcefully mold the world according to your idea. It's not right, 
> and very dangerous.

Annemehr:
Well, obviously, the oppressive government is never going to ask to be
put down, but oppressed people and the people and governments of
invaded nations generally do ask for help.  And yes, it's all very
dangerous, but unbridled tyranny and oppression are more so.
> 
> > Annemehr:
> > 
> > God's idea of what is good is really good in itself and has 
> > nothing to do with the fact that he has power.
> 
> Del :
> That's not what I meant. I was asking whether we would accept *now* 
> His knowledge of what is Good and Evil, if we didn't know that He 
> has the power to make us accept it *someday* anyway. My guess is No.
> 
> Del

Annemehr:
I doubt that.  There are very many people who do not believe in that
type of God, or in God at all, who care very much about good and evil.
 Therefore I see no reason to assume that the people who believe in a
God who cares about good and evil are merely trying to avoid punishment.

Annemehr