Putting words in other posters' mouth - Rape

[l3al3y_Doll_3]

No: HPFGUIDX 136834

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" 
<delwynmarch at y...> wrote:
> Vmonte, Rizza,

> Roxanne, you wrote:
> "When we start talking about Harry as a sexual
> predator I think it's safe to say that we're
> no longer discussing canon."
> 
> Del replies:
> You can't just SAY it, you have to SHOW it.
> So please show me where it says that Harry
> CANNOT turn into a sexual predator or
> anything of the sort. You pretend to be
> discussing canon, so by all means, give me
> CANON evidence supporting what is otherwise only your belief.
>
>
> Roxanne wrote:
> "Everyone reads HP (and any book or story)
> through their own filters. That's cool, but
> for the purpose of this list sticking to
> canon is probably the best way to go."
> 
> Del replies:
> Sticking to canon, or sticking to YOUR VERSION
> of canon? For your information, I HAVE stuck
> to canon. If I haven't, please demonstrate so. 
>
Rizza:

You do realize you're contradicing yourself right? You're demanding 
cannon to prove her belief that Harry COULD NOT turn into a sexual 
predator, yet you haven't, nor can you provide cannon to support 
your belief that he COULD! Unless there is a sentence in any of the 
books that says Harry himself believes he will or will not grow up 
to be abusive, or someone says it of/to him, using those exact 
words. Unless I'm mistaken, the said sentences do not exist. 
Because, whatever you pull out of the books to support your theory, 
she could read it in a completely different way. And vice versa.
 
I went through your messages and read all those relating this 
subject, and no I couldn't find anywhere you supported yourself with 
canon. If I missed it, please enlighten me.


> Roxanne wrote:
> "If you find yourself talking more about your
> life than Harry's perhaps it's time to step back."
> 
> Del replies:
> Please demonstrate that I have talked more
> about my own life than Harry's. You can't just
> accuse me of having done it, you have to prove it.
> 

Rizza:

Message 136773, your third reply. That's what she was talking about, 
not every other oppinion you've shared in this post. 


> Back to Vmonte and Rizza, now.
> 
> Vmonte wrote:
> "But it also seems to me that JKR is a VERY moral
> person and that she is trying to teach children
> some great lessons in her books. Imagine a book
> that teaches children to value family, friendship,
> and to be brave in the face of danger; to have
> tolerance, learn how to forgive, and expect the
> best in people."
> 
> Del replies:
> 
> * Value family: only when your family is on
> the right side. Draco Malfoy is shown as being
> decidedly wrong for following in his parents' steps,
> while Sirius is a hero for having renounced his evil family.
> 

Rizza:

Are you telling me you DON'T think Draco is for being adherent to 
his parents' principles? The same parents who'll do anything, 
including KILL, to rid the world of muggles and non-purebloods? 
There's a big difference between having unconditional love for your 
family, and agreeing with everything they say and do, simply because 
they raised you to. So should Sirius be condemned for breaking free 
and having a mind of his own, rather than being a prejudiced 
psychopath who's main goal in life is to annihilate those whom he 
belives to be beneath him? If he had stayed with his family, that's 
exactly what he would have been.

 
> Del replies:
> ... but that doesn't mean the Harry we
> know couldn't turn into an abuser, in the hands
> of another writer. To me, there's a small but
> significant difference between saying "JKR won't
> make Harry be an abuser" and "Harry cannot be an abuser".
> 
Rizza:

When another writer gets permission from JKR to write his/her own 
versions of Harry's life, let me know. Until then, this is still 
JKR's Harry Potter. Anyway, yes there is a difference, and I still 
choose to believe the latter. Why? Because even if JKR decided to 
write fifty more books after the seventh, she would not write Harry 
as an abusive man. He's the main character, the hero, the one whom 
millions of children around the world look up to, identify with in 
one way or another, 


> Del replies:
>> I'm not saying the abuse is there. I'm just
> saying that we don't have to rule it out
> because JKR hasn't given us any ground to
> rule it out. 
> 
> Del replies:
> Which part of "I DO *NOT* BELIEVE THAT HARRY
> IS ABUSING GINNY" do you not understand?
> 

> Del replies:
> Actually, it's PRECISELY because I've been
> in Harry's head for so long that I thought
> of the abuse scenario. I have seen things in
> Harry's behaviour towards other people that
> DO make me cringe, and that DO make me think
> that such a boy could turn into an abuser
> if he weren't protected by JKR's will.
> Rizza wrote:
> "I do think you could be more open-minded,
> and perhaps a little bit logical about this."> 

> Who is being illogical by ruling out a
> possibility on the grounds of assumption instead of hard evidence?
> 


Rizza again:

Logical: reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent 
manner. 

As far as I know you've been more contradictory to and inconsistent 
in your statements than anyone else who's had a say on this topic. 
Are you theorizing about Harry Potter who exists in JKR's "Harry 
Potter..." series? Or are you talking about a Harry Potter who could 
exist away from JKR's pen? Make THAT clear to me. Because you seem 
to be arguing in both cases...



*Rizza* who is suddenly reminded of the best phrase ever uttered in 
this group- *AGREE TO DISAGREE*