Please explain. . .

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 144184

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin 
<irene_mikhlin at b...> wrote:

> This is so much fun. How can we blame Snape for what Neville thinks?

We can blame Snape for creating a situation in which he knows a kid 
is absolutely terrified, particularly where there's a pattern of the 
teacher doing this.  Snape does seem to frequently be gunning for 
Neville, yes.  If you think he was only charitably trying to warn 
Lupin about Neville's potential danger, you probably have a kinder 
view of human relations than I do.

But you know, let's extend this out.  How can we blame anyone for 
their actions towards another person, equal or inferior, when they 
don't result in actual physical harm?  And even that's pretty easily 
fixable, as Harry's stints in the Hospital Wing and Draco's 
malingering show us.  Being hung upside down is humiliating, but it 
doesn't seem to have actually *hurt* Snape--why should we worry so 
much about his poor feelings, which he's still so wrapped up in years 
later?  There was no lasting physical damage in any of the incidents 
(he didn't get eaten, did he?), therefore we shouldn't care.

**I don't believe this argument, so please no one flame me about its 
content.  **

I'm just trying to show what the slippery slope *can* lead to if we 
make this "no harm no foul" and don't attach some importance to 
intention and targeting.  That's where the 'sadistic' modifier (from 
the horse's mouth) is useful, in part, because it does give us a clue 
about the intentions of the pattern of actions.  Things get messy 
when we have incomplete information and access to intentions, I'd say.

-Nora has not a pair of horns to wear for advocacy