Trevor incident again WAS: Re: Please explain.

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 144220

> eggplant107 wrote:
> > Yes I believe we can. Snape must have known his
> words would terrorize
> > an eleven year old boy, in fact he would have no
> reason other than
> > that to say them. 

Irene: 
> Trevor's incident didn't happen during year 1, did it?

Alla:

Are you saying that third year student cannot be scared that his pet 
will be poisoned? 


Irene:

> I was not going for "no harm no foul" argument about
> Trevor. I do think intentions are important (still
> waiting to learn about Sirius intentions :-)). But I
> don't think Snape's intentions were to kill Trevor. Or
> to horrify Neville for his sadistic pleasure.
> I've just noticed that many "motivational" verbs seem
> to suggest pain:
> to spur, goad, push, prod, poke, thrust. I wonder why.
> :-)


Alla:

So, if you were not going for "no harm no foul" argument about 
Trevor, could you clarify what type of argument you were going for?

You said upthread that how could we blame Snape for what Neville was 
thinking, right? Since to me the answer is very clear - because Snape 
made Neville to believe it, I am not sure how can we NOT to blame 
Snape for what Neville was thinking?

I mean, it is not like Neville believed that Trevor will die for no 
reason. The belief is very rational, no? Snape threatened to feed the 
potion to Trevor or am I missing something here and we are discussing 
different lesson where Snape issued no threats at all and Neville 
suffered hallucinations? I am not being sarcastic here, I am 
genuinely confused.

Aren't you saying that since Trevor was not harmed that is why we 
should not blame Snape? Am I misreading your argument?

And while Snape probably did not intend to really kill Trevor (I 
hope, although I am not totally sure since I would not put past him 
to enjoy seeing pet die), I do think that horrify Neville for his 
sadistic pleasure WAS one of his intentions. IMO only of course


JMO

Alla,

confused again.