Double standards and believing

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 121034


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

> 
> Del replies:
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> Here's the explanation : the core kids are Harry's friends, who are
> basically the Weasley kids plus Hermione. They all believe Harry
> without questioning, blindly : none of them has ever seen
> ressucitated!LV or the DEs. And yet they are supposed to be the kids
> who made the best choices. Why? Why is it good *for them only* to
> believe their friend blindly? Why is it good *for them only* to 
> follow their parents? In short : why is it good for them to do 
> things that other kids have been berated for doing?
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> Del

bboyminn:

Del, you really seem to throw a lot of fat into the fire. I have to
wonder if you were involved in the Debating Club at school, and just
can't resist arguing the counterpoint for the sake of the counterpoint
rather than a firm belief. Not that it really matters; you are very
good at it, and stimulate some great discussions.

While you make very good and reasonable arguements for the 'double
standard', with a slightly adjusted perspective, they don't quite ring
true.

>From your original 'double standard' post-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ernie's parents believe DD so Ernie believes Harry : good.
Seamus' mother believes Fudge so Seamus believes Fudge : bad.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I don't think Seamus was supporting his mother or Frudge. My read of
the orginal blow-up between Harry and Seamus was that Seamus was more
than willing to give Harry a fair hearing. He had very little
information about the events of the previous year, combined with all
the unlikely and uncertain crap he was reading in the paper, and he
thought the only fair thing to do was let Harry tell him what happened
so he could make up his own mind. 

I suspect Seamus's intent was to support Harry, but Harry was so
defensive and argumentative about it that he never gave Seamus a
chance. Once Harry appear to attack Seamus's mother, Seamus became
very defensive, and the whole thing spiraled out of control. From that
point on, it wasn't about Voldemort anymore, it was about Harry and
Seamus both being stubborn unreasonable jerks toward each other.

So, Seamus was not blindly supporting Fudge, or taking a stand against
Harry simply because his mother was. 


Another example-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Cho learns to think by herself and doesn't do as her parents wish : good.
Percy learns to think by himself and decides not to follow in his
family's decisions : bad.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

This is a tougher one. First all the people who know Harry well are
not 'blindly' following or believing him. The Weasley family have
known Harry for years, and are probably closer to him than anyone. The
newspaper's representation of Harry as an unreliable attention seeking
prat would ring totally false to them. Since the position was promoted
by the Ministry, and given the fact or belief that the Ministry tried
to 'railroad' Harry, the paper and the Ministry had very low credibility.

Harry on the other hand, to the knowledge of the Weasleys and
Hermione, has always shunned the limelight and done his best to stay
out of the public view. The paper and the Ministry's characterization
of Harry would have rung totally false to those who knew him well.
Plus, Dumbledore's belief in Harry would have lent great credibility
to Harry story. In addition, Ron and Hermione, and to some extent the
Weasleys heard the story and saw the results in greater detail than
others did. They are basing their support of Harry on a great deal
more knowledge than is available to the average wizard. Once the
average wizard has that same knowledge via Rita's article, a great
many of them come around to Harry's side.

Percy, within reason, knew Harry well, and should have seen that Harry
had no reason to lie about Voldemort's return. Further, he should have
seen that the paper's characterization of Harry was inconsistent with
his own experience. But Percy is a very ridgid and formal person, he
truly 'blindly' followed the Ministry because they make the rules, and
in Percy's ridgid mind, the rules rule. 

Harry's friends believed him because Harry's claims were completely
consistent with is personality, and further, they could see the trama
and stress he suffered. They had no reason to not to believe Harry. On
the other hand, the newpaper and the Ministries version of events and
their characterization of Harry was about as dodgy as it could
possibly be. There would be no logical reason for anyone who knew
Harry well to believe that crapola.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Percy fan and defender. Percy did the
right thing, but he did the right thing blindly. He accepted a
position that was counter to his own knowledge and experience with
Harry, simply because that position was professed by people he
admired. In addition, he was somewhat blinded by ambition.

Personally, I think a great deal of the blame for the Percy fiasco
falls on Arthur. Apparently, diplomacy is not a great skill in the
wizard world. Certainly, Arthur could have play his hand much better.
He could have started by congradulating Percy on his new promotion,
then later, gradually worked in the possibility of a conflict of
interest, then once that was established and sorted, gradually
appealled to Percy's own knowledge of Harry. Percy could have
certainly been brought around, or at least, acceptingly neutralized.
But no, Arthur had to get into a great shouting match with him. I
don't blame Percy for being pissed.

In a sense, Arthur did to Percy what Harry did to Seamus, he got is
back up and put him on the defensive before he had a chance to see the
light. Once that secondary hostility entered the picture, it became
the focus instead of a rational discussion of the real issues.

As far as Luna, Luna believes so many unbelievable things that she,
even by her own admission, doesn't have much credibility in the eyes
of others. So, people's disbelief or lack of support for Luna is far
from a double standard.

One last point on the double standard, which actually refers to
another thread in this group. Sorry I can't cite it, but I'm
hopelessly behind, and have just been reading bit and pieces to get
caught up.

This is Umbridge's actions vs Hermione's actions. For example,
Umbridge via the Dementor attack tried to (as good as) kill Harry;
which we see as bad. Hermione tried to kill Umbridge (or so some
assume) via the trip to the forest and the Centaurs; which we see as good.

The difference was the Umbridge acted with offensive intent. She
attacked an innocent person without provocation or legal
justifications. Hermione on the other hand, acted in a defensive
manner. She lured a ruthless and cruel person who admitedly tried to
previously do great harm to Harry (Dementor attack) and who was about
to attacking him again with a curse that was illegal and probably
immoral. Defense against immenent threat vs unwaranted illegal
unautorized attack.

Plus, we don't know that Hermione intended the Centaurs to kill
Umbridge. Reasonably, in the limited time she had to form the plan,
Hemione thought the Centaur adventure would buy them some time, and at
worst, provide them an opportunity to escape from Umbridge. And  while
the Centuars were outraged and incensed, the next morning Umbridge was
still alive. That would imply that the Centaurs are not as murderous
as they try to make themselves out to be. 

So, Umbridge's actions from beginning to end were assaultive, vicious,
offensive attacks, whereas Hermione acted defensively against an the
assault of an obviously unstable person.

If you step in close and look at the examples in the narrowest
possible view, it is possible to support your counterpoint of a
seeming double standard, but if you step back and view the actions and
people in a broader context, the true nature comes out. In that 'true
nature' bad is deemed bad because it really is, and good, when all is
said and done, really is. 

Just a counter to the counterpoint.

Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn)