Double standards and believing

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 121057


 Meri wrote:
"I don't think it is so much bad here that Seamus sides with his
mother. It's just that he ignores four years of sharing a dormitory
with Harry. He knows Harry, he's friends with Harry and the moment
that that got to be uncomfortable he started thinking Harry was a
nutter. "

Del replies:
Before sharing a dormitory with Harry for 4 years, Seamus shared a
home with his mom for 11 years.
Seamus and Harry aren't deep friends. Seamus knows Harry about as much
as Harry knows Neville, which is : not very much.
Seamus did not think Harry was a nutter before Harry started insulting
his mom and accusing him of believing Harry was a liar. Seamus didn't
give his own opinion until after Harry had already judged him. In fact
he made it quite clear IMO that he'd love to have some additional
information to make up his mind. I understand that Harry was in no
mood to give him that info, but the fact is IMO that Seamus had not
yet made up his mind, and that it is Harry's irrational and aggressive
attitude towards him that convinced him to side with his mom.
Seamus's mom didn't even want him to go back to Hogwarts. The fact
that Seamus did come back, and still shared a dormitory with Harry,
indicates IMO that Seamus did defend Harry somewhat.

Meri wrote:
"Plus it isn't bad that Draco doesn't question his father, it is that
what his father teaches him is bad. "

Del replies:
I have seen Draco being judged as irremediably evil for not
questioning the morals his father taught him, many times on this board.

Meri wrote: 
"We as readers are allowed to see this whole story from an objective
perspective. And in our views of course Percy choosing Fudge over his
family and Marietta betraying the DA are bad while Ernie's faith in
Harry is good. We can't see things from the limited perspectives of
the characters. "

Del replies:
We can't? Why?

Meri wrote:
"I don't think anyone is expected to trust Harry blindly. His friends
have come to know him over the last four years, and that kind of trust
isn't blind. DD is even more well known and respected and he isn't
asking people to trust him blindly either. We may never know what kind
of testimony he gave to the Wizengamot, but IMO he probably presented
every fact he could to get people to believe him about LV. It would
have been foolish of him not to do that. "

Del replies:
We don't know what DD told the Wizengamot. But we know for sure that
the general public was *not* told the whole truth, because when they
finally get to hear the whole story, quite a few people side with
Harry. It *was* foolish IMO not to tell people the whole truth and yet
expect them to somehow know that the little DD told them was right and
true.

Meri wrote:
"And secondly, the circumstantial evidence that you describe that
would make people think Harry murdered Cedric is just that:
circumstantial evidence. "

Del replies:
The "evidence" about LV's return is just that too : circumstantial
evidence. A single second-hand undetailed testimony and little, highly
circumstancial, evidence : that's all the general public had to
believe Harry.

Del