McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H

[dungrollin]

No: HPFGUIDX 123093


> Alla:
> >
> > Basically you are saying that being tortured with the blood quill
> > was a very good thing for Harry, in itself, correct?

> Gerry:
> In this situation, yes. Rotten but beneficial. For the people who
> only want to equal good with virtuous, nobel, morally good etc. 
> please check a dictionary and broaden your view of the English 
> language.

Geoff:
As you rather brusquely suggested, I consulted the nearest dictionary
to hand:

good > adjective (better, best) 1 to be desired or approved of. 2
having the required qualities; of a high standard. 3 morally right;
virtuous. 4 well behaved. 5 enjoyable or satisfying. 6
appropriate. 7 (good for) beneficial to. 8 thorough. 9 at least:
(she's a good twenty years younger).

rotten > adjective 1 suffering from decay. 2 corrupt. 3 informal
very bad or unpleasant.

beneficial > adjective favourable or advantageous.
<snip>

Dungrollin:
I believe Gerry was making the point that 'morally right' is
not the *only* definition of the word 'good'.  Indeed you
listed 'beneficial' as one of the definitions.  

Geoff:
I also fail to see a correlation between "rotten" and "beneficial" in
this context.

Dungrollin:
Precisely that Umbridge's actions were rotten (very bad or 
unpleasant), but the effect they had on Harry was good 
(beneficial).  It wasn't "rotten *and* beneficial", it was
"rotten *but* beneficial".  I fail to see how it could be unclear.

Geoff:
All things considered, I think that you missed an important point in
Alla's remarks - that using the quill was /in itself/ correct. Are
you suggesting that the action, which was improper and sadistic, was
correctly started by this woman to bring home to Harry the need to
conform?

Dungrollin:
Asking whether "using the quill was /in itself/ correct" is not the 
same as asking whether "being tortured with the blood quill was a 
very good thing for Harry, in itself".  The former demands a 
judgement to the morality of Umbridge's actions, and the latter 
(which was what Alla asked) demands a judgement on the effects of 
the action on Harry. It was to the latter that Gerry replied.

Of course Umbridge's actions were morally wrong – I never
understood Gerry to be saying that they weren't. But the effect
on Harry (making him realise that some methods of opposing Umbridge 
were counter-productive) were good ('beneficial' – if you need it
spelling out again).

Dung
(Hoping she hasn't misrepresented Gerry.)