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

[Geoff Bannister]

No: HPFGUIDX 123127


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" 
<spotthedungbeetle at h...> wrote:
 
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 (earlier):
> 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 (earlier):
> I also fail to see a correlation between "rotten" and "beneficial" 
in
> this context.



Geoff:
I actually then correlated Gerry's adjectives with the words in my 
definition - that bit got snipped....

Hence, beneficial wasn't listed because she didn't include it in that 
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:
It isn't unclear. I just don't aceept that "rotten" action which can 
lead to "beneficial" results is acceptable.

You can take extreme cases such as the bombing of London in the 
Second World War; from that came great cases of sacrifice and the 
building of powerful friendships among neighbours who often gave of 
what little they had left and provided shelter for others who had 
nothing which created bonds continuing long after the war. But it 
doesn't justify the initial rottenness. 

The same could be said of prisoners in concentration camps; some 
showed great kindness and performed humanitarian acts for other 
inmates, sometimes giving their lives in place of others. But it 
doesn't justify the initial rottenness.


Geoff (earlier):
> 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:
> Of course Umbridge's actions were morally wrong – I never
> understood Gerry to be saying that they weren't. 


Geoff:
Well, that impression has been given.


Dungrollin:

> But the effecton Harry (making him realise that some methods of 
> opposing Umbridge were counter-productive) were good ('beneficial' 
> if you need it spelling out again).


Geoff:
Thank you, no. Spelling is one of my better abilities. :-)