Academic dishonesty.

[Ceridwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 139579

Eggplant:
> Even if you're right, even if it was wrong to switch books it was
> certainly not VERY wrong, and we can tell the difference because we
> have seen things that are VERY wrong, like tying a 14 year old boy to
> a tombstone and torturing him so badly he wanted to die, or animating
> a corpse to kill for you, or making a child carve words into his hand,
> or murdering Dumbledore. Right or wrong if I were Harry I am certain I
> would feel I had earned that book, I would feel I deserved it.  And if
> that's the worse thing he does in his life then he's a saint. 

Ceridwen:
That is moral relativism.  You and I are apparently not on the same 
philosophical page.

It suggests that, so long as Harry doesn't tie a teen-ager to a 
gravestone and torture him, create an Inferius, use Umbridge's pen on 
some poor soul, or murder someone, he can do whatever he pleases and he 
will get a pass from you because someone else did something worse.  But 
if a young person isn't punished for, and realize the error of, smaller 
mistakes and wrongs, then he'll be much more likely to grow up to 
torture, maim and kill.

Between the two of us, you're the only one who is comparing what Harry 
does to what others do and have done.  I'm not talking about Voldemort, 
Umbridge or Snape.  Forget about them.  I'm talking about Harry.  
Period.  What others do, in RL or in the books, has no bearing on what 
I'm saying about Harry.

And, it seems that your relativism only extends to Harry.  Snape 'only' 
tormented children verbally in the classroom.  Voldemort killed Harry's 
parents.  Give Snape a pass.  Umbridge 'only' used a sadistic means to 
discipline her charges.  Voldemort killed his own father and 
grandparents and framed his uncle for the murder.  Give Umbridge a pass.

And, until nearly the end of the book, no one killed Dumbledore.  So 
the excuse of 'well, he defied the guy who killed Dumbledore' has no 
meaning.  Dumbledore wasn't dead when Harry used Sectumsempra and 
nearly killed Draco Malfoy.  However, Harry nearly killed at that point 
while Snape was, by comparison, lily-white.  He saved Draco, and 
extended mercy to Harry by not having him expelled.  Which he surely 
would have been if Snape had chosen to press the issue that Harry was 
a) using Dark Magic and b) trying to murder fellow students.

And, Dumbledore was alive, though not too well (the hand, a result of 
Voldemort, his even being alive thanks to Snape) when Harry used, and 
neglected to return, the HBP book.  We aren't discussing Trelawney the 
Seeress.  We're discussing Harry, who sucked in Divination.  He didn't 
know, any more than we readers did, that Snape was going to kill 
Dumbledore.

Harry shouldn't choose an action, good or bad, based on what other 
people will, did, or might do.  That's part of growing up as 
well.  'Yeah, but he...' wouldn't stand up in a court of law, nor in a 
mother's court.  The *only* way that Harry could be excused is based on 
what *Petunia* did, or in this case didn't, do - teach Harry properly.  
And then, he has gone to school in the Muggle world, and was in his 
sixth year at Hogwarts, so he was not wholly ignorant of proper 
behavior.

You and I disagree.  You say that others have done worse so Harry 
should get a pass, and besides, you would do the same thing.  I would 
too, now.  When I was that age, I would have followed the rules, since 
after all, God sees and knows even if others don't.  No matter, we're 
discussing Harry and proper behavior, not what you or I would have done.

Ceridwen.