Straightforward readings? /Bullying. ( LONG)

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 140738

> Carol again:
> The words in GoF are Dumbledore's, not Snape's. There's no reason 
not
> to believe them that I can see. And Snape's words in HBP are to
> Bellatrix, whom he has to convince of his loyalty to Voldemort.
> Earlier (in OoP) he speaks of being able to conceal a lie from
> Voldemort. If he can do that, he can easily conceal the same lies 
from
> Bellatrix.

Alla:

And if he can conceal a lie from Voldemort,surely he can conceal a 
lie from Dumbledore?

Snape's words to Bella could be considered as "convincing her" or as 
Snape finally revealing his true loyalties, IMO.




> > Alla:
> > Oh, I don't know about mild sarcasm, if when Harry goes to
> occlumency lessons he is afraid to be alone with Snape.
> 
> Carol responds:
> But the fear isn't justified, is it? Snape takes out his wand, but 
he
> uses it to take thoughts from his own head and then to cast a
> Legilimency spell--after warning Harry that it's coming and telling
> him to defend himself in any way he can. <snip> Again, the fear is 
unjustified. Nor has
> snape ever harmed Harry during any of his various detentions.


Alla:

It does not matter to me whether Harry's fear was unjustified, 
actually. The fact is that what Snape did to Harry during those five 
years inflicted this kind of damage to Harry - namely made him 
afraid of Snape,even if it does not come to the surface as strongly 
as it comes for Neville.

I also think that Snape's cultivating Harry's hatred, fear and 
mistrust of him lead to Occlumency catastrophy. It made very 
difficult, basically impossible  for Harry to overcome it and trust 
Snape.

So, yes I think that the damage, which caused everyday "petty evils" 
( thank you, Nora) could be very harmful.



> Carol:
> I think we're thinking of the same quote, in which she says that
> "horrible teachers" are one of the lessons DD wants the students to
> learn.

Alla: Yes, probably.

Carol:
<SNIP>
 I think that coping with bullying is one of those lessons
> (especially as preparation for dealing with the geatest bully of 
all,
> Voldemort). Pampering the kids and making them believe that they're
> special (modern Muggle education) would be much less helpful, IMO,
> especially in Harry's case.

Alla:

I sincerely doubt that Dumbledore wanted kids to learn that it is OK 
to be constantly degrated by their teacher. I see no help in that 
whatsoever and I don't think that this is is the kind of lesson 
Dumbledore had in mind. But that is just me of course.


Carol:
 But not being like Snape could be another
> lesson that DD wants them to learn. If so, Harry's on the wrong 
path,
> with his desire for revenge and his repeated attempts to cast a
> Crucio. 

Alla:

Absolutely.

Carol:
If he's not going to become Snape, he'd better take Snape's
> advice and stay away from the Dark Arts.


Alla:

I would say that  if Harry is not going to become Snape, he needs to 
learn to trust his heart, his better instincts and not shut down his 
emotions.


Irene:

>> Do you see what I mean? Snape, as horrible as he is to Harry and 
Neville 
> (and I leave arguing about ABUSE vs. "abuse" to another day), does 
not 
> really have as much influence over their lives as people imagine.
> Really, they have Potions 2 hours a week. As soon as they are out 
of his 
> classroom, that's it. 


Alla:

Well, Snape obviously had enough influence over their lives to 
become Neville's biggest fear, no? Snape obviously gave enough grief 
during five years to Harry who is so much stronger in resisting him 
than Neville and STILL is scared to go to Occlumency lessons with 
him.


Nora:
<SNIP>
> But if we take the no harm no foul standard--not that I'm saying 
it was 
> invoked earlier in this post, but it certainly HAS been in the 
past 
> with Snape's actions towards the kids--nobody ended up seriously 
hurt, 
> nobody got expelled (and don't we trust in Dumbledore to Do The 
Right 
> Thing?) and it's still speculation that there was deep permanent 
> psychological damage to the offended party, in this case.  To 
clarify a 
> bit, the agency issue is very opaque here, and we're all 
speculating.
> 
> -Nora prefers to hew to Faith and wait for some answers


Alla:

As you know I disagree with " no harm, no foul standard" for 
bullying. I think that psychological damage could be horrendous and 
so often much worse than physical one.

But let's for a second apply it to Pensieve scene. Isn't it 
interesting that  the only one who ends up with PHYSICAL damage in 
the pensieve scene, no matter how small it is is James, who is 
definitely looking as an agressor? ( I still believe that we don't 
know a lot about their relationship and that Pensieve scene is only 
ONE scene in seven year run, but let's put it aside for the sake of 
argument)

So, if humiliation does not count as damage, I guess "no harm, no 
foul" standard also should be invoked here, no?

Just me of course,

Alla, 

who stops for the day now.