Political positions of the characters/James reacting to Remus' lycanthropy.

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 150446

> a_svirn:
> Presumption of innocence, I take it? You use it very selectively. 
> Sirius cannot obviously be considered an independent witness, now 
> can he? If anyone is biased in the entire series it would be 
Sirius 
> Black. Especially where Snape is concerned. And until it is proven 
> that Snape was guilty in practicing the Dark Arts at school, this 
is 
> one crime he's innocent of. Certainly you cannot use the 
invectives 
> Sirius hurled at Snape as "factual statements", any more than you 
> can use "Snivellus". 

Alla:

Erm.... presumption of innocence I sure may use selectively by the 
luxury of fiction ( as in I am not obligated to give the characters 
due process, if I don't want to :)), for example when I read about 
the murder on the Tower, that is what it is in my head - murder, for 
which Snape should be punished. If JKR decides to let Snape off the 
hook, I will let her give me the reasons to let Snape of the hook, 
but for now he is guilty, guilty, guilty to me. That is of course 
precisely because it is fiction and I can have a luxury of thinking 
that.

But what presumption of innocence are you talking about here? It is 
presumption of speaking the truth and I don't think I use it 
selectively at all. As I said upthread, the only character, whose 
words I always disbelieve when not supported by others is Voldemort, 
and maybe Lucius, although I am not even sure about that.

And as far as I am concerned, it is ALREADY proven that Snape was 
guilty in practicing Dark arts in school - if by nothing else, then 
by the fact that he invented Sectusempra. Even though I wish as I 
said earlier for JKR to be more clear for what constitutes Dark 
Magic, IMO it is clear that this curse is Dark.

So, yes, I can use some Sirius statements as factual and will 
continue to do so, till it will be proven in canon that Sirius is a 
liar and I don't think it is so far. Snivellius is not a factual 
statement, IMO.


> > Valky:
> > Okay I could concede that Sirius hastily pieced together his 
first
> > impulse in reaction, and I think that the whole -Snape was a 
baddie
> > and that was what mattered to James- story is lame enough to be 
> both
> > impulsive and *true* at the same time. So we really don't have 
to 
> leap
> > into speculating that it was all made up to cover more nefarious
> > tracks, don't you think?
> 
> a_svirn:
> I don't understand this logic at all. If the justification 
> is "lame", how can it be "true"? In what sense it is true? In a 
> sense that Snape was a baddie? He might have been at that, so 
what? 
> It is also *true* that James was a bully, and that's what mattered 
> to Harry.
>

Alla:

I agree with Valky. As to how it can be both lame and true... of 
course it can be IMO. It is LAME as an excuse for bullying, since no 
matter what Snape hated or did not hate, it should not be James' 
justification as to bullying him, but it is also TRUE as in James 
indeed hated DA and that may have been a part of the reason of the 
initial hatred between two boys.

Ceridwen:

<SNIP>

> The statement that 'Dumbledore thinks you're reformed but I know 
> better' shows us at least two things: one, Sirius, like the rest 
of 
> the Order as far as we know, does not know why Dumbledore trusts 
> Snape; second, that Sirius suspects Snape, rightly or wrongly.  He 
> obviously does believe what he says, things hurled in the heat of 
> argument are often the truth as far as the person hurling it 
> perceives.  We are being shown an argument, as well as Sirius's 
> beliefs.
> 
> *(snipping)*

Alla:

Actually, I thought about it and I don't think that this is a 
factual statement, so this is the one I will wait colloboration on, 
although Tower sure looks like one to me. ( I know, I know :-))

> Ceridwen:
> I don't see any reason to think that James didn't hate the Dark 
> Arts.  It supplies part of the motivation for the rivalry between 
> James and Snape.  It also explains Sirius's involvement with 
James.  

Alla:

Yes, yes, Ceridwen I totally agree.


> a_svirn:
> > Then what do you mean by "taking their biases in consideration?"
> 
> Ceridwen:
> I think Alla means, and I'm sure she'll tell me if I'm wrong, that 
> she will take certain statements with a grain of salt.  But not to 
> the extent that she will say someone is outright lying.  People 
may 
> misrepresent the truth while honestly believing they are giving 
> factual information.  So, Sirius saying that Snape knew more 
curses 
> than half the seventh year (and they wouldn't be learning Dark 
curses 
> anyway, not at Hogwarts!) might be engaging in hyperbole with 
> the 'half the seventh year' statement, perhaps to make the point, 
but 
> he does honestly believe that Snape knew a lot more than he should 
> have known at age eleven.

Alla:

That is absolutely what I meant, Ceridwen. Like in "Malfoy lapdog", 
I may not believe that Snape was siting in Malfoy's lap, but I will 
sure believe that Snape was very close with Malfoys for whatever 
reason AND I also think that we sort of saw the proof for that too - 
not an absolute prooof, but support for that in UV. That is if Snape 
main reason for taking UV was his loyalty to Malfoys, if it was, he 
sure went a great deal beyond the call of the duty, IMO.


JMO,

Alla.