The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?)

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 162841

SSSusan previously:
> I have to say this seems a *wee* bit disingenuous. ;-) I mean, I
> think it's pretty clear that a_svirn's point is Draco INTENDED to
> murder with his first two plots, and he almost did do so, even if
> the people who ended up almost getting it weren't the person he set
> out to kill.

Betsy Hp:
> But that's not a_svirn's point as I understood it. Or at least,
> that's not what the point was when this conversation started
<snip that quote>
> So a_svirn is taking the position (as far as I could tell) that 
> while Draco is not a killer (as per Dumbledore) Draco *is* a 
> murderer. And (from what I understand) that Dumbledore agrees with 
> that assessment and is engaging in linguistical games in order to 
> trick Draco into lowering his wand.
>
> Since I cannot see how someone can be a murderer while at the same
> time *not* be a killer I am getting a bit nit picky. But I'm not
> being disingenuous. I'm asking for clarity. (I *am* quite certain
> that clarity will not come because I believe the argument is
> nonsensical. One must kill in order to be a murderer.)

SSSusan:
> It seems to me little more than semantics:

Betsy Hp:
> But semantics is the entire bases of the argument, as far as I can
> see.

SSSusan:
Thanks for taking me back to the start so that I could see where the 
argument began.  Fair enough to say you don't see yourself as being 
disingenuous, only nit-picky.  I guess if it seems a nonsensical 
argument, though, I'd just stop arguing is all. :)

Anyway, getting a bit away from the semantics to the other issue...


SSSusan previously:
> > I think not. He INTENDED to be a murderer.

Betsy Hp:
> But not, as per Dumbledore, in his heart of hearts.

Alla replied:
> My mind is totally boggling right now. Okay, he intended to be a
> murderer not in his heart of hearts, just in his heart?
>
> Seriously, not attempting any sarcasm or anything, but the fact is
> Draco willingly attempted to kill Dumbledore twice, no?
>
> So, how do you figure that he did not intend to do so?

Betsy:
> And see, if just the attempt makes Draco a murderer, then it 
> follows that Harry is a sadist because he threw a Crucio at 
> Bellatrix. I don't think this is how JKR is working things.

SSSusan:
This is where I pull away from the position you have, Betsy.  (And I 
mean, not arguing "killer" vs. "murderer," but arguing intent to be 
a murderer.)  To me there is a significant difference between what 
happened with Harry in the spur of a moment, at the end of a battle, 
and what happened with Draco's first two attempts to kill 
Dumbledore.  The difference in my mind has to do with intent, with 
planning, with premeditation.  Therein lies a BIG difference for 
me.  Harry likely did intend to hurt Bellatrix – yes, indeed – 
although even Bella scoffed that he "had to mean it" so perhaps I'm 
wrong.  Regardless, the Crucio attempt was spontaneous, heat-of-the-
moment, and while a battle was raging.  Draco, OTOH, had weeks & 
months in which he *planned* these two attempts on DD's life.  He 
plotted, schemed and set them up.  I know it's not the RW but the 
WW, but that is a difference that I believe most juries would 
consider.  It's also the difference that makes me not hesitate in 
the slightest to say that Draco stooped to real and intended 
attempted murder.

If Draco had succeeded in either attempt, then DD would not have 
said [hee – well, he wouldn't have been able to say it, but you know 
what I mean <g>], "Draco, Draco, you are not a murderer."  Because 
it would have been a known fact that he was one.  That he failed 
does not make it untrue that Draco did twice stoop to attempted 
murder.  He got *lucky* that he failed, yes, and that that allowed 
DD to confront him on that last occasion, to talk him out of 
succeeding in becoming a murderer on his third attempt.

I think you're right, Betsy, that DD said what he said on the tower 
because he either believed or hoped that Draco didn't *want* to be a 
murderer "in his heart of hearts" (or just his plain old heart 
<g>).  It does not take away the fact, however, that Draco did 
intend and try to become one and was only foiled by circumstance 
and/or bad planning.  

So DD was only "allowed" to say what he did to Draco by virtue of 
the fact that Draco screwed up, not necessarily by virtue of the 
fact that Draco's motives and intentions weren't "really" to kill.  
(Unless you would actually argue that Draco sabotaged himself in his 
first two schemes and tried not to succeed?)


Betsy Hp:
> Well, *we* might not <g>, but I suspect that he felt a massive 
> amount of guilt over the near deaths of both Katie and Ron. Hence 
> his physical breakdown, the lack of future attempts of this sort, 
> and the eventual lowering of his wand before a powerless 
> Dumbledore.

SSSusan:
I definitely don't argue that we saw these outward manifestations of 
*something* in Draco in the text.  I'm not ready to make the leap 
to "massive amount of guilt" in those manifestations, though.  I 
think we could all concur that the stress of the task alone could 
have caused them.  Whether massive guilt accompanied the stress 
remains to be seen.  It's possible, and I know that those who want a 
Redeemed!Draco hope that it's true.  I just don't think it's a given 
at all from what we've seen in the text.

Siriusly Snapey Susan