Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man LONG

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 154719

„«	Betsy Hp:
> If that is the case, if JKR is trying to write a story in which
one
> person baiting muggles is bad, but another person baiting muggles
is
> *not* bad, then she's not writing a morally informed book. She's
> writing a comedy, I suppose. But not something children can learn
> from. Because then it's not about good vs. evil, it's about
winners
> vs. losers.

Alla:

The thing is I do not see what Twins do as muggle baiting, I see it
as relatively harmless prank, that's all. Significantly less that
what Dudley deserves for his misdeeds, IMO.


> > >>Alla:
> > <snip>
> > I just think that JKR's books are not the once where author is
shy
> > of giving out moral judgments sometimes. IMO of course.
>
> Betsy Hp:
> If muggle baiting is both a good and a bad thing, and it merely
> depends on the emotional attachment we have to the ones doing the
> baiting and the ones being baited, morality has nothing to do with
> it, IMO.

Alla:

Agreed IF you see what twins to as "muggle baiting". I don't and I
find it very hard to understand.


Betsy Hp:
> Because I don't think ethics work that way, one set of rules for
one
> type of people and another set of rules for another. And neither
> does Karmic justice for that matter. I think the Dursleys are
> karmically punished by just being the Dursleys. Having wizards
> torture them only goes to prove their fears as being well grounded.

Alla:

Torture? Isn't that a bit too harsh of the word? Where are Dursleys
screaming from pain? Where are they left with permanent
disfigurement? And Dudley Tongue is not permanent either.

And no, I don't think Dudleys are punished by being Dursleys. That
is IMO way too easy. They seem to be perfectly happy to me in
their "normal" little world.

I don't want them to be happy. Call me bloodfirsty, but even what
Dumbledore did to them in HBP is not enough for me, I want more :)

Although I guess if I don't get more, I will be satisfied with what
I already saw.

> Betsy Hp:
> That's what you think. And Draco's father thinks (and Draco
follows
> his lead) that the muggles at the quidditch cup deserved
everything
> *they* got and more. Why are you right? Why is Lucius wrong?
> Since muggle baiting is purely a neutral act that says nothing
about
> the folks doing the baiting you'll have to prove that the muggles
> *don't* deserve it, and you'll have to prove that the ones doing
the
> baiting weren't doing it for a laugh.

Alla:

No, that is not what I think. There are no indications in cannon
that those folks hurt anybody, isn't it? That could have happened of
course, but we do not see it, that is why I see no justification for
what DE did and PLENTY for prank ( I don't see it as muggle baiting)
which Twins did.




> > >>Alla:
> > Right. I do fault him for agreeing to assassinate Dumbledore,
I
> > fault him a lot. :)
> > <snip>
> > As I said earlier wouldn't you agree that Snape's betrayal
of
> > Voldemort and Peter betrayal of Potters should be
judged
> > differently precisely of WHOM they betrayed?
> > <snip>
>
> Betsy Hp:
> I think it's dangerous to make those sort of decisions based on
> personal attachment. There *must* be something more, some sort of
> solid principle that you can turn too. Otherwise it's just a
battle
> of the charismas.
>
> Voldemort is okay with killing children, his supporters, innocent
> bystanders, basically anyone who gets in his way. When Peter
> betrays the Potters to Voldemort he knows he's betraying them to
> their deaths. And Peter is doing it not because he thinks
Voldemort
> is in the right, but because he thinks Voldemort is the most
likely
> to win.
>
> When Snape betrays his friends to Dumbledore (and spies are, by
> definition, betrayers) he's betraying them to the law, not the
whim
> of one man. We see that those turned in Death Eaters were given
> trials and I can't think of any who were executed. And DDM!Snape
> didn't choose Dumbledore's side because Dumbledore was winning
> (quite the contrary, per canon). Therefore I believe he must have
> chosen it because he agrees with Dumbledore's principles.

Alla:

Eh, that is not my point. Wasn't your argument that no matter what
Marietta did Hermione was WRONG to "brand" her?

I responded that why Hermione did it matters very much to me.

The fact and the matter is that your argument tries to give the
reasons of WHY Peter and Snape betrayed their sides, isn't it?

Your argument  judges their betrayals differently, BECAUSE Snape 
supposedly
chose good principles, power of the law, etc. By the way, betraying
his friends to Azkaban seems equal to betraying them to death to me,
but that is not very relevant for my purposes.

I ALSO judge their betrayals differently because of WHY they
did. Especially if Snape truly repented.

The same thing is with Lucuis muggle baiting and Twins giving Dudley
toffey tongue.

I don't see it as same action, but even if I would, the WHY matters
to me it matters very much.

Hermione giving Marietta a "SNEAK" and Umbridge hurting Harry with
the quill I see as COMPLETELY different actions because of WHY they
did it.

Hermione marked a traitor, Umbridge hurt an innocent. Lots of
difference to me.
> Carol responds:
> Dudley is a bully, but he can't be a child abuser, being a child
> himself. And even though he's being punished by bullying, the "sin"
> that's being punished here, and with the pig's tail, is gluttony. 

Alla:

The sin being punished here I think is whatever reader imagines. I 
imagine Dudley getting his dues for years of "Harry hunting"

Carol:
<SNIP>
When
> were the Twins or Hagrid appointed as Dudley's keepers, and what 
right
> have they to punish him even if they have the right to judge him? 
And
> how is it right or fair for so-called Karmic justice to fall on
> Dudley, who is himself, according to Dumbledore, a victim of the 
adult
> Dursleys' (in this case unintentional) abuse?

Alla:

Dudley may be a victim, but he was also doing pretty well with 
hurting Harry himself.

As to what right Twins have? None in RL, but in books since as I 
said it would be very boring story  IMO to call child services on 
Dursleys, we have Twins and Hagrid. 


Carol: 
> I wouldn't even want to see Vernon Dursley degraded and abused in 
this
> way, harsh as he often is to Harry. But at least, if that were the
> case, the right person would be receiving the punishment. In this
> instance, as with Hagrid, the sins of the father are being visited 
on
> the son.

Alla:

Harry remarks casually ( or narrator does) in HBP that experience 
taught him to stay out of Vernon hands. It has a VERY clear 
implication to me that Vernon did abuse Harry physically. He also 
deserves any punishment JKR comes up IMO, but no I don't think his 
sins are transferred to Dudley. I think he has plenty of his own.


> 
> Carol, who hopes that the Twins don't receive Karmic retribution 
for
> all the suffering they've inflicted on other people, from Montague 
to
> innocent firsties
>

Alla:

They did receive karmic justice for Montague though, no?

He was the only one "sort of innocent" Twins turned onto, IMO.

JMO,

Alla