muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 155234

> Magpie:
> I don't see much point in arguing that the Twins are Death Eaters 
> because they obviously aren't. My post was saying that I recognize 
> that the Dursleys mistreat Harry and that the Twins don't ever 
seem 
> to dislike Muggles the way a DE does.  My reaction to this scene 
> doesn't depend on that.  As a Muggle I don't think it's okay that 
> they would only torment me with Magic if they disapproved of 
> something I did.

Alla:

Okay, I guess I have to second the question then - is the main 
objection to use of magic as means for punishment, not to the 
punishment itself?

And if it is so, then what I am going to say next is not of course 
directed at you, but "you" as substitute for Dudley. That what you 
meant , when you used *you*, right? I am sorry, I am afraid of 
sounding awkward or worse here. So, please feel free to smack me if 
I am. :)

Um, of course Dudley will disapprove of his punishment, but  as long 
as I agree with the author that what Dudley did is wrong, I could 
care less, really.

If there are no objections to the fact that Dudley should be 
punished, does it really matter whether he is punished with magic or 
not?

I mean, if the problem is that he cannot fight back, that is exactly 
what Harry could not do for ten years at least, when he had no clue 
that he is a wizard?

Perfect carma to me.


jennathasania:
<SNIP>
> Lastly, "because they deserved it" is the worst defense ever for 
an 
> action. Not too long ago there was a big scandal about prison 
abuse 
> occuring in a US military prison which really illustrates this 
point. 
> The people detained were believed to be terrorists - and I'm sure 
that 
> everyone will agree that being a terrorist is bad - but that 
didn't 
> make it either morally or legally acceptable for them to be 
humiliated 
> or mistreated, and even though the Americans were the "good" guys, 
> didn't mean that they got a pass (technically). Also, although 
Dudley 
> didn't die from the toffee it was pretty clear that he could have 
> asphixiated (=death); poisoning candies and leaving them out for 
> unsuspecting people will get you major jail time, and it's pretty 
> strange to say that "they deserved to die" because they chose to 
eat 
> the candies. Being poisoned (having your tongue swell) isn't a 
> forseeable consequence of eating a candy.
>

Alla:

Well, to me because they deserved it is a very good defense as to 
punishment of fictional villains. I mean, I don't want to get into 
terrorism staff, even though I agree with what you said, but to me 
Dudley's guilt is proven, I am convinced of that, since I am 
convinced of that, what I want to see next is punishment. JKR is not 
likely to put Dudley in juvenile delinquency or something like that, 
since this is not the main topic of the story, so she uses Twins IMO.

I am also not sure where you get that Dudley could die after eating 
those candies. Aren't they supposed to be very short term? Am 
confused.

See, I think JKR measured the punishment perfectly here. I 
passionately despise Dursleys and as I mentioned I cheer up for 
whoever gives them their just desserts , be it Twins or Hagrid or 
Dumbledore, and I am not sure yet, but I would probably not be upset 
if Vernon and Petunia bite the dust ( or maybe I will, not sure), 
but Dudley I would probably not want to see dead.

So, I suppose that if I saw Twins beating Dudley and letting him 
bleed to death or something, then yes, I think I'd consider it to be 
too much even for Dudley, but to be a victim of joke ( of course 
this is JMO, I don't see it as anything else but joke and at the 
same time attempt to achieve retribution for Harry), even if it is a 
cruel joke?

IMO it is just perfect.

Alla