muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 155262

> Random832:
> Do you think that it's somehow uniquely "not ok" to use magic even
> where it would be "ok" to, say, punch him in the face? I don't really
> follow your logic here.
> 
> You also seem to be introducing a certain moral relativism by saying
> "if they disapproved of something I did" rather than "if I did
> something wrong" - is that your intention? By reducing it to that,
> you're basically saying that their reasons wouldn't matter, no matter
> what your actual offense was.


Magpie:
I used that term because they might disapprove of something I did that 
was not wrong (something the Twins have done in the past plenty of 
times)--moral relativism isn't the issue, imo, abuse of power. I 
wouldn't trust any Wizard knowing that he would happily take advantage 
of his greater power over me any more than I'd trust a man who 
considered it okay to hit me if I did something wrong.  

Random832:
But he _can_ fight back - with his fists. What's so _unique_ about
magic in ths instance?

Magpie:
That it's magic?  That Dudley's body is mutating and he's terrified 
and doesn't know why?  They know perfectly well their advantage over 
him is insurmountable. The ability to do Magic is what defines a 
Wizard as different from a Muggle.  I can't pretend it's not a 
decisive advantage.  The Twins don't pretend it.  When dealing with a 
more pleasant Muggle they use Magic to impress, with an unpleasant one 
for other reasons.

Random:
 Are you saying that when there is a bully, it's
categorically inappropriate to try to get back at them or escape them
in a way that they could not have done?

Magpie:
She's saying, imo, that when one has a great deal of power over 
another person you can choose to abuse it or not. This does not mean 
one has to just lie down and take it when one is being bullied.

Random:
 If they're unintelligent,
you'd be doing something wrong by trying to outsmart them? Or if you
have some martial arts knowledge you can't use it in self defence
because your attacker doesn't have the same skills? 

Magpie:
Why are we now talking about self-defense?  A martial arts master 
subduing a person trying to attack him is totally different from a 
martial arts master who reserves the right to deal out roundhouse 
kicks to people he thinks deserve it or anyone who's done something 
wrong.  

Random: 
I think this is a
case of "unfamiliarity breeds contempt" - magic is somehow in a class
by itself.

Magpie:
Of course magic is in a class by itelf.  It's magic.  Easily abused 
for fun, and making Muggle completely helpless with a flick of a 
wand.  And even if it isn't unique, it's still a huge advantage one 
person has, that can be used responsibly or not.


Random832:
And casting the former as the latter is moral relativism of the worst
kind. Using an analogy that comes just short of explicitly claiming
that the Dursleys' treatment of Harry was something that the twins
merely disapproved of is disingenuous at best.

Magpie:
I didn't claim the Dursleys treatment of Harry was something the twins 
merely disapproved of at all.  I believe I've said any number of times 
the Dursley's treatment of Harry is wrong.  Casting the latter as the 
former isn't great either, but that's not what we're talking about.

Random832
Moral relativism is the claim that there are no things that are wrong,
only things that are disapproved of. I think that was, conscious or
otherwise, one of the core assumptions of her argument.

Magpie:
No, that was not the core assumption of my argument either consciously 
or unconsciously.  My problems lie in things beyond Harry's treatment 
at the Dursleys, which is wrong. Once you see that something is wrong 
(acknowledging, as one must especially on this list, that two people 
can have genuinely different ideas about what is wrong, though Harry's 
treatment at the Dursleys doesn't seem to be one of them), there is 
still the question of how to handle it.  Prisons are full of people 
who acted out against people who did wrong.

Random832:
Nobody was attempting murder here. and it'd be less strange, though
perhaps almost as bad, to say that "they deserved to die" because of
some prior action they had done that prompted you to leave the candies
out for them - your analogy was pretty distorted, you have to admit.
But the point is nobody tried to kill anyone, and condemning the use
of magic _at all_ is a problem.

Magpie:
There are people in the world who have fewer physical abilities than I 
do, and I've never found it was that much of a problem not to abuse 
this.  If I know someone who is blind, for instance, it's not like I 
feel the need to shut my eyes because it's rude to see when I'm around 
them.  There would be times when my sight might give me more power 
that I used in a situation.  But I don't think it would be okay to 
think that if the blind person did something of which I disapproved, 
or annoyed me, or did something wrong, it would then become just fine 
for me to sneak into their house and move all the furniture around, or 
start throwing things in front of them because I can see them and they 
can't and they'll bump into them because they're blind.  If the blind 
person was trying to kill me and I was protecting myself, sure, that's 
self-defensive and self-protection--I'd do whatever I had to to stay 
alive. Just as a Wizard could use Magic to protect himself if in 
danger from a Muggle.  In other circumstances I don't see why I 
couldn't deal with the disapproval or the thing the person did wrong 
without going for the disability. Similarly Snape crosses the line 
between just having more power than Harry and using it responsibly, to 
abusing it.

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?

Magpie:
Yes. That's what Muggle-baiting is.  

Alla:
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?

Magpie:
Because as a Muggle when I see Dudley punished with Magic I can't help 
but see more than just a couple of 16-year-olds punishing a 14-year-
old. It speaks to an entire attitude towards Muggles.  Just as as a 
woman I'm not going to think it's great watching a man beat up his 
wife even if I agree she did something wrong.

Alla:
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?

Magpie:
I thought Dudley doing it was wrong too--that's the sad cycle we seem 
to get into.  Dudley meeting a bigger bully does seem like a sort of 
karmic retribution, but there's always a bigger bully down the line.

Alla:
As to what was noble purpose of Marauders (poorly executed of
course) - that is very easy - to relieve the sufferings their friend
was going through on the monthly basis.

Magpie:
And to have fun.  They're not dong charitywork with Remus. Sirius even 
says something about wishing it was the full moon so they could go 
running around.  They are good friends, but friends like normal boys, 
having fun.

Laura Lynn Walsh: 
> Are the HP books considered to be plot driven or
> character driven?
'
Magpie:
Plot driven, though of course characters are use to drive the plot a 
lot.  

Jordan:
Is what the twins did wrong? Maybe. Is it muggle baiting? Not by any
definition we're given.

Magpie:
It is Muggle-baiting according to Arthur Weasley's definition!

-m (who sometimes fantasizes about Muggle scientists studying and 
cracking the secret to Magic and giving it to us--Muggles rock!)