muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 155265

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:

Well, see to me it does not. It speaks to me that twins do not 
tolerate one Muggle boy, who bullied their friend for who knows how 
many years, that is all. I guess, I don't see the reason to draw 
generalization here. IMO of course.


 
> 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 charity work 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.

Alla:

Charity – no, helping their friend yes, IMO they absolutely do. They 
went through very dangerous lessons of Animagus transformation on 
their own, risking to get hurt to help their friend.

Did it lead to fun too? Sure and to danger to the villagers too ( 
thus – poorly executed), nevertheless at least **one** of the purpose 
IMO was very noble.


 
> 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!

Alla:

I think  we got to the bottom of the difference and this is again the 
difference of the definitions. *If**  in WW the acceptable definition 
of muggle baiting is  just to do something to Muggle no matter what 
the reason is, then sure – it **is** muggle baiting.

If on the other hand the acceptable "legal" definition is what Jordan 
gave earlier and that is 
"I see "muggle baiting" as
doing such things for personal amusement, rather than retaliation for
some real or imagined wrong.", then what twins did does not lie close 
to muggle baiting."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155254

Arthur is a very moral man, I love him, but I would not be surprised 
if he reacted by taking a high road, not because this is what muggle 
baiting is , but because he does not want his sons to do that to any 
muggle.

Is it a good reaction? Sure it is, but somebody has to punish bad 
guys IMO and if Twins after doing it will have to suffer Arthur's 
displeasure, I am fine with it.

Edited to add:

I just realized that we may sort of have some support that what twins 
did is not muggle baiting. Didn't JKR say in Wombat test that "muggle 
baiting" definition needs to be less stringent as one of the test 
answers? I think I wondered about it as the opposite, but now I am 
thinking that if it needs to be less stringent that means that very 
few things are accepted to be muggle baiting.

IMO I doubt that giving those candies is among those definitions.

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

Hehe.

JMO,

Alla