[HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[Jordan Abel]

No: HPFGUIDX 155290

> Magpie:
> That it's magic?  That Dudley's body is mutating and he's terrified
> and doesn't know why?

Random832:
He doesn't know why? Not his fault he's stupid, I suppose, but not the
twins' either. One of the key factors in muggle-baiting is that it
takes advantage of things that the muggles don't think should be
possible (disappearing keys, etc) - this element is missing here
because Dudley knows about magic.

> Magpie:
> 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.

Random832:
But it's natural to them. Asking them not to use it is like asking
humans (magical or otherwise) not to use their opposable thumbs.

> 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.

Random832:
OK, so self-defense is fine. how about defense of others?

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

Random832:
I don't think that's anything like the definition we've been given. I
don't trust Arthur as an authority to say what is and is not
muggle-baiting, we've been given a definition (with examples, even)
and we should judge it for ourselves.

> 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.

Random832:
I liken it more to a victim bringing his older brother to the
schoolyard to intimidate the bully than a simple case of "meeting a
bigger bully" - particularly since the Weasleys are more of a family
to Harry than the Dursleys ever were. The tongue thing was ultimately
harmless, my opinion is that the whole point was simple intimidation
rather than retaliatory harm.

> > Random832:
> > 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!

Random832:
We're not given the definition he's using as a basis for his
accusation against the twins, and whatever it may be it's in direct
conflict with the definition we _are_ given.

He's also overzealous to a fault. Remember, this is the man who banned
flying carpets because "muggles have rugs too" (yet somehow he didn't
notice that we also have brooms... and cars.) I think his anti-muggle
bias takes a much more insidious form than the views held by Lucius
Malfoy et al.