muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[Jordan Abel]

No: HPFGUIDX 155300

On 7/12/06, sistermagpie <belviso at attglobal.net> wrote:
> 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:
> Okay, whatever he knows, presumably, after the first few seconds
> that it's magic, but he doesn't know what exactly is being done to
> him, nor does he have any control or way of doing anything against
> it.  I don't see why Muggle-baiting has to depend on Muggles not
> knowing Magic is being used.  Are you suggesting that it's illegal
> to make Muggles' keys disappear but what the DEs were doing was just
> fine since the Muggles at least had some idea that the guys with the
> masks were causing them to levitate in the air?

Random832:
I'm suggesting that "muggle-baiting" is a specific term, and that
neither what the twins did nor what DEs do is "muggle-baiting", but
rather what the DEs do is a more severe crime and we disagree on where
what the twins did falls on any spectrum.

Do you think it would be somehow less severe if they had come up with
a way to create that effect using purely mundane ingredients? Heck,
_didn't_ they? It's done with a potion, right? I don't think we've
been told that muggles can't brew all the same potions wizards can,
given access to the ingredients, and I've always thought the
classification "this substance/creature/place is magical, this one's
not" is a bit questionable - think of flobberworms. And even
regardless of that, if it's a potion, and muggles brew potions, it
becomes less "using an ability Dudley doesn't have" and more "using
knowledge that's being kept from him by a government conspiracy" (if
even that - do we know there are restrictions on what muggles who know
about magic are allowed to know/see in general? In that case it's
"using knowledge that Dudley could theoretically have, but hasn't
bothered to learn")

IOW, is there anything, other than things like obliviators, muggle
repelling charms, etc, that is stopping me or you from going out and
gathering all the ingredients and making ton-tongue toffee?

> > 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:
> No it's not.  Wizards are perfectly capable of choosing not to
> perform a hex on someone.  It's not like they wouldn't make that
> decision in a different situation.

I'm talking about the choice between hexing someone vs punching them
in the face, not vs doing nothing to them. - the former is more
natural. There are plenty of things that you don't _need_ to use your
thumb for, but you use it anyway. I'd say "it's second nature", except
it's not. there's no "second" about it.

> > Random832:
> > OK, so self-defense is fine. how about defense of others?
>
> Magpie:
> Are we talking about actual defense of others? Or "He did something
> to my friend and I'm going to get him back for it?"

I don't know the context. But see my previous statement about a
(non-related-to-the-bully) victim bringing his older brother to the
schoolyard so he can intimidate the bully. That may not be 100% right,
but I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having this debate.

> > 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:
> That's all we can do.  I am judging it for myself, as a Muggle.

Judging it to be wrong is one thing, but I still think, regardless of
that, you're misapplying the term "muggle-baiting". I could even see
the position that what they did is _more serious_ an offense in its
own right than the muggle-baiting example of a shrinking key.

Is whatever class of offense they've committed worse than
muggle-baiting, though? That depends. Is stealing something worse than
running a red light?

> Magpie:
> Dudley's already intimidated of Harry as soon as he becomes a
> Wizard.

And not anymore after the Dursleys all saw that he can't use magic
until he's 17. This sort of thing serves (whether they meant it in
this light or not) to remind them that he has friends who can. (I
don't remember if this was before or after, so bear with me.)

> > 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.
>
> Magpie:
> What definition that we are given is it in conflict with?

I thought we were given a dictionary definition, but it's possible I
was extrapolating from the shrinking-keys example. My point is that
this is nothing like that.

> Magpie:
> Yes, I think all the Weasleys have an anti-Muggle bias--as do all
> Wizards I can think of.

Even Hermione?

Anyway, truth be told, I'd rather have Voldemort than Arthur Weasley -
at least with V, it'd all be out in the open and there'd be an
off-chance that a tacnuke could affect him.