[HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[Jennifer Choi]

No: HPFGUIDX 155323

 Rebecca:

>IMO, Dudley didn't have to pick up the toffee and eat it. He did so because

.he is a glutton which, if I'm not mistaken, is one of the 7 deadly sins in
>some circles. Choices, choices, they do come to mean something, don't they?

Jennathasania:
I'm curious here how in the Potterverse blaming the victim for the crime is
such a normal reaction. In my mind the situation above, where Dudley is not
thought of as the victim would only apply if he knew all the risks involved
in eating the candy (i.e. if he knew that his tongue was going to swell).
I'm not sure why he should have assumed that the candies were harmful, and
even if he is a glutton that doesn't make it *okay.* As Carol said above,
raping a prostitute can't be justified in any way, shape, or form by saying
that she was lustful (also classified as a deadly sin), and therefore asking
for it by dressing in a provokative way or soliciting Johns on the side of
the road. Or alternatively that someone that was killed by riding in the
same car as a drunk driver deserved it, because they *chose* to ride in the
car with the driver, which is inarguably a stupid thing to do.

Rebecca:
>The Twins sadists? I don't believe where I see in canon where they take
>pleasure in inflicting pain? In youth, the Twins are immature, intelligent
>and bored, perhaps. They're experimenting, not torturing, and they only
>tempted a gluttonous Dudley. Why someone would pick up something that fell
>out of someone's pocket he didn't know and put it in his mouth is beyond
me,
>but hey, to each his own :)

Jennathasania:
I don't have the books infront of me, but it seems pretty obvious that the
Twins thought that what happened to Dudley was a great joke, or at least
they were amused rather than horrified (like Petunia) or indifferent. While
this is certainly not the same as sexual enjoyment, I would feel fairly
confident in making the statement that, for most people, laughing brings
pleasure - or being amused brings more pleasure than not being amused. I
don't think this makes them sadists on the level of Voldemort, but it
certainly precludes this from being innocent fun, IMO, since someone
suffers. Also, the candy situation to me seems to be similar to accepting a
drink at a bar. Who takes a drink from a complete stranger? Personally I
don't, but if someone did and that drink contained a ruffie would you blame
what happened following on the person who accepted the drink or the person
who spiked it and then offered it up for consumption - and let's keep in
mind that the Twins were probably very certain Dudley would have eaten the
candy.

Again, revenge isn't justice. Sometimes the justice system may impose a
sentence that one regards as revenge, but revenge is not the primary
purpose, which is why people who are biased in some personal way are not
part of juries. Above somewhere it was mentioned that Muggle baiting could
be defined deriving a positive feeling from using magic on a Muggle to harm
or frighten them, later it was argued that this *wasn't* Muggle baiting, and
neither was what the DE's did at the Quiddich world cup:

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", <snip>

which makes me curious as to what level of harm would constitute Muggle
baiting. Along the same vein, in my mind, it could be said that Malfoy is
not baiting, or tormenting, Hermione with his name calling and Mudblood
references (I personally don't think that this is the case). He thinks that
her reaction is funny; it's a cruel thing to say, but he laughs, so it is
just a cruel joke. Maybe revenge, even, for all the times that she injured
his feelings. And personally, I think that this is both less wrong and more
fair (although not right) than what the Twins did to Dudley, because
Hermione can call him names right back, whereas Dudley can't hex the Twins.

Jennathasania


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]