muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 155333

Jordan:
> 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")

Magpie:
Interesting question.  Dudley couldn't make anything on that level, 
because Magic is required for Potions--we Muggles can't make them.  
But I wonder what they could taint the candy with in a Muggle way 
that would be on the same level without seeming insane!

Jordan:
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.

Magpie:
The Twins actually do punch naturally when they're angry, just like 
Muggles do--they do it in OotP.  If they did that to Dudley in this 
scene they'd still be two 16-year-olds ganging up to punch a 14-year-
old, but I couldn't say they were abusing their power as Wizards.  
The Dursleys wouldn't need another Wizard there to fix things for 
them, at least.  I mean, I accept that the boys aren't perfect and 
sometimes they're just going to act out and do something that 
satisfies them or whatever.  But I do think Magic this way is 
bringing out big guns and they just don't really ever try to think 
of things from the Muggle pov. The Twins are also testing out their 
products.  This was a thought-out plan, they didn't just whip out 
the wand without thinking.

Jordan:
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.

Magpie:
Oh--yes, I think that's fine.  It's not like the 8-year-old boy is 
bringing his 16-year-old brother and the older brother is beating 
the 8-year-old bully up for him.  He stops the harassment.  An older 
brother throwing a bottle at the kid who used to beat up his brother 
in fifth grade would be a different thing.

Jordan:
Judging it to be wrong is one thing, but I still think, regardless 
of that, you're misapplying the term "muggle-baiting".

Magpie:
Ah, I see what you're saying.  So it's abuse of Muggles, but not 
Muggle *baiting* which you see as a very specific thing, where you 
trick Muggles with Magic and they keep thinking something weird is 
going on and have no idea.  I can understand that--though I agree 
with Pippin's explanation that Arthur is (correctly, imo) saying 
that this undermines the spirit of his work against Muggle-baiting.

Jordan:
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.)

Magpie:
Though remember that Harry's adult friends act like the older 
brother of the bully--they show up to give the Dursleys the message 
to leave Harry alone, and they do.  The Twins aren't showing up and 
being intimidating for any purpose, they're just playing a Prank of 
their own. What they do doesn't change the Durlsey's treatment of 
Harry.  Sometimes this comes across as being too judgmental against 
the Twins--I'm not completely freaked out by what they do.  They're 
being kids and they're doing something stupid, not attempting 
murder.  I only wind up arguing against it so much when it's twisted 
into some kind of bizarre self-help for Dudley, or something that 
Dudley does to himself.  


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?...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 :)

Magpie:
Yeah, it's just ridiculous to act like the Twins are the ones to 
blame just for creating the thing, bringing it into the house and 
intentionally dropping it hoping someone would eat it when Dudley 
ate the thing himself! (Although they can be given credit for 
Dudley's losing weight later.  Dudley can only make bad decisions.)

I mean, if some a family who were friends of my cousin came to visit 
and one of their kids dropped, say, some caramels and when he left I 
realized that he'd missed one when he gathered them all up, and I 
was never going to see him again, I'd have to be a big glutton to 
actually consider eating the thing myself.  It's a CARAMEL for 
goodness sake.  They always have at least a 50/50 chance of causing 
some physical deformity, and besides these people are...well, 
they're not strangers, they're friends of my cousin, so why wouldn't 
their candy by laced with something?  Plus Dudley's on a diet, and 
what's a strict diet without a little amusing temptation?   Didn't 
these people see Se7en?  Somebody's got to punish those sins!  I 
personally like to carry around chocolate laced with a powerful 
laxative which I scatter around in front of everyone with too much 
body fat.  

-m