muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 155691

Carol earlier:
> > Not to beat a dead horse, but why would the only motive for Muggle
baiting have to be "because the person is a Muggle"? Fred and George
use this point to excuse their actions, but it doesn't mean that they
weren't Muggle baiting. Dudley is a Muggle and they know it. He can't
do magic or defend himself against it. And they are unquestionably
*baiting* him (dropping the candy as bait that they know he'll take).
> >
> > I think the argument that they didn't do it *because* he's a
Muggle is their attempt to get themselves off on a technicality.
> >
> 
> Rebecca now:
> 
> It's ok Carol, we like whipping the foam to a froth around here. :)
> 
> Like Alla before me, I do believe that twins were telling the truth
and not trying to get off on a technicality - I only have canon to go
by here, and we all interpret it differently, or so it would appear.
If they only targeted Muggles with their pranks, I would believe it be
malicious and wouldn't believe it when Fred responded "indignantly"
that they weren't baiting Dudley because he was a Muggle.  That said,
I suppose it depends on your POV about what Muggle baiting really is.
Yes, Dudley is a Muggle and yes, they baited him. Why?  Because he IS
a great bullying git, not that that makes what they did ok, but it is
a reason other than thinking Dudley's a second or fourth class person
to whom they can do anything they like.  But are they malicious Muggle
baiters or torturers (or in some cases, killers) like Voldemort and
his Death Eater crew?  No, subtle difference, but a difference
nonetheless to me.
> 
> Rebecca
>
Carol responds:
Okay, one more turn of the eggbeater, then. Oops. That metaphor works
with beating to a froth, but not with beating dead horses. Moving
right along. . . .

I agree that the Twins are telling the truth about their motive, but
nevertheless, they're trying to rationalize their behavior. He
deserved it, therefore it's not Muggle baiting in their view (or
therefore it's justified even though Dudley had no way of defending
himself).

Dudley justifies his beating up ten-year-old Mark Evans but saying
that Mark gave him cheek. He's not beating him up because he's a
little kid, but because he had what he considers to be a good reason.
So I guess, since Dudley had an excuse (or is only fifteen himself),
he's not engaging in child abuse, even though the victim is a child,
because his reason makes all the difference? Or parents who beat their
kids with coat hangers for stealing or using drugs aren't engaging in
child abuse, because they had a "good" reason?

Sorry. Dudley's a Muggle, and he's being baited, ergo it's Muggle
baiting. Or Muggle abuse, if you prefer.

Carol, who never said the Twins were malicious or equated them with
Death Eaters