muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[felix_quinn]

No: HPFGUIDX 155723

> Betsy Hp:
> The only
> thing they'd know is that they didn't like that black child (he's a
> bully) and that (for some odd reason) cross-burning would scare
> him.  Just as the twins knew (or hoped) that magic (for some odd
> reason) would scare Dudley.

> How is your toungue growing so large is no longer fits in your
> mouth
> and actually inhibits your breathing *not* an act of magic?

> No it is not.  It is a *magic* prank played against a *Muggle*.  And
> that is what makes all the difference.  It's the powerful using
> their power to prank the weak.

The point I was trying to make was that although the prank employed
magic, it was simply means to an end. I don't think they set out to
specifically prank Dudley,
I think that they had the toffees, needed to test them, and it occured
to them that Dudley (being on a diet, and being the glutton that Harry
has painted to them) would definitely eat it. If they had decided to
do it to a wizard (whom they knew to be a greedy person, and would
also definitely eat it) would it still be *as* wrong?
If they had
decided that they wanted to prank Dudley, and purposefully set out to
find a way to do this and had used a muggle method of pranking him,
would that be *worse* than pranking him using magical methods but
without the malicious intent?

Intent has to come into account when deciding someone's whole
character according to one incident. This is where a technicality
matters, and becomes more than a mere footnote.
In a court case, intent would make the difference between Murder 1 and
Manslaughter. The act is never wholly justified, but it does make a
difference in judging the act itself.

The prank did not rely on the magical element to *scare* Dudley or his
parents- the prank (as it were) was (IMO) already conceptualized when
they thought of using Dudley- not because he's a muggle and can't
fight back, but simply because he was convenient.
He was there, and he was unsuspecting. If there had been some other
wizard that fulfilled those requirements, I feel pretty sure Dudley
wouldn't have been used.

Still, not saying it's not a bad thing that they did, it's just that
the term and condemnation we're trying to pin on them is unjustified-
Call them troublemakers, delinquents, dropouts, whatever- but 'muggle-
baiters' imply something that just doesn't fit the situation.

Felix, who wishes to offend no one and just stops short of actually
raising hand before speaking ;-)