muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 155730

 >>Betsy Hp:
> > 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.

> >>Felix: 
> 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.

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, I think the prank may have been a bit more pre-meditated than 
that, however, I do agree that this wasn't some much thought about 
evil plot the twins spent half their summer dreaming up.  (Probably 
spent that time dreaming up the toffees themselves, but that's a 
totally different thing. <g>)

> >>Felix:
> 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?

Betsy Hp:
IMO, no, it wouldn't be as wrong.  Because they'd be using magic 
against someone who could also use magic, and so the power structure 
wouldn't be the same.

> >>Felix:
> 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?

Betsy Hp:
IMO, no, the above scenario would *not* have been worse.  Because by 
not using magic the twins, again, would not be using their 
difference in power.  (Though of course you'd still have the problem 
of sixteen year olds picking on a fourteen year old, and the problem 
of two against one...  But it would not have been muggle-baiting, 
anyway.)

> >>Felix:
> Intent has to come into account when deciding someone's whole
> character according to one incident.

Betsy Hp:
But I'm not trying to decide the character of the twins based on 
this one moment.  I've already stated that I doubt the twins were 
even thinking about the fact that they were wizards using magic to 
attack a Muggle.

What I am saying is that no matter the motive the fact remains that 
the twins took advantage of their power to pick on someone without 
that power.  They behaved badly, even if with good(ish) intentions.  
As their father recognized.

> >>Felix:
> The prank did not rely on the magical element to *scare* Dudley or 
> his parents...
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I really, really don't get this.  The prank was successful *only* 
because it was magic.  And the reaction was as large *only* because 
the victim and his family were Muggle.  

>>Felix:
> If there had been some other wizard that fulfilled those          
> requirements, I feel pretty sure Dudley wouldn't have been used.

Betsy Hp:
So?  The whole point is that *because* Dudley is a Muggle that 
particular prank should have *never* been pulled.  The power 
differences were too great.  That's the point Arthur tried, and 
failed, to get across.  Wizards *should not* treat Muggles in such a 
manner *because* Muggles have no defences against it.

> >>Felix:
> 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.

Betsy Hp:
The problem is that though I agree the twins aren't muggle-baiters 
as a matter of course, *what* they did *was* Muggle-baiting.  
There's no way around it.  Motive cannot explain it away.  No matter 
the excuse you still have two young *wizards* using *magic* to prank 
a *Muggle*.

I do think the amount of condemnation *can* be adjusted, however.  
While the Death Eaters if caught should have faced at the least very 
heavy fines and ideally some jail time, the twins should have been 
grounded for a bit and made to write an apology.

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

Betsy Hp:
You're not offending me. (You know, in case you were worried. <g>)

Betsy Hp