muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[hogsheadbarmaid]

No: HPFGUIDX 155733


dumbledore11214 wrote:
> 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > I just think that Muggle baiting includes very specific act of 
> > causing harm to Muggles, not just any. I cannot support it with 
> > canon except the fact that **only** specific acts that Gerry 
> > mentioned are called muggle-baiting.
> 
> I don't get it, are you saying that since this episode didn't cause any 
> harm to Dudley, it can't be called muggle-baiting?
> 
> But if Dudley waited a bit longer to eat this sweet, if Arthur was not 
> still around, Dudley would be dead. Does not get more harmful than that.
> They had no way to predict when Dudley will eat it.
> 
> (For the record - I believe that they targeted Dudley specifically and 
> not any random muggle, and their heart is in the right place, yadda, 
> yadda. Does not make it any better).
> 
> Irene

Now The Barmaid:

I think muggle-baiting requires a certain intent.  It seems to me that
it is a sort of hate crime.  The target must be selected specifically
because they are a muggle.  Dudley is a target because he is Dudley. 
    It is his behavior and his treatment of Harry that makes him a
target.  

I do not think the seriousness of the act defines whether or not it is
muggle-baiting. I think a small act of hate against a muggle would
"count" and not every serious act against a muggle would count either.  

That said, do we know that Dudley would have died?  Perhaps the effect
of the toffee would have worn off before that happened.  Perhaps not.
 We just do not have any information to prove that either way. 

         --Barmaid