KarmaRe: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[festuco]

No: HPFGUIDX 155813

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh at ...> wrote:
>
> Gerry:
> 
> > In this case the DA was hugely succesful but 
> > they were betrayed.
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> *Hugely* successful?  In what way were they hugely 
> successful?  The Trio acquired two additional allies:  
> Neville and Luna.  What did they achieve by inviting 
> 25 students, many of whom they barely knew.  Someone 
> was bound to turn traitor.  None of the others showed 
> up the next year to fight the Death Eaters.  Some of 
> them may yet contribute to success in the final battle, 
> but then they've also had a real DADA professor in the 
> meantime, so who's to say it will be due to their 
> participation in DA.

Gerry

The DA members learned a lot. Especially for the fifth years this
meant succes on their OWLS. The rest had almost a year of real DADA
lessons instead of the rubbish Umbridge taught. That was why it was
formed. And Harry did very, very well. 
> 
> On the other hand, if the DA had never been formed, 
> Dumbledore would not have been forced to leave the 
> school at a time when they needed him most.  Dumbledore 
> might have been able to sort out the Occlumency fiasco 
> if he'd been around.  Harry might never have been lured 
> to the Ministry, and Sirius might still be alive.
> 
> Gerry

If, when etc. DD explained why he kept his mouth shut. There is no
indication at all that he would have changed that policy because of
the Occlumency fiasco. If he really wanted Harry warned why Occlumency
was so important he could have found a way. He needed not be in school
for that. 
 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> This is the standard excuse that is trotted out every 
> time there is an argument over whether or not one of the 
> "good' guys did something wrong.  They're only kids.  
> Well, then maybe they should stay out of the action and 
> let the adults handle it. 

Action as seeing that they get a decent education? The adults did not
much for that, so waiting for them to handle it is not a realistic
option. As far as Harry is concerned, he knows kids get targeted by
DE's so it is important that they know how to defend themselves. 
> 
> Gerry:
> 
> > Was Marietta disaffected? Did she talk about it? 
> > Did she mention it?
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> At the very first meeting, Cho told Harry that Marietta's 
> parents had *forbidden* her to do anything to upset Umbridge. 
> That should have been a red flag. You're probably going to 
> say that since she didn't tell Hermione that lets Hermione 
> off the hook.  I say that when Hermione decided to invite 
> a couple of dozen students she hardly knew to engage in a 
> clandestine activity, she should have made it her business 
> to know what was going on with each of them.

Gerry
So, because parents forbid something this should be a red flag?
Children are not the extension of their parents, they have minds of
their own. Were Fred, George and Ron allowed to take Arthur's car to
get Harry? 

Hermione is not a general in a war who has had years of study. She is
somebody who did a very good first attempt. I'm sure she learned a lot. 

> 
> Gerry:
> 
> > Blaming the victim. Sorry but I get rather angry with 
> > this sort of reasoning. Because I've seen it in the past: 
> > she should have dressed differently, she should not have 
> > walked there, etc. etc. Or: she should not have made me 
> > angry (how many abusers use this kind of reasoning?) 
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> You're talking about blame.  I'm talking about responsibility.
> How satisfying would it be to be able to blame the bad guys 
> if Voldemort were to win the war.  It seems like it would 
> be a lot better to keep that from happening. The blame game 
> is a loser's strategy. (And yes, I have been mugged.  However 
> psychologically satisfying it was to blame the criminal, it 
> didn't get me my purse or my credit back.  I wanted to make 
> sure it never happened again, so I did look at how my 
> carelessness may have contributed to the incident.)

Gerry
Blaming the criminal has nothing to do with psychological
satisfaction. The criminal did the deed. That is why criminals get
punished. The fault is always with the criminal. 

Your way of reasoning is a very dangerous one. In some cases it is
clear cut. If I leave my handbag open, I am in more danger from
pickpockets. It is my responsibility to zip my handbag. But it is not
my responsibility that if I walk home from work at 11 p.m. that
somebody cycles up behind me and tries to rip my bag from my shoulder.

Hermione did a very good job and Marietta is a very nasty person. She
could just have stepped out, she could have said no in the beginning.
She wanted to ingratiate herself with Umbridge at the cost of a lot of
people including her best friend. I think a normal decent person would
have to experience such behaviour to believe anybody capable of that.
 I'm sure neither Harry, Ron or Hermione will make that kind of
mistake again. 

I just read the pages again, and to me it is clear the pustules are
fading and that is the reason why nobody did anything to make them go
away. Adequate punishement, fitting the crime. 

Gerry