Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle tortur

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 155843

> AD:
> I don't know.
> 
> Have the Death Eaters in question ever found their 12-year-old 
friend 
> and teammate locked in a room with bars on the window?
>  
> Have they ever ripped the bars off themselves, then found an 
innocent 
> owl padlocked in a cage, unable to fly, to hunt, or even to 
stretch 
> her wings?
> 
> Have they ever picked the locks on their friend's bedroom door?  
Have 
> they seen the catflap though which he was fed cold soup?
>  
> Have they crept through his darkened house to find the cupboard in 
> which his school things were locked away?  The cupboard he slept 
in 
> for most of a decade?
> 
> Have they witnessed the contempt with which his "family" regards 
> their friend?  Seen those very well-off people dress him in ill-
> fitting castoffs?
> 
> Have they heard tales of Harry-hunting?
> 
> Of barren birthdays and cheerless Christmasses? 
> 
> Have they?
> 
> 
> Tinktonks:
> I think the whole argument comes down to reason. What reason did 
the 
> DE's have? None, except entertainment. What reason did F&G have? 
All 
> those listed above. 

a_svirn:

First, when it comes to reasons, they had none of the above. Dudley 
is in no way responsible for barren Christmases, cheerless 
birthdays, cast-offs and the like. His parents are the ones 
responsible for the abuse. He was indeed responsible for the 
bullying bit, but that was water under the bridge by the time of the 
Toffee incident. Moreover, he had already been "punished" for that 
by Hagrid. 

Second, the Twins simply do not make convincing avenging angels. 
They are not averse to bullying themselves; they find humiliating 
people and giving them scare funny. So much so in fact, that they 
found a way to combine business and pleasure selling things like Ten-
Tongue-Toffee (and much more dangerous stuff) to anyone who would 
buy it. It's not like they had invented the whole thing with the 
revenge for Harry's miserable childhood in mind. They invented them 
in order to a) frighten and humiliate anyone available because they 
find it funny, and b) to make a good profit since they knew they are 
not the only ones who would find it funny. And that's exactly a kind 
of joke that would appeal to the Death Eaters who frightened and 
humiliated the muggle family at the World Cup. 


> > Tinktonks:
> I have seen nobody criticising Zonko's for selling biting teacuos 
> even though they could be used for muggle-baiting in the wrong 
hands. 
> So why should F&G be persecuted for what others decide to do with 
> their products? Anything can be abused? Should we all be deprived 
of 
> water because someone may use it to drown another?
> 

a_svirn:
Anything can be abused, but some things are designed specifically 
for the reason to cause harm. Your water analogy is not appropriate. 
We can't live without water, but we certainly can live without love 
potions and ten-tongue toffees, just like we can live without 
Spanish Boots, rakes and poisons.