Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...)/Arthur is right or not?

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 155907

> houyhnhnm:
> 
> But they are not *better* than the other houses. The 
> Gyffindor way of approaching life is one way of being 
> a good person.  It is also one way of being a not so 
> good person (impulsive, reckless, arrogant).  Being 
> loyal and hardworking is another way of being a good 
> person.  Creating new knowledge through intellectual 
> endeavor is another. Likewise there are other ways of 
> being a not so good person, such as being clannish and 
> hidebound or cold, aloof, and disconnected from the 
> problems of other people.
> 
> Some see the Potter books as a story of good guys versus 
> bad guys.  I see them as being ultimately about harmony 
> versus disharmony or balance versus imbalance.  I think 
> this is what Rowling is trying to prepare her readers for 
> by having the Sorting Hat call for unity of the four Houses, 
> by showing us the flaws and mistakes of the heroes and 
> their friends, and by telling us in interview that the 
> four Houses represent the four elements (none of which 
> is any better than another; all are necessary to life).
> 
> This how I think the story will end: Not with "good" 
> Gryffindors beating "bad" Slytherins, but with Voldemort 
> defeated by all four "personality types" of the WW working 
> together in harmony.  Book 7 will tell.  Fancy a flutter?


Alla:

I agree - the story **is** very likely to end with all four houses 
beating Voldemort together, but that does not IMO change the fact 
that Gryffindor **is** JKR's favorite house, that she values courage 
per her words more than any **other** virtue, therefore she put the 
most of **good** guys (as I see it) in Gryffindor.

I am not a big fan of House system, I think it is rather superficial 
division of kids, who often have qualities of different houses in 
themselves, but I think that yes, JKR absolutely loves **Gryffindor 
ways** of being good person more than **saving their necks** way.

So, what I am trying to say is that I think she will absolutely show 
House Unity, but the vast majority of her heroes will still be in 
Gryffindor and I find it to be very telling, IMO.


> Dung:
> Some relevant canon for the whole discussion which has splintered 
into 
> many threads:
>> HBP chapter 10, p195 (UK)
> HBP chapter 10, p197 (UK)
>> <go UPTHREAD to read the quotes>
> Now before everyone yells at me for claiming an invalid comparison, 
> let me just point something out: Morfin may well have had nothing 
> but contempt for Muggles, but I think we're led to believe that the 
> reason he hexed Tom Riddle was that his sister was in love with 
him. 
> 
> HBP chapter 10, p199 (UK)
> "*But I got him, father!" cackled Morfin. "I got him as he went by, 
> and he didn't look so pretty with hives all over him, did he, 
> Merope?*"
> 
> So if Morfin didn't hex Tom *because* he was a Muggle, does that 
> make it ok?

Alla:

I still find your comparison to be problematic, for the reason you 
said yourself.

Morfin has **nothing** that contempt for the Muggles in general, that 
is clear in canon ( to me anyways), so no matter how many times he 
would say that he hexed Tom Riddle because his sister was in love 
with him, I cannot discount the idea that the contempt for Muggles in 
general is **also** there as a motive, **not** just contempt for Tom 
Riddle as a person, who happens to be a Muggle.

I do **not** see anywhere in canon that Twins have contempt for 
Muggles in general ( I mean, whole WW does, I suppose, but I am 
convinced that Weasleys have the least contempt than anybody in WW we 
had been shown so far), I **only** see them showing contempt for 
Dudley who happens to be a Muggle.

But let's take your example a bit further. If I had no reason to 
suspect that Morfin had contempt for the Muggles in general, but only 
hexed Tom Riddle because his sister loved him, then no, it would not 
be Okay, but I would not call it **Muggle-baiting** either.

It could be crime worse than Muggle-baiting, I am sure Morfin would 
have no problem killing Tom for example, but not Muggle baiting. IMO.

Julie:
<SNIP>
> Oh, and regarding the specific ton-tongue taffy incident, Arthur is
> also a Weasley, thus a good person. In that scene, I ask again, was
> he right or wrong to chastise Fred and George for misusing magic
> on a Muggle? Was he being a conscientious father trying to instill  
a
> strong moral code in his sons, or is he just a  boring old fuddy 
duddy 
> who can't see a good, clean joke when it's in front of his face?

Alla:

Of course he is right, he is right to criticise his sons for playing 
prank that could have went wrong, but his sons are also right, if 
that makes sense.

Molly also criticises Twins and Ron for taking a car to save Harry. 
Is she right to do so? Sure, she is. Do I applaud Twins and Rona dn 
hope they would do it again if necessity arises? Totally.

Oh, and I keep trying to find where Arthur calls what twins did 
**Muggle-baiting** and cannot.

>  
> Julie, who thinks Arthur is one of the "goodest" of the good guys

Alla, who also adores Arthur.