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

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 155920

> Alla:
<SNIP>
> 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.

Alla:

Oy, sorry to reply to myself, but I realised that I picked the wrong 
word right away, but had to run.

So, no, I don't think Twins show contempt to Muggles in general **at 
all**, the word I wanted to use is probably **patronising** a bit, that 
is what Arthur does too, IMO, but to me it does not translate at all in 
the desire to target muggles to hurt them.

Alla, sorry to waste her post on this, but wanted to clarify.