Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 161614

> > a_svirn:
> > I don't know about that, since I can't be entirely sure what
*dark*
> > is. But they are definitely evil.
>
> Carol responds:
> How are they "definitely evil"? They have the potential to harm, but
> how is, say, Aunt Marge harmed by not knowing that she was blown up
> and punctured?

a_svirn:
She is harmed because her mind is violated. Violation of any kind,
body or mind, is evil. I admit, though, I can't prove that violation 
is
evil. It's not my theory or my hypothesis; it's my symbol of faith.

> Carol:
How are the Robertses harmed by being allowed to forget
> that they were levitated and turned upside down by Death Eaters?
Maybe
> oblivion is best in those cases. Otherwise, they might live in fear
> for the rest of their lives.

a_svirn:
Well, quite apart from my personal beliefs, it's useless to say that
wizards are concerned with muggles' mental health. The only thing
they are concerned with is their own convenience.

> Carol:
(Granted, Aunt Marge deserves it, but I'm
> not talking about what the victim deserves. I'm talking about
> Obliviate and what it can accomplish, as well as the intention of
the
> Obliviators, who clearly are not Dark wizards.)

a_svirn:
How about the Aurors who used the unforgivables with the permission
of Crouch Sr?

>
> > a_svirn:
> > We've been told how Quirrel came to be corrupted. He "opened his
> soul to Lord Voldemort". Which means that he *meant* to be corrupted
> as much as Voldemort did. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Exactly. He *chose* to fall into evil, to be seduced by the Dark
Arts
> he was supposed to be fighting.

a_svirn:
If he had a choice in the matter it wasn't really a seduction. I
always thought phrases like "he chose to be seduced" are supposed to
be ironic.

Carol:
Think of Saruman in LOTR, who "studied
> too deeply the arts of the enemy." He was tempted to *practice* the
> very arts that he studied, in his case creating evil creatures and
> trying to create a Ring of Power.

a_svirn:
Quirrel was tempted by *power*. Arts of any kind were just means to
achieve it. Or, rather, were meant to be. What he actually achieved
was abject slavery.


> Carol:
> In any case, I think we're meant to consider objects such as those
> sold in Borgin and Burke's, including the cursed opal necklace and
the
> Hand of Glory, as well as those kept by Lucius Malfoy in the hidden
> chamber under his drawing room, as Dark because they are used
> exclusively to harm others. The same goes for the diary, even before
> it became a Horcrux, because its purpose is to release the Basilisk
> and "purify" Hogwarts of those "unworthy" to attend.

a_svirn:
Maybe we are meant to consider all of the above Dark. But I cannot
quite shake off the feeling that it only confuses the matter.
Obviously objects and charms that harm are no good and should be
banned. But when we start to label some of them – arbitrary – dark,
while leaving others and no less harmful out, it's an invitation for
trouble. A good deal of the twins merchandise is "used exclusively to
harm others". So how come it's not dark? Just because they come from
a good family and sell their goods at Diagon Alley instead of
Knockturn Alley? That's strikes me as unfair to say the least. As
lady Bracknell might have said, nowadays the right address is no
guarantee of respectability.

> Carol:
> Is a spell or object sinister? Is it intended solely to harm or to
> promote some unnatural aim such as immortality?

a_svirn:
Yes, that would be my vote. But this leaves out things like the
unforgivables.