Blood Protection/Statute of Secrecy

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 159095

 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > Oh, but I was remarking specifically in response to Voldemort 
> > statement in GoF whether to take it on faith.
> > 
> > What you are saying **may be** true, but the stone that stops me 
is 
> > that we do not know whether Harry was not attacked because 
> Voldemort 
> > could not, or because he had more grandier plans, if that makes 
> sense?
> 
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> Yes, I see what you mean. But wouldn't killing Harry be pretty 
much 
> near the top of his list of priorities? Well, maybe not in OotP, 
when 
> he tried to learn the rest of the Prophecy. But at least after 
this 
> eliminating Harry must have been of extreme importande for him. 
> Instead he kills Madam Bones, crahes a few bridges and bewitches a 
> muggle politician. 

Alla:

Hehe, for some reason when I read your post the first time I read 
**becomes Muggle politician** instead of bewitches. :) Fancy that.

Anyways, that is again not quite what I meant, I mean close but not 
exactly :) Sorry for being unclear. I agree with you that killing 
Harry is on the top of his priorities somewghere, although as you 
said in OOP he sure tried to learn the prophecy.

What I meant was not that he has grandier plans per se ( although 
that too), but grandier plans for killing Harry.

I mean, really he did not kill Harry, who was tied up, no? Noooo, he 
wanted the duel for everybody to see.

I was just thinking that maybe (if one believes that it is at least 
possible Voldemort could touch Harry on Privet Drive, but did not 
want to) to kill Harry on Privet Drive,where nobody sees it would be 
not grande enough for his Evil Overlordness?

But I am pretty sure that JKR intended for blood protection to be 
it, I just wish she showed instead of telling :), it is just to me 
Harry endured too much because of it and I want to **see** that it 
was worth it.

Makes sense?


 
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> Won't happen, I fear. With the blood protection stopping to work 
now, 
> the attack will probably pretty much work in causing harm. I fully 
> expect a minor battle at the Dursleys at the beginning of book 7.
>

Alla:

Too bad if you ask me :)

> bboyminn:
> 
> One small problem with your assumption and that is ethics
> are not absolute, they are subjective. 
<snip>

Alla:

There is an element of subjectivity in ethics, sure, but I think 
that there are some rather huge common elements, which in many 
system of ethics are considered rather objective.

bboyminn:
Take Bush for 
> example, his actions imply that it is alright for /us/
> to torture /them/, but it is not alright for /them/ to
> torture /us/. We can torture Islamic Terrorists because
> they are the bad guys and we are the good guys, and any
> objective analysis would agree with that.
<SNIP>

Alla:

I am sorry, but I disagree. Any objective analysis will agree that 
it is Okay for us to torture terrorists? Sorry again, but no, 
**not** any objective analysis will agree with that and I would say 
thanks goodness for that.  IMO of course. I cannot express the 
hatred I feel for the people who did to the city I love with all my 
heart what they did on 9/11, but us torturing them to me means us 
becoming them. And I do not want that to happen. For **our sake**, 
not for 
**them**.

Yes, back to Harry Potter and funnily enough I sort of agree with 
Potterverse related part of your argument.

bboyminn:
<SNIP>
> In the Potterverse, from a muggle perspective, the 
> various actions including memory modification, are 
> horribly unethical, but to the wizard world, these 
> actions are a necessity. The muggle world, over the 
> course of a few thousand years, has consistently proven
> that it is incapable of getting along with anyone it 
> thinks is better than them. 

Alla:

Well, yes I think everybody pretty much understands WW need for 
secrecy and that is why for that reason memory charms do not bother 
me terribly, even though in itself, I think they are horrible, but I 
just think that something else can be invented, if Wizards try.

I think somebody brought as an example the natural forgetfullness by 
non - magical people of the magical world from some other book, 
which is I guess similar, but sort of sounds better to me, since it 
does not involve violating your memory and changing it at will.

I don't know, as I said, I get it, it is just the element of 
violation is too great, but precisely because of the danger for 
wizards if they show themself, it does not bother me too much.

JMO,

Alla