The Statute of Secrecy

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 159112

> a_svirn:
> > <big snip> Where does it leave Dumbledore, I wonder? The best 
thing
> for the common good would have been for Riddle to stay in the 
orphanage.
> >
> Carol responds:
> The best thing for the WW, possibly. At least he would never have
> learned to make Horcruxes and would not have killed the Potters or
> given Harry the powers required to destroy him. But what about the
> Muggle world? What about the children he tortured at the orphanage?
> What about his power to control animals, including snakes? He was
> already lying, stealing, torturing animals and children. <snip>

a_svirn:
Well, sure, it would have been even better – for the common good I 
mean – if somebody had strangled him in his cradle. Still, even for 
the muggle world it would have been better if he hadn't received 
magical education. As we have learned from HBP the consequences for 
muggles were every bit as dreadful as for wizards.

> Carol
> Again, I think Dumbledore made the best decision possible--teach 
Tom
> to control his magic and keep an eye on him. 

a_svirn:
Yeah, that worked, didn't it? Dumbledore kept an eye on Riddle while 
Riddle kept practicing the Dark Arts, killing people left right and 
centre and so on. 

> Carol
True, Myrtle died and
> Hagrid was framed, but matters could have been much, much worse 
during
> Riddle's school days--and terrible for the Muggles afterwards. If 
only
> he hadn't somehow found out about Horcruxes (he knew of their
> existence, though not how to make them, before he talked to 
Slughorn).

a_svirn:
There wouldn't have been any consequences at all if he stayed away 
from the WW.

> Carol, noting that DD could not possibly guess what Tom Riddle 
would
> become

a_svirn:
Of course he couldn't. And it follows that he couldn't possibly know 
what was the best for the common good, does it not? None of us can – 
that's why we are taught to play fair and respect the law.