Dark Arts (WAS Re: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6)

[jdl3811220]

No: HPFGUIDX 159599

> random832 wrote:
> > I think a key 'lesson' we see in the books is that the ministry
> > defines whatever it feels like as being dark or not. If the UV 
is only
> > dark when used for certain purposes, why not also AK? Surely it 
would
> > not be dark as a method of execution of murderers, it'd 
certainly be
> > more humane/painless than the dementor's kiss. or even if then, 
still
> > not for something as mundane as slaughtering livestock.
> > 
> > Right or wrong, "dark magic" is defined in the books as specific
> > spells or types of spells, not as "the intention of the wizard 
using
> > it". And I think it's presented as being that there is something
> > deeply wrong with that way of classification.


If you remember correctly, the Ministry of Magic (at Barty Crouch 
Sr.'s urging)approved the use of the Unforgivable Curses against 
Death Eaters and Voldemort. How else do you think Harry got away 
with using the Cruciatus Curse on Bellatrix? She's a Death Eater, so 
his use of this was legal. 

The Avada Kedavra curse will come in handy against Voldemort. Harry 
needs to learn how to properly perform it though. I think that the 
Unforgivable Curses are only illegal if used against people, so the 
livestock thing is actually possible. Just wondering if it would 
alter the meat of the livestock and it would be edible or not? 
HMMMM. If it doesn't alter it, then Harry could kill two birds with 
one stone. Learn how to do the curse so he'll be ready to face 
Voldemort and have supper too ;)

Jenni from Alabama