Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 158284

Alla:

Actually this is the point I am forced to take into consideration as to
whether Dursleys are indeed Harry's legal guardians in full sense of
the word. Yes, in RL they have to be allowed to raised him as they see
fit.

But one can argue that since magic is the integral part of who he is,
that can be truly dangerous for Harry and people around him to deny him
the recognition of his abilities, that it can be dangerous for his
health in both literal and metaphorical sense to not develop his
abilities, therefore even his guardians are sometimes not allowed to
act against child's best interest, if that makes any sense.

Pippin:
I am not sure that suppressing Harry's abilities was against his 
interest. Ron says in PS/SS that Harry and Draco will only be
able to shoot sparks at each other. While this  may be the norm,
other magical children have been precocious and it caused
problems for them. I'm tempted to compare it to sexual precocity
in that there seem to be few acceptable outlets. 

 Dumbledore points out that magically precocious Tom Riddle 
used  his powers without restraint or guidance.

Snape's magical precocity certainly got him a nasty reputation. 
I'm wondering, since wizards tend to think  children 
can't do advanced magic, whether Snape's precocious abilities 
weren't exploited by an older wizard who wanted to curse his 
enemies undetected.

Though we might argue that Harry has a stronger character he's
clearly not incorruptable and his powers might have proved too
great a temptation for him if he had learned of them sooner,
especially with the Dursleys as a provocation. 

Even with the Weasley twins, whose parents are the most 
conscientious and enlightened we have encountered, precocity 
gets them in trouble: turning Ron's teddy into a spider and trying 
to get him to make an unbreakable vow. 

Of course since Harry's powers were probably suppressed by his
misery, we don't know if he would have been precocious. But since
he has some of Riddle's powers and he was able to cast the patronus
spell against hundreds of dementors at the age of thirteen, the evidence
suggests that he might have come to harm if he'd been allowed to
discover his powers earlier. If he's not a normal kid,  he couldn't
have had a normal childhood even if he'd lived with a loving family
in the WW. 

Alla:
> And I would completely disagree. To me it is very similar to your 
> example. I mean, the attempt on **Harry's** life had already been 
> made. 
> Yes, his parents were killed, but **his** life is already in danger  
> for sure and who knows if Voldemort would not repeat the attempt?
> 
> To me the danger is very grave, not potential at all. IMO of course.
> 

Pippin:
It is not like Voldemort was standing on the doorstep. In fact many
wizards believed he had been permanently defeated. To me it is
more like a relative volunteering a kidney. Petunia is putting her
own life and family in peril in order to help Harry escape a potential
danger. IMO while it would be noble to do it, it would not be a
sin to refuse.

Pippin