[HPforGrownups] Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 174692

Dennis Grant blessed us with this gem On 06/08/2007 23:50:

> But in both cases, you're being racked as a form of coersion. The
> purpose behind it COUNTS.

First, Harry himself made his purpose crystal clear. "Whaddya know. You 
really DO have to mean it!" Mean what? "I torture." His purpose was 
torture. That's what he said. And by his own admission, that's what he 
meant.

Second, his makes his reason crystal clear. "You shouldn't have done 
that." Done what? Why, spit on McGonagall, of course.

> That's why we have so many legal definitions of acts that are
> functionally identical - one person killing another.

We're talking torture, here, Dennis. Not killing. Since you assert it, 
please tell us how many "legal definitions" of torture there are. 
Torture in self-defense? Natch. Torture in the line of duty? Doesn't 
exist. Torture by neglect? Nada.

The UN (and yes, I'm going to bring the RW into this again; but you've 
already done that) has defined torture -- along with terrorism, CBW, 
hostage-taking, and a small handful of other acts -- as always and under 
any circumstances, unjustifiable.

> Harry doesn't torture Carrow; he incapacitates him by inflicting
> intense pain on him.

Ah. The end justifies the means. What happened to Stupefy?

> other technique have worked as well? Who can say; 

We can, of course. Can you point to a single instance in canon in which 
Stupefy has NOT been effective in stopping an opponent? If there were 
something different this time around, then it's JKR's responsibility to 
tell us.

 > it's easy to second-guess decisions made in the heat of battle

There WAS no "heat of battle". There was just Carrow, spitting on 
McGonagall, and Harry tucked safely away under his Cloak, until he 
stepped out and ambushed Carrow.

 > by people who weren't there,

Umm, sorry, but we WERE there. It didn't happen off-page.

 > and in this case we are talking about fictional weaponry which
 > may have other considerations of which we are not aware

And again, in that case, it is the author's responsibility to make us 
aware, not leave us speculating that maybe, perhaps, possibly there 
MIGHT have been something we didn't know about.

> as there is no way to know if an alternative would have worked, 

Stupefy, Dennis. Stupefy. It ALWAYS works.

Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan