[HPforGrownups] Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 174902

nrenka blessed us with this gem On 09/08/2007 10:18:

LK> Filtering out the bits defining the conditions

Nora> it seemed to me that a significant part of his argument
Nora> was precisely that the "bits defining the conditions" were
Nora> important

Thanks. I did, in fact, pick up on that. My intention was to show that 
the canonical portrait of Cruciatus strongly resembled the US Criminal 
Code's definition MINUS the "condition bits". And my point was (and is) 
that, no matter how important conditions/circumstances/intent are to 
Dennis, to me, to you or to the USCC, there is absolutely no indication 
in canon that they are important to the WW. Dennis is expending a lot of 
energy trying to build an argument that essentially leads nowhere until 
he can demonstrate his point FROM CANON.

Even if I were in full agreement with Dennis (and I may be; but neither 
my nor his personal views are the issue here), it's irrelevant. I'm 
interested in discussing the story JKR gave us, not the story somebody 
wishes she had given us.

Nora> in approaching a definition of torture, and a discussion of the
Nora> events in the book that we're arguing about.

Dennis is attempting to judge and to justify events in the books based 
on a set of rules that, as far as I can see, do not exist IN THE BOOKS. 
And he appears to be so intent on doing this that he's making points 
that are directly refuted by the text itself.

Nora> it's always easier with the basic issues defined

Thanks again. You've made some good points. I just see a different set 
of basic issues here, to wit: is it or is it not in the canon?

Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan