[HPforGrownups] Buckbeack and Draco WASRe: Hagrid the animal abuser/The uses of beasts in fables

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 166211

> Alla:
>
> If Buckbeak reacts to tone, meaning reacts as RL animal, it does not
> have to be limited to **threatening tone** IMO. I thought Sherry was
> rather descriptive in different varieties of tone her dog reacts to
> ( and I don't know about your experiences, so I only refer to
> Sherry's)
>
> I think it is a very reasonable interpretation that Draco's tone is
> perceived as **insulting**, demeaning, I don't know, something like
> that, even if not as a **threatening** one, so I think it is
> reasonable if hypoggriff would react to such tone.

Magpie:
If he's human-like, sure. But not if he's an animal. Animals don't react to 
"demeaning" or "insulting" in human terms. If Buckbeak can respond to it 
there's even more reason to make that clear, because now the animal is going 
to get upset if it considers your tone demeaning. Now he's even less like an 
animal and more like a sensitive gang-banger with something to prove!:-)

> Magpie:
>> As I said above, it puts Buckbeak in a comfortable grey area for
> himself,
>> because if he's reacting to the words and therefore as a human
> than he
>> intentionally hurt a person because he felt insulted.
> <SNIP>
>
> Alla:
>
> Um, yes, if he is a sentient being, certainly he hurt Malfoy because
> he felt insulted , I agree. It still would not translate to me that
> he should necessarily be punished as you said above. If Buckbeack
> reacts as human and was provoked by Malfoy, he may have a defense of
> being provoked IMO.

Magpie:
Why wouldn't he be deserving of punishment? He certainly would if he were 
human. Malfoy said "You're not dangerous at all are you, you big ugly 
brute?" in a tone he considered condescending, and he attacked him with a 
blade and made a deep gash in his arm. The "defense" goes far beyond the 
provocation. In fact, it's not defense. It's anger. The animal defense 
depends on his not being human so he can't be held responsible for his 
actions the same way-he can't even understand the human terms. If you have 
it both ways he's a person until there's consequences, then he's an animal.

> Magpie:
> What makes him
>> innocent is that he's supposed to be an animal acting on instinct,
> more like
>> a horse who kicked someone who walked behind him or a dog reacting
> to a
>> physical gesture that it read as threatening.
>
> Alla:
>
> As I said, I can see both possibilities and in both of them, I think
> Buckbeak is completely innocent - whether he reacts to the tone or
> to the implication of what **big ugly brute** means.

Magpie:
An animal is innocent because it's acting on instinct and animal 
understanding of behavior. If Buckbeak is acting on an animal instinct, like 
a horse kicking something that walks behind it or a dog mistaking a gesture 
for a threat and lashing out or being trained to attack certain things, then 
he's innocent the same way those animals are. If he's reacting as a human 
then he's not acting as an animal. He holds humans liable for their subtle 
motivations, but can't be held liable for his own.

-m