The Model of the Modern Major General? / Ethics

[Goddlefrood]

No: HPFGUIDX 169197

> Goddlefrood:
 
> Does he now? Told us this did he? I think not. Severus had 
> the very clear intention, IMO, of being the one to *capture* 
> Sirius, not necessarily by violent means. 
 
> Leslie41:
 
> Yes, he says "how I hoped I'd be the one to catch you," so I 
> intuit from that that he believes there's a possibility he 
> was following Lupin to Black's hideout.

Goddlefrood:

Perhaps the difference between "capture" and "catch" escapes 
you, this looks rather like disagreement for its own sake 
rather than for any better reason. I also apprehend that my 
post to which the above quote responds was not read very 
carefully. Let's take a closer look:

> Such obstacles would include Remus and, he may have hoped, 
> Sirius too. (from #169102)

Is there a difference between this and what is quoted above 
from the post to which this now replies? This may be answered 
by neutral third parties.

Agreement with the basic matter stated leads to criticism for 
little reason and from an inethical point of view. More's the 
pity because I argue for a living, I rarely try to pass that 
on to others, but it also seems that no regard has been taken 
of post #169133, which expanded substantially on the counter 
argument.

> Leslie41:

> What do you think Black and Lupin are thinking of when they're 
> aiming their wands at Peter Pettigrew?  Reforming him?

Goddlefrood:

I doubt they have any thought for the price of fish. Again the 
follow up post was likely not read. I criticise equally where 
merited. I have pointed out many flaws in diverse characters 
in canon. No one is by any means depicted as perfect.

> Leslie41:
 
> Black bears no regret for his past actions.  "Served him 
> right" he says.  So Snape is not the only one holding a 
> grudge. And Sirius, canonically, has far less reason.

Goddlefrood:

Sirius and Severus were never bosom chums, I'll grant you, 
but I have mentioned this before. Very recently I stated 
that Sirius could be seen as being unreasonable in some of 
the continued grudges he holds, including the one to Snape 
by implication. 

The matter that will possibly enlighten us all about why 
Sirius bore a grudge is partly his continued mistrust of 
Severus, which is easily divined from GoF:

'Sirius and Snape were eying each other with the utmost 
loathing.' - p.618, Bloomsbury Hardback Edition.

A matter reinforced by JKR in an interview:

" Q: What made Sirius decide to send Snape to the Willow?

JK Rowling replies -> Because Sirius loathed Snape (and the 
feeling was entirely mutual). You'll find out more about this 
in due course."

From:

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm

Suggestive of a grudge borne by Sirius since before the prank 
during their schooldays together. It is not unreasonable to 
suggest, as I now do, that Sirius justifiably loathed Severus, 
not perhaps to the extent of justifying wanting him dead, which 
the prank also suggests, but a deep seated hatred nevertheless.

Deathly Hallows should resolve this puzzle and might well give 
a reason, albeit perhaps thought unreasonable by some, that 
Sirius hated Severus.

Severus's grudge against Sirius is clear as day and I trust 
needs no further elucidation.

> Leslie41:

> I will just comment that I totally agree with you on when 
> Snape begins to overhear Lupin and Black's conversation. 

Goddlefrood:

On that and several other matters it seems.

> Leslie41:

> Aren't Black's and Lupin's actions clouded by their hatred? 
> Snape stops *himself* from killing Black.

Goddlefrood:

Well, of course they are, they know at that point that Peter 
betrayed the Potters to Lord Voldemort. Snape is confronting 
an unarmed man, whatever he may think of that man. He should 
be congratulated perhaps. As quoted from canon by the poster 
this replies to "How I hoped I'd be the one to catch you".
Sirius did not lunge towards Severus but "started" towards him, 
he held himself back due to Snape's pointing a wand between his 
eyes. Had Sirus lunged towards him then Snape would have been 
justified in using further force, possibly even deadly force.

Catch, not kill. Severus clearly states he wants to hand Sirius 
over to the Dementors. That his judgment was clouded by his 
hatred is also a matter on which there appears to be concurrence, 
it's all becoming rather dull and repetitive, in other words.

> Leslie41:
 
> From internal, canonical evidence.  Namely, from what the 
> character says, and more importantly (especially in Snape's 
> case) what the character does.

Goddlefrood:

True, but it does not mean it is *accurate*, it is still an 
*impression* whether or not a person thinks Snape is good or 
bad. That hardly seems a matter of controversy, but then many 
insist on having it their own way. It's plain that few, if any 
of my posts on Severus over the years had been read. Another 
matter that often leads to a better argument is research.

Would that be biased and hypocritical to suggest?

> Leslie41:

> Snape critics make demands of him that are not made of 
other characters, and blame him where no or little blame 
is warranted. Lupin didn't take his potion? Don't blame 
Lupin. Come up with ten reasons to blame Snape.  Etc.

Goddlefrood:

Not that this is taken personally but once more I would have 
to disagree with this. Many Snape critics do see that a good 
argument can be made out to the effect that Snape is the 
paragon of virtue, that they then choose to disagree with 
those arguments does not mean they are biassed for its own 
sake.

In my time on this list and elsewhere I would apprehend that 
there are no characters who have escaped criticism by me to 
a greater or lesser degree and I'm also quite certain that 
I show no particular disfavour to Snape. I have actually 
argued for his being on the good side at times, and could 
prove that quite easily. References on request.

> Leslie41:

> With flavors of ice cream, perhaps, but not with reasoned 
> argument. Reasoned argument must be unbiased and supported 
> with facts.

Goddlefrood:

Had I listened to this kind of advice when I was a much younger 
man I would have been eaten for breakfast on a regular basis in 
my professional life. There is often bias in all but the least 
convincing arguments, but wishing to keep this within acceptable 
parameters, I will make no further comment. Is this an example 
that some are holding up to? If so never try to practice law is 
all the advice I could dispense.

> Leslie41:

> That's evading the issue.  Whether or not Snape was feeling 
> perfectly logical, he acted logically.

Goddlefrood:

To you perhaps, but how logical was his tirade, for instance? 
He acted within accepted moral standards, rather than logically. 
Although the distinction is a fine one it is important that it 
be made, just in case my logic is thought illogical.

Morals were rather the point of the thread, rather than any 
logical considerations.

> Leslie41:
 
> Well, it doesn't surprise me that you don't want to give 
> Snape credit for his actions.  It doesn't surprise me at 
> all.

Goddlefrood:

It doesn't surprise you? As I said in #169133 a personal attack 
rarely advances an argument, and your argument is very far from 
being advanced, so it does not surprise me in return that you 
resort to such base and unnecessary tactics.

> Leslie41:

> It's one of the hallmarks of those that hate Snape that they 
> cannot give him credit for anything.

Goddlefrood:

I have not said I hate Snape, I have argued from the position of 
criticism of him, but not for its own sake. I have credited him 
when credit has been due. I note that from an earlier post from 
the poster to whom I now respond again that an opinion was 
expressed that Snape was not nice. He isn't, it does not mean 
I hate him. When I note a weak argument I attack the argument, 
if that has been taken personally by you Leslie41, then it is 
not my intention to wound. Had you taken it that way then it 
is rather more your interpretation of events, rather than a 
fact.

> Leslie41:

> And your experience, truthfully, is irrelevant. It's Snape's 
> experience that counts. 

Goddlefrood:

He did not act ilogically, he acted as would be expected. That 
is a point I noted in #169102, your interpretation of that is 
different from my own.
 
> > Anonymous (herinafter anon):
 
> > As for the use of lethal force, it certainly was appropriate
> > in Snape's case, as Black started toward him with "a roar of
> > rage". Though wandless, Black obviously indended harm. If a
> > known murderer heads toward me with a "roar of rage," and I
> > have a gun, I'll shoot, even if he doesn't. So would a cop,
> > most likely.
 
> Goddlefrood:
 
> Perhaps this is why the post was anonymous. Snape goes on to
> say rather shortly after the incidents described by anon that
> he would like a reason to be given to use violent force.
 
> Leslie41:
 
> You are quoting me there.

Goddlefrood:

Was it you? That was unclear as there was no attribution or 
signature on that earlier post, thank you for acknowledging 
it.

> leslie41:

> There's a subtlety here I think you're overlooking.

> *Snape* saying "give me a reason" doesn't mean he doesn't 
> already have one.

Goddlefrood:

So subtle that it was not mentioned. You criticise for bringing 
personal opinions and experience into a post, but what have we 
hereinabove? A personal opinion. Were you, Leslie41, in the same 
position as Snape then you would not have hesitated to kill 
Sirius, is that what was being said?

Lucky you to have never been in any even remotely similar 
positions.

> Leslie41:
 
> So, you'd have us believe that if a murderer is lunging towards 
> me with a look of rage on his face, and I shoot him, *I'M* the 
> one who's going to prison?  

> Yeah. That makes an awful lot of sense.  

Goddlefrood:

The law does not make sense. I have to explain that last 
statement to people almost daily. Law does at times follow 
logic, but the situation decribed above would not be one of 
them. So, yes, you may end up in prison if you choose to act 
on your impression, if the impression was not deemed 
*reasonable*, and even then you may end up behind bars, 
albeit for the lesser offence of manslaughter. A member 
of the disciplined forces would need to be even more 
certain than a civilian to use deadly force.

The law's the law, think it illogical, I do.

> Leslie41:
 
> Oh, if I shoot a known psychopath lunging towards me with an 
> intent to do bodily harm that's going to get *ME* the death 
> penalty?

Goddlefrood:

No, but that is not what I said, if you care to look. If you 
have no *reasonable* ground for believing that your life is in 
danger then you would be in severe trouble and as you clearly 
live in a country with the death penalty, I'd suggest you got 
your facts very straight if you ever found yourself in such a 
situation. On the other hand if your belief *is* reasonable from 
an objective standpoint then you would probably be fine and the 
over embellishment contained in your example would be such a 
situation.

Sarcasm hardly becomes. While it may sometimes be said that it 
is the highest form of intelligence, it is also said to be the 
lowest form of wit.

> Leslie41:  

> I'd really like to know on what occasion I'd be allowed to use 
> deadly force without getting the death penalty.  No, on second 
> thought, don't answer. You'd probably suggest that I have to 
> toss a gun to the psycho to "even things up".

Goddlefrood:

This is pure inanity and further correspondence would be accepted 
off list where this kind of insult belongs. It is unbecoming, 
uncouth and unacceptable. It also shows a degree of desperation 
and, just to tie it into the subtitle, it is also unethical.