Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 179461

> > a_svirn:
> > I don't know. Do you? Personally I find it most improbable that 
any 
> > sane person would join an organisation under such terms. No doubt 
the 
> > Dark Lord thought his death eaters and their nearest and dearest 
> > *expendable*, but the good guys are supposed to be different, 
aren't 
> > they? Being ready and even eager to risk your life is not the 
same 
> > thing as being *expendable*. If you appreciate the distinction. 
> 
> Pippin:
> I don't, actually. The word means, "open to sacrifice in the 
interests
> of gaining an objective, especially a military one." Or as Sirius 
put it,
> "This is how it is--that is why you're not in the Order--you don't
> understand--there are things worth dying for!" (OOP ch 22)
> He is specifically talking about protecting the Order's plans and 
not 
> making things look any fishier than they already do.

a_svirn:
Here is from OED:
expendable, a. (and n.) that may be expended; considered as not worth 
preserving or salvaging; normally consumed in use; spec. of military 
personnel: that may be allowed to be sacrificed to achieve a military 
objective. Hence as n., an expendable person or object.

The key connotation here is "considered as not worth preserving". In 
other words – canon folder. Sirius did not mean that at all. He meant 
it as a free choice, he did not mean – could not mean – that any 
member of the Order can be sacrificed by other members of the order 
because he or she is not worthy of preserving! 

> Pippin:
> The difference between the Order's plan and Voldemort's is that
> Voldemort's purpose is world domination and Dumbledore's is saving
> thousands of innocent lives. 

a_svirn:
And ends justify the means. I get it. 

> Pippin:
I suppose a moral relativist might equate
> the two, but canon clearly isn't going there.

a_svirn:
Actually, you got it backwards. The Greater Good philosophy *is* 
moral relativism. 

 
> Pippin:
> But he wasn't compelled, that's why he was able to disapparate. 

a_svirn:
What do you mean he wasn't compelled? That he wasn't Imperused? Sure. 
But he wasn't there on his free will, that much is obvious. 


> > a_svirn:
> > That's what you say. Moody didn't take that into account and he 
was 
> > right. As he predicted the death eaters came first after him and 
then 
> > after Kingsley. 
> 
> Pippin:
> Canon says it, not me:
> 
> "We think the Death Eaters will expect you to be on a broom." DH
> US p 53.

a_svirn;
All right, point to you. Still canon says that Moody expected the 
death eaters to go after Kingsley once they finished with him, so 
it's neither here no there. 


> > a_svirn:
> > Not if he walked under the cloak outside the range of the anti-
> > apparition spell. Not to mention, that he could summon Kreacher 
and 
> > told him to apparate himself to the Tonks's place or even 
straight to 
> > the Burrow. 
> 
> Pippin:
> Dementors and animals can detect someone under the cloak, and
> both can be used as spies. 

a_svirn:
So what? Once they come near one can apparate, can't one? 

> Pippin:
 It was the resurrection stone, not the cloak, that 
> enabled Harry to get past Voldemort's perimeter in the forest. 

a_svirn:
It was because of the cloak, that Voldemort had no inkling that Harry 
had done so. 


> Pippin:
> Harry had not yet won Kreacher's loyalty, it would have been insane
> to trust him with his life. 

a_svirn:
Kreacher's loyalty or its absence didn't stop Harry from using 
Kreacher before. And it wouldn't be insane at all. Kreacher can't 
disobey a direct order. 

> Pippin:
And Dobby's attempts to save
> Harry's life had been, well, eccentric to say the least. I'm not
> surprised no one thought of asking him to help. 

a_svirn:
I am. As we know from canon Dobby did save the life of Harry and 
other prisoners of the Malfoy Manor in a situation that required his 
join Apparition skill. Why not ask him to apparate Harry to, say, 
Aunty Muriel's? Where is the possible flaw in that plan?