[HPforGrownups] Re: Imperio.

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 177638

eggplant107 blessed us with this gem On 02/10/2007 00:21:

>  > But you're attempting to argue
>  >from the conclusion to the premise.

> Yes exactly, but there is nothing wrong with that, 

In this case there is, because it is the conclusion which is precisely 
the point of dispute. If you wish to turn the point of dispute into a 
premise for your argument, you're building a peculiarly weak argument.

Since it is the behavior of the good guys which is the issue under 
dispute, to use their behavior to prove their behavior amounts to a 
circular argument.

 > The conclusion is that Hermione has forgiven Harry,
> in fact she doesn't even think it's something that needs forgiving;
> thus the premise, that the Unforgivable Curse's name should be taken
> literally is incorrect. QED.

I believe Carol has already addressed this, but I'll repeat her points: 
A) does Hermione even know about Harry's UCs? B) "forgiving" implies the 
recognition of wrong-doing; and C) is Hermione the barometer of right 
and wrong in HP?

>  > It is precisely the behavior of the
>  > "good guys" in DH which is the point
>  > of contention here

> I consider myself one of the good guys and my moral vision is clear
> enough that unlike you I feel no need to put it in quotation marks;

I was referring, of course, to the characters in HP, not you, and I put 
it in quotations because it is the debate point, as yet unproven.

> I don't believe JKR
> would have written a better book if Harry acted like a cowboy in a
> white hat in a 1930's western movie or a Saturday morning cartoon
> superhero.

While I understand your point, I'd appreciate it if you didn't 
caricature my argument to make it. No one has argued Harry has to be 
perfect.

My argument is as follows:

In the first six books (well, books 3 to 6, at least), the morality of 
the Unforgivables is pretty cut and dried. Suddenly in DH, far from 
being Unforgivable, they appear to have morphed into the 
Not-Very-Serious Curses, judging by the triviality with which they're 
tossed around -- Harry Crucio-ing Carrow for spitting, or McGonagall 
Imperiusing him simply to retrieve a couple of wands, for example, when 
other, less ethically troublesome, spells would have served equally well.

I'm not arguing over whether the Three *should* be unforgivable. That's 
JKR's choice. It's the inconsistency -- the disjunct -- between their 
portrayal in the first books vs. DH that is troublesome -- a disjunct 
which, as I pointed out some weeks ago, even my ten-year-old spotted a 
mile off.

--CJ