Dark Magic / Dumbledore's age/ Goblin's view on property

[rowena_grunnionffitch]

No: HPFGUIDX 176602

 
> Alla:
> 
> I mean, if she would have stopped with defusing " Voldemort Harry's 
> father/grandfather", I would have seen nothing contradictory", BUT 
> we know that Voldemort and Harry are related now, no?
> 
> Oy.

  Rowena: 'Related' in the sense of being descended from two brothers 
who lived centuries ago, not a particularly close tie IMO.

> Alla:
> 
> Right, that is if you limit Dark Magic to Horcruxes or Inferi. If 
> you expand Dark Magic to majorly hurting other people, then I say 
we 
> get a different picture. Like, sure for example I think Harry used 
> Sectusemptra as in using Dark magic, since Draco was hurt in a 
major 
> way. I think Harry was justified doing it, but IMO it was a Dark 
> magic. Only to twist Mike's words a little bit, I would call it 
Dark 
> magic with intent to defend himself if that makes sense.

  Rowena: Given that Snape himself, inventor of the spell, calls it 
Dark Magic I'd say it's safe to define it as such.

> Alla:
> 
> Either that OR what they used were not dark magic, but instead JKR 
> making things up on the fly. Or maybe what they used was less 
> serious dark magic.
> 
> I mean, if JKR would meant to stress that hexes and jinxes are big, 
> nasty dark magic, do you think she would have called them amusing?

  Rowena: I think maybe she just meant that there was a touch of 
malice in hexes and jinxes making them a bit gray rather then pitch 
black. 
 
> Alla:
> 
> I guess we are at agree to disagree point then - sort of. Because 
> while I 
> agree that Goblin had clear intent to betray Harry to much worse 
> fate than Harry intended to not giving him sword right away, I 
> still think that two wrongs do not make right.

  Rowena: Both Harry and Griphook were definitely in the wrong. 
However I can't see the latter's demand or theft of the sword as 
justified even under Goblin law unless Griphook made Gryffindor's 
sword or is the legal heir of the Goblin that did. The principle of a 
work of craft belonging to the maker certainly does not translate 
into *any* Goblin having a right to *any* work made by a Goblin.