Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 177143

> > Lizzyben:
> > > - Violence & bullying are bad/ unless we're doing it.
> > 
> > Carol:
> > We are not supposed to admire James and Sirius, the
> > Gryffindor bullies. ...indeed arrogant, bullying 
> > "toerags." And I think we're supposed to see that 
> > the Gryffindors' treatment of Slytherins (and the 
> > Twins' treatment of Dudley) is no better than Draco's
> > treatment of Harry in HBP or the Muggle levitating at
> > the QWC.
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> While I'm with you in general Carol, I'm not sure I can
> agree with the examples you gave. There is a huge 
> difference between Harry and Draco as representatives
> of their Houses. Draco, as I have said, is an instigator;
> he is going to consciously and willfully cause trouble
> for others. Harry, on the other hand, if not provoked,
> is not going to cause or seek out trouble. He like a 
> quiet life. That makes them very very different. 

lizzyben:

Draco provokes w/verbal words, Harry retaliates w/physical violence.
Does Draco deserve to be beat up because of the verbal things he says?
(excluding the duels here).

Steve:
> In psychological terms, perhaps it is the difference
> between Active Agressive and Passive Agressive. Draco
> is Active, he is willfully causing trouble. In the 
> Dudley/Toffee incident, the twins are passive. Fred
> simply drops a candy. If Dudley had any self-restraint,
> or common sense, he would have never ate it. True we
> know that Fred planned it that way. But still Dudley
> has to accept a substantial portion of the blame, 
> because, the terrible frightening result was caused 
> by his own action. 

lizzyben:

*boggles* Well, by the same token, Draco's poisoning of the mead was
"passive" aggression, and Ron has to accept a substantial portion of
the blame, because his poisoning was caused by his own action in
drinking the mead. It's his own fault, really. Katie Bell would never
had been cursed if she hadn't taken the necklace - true, we know Draco
planned it that way, but she's still got to take responsibility.
What's the difference between your argument & using the same argument
to defend murder attempts? Is it based on whether we think that person
deserved it?

Steve:
> Let's remember that these Toffees were trick sweets,
> the Twins intended to sell them to their friends.

lizzyben:

They hadn't given it to anyone yet, because they were still "testing"
their invention to see how it worked (or possibly killed). Dudley was
their guinea pig. 

"Ton-Tongue Toffee," said Fred brightly. "George and I invented them,
we've been looking for someone to test them on all summer..." (GOF, C.5)


Steve:
> I simply can't put a joke into the same category as
> the DE action at the World Cup which I will address 
> next. Though, I will admit that what passes for a 
> joke in the wizard world is much more extreme when
> it presents itself in the muggle world. 

lizzyben:

And the Twins humiliating a Muggle child is different from the DE
humiliating a Muggle family because... it's a joke. Just a joke.
Except their father, Arthur Weasley, doesn't believe that. He sees
Muggle-baiting as a symptom of something much crueler.

"Oh, its a simple enough anti-jinx,' said Mr Weasley as they mounted
the stairs, 'but it's not so much having to repair the damage, it's
more the attitude behind the vandalism, Harry. Muggle-baiting might
strike some wizards as funny, but it's an expression of something much
deeper and nastier..." (OOTP, C. 9) 

By using magic against a defenseless Muggle child, the Twins are
displaying a similar mindset to the DE that used magic against a
defenseless Muggle family - abuse of power, the strong tormenting the
weak, magic makes might.

Steve:
> And there was a subversive element of vicousness to 
> the joke. What if Dudley has stashed the candy and 
> hadn't eaten it until he went to bed? That could have
> been disastrous. Dudley was lucky that Mr. Weasley 
> was there to help him. But if no wizard had been 
> around, what would Dudley have done? Though I do
> think the Ton-Tongue spell was likely self-limiting,
> just as the Canary Cream was; in time, the ton tongue
> would have just gone away on its own. I simply can't
> see the Twins creating murderous jokes. 

lizzyben:

Like, say, stuffing Montague into a Cabinet to die?

HP Lexicon: "Ton-Tongue Toffee: Imbued with an Engorgement Charm,
these sweets make a person's tongue swell up to ten times its normal
size."

Imagine your tongue swelling up to ten times its normal size. Now
imagine trying to eat, drink, breathe. There's no indication that the
charm expires naturally - the Engorgio charm is also used on spiders,
pumpkins, etc. and those items remain enlarged. The wizard needs to
cast a "Reducio" charm to put the item back to its normal size. And
since the twins were planning to drop the charmed candy & run, it
doesn't seem like they were planning on reversing the charm at all.


Steve:
> As to the DE at the World Cup, that is a separate and
> incomparable action. Completely out of the league of
> the Twins 'joke'. The DE's action were wholly cruel,
> spiteful, vindictive, and physically dangerous; they 
> were just plain MEAN. No one could possibly put Ton-
> Tongue Toffee in the same league as the DE's actions
> at the World Cup.

lizzyben:

Oh, I could. Aren't you contradicting your own argument? You say that
the DE's were "mean", different from the Twins, yet also say that the
Twins' actions were "vicious". The DE's muggle-baiting was physically
dangerous (although actually the family was not harmed, just
humiliated). Yet the Twins' joke wasn't physically dangerous, though
you say it would have been "disastrous" if a wizard wasn't around to
reverse the charm, & Dudley was lucky Mr. Weasley was still there when
Dudley ate it. Because if he'd eaten it at night, what would Dudley
have done? Suffocated? So yeah, I do think the Twins' actions were
spiteful, vindictive & physically dangerous - mean, too. And don't
forget the reason why the Twins gave Dudley that Ton-Tongue Toffee -
because he's a bully. Oh, the irony! The apparently totally
unintentional irony! :)