Wands and Wizards...Again (Was: Epilogue ...)

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 183569

> bboyminn:
> Well, there is part of the problem; first, you are assuming
> what is and what isn't 'Dark Arts'. You say 'Dark Arts don't
> really seem to be a problem at all...' but what are you 
> referring to? Do you mean Harry's use of an Unforgivable?
> 
> If so, do you have proof that Unforgivables are truly 
> classified as Dark Arts? Certainly they are bad, but does
> that automatically make them 'Dark Arts'? 

> There is the downfall of most, you are assuming certain things
> are Dark Arts when really you have nothing but your opinion to
> back that up. Do the books specifically say what is and what
> isn't classified as a Dark Art? 

Montavilla47:
Well, that's the problem isn't it?  We don't know what 
the Dark Arts are, and yet we're given--twice, I believe--
Jame's "hatred for the Dark Arts" as his saving grace.

We have Lily making a distinction between James'
high-spirited hexing of people and Mulciber's "evil"
use of Dark Magic against Mary McDonald.  She isn't
talking about his intent.  She's talking about the type
of magic he used.

We're given Snape's love of the Dark Arts as something
that is--if not worse--certainly questionable about his
personality.  Of course, I don't see any real evidence 
that Snape "loves" the Dark Arts.  But, apparently, the
evidence that Sirius gives--of Snape knowing more
hexes and curses than any one else is reason enough
to target him.

bboyminn:
> Was Harry using an Unforgivable a good thing? No, it was 
> certainly a bad thing and a wrong thing, but it was those things
> within a certain context. Harry was provoked, not just by the
> incident with McGonagall, but through years of continued
> oppression, abuse, and cruelty. 

Montavilla47:
But not at the hands of Amycus.  That's really like saying that
if Draco were beaten by his father, he would be justified in 
torturing Harry for being rude to Narcissa in Madame Malkins.

bboyminn:
>Further, he was in an unusual 
> situation. He was in the very heart of the lion's den. He was 
> in a sufficiently dangerous situation, having invaded Hogwarts, 
> that virtually any action could be justified against people who
> would have killed him and his friends in a heartbeat. 

Montavilla47:
No, they would not have killed him in a heartbeat.  They were 
under strict orders (as Harry was aware) *not* to kill him, but 
to summon Voldemort.  Which had already happened at that
point.