Sadism or not ? McGonagall and her punishments

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 186717

Steve replies:
I fail entirely to see why it isn't your burden. You are the one insisting
that McG is to blame for scolding a student. That puts the blame squarely on McG
and away from Parvati. At least Shaun has come up w/ credible and believable and
logical real life school rules for his credible and logical reasons for giving
McG reasonable doubt for having a reasonable rationale for scolding Parvati. 
What are you basing your insistence that Parvati is innocent on? As far as I can
tell, it's simply your subjective wish for her to be so and your subjective wish
for McG to be blamed for something wrong. <SNIP>


Alla:

I  cannot speak for a_svirn but I am basing my insistence of McGonagall being wrong here on a very simple reason that hairstyle regulations are just not mentioned in the book.  Not once. Shaun could have cited the examples from hundred real life schools but they are not Hogwarts. It is to me as simple as that. They are not Hogwarts. Is Hogwarts based in some ways or in many ways on British boarding school system? Of course it is, nobody is denying that. But to say that just because some rules exist in real life schools it is a strong support for something existing in Hogwarts, well,  even if there is some real life basis for something in the books in general, it is still not canon.

Hogwarts had werewolf teacher at some point in time, does that mean that we have werewolf teachers in British public schools?

British public schools do not have Quidditch, do they not? And the list of examples that I can give of the things existing in Hogwarts and not in any British public school can go on and on.

We were treated to quite a few ridiculous degrees by Dolores Dear in OOP. Granted, OOP is the book I know the worst, but if somebody can tell me that one of those degrees regulates hairstyles I will be very surprised. 

So that is what I am basing my insistence that Parvati is innocent in this occasion. I find the wording that McGonagall gives her very specifically phrased in a way that has nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with McGonagall considering her looking ridiculous. 

Let's take the example that Shaun brought up before? Remember Snape confiscating a book from Harry? When Harry was reading while sitting with his friends outside. Would you consider even for one second that Hogwarts has a rule **against reading books in the company of your two friends outside**. Whether or not Ron would have said anything, I did not need him to.

I thought this was absurd. No rule like that was mentioned before or ever after when Hermione was reading books in different places.

For the same reason I find McGonagall here be guilty and Parvati innocent.

If canon mentioned such a rule, I would definitely think that to argue that such rule does not exist would be my burden. Otherwise since there is no such a mention, I think that the additional *canon* support should be given by anyone who claims that such rule exist. 

JMO,

Alla