Snape and Harry and expulsion LONG

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 188899

> > > Alla:
> > > 
> > > Okay, at least I understand where you stand now, I think. You think that teacher can do any thing to a student, right? <SNIP> 
> > Montavilla47:
> > No, you're stretching my answer to the point of 
> > absurdity.  Teachers cannot do "anything" to a student.
> > 
> > For example, I do not think that teachers should be 
> > allowed to make students write lines with quills that 
> > cut the words into their hands.  I do not think that 
> > teachers should transfigure students into small animals
> > and bounce them up and down on stone floors.  I do
> > not think that teachers should force their students to 
> > interact with dangerous experimental animals that 
> > burn them. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Okay, sure let me rephrase it then. You think that anything Snape does to Harry is within his authority and justifiable, yes?

Montavilla47:
Anything covers a lot of territory.  There's couple times
that I think are questionable.  I don't think a teacher 
should throw jars at their students.  And I don't think
a teacher should deliberately destroy a student's class
project.  

And I'm probably missing some event or other where
Snape exceeds his authority.

But in this case, I don't think that Snape is exceeding
his authority.  If he is, Harry should certainly complain
to his Head of House (as he did later in the year to
McGonagall when Snape assigned that endless series
of detentions), or appeal to Dumbledore, as Harry
did later on that week.

As I recall, those efforts yielded Harry nothing in 
return but a lecture (in Minerva's case) and chuckles 
(in Dumbledore's case).  Which indicates to me that
Snape is usually acting within his authority as a 
teacher.

Oh!  That reminds of a time when Snape definitely
exceeds his authority and that's when he assigns Lupin's
class to write an essay on werewolves.  In that case, 
the students appeal to Lupin and the assignment is 
dropped.


> > > Alla:
> > > 
> > > Sorry, but if you are saying that Snape was completely justified in what he did to Harry in that scene how is it Snape not acting as epitome of goodness? 
> > 
> > Montavilla47:
> > There's a huge difference between acting within your
> > authority as an authority figure and being the epitome
> > of goodness. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Sorry, it is just from your earlier posts I thought that while you may not view it as abuse, you did not think that Snape was acting perfectly either. However you describe his actions as somebody who was being completely justified in what he did, correct?

Montavilla47:
Again, acting "perfectly" and acting in a "justified
manner" are not quite the same thing.  


Alla:
> I just thought it was a contradiction when you say that Snape did not act as epitome of goodness and at the same time was acting as an authority figure within limits of his authority, to me that pretty much equaled epitome of goodness.
> 

Montavilla47:
To me, they are not the same thing.  Executors 
administer justice, but I don't recall any being
nominated for Peace prizes or sainthood.  

Although, I'm wrong probably wrong about the 
sainthood thing.  There are saints for everything.
Someone *has* to be the patron saint of 
executioners.

> Montavilla47: 
> > To use an example from my new favorite story:
> > 
> > Zuko is acting within his rights as a prince to fight an
> > Agni Ki for the throne.  But Aang is acting as the epitome
> > of goodness when he tries to find a way to avoid killing.
> > 
> > Of course, as everyone tells Aang, he would still be
> > just to kill his enemy.  It's not *unjust,* it's that being
> > the epitome of goodness usually entails going beyond
> > justice to mercy.
> > 
> ><SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I understand I think, you think Snape does not show mercy to Harry (thus he is not an epitome of goodness), but you do not think he did anything wrong to Harry either?

Montavilla47:
Are you talking about in this scene or in the 
entire series?  In this scene, I don't think Snape
did anything wrong.  

It would have been *nicer* of him to let Harry
wash up first.  Then again, it might have given
Harry an opportunity to bolt again.  Better safe
than sorry.