The Overarching message - Caning

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 191663



.> > .> Pippin:
> > > Snape's attempt to use legilimency on Draco is brushed off with contempt, not the shock and revulsion I would expect if it was considered the equivalent of a sex crime. 
> > 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > As I said above I do not hold the legal, ethical,  political norms of WW in high regard. 
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> Okay, so we agree that no WW social norm was violated.

Alla:

Nope, we dont. We only agree that there are probably other people in WW who will probably consider  legilimency without consent to be  totally okay, I hope that there are people who will object to it as well, I am hoping that there are more people who will object as the years pass especially.

Pippin: 
> We don't *have* any norms about mind-reading in the real world, obviously. 

Alla:

Of course. I said several times that I am making an analogy.

Pippin:
> I don't recall that any character felt they had been  harmed by Snape or Dumbledore's use of legilimency in itself. Naturally Harry would have liked to keep Snape from finding out about the Prince's book and other questionable items. But he would have felt the same way if Snape had simply tricked the information out of him.
> 
> 
>  So where exactly is the evil?

Alla:

No consent is the evil to me.

Pippin: 
>  If I understand where you're coming from, you think Dumbledore and Snape are using evil  mind powers not because they are harming anyone but because it offends your non-magical assumption that thoughts should be inviolate. Calling it evil just for that seems worthy of Petunia, and I know what you think of her! <veg>
> 
> Many people, secret service agents for example, are more skilled than average at telling through body language whether people are lying, and as far as I know, this is considered a useful skill, not an unethical invasion of privacy.  I don't see how interpreting mind-language is any different. 
> 

Alla:

Basically your argument is that I am imposing my moral norms on WW? Kind of but not quite, I would say. I would say that there are several very strong indications in the books that morality of WW needs to be changed in many aspects. JKR may not have spelled out that what Snape was doing was not okay, but based on her general condemnation (as I perceive it) of him as a teacher, I feel that she did not want to portray the world which moral norms we meant to approve in many ways. I am sure I have said it before many times, but I always felt that in many way WW is the twisted reflection of our world especially because it happens in "our" world, just with addition of magic. For this reader JKR was portraying the world which needs to be radically changed, because there are some people that have some good in them. Hopefully I am making sense. But even if I was simply imposing my moral norms on WW, what is wrong with it?

Say she was portraying a world where she explicitly shown rape (not mind rape, body rape) and nobody was saying it was horribloe. Yeah, you bet that as an outsider I would condemn it with gusto, but for me with Potterverse is a bit more than just that.

JMO,

Alla


> Pippin
> who started the New Year with the lovely thought that  the Prince's book and Snape's healing spell for Sectum Sempra  needn't be forever lost -- Harry can revisit them in the Pensieve
>