A Thought About the twins

Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » A Thought About the twins

A Thought About the twins [message #262515]

Sa, 06 Mai 2006 22:36

Brent Braten

Did anyone notice that Fred and George inadvertently gave Draco the two
things he needed most to pull of his invasion of Hogwarts. By pranking a
Slytherin they inadvertently, and indirectly, gave Draco the information he
needed about the vanishing cabinet. They also sold either Draco or one of
his accomplices some of the darkness powder.

My mind does some scary things while I am out walking (about ten miles
today) and this occurred to me whil I was rounding a rather sharp corner
about a mile and a half out.

Any thoughts?

--
Brent Braten

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #262518 ]

Sa, 06 Mai 2006 23:07

Zolak of Twylo

On 2006-05-06 16:36:32 -0400, "Brent Braten" <bbraten [at] bresnan.net> said:

> Did anyone notice that Fred and George inadvertently gave Draco the two
> things he needed most to pull of his invasion of Hogwarts. By pranking a
> Slytherin they inadvertently, and indirectly, gave Draco the information he
> needed about the vanishing cabinet. They also sold either Draco or one of
> his accomplices some of the darkness powder.
>
> My mind does some scary things while I am out walking (about ten miles
> today) and this occurred to me whil I was rounding a rather sharp corner
> about a mile and a half out.
>
> Any thoughts?

This was directly hit upon in the book. Ron says he's gonna have a
talk with his brothers regarding to whom they sell their wares.

--
Enjoy,

Zolak of Twylo

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #262554 ]

So, 07 Mai 2006 08:14

Deevo

"Brent Braten" <bbraten [at] bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:TL-dnRxXieFTlcDZRVn-rw [at] bresnan.com...
> Did anyone notice that Fred and George inadvertently gave Draco the two
> things he needed most to pull of his invasion of Hogwarts.
<snip>

Just goes to show a classic case of the weapon not being dangerous till it's
in someone's hands.
--
Deevo
Geraldton Western Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie/index.htm

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #262592 ]

So, 07 Mai 2006 13:48

Jonathan Ellis

"Zolak of Twylo" <dannythomas [at] walnuts.com> wrote in message
news:2006050617074843658-dannythomas [at] walnutscom...
> On 2006-05-06 16:36:32 -0400, "Brent Braten" <bbraten [at] bresnan.net>
said:
>
> > Did anyone notice that Fred and George inadvertently gave Draco
the two
> > things he needed most to pull of his invasion of Hogwarts. By
pranking a
> > Slytherin they inadvertently, and indirectly, gave Draco the
information he
> > needed about the vanishing cabinet. They also sold either Draco
or one of
> > his accomplices some of the darkness powder.
> >
> > My mind does some scary things while I am out walking (about ten
miles
> > today) and this occurred to me whil I was rounding a rather sharp
corner
> > about a mile and a half out.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> This was directly hit upon in the book. Ron says he's gonna have a
> talk with his brothers regarding to whom they sell their wares.

Who's to say it was Malfoy they sold the powder to? It could have been
a friend of his, possibly Crabbe or Goyle under the influence of
polyjuice potion...

Jonathan.

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #264811 ]

Mo, 08 Mai 2006 20:50

Helena Bowles

"Jonathan Ellis" <jonathan [at] franz-liszt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e3kmnd$f6d$1 [at] emma.aioe.org...
>
> "Zolak of Twylo" <dannythomas [at] walnuts.com> wrote in message
> news:2006050617074843658-dannythomas [at] walnutscom...
>> On 2006-05-06 16:36:32 -0400, "Brent Braten" <bbraten [at] bresnan.net>
> said:
>>
>> talk with his brothers regarding to whom they sell their wares.
>
> Who's to say it was Malfoy they sold the powder to? It could have been
> a friend of his, possibly Crabbe or Goyle under the influence of
> polyjuice potion...

Seriously, why should Gred and Forge have thought twice about selling to
Malfoy? They are businessmen, his money is as good as anyone elses'.
(Perhaps better, in fact, as this is MALFOY buying from the Weasley blood
traitors... how delicious).

Refusing to sell to Malfoy, or Slytherins etc sets a bad example of
prejudice...
Helena
>
> Jonathan.
>
>

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #264850 ]

Di, 09 Mai 2006 05:13

nystulc

Brent Braten wrote:
> Did anyone notice that Fred and George inadvertently gave Draco the two
> things he needed most to pull of his invasion of Hogwarts.

Yes. I have noticed plenty things about the Weasley twins that many
seem inclined to overlook. These are just two of them.

> By pranking a
> Slytherin they inadvertently, and indirectly, gave Draco the information he
> needed about the vanishing cabinet.

Less indirectly, and less inadvertently, they also damn-near murdered
the Slytherin they "pranked."

> They also sold either Draco or one of
> his accomplices some of the darkness powder.
>
> My mind does some scary things while I am out walking (about ten miles
> today) and this occurred to me while I was rounding a rather sharp corner
> about a mile and a half out.
>
> Any thoughts?

Looked at objectively, rather than through the eyes of a lonely boy who
was once starved for "friends", the Weasley twins are (with the
possible exceptions of Umbridge and Voldemort) perhaps the two most
amoral and repulsive characters in the series.

In a way, they are worse than LV, for unlike LV, they did not have a
love-deprived childhood. Yet they have shown a similar disturbing
pattern of extreme cruelty from a very early age.

JKR has hinted that she is Christian; and has hinted that if she
discussed her religious views too much it might be spoilerish. I once
suggested that perhaps she had in mind that Harry might have to learn
to love his enemies (as Jesus commanded).

But there is a flip side to the "love thine enemies" command. Jesus
also warned that those who would follow his moral teachings will be set
at odds with those close to them. Perhaps Harry must learn to take a
closer look at some of his "friends", and perhaps what he learns will
force him to difficult choices.

I cannot now remember Snape's exact words, but did he not warn us that
the Dark Arts were like a monster which, when one head was cut off, two
would grow in its place? Seems like two heads are waiting in the wings
already, awaiting their opportunity.

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #264857 ]

Di, 09 Mai 2006 09:41

Toon

On 8 May 2006 20:13:03 -0700, nystulc [at] cs.com wrote:

>
>I cannot now remember Snape's exact words, but did he not warn us that
>the Dark Arts were like a monster which, when one head was cut off, two
>would grow in its place? Seems like two heads are waiting in the wings
>already, awaiting their opportunity.

But burn the neck, and the heads can't grow back.

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #264919 ]

Di, 09 Mai 2006 17:35

nystulc

Toon wrote:
> On 8 May 2006 20:13:03 -0700, nystulc [at] cs.com wrote:
>
> >
> >I cannot now remember Snape's exact words, but did he not warn us that
> >the Dark Arts were like a monster which, when one head was cut off, two
> >would grow in its place? Seems like two heads are waiting in the wings
> >already, awaiting their opportunity.
>
> But burn the neck, and the heads can't grow back.

You refer to the Hercules/Hydra legend, of course. But how do you
apply the analogy here? Voldemort is the current "head" of the Forces
of Darkness. If you remove and destroy Voldemort, where do you find
the "neck" of the Forces of Darkness to cauderize it? Or can fire be
analogized to the power of love of which DD likes to speak?

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #264927 ]

Di, 09 Mai 2006 19:29

aaron

nystulc [at] cs.com wrote:
> Brent Braten wrote:
> > Did anyone notice that Fred and George inadvertently gave Draco the two
> > things he needed most to pull of his invasion of Hogwarts.
>
> Yes. I have noticed plenty things about the Weasley twins that many
> seem inclined to overlook. These are just two of them.

LOL, the first time I read this as "There are just two of them."

I was about to say, "nice work, Einstein." =)

> > By pranking a
> > Slytherin they inadvertently, and indirectly, gave Draco the information he
> > needed about the vanishing cabinet.
>
> Less indirectly, and less inadvertently, they also damn-near murdered
> the Slytherin they "pranked."

Definitely an act of pure evil. That poor Slytherin...

....wait a minute...

> > They also sold either Draco or one of
> > his accomplices some of the darkness powder.
> >
> > My mind does some scary things while I am out walking (about ten miles
> > today) and this occurred to me while I was rounding a rather sharp corner
> > about a mile and a half out.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Looked at objectively, rather than through the eyes of a lonely boy who
> was once starved for "friends", the Weasley twins are (with the
> possible exceptions of Umbridge and Voldemort) perhaps the two most
> amoral and repulsive characters in the series.

Slytherin's captain from the first books?

> In a way, they are worse than LV, for unlike LV, they did not have a
> love-deprived childhood. Yet they have shown a similar disturbing
> pattern of extreme cruelty from a very early age.
>
> JKR has hinted that she is Christian; and has hinted that if she
> discussed her religious views too much it might be spoilerish. I once
> suggested that perhaps she had in mind that Harry might have to learn
> to love his enemies (as Jesus commanded).
>
> But there is a flip side to the "love thine enemies" command. Jesus
> also warned that those who would follow his moral teachings will be set
> at odds with those close to them. Perhaps Harry must learn to take a
> closer look at some of his "friends", and perhaps what he learns will
> force him to difficult choices.
>
> I cannot now remember Snape's exact words, but did he not warn us that
> the Dark Arts were like a monster which, when one head was cut off, two
> would grow in its place? Seems like two heads are waiting in the wings
> already, awaiting their opportunity.

I hope you are wrong. To me, they seemed simply full of "childish
innocence." Although, now that they're adults...

-Aaron

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #264936 ]

Mi, 10 Mai 2006 00:10

The REAL Naminanu

"Deevo" <mckenzie [at] NOSPAMmidwest.com.au> wrote in message
news:445d9029$1 [at] quokka.wn.com.au...
> "Brent Braten" <bbraten [at] bresnan.net> wrote in message
> news:TL-dnRxXieFTlcDZRVn-rw [at] bresnan.com...
>> Did anyone notice that Fred and George inadvertently gave Draco the two
>> things he needed most to pull of his invasion of Hogwarts.
> <snip>
>
> Just goes to show a classic case of the weapon not being dangerous till
> it's in someone's hands.
> --
> Deevo
> Geraldton Western Australia
> http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie/index.htm
>

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #264937 ]

Mi, 10 Mai 2006 00:11

The REAL Naminanu

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #264956 ]

Mi, 10 Mai 2006 05:44

nystulc

Aaron wrote:
> nystulc [at] cs.com wrote:
> > > By pranking a
> > > Slytherin they inadvertently, and indirectly, gave Draco the information he
> > > needed about the vanishing cabinet.
> >
> > Less indirectly, and less inadvertently, they also damn-near murdered
> > the Slytherin they "pranked."
>
> Definitely an act of pure evil. That poor Slytherin...
> ...wait a minute...

If this is meant as irony, it is a bit disturbing. You would need, on
some level, to condone murder to appreciate the joke.

> > Looked at objectively, rather than through the eyes of a lonely boy who
> > was once starved for "friends", the Weasley twins are (with the
> > possible exceptions of Umbridge and Voldemort) perhaps the two most
> > amoral and repulsive characters in the series.
>
> Slytherin's captain from the first books?

Harly even close. I find it hard to imagine that you will be able to
construct a list of his crimes that even remotely approaches those of
the Weasley Twins. You are welcome to try, however.

> > In a way, they are worse than LV, for unlike LV, they did not have a
> > love-deprived childhood. Yet they have shown a similar disturbing
> > pattern of extreme cruelty from a very early age.
> >
> > JKR has hinted that she is Christian; and has hinted that if she
> > discussed her religious views too much it might be spoilerish. I once
> > suggested that perhaps she had in mind that Harry might have to learn
> > to love his enemies (as Jesus commanded).
> >
> > But there is a flip side to the "love thine enemies" command. Jesus
> > also warned that those who would follow his moral teachings will be set
> > at odds with those close to them. Perhaps Harry must learn to take a
> > closer look at some of his "friends", and perhaps what he learns will
> > force him to difficult choices.
> >
> > I cannot now remember Snape's exact words, but did he not warn us that
> > the Dark Arts were like a monster which, when one head was cut off, two
> > would grow in its place? Seems like two heads are waiting in the wings
> > already, awaiting their opportunity.
>
> I hope you are wrong.

About what?

> To me, they seemed simply full of "childish innocence."

Really? When we first met them they were 13, quite a few years over
the age when children (if so inclined) first start to develop empathy,
a conscience, and the capacity for moral awareness.

> Although, now that they're adults...

Right. No change, except they are more powerful, and therefore more
dangerous.

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #264957 ]

Mi, 10 Mai 2006 06:01

Eric Bohlman

nystulc [at] cs.com wrote in
news:1147144380.185729.313210 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Looked at objectively, rather than through the eyes of a lonely boy
> who was once starved for "friends", the Weasley twins are (with the
> possible exceptions of Umbridge and Voldemort) perhaps the two most
> amoral and repulsive characters in the series.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/pharnabazus/4468.html discusses this at
length: "The more I look at the Weasley twins, the less evidence I can see
that they have any moral sense whatsoever."

One of Rowling's major themes is that "good" doesn't mean "on my side" and
"evil" doesn't mean "on my enemies' side." I think Harry's going to have
to come to grips with the fact that some people that he admires and is
personally loyal to are causing some serious harm (and possibly that some
people he personally detests are doing some serious good; I'm not referring
only to Snape here).

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #264968 ]

Mi, 10 Mai 2006 10:13

Toon

On 9 May 2006 08:35:48 -0700, nystulc [at] cs.com wrote:

>Toon wrote:
>> On 8 May 2006 20:13:03 -0700, nystulc [at] cs.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I cannot now remember Snape's exact words, but did he not warn us that
>> >the Dark Arts were like a monster which, when one head was cut off, two
>> >would grow in its place? Seems like two heads are waiting in the wings
>> >already, awaiting their opportunity.
>>
>> But burn the neck, and the heads can't grow back.
>
>You refer to the Hercules/Hydra legend, of course. But how do you
>apply the analogy here? Voldemort is the current "head" of the Forces
>of Darkness. If you remove and destroy Voldemort, where do you find
>the "neck" of the Forces of Darkness to cauderize it? Or can fire be
>analogized to the power of love of which DD likes to speak?

Could be. Firey passion. But remember, V divided his soul up. So,
kill V all you want, he always returns. head grows back. And he's
more powerful now than ever before. Two heads. so, the fire would be
the destruction of the horcruxes. And most items will be destroyed if
a fire is hot enough.

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #264981 ]

Mi, 10 Mai 2006 15:13

aaron

nystulc [at] cs.com wrote:
> > > Less indirectly, and less inadvertently, they also damn-near murdered
> > > the Slytherin they "pranked."
> >
> > Definitely an act of pure evil. That poor Slytherin...
> > ...wait a minute...
>
> If this is meant as irony, it is a bit disturbing. You would need, on
> some level, to condone murder to appreciate the joke.

Ok, buddy. Whatever you say.

I condone the death penalty. If that's murder in your book, then you're
right. Otherwise, you just can't take a joke.

No, I take that back. You just can't take a joke, either way.

> > > Looked at objectively, rather than through the eyes of a lonely boy who
> > > was once starved for "friends", the Weasley twins are (with the
> > > possible exceptions of Umbridge and Voldemort) perhaps the two most
> > > amoral and repulsive characters in the series.
> >
> > Slytherin's captain from the first books?
>
> Harly even close. I find it hard to imagine that you will be able to
> construct a list of his crimes that even remotely approaches those of
> the Weasley Twins. You are welcome to try, however.

"Hardly even close?" He damn near killed Angelina at that quiddich
match, and he could have killed Wood as well. Is that good enough for
starters?

Still, nice challenge. How much do we actually see him do?

But, think of the way he is presented to us. Do you really think he's a
good person? Clearly, you think he's a better person than the Weasley
Twins, and though there isn't enough evidence to contradict this, I
think we are to understand that he is not.

After all, it's all about what JKR intended, right?

> > > In a way, they are worse than LV, for unlike LV, they did not have a
> > > love-deprived childhood. Yet they have shown a similar disturbing
> > > pattern of extreme cruelty from a very early age.
> > >
> > > JKR has hinted that she is Christian; and has hinted that if she
> > > discussed her religious views too much it might be spoilerish. I once
> > > suggested that perhaps she had in mind that Harry might have to learn
> > > to love his enemies (as Jesus commanded).
> > >
> > > But there is a flip side to the "love thine enemies" command. Jesus
> > > also warned that those who would follow his moral teachings will be set
> > > at odds with those close to them. Perhaps Harry must learn to take a
> > > closer look at some of his "friends", and perhaps what he learns will
> > > force him to difficult choices.
> > >
> > > I cannot now remember Snape's exact words, but did he not warn us that
> > > the Dark Arts were like a monster which, when one head was cut off, two
> > > would grow in its place? Seems like two heads are waiting in the wings
> > > already, awaiting their opportunity.
> >
> > I hope you are wrong.
>
> About what?

That they will become such monsters. Don't you?

> > To me, they seemed simply full of "childish innocence."
>
> Really? When we first met them they were 13, quite a few years over
> the age when children (if so inclined) first start to develop empathy,
> a conscience, and the capacity for moral awareness.

You got beaten up a lot at school, didn't you?

Those are meant to be wizard pranks, equivalent in severity to what
teenagers do to each other all around you, every day. They weren't
meant to be like Columbine.

> > Although, now that they're adults...
>
> Right. No change, except they are more powerful, and therefore more
> dangerous.

This remains to be seen. I think you are too uptight about this,
largely because you are misunderstanding JKR's intent, but let's see
what happens in book 7.

-Aaron

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265039 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 07:49

nystulc

"Aaron" <aaron... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> nyst... [at] cs.com wrote:
> > > > Less indirectly, and less inadvertently, they also damn-near murdered
> > > > the Slytherin they "pranked."
> > > Definitely an act of pure evil. That poor Slytherin...
> > > ...wait a minute...
> > If this is meant as irony, it is a bit disturbing. You would need, on
> > some level, to condone murder to appreciate the joke.

> Ok, buddy. Whatever you say. I condone the death penalty. If that's murder in your
> book, then you're right. Otherwise, you just can't take a joke.

Hmm. That is such a remarkable array of illogic and non-sequitur that
it is hard to decide where to begin.

I can "take a joke" fine, but that does not mean I necessarily have
to like all jokes. However if you had said, as a joke, that Voldemort
was morally justified in trying to kill Harry Potter, I might think
this was okay, as a joke. Similarly, if you said, as a joke, that the
Weasley twins were justified in what they did to Montague, I might take
that joke too.

That's not what happened though. Instead you said (as a joke) that
what the Weasleys did to Montague was morally wrong. I understood
perfectly well that you were joking when you said this -- that you did
not really mean it. Only problem was, you should not have been joking
-- you should have meant it. By heavy implication, you sent a fairly
clear message that you did not regard the near-fatal assault upon
Montague as morally wrong, and by your sarcasm suggested that you
regarded any moral criticism of the twins to be too absurd to be taken
seriously. The part that was NOT a joke was the part I criticized.
Nor do I believe (especially after your latest response) that I
misinterpreted you.

I am not the least surprised, shocked or upset by your amoral views. I
was not born yesterday. I am perfectly well aware that there are a
great many people like you in the world (including many in positions of
power). Nonetheless, I disagree with your amoral views, and am
expressing that disagreement. If you now wish to get shocked, upset,
and outraged, because I dared to criticize you, please feel free. But
I am not about to retract my opinions on this matter simply to spare
your feelings, or lower my moral standards simply to make you more
comfortable.

I am perfectly willing to concede (at least for purposes of this
discussion) that the "death penalty" can perhaps be justified in
the interest of allowing a community to protect its citizens by
deterring serious crimes. But even so, such exceptions apply only
where a person is duly convicted and sentenced by the community,
according to pre-established principles, by the community's appointed
representatives in a manner designed to deter crime and thereby protect
the citizenry. It is an unpleasant duty performed for the protection
of the community, and has narrowly-defined requirement that certainly
do not apply to the Montague incident. How you think the death penalty
is relevant to the attack on Montague, is a mystery to me. I can only
guess that you imagine that the "death penalty" is justified by the
principle that it is okay to kill people if you think they deserve it,
and that therefore it would have been okay even if the twins had killed
Montague, since they did not like Montague and sincerely believed the
world would be better off without his type. Well, you can take that
position if you want to. But, for the record, I disagree, as do
virtually all religions and all courts of law in all countries since
the dawn of civilization.

I cannot imagine what else you could have had in mind. I assume you
were not suggesting that the twins should receive the death penalty for
the attempted murder of Montague. Surely a couple of years in prison,
followed by 5 years probation, ought to be more-than sufficient.

I find it extremely amusing that, while accusing me of being not able
to take a joke, you proceed, in apparent seriousness, to argue that the
near-murder of Montague was in fact justified. Make up your mind. Are
you joking, or not?

> > > > Looked at objectively, rather than through the eyes of a lonely boy who
> > > > was once starved for "friends", the Weasley twins are (with the
> > > > possible exceptions of Umbridge and Voldemort) perhaps the two most
> > > > amoral and repulsive characters in the series.
>> > Slytherin's captain from the first books?
> > Hardly even close. I find it hard to imagine that you will be able to
> > construct a list of his crimes that even remotely approaches those of
> > the Weasley Twins. You are welcome to try, however.
>
> "Hardly even close?" He damn near killed Angelina at that quiddich
> match, and he could have killed Wood as well. Is that good enough for
> starters?

I assume you are talking about Marcus Flint, but I cannot find the
passages you have in mind. I can recall, off the top of my head,
nothing remotely as reprehensible as the Montague incident, nor
anything that can reasonably be construed as approaching attempted
murder. Nor does a quick flip through the books help.

> Still, nice challenge. How much do we actually see him do?

Right. I thought that was my point. I cannot understand why you are
citing him as an individual with a record as reprehensible as that of
Voldemort, Umbridge, or Fred and George Weasley.

> But, think of the way he is presented to us. Do you really think he's a
> good person? Clearly, you think he's a better person than the Weasley
> Twins, and though there isn't enough evidence to contradict this, I
> think we are to understand that he is not.

For all I know he may be a mass-murderer. But, for all that Rowling
tells us, he is just a large ugly Quiddich player who does not always
play fair. He is a Slytherin, and that Our Heroes hate him for that
reason.

> After all, it's all about what JKR intended, right?

That is only one aspect of the discussion. It is not what it is "all
about", at least not for me. I am perfectly capable of making my own
moral judgments regarding the conduct of Rowling's fictional
characters, regardless of what Rowling herself thinks.

I strongly suspect she does disapprove of the twins behavior, and will
make this clear enough in book 7. If it turns out, in the end, that
she approves of and applauds their conduct, that merely means that my
moral disapproval will extend to Rowling's conduct, as well as that
of the Twins.

> > > > In a way, they are worse than LV, for unlike LV, they did not have a
> > > > love-deprived childhood. Yet they have shown a similar disturbing
> > > > pattern of extreme cruelty from a very early age.
> > > > JKR has hinted that she is Christian; and has hinted that if she
> > > > discussed her religious views too much it might be spoilerish. I once
> > > > suggested that perhaps she had in mind that Harry might have to learn
> > > > to love his enemies (as Jesus commanded).
> > > > But there is a flip side to the "love thine enemies" command. Jesus
> > > > also warned that those who would follow his moral teachings will be set
> > > > at odds with those close to them. Perhaps Harry must learn to take a
> > > > closer look at some of his "friends", and perhaps what he learns will
> > > > force him to difficult choices.
> > > > I cannot now remember Snape's exact words, but did he not warn us that
> > > > the Dark Arts were like a monster which, when one head was cut off, two
> > > > would grow in its place? Seems like two heads are waiting in the wings
> > > > already, awaiting their opportunity.
> > > I hope you are wrong.
> > About what?
>
> That they will become such monsters. Don't you?

I hope Rowling, in the end, makes it clear that she regards their
conduct as morally unacceptable. I am perfectly willing to leave the
rest up to Rowling. Having them turn into "monsters" (assuming they
don't qualify already) would be just one way to make this point.

> > > To me, they seemed simply full of "childish innocence."
> > Really? When we first met them they were 13, quite a few years over
> > the age when children (if so inclined) first start to develop empathy,
> > a conscience, and the capacity for moral awareness.
>
> You got beaten up a lot at school, didn't you?

No. Generally, I left others alone, and others left me alone. I'm
not sure how I managed to avoid hostile attention, since I was quite
puny. But I am strangely oblivious to physical pain, and my few brief
encounters did not upset me much. Perhaps I just never displayed the
fearful reaction that bullies enjoy. But why you think this is
relevant I do not know.

> Those are meant to be wizard pranks, equivalent in severity to what
> teenagers do to each other all around you, every day. They weren't
> meant to be like Columbine.

There is a lot of cruelty and nastiness in the world, and a lot goes on
"every day" that should not be morally justified. Your moral
standards are low indeed, if an incident needs to rise to the level of
Columbine before you express moral disapproval.

Nonetheless, I have clearly led a sheltered life, by your standards. I
managed to get through my childhood and teenage years without being
either the victim or the perpetrator of any attempted murders,
near-murders, violent kidnappings or traumatic torture sessions. My
most serious fight-related injury was a broken finger, from a punch
that I threw, and even there I never felt pain.

I was mugged for the first time this past year. Two middle-class
teenagers, driving daddy's SUV and probably looking for drug money.
They demanded cash. I said I had no cash. They broke my nose, and
threatened to stab and shoot me. I still said I had no cash. It was
not quite true, but I did not think they deserved anything. I did not
bother to check my wallet or offer my cellphone. They gave up and
left. Just teenagers. They did not seem particularly cruel or
vicious, and I could immediately tell they were bluffing when they
spoke of knives and guns. Were they the worst people in the world? I
very much doubt it. Was their conduct morally wrong? Of course it
was! Not quite as bad as what the twins did to Montague, but still
both immoral and illegal.

> > > Although, now that they're adults...
> > Right. No change, except they are more powerful, and therefore more
> > dangerous.
>
> This remains to be seen. I think you are too uptight about this, [...]

I'm not uptight at all. I have worked in the field of criminal law,
including criminal defense, and am not easily shocked. I just have
certain moral standards.

> [...] largely because you are misunderstanding JKR's intent, [...]

No. My moral standards are entirely independent of JKR's intent.
However, for the record, I have faith in JKR on this issue. I do not
think she will let me down.

> but let's see what happens in book 7.

Indeed.

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265040 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 09:13

nystulc

Eric Bohlman wrote:
> One of Rowling's major themes is that "good" doesn't mean "on my side" and
> "evil" doesn't mean "on my enemies' side." I think Harry's going to have
> to come to grips with the fact that some people that he admires and is
> personally loyal to are causing some serious harm (and possibly that some
> people he personally detests are doing some serious good; I'm not referring
> only to Snape here).

Well said. You expressed that rather better, and more concisely, than
I did.

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265044 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 09:38

nystulc

Toon wrote:
> On 9 May 2006 08:35:48 -0700, nystulc [at] cs.com wrote:
> >Toon wrote:
> >> On 8 May 2006 20:13:03 -0700, nystulc [at] cs.com wrote:
> >> >I cannot now remember Snape's exact words, but did he not warn us that
> >> >the Dark Arts were like a monster which, when one head was cut off, two
> >> >would grow in its place? Seems like two heads are waiting in the wings
> >> >already, awaiting their opportunity.
> >>
> >> But burn the neck, and the heads can't grow back.
> >
> >You refer to the Hercules/Hydra legend, of course. But how do you
> >apply the analogy here? Voldemort is the current "head" of the Forces
> >of Darkness. If you remove and destroy Voldemort, where do you find
> >the "neck" of the Forces of Darkness to cauderize it? Or can fire be
> >analogized to the power of love of which DD likes to speak?
>
> Could be. Firey passion.

I was thinking more of altruism -- unselfish, spiritual Love, which is
often associated with fire in Christian symbolism. The main analogy to
"fire", in this context, would be that it is a cleansing force that
prevents the spread or reemergence of evil, as in the Hydra legend. I
find it unlikely that purely erotic passion could have any such
effect..

> But remember, V divided his soul up. So,
> kill V all you want, he always returns. head grows back.

I would say Voldemort is more like unto a head that is very hard to cut
off, because his 6 horcruces must first be destroyed. Or perhaps a
Head that stays alive after being cut off, only to reattach itself
later. But even after Evil's current Head (Voldemort) is completely
and permanently destroyed, Evil will still remain, and be capable of
growing new Heads. Just as Voldemort arose after the defeat of
Grindelwald, it is possible that others will arise after the defeat of
Voldemort.

> And he's more powerful now than ever before.

Is he?

> Two heads.

Last time I checked, LV had only one head, and he remained the sole
Head of the forces of Evil.

> so, the fire would be
> the destruction of the horcruxes. And most items will be destroyed if
> a fire is hot enough.

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265068 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 15:21

aaron

nystulc [at] cs.com wrote:
> "Aaron" <aaron... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> > nyst... [at] cs.com wrote:
> > > > > Less indirectly, and less inadvertently, they also damn-near murdered
> > > > > the Slytherin they "pranked."
> > > > Definitely an act of pure evil. That poor Slytherin...
> > > > ...wait a minute...
> > > If this is meant as irony, it is a bit disturbing. You would need, on
> > > some level, to condone murder to appreciate the joke.
>
> > Ok, buddy. Whatever you say. I condone the death penalty. If that's murder in your
> > book, then you're right. Otherwise, you just can't take a joke.
>
> Hmm. That is such a remarkable array of illogic and non-sequitur that
> it is hard to decide where to begin.
>
> I can "take a joke" fine, but that does not mean I necessarily have
> to like all jokes. However if you had said, as a joke, that Voldemort
> was morally justified in trying to kill Harry Potter, I might think
> this was okay, as a joke. Similarly, if you said, as a joke, that the
> Weasley twins were justified in what they did to Montague, I might take
> that joke too.
>
> That's not what happened though. Instead you said (as a joke) that
> what the Weasleys did to Montague was morally wrong. I understood
> perfectly well that you were joking when you said this -- that you did
> not really mean it. Only problem was, you should not have been joking
> -- you should have meant it.

*snip*

Don't presume to judge me amoral. You're so far from the mark it is
ridiculous.

I thought you were being too uptight and judgmental about the Montague
incident, and my joke was making fun of your attitude.

Perhaps I don't remember the situation correctly. Didn't Montague
provoke the twins in some way? Either we are not given much information
on it, or I have forgotten it.

Maybe I will agree with you if I can be made to remember the situation
more clearly.

> > > > > Looked at objectively, rather than through the eyes of a lonely boy who
> > > > > was once starved for "friends", the Weasley twins are (with the
> > > > > possible exceptions of Umbridge and Voldemort) perhaps the two most
> > > > > amoral and repulsive characters in the series.
> >> > Slytherin's captain from the first books?
> > > Hardly even close. I find it hard to imagine that you will be able to
> > > construct a list of his crimes that even remotely approaches those of
> > > the Weasley Twins. You are welcome to try, however.
> >
> > "Hardly even close?" He damn near killed Angelina at that quiddich
> > match, and he could have killed Wood as well. Is that good enough for
> > starters?
>
> I assume you are talking about Marcus Flint, but I cannot find the
> passages you have in mind. I can recall, off the top of my head,
> nothing remotely as reprehensible as the Montague incident, nor
> anything that can reasonably be construed as approaching attempted
> murder. Nor does a quick flip through the books help.

I thought those two scenes from the movie were also in the book. ISTR
they were, but perhaps they were not. At any rate...

> > Still, nice challenge. How much do we actually see him do?
>
> Right. I thought that was my point. I cannot understand why you are
> citing him as an individual with a record as reprehensible as that of
> Voldemort, Umbridge, or Fred and George Weasley.

I think the first two are in a separate class than the twins, just as
you think Flint is in a separate class than those you listed. That is
my point. You are equating the twins to Voldemort, and that is
ridiculous.

> > After all, it's all about what JKR intended, right?
>
> That is only one aspect of the discussion. It is not what it is "all
> about", at least not for me. I am perfectly capable of making my own
> moral judgments regarding the conduct of Rowling's fictional
> characters, regardless of what Rowling herself thinks.

But if she intended them to simply be wizard pranks, that could be
fixed with little harm done, then who are you to argue with that
intention? It's her series, after all. I think she knows a bit more
about the wizarding world in HER SERIES than you do.

> > > > To me, they seemed simply full of "childish innocence."
> > > Really? When we first met them they were 13, quite a few years over
> > > the age when children (if so inclined) first start to develop empathy,
> > > a conscience, and the capacity for moral awareness.
> >
> > You got beaten up a lot at school, didn't you?
>
> No. Generally, I left others alone, and others left me alone. I'm
> not sure how I managed to avoid hostile attention, since I was quite
> puny. But I am strangely oblivious to physical pain, and my few brief
> encounters did not upset me much. Perhaps I just never displayed the
> fearful reaction that bullies enjoy. But why you think this is
> relevant I do not know.

Because you seem to think that all fighting and pranks are morally
wrong, and should never happen. While you may be correct on the former,
how are these kids going to survive in the real world in the latter is
the case while they are growing up?

It's not a utopia out here, you know. You have to protect yourself,
somewhat, to survive.

> > Those are meant to be wizard pranks, equivalent in severity to what
> > teenagers do to each other all around you, every day. They weren't
> > meant to be like Columbine.
>
> There is a lot of cruelty and nastiness in the world, and a lot goes on
> "every day" that should not be morally justified. Your moral
> standards are low indeed, if an incident needs to rise to the level of
> Columbine before you express moral disapproval.

There you go again, missing the jokes, sarcasm, and hyperbole. Of
*course* it doesn't have to rise to the level of Columbine. I'm trying
to express to you that I think JKR is showing the twins to be the
pranksters of Hogwarts, and nothing more. Now that they are adults, of
course, the jokes could become more and more dangerous. So, this
activity needs to stop. But they were just adolescent pranks, I think.
You must remember that this is not a book about the real world that we
live in today. It is a world with magic, where many things become more
severe than they would in our world, and it's JKR who determines what
an "appropriate prank" is in her world.

> Nonetheless, I have clearly led a sheltered life, by your standards. I
> managed to get through my childhood and teenage years without being
> either the victim or the perpetrator of any attempted murders,
> near-murders, violent kidnappings or traumatic torture sessions. My
> most serious fight-related injury was a broken finger, from a punch
> that I threw, and even there I never felt pain.

I'm more sheltered than you might suppose. I don't think it's done me a
hell of a lot of good, though.

> I was mugged for the first time this past year. Two middle-class
> teenagers, driving daddy's SUV and probably looking for drug money.
> They demanded cash. I said I had no cash. They broke my nose, and
> threatened to stab and shoot me. I still said I had no cash. It was
> not quite true, but I did not think they deserved anything. I did not
> bother to check my wallet or offer my cellphone. They gave up and
> left. Just teenagers. They did not seem particularly cruel or
> vicious, and I could immediately tell they were bluffing when they
> spoke of knives and guns. Were they the worst people in the world? I
> very much doubt it. Was their conduct morally wrong? Of course it
> was! Not quite as bad as what the twins did to Montague, but still
> both immoral and illegal.

I'm very sorry that this happened to you. I hope to go my entire life
without something like this happening, though I may not be so
fortunate. There have been incidents like that at night in my
neighborhood.

Please explain how this was not as bad as what the twins did to
Montague! You were not the victim of a prank, as I'm sure you realize.
Everything they did to you was fully intended, and they wanted to harm
you further (by stealing, at the very least).

How can you think those teenagers were "not as bad" as the twins?

> I'm not uptight at all. I have worked in the field of criminal law,
> including criminal defense, and am not easily shocked. I just have
> certain moral standards.

Oh boy. Why do I get this sinking feeling about my chances of
convincing you of anything here?

-Aaron

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265073 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 18:24

Philip Lewis

"Aaron" <aaronsan [at] msn.com> writes:
>Perhaps I don't remember the situation correctly. Didn't Montague
>provoke the twins in some way? Either we are not given much information
>on it, or I have forgotten it.
it's in Chapter Twenty-Eight "Snapes Worst Memory"

Montague was going to dock them points, but they stuffed him in the
cabinet before he could say anything.

There is no indication that the twins knew the cabinet was
broken... or that they thought that it would do them harm. (they
admited that they expected to be in trouble when he came back)
Not sure why they thought it would take weeks to find him though.
They way they seem to work is just as a teleport device-- perhaps like
the flue network, with moveable endpoints and not needing
powder. Montague should have been able to turn around and "vanish" back
into hogwarts. Perhaps the twins thought that the anti apparition
spells would prevent him from coming back via the cabinet.

What I don't understand is why he could apparate from inside the
cabinet to the "upstairs toilet" where he was found.
hmmmm.

As an aside, and to the point of the thread, I don't think the twins
are evil. Perhaps a bit rowdy and perhaps bored with school, thus
always getting into trouble. I would equate their pranks to the
roughhousing that occurs in most schools. It just seems nastier since
muggles wouldn't be able to cope with many of their pranks.

--
May no harm befall you,
flip
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
In my email replace SeeEmmYou.EeeDeeYou with CMU.EDU

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265075 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 18:47

dchilders

Aaron wrote:
> nystulc [at] cs.com wrote:
> > Less indirectly, and less inadvertently, they also damn-near murdered
> > the Slytherin they "pranked."
>
> Definitely an act of pure evil. That poor Slytherin...
>
> ...wait a minute...
>

It's alright to damn near kill someone, provided they are Slytherin?

> I hope you are wrong. To me, they seemed simply full of "childish
> innocence." Although, now that they're adults...
>

Many children are bullies and mean practical jokers. This includes
the Weasely twins, IMHO.

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265076 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 18:51

dchilders

Aaron wrote:
> nystulc [at] cs.com wrote:
> > > > Less indirectly, and less inadvertently, they also damn-near murdered
> > > > the Slytherin they "pranked."
> > >
> > > Definitely an act of pure evil. That poor Slytherin...
> > > ...wait a minute...
> >
> > If this is meant as irony, it is a bit disturbing. You would need, on
> > some level, to condone murder to appreciate the joke.
>
> Ok, buddy. Whatever you say.
>
> I condone the death penalty. If that's murder in your book, then you're
> right. Otherwise, you just can't take a joke.
>

Well...do you condone the death penalty for someone *for
being sorted into the wrong house in boarding school*?

> "Hardly even close?" He damn near killed Angelina at that quiddich
> match, and he could have killed Wood as well. Is that good enough for
> starters?
>

Which would have been OK if Angelina had been a Slytherin,
I suppose...

> You got beaten up a lot at school, didn't you?
>
> Those are meant to be wizard pranks, equivalent in severity to what
> teenagers do to each other all around you, every day. They weren't
> meant to be like Columbine.
>

You beat up people a lot in school, didn't you?

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265077 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 19:13

aaron

dchilders [at] cablespeed.com wrote:
> > > > > Less indirectly, and less inadvertently, they also damn-near murdered
> > > > > the Slytherin they "pranked."
> > > >
> > > > Definitely an act of pure evil. That poor Slytherin...
> > > > ...wait a minute...
> > >
> > > If this is meant as irony, it is a bit disturbing. You would need, on
> > > some level, to condone murder to appreciate the joke.
> >
> > Ok, buddy. Whatever you say.
> >
> > I condone the death penalty. If that's murder in your book, then you're
> > right. Otherwise, you just can't take a joke.
> >
>
> Well...do you condone the death penalty for someone *for
> being sorted into the wrong house in boarding school*?

Was it the wrong house? Think about what you are asking, here. On the
surface, it looks like an easy question to ask. And, yes, there have
been "good" Slytherin's, such as Slughorn.

Death sentence? Quite a bit severe. But, if you think about Slytherin
as a house, perhaps close monitoring and probation would be wise as
immediate courses of action. I look at Slytherin house like I look at
all politicians. You can't trust them as far as you can throw them.

> > You got beaten up a lot at school, didn't you?
> >
> > Those are meant to be wizard pranks, equivalent in severity to what
> > teenagers do to each other all around you, every day. They weren't
> > meant to be like Columbine.
> >
>
> You beat up people a lot in school, didn't you?

As much as I wish this were the case, no, I did not. In fact, if I
weren't smarter at avoiding fights, I would have been beaten up a lot
myself.

Perhaps I learned more from those situations than the other poster did.

-Aaron

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265078 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 19:18

aaron

Re: My new EVIL TWINS Theory (was Re: A Thought About the Twins) [message #265082 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 20:09

karnak17

NYSTULC wrote;

>>Looked at objectively, rather than through the eyes of a lonely boy who
>>was once starved for "friends", the Weasley twins are (with the
>>possible exceptions of Umbridge and Voldemort) perhaps the two most
>>amoral and repulsive characters in the series.

>>In a way, they are worse than LV, for unlike LV, they did not have a
>>love-deprived childhood. Yet they have shown a similar disturbing
>>pattern of extreme cruelty from a very early age.

ERIC BOHLMAN replied;

> One of Rowling's major themes is that "good" doesn't mean "on my side" and
> "evil" doesn't mean "on my enemies' side." I think Harry's going to have
> to come to grips with the fact that some people that he admires and is
> personally loyal to are causing some serious harm (and possibly that some
> people he personally detests are doing some serious good; I'm not referring
> only to Snape here).

Okay. NOW you two have done it! Here is my brand new EVIL TWINS
theory. First, let's look at their juvenile rap sheet.

1) Fred changing Ron's teddy into a spider,

2) Fred burning a hole through Ron's tongue with an acid pop. He is
whalloped by Molly with a broomstick.

3) Fred tries to get Ron to make an Unbreakable Vow, with George as the
promise binder. He is caught by Arthur, who is furious.

Obviously this shows a similar pattern of cruely from an early age as
shown by Tom Riddle. But there are two other aspects of the Twins/Tom
Riddle comparison we must consider.

Firstly, Tom NEVER GOT CAUGHT. HE never got in trouble. Nothing could
ever be pinned on HIM. Fred always seems to be acting out nastily, but
he also seems to be getting caught, punished, and whalloped for it.
Fred also helped Harry beat up Malfoy (George was being held back),
attacked Marcus Flint during a Quiddich game (threw his club at the
back of his head), and threathened Ron when Ron confronted him about
his blackmail scheme (until George got him to calm down). A casual
glance tells us that George is the "nice" one, but Fred is the violent
one.

But I don't think so. We aren't privy to the personal interactions
between the twins. We don't know whose idea it was to make Ron take an
Unbreakable Vow or give him an Acid Pop. We just know that Fred is the
one who did the dirty work --- and took the blame.

Observe the scene in GoF when Ron stands up to the twins about the
blackmail. Fred threathens Ron, who ignores the threats and stands up
to Fred anyway. But George, speaking "easily" and smiling, manages to
make Ron back down, simply by comparing him to Percy. He goes
unerringly for Ron's weak spot. Ron becomes abashed and defensive, and
George is in control of the situation. In my first Evil Twins Theory
("The Crooked Weasleys" thread) I pointed out that there was somthing
"funny" about the twins operation that Fred tried to tell Ron and Harry
about, but George interrupted before Fred could say what it was. This
implies that there is something fishy about WWW which George, but not
Fred, is aware of and trying to keep secret.

My theory is that there IS a "Voldemort" -- that is, a cruel,
manipulative, and CLEVER sociopath -- among the Weasleys, and that it
is George, not Fred. I suspected this in passiing before. But now I
am certain.

SECOND point in the Voldmort/Twins analogy: Dumbledore wasn't fooled
by Tom, although he was kind to him and displayed no overt suspicion.
Tom was very popular (as the twins are) and seemingly well liked by
everyone (as the twins are). But DD still had suspicions, and kept his
eye on the guy. DD has known Molly and Arthur all through their
marriage, and has worked with them in the Order. He likely knows the
twins track record as small children.

So, if George is another Tom, was DD suspicious of George as well? And
did he do anything about it? (Such as send Verity, Undercover Witch,
to work in their joke shop? And was he REALLY on the outs with Percy,
who may have come close to suspecting something also?)

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265089 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 20:52

karnak17

Philip Lewis wrote:
> "Aaron" <aaronsan [at] msn.com> writes:
> >Perhaps I don't remember the situation correctly. Didn't Montague
> >provoke the twins in some way? Either we are not given much information
> >on it, or I have forgotten it.
> it's in Chapter Twenty-Eight "Snapes Worst Memory"
>
> Montague was going to dock them points, but they stuffed him in the
> cabinet before he could say anything.
>
> There is no indication that the twins knew the cabinet was
> broken... or that they thought that it would do them harm. (they
> admited that they expected to be in trouble when he came back)
> Not sure why they thought it would take weeks to find him though.

I'm quite sure they actually said they pushed him into "that broken
vanishing cabinet". And they clearly knew it was broken: 1) because
they said Montague would take weeks to return and 2) because they said
he might not return at all.

They did not expect to be in trouble, partly because M might not
return, mostly because by the time he did, they expected to be
ex-students. This, remember, was the event which inaugurated their
"rebellion", after which they dropped out. Montague indeed, does not
return until shortly after the Twins have departed. And then he is too
brain-damaged to talk about what happened.

The Twins would likely never have done something that extreme if they
had meant to stay in school. They say as much to Ron, that they have
been holding back up till now, but they don't need to hold back any
more.

> They way they seem to work is just as a teleport device-- perhaps like
> the flue network, with moveable endpoints and not needing
> powder. Montague should have been able to turn around and "vanish" back
> into hogwarts. Perhaps the twins thought that the anti apparition
> spells would prevent him from coming back via the cabinet.

No. They didn't think he'd get back because they knew the cabinet was
broken. The Cabinet seems to be invented in the first place as a way
of getting AROUND anti-Apparation spells. The Death Eaters apparated
in Hogwarts just fine once Draco fixed it.

> What I don't understand is why he could apparate from inside the
> cabinet to the "upstairs toilet" where he was found.
> hmmmm.

Why not? He was trapped "between" and needed to escape. Had the
Cabinet been working, he could simply have been delivered to B&B's,
said "Hi" to the shopkeeper, hopped back into the Cabinet, returned to
Howarts, reappeared in the VC right away, and docked the Twins points
for their silly prank.

But the Cabinet was broken. He was trapped for two weeks. The Cabinet
wouldn't deliver him to either place. The only way to escape was to
Apparate, which you are not supposed to need to do in a Vanishing
Cabinet. The cabinet didn't dump him in the toilet, he Apparated
there. Remember, he was not yet proficient in apparation, and was
probably already suffering the brain-damage and confusion Draco
observed when he rematerialized.

Also, Draco said M made his desperate Apparation Attempt at a time when
he heard Hogwarts voices. Perhaps those voices were those of his male
Slytherin teammates in the upstairs bathroom, and so he apparated TO
them. (Draco certainly seems to have been on the spot for M's
reappearance). That makes sense to me. M knew that he would die if
the Apparation failed. Hearing his friends might have given him the
courage to finally <ahem> take the plunge.

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265098 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 21:59

aaron

Karnak17 wrote:
> Hearing his friends might have given him the
> courage to finally <ahem> take the plunge.

That's not funny! He almost died!

;)

So they knew it was broken. I still think they were bluffing when they
said he'll be gone for weeks, if he comes back at all. They couldn't
know if the cabinet would even take him anywhere.

They were just TCB with one of Umbridge's unfair, irresponsible
lackeys.

-Aaron

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265099 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 22:00

Philip Lewis

"Karnak17" <karnak17 [at] cs.com> writes:
>Philip Lewis wrote:
>> There is no indication that the twins knew the cabinet was
>> broken... or that they thought that it would do them harm. (they
[...]
>I'm quite sure they actually said they pushed him into "that broken
>vanishing cabinet". And they clearly knew it was broken: 1) because

incorrect, Consider that since i cited the source, i did look it up. ;)

From the HP-OOP, "Snape's worst memory":
HP-OOP:'He never managed to get all the words out,' said Fred, 'due to the fact
HP-OOP:that we forced him head-first into that Vanishing Cabinet on the first floor.'
HP-OOP:Hermione looked very shocked.
HP-OOP:'But you'll get into terrible trouble!'
HP-OOP:'Not until Montague reappears, and that could take weeks,
HP-OOP: I dunno where we sent him,'

I only looked up that scene... Other quotes might support your
argument-- please provide them if you intend to insist that this was a
murder attempt.

>The Death Eaters apparated in Hogwarts just fine once Draco fixed it.

<Hermione voice>
No, they walked out the vanishing cabinet. "Hogwarts, a History" makes
it very clear that you cannot apparate on Hogwart's grounds.
</Hermione voice>

>> What I don't understand is why he could apparate from inside the
>> cabinet to the "upstairs toilet" where he was found.
>Why not? He was trapped "between" and needed to escape. Had the
[...]
>The cabinet didn't dump him in the toilet, he Apparated there.

Yes, but you cannot apparate to/from hogwarts. He ended up in the
toilet "by apparating out, despite not having passed his apparatus
test" which means he apparated *in* to hogwarts, theoretically not
possible. (Excepting app exams, and in the great hall (IIRC) only.)

--
May no harm befall you,
flip
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
In my email replace SeeEmmYou.EeeDeeYou with CMU.EDU

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265105 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 22:54

karnak17

Philip Lewis wrote:
> "Karnak17" <karnak17 [at] cs.com> writes:
> >Philip Lewis wrote:
> >> There is no indication that the twins knew the cabinet was
> >> broken... or that they thought that it would do them harm. (they
> [...]
> >I'm quite sure they actually said they pushed him into "that broken
> >vanishing cabinet". And they clearly knew it was broken: 1) because
>
> incorrect, Consider that since i cited the source, i did look it up. ;)
>
> From the HP-OOP, "Snape's worst memory":
> 'He never managed to get all the words out,' said Fred, 'due to the fact
> that we forced him head-first into that Vanishing Cabinet on the first floor.'
> Hermione looked very shocked.
> 'But you'll get into terrible trouble!'
> 'Not until Montague reappears, and that could take weeks, I dunno where we sent him,'
>
> I only looked up that scene... Other quotes might support your
> argument-- please provide them if you intend to insist that this was a
> murder attempt.

I don't have access to the book. But you have already indicated that
they don't expect Montague to turn up for weeks. I doubt that they
would say this of a working Vanishing Cabinet. Certainly Harry already
knew that the Vanishing Cabinet had been broken by Peeves, and Filch
made a big stink about it at the time. So I doubt it was not known.

Secondly, I doubt it was a deliberate attempt at murder. Merely their
usual callous indifference. Going to Azkaban JUST as they are starting
their spanking new business would hardly be part of the twins' plans.

> >The Death Eaters apparated in Hogwarts just fine once Draco fixed it.
>
> <Hermione voice>
> No, they walked out the vanishing cabinet. "Hogwarts, a History" makes
> it very clear that you cannot apparate on Hogwart's grounds.
> </Hermione voice>

You suggested that the anti-Apparation spell was what prevented
Montague from returning to Hogwarts via the Vanishing Cabinet. That
obviously cannot be the case, because a working Vanishing Cabinet
delivered the Death Eaters at Hogwarts just fine. The anti-apparation
spell didn't stop them.

The cabinet didn't return Montague because it was not working, not
because of the Hogwarts spell.

> >> What I don't understand is why he could apparate from inside the
> >> cabinet to the "upstairs toilet" where he was found.
> >Why not? He was trapped "between" and needed to escape. Had the
> [...]
> >The cabinet didn't dump him in the toilet, he Apparated there.
>
> Yes, but you cannot apparate to/from hogwarts. He ended up in the
> toilet "by apparating out, despite not having passed his apparatus
> test" which means he apparated *in* to hogwarts, theoretically not
> possible. (Excepting app exams, and in the great hall (IIRC) only.)

He was already partially "in" Hogwarts -- enough to hear the voices of
Hogwarts students. He was "nearly" there already. The magic of the
Vanishing Cabinet obviously works in some way which allows people to
rematerialize in an area which is bespelled to prevent apparation. The
Cabinet was _trying_ to return M to Hogwarts. It got him pretty close
(enough to hear voices) and he went the rest of the way himself.

That is entirely different from a student apparating into Hogwarts from
outside, and without any magical assistance from a vanishing cabinet.

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265107 ]

Fr, 12 Mai 2006 00:46

karnak17

Aaron wrote:
> Karnak17 wrote:
> > Hearing his friends might have given him the
> > courage to finally <ahem> take the plunge.
>
> That's not funny! He almost died!
>
> ;)

It was funny. AND he almost died.

Black humor involves horrible things happening to people. There are
two ways to respond to it. One, you can sympathize with the victim
(laughing because it hurts), or you can sympathize with the evildoers
(laughing because you think it is fun to hurt others). I find the
latter reaction disturbing.

For me the Montague situation was "hysterical" precisely because it was
also horrifying. As in "I can't believe they did that." My
sympathies were entirely with Montague and the shocked Hermione. I
nodded in satisfaction when when Rowling showed us, in Book 6, how
brutal his ordeal had been, and the terrible consequences which
resulted from the whole business.

One of the funniest things in the series, to me, was the story of how
Neville's great-uncle dropped him out the window so that he went
bouncing down to the road. I rolled on the floor with laughter. But I
was under no delusions that Uncle Albus was anything other than an
extremely nasty and abusive old bigot who was doing his great-nephew
serious and lasting damage. In the same way, I have no illusions about
the twins. They are two very nasty pieces of work. Before this series
is over, they are going to have a victim who doesn't bounce.

Re: My new EVIL TWINS Theory (was Re: A Thought About the Twins) [message #265135 ]

Fr, 12 Mai 2006 12:09

dicconf

In article <1147370974.172909.220080 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
Karnak17 <karnak17 [at] cs.com> wrote:

>NYSTULC wrote;
>>>Looked at objectively, rather than through the eyes of a lonely boy who
>>>was once starved for "friends", the Weasley twins are (with the
>>>possible exceptions of Umbridge and Voldemort) perhaps the two most
>>>amoral and repulsive characters in the series.
>>>In a way, they are worse than LV, for unlike LV, they did not have a
>>>love-deprived childhood. Yet they have shown a similar disturbing
>>>pattern of extreme cruelty from a very early age.

Agreed.

Any twins are notorious more work than two sequential infants, and
when the twins were born, Molly had Percy (age 2?), Charlie (4?) and
Bill (6?) to take care of, and there was a wizard war going on. The
twins may have been left alone more than was psychologically healthy.
Being left alone for too many hours in the day as an infant is strongly
associated with narcissistic and sociopathic personality disorders.

>ERIC BOHLMAN replied;
>
>> One of Rowling's major themes is that "good" doesn't mean "on my side" and
>> "evil" doesn't mean "on my enemies' side." I think Harry's going to have
>> to come to grips with the fact that some people that he admires and is
>> personally loyal to are causing some serious harm (and possibly that some
>> people he personally detests are doing some serious good; I'm not referring
>> only to Snape here).

A very interesting possibility!

>Okay. NOW you two have done it! Here is my brand new EVIL TWINS
>theory. First, let's look at their juvenile rap sheet.
>
>1) Fred changing Ron's teddy into a spider,
>
>2) Fred burning a hole through Ron's tongue with an acid pop. He is
>whalloped by Molly with a broomstick.
>
>3) Fred tries to get Ron to make an Unbreakable Vow, with George as the
>promise binder. He is caught by Arthur, who is furious.

There's also the incident in FBAWTFT - Ron had a pet puffskein - the
harmless, soft little magical fluffballs - until Fred used it for
bludger practice. Cruelty to animals is another characteristic
associated with young Riddle.

>Obviously this shows a similar pattern of cruely from an early age as
>shown by Tom Riddle. But there are two other aspects of the Twins/Tom
>Riddle comparison we must consider.
>
>Firstly, Tom NEVER GOT CAUGHT. HE never got in trouble. Nothing could
>ever be pinned on HIM. Fred always seems to be acting out nastily, but
>he also seems to be getting caught, punished, and whalloped for it.
>Fred also helped Harry beat up Malfoy (George was being held back),
>attacked Marcus Flint during a Quiddich game (threw his club at the
>back of his head), and threathened Ron when Ron confronted him about
>his blackmail scheme (until George got him to calm down). A casual
>glance tells us that George is the "nice" one, but Fred is the violent
>one.

George did voluntarily offer to help Harry with his luggage on the train
in PS/SS, and called Fred over to help. But it is possible that George
recognized Harry right away and was doing exactly what Draco tried to
do - win over the famous kid to be in his clique.

>But I don't think so. We aren't privy to the personal interactions
>between the twins. We don't know whose idea it was to make Ron take
>an Unbreakable Vow or give him an Acid Pop. We just know that Fred
>is the one who did the dirty work --- and took the blame.

I'm impressed. I'd picked up on the Fred stuff, but I hadn't seen
that as an aspect of George.

>Observe the scene in GoF when Ron stands up to the twins about the
>blackmail. Fred threathens Ron, who ignores the threats and stands
>up to Fred anyway. But George, speaking "easily" and smiling, manages
>to make Ron back down, simply by comparing him to Percy. He goes
>unerringly for Ron's weak spot. Ron becomes abashed and defensive, and
>George is in control of the situation. In my first Evil Twins Theory
>("The Crooked Weasleys" thread) I pointed out that there was somthing
>"funny" about the twins operation that Fred tried to tell Ron and Harry
>about, but George interrupted before Fred could say what it was. This
>implies that there is something fishy about WWW which George, but not
>Fred, is aware of and trying to keep secret.
>
>My theory is that there IS a "Voldemort" -- that is, a cruel,
>manipulative, and CLEVER sociopath -- among the Weasleys, and that it
>is George, not Fred. I suspected this in passiing before. But now
>I am certain.

I'm convinced that the groundwork is there, if JKR decides to use it.

>SECOND point in the Voldmort/Twins analogy: Dumbledore wasn't fooled
>by Tom, although he was kind to him and displayed no overt suspicion.
>Tom was very popular (as the twins are) and seemingly well liked by
>everyone (as the twins are). But DD still had suspicions, and kept
>his eye on the guy. DD has known Molly and Arthur all through their
>marriage, and has worked with them in the Order. He likely knows the
>twins track record as small children.
>
>So, if George is another Tom, was DD suspicious of George as well? And
>did he do anything about it? (Such as send Verity, Undercover Witch,
>to work in their joke shop? And was he REALLY on the outs with Percy,
>who may have come close to suspecting something also?)

Alas, Dumbledore doesn't seem to have had any awareness of psychology
at all. He had some warning about Riddle from the head of the orphanage
and he still didn't understand what he saw and heard about him. He had
even less warning about the Twins.

Was it Hemingway who wrote a short story about a pair of twins who
were "The Killers"? They were not quite identical but there was no
important difference between them - one was only slightly less violent
than the other.

=Tamar

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265139 ]

Fr, 12 Mai 2006 15:19

nystulc

Aaron wrote:
> Don't presume to judge me amoral. You're so far from the mark it is
> ridiculous.

Ah yes. It always comes to this, somehow, in any debate over moral
standards. You
are accusing me of "judging" you. But my alleged crime of "judging"
your moral position is merely inherent in maintaining my position on a
moral issue.

The nature of our disagreement is precisely this. I believe that the
conduct of the Weasley twins is morally wrong. You disagree. In
disagreeing with me, you have not been disagreeing about the facts, but
rather criticizing my moral standards - claiming
that my moral standards are too high, or otherwise inappropriate. But
I stick to my position. In doing so, I am necessarily claiming (in
this context) that YOUR moral standards are too low, or otherwise
inappropriate.

Sorry, dude, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. You cannot
criticize my moral standards, and they cry foul because I dare to
defend them.

> I thought you were being too uptight and judgmental about the Montague
> incident, and my joke was making fun of your attitude.

I understood you perfectly. "Too uptight" and "judgmental" are phrases
which essentially boil down to your disagreement with my view that the
Weasley Twins conduct was immoral. You are complaining that I am
judging them by a moral code that you consider too demanding.

Since I have not argued that the Twins should never be forgiven, nor
that they should burn in Hell, nor that they deserve the Death Penalty
or even a stringent prison sentence, you have obviously no other basis
for claiming that I am "too judgmental". Your complaint that I am
"uptight" is simply an cheap ad-hominem. You are desperately trying to
avoid discussing the opinion I actually expressed, and instead trying
to psychoanalize my reasons for expressing it.

> Perhaps I don't remember the situation correctly. Didn't Montague
> provoke the twins in some way?

Yes he did. He tried to dock points from Gryffindor. However, in my
book this does not amount to a justification. In your book (evidently)
it does. That is one of the areas in which we disagree.

> Either we are not given much information on it, or I have forgotten it.
> Maybe I will agree with you if I can be made to remember the situation
> more clearly.

Sheesh. If you don't remember, and don't know, then what has all this
nonsense been about? If you yourself have no opinion as to whether
their conduct was immoral, then obviously you would have no basis for
disagreement with my claim that it WAS immoral, which in turn would
deprive you of any basis for claiming (by means of words like
"jugmental" and "uptight") that my moral judgment was inappropriate.

If you had remembered the facts, you could perhaps have made a powerful
argument that the Twins did not (in the strict and proper legal sense)
"intend" to kill Montague, and could not have been guilty of "attempted
murder" (attempts always require intent, so there is no such thing
"attempted depraved indifference murder" or "attempted felony murder").
I probably would have agreed, but, still have maintained that their
conduct
was morally reprehensible.

But as I recall, it seemed, in your arguments, that you attempted to
justify the near-fatal attack on Montague on the same grounds as you
would justify the death penalty -- presumably meaning that the victim
deserved to die. So where does that leave us? Why bother going into
the facts? It seems clear enough that our difference does not relate
so much to the facts as to the differences in our moral standards.

> > Right. I thought that was my point. I cannot understand why you are
> > citing him as an individual with a record as reprehensible as that of
> > Voldemort, Umbridge, or Fred and George Weasley.
>
> I think the first two are in a separate class than the twins, just as
> you think Flint is in a separate class than those you listed.

All five of them are unique people. All belong to the set of persons
with a far worse record of bad conduct than Marcus Flint.

> That is
> my point. You are equating the twins to Voldemort, and that is
> ridiculous.

Incorrect. I never equated anyone with anyone else. I merely
compared.
Whether the Twins (or anyone else) eventually become like Voldemort
will
obviously depend much on their future moral choices. But there are
many
obvious disturbing signs. Recall that there was a time when Tom Riddle
was handsome, popular, and far-more human than he has since become. It
was not always self-evident that he would become a monster --- unless,
of
course, you want to be "too uptight and judgmental" about the little
that
was known at the time about this poor deprived orphan boy

> > > After all, it's all about what JKR intended, right?
> >
> > That is only one aspect of the discussion. It is not what it is "all
> > about", at least not for me. I am perfectly capable of making my own
> > moral judgments regarding the conduct of Rowling's fictional
> > characters, regardless of what Rowling herself thinks.
>
> But if she intended them to simply be wizard pranks, that could be
> fixed with little harm done, then who are you to argue with that
> intention?

JKR has made it clear that "wizard pranks" can be very dangerous and
leave
lasting harm. In the case of Montague, she made clear that Montague
suffered protracted mental damage, nearly died, and might not have
escaped
at all had he not prematurely learned how to apparate. She also made
clear that the Weasley twins were well aware that there was danger, but
were completely unconcerned.

> It's her series, after all. I think she knows a bit more
> about the wizarding world in HER SERIES than you do.

You are squirming. Rowling has made the facts of the situation
reasonably clear. Regardless of Rowling's opinion, I can express moral
opinions regarding the conduct she describes. Nobody is contesting her
right to dictate the facts of her universe.

> > > You got beaten up a lot at school, didn't you?
> >
> > No. Generally, I left others alone, and others left me alone. I'm
> > not sure how I managed to avoid hostile attention, since I was quite
> > puny. But I am strangely oblivious to physical pain, and my few brief
> > encounters did not upset me much. Perhaps I just never displayed the
> > fearful reaction that bullies enjoy. But why you think this is
> > relevant I do not know.
>
> Because you seem to think that all fighting and pranks are morally
> wrong, and should never happen.

Ooh boy! STRAW MAN ALERT. STRAW MAN ALERT. You must be really
desperate.
You are trying every dishonest squirm-tactic in the book.

Nice try, but sorry Dude. I never expressed such an opinion.

The opinion that I expressed, and the one you disagreed with, was that
the
conduct of the Weasley Twins with respect to Montague was morally
wrong. Stop trying to change the subject and ascribe to me opinions I
never expressed.

> While you may be correct on the former, how are these kids going to survive in the
> real world in the latter is the case while they are growing up?

An excellent observation that has nothing to do with our discussion.

> It's not a utopia out here, you know. You have to protect yourself,
> somewhat, to survive.

I agree completely. But what is your point? Are you suggesting the
attack on Montague was justified as self-defense?

> > > Those are meant to be wizard pranks, equivalent in severity to what
> > > teenagers do to each other all around you, every day. They weren't
> > > meant to be like Columbine.
> >
> > There is a lot of cruelty and nastiness in the world, and a lot goes on
> > "every day" that should not be morally justified. Your moral
> > standards are low indeed, if an incident needs to rise to the level of
> > Columbine before you express moral disapproval.
>
> There you go again, missing the jokes, sarcasm, and hyperbole. Of
> *course* it doesn't have to rise to the level of Columbine.

Fine. And I am telling you that, while I agree that the attack on
Montague does not rise to the level of Columbine, I nonetheless believe
that it was morally wrong. My understanding was that you disagreed
about the latter. You are the one who dragged Columbine into this, and
I still don't understand why.

> I'm trying
> to express to you that I think JKR is showing the twins to be the
> pranksters of Hogwarts, and nothing more. Now that they are adults, of
> course, the jokes could become more and more dangerous. So, this
> activity needs to stop. But they were just adolescent pranks, I think.
> You must remember that this is not a book about the real world that we
> live in today. It is a world with magic, where many things become more
> severe than they would in our world, and it's JKR who determines what
> an "appropriate prank" is in her world.

Rowling determines the facts of her world. She does not, in the
process, determine the moral standards by which I judge the actions of
the characters in her world. If I read a "Gor" novel, I do not need to
approve of rape, merely because the author clearly does.

I agree that morality is contextual. And I agree that the context of
her magical world tolerates behavior that is considerably more risky
than we would ordinarily justify in a modern urban industrial society.
I agree that the need to learn, in a dangerous world, is a powerful
justification for much risky behavior.

But even taking that context into consideration, it was still my
opinion that the Weasley Twins conduct was not morally justified. I
thought that you disagreed about THAT. Our disagreement has NOT been
about all this other stuff you are now spouting. These are all merely
attempts to change the subject, and rewrite the history of our
disagreement.

> > Nonetheless, I have clearly led a sheltered life, by your standards. I
> > managed to get through my childhood and teenage years without being
> > either the victim or the perpetrator of any attempted murders,
> > near-murders, violent kidnappings or traumatic torture sessions. My
> > most serious fight-related injury was a broken finger, from a punch
> > that I threw, and even there I never felt pain.
>
> I'm more sheltered than you might suppose. I don't think it's done me a
> hell of a lot of good, though.

This line of discussion is happily coming to a dead end. Perhaps, from
now on, we should stay away from ad-hominem insinuations.

> > I was mugged for the first time this past year. Two middle-class
> > teenagers, driving daddy's SUV and probably looking for drug money.
> > They demanded cash. I said I had no cash. They broke my nose, and
> > threatened to stab and shoot me. I still said I had no cash. It was
> > not quite true, but I did not think they deserved anything. I did not
> > bother to check my wallet or offer my cellphone. They gave up and
> > left. Just teenagers. They did not seem particularly cruel or
> > vicious, and I could immediately tell they were bluffing when they
> > spoke of knives and guns. Were they the worst people in the world? I
> > very much doubt it. Was their conduct morally wrong? Of course it
> > was! Not quite as bad as what the twins did to Montague, but still
> > both immoral and illegal.
>
> I'm very sorry that this happened to you.

Actually, I was perfectly okay about it. I felt virtually no pain, and
since I gave them nothing they wanted -- not even a display of fear --
I
felt no humiliation either. No doubt, I was foolish -- had they been
worse people than I guessed, they could have called my bluff and
inflicted
serious injury upon me. But since I did get away with it, I feel few
regrets.

My greatest regret actually involves letting the EMS workers take me to
the emergency room, and my greatest trauma came from seeing the ER
bill.

> I hope to go my entire life
> without something like this happening, though I may not be so
> fortunate. There have been incidents like that at night in my
> neighborhood.
>
> Please explain how this was not as bad as what the twins did to
> Montague! You were not the victim of a prank, as I'm sure you realize.
> Everything they did to you was fully intended, and they wanted to harm
> you further (by stealing, at the very least).

> How can you think those teenagers were "not as bad" as the twins?

You know, if I wanted to be funny, I could throw your own arguments
back at you. I could accuse you of being "uptight" and "judgmental"
about the teenagers who attacked me. After all, they did me little
harm, and exposed me to a valuable learning experience in the process.
And that is actually how I feel about it, uptight and judgmental though
I am.

But the obvious, serious, answer is simply this. As compared to my
attackers, the Twins displayed a far greater willingness to expose
another person's life to serious danger. Not only that, but their
actions caused a much greater degree of physical harm to their victim.

Well, rather than just express my personal opinion, let me flip through
the New York Penal Code, and tell you what crimes, respectively, my
attackers could be accused of, compare it to what the Twins could be
accused of, and see and how seriously each could be punished under the
standards of New York Legistlature.

The most serious crime that my attackers could be accused of is
Attempted Robbery in the Second degree, a class D felony punishable by
a maximum of 7 years in prison. (They could actually be convicted of
TWO Attempted Rob-2 counts under two different legal theories, but the
sentences would be concurrent, so they would still face no more than
seven years). In fairness, though, I should mention that had I given
them money, they would have been guilty of Robbery in the Second Degree
(ie. -- not just an "Attempt") which is a class C felony punishable by
a maximum of 15 years in jail.

(They could also be accused of several lesser crimes, such as Assault
in the Third Degree but they would all run concurrently with the
most-serious charge and not increase the maximum sentence exposure).

As for the Weasley twins, in their attack on Montague, the most serious
charges of which they are clearly guilty of Kidnapping in the Second
Degree, a Class B felony punishable by a maximum of 25 years in prison,
and Assault in the First Degree, another Class B Felony with a 25 year
sentence exposure. They would actually face two Assault-1 counts,
under two different legal theories, but once again, these two sentences
would be concurrent, so they would still combine for 25 years.
However, the Assault charges and the Kidnapping charges could be (and
would be) sentenced consecutively for a combined maximum sentence of 50
years in jail.

If you are curious about the elements of these crimes, and why they
would be guilty, just ask.

Rowling tells us that Montague nearly died. If he had died, the twins
would be guilty, under New York Law, of First Degree Kidnapping (and
other charges), for which the maximum sentence is Death.

Of course, I am using the New York Penal Code only because I am
familiar with it. I imagine you could obtain similar comparative
results in any jurisdiction. My original judgment, however, was not
based on the penal code -- merely my moral code and my empathy with the
(fictional) victim of the Weasleys.

> > I'm not uptight at all. I have worked in the field of criminal law,
> > including criminal defense, and am not easily shocked. I just have
> > certain moral standards.
>
> Oh boy. Why do I get this sinking feeling about my chances of
> convincing you of anything here?

(Shrug). I have merely expressed the fact that the Weasley twins
conduct was immoral, under my own moral code. You are right that you
have no chance of changing my mind. But so what? Last time I checked,
you were trying to squirm out of saying that you disagreed with me at
all, even denying that you were sufficiently familiar with the facts of
the incident to have any opinion.

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265155 ]

Fr, 12 Mai 2006 20:07

aaron

nystulc [at] cs.com judged that:
> > Don't presume to judge me amoral. You're so far from the mark it is
> > ridiculous.
>
> Ah yes. It always comes to this, somehow, in any debate over moral
> standards. You are accusing me of "judging" you.

You did. You still are.

> But my alleged crime of "judging"
> your moral position is merely inherent in maintaining my position on a
> moral issue.

You are lying right now, and I consider that amoral. You said this to
me:

"I am not the least surprised, shocked or upset by your amoral views.
I
was not born yesterday. I am perfectly well aware that there are a
great many people like you in the world (including many in positions of

power). Nonetheless, I disagree with your amoral views, and am
expressing that disagreement."

You judged me, and not "allegedly." You also said this:
"Your moral standards are low indeed, "

So try again.

> The nature of our disagreement is precisely this. I believe that the
> conduct of the Weasley twins is morally wrong. You disagree. In
> disagreeing with me, you have not been disagreeing about the facts, but
> rather criticizing my moral standards -

Wrong. I am disagreeing about the FACT that you are failing to
understand pranks in the wizarding world. This does not assail your
morals in the REAL WORLD at all. It certainly makes some implications,
but I'm not willing to come right out and say you have "too many
morals."

But, you have attacked mine, and I'll thank you to admit it before you
continue this discussion.

> > Perhaps I don't remember the situation correctly. Didn't Montague
> > provoke the twins in some way?
>
> Yes he did. He tried to dock points from Gryffindor. However, in my
> book this does not amount to a justification. In your book (evidently)
> it does. That is one of the areas in which we disagree.

Was he behaving in a fair manner, or was he acting as a criminal?

> > > Right. I thought that was my point. I cannot understand why you are
> > > citing him as an individual with a record as reprehensible as that of
> > > Voldemort, Umbridge, or Fred and George Weasley.
> >
> > I think the first two are in a separate class than the twins, just as
> > you think Flint is in a separate class than those you listed.
>
> All five of them are unique people. All belong to the set of persons
> with a far worse record of bad conduct than Marcus Flint.

Not based on what we are led to believe about Flint.

But, you have failed to grasp the underlying traits of the
houses--Gryffindor and Slytherin in particular. You know, that wasn't
just some trash Ron told Harry in the first book. That was JKR speaking
to us.

> > That is
> > my point. You are equating the twins to Voldemort, and that is
> > ridiculous.
>
> Incorrect. I never equated anyone with anyone else. I merely
> compared.
> Whether the Twins (or anyone else) eventually become like Voldemort
> will
> obviously depend much on their future moral choices. But there are
> many
> obvious disturbing signs. Recall that there was a time when Tom Riddle
> was handsome, popular, and far-more human than he has since become. It
> was not always self-evident that he would become a monster --- unless,
> of
> course, you want to be "too uptight and judgmental" about the little
> that
> was known at the time about this poor deprived orphan boy

A distinct line was crossed with his mental control of others, and his
use of the basilisk to kill and turn people into stone. I don't see the
line being crossed by the twins. He has intent to harm and kill. They
are just trying to play jokes on people.

That you can equate the two directly supports my statement that you are
"too uptight and judgmental."

> > > > After all, it's all about what JKR intended, right?
> > >
> > > That is only one aspect of the discussion. It is not what it is "all
> > > about", at least not for me. I am perfectly capable of making my own
> > > moral judgments regarding the conduct of Rowling's fictional
> > > characters, regardless of what Rowling herself thinks.
> >
> > But if she intended them to simply be wizard pranks, that could be
> > fixed with little harm done, then who are you to argue with that
> > intention?
>
> JKR has made it clear that "wizard pranks" can be very dangerous and
> leave
> lasting harm. In the case of Montague, she made clear that Montague
> suffered protracted mental damage, nearly died, and might not have
> escaped
> at all had he not prematurely learned how to apparate. She also made
> clear that the Weasley twins were well aware that there was danger, but
> were completely unconcerned.

They were not "well aware" of the danger. Posters have shown this with
quotes from canon. They just assumed he would reappear somewhere else
and take time returning. They didn't know that, if working properly, he
would be back in minutes, and if not, he might die.

> > It's her series, after all. I think she knows a bit more
> > about the wizarding world in HER SERIES than you do.
>
> You are squirming. Rowling has made the facts of the situation
> reasonably clear.

You are misinterpreting the facts. All of them, since I'm not squirming
at all. I never squirm. I elaborate, for the benefit of the learning
impaired.

> You are trying every dishonest squirm-tactic in the book.

How dare you. There is nothing dishonest ABOUT me, but your distrust of
humanity is a bit disgusting to me. Maybe I should "lighten up,"
though, taking my own advice.

> > While you may be correct on the former, how are these kids going to survive in the
> > real world in the latter is the case while they are growing up?
>
> An excellent observation that has nothing to do with our discussion.
>
> > It's not a utopia out here, you know. You have to protect yourself,
> > somewhat, to survive.
>
> I agree completely. But what is your point? Are you suggesting the
> attack on Montague was justified as self-defense?

I'm suggesting that not only might it be, but also we were to at least
see it that way, since it was perpetrated by some of the Griffindor
"good guys." The Slytherins were OUT OF CONTROL, thanks to Umbridge,
and they needed to be stopped somehow.

> But even taking that context into consideration, it was still my
> opinion that the Weasley Twins conduct was not morally justified. I
> thought that you disagreed about THAT. Our disagreement has NOT been
> about all this other stuff you are now spouting. These are all merely
> attempts to change the subject, and rewrite the history of our
> disagreement.

I'm trying to find out where you are coming from, that you are having
such a negative reaction to their pranks. I'm sorry if you don't like
my probing, but that's just the way I am. We still do disagree about
the moral justification to SOME of their conduct.

After all, I can't really "morally" justify ANY pranks. But, I can
dismiss some as harmless, and if the others are self-defense in my
book, whether a legal definition or just retaliatory by the "good
guys," I can excuse them. See?

> This line of discussion is happily coming to a dead end. Perhaps, from
> now on, we should stay away from ad-hominem insinuations.

So don't call me amoral again, ok?

> > > I was mugged for the first time this past year. Two middle-class
> > > teenagers, driving daddy's SUV and probably looking for drug money.
> > > They demanded cash. I said I had no cash. They broke my nose, and
> > > threatened to stab and shoot me. I still said I had no cash. It was
> > > not quite true, but I did not think they deserved anything. I did not
> > > bother to check my wallet or offer my cellphone. They gave up and
> > > left. Just teenagers. They did not seem particularly cruel or
> > > vicious, and I could immediately tell they were bluffing when they
> > > spoke of knives and guns. Were they the worst people in the world? I
> > > very much doubt it. Was their conduct morally wrong? Of course it
> > > was! Not quite as bad as what the twins did to Montague, but still
> > > both immoral and illegal.
> >
> > I'm very sorry that this happened to you.
>
> Actually, I was perfectly okay about it. I felt virtually no pain, and
> since I gave them nothing they wanted -- not even a display of fear --
> I
> felt no humiliation either. No doubt, I was foolish -- had they been
> worse people than I guessed, they could have called my bluff and
> inflicted
> serious injury upon me. But since I did get away with it, I feel few
> regrets.
>
> My greatest regret actually involves letting the EMS workers take me to
> the emergency room, and my greatest trauma came from seeing the ER
> bill.

Ouch. But, a broken nose should be taken care of, unless you want to
look like a warlock! I guess, being a fan of the Harry Potter books,
you might not think this is such a bad thing... =)

> > I hope to go my entire life
> > without something like this happening, though I may not be so
> > fortunate. There have been incidents like that at night in my
> > neighborhood.
> >
> > Please explain how this was not as bad as what the twins did to
> > Montague! You were not the victim of a prank, as I'm sure you realize.
> > Everything they did to you was fully intended, and they wanted to harm
> > you further (by stealing, at the very least).
>
> > How can you think those teenagers were "not as bad" as the twins?
>
> You know, if I wanted to be funny, I could throw your own arguments
> back at you. I could accuse you of being "uptight" and "judgmental"
> about the teenagers who attacked me. After all, they did me little
> harm, and exposed me to a valuable learning experience in the process.
> And that is actually how I feel about it, uptight and judgmental though
> I am.

Funny? You would find humor in this recent event in your life, and not
in events from a work of fiction?

Can't you see that this is backwards?

> But the obvious, serious, answer is simply this. As compared to my
> attackers, the Twins displayed a far greater willingness to expose
> another person's life to serious danger.

I completely disagree on the willingness part! How can you say that?
Why did these teenagers target you? Because you were THERE, and you
looked like a good target. At least the Weasleys had SOME
justification. They wouldn't have done it otherwise.

>Not only that, but their actions caused a much greater degree of physical harm to their > victim.

I do agree on this, and one must take responsibility for the results of
one's actions, to be sure.

> Well, rather than just express my personal opinion, let me flip through
> the New York Penal Code, and tell you what crimes, respectively, my
> attackers could be accused of, compare it to what the Twins could be
> accused of, and see and how seriously each could be punished under the
> standards of New York Legistlature.

*snip*

Interesting stuff. Of course, this does not go into the
self-defense...defense that could be used in the case of the Weasleys.
I assume, at least, that the teenagers couldn't prevail with such a
defense.

But thank you for taking the effort to post all of that, even if you
decided to insult me one more time at the end. For someone with such
high morals, I must say...

No, I won't say anything, because *supposedly* we are going to stop
attacking each other. Still:

> > > I'm not uptight at all. I have worked in the field of criminal law,
> > > including criminal defense, and am not easily shocked. I just have
> > > certain moral standards.
> >
> > Oh boy. Why do I get this sinking feeling about my chances of
> > convincing you of anything here?
>
> (Shrug). I have merely expressed the fact that the Weasley twins
> conduct was immoral, under my own moral code. You are right that you
> have no chance of changing my mind.

Well, I didn't mean to imply that you are closed-minded, but clearly
you are perfectly fine with admitting you are closed-minded, so...

> But so what? Last time I checked,
> you were trying to squirm out of saying that you disagreed with me at
> all, even denying that you were sufficiently familiar with the facts of
> the incident to have any opinion.

Not true! Not true at all. Again, what is with all of the lying, Mr.
Morality? I disagreed with you. I STILL disagree with you. Better? I
never denied that.

I wondered if I was familiar with the facts, and I was trying to be
polite in admitting my own weak points, but if you don't like that,
then I'll cut it out. It turns out I was familiar with the facts, and I
retain my original opinion as a result.

Sheesh. Learn a bit more about how to converse politely, and you won't
find so much fault with my approach.

-Aaron

Re: My new EVIL TWINS Theory (was Re: A Thought About the Twins) [message #265173 ]

Fr, 12 Mai 2006 23:01

karnak17

Richard Eney wrote:
> In article <1147370974.172909.220080 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> Karnak17 <karnak17 [at] cs.com> wrote:
>
> >NYSTULC wrote;
> >>>Looked at objectively, rather than through the eyes of a lonely boy who
> >>>was once starved for "friends", the Weasley twins are (with the
> >>>possible exceptions of Umbridge and Voldemort) perhaps the two most
> >>>amoral and repulsive characters in the series.
> >>>In a way, they are worse than LV, for unlike LV, they did not have a
> >>>love-deprived childhood. Yet they have shown a similar disturbing
> >>>pattern of extreme cruelty from a very early age.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Any twins are notorious more work than two sequential infants, and
> when the twins were born, Molly had Percy (age 2?), Charlie (4?) and
> Bill (6?) to take care of, and there was a wizard war going on. The
> twins may have been left alone more than was psychologically healthy.
> Being left alone for too many hours in the day as an infant is strongly
> associated with narcissistic and sociopathic personality disorders.

Good point. Add to that the fact that Arthur, for all his virtues,
doesn't seem like he would be a helpful husband at the BEST of times,
let alone when he was also fighting a war. Too impractical and
daydreamy. I imagine him the kind who enjoyed PLAYING with the kids,
but wasn't too good at supervision or discipline.

Also Molly's brothers murdered around that time. Loss in the family
has been shown to make mothers emotionally unavailable for a while, in
a way that affects children long term.

Also, if one twin is sickly in infancy, he will get all the attention
(possibly FRED?) leaving the other (possibly GEORGE) almost completely
neglected for a brief but critical period.

> >ERIC BOHLMAN replied;
> >
> >> One of Rowling's major themes is that "good" doesn't mean "on my side" and
> >> "evil" doesn't mean "on my enemies' side." I think Harry's going to have
> >> to come to grips with the fact that some people that he admires and is
> >> personally loyal to are causing some serious harm (and possibly that some
> >> people he personally detests are doing some serious good; I'm not referring
> >> only to Snape here).
>
> A very interesting possibility!
>
> >Okay. NOW you two have done it! Here is my brand new EVIL TWINS
> >theory. First, let's look at their juvenile rap sheet.
> >
> >1) Fred changing Ron's teddy into a spider,
> >
> >2) Fred burning a hole through Ron's tongue with an acid pop. He is
> >whalloped by Molly with a broomstick.
> >
> >3) Fred tries to get Ron to make an Unbreakable Vow, with George as the
> >promise binder. He is caught by Arthur, who is furious.
>
> There's also the incident in FBAWTFT - Ron had a pet puffskein - the
> harmless, soft little magical fluffballs - until Fred used it for
> bludger practice. Cruelty to animals is another characteristic
> associated with young Riddle.

Fred AGAIN.

Some of their later behavior falls into the same pattern. Feeding a
firecracker to a salamander, for example. Also that scene where George
sort of lingers over a doxycide in a creepy manner. And of course, the
petrified gnome on the Christmas tree, which was the last straw for me.
I hadn't any doubts left after that one.

> >Obviously this shows a similar pattern of cruely from an early age as
> >shown by Tom Riddle. But there are two other aspects of the Twins/Tom
> >Riddle comparison we must consider.
> >
> >Firstly, Tom NEVER GOT CAUGHT. HE never got in trouble. Nothing could
> >ever be pinned on HIM. Fred always seems to be acting out nastily, but
> >he also seems to be getting caught, punished, and whalloped for it.
> >Fred also helped Harry beat up Malfoy (George was being held back),
> >attacked Marcus Flint during a Quiddich game (threw his club at the
> >back of his head), and threathened Ron when Ron confronted him about
> >his blackmail scheme (until George got him to calm down). A casual
> >glance tells us that George is the "nice" one, but Fred is the violent
> >one.
>
> George did voluntarily offer to help Harry with his luggage on the train
> in PS/SS, and called Fred over to help. But it is possible that George
> recognized Harry right away and was doing exactly what Draco tried to
> do - win over the famous kid to be in his clique.

The only "good twins" scene I remember is from Book One also. When
they force Percy to hang out with them and wear his Weasley Sweater.
That was a bit endearing.

> >But I don't think so. We aren't privy to the personal interactions
> >between the twins. We don't know whose idea it was to make Ron take
> >an Unbreakable Vow or give him an Acid Pop. We just know that Fred
> >is the one who did the dirty work --- and took the blame.
>
> I'm impressed. I'd picked up on the Fred stuff, but I hadn't seen
> that as an aspect of George.
>
> >Observe the scene in GoF when Ron stands up to the twins about the
> >blackmail. Fred threathens Ron, who ignores the threats and stands
> >up to Fred anyway. But George, speaking "easily" and smiling, manages
> >to make Ron back down, simply by comparing him to Percy. He goes
> >unerringly for Ron's weak spot. Ron becomes abashed and defensive, and
> >George is in control of the situation. In my first Evil Twins Theory
> >("The Crooked Weasleys" thread) I pointed out that there was somthing
> >"funny" about the twins operation that Fred tried to tell Ron and Harry
> >about, but George interrupted before Fred could say what it was. This
> >implies that there is something fishy about WWW which George, but not
> >Fred, is aware of and trying to keep secret.
> >
> >My theory is that there IS a "Voldemort" -- that is, a cruel,
> >manipulative, and CLEVER sociopath -- among the Weasleys, and that it
> >is George, not Fred. I suspected this in passiing before. But now
> >I am certain.
>
> I'm convinced that the groundwork is there, if JKR decides to use it.

My take on it is that we have seen the way Ron acts out, and is a bully
-- to my mind as a result of being bullied himself by the twins. Fred
has, possibly, been under George's thumb since the cradle, and is even
angrier and more damaged than Ron is. Hence the rage issues.

> >SECOND point in the Voldmort/Twins analogy: Dumbledore wasn't fooled
> >by Tom, although he was kind to him and displayed no overt suspicion.
> >Tom was very popular (as the twins are) and seemingly well liked by
> >everyone (as the twins are). But DD still had suspicions, and kept
> >his eye on the guy. DD has known Molly and Arthur all through their
> >marriage, and has worked with them in the Order. He likely knows the
> >twins track record as small children.
> >
> >So, if George is another Tom, was DD suspicious of George as well? And
> >did he do anything about it? (Such as send Verity, Undercover Witch,
> >to work in their joke shop? And was he REALLY on the outs with Percy,
> >who may have come close to suspecting something also?)
>
> Alas, Dumbledore doesn't seem to have had any awareness of psychology
> at all. He had some warning about Riddle from the head of the orphanage
> and he still didn't understand what he saw and heard about him.

What makes you think this? I thought he did understand very clearly
-- and showed Harry those scenes for a reason. But he could scarcely
drown the child on account of his suspicions.

>He had
> even less warning about the Twins.

Well, we know how vocal Molly can be about the twins shortcomings.
IMAGINE how she would have reacted to the UV or the puffskein or the
Acid Pop. The entire Order would have known all about it. So I think
we can assume DD was warned SOME. Though I admit just how much DD is
on top of things is one of the big ambiguities of the series so far.

Re: My new EVIL TWINS Theory (was Re: A Thought About the Twins) [message #265175 ]

Fr, 12 Mai 2006 23:39

Eric Bohlman

"Karnak17" <karnak17 [at] cs.com> wrote in
news:1147467715.906766.147100 [at] d71g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:

>
> Richard Eney wrote:
>> Alas, Dumbledore doesn't seem to have had any awareness of psychology
>> at all. He had some warning about Riddle from the head of the
>> orphanage and he still didn't understand what he saw and heard about
>> him.
>
> What makes you think this? I thought he did understand very clearly
> -- and showed Harry those scenes for a reason. But he could scarcely
> drown the child on account of his suspicions.

Ah, but *when* did he start understanding very clearly? Were we seeing
Dumbledore's actual memory at the time, or a memory "enhanced" by
subsequent insights? Remember that after showing Harry Slughorn's faked
memory, he comments on how obvious the tampering was and how crude a job
Slughorn did of it. That plainly implies that there are much less-
detectable ways of editing memories and that he knows them. And even if
he didn't deliberately tamper with his memory, he's going to be just as
vulnerable to 20/20 hindsight as anyone else (probably even more so,
because of his intelligence; the smarter you are, the better you are at
fooling yourself with self-serving rationalizations). It would depend on
when he extracted the memory.

Of course, we shouldn't forget that Dumbledore wasn't headmaster when Tom
was a student, so his influence was much more limited than during the
Marauders' era or Harry's era. To Dippet and the rest of the faculty,
Tom was a model student and (based on ordinary psychology) they'd
probably pay little attention to any information suggesting that he was a
little too good to be true.

Speaking of moral lapses, does anyone else have a problem with the fact
that Dumbledore gained much of his initial information about Riddle by
plying an obvious alcoholic with booze?

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265178 ]

Fr, 12 Mai 2006 23:46

karnak17

Eric Bohlman wrote:
> nystulc [at] cs.com wrote in
> news:1147144380.185729.313210 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Looked at objectively, rather than through the eyes of a lonely boy
> > who was once starved for "friends", the Weasley twins are (with the
> > possible exceptions of Umbridge and Voldemort) perhaps the two most
> > amoral and repulsive characters in the series.
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/pharnabazus/4468.html discusses this at
> length: "The more I look at the Weasley twins, the less evidence I can see
> that they have any moral sense whatsoever."

He brings up one very important point. That it was FRED whose barbs
about Sirius cowardice had a huge effect on him, not those of Snape.
But it is Snape that Harry blames at the end of the book, so vehemently
that the reader is distracted from remembering that it was Fred's words
which obviously hurt Sirius more.

This happens elsewhere. In GoF, for example, Moody brutalized Malfoy
for attacking Harry from behind "A cowardly, flilthy stinking thing to
do", Moody says. Apparently the trio agrees. Why not, since, after
all, Malfoy did it. But at the end of the book, the TWINS attack
MALFOY from behind. And step on and kick him and his friends while
unconcious.

Also in GoF, the Death Eaters attack some Muggles for "fun", shortly
after the twins attack Dudley for "fun".

So that is at least three times that the twins are shown doing the same
things that the "bad guys" have been roundly condemned for doing IN THE
EXACT SAME BOOK. I doubt Rowling is not doing this on purpose.

> One of Rowling's major themes is that "good" doesn't mean "on my side" and
> "evil" doesn't mean "on my enemies' side." I think Harry's going to have
> to come to grips with the fact that some people that he admires and is
> personally loyal to are causing some serious harm (and possibly that some
> people he personally detests are doing some serious good; I'm not referring
> only to Snape here).

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265186 ]

Sa, 13 Mai 2006 03:08

nystulc

Aaron wrote:
> nystulc [at] cs.com judged that:
> > > Don't presume to judge me amoral. You're so far from the mark it is
> > > ridiculous.
> >
> > Ah yes. It always comes to this, somehow, in any debate over moral
> > standards. You are accusing me of "judging" you.
>
> You did. You still are.

Correct. I am judging you to the extent that I explained, and no
further.

> > But my alleged crime of "judging"
> > your moral position is merely inherent in maintaining my position on a
> > moral issue.
>
> You are lying right now, [...]

No. You simply failed to understand what I said.

> and I consider that amoral. You said this to
> me:
>
> "I am not the least surprised, shocked or upset by your amoral views.I
> was not born yesterday. I am perfectly well aware that there are a
> great many people like you in the world (including many in positions of
> power). Nonetheless, I disagree with your amoral views, and am
> expressing that disagreement."
>
> You judged me, and not "allegedly." You also said this:
> "Your moral standards are low indeed, "

All of the above is entirely inherent in the nature of our
disagreement, just as I tried to explain.
You consider my moral standards too high. I stand by my moral
standards, and, therefore, consider your moral standards too low.

I do not know you. I have no basis for judging you except on the basis
of the morally repugnant positions you are taking. When I call you
"amoral", I merely mean that "I disagree with your amoral views." When
I say "I disagree with your amoral views", I mean the very ones under
discussion -- the very ones we are disagreeing about. We are having a
disagreement about moral issues, and if you cannot stand the heat, get
out of the water.

I'm sorry that you feel insulted, but there is nothing I am willing to
do about it. I am not going to endorse morally repugnant conduct. Nor
am I willing to endorse your morally repugnant willingness to endorse
morally repugnant conduct.

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265187 ]

Sa, 13 Mai 2006 03:11

nystulc

Aaron wrote:
> Funny? You would find humor in this recent event in your life, and not
> in events from a work of fiction?
> Can't you see that this is backwards?

I find humor in both. I also find immoral conduct in both. There is
no inconsistency of approach, and nothing is backwards.

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265188 ]

Sa, 13 Mai 2006 03:34

nystulc

Aaron wrote:
> *snip*
>
> Interesting stuff. Of course, this does not go into the
> self-defense...defense that could be used in the case of the Weasleys.
> I assume, at least, that the teenagers couldn't prevail with such a
> defense.

Neither my attackers nor the Weasley Twins could prevail with such a
defense. It is completely inapplicable to both situations. Unless
you want to play around with an "not guilty by reason of insanity"
defense (which I don't think applies either), the Weasley twins are
unquestionably guilty of very serious crimes by the standards of any
common-law jurisdiction -- or civil law jurisdiction -- or indeed any
society.

Re: A Thought About the twins [message #265189 ]

Sa, 13 Mai 2006 03:47

nystulc

I wrote:
> We are having a
> disagreement about moral issues, and if you cannot stand the heat, get
> out of the water.

Oops. I meant "kitchen" of course.

Seiten (3): [1 2 3 > »]

Vorheriges Thema:	HBP: Questions, Comments
Nächstes Thema:	Offence against the dark arts.

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 05:31:16 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,11240 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.