|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:48 am
That's because they don't want to send a message that bad guys kill for bad reasons and good guys kill for good reasons... even though they do, as our history books have taught us... eh, later in the series good guys kill openly anyway. Degradation of morality as they become more animalistic in their fighting, I suppose
The problem with goodguy/badguy is that it's so subjective. The "badguys" in Harry Potter were a group of people who felt their current system of living was wrong and wished to change it. The "goodguys" were a group of people who felt their current system of living was fine and wished for it to remain the same. Both parties had contrasting ideas and fought for them... Neither idea was wrong, just different.
Are the death eaters evil because they used oppressive guerilla tactics? Ambushes, and sneak attacks, and opportunistic strikes against targets when they are at their weakest? Can't be, cause we glorify Robin Hood for the same thing. We decided they were evil because society finds merciful and proportional responses "good," and the death eaters used the most efficient methods to achieve their goal. Opting not to murder the death eaters is a sign of mercy, and therefore "good."
In comparison to a real life scenario: When we look back at the fact that America nuked the s**t out of the bad guys in world war II, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, we think of it as a tragic and black mark in history. A time when America went far beyond a proportional response. It was still a really efficient method to bring about surrender.
Still, and this is the most important fact, society changes. You said yourself, you would have killed them dead if it were up to you. I'm sure many people would agree with you... but several centuries ago you would have been labeled a heretic against Elohim for such a despicable thought and you would have been cast out of your tribe forever. Maybe in a few centuries people will read HP and understand it as establishment propaganda designed to keep the people who think differently from usurping power.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:06 am
All though I can see your point. There are several factors that make the deatheaters fall on the darker side. The biggest is thier belief in oppressing muggles, muggleborns, and non-human races. What ever your views are, oppression drops you pretty squarely on the "Bad Guy" side. So it was a bit more than changing society. Change isn't always a good thing.
The idea that "Good Guys" don't kill seems to be a new social concept. As you pointed out, history shows us that "good guys" often did kill where it was necessary. Often when it was kill or be killed.
As far as the US nuking, not the bad guys, but Japan who had their reasons for fighting. Who often stated that there would be no surrender. After looking at all the numbers and all the angles an invasion of the home Island would have killed millions, including civillians. Nukes were considered to save more lives than they destroyed. Which is still the only acceptable reason to use nukes today. I don't think that those who know the reasoning behind the US decision consider it far beyond a proportional response. It was still tragic that it came to that and sad that so many had to die. But there was little option by that point in time.
It is for this reason that many world powers work together to keep nukes out of reach of unstable groups and governments. Nukes can't just be put back into the bottle so to speak so they are a fact of life, but niether the US or any other member of the Nuke Club has used them on anyone since then and they fight to keep them from being used by those who do not uderstand the acceptable reason.
I am only saying that even now, there are people who the world would be better off without. Just like a criminal who shoots it out with police. If the police kill them in the process, I say so much the better as they won't shoot at anyone else, but often people cry out. " Did they really have to kill them?" but no one seems concerned about the police's saftey. I think the world is a safer place without people like that.
In this case, safer and better off without many of the deatheaters who were so loose with death and torture of those with whom they disagreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:03 pm
But why is it okay for you to deem that criminal as unworthy of life, and it is bad for the death eaters to consider muggles unworthy? It's subjective - The criminal holds values and beliefs that are not in line with your own, therefore if he is killed, all the better. The muggles hold values and beliefs that are not in line with the death eaters, therefore if the muggles are killed, all the better.
The death eaters are bad because what they believe in goes against the standard values of todays norm... yet those values change. 500 years ago the death eaters would have followed the norm: oppress the weak, live by status, rule be strength. To be honest, that holds true today... the strong and wealthy who can raise themselves upon the backs of others are the more successful. How many politicians and global leaders come from downtown Brooklyn and lived a life poverty and despair?
As far as US nuking the bad guys... The purpose of dropping nukes on Japan was to instill within the Japanese people a sense of fear and awe so that they would be "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." I'm pretty sure bombing the s**t out of civilians in order to instill fear might be considered evil. If nothing else, you must admit it is an attack designed to show the strength and status of the winners.
I'm also pretty sure the belief of the nuclear powers is not "it's still acceptable today if the situation warrants it." I believe it's more along the lines of "we should work towards total disarmament because such an event should never happen again." In fact, that pretty much sums up the end of the cold war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:37 am
Because by his actions he shows disregard for lives of others which makes him dangerous to others. I think is so much the better because he will not be able to harm others if he is killed. If he goes to prison, he could escape or be released. If so, maybe he won't harm anyone else, but if he decided to... He is worthy to live, but at who's expense? Are the police less worthy to live? Innocent by standers? Do they become unworthy of life in favor of him?
The muggles on the other hand, did not choose to be muggles. Also, they have not acted in a threatening way towards the death eaters or any other witch or wizard during the time of the series.
As to the criminal having differing beliefs and values in this case they are irrelevant unless the laws broken involve them, in which case he would be willing to die for them if he is fighting police. To live in a society one must follow the laws of the society or do what they can to change them. You can not just decide, for example, that it is your belief to kill those who annoy you and claim you just have different beliefs that should be considered.
In the modern age, the oppression of anyone for reasons they cannot control, e.i. race, creed, or orientation, is considered wrong. As we move foward, I doubt that views will revert back to what they were 500 years ago. All though, considering the infinity for human stupidity, it is possible.
As to nuking, it is not acceptable if the situation warrents it. It is, only if using it will save far more lives than it destroys. I think that the U.S. was a bit naive when they used nukes on Japan and have become quite a bit more experienced through the "cold war". As I stated previously, once the Genie was out of the bottle, it's not so easy to stuff it back in. So as much as many would like to see them go away, I don't think that will happen until something else comes along to make them obsolete.
I am not at all in favor of nuclear weapons, I just don't think it is possible to convince every nation with nukes to disarm and if one keeps them all who have them will insist on keeping them as well.
Sorry this is so long. I tried to stay on point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:39 pm
That was a very thrilling book, action at the beginning middle and end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:51 am
it seems like,each one gets more and more violent
it's like,in the first one it was just kind of introducing you to it..
and now,everyone's dying?
every book shocks me more and more
and each book confuses me more and more,lol
i only fully understand what's happened when the films come out tbh
the books kinda leave quite a bit to your imagination,which can be quite hard at times..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:58 am
Wow! I haven't been in this thread for ages... Quote: Personally, I think that Bellatrix Lestrange and Severus Snape were about equally the second most powerful magic users after Dumbledore. I also think that Voldemort knew it and was secretly affraid of them both. He kept Bella downtrodden a little and kept Snape at arm's length I agree with some of it. I believe that after Dumbledore, Voldie was the most powerful (and weirdest wizard). However after Voldie Snape was the greatest wizard. In brains though Snape was definetely number 2!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:41 pm
IceeWitch Wow! I haven't been in this thread for ages... Quote: Personally, I think that Bellatrix Lestrange and Severus Snape were about equally the second most powerful magic users after Dumbledore. I also think that Voldemort knew it and was secretly affraid of them both. He kept Bella downtrodden a little and kept Snape at arm's length I agree with some of it. I believe that after Dumbledore, Voldie was the most powerful (and weirdest wizard). However after Voldie Snape was the greatest wizard. In brains though Snape was definetely number 2! I agree.... Snape was one of the greatest wizards in the series (he was so cool in the last book crying made me sad... I had been wishing death on him for 2 years... then he died... then I was depressed whee ). He was really smart... and loyal to Dumbledore in the end biggrin He had a good poker face too razz No wonder Harry named his kid "Albus Severus" biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:38 am
I think that the Epilogue was a great idea on JK's part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:37 pm
sad when fred died, not when snape died
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
