Harry is a trust fund baby who discovers he’s racially superior to normal people, becomes a sports-loving jock, inherits a slave, and works hard in school to accomplish his goal of becoming a cop.
Harry is a trust fund baby who discovers he’s racially superior to normal people, becomes a sports-loving jock, inherits a slave, and works hard in school to accomplish his goal of becoming a cop.
Harry Potter, a boy who, despite inheriting a fortune through tragedy, chose humility, valued hard work, cherished friendship and love, played Quidditch for the sheer joy, befriended—more than owned—a house-elf, and became an auror to protect, not to exert power.
Your Harry Potter knowledge is weak. You think I’m talking about Dobby. I’m talking about Kreacher. Kreacher hated Harry and he hated Sirius. He got Sirius killed on purpose as revenge for owning him, and Harry resented Kreacher for it. If Sirius wanted to live, maybe he shouldn’t have owned a slave, and maybe Harry shouldn’t either. Yes, Harry eventually softened his feelings towards Kreacher, but he never freed him. And if you really were talking about Kreacher, then the way you justify slavery by saying the master “befriended” his slave is disgusting.
The paragraph after Harry finds out he has inherited Kreacher:
“I don’t want him.”
The next page:
”the idea of owning him…was repugnant.”
Did Harry technically maintain legal ownership of a slave to prevent mass murder? Yes.
While we don’t know, fellow readers headcanon that Harry eventually freed Kreature once he was able without the gravest consequences for both house elves and the rest of the wizarding and non-magical world.
So we’ve established that Harry thinks the ends justify the means when the means are slavery. And also ordering his slave to spy on the school bully. Let’s move on.
In book 7, Christmas comes while the gang are hiding out at Grimmauld Place. In order to add some festive spirit to the house, they dress the severed slave heads by the door in little Santa hats and beards. Ghoulish.
But if you’re a consequentialist and don’t think there’s anything wrong with turning a slave’s corpse into a Christmas decoration, let’s talk about the time Hermione triggered Umbridge’s rape PTSD for shits and giggles and petty revenge.
Are you saying you’d immediately set Kreacher free in the face of Dumbledore telling you not to? Kreacher’s freedom was more important than the world’s?
Is the decision simple for you?
—
Centaur rape is fascinating headcanon of your own! Hadn’t crossed my mind.
Sirius was wrong to keep Kreacher when he inherited Grimmauld Place. Dumbledore was wrong to have the OOP discuss confidential information in front of Kreacher. Harry was wrong to use Kreacher to spy on Malfoy.
Maybe the centaurs didn’t rape Umbridge, but she clearly had a panic attack, whatever did happen was canonically traumatic and intended to be taken as such. That’s the reason why Hermione found it funny to trigger her.
Might you find it personally rewarding to be transparent about the difficulties you would have faced just like Harry?
Yes, Cap’n Contrarian, the torturer & would-be murderer Umbridge should have had her wellbeing better considered by the child who momentarily imitated a My Little Pony soundboard. It was unkind, even cruel, & vindictive. You’ve got the elves’ rights champion by her bushy hair on that one!
You think that the morality of Hermione’s actions depends on her character. That good things are things done by good people, and bad things are things done by bad people. Making fun of PTSD is okay as long as you’re a good person doing it to a bad person.
That’s really interesting because that’s the way JK Rowling thinks. Shaun pointed it out in his video. For example, Molly Weasley is described as having a “matronly” build, while Umbridge is described as “toad-like”. They’re both overweight, but whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing is determined by whether they’re a hero or a villain. The actual thing is irrelevant, what matters is whether it’s a good guy or a bad guy.
I guess that’s why you think slavery is okay. If it’s done by a “good person”, it’s a good action. It doesn’t matter how many bad things the heroes of that book are portrayed as in the right for doing, because they’re good guys. The book says so. So they can’t do bad things.
Harry is a trust fund baby who discovers he’s racially superior to normal people, becomes a sports-loving jock, inherits a slave, and works hard in school to accomplish his goal of becoming a cop.
Harry Potter, a boy who, despite inheriting a fortune through tragedy, chose humility, valued hard work, cherished friendship and love, played Quidditch for the sheer joy, befriended—more than owned—a house-elf, and became an auror to protect, not to exert power.
Your Harry Potter knowledge is weak. You think I’m talking about Dobby. I’m talking about Kreacher. Kreacher hated Harry and he hated Sirius. He got Sirius killed on purpose as revenge for owning him, and Harry resented Kreacher for it. If Sirius wanted to live, maybe he shouldn’t have owned a slave, and maybe Harry shouldn’t either. Yes, Harry eventually softened his feelings towards Kreacher, but he never freed him. And if you really were talking about Kreacher, then the way you justify slavery by saying the master “befriended” his slave is disgusting.
The paragraph after Harry finds out he has inherited Kreacher:
The next page:
Did Harry technically maintain legal ownership of a slave to prevent mass murder? Yes.
While we don’t know, fellow readers headcanon that Harry eventually freed Kreature once he was able without the gravest consequences for both house elves and the rest of the wizarding and non-magical world.
So we’ve established that Harry thinks the ends justify the means when the means are slavery. And also ordering his slave to spy on the school bully. Let’s move on.
In book 7, Christmas comes while the gang are hiding out at Grimmauld Place. In order to add some festive spirit to the house, they dress the severed slave heads by the door in little Santa hats and beards. Ghoulish.
But if you’re a consequentialist and don’t think there’s anything wrong with turning a slave’s corpse into a Christmas decoration, let’s talk about the time Hermione triggered Umbridge’s rape PTSD for shits and giggles and petty revenge.
Are you saying you’d immediately set Kreacher free in the face of Dumbledore telling you not to? Kreacher’s freedom was more important than the world’s?
Is the decision simple for you?
—
Centaur rape is fascinating headcanon of your own! Hadn’t crossed my mind.
Sirius was wrong to keep Kreacher when he inherited Grimmauld Place. Dumbledore was wrong to have the OOP discuss confidential information in front of Kreacher. Harry was wrong to use Kreacher to spy on Malfoy.
Maybe the centaurs didn’t rape Umbridge, but she clearly had a panic attack, whatever did happen was canonically traumatic and intended to be taken as such. That’s the reason why Hermione found it funny to trigger her.
Might you find it personally rewarding to be transparent about the difficulties you would have faced just like Harry?
Yes, Cap’n Contrarian, the torturer & would-be murderer Umbridge should have had her wellbeing better considered by the child who momentarily imitated a My Little Pony soundboard. It was unkind, even cruel, & vindictive. You’ve got the elves’ rights champion by her bushy hair on that one!
You think that the morality of Hermione’s actions depends on her character. That good things are things done by good people, and bad things are things done by bad people. Making fun of PTSD is okay as long as you’re a good person doing it to a bad person.
That’s really interesting because that’s the way JK Rowling thinks. Shaun pointed it out in his video. For example, Molly Weasley is described as having a “matronly” build, while Umbridge is described as “toad-like”. They’re both overweight, but whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing is determined by whether they’re a hero or a villain. The actual thing is irrelevant, what matters is whether it’s a good guy or a bad guy.
I guess that’s why you think slavery is okay. If it’s done by a “good person”, it’s a good action. It doesn’t matter how many bad things the heroes of that book are portrayed as in the right for doing, because they’re good guys. The book says so. So they can’t do bad things.