Tweak

InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "hey Mr. DJ, put a record on."

Username: 
Password:    
Remember Me
  • Create Account
  • IJ Login
  • OpenID Login
Search by : 
  • View
    • Create Account
    • IJ Login
    • OpenID Login
  • Journal
    • Post
    • Edit Entries
    • Customize Journal
    • Comment Settings
    • Recent Comments
    • Manage Tags
  • Account
    • Manage Account
    • Viewing Options
    • Manage Profile
    • Manage Notifications
    • Manage Pictures
    • Manage Schools
    • Account Status
  • Friends
    • Edit Friends
    • Edit Custom Groups
    • Friends Filter
    • Nudge Friends
    • Invite
    • Create RSS Feed
  • Asylums
    • Post
    • Asylum Invitations
    • Manage Asylums
    • Create Asylum
  • Site
    • Support
    • Upgrade Account
    • FAQs
    • Search By Location
    • Search By Interest
    • Search Randomly
Regulus Arcturus Black ([info]te_regulus) wrote in [info]hogwarts_dawn,
"Right, and that's what I thought, but does it matter if they hold value? We can always sign them again, but then they will be forced to deal with us and talk about each one, because I'm sure they don't care if we agree to the rules about the length of porcupine quills, but things like the Statute of Secrecy, taking care of magical beings within our territory?" He smiled at the mere idea of a rogue Britain.

"You're right that we need them, but they will care if they think that we're so desperate that we might go with the Muggle world. And honestly, we'll never win on a diplomatic level," Regulus said, shaking his head, because that would have been preferable, but alas they could only do with what they had. "Not only we don't have the international power, but Potter is more the fighting type. This will give him a weapon to use against the Confederation."

The specific laws became replaced by a more theoretical discussion, one that Regulus enjoyed. "I agree on motives and intention, but not on the Unforgivables, which is why we aren't banning them outright. What are the two reasons for banning them? Intent and that they tap on a dark part of ourselves. Let's look at intent. Say that someone is hurting a group of Muggles or children. He has defensive spells around him that prevent me to stop him. The only way to stop him is one of the unforgivables. The intent is to cast one of them but the reason is to stop him, so should we say that it's not justified because I intended to use an Unforgivable?"

He knew the other part might be a little more controversial, but they couldn't live in a world of black and white, when it had lead to their distraction. "Also it says that it taps into the evil part of us, but aren't we all a little evil? we can all find that part of us under the right circumstances. I think that the Unforgivables have such a terrible reputation, because being illegal, good people didn't use them and the people who did were already evil before using them. It's not that the Unforgivables make you evil, but that evil people tend to use them without caring about the reason."




(Read comments)

Post a comment in response:

From:
( )Anonymous- this user has disabled anonymous posting.
( )OpenID
Username:
Password:
Don't have an account? Create one now.
Subject:
No HTML allowed in subject
  
Message:
 

Home | Site Map | Manage Account | TOS | Privacy | Support | FAQs