![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
1) You're switching criteria. Before you were arguing that what makes a spell dark is its use to harm. Now you're speaking in terms of legality, which is not the same thing at all. Confundus is legal, Imperius is not (even though we are given no explanation why despite the similarities of the two spells). That doesn't prove anything about whether or not either spell is dark or why it is dark, or about whether or not it harms. And recall that Draco bought the cursed necklace quite legally, from a dark arts shop operating openly in the main shopping district. Illegality in the WW is not merely a synonym for dark or for harmful.
Why are you allowed to generalize from your experience to conditions in the WW, but doing the same RE issues like parental neglect is not because these are 'fantasy books' and not comparable to the real world?
2) RE pests: it's not illegal to use the AK on non-sentient animals, and if we believe fake-Moody (talking about an issue that anyone could go look up, so he has reason to be factual) it's even allowed for use on sentient non-humans. It's merely killing another *human being* with it that is illegal. Plus, how do you know that the WW-equivalent of a pest control company is not a specialized group of guys armed with AKs? The book doesn't say one way or another, and that possibility fits within what we do know to be possible/allowed in canon. Same with the WW abattoir system: it might be a group of people AKing animals and chopping them up. That is a possibility not ruled out by canon. We do know that wizards aren't very mechanically-oriented, so it's far more likely that whatever 'system' is in place involves more co-ordinated spellcasting than mechanized slaughter. (The system need not be large; JKR claims there are 3500 wizards in Britain, and even adjusting upwards to fit what we see in the books with real population dynamics as Jodel does only gives about 10,000, not very large at all.)
3) We don't know for certain that nothing akin to surgery takes place in the WW; we just don't see or hear much of it. It is possible that while the vast majority of things can be healed with potions and spells, there are rare cases where physical intervention is necessary. We do know that occasional limb loss happens (Moody), and some form of amputation is not ruled out as having been the cause. So it's only an assumption that surgery is non-existent, it's not supporting evidence from canon. And Sectumspempra is not demonstrated to be by nature "very inaccurate." Quite the opposite: it depends upon the caster's precision. Severus' attack on James is quite precise. Harry's attack on Draco is wild because Harry is using the spell for the first time and in a very uncontrolled manner.
And your personal preferences RE experimentation, while fully understandable (I agree with the sentiment), have no relation to what may or may not be the case in the Potterverse. Wizards haven't proven themselves to be a particularly warm and fuzzy, animal-friendly lot. The possibility that animal experimentation takes place in the WW fits within what we do know from canon; indeed, we see the Weasley twins come rather close to it with their playing with fireworks and salamanders (one reason I dislike them is precisely this sort of casual cruelty to animals). They are not ever called out by even the most warm and fuzzy wizard or witch for harming an animal, and the general attitude of the WW seems to be that it's fine to do as you like to animals as long as you don't upset the owner. (The outrage over the dragon in DH stands as the single exception, and I find it hard to take seriously since the characters haven't exactly been animal rights fans before that.)
Why are you allowed to generalize from your experience to conditions in the WW, but doing the same RE issues like parental neglect is not because these are 'fantasy books' and not comparable to the real world?
2) RE pests: it's not illegal to use the AK on non-sentient animals, and if we believe fake-Moody (talking about an issue that anyone could go look up, so he has reason to be factual) it's even allowed for use on sentient non-humans. It's merely killing another *human being* with it that is illegal. Plus, how do you know that the WW-equivalent of a pest control company is not a specialized group of guys armed with AKs? The book doesn't say one way or another, and that possibility fits within what we do know to be possible/allowed in canon. Same with the WW abattoir system: it might be a group of people AKing animals and chopping them up. That is a possibility not ruled out by canon. We do know that wizards aren't very mechanically-oriented, so it's far more likely that whatever 'system' is in place involves more co-ordinated spellcasting than mechanized slaughter. (The system need not be large; JKR claims there are 3500 wizards in Britain, and even adjusting upwards to fit what we see in the books with real population dynamics as Jodel does only gives about 10,000, not very large at all.)
3) We don't know for certain that nothing akin to surgery takes place in the WW; we just don't see or hear much of it. It is possible that while the vast majority of things can be healed with potions and spells, there are rare cases where physical intervention is necessary. We do know that occasional limb loss happens (Moody), and some form of amputation is not ruled out as having been the cause. So it's only an assumption that surgery is non-existent, it's not supporting evidence from canon. And Sectumspempra is not demonstrated to be by nature "very inaccurate." Quite the opposite: it depends upon the caster's precision. Severus' attack on James is quite precise. Harry's attack on Draco is wild because Harry is using the spell for the first time and in a very uncontrolled manner.
And your personal preferences RE experimentation, while fully understandable (I agree with the sentiment), have no relation to what may or may not be the case in the Potterverse. Wizards haven't proven themselves to be a particularly warm and fuzzy, animal-friendly lot. The possibility that animal experimentation takes place in the WW fits within what we do know from canon; indeed, we see the Weasley twins come rather close to it with their playing with fireworks and salamanders (one reason I dislike them is precisely this sort of casual cruelty to animals). They are not ever called out by even the most warm and fuzzy wizard or witch for harming an animal, and the general attitude of the WW seems to be that it's fine to do as you like to animals as long as you don't upset the owner. (The outrage over the dragon in DH stands as the single exception, and I find it hard to take seriously since the characters haven't exactly been animal rights fans before that.)