No, it isn't. Magical people are better than non-magical people, end of. I've already given my justification for it and explained why it has nothing to do with discrimination.

 

I believe you're misunderstanding Taure here, slightly. You point out that all humans, as a species, are smarter than any ant on the planet, and the difference is gargantuan - no ant could ever realistically achieve a very large human brain through dint of effort. It's quite literally impossible. This is the same parallel with magic - this isn't a distinction between Newton and a stupid person, who are both human but of varying intellect - a situation contrasting perhaps Dumbledore and McNair; but of a difference so radical and massive that it questions the basis of calling both these sets of individuals as members of the same species, or being deserving of equal rights, because non-magical individuals can never at any point of time do the things the magical can.

 

In a humane society we try to afford the crippled and disabled stipends and special dispensation to allow them to live equally (in theory) despite their lack of abilities due to circumstances outside their own control.

I don't see why it should be any different between magicals and non magicals.

Non magical people are in essence crippled compared to the magicals.

 

If the large majority of the world's population were handicapped, you can be dead sure there'd be a large movement among the non-handicapped to lose the deadweight and leave the worthless cripples to their own devices. The morality of such seems to be the focus of this debate.

 

Isn't the primary reason for the Statue of Secrecy to prevent muggles from bother wizards with requests for help with their muggle problems?

All those handicapped muggles are left to the products of their lackluster abilities.

Wizards and Witches don't think muggles are worth any time or thought over their quality of life.

 

That's what Hagrid said, but I generally wouldn't trust him with international politics.