Harry Potter Blaming Dumbledore or Mcgonagal for not noticing something wrong with Ginny

Ashaman · Jan 7, 2015

Shirotsume said:

You mean discounting 2(because its not for personal gain), 3, 4, 6 and 7(because even if he;d repeat the behaviour he still feels bad about it), leaving only 1 and 5.

5 is arguable in itself, seeing as precautions were taken in all cases, making it not reckless disregard but a semi controled enviroment - but accidents always happen and there was an element of danger there.

Hell, I'd even like to know what criminal activity he repeatedly preformed?

Which I have a feeling will segue into the "evil" bit you mentioned in regards to Harry and the Dursleys, which Dumbledore had an incredibly good reason for which ended up saving Harry's life multiple times.

Shirotsume · Jan 7, 2015

Ashaman said:

Shirotsume said:

You mean discounting 2(because its not for personal gain), 3, 4, 6 and 7(because even if he;d repeat the behaviour he still feels bad about it), leaving only 1 and 5.

5 is arguable in itself, seeing as precautions were taken in all cases, making it not reckless disregard but a semi controled enviroment - but accidents always happen and there was an element of danger there.

Hell, I'd even like to know what criminal activity he repeatedly preformed?

Which I have a feeling will segue into the "evil" bit you mentioned in regards to Harry and the Dursleys, which Dumbledore had an incredibly good reason for which ended up saving Harry's life multiple times.

If you're just going to be an asshat and make a blanket sweeping statement that all of the traits don't applywithout actually quantifying them, I'm just going to call you a troll and move on.

H-Man · Jan 7, 2015

Shirotsume said:

It doesn't matter when you die.

It matters what you do with the time you have left.

It's like in One Piece. Chopper's teacher knew he was going to die from a disease, and then from a poisonous mushroom, and then that he could die from being killed by the King's men.

He chose to blow himself up in the hopes that he'd actually bring back the heart of his nation. He died earlier than he would, in any of these cases, and did something.

I'm not going to say that it applies here because for all I know you're right and Dumbledore's choices were stupid, but this specific point, I wanted to correct you on.

That, and at least, Dumbledore was able to face death how he chose, rather than have it fully out of his control, last I checked.

Ashaman · Jan 7, 2015

Shirotsume said:

I'm honestly not sure I understand what you mean.

You yourself say 3, 4 and 6 don't apply.

That leaves 1, which is what I asked for examples of.

2, which is only partial because even though he's manipulative he doesn't do it for his own benefit.

5, which I disagree with. Dumbledore doesn't recklessly endanger people. The TriWiz Cup was something that had a shit ton of rules and safety measures including volunteers only, and students were warned to steer clear of Fluffy.

And then there is 7 - Remorse. Dumbledore felt crippling guilt over the events of his youth and spent much of his life trying to atone for them.

All told, not the actions of a sociopath.

You can cast Dumbledore as sociopath, but its by no means a perfect fit; even if he was a sociopath, he'd be a highly functional one who has used his disorder to do more good for wizardkind than anyone else in the modern wizarding world.

As for Dumbledore being evil? We are going to have to point blank disagree on that one.

Shirotsume · Jan 7, 2015

You're misreading me. Also, sorry for the tone in my last post, was in a very bad mood.

OK, so, number 1. First off, no matter how good your reasons are, you can't kidnap people (Ordered Hagrid to essentially kidnap Harry from the house ruins, and then again when he just straight up sent Harry away from the Minister at the DoM.) You also aren't allowed to imprison them (If the wards are so good, why are there guards around the house? To keep Harry there. Idgaf about your reasoning, you don't get to just imprison people.) Criminal negligence (Baby on a doorstep in November, are you kidding me.), child abuse (legally, he was party to Vernon and Petunia's emotional and physical abuse, which included hitting him with a skillet, and enough beatings to 'naturally skirt out of arm's reach of Vernon,' putting him in a cupboard, withholding food as punishment, and then there's second year's summer, enough said. There's more examples, but my point is made.)

The last one he does every summer.

Number 2, you're misreading. It refers to deception, characterized by "repeatedly lying," "Use of aliases," and finally "conning others for personal profit or pleasure."
It doesn't mean "repeatedly lying for personal profit or pleasure," "Use of aliases for personal profit or pleasure," and finally "conning others for personal profit or pleasure."
He doesn't use aliases, but he does repeatedly lie. In fact, if you count lying by omission (which most people consider lying) he pretty much constantly lies.
As for conning others for personal gain, it's not so much what we DO see in the book, it's what we don't. You have a student literally kill a professor in self defense. Where are the aurors? You have a student literally solokill a thousand year old basilisk, and not only that, you have THE harry potter do it. no investigation? No media? Nothing at all? Nobody even knows what goes on. None of the shit that goes down in Hogwarts ever seem to go past Hogwarts, even when a child is damn nearly splattered by a troll. That is horrifying, and reeks of coverup, of things getting swept under the table. I would consider that personal gain.

Number 3. He figured Voldemort wasn't gone... he did nothing with that knowledge. He didn't politically manuever to try and reduce Voldemort's support structure, which was damn near intact in 1994. He didn't try to erode support for pureblood beliefs, he literally did jack fuck all until 1994. He had a fucking horcrux slammed on his table in 1992, and it clearly wasn't the only one. he got one horcrux, and nearly got another, and got some background information about Riddle. That's literally it. nothing else. Fuck, the perfect example of how bad his planning is- a full semester of showing memories? Like, I know you think the kid has to matyr himself (another fucking terrible failure to plan), but dude this ain't a game, this is people's lives.

Number 4, I don't think really applies anymore. It clearly used to, but I think this got mindfucked out of him for the most part by Arianna's death.

Number 5, Fluffy was behind a locked door that you could pick or undo with a first year charm. You don't stick that shit in a school. That's like sticking a room of fucking lions in a middle school with a solid wood door whose only protection is a sign that says 'push' instead of 'use the handle,' and then making an announcement that students aren't to go in that room, that's how poor that protection is. More reckless disregard for safety? Sending him to the Dursleys, leaving him on a doorstep, we'll not even count his planning of his murder, because that's OTT, not fighting to try and get loopholes for Harry in triwiz (Three matches of rock paper scissors, award thousand galleons, winner donates thousand galleons to triwiz, relight and move on with your life. Or finding out the minimum for competition. Trying to get a rules change to help train Harry, who is underage and not under Hogwart's banner. His own school's teachers can't help him... but his school HAS not teachers. hogwarts does. Seriously, do ANYTHING, there's hundreds of possiblities, and none of them were explored), not making a proper announcement about the triwiz (You aren't supposed to fucking encourage bullying in your goddamn school. And he wonders why there's so much damn death eater support.)

Number 6, I don't think we see literally anything regarding Dumbledore's finances. No comment.

Seven, he shows remorse for pretty much one action, Arianna's death. Everything else, he rationalizes away. Prime example is Harry's abuse and planned murder. "But it's for the good of all!"
No. Just fucking no. For fuck's sake, even Snape is freaked the fuck out by Dumbledore's casually planning a student's murder.

As for the evil thing? We are going to have to disagree. If some asshole did what he did to Harry to a kid of mine, or family member or something, evil is the very least of things I would call him.
Hell, quite frankly, if my kid was going to Hogwarts, I'd be pulling him by the third year. Yeah, Beauxbaton is a pretty shitty school compared to Hogwarts, but at least Maxine gives a shit about the students.

EDIT: So my tone in this isn't the best either, but that's just because Dumbledore pisses me off, it's not aimed at you. I just keep imagining someone doing this to my little sister or my nephew or something, and my blood pressure starts rising. I genuinely think Dumbledore is a scumbag of the highest order.

nixofcyzerra · Jan 7, 2015

As I think I mentioned in another thread, Rowling should have put more effort into showing that Dumbledore had explored other options for Harry. For example:

Or how about:

Or:

Shirotsume · Jan 8, 2015

Except we have no proof at all that he DID put forth more effort. Everything you just said is just as non-canon as saying Dumbledore was secretly a Death Eater. it's completely pointless to the discussion at hand, and only muddies the discourse.

nixofcyzerra · Jan 8, 2015

Well, looking at it from a narrative-driven perspective, what we see of Dumbledore, when put under close scrutiny, does make him out to be a right bastard. I admit that. The facts that Rowling put in the book portray Dumbledore as a scumbag who planned to have Harry sacrifice his life, and be willing to sacrifice his life, by ensuring that Harry was a subject of abuse who's self-worth was so low that he was willing to sacrifice his life for perfect strangers, for a society that had shunned and besmirched him, and for a goverment that tried to use and manipulate him, had him tortured, and made an assassination attempt upon him.

The character that Rowling put in the book, on the other hand, that we don't see the whole life of but the innate personality traits that are supposed to shine through the pages so we can obtain an understanding of their nature... Well, from that perspective, Dumbledore's someone who was willing to risk his life to save a young man from a dark path, even when he probably didn't deserve it (although the fact that the boy was Harry's rival and Harry would likely fight and beat him in the near-future, allowing Dumbledore to pass on the Elder Wand to Harry through him instead Snape, was probably a bonus.)

Dumbledore's someone who acknowledges Harry ("You wonderful boy. You brave, brave man. Let us walk,") was incredibly happy that Harry didn't have to stay dead (Happiness seemed to radiate from Dumbledore like light; like fire: Harry had never seen the man so utterly, so palpably content,) who believed that "Love, loyalty and innocence... ...have a power beyond his own, a power beyond the reach of any magic," acknowledged that Harry had endured great trials ("I do not minimize your sufferings, which I am sure were severe,") felt guilty for his mistakes with Harry ("Can you forgive me?" he said. "Can you forgive me for not trusting you? For not telling you? Harry, I only feared that you would fail as I had failed. I only dreaded that you would make my mistakes. I crave your pardon, Harry. I have known, for some time now, that you are the better man,") felt guilty for his sister's fate for the rest of his life (his reaction to the potion in the cave,) fully expected Harry to hate him (You cannot despise me more than I despise myself,") and ultimately let Harry make his own choice as to whether to return to life or not.

From that perspective, Dumbledore's a flawed but ultimately good, even heroic man. And if you look at it from that perspective, well, when there are facts that seem to be contradictory to that conclusion, there must be mitigating circumstances that, due to the limitation of a 1st-person narrative, we simply don't know about.

Basically, IMO instead of twisting theories to suit facts, "you" (or anyone reading the books) should twist facts (or invent suppositions) to suit theories. Sherlock Holmes would be disgusted, but he never read fiction, so what does he know?

Shirotsume · Jan 8, 2015

First of all, I have not invented any suppositions, and as careful as I've been not to do so, I'm kinda offended that you try and throw that in my face. EDIT: ah, misread.

That said, did you even read what I said? "Well, to be fair, Rowling is fucking terrible at saying one thing and showing another. She shows Dumbledore as an unrepanent evil sociopath, but he gets treated and said to be great and good and amazing."

"Well, looking at it from a narrative-driven perspective, what we see of Dumbledore, when put under close scrutiny, does make him out to be a right bastard. [...] The character that Rowling put in the book, on the other hand, that we don't see the whole life of but the innate personality traits that are supposed to shine through the pages so we can obtain an understanding of their nature [...]"

We're saying the exact same thing, except I think I'm looking more at the fact that at the end of the day, I care more for what he's actually done to people, and not his intentions. Road to hell and all that.

tl;dr: We're saying the same thing, but you're leaning towards giving him the benefit of the doubt, and I'm not.

nixofcyzerra · Jan 8, 2015

What? No, I invented suppositions. See my post above with all the quote boxes. When I wrote "you," I didn't mean you personally, but "anyone who looks at the books from that perspective," a group that includes myself. You apparently don't look at it from that perspective, so you're not part of that group.

So I acknowledge that Dumbledore did some pretty awful things, but infer that he had little choice/was making the best of bad situations/sometimes failed to see better options due to not being omniscient.

Edited the last sentence of my last post to be more clear.

Garahs · Jan 8, 2015

Too bad your arguments on how evil Dumbledore supposedly is go up in smoke when you consider Fawkes is Dumbledore's friend and champion.

Shirotsume · Jan 8, 2015

You read too much fanon. Having a domesticated phoenix means nothing about your moral alignment in HPverse.

Ashaman · Jan 9, 2015

Shirotsume said:

Its fine.

I can understand the frustration.

That said, while I can understand several of your points, I can't agree to them.

All what you have said paints Dumbledore out as one cold ass mother fucker.

But that doesn't mean he's evil.

Dumbledore has done evil.

But he's always had a good reason for it - one that, eventually, had the very best possible outcome.

So yeah, Dumbledore walked the road to Hell paved with his good intentions, and then when he got there looked the doorman in the eye and said "I made the world a better place. Do your worst."

Chuckg · Jan 10, 2015

Ashaman said:

Yeah, but "Well-Intentioned Extremist" is still a villain trope, not a hero trope.

Cynical Kyle · Jan 10, 2015

To be fair, Dumbledore get lots of pointless flack.

Leaving Harry to the Durleys may seem harsh, but at that point his closest living relatives on magical side were Malfoys and godparent candidates either in hiding, (Longbottoms), presumed dead/traitor (Peter/Sirius) and legally very tenuous position (Remus). Sending Harry to live with Dursleys was clearly the the best solution avaidable at the time. Leaving him in front of their doorstep also isn't nearly as big deal as bashers claim: with magic it would've been easy to keep him warm, safe and only detectable to Dursleys. It's obviously fantasy cliche intended for children's book and even serious examination makes the act harmless when context is taken into account.

For that matter, leaving him at the Dursley's was obviously the safest possible move as Voldemort and his lackeys were unable to attack him there until that protection broke when Harry turned 17.

As for training Harry to be able to beat Voldemort in a fight, bitch fucking please. Even if Harry had lucked out and been just as insanely talented as Voldemort had been, Tom would still have had decades of more experience to draw from. Not every fantasy hero can be shounen protagonist that surpasses more talented & experienced people to flex their power level. While there certainly was clear gap in how Rowling intended to portray characters and what actually happened due to her lacking abilities as writer, Dumbledore managed to hash out plan that did allow for all intents and purposes average schoolboy to defeat most powerful Dark Wizard in recent memory.

Last but not the least is the most ridiculous piece of fanon bashery, insistence that Dumbledore still believes in Greater Good. He parted from that ideology decades ago and is shown to be disgusted at his past choices & deeply regretting them. It's hilariously out of character for him, yet tragically common element of HP fics.

He's certainly flawed as hell and Rowling dropped the ball on intention vs. actual portrayal, but that doesn't excuse the glaring lack of objectivity his character gets.

Rising Dragon · Jan 10, 2015

Simply put, Dumbledore, like the rest of us plebians, was a flawed human being.

H-Man · Jan 10, 2015

I think Dumbledore is still willing to make sacrifices, but an important point is that he doesn't want to sacrifice anyone if he can.

He certainly thought Harry dying was the only way and didn't realize there might be other ways until that one scene, and when he realized that he was 100% behind Harry taking the other path and sacrificing himself rather than anyone else, if he could. The deaths that came after that were not planned or merited, even if they're still consequences of his actions [surely if he had a better plan nobody but badguys would've died], but it's like saying Harry is at fault for Voldemort killing anyone - after a point, it stops applying.

Ashaman · Jan 10, 2015

H-Man said:

Picture Dumbledore as a Military commander. It fits him shockingly well.

Rising Dragon · Jan 10, 2015

I dunno, as far as Dumbledore sacrificing Harry, it came off to me in the story that Dumbledore knew that Voldemort hitting Harry with the Avada Kedavra wouldn't work. He wouldn't tell Snape or Harry, of course, in case someone found out, at which point it'd've all been for naught, but I'm pretty certain he was aware that Voldemort having Lily's protection would've tied Harry to life if Voldemort tried to kill him. So I don't think he saw that as an actual sacrifice.

nixofcyzerra · Jan 10, 2015

Ashaman said:

He basically was. The Order of a Phoenix was a Militia (a military or other fighting force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency,) and Dumbledore was its General, even if he never used the title.

Chi Vayne · Jan 10, 2015

Cynical Kyle said:

I agree with everything else, but would point out that leaving Harry on the doorstep, with or without magical charms to keep him warm, unnoticed, and preventing him from wandering off, still is worse than keeping Harry overnight and walking up to the family in the morning, knocking on the door, explaining things and answering any questions or objections that they might have.

Altered Nova · Jan 11, 2015

Dumbledore probably didn't want to give them a chance to refuse. I guess he's lucky they didn't just give Harry up for adoption.

Shirotsume · Jan 11, 2015

Now I want to see a good story where the dursleys just say fuck it, call the police, and let them deal with it.

Rising Dragon · Jan 11, 2015

I imagine they couldn't. Dumbledore DID leave them a letter explaining what had transpired and why they had to keep him under their roof. Much as they didn't like it, when Petunia was reminded of it she talked her husband down in kicking Harry out of the house.

Shirotsume · Jan 11, 2015

Would that count as blackmail? I'm not sure of the specific legal definition off the top of my head.

Harry Potter Blaming Dumbledore or Mcgonagal for not noticing something wrong with Ginny

Well-Known Member

Not The Goddamn @dmin

Random phantom.

Well-Known Member

Not The Goddamn @dmin

Well-Known Member

Not The Goddamn @dmin

Well-Known Member

Not The Goddamn @dmin

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Not The Goddamn @dmin

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Random phantom.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Not The Goddamn @dmin

Well-Known Member

Not The Goddamn @dmin