Living In A Cupboard

[werewulfking]

And just to try to convince you for one more time:

Your arguments:
1) Again only with the Dursleys Harry was completely safe. I already said that there should have been improvements mad with his living conditions but only there he would be alive after seventeen years.
2) Harry was even in his first year a charismatic child who could get on the good side of most people. And again Deatheaters would not have been swayed by him no matter what he did.
3) Harry taught himself quite well in the years 4 and 5 ind Defense (which is the only subject where there were no-good teachers) and although Occlumency may have been a good thing to learn Harry just isn't the type to stay calm no matter what and therefore it would have been almost impossible to learn occlumency.
4) He did everything he could with the horcruxes.
5) I don't think the horcrux could have been removed any other way than letting Voldemort kill Harry without Harry dieing with the Horcrux. Otherwise Dumbledore would have suggested it because no matter what Dumbledore wasn't a cruel man.

[werewulfking]

Okay sherza you are hopelessly set in your ways. I give up. white flag.

[physicssquid]

Jul 2, 2012 19:45:02 GMT -5 werewulfking said:

Okay sherza you are hopelessly set in your ways. I give up. white flag.

Sherza might well be set in her ways, but others might not be.
And I do agree with you. Nothing will change that.

[sherza]

Jul 2, 2012 19:43:18 GMT -5 werewulfking said:

And just to try to convince you for one more time:

Your arguments:
1) Again only with the Dursleys Harry was completely safe. I already said that there should have been improvements mad with his living conditions but only there he would be alive after seventeen years.
2) Harry was even in his first year a charismatic child who could get on the good side of most people. And again Deatheaters would not have been swayed by him no matter what he did.
3) Harry taught himself quite well in the years 4 and 5 ind Defense (which is the only subject where there were no-good teachers) and although Occlumency may have been a good thing to learn Harry just isn't the type to stay calm no matter what and therefore it would have been almost impossible to learn occlumency.
4) He did everything he could with the horcruxes.
5) I don't think the horcrux could have been removed any other way than letting Voldemort kill Harry without Harry dieing with the Horcrux. Otherwise Dumbledore would have suggested it because no matter what Dumbledore wasn't a cruel man.

1) BULLSHIT. Ten years of physical, mental, emotional and verbal abuse say otherwise.
2) READ WHAT I WROTE!!!!! I did NOT say anything about him sweet-talking the DE's to his side! I said that knowing pureblood traditions and such would help him understand the DE's and might even have given him ways to deal with them, within their own rules. It would also help him when working with NON DEATH EATER purebloods.
3) HE SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO TEACH HIMSELF!!!!!!!!!! Furthermore, just because Harry managed to learn a few things ... SCHOOLKID AGE THINGS on his own, does not mean he would be able to find, much less learn, more complex subjects on his own!!!!!
4) BULLSHIT. He knew about the existence of the damn things by second year. He had all the information in hand to figure out how many there were, what they were, and where they might be at that time as well. At absolute worse, he knew as of summer after fifth year when he went after one of the damn things. He was going to die anyway ... he could have gone after the rest!
5) Again, BULLSHIT. I strongly believe that there had to be some other way than hoping like hell that Harry would think his own life worth so little that he'd stand there and let Voldemort kill him without even *trying* to defend himself.

[physicssquid]

Jul 2, 2012 19:55:56 GMT -5 sherza said:

Jul 2, 2012 19:43:18 GMT -5 werewulfking said:

And just to try to convince you for one more time:

Your arguments:
1) Again only with the Dursleys Harry was completely safe. I already said that there should have been improvements mad with his living conditions but only there he would be alive after seventeen years.
2) Harry was even in his first year a charismatic child who could get on the good side of most people. And again Deatheaters would not have been swayed by him no matter what he did.
3) Harry taught himself quite well in the years 4 and 5 ind Defense (which is the only subject where there were no-good teachers) and although Occlumency may have been a good thing to learn Harry just isn't the type to stay calm no matter what and therefore it would have been almost impossible to learn occlumency.
4) He did everything he could with the horcruxes.
5) I don't think the horcrux could have been removed any other way than letting Voldemort kill Harry without Harry dieing with the Horcrux. Otherwise Dumbledore would have suggested it because no matter what Dumbledore wasn't a cruel man.

1) BULLSHIT. Ten years of physical, mental, emotional and verbal abuse say otherwise.
2) READ WHAT I WROTE!!!!! I did NOT say anything about him sweet-talking the DE's to his side! I said that knowing pureblood traditions and such would help him understand the DE's and might even have given him ways to deal with them, within their own rules. It would also help him when working with NON DEATH EATER purebloods.
3) HE SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO TEACH HIMSELF!!!!!!!!!! Furthermore, just because Harry managed to learn a few things ... SCHOOLKID AGE THINGS on his own, does not mean he would be able to find, much less learn, more complex subjects on his own!!!!!
4) BULLSHIT. He knew about the existence of the damn things by second year. He had all the information in hand to figure out how many there were, what they were, and where they might be at that time as well. At absolute worse, he knew as of summer after fifth year when he went after one of the damn things. He was going to die anyway ... he could have gone after the rest!
5) Again, BULLSHIT. I strongly believe that there had to be some other way than hoping like hell that Harry would think his own life worth so little that he'd stand there and let Voldemort kill him without even *trying* to defend himself.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. DON'T TRY AND FORCE IT ON OTHERS!!!!!

[werewulfking]

Well we do try to do the same. Although I like to kid myself that I have supported my opinion with the more logic arguments.

[physicssquid]

Jul 2, 2012 19:58:44 GMT -5 werewulfking said:

Well we do try to do the same. Although I like to kid myself that I have supported my opinion with the more logic arguments.

Your arguments were logical. And I agree with every single one.
I just don't see the point in repeating everything you've already mentioned. Certainly not if sherza won't listen.

[Kitty279]

Well, seeing as I am with Sherza here all the way and am really upset how you two try to defend Dumbledore's most despicable actions and whitewash them into something great, how you keep defending abuse as "the best for Harry", I can't see any logic in your arguments, either. It makes me sick to my stomach to think that people actually believe that. Besides, you do listen to our arguments about as much as we do to yours, right?

So I'll just have to agree to disagree, it's not worth my time to argue under these circumstances any more. It gets nowhere anyway.

[Choices HP]

Honestly, is there anyone here on this board that think that Harry wasn't abused.

Because what I've seen from what physicssquid and werewulfking and others, they're not argue the fact that Harry was abused or not, but the extent of said abuse. If I got that wrong, please contradict me.

[Kitty279]

As I understood them, they argue that Harry was perfectly safe at the Dursleys, as werewulfking insisted above, and I'd not call a home "safe" where people aim frying pans at a childs head, throw it around, lock it up, starve it ... to me it feels like justifying abuse. Something I just can't agree with, but which others seem to think I am completely wrong about.

[Choices HP]

Here's the next question. Where do you think Harry would have gone to live if Dumbledore hadn't taken him to the Dursleys? And I mean honestly where, not where you wanted him to go.

[Kitty279]

I'm sure I have said it before - any sensible light family with strong wards (to which Dumbledore could have contributed) would have been better than an abusive home. There have to be many families we don't see in canon who could have done the job. But I know that many people still think that so-called safety justifies the abuse - something I'll never understand. There's just no justification for child abuse whatsoever.

[viralic1]

From what I'm reading from WerewulfKing, I'm agreeing with Kitty. What I'm getting from his posts was that

A) Harry wasn't abused too bad

B) Even if Harry was abused, it was okay because Harry was "safe"

As too where Harry would go, I've always seen him going to the Bones, or the Tonks'

With the Bones', I can see it because Amelia Bones is a strong, independent woman who is a great role model but wouldn't pamper/allow Harry to grow up completely pampered.

With the Tonks', I can see it because Andromeda Tonks is a pureblood who was married a muggleborn, so she's not predjudiced and would allow Harry to get used to magical things while keeping him as a well-headed young man.

In terms of security, I see those two because:

With the Bones', with Voldemort gone Amelia has too much security because of her job, so no one would dare attack her.

With the Tonks', no one knows of them but Bellatrix and Narcissa. Bellatrix is in Azkaban, and Narcissa has never struck me as someone who would attack family, even if they were kicked out, so she wouldn't tell anyone about her "mublood loving" sister.

[Choices HP]

To me, the best place for Harry to have been raised would be if Remus had taken him. Obviously that's just a wishful thought because he's a werewolf and therefore he could never have been a choice. I think if Harry got lucky, he might have gotten into one of the light wizard families, but there could also been the chance that he was adapted by the Malfoys. Or maybe not the Malfoys, because Lucius had been accused and though since been proved innocent ('rolls eyes at that') shouldn't be allowed to have the Boy-Who-Lived. But what about a family like the Blacks. Sirius said his parents weren't Death Eaters, but they believed that Voldemort had the right view until he got too violent or something like that.

Then again, the Ministry could very well have put Harry with the Dursleys anyways because they are his closest living relatives. We just don't know.

And I'm not actually sure they were saying it justifies the abuse ... because honestly to me nothing justifies what Harry had to go through ... I just think that the safety issue had to be dealt with and this was what Dumbledore had thought was best.

Then there's the issue of the fact that not everyone has the same view on the degree of what happened to Harry. Personally I hate when people say that Harry was physically abused, especially to the extent that you seem to think he was. I'm not saying that he couldn't have been physically abused ... or that your view of the situation is wrong, or anything like that. I'm saying that for me, I don't like it because I think it negates some of the effect of the abused that was literally shown in the books. Sometimes people get so caught up in Harry being beaten that they don't seem to even mention the damage done to him by being shut up in the cupboard, or being called a freak. Taught not to ask question or probably even speak at all if he could help it. I hate it when people don't acknowledge this form of abuse.

I sort of think the whole Dumbledore issue boils down to whether or not your Dumbledore's man or not. Like Scrimgeour said to Harry is the six books ""Well, it is clear to me that he has done a very good job on you," said Scrimgeour, his eyes cold and hard behind his wire-rimmed glasses, "Dumbledore's man through and through, aren't you, Potter?""

Some are going to believe that Dumbledore cares about people and others are going to believe he's a manipulating bastard.

[viralic1]

I'm not debating the extent of the physical abuse, although to me signs are there, I'm simply debating whether it was "worth" it.

To me, the Dumbledore issue is a matter of perspective and slant.

With the evidence shown in the right slant, Dumbledore's actions can come off as being a manipulative dark lord.

At the same, evidence shown in a different slant can make his actions come off as a well-intentioned man.

The issue will probably never be solved.

[sherza]

In an ideal world, Harry would have gone to Sirius.

Now, before everybody starts squalling, lemme 'splain.

Yes, Sirius as a kid/teen was ... a complete ass. No three ways about it. That said, IF Dumbledore had kept his nose out of things, and Sirius hadn't even gone after Pettigrew (which he only did after Harry was taken from him, when he was out of his mind with grief), Harry originally would have gone to Sirius in the first place, and honestly, he was the best choice.

1) He is incorruptibly loyal, to the death, to the people he cares about (James, Remus, Harry).

2) We know nothing of Sirius between Hogwarts and 'that night'. I would like to think that he, like James, matured eventually. Without having to spend 12 years in Azkaban, this trend would continue, and he would emotionally/mentally be a suitable guardian.

3) Sirius is a pureblood. Better yet, he was raised in a Death Eater sympathizer house. He has a damn good idea how that lot thinks. Better yet, he has a damn good idea of the sorts of things those types of people would know, magic-wise, and would therefore be able to teach Harry how to deal with the sorts of shenanigans that type of person might pull.

4) Sirius is a pureblood. The eldest (actually, only, after Regulus' death) son of a very well-known, respected pureblood House. Not even Lucius Bloody Malfoy would want to tangle with THAT unless he had no other choice, politically or magically, thus giving Harry an extra layer of protection.

5) Remus would have been there. What? You though Sirius would have left Remus out in the cold? Hah! Thus giving Harry access to Remus' knowledge and abilities.

If Sirius is not a viable option, send him to the Weasleys. They don't have Sirius' firepower politically, but they'd have Dumbledore in their corner to equalize things.

Much as I like them, and wish they were an option, the Tonks' really aren't. Andromeda is/was a Black ... a disowned one. If Harry went to her, Lucius could conceivably kick up a stink and get Harry yoinked out of there.

Also, as much as I like Amelia Bones (she is a badass), she's not truly suitable because of her job ... it would take her away from Harry for long periods of time, possibly at unpredictable intervals. And while many a kid has grown up fine with a single working parent, with Harry's security concerns, it's really not a wise option.

All else fails, have Minerva raise him. She's got a crumb of common sense, is completely badass, and knows a lot. It would also mean Harry would be living at Hogwarts, right under the eyes of some of the biggest badasses in the wizarding world ... namely the Heads of House and Dumbledore. It wouldn't be perfect, but it'd be a damn sight better than the Dursleys.

[Silvertongue]

1) Again only with the Dursleys Harry was completely safe. I already said that there should have been improvements mad with his living conditions but only there he would be alive after seventeen years.

He was safe from Death Eaters yes, but Dumbledore said himself he knew Harry would not be loved or treated well there. He was gambling his life and mental stability with that. What would he have done if Harry had turned out like Voldemort, unable to feel love because he'd never been shown it? Acting cruelly to everyone else because that's how he'd been treated himself? Or, WHAT IF the Dursleys HAD been more physical with their abuse and ended up killing him accidentally, whether through starvation, internal injuries or just plain sickness through neglect. He had no guarantee that this wouldn't happen. Sure, he BELIEVED Petunia wouldn't wish to do something like that to a part of her sister but that's incredibly naive of him.

Also, he was happy enough with a Fidelius charm BEFORE Voldemort had gotten to him (which would have been when he was MOST in danger seeing as he had a body and was definitely after him or Neville, whereas after that he had no body and was incredibly weak) so why couldn't Fidelius be used with someone he trusted above everyone?

[viralic1]

Heck, the Fidelius charm is the best option. He could have used the Fidelius with him as the secret-keeper, and allow people like McGonagall to teach Harry.

[Kitty279]

And even if we leave the first years out - after Sirius opened Grimmauld Place for the Order, I really don't see how Privet Drive was any safer. At GP there were even adult wizards around all the time, plus Fidelius and unplottable and god knows how many wards. That seems to me much more safe than blood wards that were questionable after Voldemort used Harry's blood and so-called guardians who would happily have handed the freak over. Still, I got the feeling if not for the Dementor attack, Harry would have been forced to stay at Privet Drive all summer, just so Dumbledore didn't have to look at him. Never mind the state he was in after Cedric's death and everything.
Then the Dementor attack proved that he was *not* safe at PD, and still, he was sent back two more times. After Dumbledore had admitted he knew about the way Harry was treated. Never understood that Harry accepted that

[Silvertongue]

If I was Harry I would have said "Fuck that" no matter who it was I was talking to. No way would I have let someone take me back to that Hellhole when they KNOW this stuff was going on. I'd also never trust them again.

[werewulfking]

Well I can see of course why Sirius, for example , would have been much better at raising Harry. But I still can't accept the explanation that the fidelius would have been as save as the blood wards. Because it was already broken once and I still think that Dumbledore prepared the blood wards for the situation at the end of book six/beginning of book seven. Where Voldemort had killed Dumbledore and Grimmauld place was not really safe anymore because of all the secret keepers, which would have been the same if Harry had lived there.

[Silvertongue]

Okay, what if he didn't move Harry from Privet Drive at all but had someone else live with him who could keep him safe? Would that have been too difficult? I'm sure they could have had Marge's room and he would have easily found a way to get the Dursleys to allow it if he got Petunia to allow Harry to stay with just a Howler saying "Remember my last". Even if he had to threaten them with something, I'm not saying that would be right but it's a damn sight better than allowing a child to keep returning to a neglectful home.

[Kitty279]

The Fidelius was broken because Pettigrew was a traitor. Dumbledore did put the Fidelius on GP with himself as the secret-keeper, so why did he worry that wasn't safe? Why did no one take the Fidelius down after his death and re-cast it with a new secret-keeper? Shouldn't that work?

*snicker* Ah yes, let Sirius move in. I'd *so* have loved to watch the Dursleys, having that convict in their house!
Why do I feel that Dumbledore took their feelings about wizards too much into consideration, but not Harry's feelings at all?

[Silvertongue]

Because that's how he works. He needs Harry to be putty in his hands. If he left Sirius there, Harry would be focussed too much one what HE said was right, not Dumbledore. And you just KNOW Sirius would disagree with a lot of what he says.

[werewulfking]

Well silverongue I really think that is not how Dumbledore works. And Harry always had a mind of his own.
And the fidelius is probably to complex to cast or it is impossible to take down.

[mkatl1]

I think dumbledore is a maliputive b***ard ... And I believe the potters had a will .... Which was never opened .... Sooooo I don't think he did what was best for Harry .... No offence

[viralic1]

If Harry had a mind of his own, he sure hid it pretty well. Someone with a mind of their own takes in information, analyzes it, and uses that knowledge later. Harry just seems to accept whatever Dumbledore, Ron, or Hagrid takes it as the gospel truth.

Ron and Hagrid says all Slytherin's are evil, therefore in his mind they are. And don't give me crap about Malfoy, if I meet someone who is Muslim who treats me like crap, my first thoughts aren't: "Oh, that Muslim was mean to me. Obviously, every single Muslim is evil."

[werewulfking]

Harry doesn't think all Slytherins are evil that IS ron. We only hear him talk badly about persons he has a right to talk badly about. The only generalized thought we ever hear about is the first impression of the slytherins (looked like a nasty bunch or sth. along those lines).
And on the topic of not having is own mind: Are you sure we read the same books? Because what you described is exactly what harry did.

[viralic1]

Then why did Harry never try to contact any Slytherins? He never stopped Ron from talking crap about them, and when the DA comes around, he doesn't extend any of them an invitation, leaving them helpless in the wake of Umbridge's teaching.

And really? He actually took information in? Cause when I got to the third book, with the dementors, my first thought was: "Why did Voldemort try to spare Lily? It sounds like he was trying to kill Harry specifically, and Lily was just a casualty."

Granted, Harry was in severe emotional distress, but he never once questioned why in the years before the Prophecy reveal that Voldemort was gunning for him.

Heck, in the second book, Tom Riddle admits in the chamber that he was trying to kill Harry specifically, even to the point of not caring if any muggleborns didn't get hurt or killed.

All the signs were there, yet Harry seemed content to not even try to investigate at all, which seems very odd for a boy who feels the need to stick his nose in every little thing.

[Kitty279]

Jul 3, 2012 6:47:25 GMT -5 werewulfking said:

And Harry always had a mind of his own.
And the fidelius is probably to complex to cast or it is impossible to take down.

Yeah, that's why he followed the manipulative old codger beyond his death religiously, no matter how much shit he got thrown at himself.

Oh please. If the Fidelius was too complex, how did Dumbledore cast it in the first place?