|
|
Post by blackroses77 on Jul 1, 2012 15:23:32 GMT -5
Leaving a child in an abusive home is not okay and there were many alternatives.
1) Until Voldemort was brought back in the 4th book the only thing that could have threatened Harry was DE who would have been stopped by strong wards, especially if they had gotten unspeakables to add some wards along with Dumbledore and a Fidelious Charm.
2) Make Harry his own secret keeper (something I have never understood was why James and Lily couldn't have been their own secret keeper) Harry isn't likely to give away his own location.
3) He could have lived at Hogwarts with a gaurdian. Hogwarts is supposed to be the safest place and I am sure that several families, Tonks' for example would have moved into Hogwarts to keep Harry safe or give gaurdianship to a professor.
|
|
|
|
Post by readingwizard4 on Jul 1, 2012 15:23:58 GMT -5
The bloodwards protected him Voldemort and Voldemort alone. They would not protect him from the Dursleys. They starved him there so just give him less and less food and Harry would die. No bloodwards could protect anyone from that. Harry was magical so that would help injuries heal but Petunia aimed a frying pan at his head and if it hit him it would knock him out or worse. So yes they could have. Would they whip him and whatever else they do in those abuse fics? Nope. They would lie and say someone broke in or something
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 15:32:57 GMT -5
Well as I keep saying the blood wards were there for the case that Voldemort came back. And I don't think it would be possible to make Harry the secret keeper as he was one year old at the start. And at Hogwarts would have been a possibility but then he would have been worse than his father after being hailed for ten years as the best thing since merlin.
Also Hogwarts even without Harry there couldn't have been a very safe place for a child. With childish and/or hormonal teenagers who are able to do some serious damage with a wand. Not to mention all those Death Eaters that remained free. And of course Lucius Malfoy as Governor who would try to get his hands on Harry.
And lastly the never changing fact that Harry needed a place to stay for every eventuality. As Harry couldn't have stayed there before his seventh year.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 15:34:02 GMT -5
And of course the blood wards didn't only protect him from Voldemort and the Dursleys didn't exactly starve Harry.
|
|
|
|
Post by readingwizard4 on Jul 1, 2012 15:37:33 GMT -5
The only explanation I can think of for the Fidelius charm not being able to used by Lily or James themselves was that that advancement didn't happen until after their deaths or came because of people wanting to make it foolproof. Hogwarts safe? Ha ha lol. Voldemort possessed a professor for a year, 3 1st years got through the traps, the diary was in the castle for a year, a basilisk was in the castle, Sirius Black could sneak in, Peter was there for years without being uncovered, Crouch Jr. was Moody for 9 months without being uncovered, Umbridge used blood quills, and Dumbledore let Draco run free almost killing Ron and Katie, The Diadem was in the castle for decades. The school is not safe
|
|
sherza
Head Boy/Girl
Posts: 705
|
Post by sherza on Jul 1, 2012 15:42:57 GMT -5
werewulfking ... the protection of the wards at the Dursleys would have meant less than nothing if Harry had been even *slightly* different as a person.
Why?
Abuse *fucks you up*. People respond to it in one of three (highly generalized ways.
1) Overcoming/rising above/becoming a normal person despite it. This is the Harry of Canon
2) Becoming a withdrawn wreck of one sort or another. This is First Year Neville.
3) Becoming bitter, paranoid, me-first self-protective and highly liable to lash out. This is Snape, and Voldemort.
Now ... I ask you. What fucking use is a Chosen One who cowers from danger?
Or worse ... what use is a Chosen One who becomes Voldemort 2.0?
This is the VERY REAL chance that Dumbledore took leaving Harry in that house and not trying to do anything to curb the Dursleys.
|
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Jul 1, 2012 15:45:15 GMT -5
The idea that Hogwarts was one of the safest places in the world is a joke, especially when you consider the adventures Harry and his friends had there, and the fact that all the students are allowed to carry deadly weapons. Even with the teachers around, the danger still exists, and the teachers did nothing to protect the students.
|
|
|
|
Post by readingwizard4 on Jul 1, 2012 15:49:30 GMT -5
And of course the blood wards didn't only protect him from Voldemort and the Dursleys didn't exactly starve Harry. Didn't exactly starve Harry? Are you serious? the banannas and the chips (in the 1st book), a bowl of soup and a piece of bread in the 2nd book for 3 or so days, Rabbit food with a serving way less than Dudley's in the 4th book. That is way less than I eat in a meal. Who else blew to dust like Quirrell did in the 1st book? |
|
|
|
Post by blackroses77 on Jul 1, 2012 15:50:51 GMT -5
The only explanation I can think of for the Fidelius charm not being able to used by Lily or James themselves was that that advancement didn't happen until after their deaths or came because of people wanting to make it foolproof. Hogwarts safe? Ha ha lol. Voldemort possessed a professor for a year, 3 1st years got through the traps, the diary was in the castle for a year, a basilisk was in the castle, Sirius Black could sneak in, Peter was there for years without being uncovered, Crouch Jr. was Moody for 9 months without being uncovered, Umbridge used blood quills, and Dumbledore let Draco run free almost killing Ron and Katie, The Diadem was in the castle for decades. The school is not safe Yes but none of that happened until Harry's first year, before that no one would have blinked if it had been decided that Harry was to be raised at Hogwarts because Hogwarts was the best of the best for safety before Harry's first year. And even after that it was still considered the safest place by many. I think it was book 5 or 6 were the trio was debating the fact that a lot of students were kept home because their parents thought them safest there and the trio thought that was stupid because they would have been much safer at Hogwarts than their home. Sherza: You're exactly right, Dumbledore is very lucky he didn't have a mini Snape or Riddle on his hands when Harry came to Hogwarts. |
|
sherza
Head Boy/Girl
Posts: 705
|
Post by sherza on Jul 1, 2012 15:51:10 GMT -5
also, werewulfking ...
DIDN'T EXACTLY STARVE HARRY? WTF?
Petunia thought that two slices of bread and a chunk of cheese was a sufficient meal after a long day of hard-physical-labor chores! And a bowl of cold soup was evidently also seen as sufficient for a growing boy.
he wasn't starved my ASS.
|
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Jul 1, 2012 15:56:22 GMT -5
Harry did get food, maybe not much or often, but I thought the definition of starvation was not eating more than once or twice a week. Harry was fed more than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by readingwizard4 on Jul 1, 2012 15:59:58 GMT -5
If he did stay at Hogwarts you don't think that the older Slytherin students wouldn't have tried something? I bet they would. With Snape there he would have had to put up with him for 10 years and that might have affected him as well. If Harry turned out like Snape and Riddle we would be in so much trouble
|
|
sherza
Head Boy/Girl
Posts: 705
|
Post by sherza on Jul 1, 2012 16:07:29 GMT -5
Harry did get food, maybe not much or often, but I thought the definition of starvation was not eating more than once or twice a week. Harry was fed more than that. The definition of starvation is ... yeah. Not that. Most people, while they can live without having eaten in a week, can't function on any sort of activity level, if that happens. The best they can do is sit there and hope they get some food so they can actually do more than sit there. Harry was on a brutal-as-hell starvation diet. He was forced to be exceedingly physically active on next to no caloric intake. He was NOT replacing the calories he lost due to activity, much less getting a healthy diet (meaning, he was getting the required amounts from each food group). THAT is the definition of starvation. He was being fed just enough to keep him alive and walking around. He was probably chronically starving-hungry. THAT is why he's so short and skinny, not genetics. There is zero mention of James being any kind of short ... ditto for Lily. Harry has pictures of his father after first year, and looks at them. Pictures with Sirius Black, who was evidently quite tall, per the books, in them (the wedding photo) and there is no mention of James being short in comparison to anyone in the picture. That tells me that James and Lily were, at the very least, average in height. And yet Harry is this puny little thing? Aha, no. |
|
|
|
Post by blackroses77 on Jul 1, 2012 16:16:46 GMT -5
Harry was definitely starved and I have seen several fanfics were Harry has come to live at Hogwarts before the age of eleven and they were very well written and very believable so yes I can see Harry being raised at Hogwarts. Also if Dumbledore through his neglect didn't know Harry was abused until after he came to Hogwarts then he would have only needed to find a safe place for him during the summers. I am sure some place could have been provided, warded and put under Fidelious to keep Harry safe for 2 months. Which again bring's us back to Dumbledore condoning the abuse and not caring about Harry other than to make sure he was alive to kill Voldemort.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 16:17:51 GMT -5
Well honetstly the didn't exactly starve Harry is a quote from PS and after that admittedly the food intake from Harry provided by the Dursleys got less. And I don't say that it wasn't a great mistake not to support Harry more during his first 10 years but I am just pointing out facts that there were good reasons to leave him there.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackroses77 on Jul 1, 2012 16:20:47 GMT -5
Well honetstly the didn't exactly starve Harry is a quote from PS and after that admittedly the food intake from Harry provided by the Dursleys got less. And I don't say that it wasn't a great mistake not to support Harry more during his first 10 years but I am just pointing out facts that there were good reasons to leave him there. I think what ever reasons you had have been disproved here and the quote from PS was by Harry himself! Of couse he didn't think he was starved, lots of abuse victims don't think they're abused it doesnt' mean they're not. |
|
|
|
Post by Kaiserin on Jul 1, 2012 16:21:57 GMT -5
to all those that say that harry was at least alive. remember the saying that the end does not justify tghe means. and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. what if harrys magic hadn't saved him and he was choked to death. and to your thoughts of safe at durzkabab, hello dementors, or was harry tp be locked up in the house proper?
|
|
|
|
Post by lucyolsen on Jul 1, 2012 16:23:19 GMT -5
And if you asked if an abused child was abused, he will answer, in all honesty, "no." He probably thinks that starvation means that they keep from from eating at all, but since he is given food every day (even if it is too little), he does not think that it is starvation.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 16:27:08 GMT -5
Well but in the books we have seen that Harry is rather honest with himself and in the end it is the author who puts that in his head which is the truth. And also I haven't actually seen how any of my reasons are false in this discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Jul 1, 2012 16:28:30 GMT -5
Well honetstly the didn't exactly starve Harry is a quote from PS and after that admittedly the food intake from Harry provided by the Dursleys got less. And I don't say that it wasn't a great mistake not to support Harry more during his first 10 years but I am just pointing out facts that there were good reasons to leave him there. Exactly. And I agree. Besides, Harry was able to sneak around and get food, plus after his third year, he could send Hedwig to his friends, asking them to send him food. |
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 16:31:16 GMT -5
Oh  someone who agrees with me ;D I am so happy I could dance |
|
sherza
Head Boy/Girl
Posts: 705
|
Post by sherza on Jul 1, 2012 16:31:24 GMT -5
There is absolutely NO reason whatsoever to leave ANY child in an abusive situation. Period.
EVER.
I don't care if the place where Harry is being abused is the freaking magical equivalent of Fort Knox. Dumbledore took the responsibility of placing Harry, therefore it was his job to see to it that the placement was GOOD for him, making it his job to either stop the effing abuse one way or another, or get Harry out of there, because if he doesn't, he was as much of a monster as the people doing the abusing.
Edited for errors, because the abuse issue makes me froth at the mouth just a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 16:35:06 GMT -5
I agree in the sense that no child should live in an abusive relation but the mistakes were made before the series started. After that, well in my opinion, even in his first year Harry proved that he could withstand anything which would have calmed Dumbledores mind about the whole Dursley situation. And all the really bad emotional abuse and the locking in the cupboard had by then stopped.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackroses77 on Jul 1, 2012 16:35:09 GMT -5
I already put this on another thread but I'll put it hear as well; The thing's he had under the floorboard appear to all be sweets and the food he was able to sneak would not have been enough even if he snuck something every night it would have most likely only been a piece of fruit or bread or maybe something in the back of the fridge that was about to go off as he would have had to make sure whatever he took would not have been noticable to Petunia. I am sure she would have noticed if a lot of food was missing. So sweets combined with what would amount to a snack every night does not mean he was getting enough food and it certainly doesn't mean he wasn't being starved. To add to that even if he was able to get his hands on a three course meal every night (which he wasn't) that still doesn't negating the fact that the DURSLEY's were starving him.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackroses77 on Jul 1, 2012 16:40:01 GMT -5
I agree in the sense that no child should live in an abusive relation but the mistakes were made before the series started. After that, well in my opinion, even in his first year Harry proved that he could withstand anything which would have calmed Dumbledores mind about the whole Dursley situation. And all the really bad emotional abuse and the locking in the cupboard had by then stopped. And all the really bad emotional abuse stopped after first year! Are we reading the same books because right now I have no clue what you've been reading. And the fact that an eleven yr old is resilient means it's okay to leave him in an abusive situation o.O I just don't have words to express the wrongness in that. |
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 16:40:54 GMT -5
Well as I said a bit earlier: If Rowling (the author - you may remember her) says that Harry wasn't starved up until PS then that stands. I admit they did starve him for a few days during CS but after that he always had enough food from his friends.
|
|
sherza
Head Boy/Girl
Posts: 705
|
Post by sherza on Jul 1, 2012 16:43:10 GMT -5
I agree in the sense that no child should live in an abusive relation but the mistakes were made before the series started. After that, well in my opinion, even in his first year Harry proved that he could withstand anything which would have calmed Dumbledores mind about the whole Dursley situation. And all the really bad emotional abuse and the locking in the cupboard had by then stopped. Oh, I see ... Harry could take it, therefore it was ok. You, sir or madame, are, to put it bluntly, a callous bastard, and I hope like HELL you never have kids, or ever have anything to do with kids, because it's people like you that ensure kids like Harry never get the help they need, because who fucking cares, as long as the kid isn't sporting broken bones, bleeding out, or so traumatized they can't move? The 'worst' of the abuse DID NOT STOP. The cupboard just got moved, and became a bit bigger, or did you miss the whole bit where HARRY WAS LOCKED INTO THE ROOM? And only let out twice a day to take a piss after the Dobby incident? And locked in there consistently every year after that? Nor did any other aspect of the abuse stop. He was still being verbally, mentally, emotionally and physically abused to the *very* end by those bastards. But it's ok, because he could take it. Eff you and the horse you rode in on. |
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 16:44:55 GMT -5
My god please it is a book "No kid in any shape or form was harmed in the making of this book unless you count all the poor childworkers in the third world"
Oh and another thing what is this sites policy on insults??
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 16:46:28 GMT -5
And I didn't say that it was alright not to supervise him during any of his stay with the dursleys but only tried to explain the reasonings of Albus Percival Brian Wulfric Dumbledore
|
|
|
|
Post by readingwizard4 on Jul 1, 2012 16:48:10 GMT -5
Just like Harry wasn't physically abused? I read somewhere where someone said JK Rowling said he wasn't abused or something like that. Petunia threw a frying pan at his head and his uncle chocked him in OOTP and Harry mentally thought to stop a couple of stairs up to avoid his uncles hands in HBP. Sweets and cakes in 4th year isn't enough food for a balanced meal let alone a whole day.
|
|
someone who agrees with me ;D I am so happy I could dance