Bashing

[Ayrine Sun]

And I just thought of something, how does he prove that Draco is the culprit? I mean there isn't anything that relate the two attack to Draco?
He can't force him to show his left arm without reasons, or else, the Ministery wouldn't be swarming with DE?
And even if he does force him he would compromise Snape's position. Draco is a good Occlumens, how did Dumbledore even suspect him if it's not Snape who ratted on him?

[lucyolsen]

Ayrine, I've been meaning to ask you about your name. Is it your real name? Because it's the same name as a character from my favorite show, Farscape, just with a slightly different spelling. I know that it was dubbed into French.

[Ayrine Sun]

Not my real name, it's from Farscape, changed the Aeryn to Ayrine, I started to use it when I was a teen and it stuck with me. And yes, the real Aeryn was brilliant.

[Ayrine Sun]

Jul 18, 2012 6:12:26 GMT -5 Kitty279 said:

Who's more important, a Death Eater spawn or a few 100 children?

Kitty, I just realized you wrote that. Forgive me to be blunt, but I am a little disconcerted.

It's OK to sacrifice Draco, who is forced under menaceto kill Dumbledore because of his father's choices if it save few 100 children. BUT it's not OK to sacrifice Harry who is accidental an HORCRUX to save millions of innocents.

[Ayrine Sun]

Jul 18, 2012 8:19:40 GMT -5 @Ayrine Sun said:

Jul 18, 2012 6:12:26 GMT -5 Kitty279 said:

Who's more important, a Death Eater spawn or a few 100 children?

Kitty, I just realized you wrote that. Forgive me to be blunt, but I am a little disconcerted.

It's OK to sacrifice Draco, who is forced under menaceto kill Dumbledore because of his father's choices if it save few 100 children. BUT it's not OK to sacrifice Harry who is accidental an HORCRUX to save millions of innocents.

You know. I just re-read the DH's chapter when Dumbledore explains everything to Harry in King Cross, he says that he knew from the start that Harry would survive.
He hide it from Severus and Harry because he wanted Harry to choose to sacrifice himself to save everybody and therefore cast Harry's love protection on them.

[Kitty279]

Jul 18, 2012 8:19:40 GMT -5 @Ayrine Sun said:

Kitty, I just realized you wrote that. Forgive me to be blunt, but I am a little disconcerted.

It's OK to sacrifice Draco, who is forced under menaceto kill Dumbledore because of his father's choices if it save few 100 children. BUT it's not OK to sacrifice Harry who is accidental an HORCRUX to save millions of innocents.

Actually, for me there are some differences. Draco was so eager to become a Death Eater, he'd done it even without the pressure Lucius's mistakes brought on him. Harry, however, was never even asked if he wanted to be a Horcrux.

Draco did have a choice in the beginning, Harry never had. Draco was a spoiled brat who was the apple of his parent's eyes and got everything he wanted, Harry had a shitty life as the Dursley's punchball and house-elf. So I find it hard to feel sorry for Draco.

If Dumbledore really wanted to help Draco, why did he not try to smuggle him out of the country or at least get him to a safe house, instead of allowing him to run roughshot over the school?

As for Harry, I have always said that Dumbledore was an idiot for never even trying to find another way to deal with the Horcrux, and that's my problem with the whole thing. They had access to the Black library, the one of a very dark family, and it stands to reason that there is literature about it, seeing that Regulus found out what the locket is and tried to destroy it. Why did Dumbledore not try to find out what he could do? Why did he never get a healer to look Harry over and find another way? But no, Dumbledore has decided he has to die, so why find another solution? Instead he first left it to him to find the damn things in the first place, regardless of any curses that might be on them, and then he expects him to walk into certain death to save everyone, and that after he ruined his whole life from day one.

And I believe I have already mentioned that in my opinion Dumbledore should have used the Order to find the Horcruxes, saving time and thousands of lives, so let's not go there again.

As for the love protection, I still find it more than questionable how that was supposed to work, even if it did in canon. How many parents have sacrificed themselves for their children? So, why did that work with Harry, but no one else? I'd like to ask JKR what the logic behind that is supposed to be!

[misschsparkle]

Jul 17, 2012 15:14:49 GMT -5 @Ayrine Sun said:

Jul 17, 2012 14:45:20 GMT -5 misschsparkle said:

Molly might not be good at compromising but she is good at accepting situations once they've happened and supporting them to the fullest. When she accepted Fluer, she put all her energy into ensuring Bill and Fluer had the best wedding they could do.

What you mean? I believe Molly and Sirius should have worked together. Not one against the other.




But he did say what he wanted to say, he told him that night, Sirius didn't want to reveal everything, just enough to help ease Harry's mind, so he could understand what was happening rather imagine more terrible things. as for the other members of the order, they kept silent and didn't protest against Sirius, they thought that Harry needed to know at last enough to not die from frustration or burn from anger and tension.



What? I have no idea of what you are talking about. Dumbledore rating Sirius?



Never said that.

Jul 17, 2012 14:45:20 GMT -5 misschsparkle said:

Molly didn't say Sirius was useless or to shut up, she was trying to say he wasn't fit for looking after Harry and making all the decisions regarding him, he wasn't. She said it too bluntly but Sirius was clearly not listening to her so she had to be.

Harry did act like James a lot, except for certain things, how do we know how well Sirius would have treated him if he wasn't a lot like James. When Harry asked about the fifth year incident, Sirius just laughed it off, not getting the same bullying had once happened to harry. And Sirius certainly never said sorry for snarling at Harry, although he had plenty of time to realise his mistake and how it could affect Harry.

Never said he was ready to take care of Harry nor that Harry was James, I said he understood Harry mental state and know that his internal burning would led him to do something reckless. And that why he needed some informations and not be completely blinded.

Molly convinced herself that Harry was safe and didn't need to mind adult business. She was wrong about it, and while I agree that he didn't need to know everything, knowing nothing was worst. Molly couldn't comprehend that but Sirius did, regardless of his other issues.

Molly was at first against's Bill's wedding because she felt he was too young and rushing into the wedding, due to the war. She was also unsure about Fluer because she was a veela. But once she knew Fluer truly loved Bill, she did everything to give them a brilliant wedding.

Again, why didn't Sirius take Harry aside and tell him? He felt Harry needed to know something but not everything. Otherwise, he would have just told Harry when they were alone.

Um, you claimed that Sirius couldn't tell Harry because Dumbledore would kick him out onto the streets, meaning he'd be on the run. You kinda directed said that Dumbledore would rat Sirius out if he crossed a line.

[misschsparkle]

Jul 18, 2012 1:01:52 GMT -5 viralic1 said:

On the topic of Sirius believing Remus the traitor, I doubt it because of Sirius' comment during the initial confrontation in the shreaking shack

"You'd been passing information along to Voldemort for a year!"

How did he know that? He certainly didn't learn it in Azkaban, where he was kept in maximum security. My guess is he had a suspicion about Peter, but before he could bring the matter up, the attack on Godric's Hallow happened, and then he was shipped to Azkaban. It's possible he didn't trust Remus not too take it straight to Dumbledore, who would sit on his ass with the information and do nothing until it was too late.

Sirius always struck me as an action oriented person, so I can't see him and Dumbledore agreeing on many things in terms of what to do with Death Eaters, especially since he grew up with them and he knows first hand how unredeemable they are, yet Dumbledore is willing to risk an entire school full of children, just to try and save one person. And yes, he made a decision that Malfoy's future was of more importance than the lives and safety of the other children in his school.

Remember what Fudge or Minerva said in the three broomsticks. They said that Dumbledore was sure that someone close to the Potters had been giving information to Voldemort. Voldemort had been after them for a year, ever since Harry was born so that is where Sirius got that date from.

He fully suspected Remus but not Peter, because he considered Peter to be worthless and too cowardly to do something like that. Remus on the other hand was a werewolf and Voldemort had recruited a lot of them. It's likely Remus didn't have a job and was facing persecution so he WAS the best candidate for the traitor.

Don't forget it was SIRIUS who insisted that Peter be secret keeper, why on earth would he do that if he suspected him? That's why Remus wasn't told because Sirius suspected him. Sirius was uneasy when he went to Peter's hideout and found him gone and went to check Godric's hollow and that's when it hit him, Peter was the spy all along. That's why Peter did it so well, because on one suspected him and when Sirius was arrested, he became the perfect candidate.

[misschsparkle]

Jul 18, 2012 1:04:03 GMT -5 basketsarah120 said:

If Draco had seceded in killing one of the students. Dumbledore probably would be considered and accomplice.

But Draco wasn't trying to kill any of the students. Plus, if Draco had been disposed of, then Voldemort would have gotten someone else to do it, at least this way. Snape and Dumbledore were able to keep more of an eye on things.

[physicssquid]

Jul 18, 2012 10:34:23 GMT -5 Kitty279 said:

As for the love protection, I still find it more than questionable how that was supposed to work, even if it did in canon. How many parents have sacrificed themselves for their children? So, why did that work with Harry, but no one else? I'd like to ask JKR what the logic behind that is supposed to be!

I think the love protection thing worked because Voldemort gave Lily the choice. It probably wouldn't if he didn't do that. He was willing to spare her, if she let him kill her son, but she refused to step aside, and because she chose to die rather than try to live with herself if she had stepped aside, that gave Harry the protection he needed.

[Kitty279]

Wouldn't the same effect happen if a parent tried to, say, prevent their child to be tortured before their eyes and were told to step asice? If they rather allowed themselves to be killed than watch that? Considering the DE's love to torture their victims first, I could see that scenario happen now and then.

[physicssquid]

That's a good question, though I doubt that the DEs would offer to spare them. Voldemort only offered to spare Lily because Snape asked him to, and I doubt any DE would ask for other DEs to spare random strangers.

[misschsparkle]

Jul 18, 2012 7:03:30 GMT -5 @Ayrine Sun said:

Jul 18, 2012 6:12:26 GMT -5 Kitty279 said:

Personally, I can only remember that they knew that there was a traitor, but not who, and even less that it might be one of these three.

Frankly, I'd have sacrificed Draco, who already had nearly killed two other students (and it was through no merit of Draco himself that Katie and Ron didn't die! They were saved because some people acted fast, not thanks to magic!) to protect the rest of the school. Dumbledore knew obviously about Draco's task, but thought it perfectly reasonable to allow him further free rein even after two others nearly paid the price. Endangering himself is one thing, but endangering other people is another matter altogether. The man was responsible for a school full of children, but all they were to him is obviously to further his political games. That's inexcusable. What if Ron had died? Or Katie? Do you think it ok to allow Draco to try once again and kill more innocents in the process? Who's more important, a Death Eater spawn or a few 100 children? Besides, if Dumbledore didn't think Draco would bring Death Eaters into the school, why did he leave that guard at the school for that night?

My book (French edition) says that Dumbledore was persuaded that one of James' "close relation" meaning I think, friend was passing information (McGonagall to Fudge, Rosmerta, Hagrid and Flitwick).

I will rephrase it, he thought that Draco couldn't make the DE enter Hogwarts because he put the guards and a maximum security. He thought that in the end of the year, Draco would give up and Snape would kill him.

Kitty, I-for one-would have closed the school in 1992 until I capture the monster, I would have chased the Giant Spider and centaurs from the forest that is in a SCHOOL, interdict the USE OF bludgers in Quidditch, sued their as* for even mentioning the TriWizard-Sadistic-Tournament, or rather make the judges face the tasks, they would see how entertaining is affronting dragons and skrewts. because their age limit is stupid, at 17 I was a kid.
Sadly, even in 1945, they waited until Myrtle died to take the decision to close the school.

It's the whole society that underestimate those dangers, and Dumbledore is one of them. They are like as long as they are alive and not completely disabled, it's forgiveable, so as long as Draco doesn't KILL anyone, he can still stay because if not he will be KILLED. It's the same with Sirius, Remus and James and the Whomping willow's incident. Sirius nearly ended 2 lives that night, but he wasn't punished or expelled.
They inherited it from their parents and will inherit it to their children.

Why would you get rid of the Centuers, their not doing any harm? They never enter the Hogwart's ground or put students at risk, Harry and Hermione entered their territory and generally, the centurs would have helped them, but for Umbridge. also....no one knew about those giant spiders who lived deep in the forest and again, only attacked Harry and Ron because they walked smack bang into their nest.

The thing about the wizarding world is it is truly a different ones to ours, one that in many ways still exists in Medieval times. Injuries can be helped with a couple of potions and wandwork, they don't see danger like we do. Bare in mind what students can do to each other, even accidently. As for the tournament, that was why they introduced an age line, so that only adult students could enter.

It is the price the kids pay for having magic, they live in a much more dangerous world.

[misschsparkle]

Jul 17, 2012 17:34:33 GMT -5 basketsarah120 said:

Sirius was ready to take care of Harry. He scolded Harry in GOF and Azkaban matured him. If he wasn't trustworthy James and Lily wouldn't have made him godfather. He was probably good with baby Harry. And Sirius didn't treat Harry like James.

He did scold Harry in Fourth year....but look what happened in fifth year. He SCOLDED Harry for not acting like James and taking a massive risk by sneaking out of the school. Plus, he never bothered to apologise or consider how that made Harry feel. We don't know what Lily felt about Sirius but it's clear James would have made Sirius godfather no matter what. Plus, they didn't imagine that he would ever actually have to look after Harry, because they would have thought they'd live through it. James trusted Sirius like a brother and forgave him even when he almost killed another student. The two of them went back to bullying that student pretty quickly so James obviously didn't see Sirius's darker side.

[Ayrine Sun]

Then I disagree totally with you, Draco is the product of his upbringing as much as Harry is. The fact is, in all his eagerness, Draco couldn't kill Dumbledore, the others times were his reckless tentative because he was terrified and it's clear they were so half-heartedly done even if dangerous.
Draco isn't responsible of the way Harry or himself were raised, the two are humans being and the two have the same right to live.

Smuggle Draco,? but what about Narcissa? You think that Draco would abandon his mother? And when he is out, and Dumbledore die because of his injury and Snape is disowned because he ratted on Draco, who will protect the few 100 children from the Carrows?

You are assuming that there is another way, Kitty.
How do you extract a soul, without touching the other from his body.
If it was possible to separated them by simple magic, then why destroy the other horcruxes? The books Dumbledore had are the same Hermione had, and in them there is only destruction and death.

Lily was the only one because it was the first time he was set to kill a child but not the parents. Before he would be set on killing them all so they don't have a choice. and dying fighting ISN'T sacrifice in this meaning, because the fighter choose to live. IT'S choosing to die without fighting when you can live.
If you have problem with the Love protection, then Harry should be dead at 1 year old, and there would be no story at all.

It's about choices, Lily had the choice to live and sacrificed her life for her son.

[Ayrine Sun]

Jul 18, 2012 11:17:33 GMT -5 misschsparkle said:

Um, you claimed that Sirius couldn't tell Harry because Dumbledore would kick him out onto the streets, meaning he'd be on the run. You kinda directed said that Dumbledore would rat Sirius out if he crossed a line.

Never said that Sparkle. when?

[Kitty279]

Jul 18, 2012 11:34:28 GMT -5 physicssquid said:

That's a good question, though I doubt that the DEs would offer to spare them. Voldemort only offered to spare Lily because Snape asked him to, and I doubt any DE would ask for other DEs to spare random strangers.

Wasn't so much thinking of sparing them altogether, but the parent refusing to go aside so the child can be tortured before their eyes. Wouldn't that give them some sort of choice?

Jul 18, 2012 11:42:26 GMT -5 misschsparkle said:

He did scold Harry in Fourth year....but look what happened in fifth year. He SCOLDED Harry for not acting like James and taking a massive risk by sneaking out of the school. Plus, he never bothered to apologise or consider how that made Harry feel. We don't know what Lily felt about Sirius but it's clear James would have made Sirius godfather no matter what. Plus, they didn't imagine that he would ever actually have to look after Harry, because they would have thought they'd live through it. James trusted Sirius like a brother and forgave him even when he almost killed another student. The two of them went back to bullying that student pretty quickly so James obviously didn't see Sirius's darker side.

We have already gone over the fact that at this point in time Sirius was heavily influenced by being locked up in a house he hated, that brought up very bad memories, basically exchanging one prison for another, being insulted by Molly and taunted by Snape, forced to be inactive (which is against his nature, from what I can tell) and feeling useless, which didn't do him any good. Plus, the Horcrux may have influenced him. So I actually understand that he reacted like that, even though it was stupid and unfair.

They didn't expect that they could die so early? In a war? And with Voldemort after them? Really? Why did they go into hiding long before they were killed, then?

When was that incident? Sixth year? Is there any record of them bullying Snape even after that?

[G. Novella]

Not really. The idea is that the choice was directly offered. Voldemort told her she could be spared. In the case of tortured parents who die eventually, they either know they won't be spared, or were left to live to be tortured that way. It may be the love protection exists earlier than Harry, I doubt he's the first case, but it's the idea that the first person has the choice to be spared, or to willingly die for the other.

Actually, it's pretty easy to picture James and Lily as not thinking they'd die. By the time it was confirmed Voldemort was after them, they were moved to safety. They thought nothing would happen because they trusted their friends. Before that, well, no one assumes they'll die.

And the incident was fifth year. Snape was bullied until seventh according to Sirius, because James only stopped during his seventh year.

[Ayrine Sun]

Jul 18, 2012 11:37:16 GMT -5 misschsparkle said:

Why would you get rid of the Centuers, their not doing any harm?

Centaurs feels persecuted and don't accept wizards in their territory and punish them if they enter, kids are reckless and break rules, the two combined mean troubles. I have nothing against centaurs, but it's dangerous to have them there.

[Kitty279]

Hm. May be. But then there's still something I find strange. Harry was Lily's son, of course she would sacrifice himself for him because she loved him. So, how did Harry's sacrifice protect everyone else? He may love his friends (if he can, seeing that he never experienced it himself), but why does it work for complete strangers? Isn't that a bit of a stretch?

They were still living in a war, wouldn't they expect to be in danger then? Look how Molly reacts, and at a time when Voldemort was still lying low.

Seems I've seen too many different accounts, I always thought it was the being a git that went on to seventh year, not necessarily the bullying. I might have to find the actual book quotes one of these days.

[G. Novella]

The centaurs don't harm foals (remember fifth year?) and I think we can assume that the Forest was there before Hogwarts due to the sheer size and description of the trees. The founders made the school. They should have realized the dangers. But they didn't.

That, and centaurs live deeper in the woods. I highly doubt trying to remove them wouldn't result in a war. What are you supposed to say, get out of your homes because we have a few dumb kids over in that school? Good luck in that war! Besides both Dumbledore and Hagrid seemed to maintain a friendly relationship with the centaurs. I doubt the centaurs want a war, so they won't kill the kids, probably terrify them, but return them. They never killed Umbridge, despite her being a bitch.

[Ayrine Sun]

Jul 18, 2012 12:08:07 GMT -5 Kitty279 said:

Hm. May be. But then there's still something I find strange. Harry was Lily's son, of course she would sacrifice himself for him because she loved him. So, how did Harry's sacrifice protect everyone else? He may love his friends (if he can, seeing that he never experienced it himself), but why does it work for complete strangers? Isn't that a bit of a stretch?

Maybe that's why Harry's protection wasn't as powerful as Lily's. Lily loved Harry absolutely, Harry cared for others.

Then it has to do with the conception of love, is love only for the blood related or even friends? Does that mean Sirius didn't love Harry because they don't share blood?

[G. Novella]

I think it worked on everyone because Harry wanted to die for everyone. It's partly the intent for whom the sacrifice is for

Molly lost her brothers though. Lily and James never really saw many direct sacrifices in their family or friend group. You hear about people dying, but until it comes directly into your circle, you don't consider it. And even though they were Order members, it's still the idea of a cliquey feel. They may have their own fears, but they were packed away a few months after Harry was born. Assuming they made Sirius godfather before they were packed away, well, who else was there? Remus would deny responsibility because of the wolf issue, Peter... I'm not sure why he was never considered, but most likely he was just skipped over. James would be adamant for Sirius because he's the best friend.

No, it was the bullying. Sirius said they continued hexing each other or something similar to that intention.

[Kitty279]

Jul 18, 2012 11:52:28 GMT -5 @Ayrine Sun said:

Then I disagree totally with you, Draco is the product of his upbringing as much as Harry is. The fact is, in all his eagerness, Draco couldn't kill Dumbledore, the others times were his reckless tentative because he was terrified and it's clear they were so half-heartedly done even if dangerous.
Draco isn't responsible of the way Harry or himself were raised, the two are humans being and the two have the same right to live.

Draco was a bully from day one, so excuse me that I don't care for him. Besides, yes, they have the same right - one that Harry was denied by Dumbledore when he ruined his childhood and manipulated him into being his sacrificial lamb and never had the backbone to tell him the truth. He lied until the end, and manipulated both Harry and Snape. Draco was allowed a real life, Harry was not.

Smuggle Draco,? but what about Narcissa? You think that Draco would abandon his mother? And when he is out, and Dumbledore die because of his injury and Snape is disowned because he ratted on Draco, who will protect the few 100 children from the Carrows?

How would Snape have ratted on Draco if it was discovered who was behind the poison attempts, for example? Why on earth did Dumbledore once again nothing, he should have called the DMLE for a proper investigation. But no, we need to protect Death Eaters, so we can't do anything. He would have had a perfectly safe excuse for Snape that way.

You are assuming that there is another way, Kitty.
How do you extract a soul, without touching the other from his body.
If it was possible to separated them by simple magic, then why destroy the other horcruxes? The books Dumbledore had are the same Hermione had, and in them there is only destruction and death.

And for you there is never another possibliity than canon, right? Of course Hermione had the same info as Dumbledore, but why would the leader of the light have all the books about something so dark? Again, why not search for another way? He never said he has searched rituals to do it differently. Looking over the series, he never had any compunctions to sacrifice others for his greater good.

If you have problem with the Love protection, then Harry should be dead at 1 year old, and there would be no story at all.

It's about choices, Lily had the choice to live and sacrificed her life for her son.

I was wondering why Lily was supposed the only one, and why/how it worked at the end of DH, actually. See my other post.

[Kitty279]

Jul 18, 2012 12:15:10 GMT -5 @Ayrine Sun said:

Maybe that's why Harry's protection wasn't as powerful as Lily's. Lily loved Harry absolutely, Harry cared for others.

Then it has to do with the conception of love, is love only for the blood related or even friends? Does that mean Sirius didn't love Harry because they don't share blood?

No, I don't think it's the shared blood alone. Sacrificing yourself for your friends is one thing, but for a complete stranger? If the sacrifice was based on love, then you have to wonder how that works.

Jul 18, 2012 12:15:44 GMT -5 G. Novella said:

I think it worked on everyone because Harry wanted to die for everyone. It's partly the intent for whom the sacrifice is for

*shrugs* maybe. Then it would be partly love, which doesn't even work for strangers in my opinion, and partly intent. Rather unreliable, IMO.

Molly lost her brothers though. Lily and James never really saw many direct sacrifices in their family or friend group. You hear about people dying, but until it comes directly into your circle, you don't consider it. And even though they were Order members, it's still the idea of a cliquey feel. They may have their own fears, but they were packed away a few months after Harry was born. Assuming they made Sirius godfather before they were packed away, well, who else was there? Remus would deny responsibility because of the wolf issue, Peter... I'm not sure why he was never considered, but most likely he was just skipped over. James would be adamant for Sirius because he's the best friend.

Do we know when the other Order members died? Must have been before the Potters in any case - the Prewetts, Bones, MacKinnons ... some must have died before Harry's birth already. And there were others, like the Longbottoms, who could have been godparents, I think.

[Ayrine Sun]

Jul 18, 2012 12:22:43 GMT -5 Kitty279 said:

Draco was a bully from day one, so excuse me that I don't care for him. Besides, yes, they have the same right - one that Harry was denied by Dumbledore when he ruined his childhood and manipulated him into being his sacrificial lamb and never had the backbone to tell him the truth. He lied until the end, and manipulated both Harry and Snape. Draco was allowed a real life, Harry was not.

Then you are the same as Dumbledore. You have your reasons to choose a life above another and he have his too.
That what disconcerted me, not your reasons for doing it, but the fact you did the same as him.

Jul 18, 2012 12:22:43 GMT -5 Kitty279 said:

How would Snape have ratted on Draco if it was discovered who was behind the poison attempts, for example? Why on earth did Dumbledore once again nothing, he should have called the DMLE for a proper investigation. But no, we need to protect Death Eaters, so we can't do anything. He would have had a perfectly safe excuse for Snape that way.

And how do you prove it's him because the poison was send anonymously without being obvious that Snape ratted on him? Because that how Dumbledore knew, Draco didn't involve himself directly.

Jul 18, 2012 12:22:43 GMT -5 Kitty279 said:

And for you there is never another possibliity than canon, right? Of course Hermione had the same info as Dumbledore, but why would the leader of the light have all the books about something so dark? Again, why not search for another way? He never said he has searched rituals to do it differently. Looking over the series, he never had any compunctions to sacrifice others for his greater good.

And there is nothing that proves he didn't exhaust all other possibilities. It's an assumption that could never be proved or negated.

[physicssquid]

Draco wasn't really allowed a real life either. He was brought up to worship the very ground his father walked on, and was force-fed his father's beliefs. If he had been allowed a real life, then he would have been able to realise that Hermione and the other muggle-borns/halfbloods/so-called blood-traitors were just as worthy of having magic as the pureblood bigots

[Ayrine Sun]

Jul 18, 2012 12:35:06 GMT -5 Kitty279 said:

Then it has to do with the conception of love, is love only for the blood related or even friends? Does that mean Sirius didn't love Harry because they don't share blood?

No, I don't think it's the shared blood alone. Sacrificing yourself for your friends is one thing, but for a complete stranger? If the sacrifice was based on love, then you have to wonder how that works[/quote]

Then those were his friends, The Weasley, the AD, the professors, Order of the phoenix. For the rest of the world, I don't know, maybe just caring about them and feeling empathy toward them is enough to create a little protection. I can't be sure.

[Kouji-Wolf]

Jul 18, 2012 11:56:36 GMT -5 Kitty279 said:

When was that incident? Sixth year? Is there any record of them bullying Snape even after that?

I know Gnovella already answered, but it was fifth year. Sirius may have been 16, but he birthday is sometime in autumn, based on the Prince's Tale in DH. And based on Career Advice in OotP, it looks like the hexing went through sixth year with the occasional incident in seventh when Lily wasn't around.

About Draco, it seemed clear to me that once he started trying to accomplish his mission, he didn't want to be a DE anymore, but he had no choice in his mind but to continue to save himself and his mother. And he wouldn't tell Snape what he was planning, which makes it harder to plan a counter.

Maybe Dumbledore didn't want to give the Ministry an excuse to interfere in the school again. Umbridge screwed up big time the year before.

How do we know Dumbledore didn't look for a different way? As Sun said, how do you extract Voldemort's soul without damaging Harry's?

[Kitty279]

Jul 18, 2012 12:35:46 GMT -5 @Ayrine Sun said:

Then you are the same as Dumbledore. You have your reasons to choose a life above another and he have his too.
That what disconcerted me, not your reasons for doing it, but the fact you did the same as him.

Really? Seeing as you are usually the one who thinks canon is perfect ...
Let me ask you something. If it were your school, and there were attempted murders and the headmaster knew who it was, but kept them there because he wanted to protect the murderer from the consequences of his deeds, even if it endangered you and your friends, would you still feel the same? Is it ok to protect the murderer above yourself? In any normal school, Dumbledore would have kicked Draco out, no matter the consequences for Draco. But in canon he didn't, to protect the murderers. I am sure the scheming old goat could have found another excuse why he was expelled to protect Snape if necessary. But obviously I am the only one who feels it is wrong to put the life of murderers above these of innocents.

And how do you prove it's him because the poison was send anonymously without being obvious that Snape ratted on him? Because that how Dumbledore knew, Draco didn't involve himself directly.

As I said, Dumbledore should have at least called the DMLE to investigate, but he did nothing, as usual. Why call the police in a case of attempted murder, after all? They might have found the real culprit and no blame on Snape. It even could lead to an investigation into the Malfoys, maybe. Not all Aurors were corrupt, after all, and Voldemort hadn't taken over yet. And that's probably the crux of the problem - we have to protect them at all costs.

Jul 18, 2012 12:22:43 GMT -5 Kitty279 said:

And there is nothing that proves he didn't exhaust all other possibilities. It's an assumption that could never be proved or negated.

Sure. But Dumbledore's assumption that there is no other way can't be proven, either. Besides, it would have been nice of him to tell Harry "Sorry, I have searched everywhere for another solution, but couldn't find one, you will have to die". Instead he hid it from him (after telling him he's going to tell him everything - another lie) and even from Snape, manipulating both of them in the most callous way. I'd have much less problems with the whole thing if Dumbledore had had at least the guts to be honest.