The Greater Good?

[ayrine]

I don't know if there was a thread for this topic, but I read a lot of "Dumbledore's nebulous Greater Good" or "Dumbledore's so-called Greater Good" in Fanfictions or in this Forum... and I would like to understand your point of view about it, what's so bad about the Grater Good?

Of course, I understand the the concept of the Greater Good was invented by Dumbledore long ago, as an excuse to the selfish actions Grindelwald and Dumbledore were about to commit. Yes, in this case, it's just a way to have a guilt-free card to shrink his responsibilities toward his younger siblings and to pursuit his ambitious quest of power.

But in the later days of his life, while it's obvious that he did more or less morale actions to win the war, but always thought them necessary, I don't see the selfishness of his actions, I am sorry, I don't see what he did or thought he would gain from them.

So here is my question: What so nebulous about it? Why it's a so-called thing? What did Dumbledore gain from it?

[Kitty279]

No, I don't remember a special thread for this, even though we probably touched on the topic a few times. But we don't stay on topic at all times anyway.

Though I am not sure how much sense it makes to start this discussion with you, as I know already that you don't share my opinion of Dumbledore. Let me just give a few points.

My impression is that the 'greater good' was by the 1990's reduced to defeating Voldemort. A noble intention, yes. But his methods made me uncomfortable. He tried to fulfill the prophecy (which could lead to long discussions about how valid these are at all, and about the question if and when it was fulfilled), and to enforce that, he basically kidnapped a baby from his rightful guardian to put it with guardians of which he knew they would abuse him. He admitted as much at the end of OotP and beginning of HBP. What use is it to have the future saviour alive, but possibly broken?

He kept pitching a child against a megalomaniac mass murderer - remember how even Hermione with her absolute love and trust in authority, wondered if Dumbledore orchestrated the meeting with Quirrellmort on purpose. So, Harry had the "right" to confront that nutter, but Dumbledore refuses time and again to tell him the truth why Voldemort was even after him, for that he was too young. But he's not too young to fight him all the time, right? And don't get me started on not getting a trial for Sirius and all that, which made sure Sirius couldn't gain his freedom and custody of Harry to remove him from Durskaban. Or the Occlumency lessons from Snape, of all people, that didn't do anything to close the link, but seemed to rather open it wider. Or the last omissions that sent Harry into a suicide mission. I've grumbled about all that before. And why did Dumbledore never anything to find out if the soulpiece in Harry could be removed in another way? What are healers and cursebreakers there for?

What could Dumbledore himself gain from it? At first look, not much. But when you begin to wonder about his actions, to see the manipulative side of them, you can say that he gained a lot. Harry was in no way prepared to fight Voldemort, so, if they fought and Harry died, then the prophecy had been fulfilled, and Voldemort could be taken down by anyone. And who better to do that than the one person he ever feared - Albus Dumbledore? Adding to his fame?

But I know you won't see it the same way, as you always insist that there was no other way, while I happen to disagree there

[ayrine]

Ok you are right, we discussed this a lot and we diverge on it:

1- I don't see Dumbledore trying to fulfill a prophecy at all cost but not rejecting it too. he is just waiting and seeing.

2- I believe Dumbledore let Harry do what he wanted, not stopping him even if it's for his own protection (here I also cringe) but never forcing him to face thing he didn't want to and while I admit he helped him when he choose to face Voldemort.
Letting a 11 years old kid face Voldemort was foolish, but for me Dumbledore was just that desperate. And in a way saying to an 11 or even a 15 years old kid, that there is a prophecy about him defeating possibly Voldemort, in a way would maybe push him to be more reckless to face Voldemort, then it wouldn't Harry's choice (that is not stopped by Dumbledore, I admit) but Harry in a way being coerced into doing it. It seems different, IMHO when you choose to face someone by your own decision or when you are guilt-tripped to do it because there is a prophecy who says so and if you don't do it, it's your fault if everybody dies, especially when you are so young. So he wanted to wait until Harry was an adult to tell him or more certainly, he hoped to never tell him at all , just letting Harry defeat Voldemort because he decide it and because he can do it, in Dumbledore's opinion.

3- let not start on Sirius case too, we have total opposite view on it and on Dumbledore's influence on it.

4- The Dursleys affair was Dumbledore's biggest blunder, he let down his guard and left Mrs Figg as the sole sentinel there, but here I also blame MacGO equally and every person who were less busy than Dumbledore or less blinded by their own brightness than him and who could have helped Dumbledore see his errors but just shrugged and said "well, Dumbledore will take care of it, he is Dumbledore after all, he know what he is doing". Makes me so angry, they deserve half Dumbeldore's bashing but they are never blamed and if they are, they are forgiven easily for their inaction, it's a little unfair in my opinion.

5-I still believe he was more speaking about not being understood, accepted and loved, which could make a dark childhood too without resorting to abuse. but it was unspecified, so it's open to interpretations.

The truth is that I don't see another way, because I think JK closed all the doors, and because the only other way would be when the Wizarding' world get their heads out of their ar-ses, and become brave and united and treat others with respect and without prejudice and fight Voldemort together, because no man can do it alone, not even Dumbledore, well, not if Voldemort doesn't sabotage himself like he does with Harry.

but you insist that there is. Maybe I am wrong.

So please tell me how could Dumbledore defeat Voldemort in you opinion (while taking in account all their respective personalities, traits and limits)? Maybe I missed something or maybe I am underestimating Dumbledore and the Order while overestimating Voldemort?

The last part about the Dumbledore's gain has confused for me. Harry's death doesn't make Voldemort vulnerable solely, no? Or are you telling me that Dumbledore wanted Harry to sacrifice himself to give Dumbledore the love protection so he could defeat Voldemort?

[Kitty279]

1) Then what would you call what he did in the end - making sure that Snape basically tells him "you are a Horcrux, you have to go and sacrifice yourself, or everyone else you loves is going to die". Even more so, how is that better than telling him earlier?

2) That reminds me of the Triwizard Tournament into which Harry was forced against his will ... I still find it hard to believe that a binding magical contract can be made that way, and I'm not happy that not a single teacher tried to help Harry, never mind find a way to take him out, seeing as the tournament was for *adults* only. But let's no get there. Besides, the only time when he really helped Harry against Voldemort was in the Department of Mysteries.
So, Dumbledore did want to wait until Harry was an adult to tell him about the Prophecy. Worked out splendidly - he learned about its existence from the Death Eaters. And then Dumbledore told him just after he had lost Sirius, which I still find beyond cruel and could have broken Harry completely. Of all the times to tell him, that was the worst one imaginable.

3) True

4) Agreed. There too many dropped the ball, but that's just the problem - Dumbledore is sort of the second coming of Merlin in their eyes, they leave the thinking to him, ignore any warning signs that his decisions might be problematic or wrong, expect him to solve all their problems. And that's why he should concentrate on his political career - he can't run a school properly while running the whole wizarding world as well. We all know that Fudge was useless and needed Dumbledore to tell him what to do until Malfoy's gold convinced him that Dumbledore wanted his job and he went on to help the Death Eaters without even realising it.

5) Sure, we don't get much in the way of corporeal abuse, but for me the nonchalance with which Harry took it that Petunia aimed a frying pan at his head is worrying. The way they interacted with Harry is mental abuse at best. Beyond that - we know he didn't get much to eat, he was locked in a cupboard for 10 years, he had at least at times to work hard while Dudley stuffed his face. All that can be easily classified as abuse. There's more to it than just beatings.

Sure, JKR didn't give us any other way, but does that mean there is no one? Dumbledore is only one person, and he tends to believe that he knows best, and doesn't bother to bring any experts in. And considering how much of what happened in Hogwarts was swept under the rug, I am not surprised. He didn't want anyone to find out about any of his beloved secrets. We never get even a "I have searched for other methods, and talked with experts, and we still haven't found another way". No, it's just "Go and sacrifice yourself". For me it would be more believable if we'd have seen ANY attempt to find another possibility. That whole thing makes me feel as if he did not even try, and that's why I refuse to see Dumbledore's way as the only one possible. He's not a curse breaker, as far as I know, and he's not a healer, either. He's just taking the easy way out.

The prophecy is talking about vanquishing, not killing. Do you believe Dumbledore doesn't know a few spells to incapacitate Voldemort long enough that he can be dealt with? By the Unspeakables or someone from the DMLE, if Dumbledore doesn't even have the guts to do anything against him. Just turn him into something, like a walking stick, and throw that one through the veil. Or use some spell with similar result as a stunner, but a bit more strong and permanent, and then throw him through. I am sure they could think of something. Or do you think he'd just let him go and tell him to change and be a good little boy now? Besides, Dumbledore was finally forced to deal with his former lover, too, so why not Voldemort, too.

Ethernal glory, Ayrine. That's what he could gain. The one who took down two dark lords. And no, the love protection is the furthest from my mind. As I understand the prophecy, it would be fulfilled if Voldemort killed Harry or vice versa, right? So, if Voldemort killed Harry, the prophecy was out of the way. Do you think that makes Voldemort invincible for good, even if his Horcruxes are all gone? I've interpreted that as now everyone else with the skill being able to take on snake-face and taking him out for good.

[ayrine]

1- I call it just that: a guilt-trip. I don't deny that Dumbledore was manipulative.
All I said was true when Harry was 11 trough 15, well I was trying to answer about why did he hide the prophecy but let Harry face Voldemort in the early years? Dumbledore didn't want to tell Harry the prophecy to let Harry decide his destiny.
But Sirius' death and what happened in the MoM changed things, he saw Harry chase Voldemort from his mind and adding all the other feats Harry did in the past, Dumbledore realized that Harry had already chosen his destiny long ago and Dumbeldore was the one who was stalling, he was the one who wasn't ready to tell Harry the truth not the contrary. Harry had chosen is destiny when he was 11 and had gone through the trapdoor, he would face and defeat Voldemort because he killed all the people he'd loved.
After that Harry was treated as Dumbeldore's man or soldier. He told him about the prophecy, told him about the hoxcruxes and about him being one of them.
You see in the end of the 5th book, Dumbledore'd stopped his "wait and see" and started giving Harry instructions because he believed Harry might defeat Voldemort. Prophecy or not, Harry had proved being the best chance against Voldemort. He told him the prophecy but told that not all the prophecy came true.
For the timing, well, it wasn't the best moment, but it was too late to do anything about it. Harry wouldn't have waited more than that, or he would have gone crazy.
So yes he told Harry about him being an Hoxcrux so that Harry with his "saving people thing" could go and sacrifice himself and save his loved ones. It's obvious. And he did it only after Voldemort discovered that Harry had destroyed his hoxcruxes, ensuring that Harry wouldn't go reckless and get himself "really" killed accidentally because of his gilt (like trying to fight DE because they are torturing innocents and getting hit by a stray curse). And by the way that saved Neville from being burned alive.

I won't say that Dumbledore didn't make mistakes, mistakes that cost terrible things to Harry, but I don't understand why he is more hated than the rest of the other people who chose to do nothing and let him handle everything? they are guilty too. You can't ask someone to take all the decisions for you, than be angry when he does it his way. if you are not happy, do it yourself.

2- Triwizard tournament, well, for the contract, it's not precised that you have to put your name yourself and maybe it was done that way so the School headmasters in the past could force into it their reticent or best but wise students who didn't want to die for a stupid game? They were quiet authoritative back then, they used physical punishment and probably the students had little to say. Or to not be shamed by their champions trying to get out because they realized what they are up too, they were really competitive and stupid, did I say it was a stupid game? because it's.

3- let pass it

4-OK, here is the problems :
*Dumbledore doesn't want a political career. He is forced to be involved because everybody keep asking for his help and not trying to do anything themselves.
*All his functions don't have decision power or are not without counter power. He choose that because Dumbledore CAN'T be trusted with power. And he know it.
*That not an excuses, you are saying that because Dumbledore is Merlin for them, he has to be perfect. but that impossible, he is a man who try to help them and they just hide behind him rather than help him. it's unfair to put all that responsibility on one person shoulder, it's no different from the "chosen one" thingy. Dumbledore doesn't have to be perfect or save the world or be their fantasy. He doesn't have to stop being himself so that they can continue their laziness and irresponsibility. It's their world and they should start realize that they are responsible too.

5-That not what I meant, Harry was abused, sure, emotionally and physically.
But that doesn't mean Dumbledore had realized it the 01/11/1981. We were speaking about what he said in the end of the 5th book. And I stand by what I said, he is guilty and so is everybody who forgot Harry and let Dumbledore handle everything like always.

6-then again Dumbledore has the personality he has, you can't change it and you can't ask him to change for you. He has the life he had and it made him like he is. The only thing that I agree and that you could ask of him is that he doesn't get involved. He can't trust with his secrets then he shouldn't take those responsibilities and let those who are "more trusting" take charge, unfortunately, it's Dumbledore again who searched and found about the hoxcruxes. And that why I think the responsibility and guilt is sheared.

The prophecy is talking about vanquishing, not killing. Do you believe Dumbledore doesn't know a few spells to incapacitate Voldemort long enough that he can be dealt with? By the Unspeakables or someone from the DMLE, if Dumbledore doesn't even have the guts to do anything against him. Just turn him into something, like a walking stick, and throw that one through the veil. Or use some spell with similar result as a stunner, but a bit more strong and permanent, and then throw him through. I am sure they could think of something. Or do you think he'd just let him go and tell him to change and be a good little boy now? Besides, Dumbledore was finally forced to deal with his former lover, too, so why not Voldemort, too.

Ethernal glory, Ayrine. That's what he could gain. The one who took down two dark lords. And no, the love protection is the furthest from my mind. As I understand the prophecy, it would be fulfilled if Voldemort killed Harry or vice versa, right? So, if Voldemort killed Harry, the prophecy was out of the way. Do you think that makes Voldemort invincible for good, even if his Horcruxes are all gone? I've interpreted that as now everyone else with the skill being able to take on snake-face and taking him out for good.

Voldemort isn't Gindwald, and Voldemort learned from Gindwaled's defeat, Voldemore was wearing them out, he had all his time. And Grindwald was too confident in the Elder wand and fought Dumbledore while Voldemort choose send a killer to do his work for him.
Dumbledore isn't Merlin and even Merlin isn't God, regardless what those spineless wizards whisper to themselves in the dark so they don't have to face their responsibilities.

Are you talking about the one second Harry and Voldemort were unconscious and they were surrounded by his death eaters and demontors and acramantulas and geants. beside, how would Dumbledore know that Voldemort would be unconscious for that 1 second? Flimsy Eternal Glory, Kitty!

[Kitty279]

1) Yeah, that was his excuse. Put it off indefinitely and let the poor kid wonder why Voldemort wanted him so badly. But you are right in one thing, Harry chose his destiny in first year already, and I can't help but wonder what would have happened if Dumbledore had been more honest with him back then and gotten more help.
To be honest, this 'Dumbledore's man' still makes me sick. To me, that was one of the reasons why I didn't like the last books that much. Following the man who ruined his life to such an extent, trust him blindly when he kept vital information from you and caused you to lose the only parent you have, that seems stupid. Besides, an abused child shouldn't be as trusting as Harry was, but there JKR messed up big time throughout the whole series anyway.
Btw, I still think the prophecy could have been considered fulfilled on Halloween 1981 already.
As for telling Harry only at the last moment, that was russian roulette in its worst form. What if Snape hadn't been there? To keep that to themselves for so long was the most idiotic thing they could do. And I have said it before, it was beyond irresponsible to leave the whole mess to three untrained teenagers. But we have been over that many times, and won't agree anyway.

2) You know, if that was once standard, that headmasters could do it then that age line as only protection was another idiotic and completely useless idea. It would make it possible for older students to do it for younger ones. And it's a carte blanche to abuse that possibility. If they knew about it and didn't do anything to prevent it, then I have no words for so much stupidity.

4) So he doesn't want a political career. Yeah, that's why he's Chief WArlock and Supreme Mugwump, two of the highest political offices. It doesn't make sense to me. As does your assumption that he has no deciding power. The Wizengamot is the judicial and legislative power of the magical world, and you think that Fudge can alone decide what they do, he can decide to not have a trial, but the Chief Warlock of said body doesn't have that right? I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society that's led that way!

Yes, it's unfair to expect it from one person, but where does Dumbledore tell them to clean up their own messes, instead of trying to do everything? Why does he not tell them to take more responsibility themselves? He was in a position to do just that. And how is it fair that he does the same to Harry, after not even preparing him?

5) To me it sounded as if Dumbledore already knew. Look at the book: ‘Five years ago you arrived at Hogwarts, Harry, safe and whole, as I had planned and intended. Well – not quite whole. You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle’s doorstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years.’ So, yes, the old man knew that he doomed Harry from day one.

6) Yeah, I can't change him, but I don't need to agree with him Still think after finding out about the Horcruxes, he should have used the adult Order members from the start, instead of waiting for so long and then leaving it to teenagers.

You sound as if no one could ever kill Voldemort. Actually, I don't think he learned that much, he's way too full of himself and can't fathom anyone being dangerous to himself. Take enough skilled fighters and you can take him down.

And no, I don't talk about that, because I never thought that very plausible at all, and because Dumbledore could not even be sure it would work. If it did not, then Harry would have died, and Voldemort would be alive and well. Again, very risky gamble. I never meant that Dumbledore would have used that one second to kill Voldemort, he would probably not even have been there. I was speaking in general, of a battle somewhere after Harry died.

Ok, going to quit now, I need to go to bed, have to get up at 4.45 tomorrow ... Italy is waiting!

[ayrine]

1- Do I note disbelieving? lol. Well, let him have his excuse, everybody had theirs, and I never heard anyone complain.
As for Harry turning differently, I will say again, Harry could have turned diffidently, yes Dumbledore actions had their impact on his life as did everybody else inaction. Dumbledore being more honest? Snort. He can't be, because he believes that he was doing right, and while he sins by arrogance, that could have been prevented by other people helping him see the truth.

That where we really disagree I believe, I don’t think Dumbledore plan was good and I don’t think yours is bad. It’s a question of POV, you see Dumbledor’s plan as irresponsible and Dumbledore would see yours as too risky and unrealizable, a lot more than his. It’s because you two have two different personalities and up-bringing and because you judge people’s capacity to carry the hoxcruxes mission on different criteria. And too bad it was Dumbledore in charge. He was the one with that responsibility and nobody else tried to do anything.
He is responsible for his mistakes, but he isn't the only one.

Firstly, Harry believed Dumbledore excuse. That the difference between you two also. When Dumbledore told him I was only trying to protect you, Harry accepted it. I think it was seeing Dumbledore as a weary old man that got Harry a little. He realized even if subconsciously, that Dumbledore was shouldering too much and that could only go wrong.
He trusted Dumbledore’s mind, and I believe that he continued to follow Dumbledore's instructions simply because he was afraid to destroy everything.
That the reason everybody has, Dumbledore was too afraid to destroy everything to share his secrets and Harry was was afraid to make mistakes. So after what happened to Hermione and Dobby because of him, he was even more afraid to too. Probably my answer won't satisfy you But really it's human nature.

Secondly, I don't see Dumbledore's involvement the same way. While I consider him responsible for what happened because he was in charge at that moment, I still see that other people had their own responsibility in what happened : Yes Snape wasn't fair and impartial during the occlumincy lessons, but Harry didn't listen to him too nor did he do his exercises, but he was able the close his mind after Dobby's death, because he choose to, he needn't any more lesson to, just what Snape told him. The situation may not have been perfect and Dumbledore's plans may’ve been shaky, but Harry didn't play his part too and Snape only reluctantly did then stopped.
Harry wanted to know what happening so much even if it let an access to Voldemort to spy Harry and his friends, he know it at that time. And that also caused the Ministry blunder, and Sirius death also was due to Sirius being reckless and laughing while fighting Bellatrix. He should have been concentrating on what he was doing; he and the order’s members, they were the only thing between Harry and the DE.
But of course, that doesn't count, it just Dumbledore who should have said the prophecy to Harry because he need to know but in the same time prevent Voldemort to learn it, he has to teach him occlumincy himself but stop Voldemort to possess him because he is with Harry, he has to let Sirius go out but in the same time he has to make sure he isn't captured. Tell me honestly in the hypothesis that Dumbledore did give Sirius a mission, and Sirius got caught or killed, wouldn't you blame Dumbledore because he used Sirius? Like he is blamed because he asked Snape to spy for him and that killed Snape? Sigh

That why I was never brought into the abuse theory, I know that JK "wrote" the abuse but she handled it like it wasn't. IMHO she just wanted to write something between Cinderella and boy-scoot / white knight saving the day of 11 years old. She wanted to add so much drama that she ruined the whole thing.

Prophecy are self-realizing, and always open to interpretations, the only good it had really done, was to maintain the pressure on Voldemort, it was a psychological war, Dumbledore had "vital" information and Voldemort didn't. And the victory of war starts in the minds.
He waited the last moment because Harry could have done something reckless and got himself killed, and I mean not by the hand of Voldemort.
And it spared us to go through all books with Harry self-flagellating himself and entering a depression because he is one of the reasons Voldemort is immortal and he has to die, Argh. Plus what in those books doesn't resemble a Russian roulette?

You say he should tell them to act? Should he also give them permission to go to the bathroom?
Seriously, he won't do it because :
Firstly, he thinks they can't handle it, or else they would have done it already.
Secondly, he believes he can handle it himself.
He is obviously wrong, but does that make them blameless? Dumbledore shouldn't have to tell anything to anyone. It's not a wonder he used Harry exclusively, Harry is the only other person who showed some sense of responsibility.
I wouldn't be surprised that when Dumbledore realized that Harry was the type of person who takes decisions and act, well, he probably got on his knees and cried of happiness.

Yes it's not fair, not for Dumbledore and nor for Harry, but if someone had told him "it's unfair to put everything on your shoulder" and showed him that he could also handle a part of the responsibility, maybe he wouldn't have done it to Harry.

2-stupid game
But I doubt any older student would do it, most of them are mature enough not too and remember, they thought it was an honor to participate. Cringe. They wouldn't want to give their abused victim an eternal glory. The more I think about it the more I believe it’s so that no champions could drop out and let the school championless because the cup of fire only work once at time. The age line was to discourage younger students to try their chance.

4- I said "no dicision power or not without counter-power"
Chief WArlock and Supreme Mugwump. Two not exclusive power position:
The Chief Warlock is 1 of 50 other judges. He oversee the court, he doesn't have absolute power on it only 1/50 th.
The Supreme Mugwump, here each country has their representatives, including England and it is not Dumbledore, decision aren't made exclusively by him, they vote, the only power he has is that he can speak his POV directly to them.

It's quite different from being minister where you don't have any counter power, and yes it's what is frightening, as long as the minister has the press with him, he can do anything he wants, he just need to pass ministerial decrees, remember Umbridge & Fudge and Umbridge & Thickness plots , now imagine Dumbledore in that position. He would be unstoppable, and it frightened Dumbledore.
Dumbledore took the positions because he thought he could help with them, by giving advice and speaking reasons, without being a danger because he isn't in charge totally and absolutely.

5-‘Five years ago you arrived at Hogwarts, Harry, safe and whole, as I had planned and intended. Well – not quite whole. You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle’s doorstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years.’
Where does it say that Dumbledore know that Harry could have been broken? I still say, dark and difficult years, could mean being rejected, misunderstood, not loved, it's enough.
Who could he know that the Dursleys would turn abusers? Nothing in their comportment showed that. While Petunia rejected her sister’s world, Lily still attempted to renew their relation. She wouldn’t do it if her sister was violent with her. Being different or thinking different doesn’t mean being abuser. They may be rude and spoil their kid rotten and be boring, but they didn’t show any sign of abuse back then.

6- Yet you want Dumbledore to handle the situation in a way that he thinks would turn bad, be more trusting when he obviously thinks it's not a good idea. How is that not wanting or trying to change him? You don't agree with his methods, fair enough, then do it yourself. Obviously not you, but Remus Mc Go, Kingsley, those order’s members that you think so much of and who are more trusting, they let Harry go to a mission and just hid because Harry said “Dumbledore said so”.
Don't ask someone to take all the decisions for you then hate him because he does it his way. You can't have it both way.

7-I wanted to sound as nobody can kill Voldemort alone if Voldemort doesn't sabotage himself.
And I mean more than Dumbledore and his few scaredy men and aurors. And maybe it's me, but his mistake only concern Harry no? When did you see him make a mistake like this with anyone other than Harry, did he attack Snape, Dumbledore, Mad eye Scrimgeour, Amelia Bones directly? Did he fight them fairly?
Only Harry ; in 2nd book, he could have killed Harry instantly, just cut him out and let him bleed to death, but no, he gave him a chance to fight and Voldemort lost. in the 4th, he had Harry tied and wandless, and what he does, he unties him and gives him his wand.
If you are sure, he is like that with everybody then please find in one of the 7 books, one time, just one, where Voldemort do that with anyone but Harry?

So you are saying that the so called greater good is because Dumbledore wanted eternal glory by defeating Voldemort himself? I still don't get it, how does Harry death change the situation between Dumbledore and Voldemort, if Dumbledore wanted the eternal glory of defeating Voldemort, he had 11 years to do it.
If he wanted to see Harry dead by Voldemort, he shouldn't had put Harry with the Dursleys at all, just let Crouch handle the placement and Crouch Jr. would have taken care of it. And if he wanted to get Harry out of the way, then like you said before, he could have interpreted the prophecy as realized in 81 and let the ministry take the responsibility of Harry's eventual death, with all the DE still running around and the Longbottoms case as example it wouldn’t be a far-fetched possibility.

Or do you mean something else?

PS: happy trip, take care and have fun

[ayrine]

Here an example on how it's could be wotkimg in Dumbledore's mind. I don't pretend it's exactly the same, as I may have overlooked other things, but it's what I understood.

[ayrine]

------

just realized you wrote that, sorry but I have a question:
"The Wizengamot is the judicial and legislative power of the magical world"
Isn't that the DMLE? from what I understood, isn't the wizengamot one of their division and still have respond to it? And doesn't the DLME's chief respond to the minister?

"The Minister for Magic, Senior Undersecretary to the Minister, and Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement "preside over" the Wizengamot ex officio". (dixit Harry Potter wiki) or is this statement wrong?

Isn't a matter of how much power do have chief warlock vs. the minister or vs. the rest of the other judges?

Isn't why it was Crouch who conducted the 1st war tribunal or was he chief warlock too? Or why Scrimgeour was able to condemn an innocent to prison even after Dumbledore's protests? Or how Dumbledore was destitute from his position after his dispute with Fudge.

[Kitty279]

1) Yeah, Harry believed Dumbledore - and that's one of the things I find rather hard to understand. Canon Harry was trusting to the point of idiocy, IMO. But I doubt we will ever agree on that, and I am too tired to argue about that any more.
As for Occlumency - with a teacher like Snape, I'd not try, either. Even if Harry had tried 24/7, Snape would not have treated him any better. And frankly, I still don't get why it was so important to keep the prophecy from Voldemort. What did he learn from it, after all? That he made a mistake when he went after Harry in 1981? And that it was Harry who was supposed to kill him. OK, that would be a problem, but seeing as Voldemort had tried to kill him many times over already, I don't see the difference. So it makes not too much sense to keep Harry in the dark just to keep that little bit from Voldemort. And I don't blame Harry for wanting to find out - they kept forcing him to deal with that nutter all the time, but refused to give him any help, he always had to deal with the problems without the adults. So why should he listen if they tell him 'You don't need to know that a nutter is after your life and why, just be a good little boy and let us do nothing while you are mind-raped by one teacher and tortured by another, it's all for the best". That's how it feels for me.

That's something about the magical world I don't understand, either - they are collective cowards with no backbone whatsoever. Though I guess Dumbledore didn't exactly encourage them to think for themselves, seeing how he keeps telling everyone what to do, and how he keeps vital information for himself. They won't do anything when they don't know how and what and why.

2) it was really not thought through, wasn't it? Stupid game, indeed.

4) Sure, Dumbledore couldn't decide alone, but from my understanding of politics, the way the wizarding world works is unbelievable. There's no way in hell that here the Cancellor could tell the Courts what to do, or send people to prison without trial. Any politician trying that would be booted out of office faster than they could say sorry. Maybe that's why I have more problems with it than you do, we have grown up with very different political systems. Here most of what the books use is unthinkable and would not work. When you compare my world to the magical one, then the Wizengamot controlling the Minister would make much more sense.

5) For me, being rejected and unloved is bad enough, and there are always children who would not get through that too well. Besides, if he had even the tiniest bit of doubt, the man should have checked on Harry now and then. Either he did it, then he knew and did nothing. Or he didn't check, then he neglected his duty. It's obvious that Dumbledore acts as Harry's guardian, and decides about his whole life, but he couldn't be bothered to check once in ten years? Not even under these circumstances?

6) No matter what I want, I can't change the books, that's what I mean. Besides, the man would need a gigantic wake-up-call to notice that he might not be right. Again, it annoys me how no one does anything, but I always get the impression that they all grew up with Dumbledore as the uber-power who always told everyone what to do and not to do, and he never encourages them to act on their own, as far as I remember. Besides, can you give me any place where the man asked others for their opinion? For I can't. I'd really like to know if the Order even knew the content of the prophecy they were guarding. Or if the others ever tried to show some initiative themselves and were told to stop it and be good little followers because God Albus knows best.

7) We don't see Voldemort interact much with others, do we? And sure, others don't get much of a chance, but if you ask me, he didn't let Harry fight out of fairness, in the Chamber he wanted more information, and then enjoy watching him die slowly. In the graveyard, he didn't just kill him because he wanted to prove to his Death Munchers that he's more powerful than Harry. Killing a bound prisoner isn't much proof, so he had to fight him. We all know how that ended.

*sigh* I seem unable to explain my thoughts in a way you can understand. With you convinced that canon was basically the only possible way and me bemoaning the fact that there was never any sign of them even trying to find another one, I guess we are just thinking too differently to ever agree on that.

As for the Wizengamot ... yeah, technically it is supposed to be part of the DMLE, but how much sense makes that when you look at canon? Why can Crouch judge mass murderers basically alone - or was there a vote in GoF? Can't even remember, too tired. On the other hand, they need a full Wizengamot trial for a case that should be just a hearing with Amelia Bones.

With the legislative body, I might be influenced by fanfictions too much. But honestly, who is making laws? The Minister all alone? That would open the door to abuse the office to an extent that's plain suicidal. Shouldn't the Wizengamot have a say in it, too?

The whole system doesn't make sense. From what you listed, being Minister is a carte blanche to play dictator, so what use are Wizengamot and everything? Just a charade to keep up appearances of democracy? If he can change laws, condemn people without trial, fire even the other highest-ranking representative of their world, then why bother having anyone save the Minister, he's doing what he pleases anyway. Again, I am thinking about it in comparison to my own home country, which shouldn't be so different from Britain, and then it makes no sense to me.

And thanks, I had a great trip. Even the weather behaved, and that's saying something

[ayrine]

1- trusting to the point of idiocy? But still he didn't trust others to keep him safe or tell them everything about him. In a way, he still kept some distrust because he doesn't trust others about those things?
Then he trusted Dumbledore or Sirius or Ron or Hermione really fast? Maybe its not trust after all. I don't know. Maybe he needed something to believe in? Or was afraid to make mistakes if he based his decisions on his emotions? Let agree to disagree, until someone find a better explanation.

As for the Occlumancy not being a happy trip (I know, the understatement of the century),yes Harry was curious and felt humiliated by Snape after them, but he refused to comply and that also made all his suffering at the hand of Snape useless, a suffering that should have pushed him to learn Occlumancy so he could keep Snape out of his mind. It's not about Snape or if he would be nicer to Harry, the fact that Snape was a git shouldn't matter more than Harry's mind safety.
I can understand that Harry didn't want to comply but sometimes even more in war time you have to do thing you don't want too. Harry was fifteen, and while he is still young, he is old enough to understand the danger that Voldemort's invading his mind is to himself and others.

This one of the excuses that I talked about before. That makes me feel like the only one who can't have any excuse is Dumbledore.


The reasons Voldemort's shouldn't know the prophecy:
a- the prophecy could (loosely) make Voldemort aware that Harry is either a real danger or an Hoxcrux. For the first one, there is the part about Harry secret power. Even if Voldemort didn't believe in Love as a power, what if he decided to not deal with Harry himself after all, just being in the safe side, because maybe Harry has an unknown power and he has to kill him fast? It's quiet a possibility. As for the second, you can ask how would he know? well I will answer how did Dumbledore? Even if it's 1% chance that Voldemort see it like that, Dumbledore wouldn't take the risk.
b-The prophecy obsessed Voldemort. Even more after the event of 81. That gave the wizardings world 1 year of peace before the second war. It kept Voldemort busy from killing and torturing when 99% of the population was not aware of his return.
c-It forced Voldemort to go out of hiding. As the only two who can take it of the MoM are Harry and Voldemort and if Voldemort can't use anyone to get it, he would be forced to enter the MoM himself and thus declaring that Harry was saying the truth.
d-the fact that Dumbledore acted as if the prophecy was important maintained some psychological pressure on Voldemort, It helped him obsess on it.

If Dumbledore acted as if it wasn't important or reveled it to Harry and Voldemort learned it and if he still didn't take it seriously at all and decided it didn't matter, then he would have gone trough the rest of his plans and took the MoM a lot faster and killed all his enemies before they even realized what happening and all that with the blessing of Fudge and the wizarding world. Well in a way it did happen in the 7th book, but it still spared them 3 2 years and that make a lot of difference in a war.

I think that something I disagree about too. Trust is a two ways street, if the wizards don't show Dumbledore that they can handle and search for it, how could he trust them? even more knowing his personality.
You say they didn't know about how, why or what? feeble excuse. How did Dumbledore know how, why or what? He knew them because he tried, he doesn't have a magical book with all the answers in it, he does what he can and what he believes is right.
How did Regulus know about the Hoxcrux? he did because he searched and he didn't have as much information as the order or the MoM officials after the 1 st war.
Another thing is : He didn't choose to know the prophecy, it was foretold to him, and therefor he was entrusted with its responsibility. The hoxcruxes are the same, Dumbledore searched them, and what he found became his responsibility and therefor, what he does with the information is his responsibility.

4-well welcome in my world, sigh. It's maybe our reason of discord. But do you really think it's that unbelievable.
Just see what happened in the USA and in few European countries after the 2008 systemic crisis. Where is the justice? Where is the right? Where is the democracy? It's the same as HP world, only a little less obvious.
Yes its just a charade to keep up appearances of democracy. In my country they don't even bother to keep it. In others, I see less and less democracy and more and more dictatorship, but they call it differently. Global government, that makes me sick, when they let their own people live in the street and die of hunger.

5-Here I agree that he should have checked on Harry and checked himself. But here is the thing, he is a busy man and that why he put Arabella Figg there, so she would check for him without being suspicious as she is a Squib. But what she saw, while being cruel wasn't mortally dangerous and it came back to Dumbledore's choices about Harry safety vs. Happiness.
And I would still remark that nobody checked on Harry too, even MacGo, who was the one insisting on not wanting Harry there.
So is Dumbledore Guilty of neglect? yes I don't deny it, but he isn't the only one.

6-Here is the problem too, what caused this Dumbledore's worship? You say that they all grow up worshiping Dumbledore, but a great part of them were his age or not that far from it. Dumbledore wasn't born 1000 years ago like the Founders or Merlin, he was there with them, and grow up with them. If it's due to Dumledore defeat of Grindwald or the fact that Voldemort feared him, it's still recent events, it was less that 50 years ago for the first and less of 20 years ago for the second.
As for Dumbledore asking for opinion, he does ask Snape for what he think about Quirel, no (book 7)? But he also know they expect order and maybe he is doing it for so long that he don't believe they could help him. It's a mix of his paranoia, and confidence in his own brilliance, so much that he forget that as intelligent he is, he still make mistakes and the fact that nobody do anything to stop it, only reassure him about it.
But while he doesn't share his secret and don't ask for opinions, he still don't stop anyone to do as he wishes, he may disagree but it end there. And he admits when he is wrong and don't get angry if anyone succeed without him.
In a way it is a vicious circle, Dumbledore doesn't trust them and confide in them because they seems not dependable and they don't do anything to gain his trust because they have their savior and they let him handle it. But as he is 1 person vs. an entire society, I tend to have more sympathy for him.

And you see in the 7th book that they do the same with Harry. They are watching for him and waiting for him to save them.

That's why I feel that Dumbledore bashing is unfair, because he isn't the only responsible of the situation. They all have their part in it.

7-We see Voldemort interact with Harry, Dumbledore, Snape and we have a recite of what happened with Amelia Bones and Mad Eye.
True, he didn't do it to be fair, but that not my point, he did it because he was confident in his wining. He did it with Harry because he underestimated him. So he was fair or more fair with Harry than with all the cited above.

And I am more convinced that JKR put her story in a way that make it a 1 solution's problem. After that, if you take JKR restrictions then you could rewrite the book as it would please you and everything would be perfect. Dumbledore wouldn't makes any mistakes and everyone would be happy forever more. And while, it's a nice change for once, in this case, everything, including Dumbledore is different from JKR HP's canon.

Plus even if there was another way and Dumbledore didn't see it, I still can't condemn him alone for not thinking it or trying it. I tend to analyse the entire situation with everyone part in it and their personalities too, Dumbledore may not have seen the right solution because he kept to much to himself, but that steam from every experiences he lived and from the situations he was in and from the influence of others on him. Dumbledore is the tip of the iceberg, the problem is a lot more huge and hidden, it's not a person but all a society who is in cause.

Plus between you and me, most the solutions I heard of were as bad as Dumbledore's, where Harry could get his soul sucked by demontors or get his heart stopped by muggle technology or be an experience for some wizard scientist who could play with his mind, soul and body, to try and extract a second soul from his body while leaving his own intact and all without experiencing before (how are the odd, that there was someone in Harry situation in the recent past), and I may add, that extracting a soul from a body is the definition of spiritual death, his body may still function, but it's only a machine without the soul inside. Those solutions may not be worst than Dumbledore's, but they certainly aren't better.

As for the initial question, well I will just have to give up on it. I'm starting to think it's maybe some frustration about Dumbledore's mistakes that makes him evil in the eyes of his detractors, thus they can't help but reject everything he did as impure and selfish, and call it "the Greater Good".

Well glad that you had a good trip, here the weather is still "summerish" so it's little too hot (yes. if you ask, I am barging lol).

[ayrine]

------

As for why they don't do anything?
1-fear, fear of responsibility, fear of taking decision, fear of failure. So they let someone else handle it.
2-fear of Voldemort. It's difficult to understand it if you don't live it and while Harry is really courageous to say Voldemort name, it diminishes the impact of terror Voldemort inspires to the Wizards and in a way ridicules it. I will speak of an example. When the civil war started here in Algeria, there were bombs in buses or streets or markets, the goal was to terrorize the population, at first, when something like that happened, people would run to help the injured one, they wouldn't think about their own security after all we are all brother as Muslims consider other Muslims as their brothers and sisters and even if we disagree sometimes, it's strictly forbidden to hurt each other, but when those people ran to help their brothers, cars would drive by and start shouting them, so rapidly people learned to look the other way and not get involved in other people business and what was an instinctive virtue of helping your brothers in need, turned into a self-preserving ignorance and apathy. So I can understand their fear.
3-most of the wizards think that Voldemort idea aren't that bad, they may not like his methods, but they still think that in essence, they are better than Muggles or Muggleborns and why should they die for them? After all, Voldemort spare the wizards who don't fight him.
4-Wizards hiding in the wizarding world are safer than Muggles hiding in the Muggle world. When there is a Muggle war, you can't hide your house under fidelius charm, you can't cast protections on it to give yourself the time to run for you life. A Muggle, if he want to protect his family in a war time, is forced to fight because he can't really hide from the enemy. A wizard has some tricks who give enough leverage to be a more of a spectator of the war.

[RandomPasserby]

Why do I have issues with 'the greater good'?

Because it can be used to justify anything.

Leaving a child with abusive relatives? Greater good
Exposing 3/4's of 10+ years of children to an abusive teacher? Greater good
Messing with people's memories without their consent? Greater good
Sending a woefully unprepared child to face a dark wizard 60 years his senior? Greater good
Murder that man over there? Greater good
We need information, go torture that prisoner? Greater good

I suppose how you view the greater would depend on how much you agree or disagree with 'the end justifies the means'.

[ayrine]

Oct 10, 2013 12:31:05 GMT -5 RandomPasserby said:

Why do I have issues with 'the greater good'?

Because it can be used to justify anything.

Leaving a child with abusive relatives? Greater good
Exposing 3/4's of 10+ years of children to an abusive teacher? Greater good
Messing with people's memories without their consent? Greater good
Sending a woefully unprepared child to face a dark wizard 60 years his senior? Greater good
Murder that man over there? Greater good
We need information, go torture that prisoner? Greater good

I suppose how you view the greater would depend on how much you agree or disagree with 'the end justifies the means'.

So it's not about intentions at all. Even if you have the best intentions but you do stupid mistakes/decision thinking you are doing right, you are doing "the greater good" play. Even if the alternatives could end worst than your possible choices.

So. so to speak you could be 'caught between the devil and the deep blue sea' and whatever decisions you take could end badly, but you would still be considered doing the greater good play.

Here, I can see 99% of the wizardings world could be included in your definition. And a great great part of the Muggles.

Well, I'm jealous of where you live, because where I live things aren't that easy to decide.

[19811945]

Dumbledore sees the big picture, not the individuals who make up the big picture. For him, the Greater Good means sacrifices have to be made, even if everyone else disagrees with him.

[ayrine]

Oct 20, 2013 7:45:17 GMT -5 19811945 said:

Dumbledore sees the big picture, not the individuals who make up the big picture. For him, the Greater Good means sacrifices have to be made, even if everyone else disagrees with him.

That a way of seeing it. I personally think he was desperate to end the war. People need time to realize that they have to fight for their rights, that's way when there is injustice it takes so much time for people to reorganize themselves and fight together (if I can use my country as an example, we were under colonialism for 130 years, we fought from the start but we weren't united, we needed 100 years to learn that if we wanted to be free we needed to fight together as nation not as different regions/traditions).
The prophecy was the shortcut. It's true that they saved time and lives, but in the end what did the wizards learn? It's been some days since I am starting to ask myself, wouldn't it be better to let them wake up and grow from that experience as a nation rather than sacrifice a kid, who certainly stopped Voldemort rapidly, but left the reasons of Voldemort success still there?

[Kitty279]

What I'd like to know is if Dumbledore ever tried to use the press to throw their inactivity into the public's face, or if Fudge and his cronies prevented it. Would it have been some sort of wakeup-call if someone told them how pathetic it is that they expect a teenager to solve their problem for them (like they did in HBP with the 'chosen one' rubbish) - the same teenager they so eagerly vilified the year before? Sure, most would still prefer to hide their heads in the sand, but maybe some would have acted. It would have been worth a try, IMO.

But I admit, sometimes I think Harry and Sirius should just have left Britain and force them to wake up and do their job themselves. Would have served certain people right.

[ayrine]

I think he was trying to do that each time he lectured them about the war, unity and all that.
Though I don't think he was harsh or abrasive about it to the point of shaming them. I mean he himself didn't want to fight Grindelwald until it was too shameful to not to. He probably don't think he had the right to shame someone because he or she is acting cowardly and doesn't want to face his or her fears.
On the other hand, I can see the MoM controlling the press and printing only reassuring and positive articles so they keep the public's opinion happy, for the re-election, of course!

Sirius and Harry were two men with a great courage and sens of responsibility, they shouldered more than their share. And it's the fact they stayed when other run and hide, that makes them so much of good men.

[Kitty279]

But that's it, save Fudge and the students, we never see Dumbledore doing anything, and that's why I wonder. Besides, it would be actually shameful to not do anything, but expect Harry to do it.

We already know Fudge controlled the Prophet after the Triwizard Tournament, but what after the DoM? Did Scrimgeour nothing else than what his predecessor had done already?

Yes. And that's why it annoyed me so much how JKR killed Sirius off and robbed Harry of the last bit of family. She did to him more than any teenager should be able to shoulder.

[ayrine]

Oct 24, 2013 6:46:47 GMT -5 Kitty279 said:

But that's it, save Fudge and the students, we never see Dumbledore doing anything, and that's why I wonder. Besides, it would be actually shameful to not do anything, but expect Harry to do it.

We already know Fudge controlled the Prophet after the Triwizard Tournament, but what after the DoM? Did Scrimgeour nothing else than what his predecessor had done already?

Yes. And that's why it annoyed me so much how JKR killed Sirius off and robbed Harry of the last bit of family. She did to him more than any teenager should be able to shoulder.

He never said to Harry "Harry you should be ashamed to not fight Voldemort, you are such a coward and your parents would be ashamed of you, go fight and die". And he didn't say it to anyone else too.

It's just that his usual speech found an echo with Harry because he is more "selfless" or more "empathetic" and "braver to the point of recklessness", and not with other persons because they are more self-centered and cowardly.

Well what do you want? Seeing him standing in Diagon Alley and screaming day and night for people to fight and unit. He was most of the time at Hogwarts, the MoM or the OotP, and each time he was repeating the same speech again and again "be united...forget petty disputes...Voldemort is a menace for everyone...friendship...".

LoL, Scrimgeour was doing the same thing as Fudge, then trying to make Harry says that they were all safe. What proof do you need after that?
As for the predecessors; you don't really believe it was idiot-Fudge that came first with the idea, do you?

It's unfair to Harry, but Dumbledore found a willingly hero who was ready to sacrifice everything to stop Voldemort and he used him to win the war. And in the same time, people were dying and a most of the wizards were hiding and not fighting. Argg. It's tiring.

Edit:

JKR wanted a martyr. She put everything on one kid/man shoulders and while I still think it's unfair, I can't blame Dumbledore because he was put in a similar position; the one who were wrong for me were: all the Wizards as a society and JKR as the moral writer.
You could accuse her of using a cruel and easy solution to resolve the problem she put first (a society of cowards who had to fight a powerful and intelligent criminal). And if you want to be nice, you could call it was her inner struggle, because she wanted to stress that the only thing that can vanquish Evil is Goodness and only love can stop death, despair and destruction. Anyway, even if I can see what she means, I have to say though :"not like that! not sacrificing a kid for a bunch of scared idiots".

[Kitty279]

Oh no, he wouldn't say it that way, but the way he threw the Prophecy at him, it was clear he expected him to. And after growing up in Durskaban, Harry would do everything for his friends. IMO Dumbledore counted on that. Besides, who got the order to find the Horcruxes and don't tell anyone? Harry! So, in the end, Dumbledore handed him the task, even if he didn't say it outright.

But I agree on JKR. As I have said before, some of her ideas and plot devices make me rather uncomfortable.

[ayrine]

Oct 24, 2013 14:45:13 GMT -5 Kitty279 said:

Oh no, he wouldn't say it that way, but the way he threw the Prophecy at him, it was clear he expected him to. And after growing up in Durskaban, Harry would do everything for his friends. IMO Dumbledore counted on that. Besides, who got the order to find the Horcruxes and don't tell anyone? Harry! So, in the end, Dumbledore handed him the task, even if he didn't say it outright.

But I agree on JKR. As I have said before, some of her ideas and plot devices make me rather uncomfortable.

Well I was talking about being abrasive and harsh with people who don't fight in my two posts above.

Sure Dumbledore used the first person who was willingly ready to fight and die. He used the first person he saw capable of doing the deed, regardless of the fairness of the situation. I am not denying it.
But Dumbledore never shamed anyone to do what they didn't want and let everyone do as they wanted.

Harry had the prophecy about him, Voldemort had chosen him and marked him and Harry got some of his power and by an unfortunate (or fortunate) circumstances he had a protection nobody else had; he was also an exceptional person, brave and selfless. So in the light of everything, including the social and political and military situation of the wizarding world at that time, Dumbledore said to Harry :"You have a power nobody else have, you can fight or not, it's your choice", "you can search for the Hoxcruxes or not, it's also your choice", and sure enough Dumbledore wanted Harry to do it, but not for cruelty sake or because it pleased him but because he believed that it was the fastest and surest way to win the war and saw the other options, the fairest ones as longer and more costly on human lives.

I don't agree with the Dursleys though, the fact that Harry was abused don't assure he would sacrifice himself for his friends after that. He was hurt and rejected by the people who should have loved him. It could have turned the other way as easily. And Dumbledore had no way to foresee Harry future reactions or personality or choices. So that so called ploy doesn't make sens to me.

It was awkwardly executed. That's why it was somewhat creepy, it's like those fairy-tales that you like as a child but, when you grew up, you can't help but cringe at the violence and unfairness in them.

[Kitty279]

*grin* I don't know why I even keep trying, knowing very well that I tend to see the negative side of Dumbledore while you keep defending him

Though I agree about the Dursleys - that could have backfired very easily, and then they might have had a second Voldemort at their hands instead. The initial decision to drop Harry there may have been actually well meant, but that Dumbledore never bothered in 10 years to actually check on him, that he thought being unhappy and unloved would be okay, not considering what that would do to a child - that's inacceptable. And that he still kept sending him back.

Apt comparison. Looking back at some of the fairy tales I knew as a child, I wonder how anyone nowadays does think they are alright for a child to read. It's really funny, I remember a case in a neighbour town where someone in the kindergarten decided to ban an old children's book classic about a good little witch because it 'leads the children to occultism' and all that rubbish. When I talked with a friend about it, we soon came to the conclusion that this book rather takes the fear away that many fairy tales can cause about bad witches. And no one of these idiots said that the fairy tales should be forbidden. *They* were perfectly alright, because their witches were more of the nightmare-inducing variety. Of course, in the end, the book stayed and was read to the children as they had for decades, and the kindergarten (or the town) was known all over the country for that ridiculous idea.

[ayrine]

I don't even like Dumbledore that much But every time I read something like "what he did was unacceptable", "he did wrong", "he is evil". I can't help but think 'wait, you are focusing on the wrong problem. The problem is the society and that include Dumbledore, so he should be judged by the criteria of his society'. Plus I was never fan of scapegoats.

False polemic. *roll eyes* Rather than stopping the book, you should explain to the kids that there are sects that pretend to do magic and hurt others if you are afraid of occultism. Explain that the magic are only tricks that they use to scam people of their money. Stopping the book won't prevent them from being potential victims of those criminals.

[Kitty279]

Don't you think that he had amazingly littly influence if people thought him the big saviour after Grindelwald in 1945, and 50 years later he still was unable to get them to see his opinion? If they refused to listen to him even in the tiniest bit of way, why then did he get three out of the four most important jobs in their world? That never makes really sense to me.

Yeah, they should explain something like that, but that would actually force them to put some effort and brain into it, instead of just complaining and whining and making a big fuss to get noticed. Besides, that way they can hide behind the bible, ignoring all the other things in it that would make it at least as problematic as a nice witch who helps people with her magic. In the bible water gets turned into wine, that's a miracle. But if a witch uses magic to help someone to keep warm in freezing cold, then that's of the devil and leads to occultism *shakes head* There are really times when you wonder about mankind.

[ayrine]

Maybe because there was equally important people who were preaching the exact inverse of his speech in a society who was fundamentally thinking the exact inverse of his speech and wasn't ready or willing to change that?

He probably was able to get some people to agree with him fully and much more of them to agree with him partially and a bigger number of them who were completely opposed to him. He had his influence but wasn't the only one.

He was head of the Wizengamot, but of the 50 judges who many shared his beliefs? How many were supporting the pureblood supremacy?
And what about the Heads of dept and the Minister? And the Representatives of every country in the International Confederation of Wizards? The People who voted the "secrecy state" and allowed to wipe the memory of muggles and Hide from them things that still concerned them?

As for the little people, they admired him and wanted him as their protector. His fame probably opened doors to him and it is the reason Voldemort never took power in England until 1996. He maintained the statu quo and that probably why Dumbledore wasn't completely evinced by his political rivals.
But those people weren't willing to risk their lives for muggles and muggleborns.
They hadn't realized that Voldemort was a menace to them too, they hide their heads in the sand and preferred listening to the people who reassured them and were telling them that everything was under control and that Voldemort wouldn't hurt them if they didn't fight and just threw the responsibility on the shoulder of Dumbledore rather than listening to the one who was warning them and telling them that he was just a man.

After all they don't need to change their habits and prejudices and morals and traditions, they just need Dumbledore to stop Voldemort. And they failed to see that what made Voldemort so darn powerful and redoubtable were their habits and prejudices and morals and traditions.

As for the rest while I agree should make the effort to explain, I don't think it's the same as with the bible because I believe in God and I believe in miracles from God while I believe that magic are just tricks. But I digress.
The important is to not just flame and cry of indignation if you are worried about something, but try to find true solutions.