I find it very interesting how a majority of people are centrist and or leftist, which espouse ideals of inclusivity, agree with the point that some cultures are inferior to others... Yet they also value diversity? Huh?

Really says a lot about the state of politics, not gonna lie.

 

It really doesn't. It just means people are capable of viewing concepts with nuance, and not simply holding up an idea or culture like it's the holy grail of all things.

 

Damn, we truly live in a society.

 

It's what I meant with my earlier comment: some of the questions simply don't give you a lot of room to navigate them. Are other cultures inferior on principle? Of course not. But do I believe that a culture with democratic humanist values is superior to a dictatorship that regularly abuses human rights? Yeah I do, very much so in fact. That I believe the culture to be better, doesn't mean I believe the people to be better, too, by the way. Anyway, beyond the ultra far fringe which has lost itself to complete cultural relativism, the valueing of human rights seems to be the ultimate left wing cause, so I see no contradiction there.

On the topic of the nuclearbomb vs shield charm debate, I'm with @Ched. No argument that a competent wizard can survive a nuke in several ways, but that protection being a shield charm, while perhaps defensible, just sounds so ludicrous to me. It's simply such a high barrier of SoD to clear that I don't know why you'd ever try as an author instead of relying on a fancier solution - except if you want to deconstruct the argument in fiction, but then I'd kind of view it as a hamfisted attempt at humor.

 

For me the question if a shield charm can protect you against a nuclear bomb is an example of "are there practical limits to magic, or only conceptual"?

Let's say Harry wants to create a spell that allows him to kill Voldemort despite the horcruxes while sipping piña coladas on a hammock in the Bahamas. Is such a spell impossible because there's some conceptual thing that prevents it ("the second law of mixology says you can't cast harmful spells while drinking rum-based beverages, Harry. I thought you had learned that already."), or is it impossible because of some practical limitation ("sure you could do it, but my back-of-the-coaster arithmancy says that for it to work you would have to have sex with 7 times 7 virgins at the same time. And while it is possible to transfigure that many extra penises, the drawbacks far outstrip the benefits for all parties involved"). Or is that kind of spell just as easy/difficult as any other spell we see in canon, and the heroes were just stupid because they didn't think of it?

My position is firmly that there definitely are many practical limitations to magic, and how much and what kind of punishment a shield charm can take is one of them. How much is too much depends on what kind of a story you want to tell, and how well you set the magic system up beforehand.

 

I think you would be able to cast only harmful spells if you're drinking rum.

 

Don't worry, a properly-cast shield charm can protect you from all rum-based decisions.

 

Disagree. Rum is magical and so can defeat shield charms if it's strong enough.

 

Some say a shot of rum before a duel can turn Stupefy into Bombarda.

 

And Bellatrix into Off-'er-tits!

 

All these problems are transitory as long as you're still sober enough to petrificus your totalus.

 

If you're sober enough to be waving your wand around your wand, you shouldn't need to petrificus your totalus.

 

Glad that the nuke option is winning the biggest chunk of responses on the Shield Charm question, proving that most of the responders agree that no technology may trump magic, but the nuke should be 100% of responses, so...