And you are still not reading my post.

 

Dumbledore doesn't get off easy just because it was 1930s. When did wizarding culture abolish child labor? Were wizarding children smacked around?

I don't think we have enough information to say whether or not wizarding morality on raising children was equivalent to muggle ones. And it doesn't change the fact that Dumbledore is somehow blameless just because it might have been the norm.

Are we judging him by modern morality? Sure. But we're also recognizing the effects of him making those decisions. Does Tom Riddle become Voldemort if he receives counseling/works through his issues as a child?

 

By the standards of the wizarding world, the fact that Riddle didn't go to prison shows him as extremely high-minded to believe Riddle should receive a warning after stealing, muggle-baiting, and what amounts to mind-controlling innocent children. Ignorance of the law is not normally a defense, nor is being a minor, depending on the crime that's been committed. What no one else in this thread seems to have considered is that there are other children at Hogwarts, and to admit Riddle into the school, Dumbledore can't play any fucking games with 'maybe he just needs a hug'. I have absolutely no idea how Riddle's entitlement to not being momentarily frightened supersedes their entitlement to continue living.

 

Molly specifically says that Arthur still bears the marks from Pringle's punishments, and given they were at Hogwarts in the 60s, a significant period of time after Tom Riddle, it seems very likely that corporal punishment was commonplace in his time.

And really, expecting Dumbledore to have the kind of knowledge of human and child psychology that we have now, after decades of study, is simply unreasonable. None of us can do more than the best given the understanding we have of the world, and that is what Dumbledore did. Was he mistaken? Perhaps, but can he be blamed for that given that the information necessary to come to that conclusion was simply unknown to him? The idea that blame for bad things happening must reside somewhere is honestly unfair. Sometimes good people can do their best, and bad things can still happen. That's just how the world is.

 

If you feel I've not understood something in your posts, then you need to revisit and rephrase your point, because I've read your posts and replied to them based on my understanding of having read them.

Given that Jitenshasan seems to think thats its bullying and unreasonable of an adult to require a child to return things that they've stolen, I wouldn't hold out much hope that he'll accept this sort of argument.

 

I honestly don't see how you've missed the point. It couldn't be more clear. You are talking about his outward persona, which I've already gone over.

 

@Steelbadger Meh. This gets too much into morality being fluid with times. But I'll simply say that Dumbledore made a mistake. Is this with the hindsight of modern knowledge? Sure.

He wasn't a good teacher and his actions influenced Tom towards seeking power more than he already did. Motivations matter little here. Dumbledore screwed up. I don't see why that's such a wrong take.

 

Ok, I don't see what you try to get at. Would you mind spelling it out for me?
English is not my first language, so it's possible I am simply missing something.

Sorry, that sounds remarkably like something a sound Tom riddle would laugh at. Some idiots trying to teach him morals? Good luck with that. It is clear to me, that Rowlings shows us a dualistic world. Tom is evil. There is now grey here. He found out he had a super power and used it for nothing but evil. The best thing Dumbledore could do, was to show him the consequences of his crimes. To make it clear that cruelty against other children will no longer be tolerated. There was nothing to save, Tom riddle is the archetype of born evil.

 

By that standard Dumbledore should have blasted Tom to pieces and be like, "Yeah, the little shit was evil, I needed to purge it".

No matter which way you look, that kind of "show of force" is the worst thing you can do. Either commit to taking him down (you know, the justice system exists for that specific purpose) or try to redeem, don't go for some middle ground.

 

I think some of you are being a little hard on Dumbledore here. He showed Harry that memory as a demonstration that 'Tom Riddle has always been evil,' but it's not clear that he believed that at the time. He had just encountered an 11-year-old who liked to steal things and hurt people. Riddle had already figured out how to wandlessly imperius muggles.

The boy was clearly in need of counseling (which didn't exist in the 1930s), but Dumbledore was right to show him that he couldn't get away with his actions in the magical world. Setting his wardrobe on fire wasn't an act of cruelty, or a way to establish dominance, but an attempt to teach him how awful his behavior was: 'how would you like it if I destroyed all your belongings just to hurt you? That's what you've been doing, Tom, and it has to stop.'

I'm not saying he did a good job of sending that message, but I think that was his intent.

 

I maintain he did as good a job of sending that message as he could given his knowledge and resources, and the restrictions of the setting. Following that interaction Riddle became a model pupil at Hogwarts. If he was a bully, a thief, a fighter, etc he wouldn't have been the teachers favourite that he was, he wouldn't have been prefect or head boy.

As was said earlier, in this setting Riddle was born evil, there was no saving him. So Dumbledore's actions saved the other pupils from suffering what Riddle's fellow orphans went through.

He was still a murdering piece of shit, but he kept his impulses under control for the most part.

 

Was anything said about Sirius' Azkaban cell in relation to other cells? Beside Barty Crouch Jnr that is. I swear I remember hearing he was close to Bellatrix, but can't find a mention on the Wiki. It might be a common fanfic trope.

 

Here's a quote from PoA:

Also in OotP, Sirius discussing Bellatrix:

 

Is there a certain distance a caster must be from their target in order to use the Imperius Curse? It seems like there must be, given that the spell is invisible, because otherwise it would be almost completely impossible to defend against. But I also don't recall a limitation like that being mentioned in canon, which seems odd to me.

 

Harry resists it quite admirably in book 4. The limitation is that the caster has to have a stronger will.

 

I think he means. Could you cast it at someone 1km away? Because if that’s the case, the person on the receiving end would have no way to know it’s coming.

 

Do we ever see spells cast from any kind of distance like that? As far as I remember, you basically have to see your target.

 

Yea, that was exactly what I was trying to ask. Every time I can remember the curse being used, the caster positions themselves close to the target. But I don't remember anyone (like Dumbledore in his explanation of the unforgiveables) actually coming out and saying that that's a requirement, so I was curious if I missed something.

 

Define see? I can see someone from 1km away, not very well perhaps.

I can certainly see someone from well over a hundred meters away and still make out who they are and other details.

 

I am not claiming to know the exact rule or if there is an exact rule. I was just putting a question out as to what the maximum range is based on what we see in the books. As far as I know the greatest range would have been in the aerial battle of seven Potters, and the text states that they were missing constantly. The fact that you can miss means that the accuracy of the spell relies on the skill of the caster as well as visibility. If I had to extrapolate from this, I would say there is some chance you could hit someone from that far away, but it would be challenging.