That's about the size of it. Also, like Dumbledore where his actions "for the greater good" end up making things worse, so does torture here. I've read the reports where torturing others puts our soldiers in greater risk.

 

Sigh.

Anyone who actually bothered to remember any of Deathly Hallows will recall that "For the Greater Good" was Gellert Grindelwald's saying and that, while Dumbledore was the one who originally suggested using it to Grindelwald, Dumbledore turned against Grindelwald and this argument, and did not advocate after their youth.

The only place you'll find Dumbledore say "it's for the greater good" is in bad indy!Harry fanfiction.

 

Just because he never said it never meant he didn't believe in it. If he truly did not advocate it after his youth, then why leave Harry with the Dursleys where even Dumbledore later admits how badly they have treated him?

 

Because he truly believed it best for Harry to be alive and unhappy rather than happy and dead?

 

Now that's not true. How would of he had been dead? He could of easily had been placed with another Wizarding Family under some sort of vow where they can't tell others. Hell, Dumbledore himself could of had taken Harry, and raised him if he cared so much.

Or better yet, he could of cast a spell on the Dursleys to not beat the shit out of Harry.

Besides, it's not like Dumbledore considered everybody knowing where Harry lived by the 5th book to be some dangerous thing. Especially since Harry's full address at the Dursleys is read OUTLOUD TWICE, once with Dumbledore right there.

 

Torture isn't useful, and even if you extract information though it, it's unreliable.

The greater good would be to put Harry in the public eye, maybe teaching him some magic from an early age. Putting Harry with the Dursley's helps no one except Harry.

 

If not before PS, which I find likely (magical protections didn't help the Longbottoms or the Potters, plus we don't know who he would end up with, as we know that he's related to the Blacks), he would have died at the end of his first year when confronting Voldemort without any protection.

 

That's what Dumbledore says about the protection. However, we find out since Book 1 that Dumbledore is a known liar, so why should we have any reason to believe what he says?

Besides, after Book 4, Voldemort now has Harry's blood inside him, so much for the blood wards. Also, it's not like Dumbledore knew Harry would face Voldemort at 11, UNLESS he planned it at some point.

The Greater Good would of involved keeping Harry out of the public eye. Putting Harry with the Dursley's helps no one including Harry. He's beaten, he lives under a cupboard for I presume his life up to that point, he has no friends, and he's treated like a freak.

If that's what you call help, remind me to never ask you for a favor.

Also, if you have a moment, I'd like a response to this thread from you, we had a good discussion going the other day:

http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=13859&page=2

 

They will mentally abuse him [mentally] all the same, even if unknowingly. He'll grow up as a fucked up child who won't know if his parents love him.

Did you adopt 200 babies? No? You don't care enough!!! BABY HATER!!!

-.-"

Something like the Imperio?

 

Honestly, he could of grown up in a nice Wizarding home without any sort of abuse. He already did grow up at the Dursley's as a fucked up child who didn't know if his parents loved him. He might as well be with a family that won't treat him like the resident punching bag. I mean come on, he grew up being told his parents were a bunch of alcoholics.

Harry is a special case, he's the one who the prophecy is about. It is directly Dumbledore's fault for the Prophecy getting out, and not doing more to protect the Potters. If he cared so much about Harry, and about defeating Voldemort since he should of let Harry grow up in a healthy home.

Also, yes, something like the Imperio. At the very least, Dumbledore could of prevented the beatings and abuse. Hell, he supposedly had people watching Harry, lot good that did. Probably were there so he wouldn't escape.

 

He knew Voldemort was still alive, and he knew the prophecy. He knew Harry would end up facing Voldemort.

Dumbledore is a known liar? When?

Also, logical fallacy is fallacious: "X has lied once, thus X always lies" is not a valid argument.

Finally, if you get to choose which of Dumbledore's statements are true and which are false on whim then there's absolutely no point discussing this, as you can basically decide for yourself Dumbledore's character rather than following the books.

 

Good, we can agree that Dumbledore knew Harry was going to face Voldemort one day. So instead of giving him any sort of training at any point in his life, he makes his entire mental state fucked up by placing him with an abusive family.

So why didn't Dumbledore just cast a spell on the Dursleys so they wouldn't beat the shit out of Harry then? I mean, if he cares so much as you say, and he's stuck in a bind with the protection, why not make it easier on Harry?

Want to know why? Rowling wanted the biggest down on their luck character she could get, and made Harry a abused child. It wouldn't of been such a down on their luck story if Harry had actually grown up a happy child. No no, he had to be shit on since day one. Surprised Rowling just didn't go all out and make the rest of his family get struck by lightning.

It has been seen many times in Canon that Dumbledore mislead Harry several times or withheld important information. It's not exactly lying, but still messed up.

 

I'm pretty sure you're letting fanon get to your head, Scrittore. When in the books did they ever beat the shit out of Harry? It wasn't the best household, sure, but you're seriously overstating any abuse he sustained.

EDIT: Also this. VV

 

Godsdamn it, Taure...

 

It would be Dark magic?

It's also plausible, but not canon, that such a spell would interfere with the blood charm.

The whole training thing is stupid. Firstly, raising a child to be a killer from age 1 is far more abusive than anything the Dursleys did. Secondly, Voldemort was a magical prodigy equal to Dumbledore himself, in his prime. Even if Harry had been trained one-on-one by Dumbledore since birth he wouldn't have been up to beating Voldemort in a straight fight.

 

Well, lets see. Didn't Vernon mention something about "trying to beat the freak" out of him but failing?

Didn't he live under a freakin cupboard?

Didn't they let Dudley and his friends beat up Harry?

Didn't he get hit with a frying pan?

Wasn't he practically starved? I mean they never came out, and said it. However, he never seemed to get much food in the books.

I'm not saying raise a child to be a killer. However, train Harry a little about the Wizarding World so he's not practically a Muggleborn when it comes time to go to Hogwarts. Train him after Book 1, train him after he fights a giant snake, train him after Voldemort's return or after Book 5. The most Dumbledore does is shows him memories.

Also, that's why we had that Elder Wand bullshit come Book 7.

Also Taure, I think you're defying canon now. How do you know such a spell would interfere with the blood charm? Any canon evidence to back that up? I know you said it's not plausible for still.

 

Learn2read:

And what would be the purpose of this training?

 

Live happily until you're eleven and then die, or live sadly until you're eleven, and then live the rest of you're life happily?

Didn't you say the greater good was bad?

His method worked, didn't it? Also, like Taure said, he would have lost.

Because it's amoral and the universe, from the characters perspective at least, doesn't revolve around Harry Potter?

Why would he tell a preteen secrets that could devastate the magical world? You're being an emotional reader, here.

For what end? To make a child feel like he's life is in constant threat?

He said it wasn't canon.

 

I edited my mistake after that. My point still stands though. However, let's say for a moment that it would mess with the spell. Why not cast the spell on Vernon and Dudley so they won't beat the shit out of Harry? It's not like the spell involves them at all, just Petunia.

I'm not sure if it is a crime if one knows child abuse is going on but doesn't report it, but if there was then Dumbledore would be guilty. Though it's not a crime, Dumbledore is still guilty of not doing more to stop the abuse. It continued, maybe not always through physical abuse but through other means. Unless letters can now attach themselves to owls, then Dumbledore or whoever sends out the Hogwarts letters should know Harry is living in a cupboard under the stairs.

Also, the purpose of this training so Harry isn't a complete dumbass like he is in canon. Maybe so he'd be a little more motivated, especially later on in the future books.

 

All new guys must get spanked at least once by Taure in a canon debate. (I remember my own initiation, so long ago).

In before Taure mentions that Petunia missed with the frying pan.