First off I've never said he wasn't abused. I just said he was never physically abused and that things could've been worse for him.
Again Neville's 'abuse' is hardly something that ever went out of bounds. His mistakes in class weren't merely efforts of incompetence but also endangered everyone around him. So, while I agree that Snape is a jerk, what he does can hardly be construed as abuse.
As for his remarks towards Hermione, well while I'm more inclined to agree there, he really did nothing to put her down. He ignored her problem, yes but when she ran off he didn't penalize her. So while he was practising blatant favoritism, that again is not abuse.

 

The only things Dumbledore really knew were that Harry was a Horcrux and had to be destroyed last. After that, it was likely a hope of Dumbledore's that someone would nail Voldemort with a Killing Curse.

Beyond that, Dumbledore didn't have a fucking clue, and a child having a rough childhood, to a man of his time, is basically not even worth a shoulder shrug.


Everything else, EVERYTHING ELSE, is either fanwank or bashing. All of it.

 

...loving the controversial opinion being authoritatively presented as fact.

Like others have said, this is a universe with Divination and prophecies, and Dumbledore certainly shows good signs that he knew/had guessed much of the events of the DH before he died.

Not to mention that all evidence is that he legitimately cared for Harry.

 

Such as leaving him with the Dursleys, not even trying to bribe or otherwise make them treat him better, not informing him of being a wizard, not telling him anything about his parents, not caring what the school thought of Harry in year 2 or 4, despite knowing he was innocent of both being the heir of Slytherin or a cheater, such as not even talking to him in year 5, such as making everyone of his friends ignore him after he saw Cedric die, and then again after he lost Sirius, keeping the truth from him on several accounts...

Are we talking about the same Dumbledore? Or are we talking about some fanon Dumbledore who didn't actually treat Harry as shit for most of his life?

 

He let him grow and face his own challenges. Although maybe he should have hired a damned mercenary for 5th year instead of risk Umbridge. But hey, it taught Harry to not seek allies within the Ministry so....yeah....

 

He was an combatant according to the prophecy already, so not training him is extreme neglect, that did almost get him killed coupla times.

Get them security, lots of it. Ward the Burrow up to high heavens that would let Hogwarts look like nothing.

Implied by what?

Tricked and manipulated him into doing it. "Big" diff.

 

I do not see any proof that the Dursley's couldn't have been bribed or otherwise influenced to treat Harry better. It sounds like some baseless made-up excuse for Dumbledore - if it was true, why wouldn't he have told Harry that?

 

You must really hate Dumbledore. Ignoring the fact that keeping him with Dursleys is probably what saved his life till he was of age, I can understand how that was a horrible decision. The Dursleys hate anything to do with magic, I wonder what could he have offered them as bribe to treat Harry better? I'm sure you know though.
Not having Harry's back during second and fourth year. How dare he let Harry fight his own battles? It's not as if he'd have been accused of favouritism if he had. (On a more serious note I believe he did defend Harry from cheating accusations by the other champions, the heads of other school and Snape).
Not talking and sharing sensitive intel with him in year five. Its not as if he had a direct link to Voldemort's mind which could be exploited. Yup Dumbledore was a jerk to Harry without any reasons whatsoever.

 

Dumbledore's mistakes make him human and not some omnipotent God dressed up as Santa Claus.

Dumbledore is an amazing character with depth and should be treated as such. Anything else is 'dragon dung'.

 

Yes. They could have offered the Dursleys money. Or simply have visited regularly. Or informed the British authorities to keep an eye on them. Harry was the key to defeating Voldemort, so one would expect Dumbledore to keep an eye on him and make sure he had that vaunted childhood he later didn't want to destroy.

Not informing an entire school bent on bullying and even hurting a single innocent boy of his innocence is "letting him fight his own battles"? Yeah, right. Dumbledore had the moral and legal obligation to protect Harry there, and failed utterly. That Malfoy could wear and distribute his buttons is a shame for the whole staff there.
Talking and sharing Intel are two different things. Isolating Harry, especially after year 4 and 5 is such a stupid mistake, I wonder why anyone would dare defend this.
Yes, Dumbledore was either evil or inept to treat Harry like that, and he was damn lucky Harry didn't become a monster through all the abuse.

"Evil Dumbledore" and "Senile Dumbledore" have so much traction because the canon actions easily lead to either as an explanation.

 

Damnit Taure I think you meant for this to happen.

 

I tried to search for it, but haven't found it: Is there any truth to Dumbledore disliking (and pushing OotP from it) killing in battle, or is it fanon?

Thanks.

 

He could have easily killed the DEs in the DoM in OOTP but chose to send them to Azkaban instead, knowing fully well that they would all be broken out anyway. He is definitely not too keen on killing if non-lethal take down is an option. Of course, killing could be a hard limit for him for personal reasons instead, like it is for Batman. Canon isn't very clear on the subject.

 

Canon-wise there's no real evidence apart from the fact that he doesn't kill anyone 'on screen'.

Within the topic of the thread I'd say that for Dumbledore killing is simply too easy. When he's fighting Death Eaters it's like a trained martial artist going up against a gaggle of preschoolers. He captures and incapacitates them because it is no more difficult for him than killing them and killing should only be a last resort.

I doubt he'd shed a tear over one of his followers killing a Death Eater if it was life or death. He would probably be disappointed and concerned if killing became the first choice, however.

 

So Dumbledore frowning on usage of potentially deadly spells is pure fanon? Hm, good to know, thanks.

 

There's also no scene where he shows regret after a Death Eater he spared killed anyone else afterwards.

 

Probably has something to do with the fact that there's no scene where a Death Eater he spared killed anyone else afterwards.

 

I am pretty sure Voldemort's inner circle didn't abstain from killing until the Battle of Hogwarts. At least some of them would have been involved in the murder of Amelia Bones. And I am rather sure that more such murders took place during Harry's 6th year.

 

I'm not sure what the implication is here. Why would there be such a scene? What is the lack of such a scene supposed to tell us about Dumbledore's character.