We've all likely seen the overused manipulative!Dumbledore trope - often used to explain away Harry's 'abusive' treatment at the Dursleys. This is also commonly the launching point for an evil Dumbledore obsessed with the Greater Good.Stories of its ilk are often quite shitty or at least outdated.

What I am interested in is whether a Dumbledore that moves things behind the scenes but is ultimately a good person could work. Tried searching for stories with this idea but couldn't really find any good ones.

(Apologies if I posted this in the wrong subforum)

 

I know just the thing for you. It's written by this woman, she's called J K Rowling. Look her up. Her 'Harry Potter' series is supposed to be pretty good, and fits your description perfectly.

 

Of course it works, I've seen plenty. I even wrote one.

 

Yes, that's a good idea. Canon dumbledore was a massive cock that was supposedly, but not really, working for the greater good, and his actions reflect this. Just like the actions of "Dumbledore was evil" fanfic writers reflect their hate of the "He was working for the greater good, honest!" excuse.

 

Please tell me more...

 

Leaving Harry with his abusive Dursley parents.

He has no justification for this at all. The blood wards didn't work, and if they did, not well enough to justify what they did to him. They were never needed, since death eaters could always attack outside the house. And he was usually outside in the garden or hiding from Dudley anyway. Dumbledore had to have known of Harry's situation, since the letters said "Cupboard under the Stairs" and not "Harry's room", and he had a spy living in the house nearby watching him... yet that spy never once thought to tell Dumbledore what the Dursleys were doing to him. Or he never cared when he was told. He never thought to warn them that if they cause any mental or physical or psychological harm to the CHOSEN ONE EVERYONE'S FUTURES RELY ON, they will be turned into animals and killed. or Unforgivable Cursed into being better people. Or to offer them a shitton of money if the boy turned out alright. Or to send Harry to live with a family of Wizards that'd treat him like a normal boy while letting him practice the magic he needs to BEAT DEATH MAGIC DEVIL JESUS. Harry's Mom dying to protect her son was what made Harry's touch deadly to prof. Quirrel. Harry having to save the incompetent asshole Dursleys from dementors almost ended the story right there.

On every level, putting the chosen one in the worst home possible is the worst idea possible. Except for the "This abused sad kid will view the world of magic as a wondrous place he wants to protect, and view me as his savior" thing, which only an evil man would consider a good plan. You don't need to manipulate a good person into doing good. And even that bonus was ruined when Harry saw again and again how shit the wizard world is and how shitty almost every wizard ever is. Except for the main characters.

---------- Post automerged at 11:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------

And the best part of everything I just said? All of that is canon. None of that is exaggeration, like claiming Dumbledore's douchery was what inspired Tom Riddle to become Voldemort to gain power, or claiming that a good Dumbledore would have arranged "Accidents" for all the Death Eaters that got off on all charges thanks to blood purity/money/other bullshit, ensuring that there wouldn't be a Death Eater army to fight the heroes or revive Voldemort.

Btw there aren't that many Wizards in Wizard Britain anyway, so killing all the known bad ones (Especially the rich assholes and top-level operatives) would leave the gutter trash behind, who would find it far harder to resurrect Voldemort or accomplish anything.

 

Wrong.
1) It's better for him if he grows up without the fame (that even an 11 year old Harry Potter struggled with).
2) The blood wards that made the Dursleys a safer place than anywhere else.

Made-up nonsense.

The Dursley weren't nice to Harry, right. Were they better than a Death Eater attack? Almost certainly YES.

Any sources, or do you just want it to be like this? Dumbledore'd be declared an idiot by that, and somehow I don't think that's canon.

We can't be completely sure if he read this letter, and while he was aware that the times at the Durslyes were "dark" for Harry, he had no reason to assume they were actively mistreating him. Incidentally, the Dursley's mistreatment of Harry decreases over the course of the books, which also indicates that JKR herself thought she went a bit overboard with the cupboard.

That'd hardly be Dumbledore's fault. Apart from that, Mrs. Figg can't look into the house of the Dursleys. And the magical world seems to have strange standards in general when it comes to the security of children (quidditch...), so this might be another case.

There's a character in Harry Potter that might be more to your liking. He's called Voldemort and does exactly what you desire. ^^

First part is what Dumbledore believably says he couldn't do. Second part is what Dumbledore believably says he didn't want Harry to do, because training for combat from an early age smells remarkably of child soldier. That's not what Dumbledore wanted Harry to be.

I actually think that's a plot weakness, because there's no clue whatsover that Rowling meant for Dumbledore to be an evil guy out to torture children for whatever reason (as you make him out to be). But Rowling allowed Privet Drive and its surroundings to be invaded twice by "attackers" (none of those were even related to Death Eaters, though, one time it was Dobby and one time it was Ministry-sent Dementors), which doesn't make sense when you believe Dumbledore's claim that Harry'd be safe because of the blood wards.
Which you should. Because Dumbledore's a plot exposition character and only once wrong about magic-related matters.

No one would consider that a good plan, because it's bullshit. "Let him be in an unfriendly environment for ten years for your groundkeeper to save him and for your first proper talk being half a year later" doesn't lead to you being seen as some kind of saviour. That alone indicates that this wasn't Dumbledore's plan.


Long talk, short story: When regarded from now on, some of Dumbledore's action seem contrived and nearly without reason, I'll give you that. But that's not because Rowling wanted to convey his secret evilness, it's because she didn't think everything through and sometimes because the plot needed it. He's manipulative from time to time, but to call him evil when there's no canon source nor the author herself ever really suggested that ... is a stretch.
Of course you can draw conclusions because of certain events and decisions and paint him in an evil light. Problem is, that's just not canon.

EDIT:

Your perception of justifiable violence works in interesting ways.

 

1, How do the blood wards work? What makes them so special that it justifies what the Dursleys did? Also, you forgot to think about the point I brought up regarding how often Harry had to go out because of who lived in that house. Did Harry even consider that place his home? Did those wards even work?
2, There's a difference between children playing a violent SPORT in a world where injuries can be magicked away and letting a kid live in an abusive home.
3, Don't compare me to Voldemort. Voldemort is evil, cartoonishly evil, and so are his cartoonishly evil followers. Is it a shock to expect someone to enforce law instead of letting the rich and powerful get away because "Oh, the bad guy made me do it"? Would that fly in a court today?
4, Magic is magic. You can train to be good at magic without necessarily being a child soldier. You can use transfiguration and disarming spells and wingardium leviosa in combat just as easily as you could fire Sectumsempra. The rich asshole purebloods were given extra training and allowed to practice at home, so why shouldn't Harry get the edge he might need to SAVE THE WORLD?
5, You're misinterpreting what I said. I'm not saying Dumbledore's an asshole that tortures kids for fun. I'm saying he left Harry with the Dursleys because he either liked the idea, or didn't care enough to stop it. Either he's an idiot, an uncaring asshole, or a manipulative bastard that thinks you need to make your chosen one an abused boy to make him more likely to trust you and fight for you. It's canon that Dumbledore did this bad thing for stupid reasons.
6, If the blood wards were worth anything, they'd keep dementors out, and protect Harry when he left the home as long as he returned in time to recharge his love magic. If the blood wards were weak to dementors all along, that's a stupid design flaw. Another reasons why "Muh blood wards" is BS!
7, It looks bullshit because it was fucked up so badly. If it was done right (Take the abused kid from his miserable world of pain and into a world of wonder and magic and fun, then tell him he's the special chosen one, and he needs to master magic to defend the world of fun from the forces of darkness) it would have worked well. But because almost everyone in this series is a dumbass, it failed. Don't get me wrong, you can enjoy this series DESPITE its stupidity, but "Harry needs to be an abused kid in human world because I need my work to have a relatable sympathetic protagonist that goes into a magic world" is one of the dumbest and most poorly-thought-out things in ANY work of fiction, ever.

Hell, if the house and the Dursleys are so important, just send some wizard guy over to live with Harry, defend him from any wizards outside of the house, make sure he's eating right and sleeping right and living right, and allow him to practice underaged magic and potions and whatever. You know who'd be a great candidate for Wizard Butler/Wizard Friend/Harry's "Uncle on his father's side"? Sirius. In a world where memory-reading spells and truth potions exist, and a world where Dumbledore is supposedly powerful and worth something, why did he let Sirius get thrown in Azkaban without a trial?

---------- Post automerged at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------

This is going to be one of those arguments, isn't it? Where you claim modern morality - or hyperliberal morality - can be applied to a magical world where torture spells and dark magic and unforgivable curses exist. Then you claim those hyperliberal morals can be applied to that world of magic during war, or during post-war cleanup. Then, despite how loudly you'd probably cheer if the Actual WW2 Gas Chamber Operators were executed on live TV for their crimes and how loudly you'd boo if they were given reduced sentences or let off with a warning because they said "Hitler made me do it"... You'll take this as an opportunity to show off how moral you like to tell yourself you are, and you'll claim nobody deserves to be executed in "Boiler explosion malfunctions" or "I can't deal with the guilt, I lied about Voldemort making me do those bad things" "Mass suicides" or "Lol wtf were fifty trolls doing in his house? Did some asshole really transfigure trolls into coins, put them in an envelope, tie a brick to it, and throw it through the Draco manor window?" attacks. Despite all the bad things the cartoonishly evil Death Eaters did because Lord Voldemort gave them the power to get away with it, you'll claim they all deserve mercy, even Bellatrix and Draco's Dad. Especially those two. You'll claim killing killers makes you just as bad as the killers, especially if the killers were evil, because typing that makes you feel good about how few people you've killed in your life.

 

They are the best protection someone like Dumbledore could come up with, obviously. Besides, you are so missing the main point of my post, but we'll get to that.

Yes. Read Deathly Hallows, the chapter with the seven Potters.

That's true. Bad comparison. Point still stands, she can't look into the house.

When the law says a person isn't guilty, then you don't get to enforce the law you made up for yourself. It's called acting like a civilized person.

In combat. Child soldier. In combat. Child soldier. In combat. Notice how these two seem to compliment each other? Forcing a kid to be trained for combat - no matter what exactly you teach them for combat use - is exactly what Dumbledore didn't want to do.

Because this edge would completely rob him of anything being remotely called childhood. And I know you'll say "he hadn't even a childhood, because Dursleys". Well. I'd say there's a big change in tone after he learns that he's really going to have to kill him, because, well, that's there exact point where everything even slightly resembling childhood stops.
Imagine that burden when you're 7, 8, 9 years old. Pretty awful, don't you think?

*for reasons you don't count and therefore think their stupid.

You just wrote "Dumbledore being incompetent is canon".
No. And now we get to the point of what I mentioned above: You are missing the point. My post wasn't about how every single action of Dumbledore in the books is perfectly valid and easily justifiable - it was about how, canonically, Dumbledore is never portrayed as an evil person and JKR didn't intend him to be an evil person. If you want to nitpick him to be evil or stupid, you can do that.
But don't. Ever. Call that canon.

We don't even remotely know how it worked back then, so it's perfectly possible that he didn't have a say about that, especially with people like Barty Crouch around.

What the hell?! It can be applied to a normal world where guns and waterboarding exist and that's so far from the point of this thread I can't even...

What. The. Fuck. Are. You. On. About?
I'll claim that killing based on accusations is not something Dumbledore would do and I'll claim that Dumbledore has fallen on his nose quite heavily with thinking he was above the law and therefore will do no such thing.

And no, I don't think that murdering people based on one's own perception of justice and without sufficient proof is justifiable in the slightest. But I definitely don't want to have a discussion about that.

 

DUMBLEDORE-BASHER IN THE FORUMS! DUMBLEDORE-BASHER IN THE FORUMS!

Thought you oughta know.

In all seriousness, if I may say a few things:

1. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone is, at the end of the day, a fairy tale. And what is more fairy tale-like than Our Main Hero starting out in a terrible home with his terrible adoptive parents?

2. Yes, the Cupboard was a bit much, even for a fairy tale. But at the end of the day, it was just an example of the horrid life Our Main Hero had before the Fairy God-Hagrid showed up. We were never meant to take that part especially seriously. And don't forget he was given the other room immediately after the Letters started showing up.

3. Once you ignore the Cupboard, what did the Dursleys actually do to him? Contrary to what every other FanFic that discusses the Dursleys would have you believe, they never actually physically abused him. They didn't have him do every single chore. They didn't starve him. They didn't even force him to dumb down to Dudley's level. They just made it known they didn't really like Harry, gave him hand-me-downs, and were about to ship him off to the public school.

Were the Dursleys bad guardians to Harry? Absolutely, as Dumbledore told them to their face. But were they absolute monsters? Not really.

4. When you put the Dursley's treatment and actions related to Harry in a timeline, you'll notice they do less and less as the Books go on. Maybe Rowling realized she's gone a bit too far with some of her stuff. Maybe the bad treatment stopped as the fairy tale element of the first books disappeared. But in any case, what was the worst thing they actually did to him since POA?

5. All in all, the Blood Wards actually worked perfectly well. The only two real breaches involved Dobby (who obviously didn't want to hurt Harry) and the dementors (who were sent by the Ministry, and not by the Death Eaters, so presumably got in with a loophole). Otherwise, neither Voldemort or his followers never got anywhere close to doing anything to him at the Dursleys. And if they really were bullshit, why would Voldemort be so insistent on waiting for Harry to leave the Dursleys for good in DH?

6. What kind of childhood do you want for Harry exactly? If it involved him knowing from birth he was the Chosen One, you're going to end up with an arrogant brat (which is what Dumbledore explicitly wanted to avoid). If it involved him learning from a young age how to fight, then you're both creating a child soldier and being naive for thinking you could ever get a teenager able to defeat the greatest dark wizard of his time. If it involved him being in the Wizarding World, he would either live a very isolating life or would immediately know he was the Chosen One, not to mention more exposed to people interested in killing/capturing him. And if you want literally anyone else to raise Harry instead, who exactly are you going to get that isn't going to fall in one of the traps I said above?

 

So this is where the thread's going.

I will now reply to you and the other guy at once, since you're both saying the same thing, just with different words.

1. LE GASP! It's a fairy tail? I never would have guessed. Guess all my criticisms about things like logic are utterly irrelevant!
2. You won't end up with an arrogant brat if you raise the kid right. Putting him with a family that doesn't give two shits about fame would be good. Putting him with a family that hates him is bad. You understand that child abuse is bad, right? Just thought I should check.
3. READ MY POSTS BEFORE YOU REPLY. I'm not saying the blood wards didn't work. I'm saying they didn't work well enough to justify what Harry had to go through to live under their protection. Misrepresent this aspect of my argument again and I'm just going to stop replying to you. And if this site has a block/ignore fucktion, I'll use it on you.
4. Did you read the books, or only see the films? I know Harry wasn't chained up and beaten every day, but what the Dursleys did to him was still neglect and abuse. They don't deserve Azkaban, just some human prison.
5. Magical protection worth a shit doesn't have loopholes. Especially not loopholes that let fucking dementors into your house. Jesus christ, why do I need to explain that?
6. I want a childhood for harry where he grows up happy, healthy, and loved. Where he has a personal stake in the world that just expects him to save their retarded asses despite how shitty the world treated him and what shit the world let him go through. Contrary to popular belief, tragic backstories don't immediately make people good people.
7. "Bashing" is when a Naruto fanfic writer will rewrite Sasuke into an edgy little bitch-ass that exists solely to act more punchable than Draco and make "Smart!God!Badass!Naruto" look good in comparison. Criticizing a fictional character's flaws on a PUBLIC FORUM isn't bashing. But if that triggers you anyway... Nah, you've probably heard that safe space joke too many times.
8. There's a difference between killing someone because you think they did a crime and killing one of the Dark Lord's top enforcers/funders/torturers/dark magic spellcasters even though his political BS lets him escape the Azkaban he deserves. Stop strawmanning my arguments.

 

Not irrelevant, just less important. For a good fairytale, logic is helpful but not constitutional when a side plot point is concerned.

Yeah, now go reliably find such a family. And make sure the protections are equal to the blood wards. How about the Longbottoms? Oh wait...

You understand that child abuse is preferable to child death, right?

Then begin mentioning goddamn specific facts and stop throwing around general clauses. /How/ was their treatment of him so irredeemably awful that they'd deserve prison for it? Also, if you're replying to both of us, then consider to reply to the point both of us made: That JKR herself reduced the amount of mistreatment Harry got throughout the books, so it's fairly likely she realized she was overdoing it. Which means that she didn't intend for it to paint Dumbledore as being an asshole.

When have there been dementors in the house of Privet Drive No. 4? Also, you are arguing and arguing for Dumbledore being evil/stupid when I have now twice made the point that, if you look what is said about Dumbledore in the books, there's no clue JKR ever intended for him to be evil/stupid.
Reply_to_this_statement_and_contradict_it_with_evidence_before_you_reply_to_anything_else.

And because of the circumstances, at least Dumbledore thought that sadly wasn't possible (and we've got no evidence that points in the opposite direction). The Dursleys were the safest place, the only place where he'd grow up far away from his fame and the only place where there was a guarantee he wouldn't be attacked by Death Eaters. Hello, I'm Mr. Reality, and I'm not always fair. Deal with it.

So there's a legal trial, and someone gets cleared of all charges. You suspect him to lie and something's highly fishy about the way he got cleared.
If you kill that guy, you're nonetheless a murderer and you prove that you think yourself above the law.
Which Albus Dumbledore knows and therefore doesn't do.

 

First of all, sorry if I offended you in any way with that whole "Basher" bit. It was a bit of a joke, seeing how you keep insisting on rewriting Dumbledore to fit your personal interpretation of the character.

With that said:

1. Again, you didn't address the fact the Wizarding World views him as the Boy Who Lived. It doesn't matter if you can find a family that would treat him nicely. Unless Harry lives in virtual isolation from the Wizarding World, he will be around a whole lot of people that will want to treat him like the Boy Who Lived. And more importantly, it will be that much easier for people to find and capture/kill him.

2. Out of curiosity, could you please quote every single instance of the Dursleys being bad. Yes, there's the Cupboard (which Rowling quickly dropped), the bars on the windows (when Vernon was extremely angry at Harry for botching a major business deal), and the inevitable emotional abuse (which I won't bother to defend). But what else is there that makes them so monstrous as you say they are?

3. About your insistence Dumbledore should have freed Sirius somehow: literally all the evidence pointed to Sirius, Sirius outright admitted "I killed them", we don't actually know what authority Dumbledore has when it comes to trials, and as far as we know no one got a trial during that time: they specifically said Crouch Jr. only got one because of his mom.

 

You know I swear I've seen this thread before.

 

Ok...Kram, I think you need to reread the original series. Many times people so involved in fanfiction start blending the two together.

You actually think fanfiction is cannon.


OK, the Dursleys were not good people, but other than the cupboard and locking him in his room it was not terrible.


Your thoughts are a disappointment.

 

You're a disappointment.

 

I think that perhaps the blood protections are limited.

Lily died to save Harry from Voldemort. Not dementors, Dolores Umbridge, or even the Dursleys. If the Dursleys were half as abusive in canon as they're always depicted in fanon I'd like to think that the proper authorities would have noticed something.

On Topic:

I'd love to see a fic like that that I find memorable. I can admit that I've started reading a few, but those are fics that never finished and were pretty generic in other respects. At this point, I prefer a Dumbledore that keeps Harry at a professional distance and treats him like every other student.

He may be famous but he's still a kid that deserves a chance at a childhood. You know, playing sports, making friends, and studying at Hogwarts with his peers.

These days Dumbledore becomes Harry's evil counselor who doesn't get listened to because he's evil and stupid, but only Harry can see that.

 

Please. Please, stop misunderstanding what I say. I know you can't argue with the points I'm making, so you have to misunderstand and misrepresent me, but try to play this debate fairly, would you? I haven't rewritten the character of A.Dumbledore in any way, he is canonically this shitty, but nobody ever notices outside of a few "Oh it's so tragic that this happened" scenes.

If I wanted to rewrite dumbledore to make him a bigger dick, I'd have him as a lazy prat that lets abusive and/or shitty teachers get away with bullshit they should be fired for, like insulting kids and abusing their power over kids, or being an idiot ghost so boring kids sleep through his lessons. Wait, no, that's canon too. If I wanted to rewrite dumbledore to make him a bigger dick, I'd have him as a lazy prat that does almost nothing every book, especially when his vague titles and vague power would come in handy, with a few rare exceptions. Wait, no, that's canon too. Ok, if I wanted to rewrite dumbledore to make him a bigger dick, I'd have him intentionally train up Grindelwald and Voldemort, hoping for a big scary villain he could save the world from in an orchestrated and rehearsed multi-day fight to look better and get more political power, but upon realizing Voldemort's too strong for him to beat, he intentionally put Harry in the Shit Zone hoping to make him easier to control and intentionally told the Death Eaters where Harry's parents were.

1. Not if you do something you didn't think of: Take the wizard family and put them in the middle of Buttfuck, Nowhere, in the muggle world. Or set up a gated suburban community where wizards can train and live around Harry. Speaking of the Blood Wards, they mean Harry has to live in a certain house, but say nothing about who lives with him. Kick the dursleys out and put... I dunno, Ron's family in there. Or Hermione's. Also, spells exist that can erase places from maps, your field of vision, even the global consciousness itself. Will "This house has Blood Wards" matter all that much when compared to "Nobody knows where this house even is"?

2. No, that would take too long and you wouldn't bother reading it anyway. That's like asking me to list every DBZ page number in which Goku flies. If you're still telling yourself Goku can't fly - or in this case, that Harry's childhood was happy and fine and not abusive - then I doubt anything I said could cure you.

3. Wow, no trials for anyone? Weird, considering the rich asshole Death Eaters would have had to have gotten trials they bought their way out of or bullshitted their way out of. Looks like the justice system in Magical England is bullshit. Remind me again why Harry should save this world, when it throws his godfather in Azkaban without a trial but lets all the openly-evil Death Eaters off on all charges? Also, this is a world where memory charms and truth potions and mind control spells exist. "I did it! I definitely did it!" is worth nothing when the guy is someone who CLEARLY wouldn't have done it without illegal magical mindfuckery.

4. To the "Muh morals!" guy: Modern peace-time morality can't be applied in a world at war. "Killing people is bad!" is a well and good thing to believe, but when you're in a war, you have a gun, and people are shooting at you, it's kill or be killed. If you'd choose to be killed in that situation because breaking away from your moral code in an emergency is too hard, that says a lot about you. Modern peace-time morality DEFINITELY can't be applied in a magical world at war. Even more so, not a world where there is good magic and 'Dark magic' curses that only sufficiently evil/dickish people can use and will use. You're allowed to kill enemy combatants in a war. And in a society where good people are thrown in Azkaban without trials, would it kill them to apply their lack of standards everywhere and execute the edgy little torture-happy stupid-evil Death Eaters?

 

I'm a bit confused: do you actually think Dumbledore created Grindelwald and Voldemort for his own personal gain, and then molded Harry into his own perfect little weapon? Because there are a whole lot of people out there that really believe that.

For that matter, a whole lot of the stuff you're talking about honestly sounds like stuff copied and pasted from Canon. Complaining about the teachers (because there was never a teacher ever that you either hated or would make you fall asleep). Harry being raised with a Super-Awesome family that love him, train him up, and still keep him 100% safe from absolutely everybody. Believing the Dursleys were the worst place to put Harry while ignoring the very real safety concerns. A reluctance to actually cite Canon, even for a few quotes that could prove your own argument. Dumbledore somehow knowing Sirius was innocent despite the fact literally all the evidence (including more unknown things like the Secret Keeper) pointed to Sirius. Dumbledore somehow having the authority to do jack about Sirius even if he wanted to. A shtick about killing people in war I swear I read Harry make word for word in a FanFic or three. The only thing missing is an irrational hatred of the entire Weasley family.

At this point, I'm in a bit of a dilemma. On one hand, I disagree with you on a whole lot of levels and would love to continue arguing with you. On the other hand, it's becoming increasingly obvious you're rather stubborn about this, and I'm starting to wonder if there's a point other than wasting everyone's time and possibly getting someone Kicked or Banned.

So I think I'll just call it quits now, and politely leave this at "agree to disagree".

 

No one "misunderstands" you. Your points are just really not valid.

How often do you want to ignore the fact that yes, he does make a few strange decisions, and no, that does not mean he is evil or stupid because for the interpretation of a character, you also have to take a look on the general portrayal of said character?
Not once is Dumbledore portrayed as stupid. Not once is he portrayed as evil. He makes some strange decisions, but while they are sometimes put into question by the narration, the reasons for them are accepted most of the time.
Which tells us that they should be accepted in general.

I bet they'd be thrilled and surely never wanted to contact their friends again because Harry Potter obviously equals "Messiah".

WTF. Building an entire suburban, building an entire society (that'd hardly be completely isolated and even hardlier be unknown) around one child? I think you're severly overestimating the significance of Harry Potter there. And you miss the point of the books, which was to show a normal guy struggling and winning against seemingly impossible odds.

Yes they do. Read the books.

As in "I won't bother to read the books because I want to spill my unfounded beliefs some more."

The important statement is "around that time". Malfoy's trials were later as far as we know.

When Voldemort died, the war was over. Just saying. Modern peace-time morality can be very well applied to a world at piece.

TL; DR, why am I even bothering? You just continue to stretch facts, make up facts and take real facts, mash them together to portray Dumbledore as something he was clearly never meant to be.
As previously said (and always conveniently overread by you): That's nowhere near canon. But if it suits you, continue to believe in it.