Care to elaborate?

 

From my perspective, my interpretation is the obvious one, and yours is the one that has to be explained, given the rest of the 7 books.

 

I meant, what are you basing that claim on?

 

The problem is that I just quote the text, with literally no explanation of what I understand by it except you knowing my general point of view, and you had to then take the text appart. Had you tried to quote those passages to sustain your theory, you couldn't have done so without adding the same explanations. Just the way the argument played out indicates yours is the one that needs the most rationalisation, which in itself doesn't mean it is wrong, but coupled to the fact that they seem very similar and equally acceptable, it isn't advantageous.

As for your previous argument as to why trained wizard aren't able to do it (assuming they aren't which is speculation), this is very loosely related, but while looking at children's drawings, Picasso said something along the lines of "When I was their age, I could draw like Raphael. It's taken me many years to learn how to draw like these children." There you go. Taure destroyed by a dead guy with a pencil.

 

That's only because I'm the one who is outnumbered. Were I surrounded by those who share my views as you are, I would simply quote the text and expect my interpretation to be the one that people think of, and it would be you who would have to rationalise an alternative.

...

All of the arguments in my above posts.

Since you seem to be unable to follow a thread:

http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showpost.php?p=203209&postcount=659
http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showpost.php?p=203198&postcount=656
http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showpost.php?p=203185&postcount=652
http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showpost.php?p=203181&postcount=650
http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showpost.php?p=203174&postcount=648
http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showpost.php?p=203171&postcount=646

My interpretation seems the obvious one to me because it's rational and fits in with canon.

I'm saying that Tom and Lily's pre-Hogwarts magic was a deliberately triggered form of accidental magic. We have observed accidental magic before, we know roughly how it works, and Tom and Lily's magic fits in with this system.

You're arguing that Tom and Lily's pre-Hogwarts magic is some form of here-before unseen form of advanced wandless magic that trained and skilled adult wizards cannot do though 11-year-olds can, is nowhere to be seen elsewhere in canon, goes against the JKR quote I posted above, and is not in the spirit of the series, in which the importance of wands is paramount. The endire ending of the series was founded upon wandlore ffs.

That's why I think my interpretation is more obvious.

 

I wonder who Gabrielle's going to kick in the balls next; I think that's more of a draw to the story than the weak Harry/Fleur interaction. Also, I'm not gonna lie when I say I'm curious as to whether Harry is going to ever mess up anything: a perfect opportunity to exploit would be what happens to him if he ever forgets a dose of the potion that helps him retain his sanity.

 

You have only one quote, and it's from an interview. So far you are just trying to disprove what we say, and not prove your own point.

So, again, what are you basing your claims on?

Edit:

More likely he won't be able to take the dose. There are few scenarios where I can believe he will just forget taking it; the first if his mother wakes up, or second he is doing buttsecks with Fluer.

 

I just want Harry to get his ass kicked by Stephanie and Archie and Tonks together, and they leave him upside down in the great hall hanging by his genitals. And I want him to make a mutant rabbit like the one from the Resistance of Azkaban story (great, btw, for those who haven't read it) and gift it to Gabrielle, so she can teach it to bite people's balls off.

 

Repeating myself is so tiresome.

And what do you base your claims on?

You can't say the text, because that's where I'm basing mine on as well, just with a different (more likely) interpretation to you.

 

Sorry. I didn't know 'accidentally by purpose' [which sounds like a four year's old saying 'I meant to do that'...] is a solid reasoning. Let's just agree that we don't agree.

 

I think there is a reason why you're outnumbered. And even if you weren't, the particular text I quoted you really wouldn't have, and you still would have added comments, is the way I see it (though you don't have to, and I know you don't so there isn't any point in pointing that particular point out).

You're seemingly good at following a thread, but if that's what you understood from me (I don't know if Grubdubdub has said something I don't agree with), then you're not very good at reading it. We are saying it is deliberately triggered untrained magic, in the same form as Harry's accidental magic, with the difference that they learn to exert a great deal of control over it and its effects, because they are talented. I am arguing that it is wandless, because they don't have wands, and I am arguing that it is the most advanced controlled wandless magic we witness in canon, though that does not mean nobody else can do it. Claiming that trained wizards cannot do it seems to be speculation. I'm not arguing that the magic is very advanced.


Just because Picasso has a bigger pencil than you do doesn't mean you need to get all angry.

 

I don't, particularly as I clearly use untrained to mean non formal, ie, pre-Hogwarts and not based on any pre-knowledge of magical theory of any kind. I think it's a good way of describing accidental magic which the young witch or wizard has learned not to let be accidental.

 

2v1. It would only take one person to back me up to make it so I'm no longer outnumbered.

Uh...that exactly what I'm saying. Deliberately triggered untrained magic = deliberately triggered accidental magic, because accidental magic is just a name given to magic that is triggered by emotion.

Even you seem to agree with this:

Yes, they are talented at using their emotions to trigger the accidental magic, whereas other young wizards just let it run free.

Our difference appears to be that you think they can decide the specific effect that occurs, whereas I'm saying all they're doing is triggering it and seeing what it does (thus Lily's wonder). My view is in line with what we know of accidental magic, yours is not. And as you said above, you agree that the magic they're using is a form of accidental magic.

"Wandless magic" is usually a term given to the magic we see people use wands for, done without a wand. For example, casting a Wingardium Leviosa without a wand.

I wouldn't call accidental magic wandless magic, even though no wands are involved, because it's a different way of using magic entirely.

Of all the adult wizards we have seen, of all the students at Hogwarts, not one has done the same thing as Lily and Tom. Thus, we must assume the negative position - that no one else can do it - until we have seen proof to the contrary.

 

That is about the most clear description of it methinks. What Lily did with the flower was to simply wish for or will the flower to do something and it happened. It is not wandless magic...or well...it is, in a way. The thing is that there is not spell casting involved so whether or not it is wandless is a moot point. It is just that the magic has appeared so strongly in the witch/wizard in question has they are simply able to will things to happen and they do, manifesting in the form of magic. The point is that the whole thing is done consciously. They are able to call upon it at will. It is untrained magic.

What Harry does is not a matter of his conscious will. It is a matter of subconscious self-preservation. So it is not directed or controlled so it is accidental. There is a distinction here between untrained and accidental.

Edit: Trained magic ofcourse is the magic wielded by adult wizards

Let me put it this way: If the idea of tele-kinesis was prevalant at the time, and Lily was asked about what she could do, she would have called it tele-kinesis. But if Harry was asked about things that happened around him (he can't do those things consciously) he would have called it an accident.

 

Taure, I think the only difference between our theories is that you seem to think Tom Riddle thinks 'anger' very hard, and looks what happens, and I think he goes 'anger - let his bunny die' and it does. And possibly, the anger part becomes more subconscious.

Just as long as you don't get into a HP and the Hero's Path type of wandless theory. I think that's really what traumatizes Taure, understandibly so.

 

Ah, I don't really really like the idea of focussed wandless spell casting. Seems to take something out of the tale. I prefer the idea of using wands; much more exciting...if there is some uncontrolled magic bursts it's fine though, adds an element of surprise.

 

Harry won't be casting reductos, stupefies, disarming spells or anything of the like wandlessley.

The magic he does do without a wand is him literally manipulating magic itself to perform menial tasks which don't have too many practical uses. Pulling objects to him, pushing them away, levitating objects . . . things like that. He can't summon wands from opponents he's dueling, btw, they'll just hold onto their wands tighter.

I should also note that any 'summoning' he does wandlessley is not a summoning charm, but rather him using magic to 'pull' an item towards me.

I don't like thinking of it like this, but I guess you can liken it to the force if you've ever played KoToR. Force push, etc etc.

It shouldn't be too hard to understand, I doubt I'm the first person to use this concept.

Also, for Justblaise, Harry won't 'lose' until there's a legitimate reason for him to. I'm not going to make him be wrong just because he's due for a fuck up.
​