You could . I just don't like how he treats people generally. I don't think you really have friends at all when you act like he does most of the time - or at least at some stages. Sure, he helps them out some, but the actual talking is mainly insulting them. I know the sort friendly insults you're portraying, but Harry's going too far, and not taking enough in my opinion.

 

People that have friends that realize popularity is bullshit. I'd rather have a complete asshole for a friend as opposed to some shallow little bitch that goes with the flow and runs from conflict.

 

I really don't see why you couldn't. And even if you couln't in the general case, in this case they would then be in the situation of 'training themselves' in the sense that they use repeated experience of it to get better. I any case, I'll just repeat myself, because that's what you seem to have done, without actually reading my answer, I mainly meant pre-Hogwarts, no formal training, which is not contradictory with the idea that they exert some control because Lily Potter is clearly pre-Hogwarts, and clearly has some control.

I know a lot of people that are just very very nice, and don't insult people for fun (or go looking for conflict, which a lot of people find cool), and some are not unpopular (without being popularity seeking imbeciles) and some are a bit more so, because they are a bit nerdy or geeky. But I think these questions of school athmosphere change a lot from one school to another, and very much from one country to another, and changes completely once you go to Uni. Personnally, I enjoy having a debate or discussion with my friends a lot more than I enjoy insulting them, or growing penises on their foreheads (as opposed to Harry in this story).

I just sometimes think Harry's friendships is a lot like people staying his friends because he gives them money, house-elves and protection from werewolves, rather than because they enjoy his company. I don't see how they could enjoy his company, because they would need to have his company in the first place, and then he treats them like slugs, or ignores them half the time. I know he isn't entirely mean, and somewhat cares about them, but how could they possibly know that?

 

And you'll never get the great things a group of assholes can do just to amuse themselves. Sad, really.

 

I don't like the 'even you seem to agree with this', firstly because I don't think my position has changed in this debate (except at one point in the thread I might have said wandless magic was imossible) and because I agree with you on more points than not, but I have the impression (maybe false) that you like disagreeing with me.

This whole part of the discussion started when you said 'Not wandless magic, deliberately triggered accidental magic.'

We mainly disagree on terminology: you call it accidental because it is triggered through emotion; I think this is technical, the patronus charm is based on emotion but isn't an entirely different form or way of using magic, and doesn't require a special name, and certainly isn't accidental magic. I think emotion is less important than you seem to think it is in untrained magic. It causes the wizard to loose control, and I think it would be an adequate trigger, but I'm not even sure it would be necessary (though it probably is). I call accidental strictly that which is accidental, and without any notion of emotion; in canon it is the same thing: they call it accidental when it is accidental, whether or not the person was in a bad mood. I did not say the magic they are using is a form of accidental magic, I said the magic they are using and accidental magic are oth forms of untrained magic. If you stubbornly refuse to use my more accurate and more concise terminology, which works for both our theories, at least refrain from using yours to twist my words.

If other people invent bogus theories where HP thrusts out his hands and yells 'stupefy' with stunners comming out of each of his 10 fingers, that's fine but it doesn't mean anything anybody calls wandless magic works in that way.

'My view is in line with what we know of accidental magic, yours is not.'
That's a great argument. Reasonably, I think we can reconcile both views with the text, but I think mine is more intuitive and takes less reconciliation, while you think I am wrong.

There are several possibile explanation why they're not seen doing any wandless magic. Lily and Tom are both excellent students - Tom Riddle it is quite obvious, and Lily was amongst the all-time favorite students of Slughorn (and Flitwick?). They were both Head Boy and Girl in their respective time. Simply put, there aren't very many characters that match them. Once they go to Hogwarts, they don't need to do these things wandlessly, and their minds are trained to perform magic in the form of spells. I think Voldemort may have been able to reconcile spells with what he did previously, or he may have read a book on wandless magic and have mastered it entirely seperately. Harry performed accidental magic in PoA, it wasn't controlled, but if you believe it's of exactly the same for as more untrained magic, then we do have a bit of evidence. Because we don't have enough evidence doesn't mean we have to take a position, it means we have to allow for any of the two. I am enclined towards the affirmative.

Not if it involves genitals and a lot of alcohol.

 

Contradiction. To have friends is to be popular (with said friends).

Patronus charm involves emotion, but is not triggered by it. The Patronus charm is a spell, accidental magic appears to be the name given to all of what you would call "untrained magic". It may be a misnomer, but it's what canon uses, so while your version may be "more accurate and more concise terminology" it's still not canon, so yes, I refuse to use it, just as I refuse to use the word "wards" to refer to protection spells and charms.

And I think you think this because you want to think this, rather than because the evidence points to it. Ever single piece of accidental magic (or "untrained magic" if you really must use that non-canonical phrase) we have seen has involved emotion, where it is panic (Neville), embarrassment (Harry), anger (Harry), joy (Lily) and many others.

No matter how great a student, a trained professional will always be better than an 11-year-old. An 11-year-old Einstein would have held nothing to a professional physicist, no matter how clever. Hell, he wouldn't have even held a candle to an 18 year old student just out of school.

 

In that sense, then you are right that wandless magic isn't canon, because I don't think it's actually used in canon; however, I will continue to use it. I agree on "wards", I think that's just a fanon insertion (which I really hate because I had to search the books a few years back to make sure it really wasn't canon).
As for accidental magic, I have another good quote (at least I think, though you may find another loophole):

“Oh yes,” said Mr. Weasley, tucking the tickets safely into the back pocket of his jeans. “The Department of Magical Transportation had to fine a couple of people the other day for Apparating without a license. It’s not easy, Apparition, and when it’s not done property it can lead to nasty complications. This pair I’m talking about went and splinched themselves.”
Everyone around the table except Harry winced.
“Er - splinched?” said Harry.
“They left half of themselves behind,” said Mr. Weasley, now spooning large amounts of treacle onto his porridge. “So, of course, they were stuck. Couldn’t move either way. Had to wait for the Accidental Magic Reversal Squad to sort them out."

So clearly my argument is that accidental magic is canon, but used to describe real accidents. Here it seems to include wand magic. The truth is there aren't very many mentions of accidental magic, and at least one of them associated with something other than what you think it is - splinching. Meanwhile, the more controlled (whether very much so or not) untrained magic is not refered to as far as I'm concerned, and so a term to englobe both wouldn't exist - there is not hint that accidental magic would refer to it. My view is that what I describe is canon, and like you I think 'accidental untrained' magic and 'controlled untrained' magic have enough in common that we can use a word to refer to both at once, withou preteding it is canon, but for the purpose of clearing up arguments.

My point on the patronus is that simply because it is cast very differently doesn't mean it should be labeled appart from other spells.

It is important (probably necessary), my view is just that it may be less so for the more controlled magic. For accidental untrained magic, certainly, and they are also all negative emotions. That makes it harder to associate it with what Lily is doing. She is very joyful on the swing, but stops giggling with the flower trick, indicating she may have been concentrating (my interpretation). The emotion factor seems to be self-fulfilling in this case - she is joyful because of the magic at least as much as she does magic because she is joyful.

The reason why we disagree on this is the same as the reason we disagree on the level of control: the intensity of the emotion logically limits the level of control.

Other quote:

We’re all right. We haven’t got wands yet. They let you off when you’re a kid and you can’t help it. But once you’re eleven,” he nodded importantly, “and they start training you, then you’ve got to go careful.

Now of course that seems to be in favour of your argument, because it indicates lack of control. But clearly Lily can help it, though Snape, a very skilled wizard, possibly can't: he doesn't show any controlled untrained magic himself, just the accidental type - again using negative emotion. He himself is very impressed by her feats, and goes on to become an excellent wizard:

“You’ve got loads of magic,” said Snape (to Lily).

There are many documented cases of precociousness, I don't think Einstein was a child-genius, though I may be wrong.
This is only part of the possible explanations, though if we start on the basis that this particular magic is more intuitive than what they learn at school, raw talent immediately becomes a big factor (see the loads of magic quote above).

I think sometimes looking for contradictions where there aren't any makes you look stupid (I'm looking at you, Oz). Of course you are popular with you friends, but if try to understand the sentence, there really isn't a problem. I've looked up the entry for popular on m-w, and it is conclusive:

1: of or relating to the general public
2: suitable to the majority: as a: adapted to or indicative of the understanding and taste of the majority <a popular history of the war> b: suited to the means of the majority : inexpensive <sold at popular prices>
3: frequently encountered or widely accepted <a popular theory>
4: commonly liked or approved <a very popular girl>

 

Ah well; at least you've (sort of) acknowledge that your Harry is a Gary-Sue. A douchey Gary-Sue, but still.

Question: Will Archie be the one to unlock the werewolf cure, or will Harry actually get there first and help him along (a la Cedric and the TriWiz)? Or will Harry discover something that causes a Eureka moment for Archie?

Another thought: with the success of the pensieve screens at the World Cup, I wonder if wizards will start to broadcast muggle television and movies? They could make the most legit bootleg movies by placing invisible elves in the theaters, and their behind-the-scenes footage could include everything from the normal off-set bloopers to the actors getting blowjobs from the make-up artists.

Another thought: how come football (or soccer, for you peasants) hasn't caught on in the wizarding world? I mean, if Harry can make "Fo'shizzle my mudbizzle" happen, then his game-winning scissor kick should have kiddie wizards everywhere trying out the muggle sport.

One more thought: I think Archie should be smart enough to get Harry back for saying his full name without fear of an ass-whooping. Harry won't kill him, and he's nearly as intelligent and much stronger due to the curse. All he has to do is put a Taboo on his name, and get the house elves to deliver his retribution.Me myself Personally ? I'd create a number of Captain Falcon golems that, when "Archades" was spoken, would appear from subspace and FalconPunch the offender in the nuts.​

 

It will be all Archie, with one tiny bit of materialistic help from Harry's part, but it will all be Archie.

Also, there's nothing to 'cure'

This story isn't a parody - besides, countries that would even be interested in movies can charm their televisions to work around magic. Just because Britain doesn't do it, doesn't mean other countries don't. I never said Harry was the one to invent the idea of using muggle technology.

While Harry may have been the first to mix Quidditch and Football, that doesn't mean there aren't wizards who appreciate the sport. I'm fairly certain I said as much earlier on in the story, like, in the first or second chapter, but I'm not sure.

Regardless, the majorioty of England is generally backwards, uninformed or disdainful of anything muggle. You'll get to see how such views change from country to country later on though (Post Hogwarts).

Several points to address here:

Archie is a genius when it comes to Potions, and anything else he puts his mind to, but seeing as he mostly (for now) restricts himself to one field of study, and not the aquisition of knowledge in general, I wouldn't put him on the same level as Harry - intellectually.

Having said that, Archie can never do anything to Harry to beat him into submission. What would he do? Force a transformation or wait until a full moon and maul the shit out of him?

Doubt it.

He does have advanced strength due to being a werewolf, and he may even be able to break a few bones in Harry too before Harry tears him apart
with magic, or his skills with a blade.

This is all hypothetical, of course, as if we were speaking of two fighters in a Street Fighter style video game, because the two of them fighting on such a level would never happen anyway.

Aside from that, Archie has given up on trying to get Harry to call him 'Archie', rather than his full name. He probably doesn't even think about it anymore and would find it strange and awkward if he were to call him anything but. Harry lived to annoy people, it's what makes him, him. Archie befriended Harry knowing this, and while he may find Harry to be irritating on occasion, it isn't on the level to warrant 'retribution'.

Besides, Archie can be very irritating in his own special way.

As for the elves doing falcon punch, I must remind you that this story isn't parody, once again.

Having said that, Elves popping out of nowhere and screaming 'FALCON PAWWWNCH!' and 'FALCON KEEEECK' would probably be the funniest thing I've ever seen. Little scaly hands covered in fire and a captain falcon helmet would be win. Having them punch people in the nuts is just an excellent addition and is always funny.



​

 

What's stopping him from putting a bucket of water under a door?

 

The same thing that stops any guy in their tracks when choosing the best course of action. Self preservation!!! At this point Harry has little Gabby ready for retaliation. To be honest if I had a friend who had that kind of backup I wouldn't be messing with a friend with that kind of power unless I had something to counter it because I would like kids in the future.

 

Just bribe her with ice cream beforehand. I just want to see Harry kicked in the nuts like everybody else in the story. People who don't respect others' genitals should suffer.

Does anyone know how he got 40%? I know one calculation I could do, but I don't think it will give me 40%, and it's long (I know we're a bit past that debate).

 

According to this theory you need 31 out of 50 to be magical. The chance to have 30 out of 50 is 60%. So there is a 60% chance to be a muggle and a 40% chance to be magical.
If you want to know the probability of the first child AND the second child being magical, you have to multiply 40% with 40% which equals 16%.

That said, I'm not supporting the magical gene theory.

 

Gummiball
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Austria
Gender: Male
Posts: 16

Hey dude, you wouldn't happen to know that Fritzel guy would you?

 

That's not how that works.

The chance to have 30 out of 50 isn't 60%. Firstly, we're looking for the probability of having at least 30 out of 50, and secondly, if that probability were 60%, then the probability of being magical would be 60%. I'll give you an easy example, and you'll see why the generalisation makes for very lengthy calculations that I refuse to do.

Suppose you needed 50 out of 50 genes for the person to be magical, and there are equal chances for the child having or not having any one gene (I think this is the model described, but to be honest when I read back its a really dodgy post... the thing about the parents having 25 coders each seems complete rubbish). Back on track, that would mean the chance for having any one gene is 1/2, and you need all fifty, so as you stated P(A&B)=P(A)P(B) when A and B are independent (which they are). Therefore, the probability of the child being magical is (1/2)^50, or in the range of 1 in a thousand trillion.

 

...are you fucking kidding me with this shit?

 

No. It's actually pretty simple, which is why I'm less certain then I should be (because it's the sort of stuff I don't bother checking), but unless someone has a logical disproof of the reasoning, I don't see a problem with it. The guy who posted that polygenic predisposition thing sounded like he knew what he was talking about, but I hadn't even thought of the idea that he might go from 30 out of 50 needed to 60%.

From a probability point of view (and genetic), the whole argument seems very opaque to me (at first I thought I was being thick, but I've changed my mind). The fact that he got that square right also increased my gullibility (assuming it was a false reasonning)

But the one in a thousand million was only assuming that probability law and the need for all 50 markers. Of course it would be a higher probability if there were less needed. The problem is, basically if you want to know the probability of having 30 or more, you need to add the probability of having 30, 31, 32 etc (I'm trying to think if there is an easy way to do that....).

~~~~

I've got 10.1% chance of at least 30 out of 50 (using his law).

 

Genetics is a bit more complicated than what we are told in high school.

 

And?

fillafillafilla