Have you considered that Dumbledore may have used legilimency to identify what sort of reaction Tom may respond most effectively to?

 

On a minor?

...ThIs is supposed to help your argument?

 

Dumbledore would have hardly needed to use Legilimency. He's an educator who deals with all kinds of children all the time. Dumbledore explained he was aware that Riddle was using magic to hurt people, so yes, he knows that Riddle was a little monster who needed to be shown that there were consequences for his actions. Setting the wardrobe on fire was a harmless show of force to accompany the stern warning. The point was to demonstrate that the authorities he mentioned, Hogwarts and the Ministry, have teeth, unlike the helpless muggles he was bullying.
In the paragraphs following the viewing of the memory, Dumbledore explained that he was aware Riddle had already committed what amounts to muggle-baiting, consciously. To allow Riddle a chance to get his act together, he allowed the kid to play the part of a confused child who got carried away with his newfound abilities.

 

But he didn't take anything away from Tom, he just put the fear of God into him for a second and than made him give back the stuff he stole from the other children. And Tom's wasn't just "messed up", he was a pulling-wings-of-flies, killing-other-childrens-pet-bunnies level little monster. A solid joffrey on the little shit scale.
Tom didn't try to become more powerful because Dumbledore hurt his feelings, he bullied, abused and was extremely cruel to the other children well before that.

 

Are you one of those "legilimency is mind rape" people?

 

No. It's certainly improper to use it on a minor though. It's also a stupid use of it if, as you say, he did it to find out how the minor would react to something and then still did that thing anyway even though it wouldn't have the desired outcome.

 

Mind reading is not seeing the future. Maybe Dumbledore thought that the little pet bunny murdering asshole would react the most to a show of force. Just to show him, that he can't bully and abuse other children anymore. Or, you know, that he has to stop nailing other folks pets to the roof, just because he got in an argument and felt like there would be no negative consequences for his actions.

 

What if it did have the desired outcome? What if his legilimency told him that that was the only sort of correction that Tom would respond to?

 

I'm replying specifically to Mordecai's post at the top of the page, which would work. It's not seeing into the future, it's looking back at how Tom reacted to stern warnings and shows of force in the past.

Albus is an adult, and an educator with decades of experience dealing with children. Tom is a child. A horrible child, yes, but nonetheless still only a child. How an adult deals with children and how a child deals with children should be very different.

Dumbledore was after a positive response. That Tom turned out as he did very much proves it didn't work as intended. The only thing it did was make Tom wary around Dumbledore, and be able to get away with his bullying at Hogwarts.

 

Did he bully people at Hogwarts? We know he's a violent sociopath, but did he steal from fellow students, kill their pets, torture them? Or was he kept in check, at the very least, for several years by Dumbledore's warning?

 

Outward persona vs what he's really like in private. He may have played the role in front of the professors but he's still the same kid, and he would have been assumed to be a Muggle-born by the rest of Slytherin. Tom wouldn't have submitted to bullies.

 

Well, if you are a evil sociopath with superpowers some stern warning by the powerless muggles might not have the same affect as when a Dumbledore does the same.

I think he new that Tom would not be impressed by some talk and a lemon drop, he would just play along and wait for new children to control and abuse. With his little fire illusion Dumbledore made a point that his actions will not be tolerated from now on and that while muggles might be unable to enforce rules upon him, the magical society is capable to do so.

 

See my second to last reply to Mordecai.

 

The one I quoted?

 

Yes. Your reply is a reply to what I said to you, not what I said to Mordecai.

 

We could speculate for days about what Tom was like at school, we have very little info. All we know is that he was beloved by all his teachers except Dumbledore.

If he was a bully or prone to fighting, or even suspected of being involved in fights, intimidating students, stealing things etc, then he wouldn't have been a teachers favourite, he wouldn't have been prefect, and he wouldn't have been head boy.

 

What an odd reply. It's like you didn't even read my post.

 

I'm with Corvus on this.

Dumbledore handled Tom extremely poorly. If you have a child who is mentally disturbed and you know this, you don't make things a power play or try to "put the fear of God in them".

You get them help and counseling. Honestly, what dumbledore did is like a strict religious teacher telling kids they're going to hell if they don't shape up. It is pointless and helps no one.

Knowing what Tom had done, Dumbledore should've responded with counseling/mind healers. Not a show of force or power.

 

And if it was the 1980's, it might have occurred to him. Back in 1938, the proper way to control an uppity child was to smack them around.

Not saying he's right, but it should be noted that child labor had only been abolished in recent memory.

 

You said that Tom was a bully at Hogwarts. A statement that has no basis in canon, and which cannot be true for parts of canon to be the case.

As wordhammer says, you and Arth are criticising Dumbledore like he's gone through 21st century teacher training. By the standards of the 1930s the fact that he didn't give Tom a serious beating shows him as extremely progressive.