Holy shit dude. I'm almost out of words. Have you read the books?

 

As he didn't addressed even a single of my points when I asked the same I would just assume no he didn't.

 

Eh, I agree with his Parsel-mouth comment. Sure, Ron saw him speak to snakes, but the Chamber must have demanded a very specific command. After all, it is a language.

There is a first post on this very page that states this:

Try to make sense of your puzzling lack of piecing simple things together before you jump into an argument. I still stand by my statements. I simply presented a 'probable' scenario where it would make sense for Ginny and others to elude Bellatrix's spells as that is what the narrative presented for a similar encounter. That is all. 

 

You're talking about two different books. They take the luck potion in HBP, and yes, Bellatrix is in Hogwarts, but doesn't fight against Ginny, Hermione and Luna, or at least it is not mentioned.

They fight Bellatrix in DH, there's no way the luck potion is still involved, as was stated before.

 

I am aware that it happened in HBP.

Someone brewing FF isn't a statistical impossibility as it worked for a similar duel or a scenario where deadly curses were involved. It's just a potion. It can be created by anyone or it could have been stolen from Snape's cabinet for all we know. Again, the probability is there.

Also, my statement isn't a 'matter of fact' statement, nor did I claim that it's canon. But, it's more along the lines of exploring a 'probability' as I find the very idea of the duel silly.

 

Actually, no it couldn't be. Felix Felicis was reputed to be incredibly difficult to brew, taking six months and having disastrous consequences to get wrong.

 

I think we have the main problem right there. The two main characters of the series are just thorougly unsatisfactory (I won't even go into Rowling's character assassination of Ron). In the first three books Rowling cast a likable though oddballish Trio whose faults and qualities complemented the others' traits nicely. But she completely failed to make them mature in a believable and identifiable manner. Harry is a pussy, Hermione is a nag, and Ron is a twat. Though I think Hermione's existence is necessary, because there are simply no other female characters of any importance, which is already annoying in itself.

The abyss in characterisation doesn't stop there: Voldemort is a buffoon, all the "evil" characters are pantomime villains making the whole saga terribly Manichean, and the "good" side is hardly better. Dumbledore is probably the best, most striking character of the lot, but even he is under-developed in my opinion, and some of his decisions are ridiculous.

Beyond characterisation, most of the content of the last three books is bad, and I prefer not to read CC.

 

I won't re-tread many of the things already discussed, but I have a couple of pet peeves that haven't been brought up yet:

1. The lack of utilization of Peter's silver hand. I was convinced, for years, that this was hard core foreshadowing, and that Peter would somehow be the one to kill the last of his friends, Remus, using the thing which is deadly to werewolves, silver. It didn't happen. And I feel cheated.

2. Wand-lore. This is an intrinsic part of the plot conclusion, and yet it is never clearly defined to my satisfaction, and I can't help but find lots of holes in it. For one, Harry proposes that if he dies without having the Elder Wand taken from him by force, its power will die with him. BUT the whole reason the Wand was supposed to have been allied to Harry in the first place was that he disarmed Draco, and thus won it by proxy. So this means there are two fundamental questions: A) Doesn't this mean you can never be disarmed --ever-- with any other wand as well, Harry? Good luck with that. And B) What's this proxy bullshit? That would mean I could win any wand from you by disarming any other wand from you. That's just stupid world-building. It smacks of plot desperation and shoe-horning.

And

3. The refusal to kill. I can understand why this can be justified, namely that it's part of the story's philosophy that there are things worse than death, not stooping to Voldemort's level, the safeguarding of virtue in combat, the fact that HP was intended to be a children's story, etc. etc. But in doing so, it not only cheapens the ending (the 'final duel' was pathetic, let's be real), it also cheapens the philosophical struggle. Dumbledore is set up as the lesson-giver as far as this goes, but it's obvious as far as his experience with Gillert went, and his inability to defeat Voldemort was going, that mercy was a strategy that led to failure.

Other characters put it well. Dumbledore's defining character flaw was his inability to judge people objectively (he always "sees the good in others", despite the damning qualities that are glaringly obvious), and his unwillingness to exact the full measure of violence. Harry, rather than seeing the merits, but also the folly, in his elders, and thus coming to terms with his adulthood and the deeply conflicted choices he must make as the hero of the story, chooses instead to repeat their mistakes, only to be bailed out by a deus ex machina plot device (wand-lore, etc.). Harry, and Dumbledore, and thus the audience, and everyone, were never forced to grow up, to lose that innocent naivete, to realise that violence in the defense of others is no sin. To realise that Voldemort was right when he said that Dumbledore's unwillingness to kill was weakness, but that to do so to prevent Voldemort from killing innocents is what would make that action moral, and that that's what really mattered.

 

I think there is no denying that Rowling has logic problems in the world and I remembered she said in an interview she wasn’t very good at math. Noticeable examples would be the number of Hogwarts students and how she got the age of some characters wrong. The random wandlore rules introduced in the last book is another problem as well.

I guess in your world knocking out a troll when your friends weren't able to do anything, sacrificing oneself on a giant chessboard and winning the game, rescuing Harry from his abusive relatives, following Harry into a forest full of spiders, working out where the entrance to the Chamber of Secret is, moving a freaking huge wall in CoS so Harry came back, standing on a leg between Harry and a potentially mass murderer all mean nothing to you. This is just from the first 3 books off the top of my head.

Alternatively you either have no idea what the books said or are lying about what the books said or both.

Yeah, because it’s not like Ron upset Hermione at all before when he showed signs of not liking her as in PS or PoA or GoF.

Did you read that scene? The Disarming Charm didn’t kill Voldemort, it was the rebounding AK curse that killed him. Nope, Dark Lord shouldn’t go in style because the whole bloody point is that he died just like any other mortal.

Agree with you about Harry not training himself properly. Now, show why his girlfriends were “two bitches”, as you eloquently put it.

No actually he didn’t you know. Both of them had one ex-girlfriend before settling down and marrying someone. So I have no idea what you’re trying to say or maybe you are just trying to spread hate.

About Ron being parselmouth - it wasn't that bad as a lot of people make it out to be. Ron heard Harry use the word open in Parseltongue before and he imitated it (and it is already established he was good at imitation in the books before). It's not like he suddenly knew how to speak Parseltongue fluently but rather he learned ONE WORD in a foreign language.

 

I secomd the no killing thing.

We see Dolohov captured three times and go back to fighting because no one finished him off.

If every Death Eater in the department of Mysteries had been killed or at least put someone more secure that the plase that has been broken out of twice. Voldemort never would have risen to power.

Voldemort took over due to utter and total idiocy of the ministry and the order.

 

Sometimes I wonder wether I am the only one who dosent approve of the execution of criminals. If possible even Voldemorte shouldnt be killed but rather imprionsed. I am not against his death as he couldnt be taken as a prisoner. But those death eaters were disarmed and bound. Killing them would be wrong, it simple as that.

It always troubles me deeply how easy people agree on killing other human beings.

 

While I agree with you, we also have to take into account that they are fictional characters. If they were real, it would be a whole different matter. I also see no wrong in killing in self-defense either which is most of the cases Harry would be killing anyone. Now, if they were disarmed and bound and Harry just randomly decapitated them that's when I would have a problem.

 

It's called the 'Second Wizarding War'. These people are not just criminals, but participants in a war. Imagine if an army went into a war not killing, but instead trying to capture all of their combatants. It's ludicrous! They should kill them. If you cannot stop them from fighting you, they should die or else all the deaths they killed are also on your hands.

 

There is an important difference between killing someone IN battle and killing someone AFTER the battle. They are succesfully taken out of combat, they currently pose no threat, killing them now would defie every legal and moral authority.

As I said I would not condemn anyone for killing in battle and/or in self defense but I see few szenarios in which killing prionsers would be right, and in canon there isnt a single one.

 

Execution is a matter for moral, political, philosophical, and ethical debate.

Killing on the battlefield in defense of yourself or others, though, is entirely justified. My contention is that Harry, et al., never learned the lesson that altruistic mercy is not always the correct decision.

It's an interested debate to have, actually, in conjunction with Dumbledore's "Do what is Right, or do what is Easy" speech; namely, is Harry's character quality that he refuses to directly kill someone who is actively trying to kill him an act that is based on moral altruism (Right) in opposition to killing (Easy), OR, is it an act of hard-decision-avoidance and cowardice (Easy) in opposition to making the cold, calculated, but ultimately justified decision to fully commit to the war and his role as a soldier (Right).

I come down on the side of advocating the hard decision.

Edit: Ninja'd by your replies, but still an interesting discussion.

 

It's not that they aren't going for the kill. They should totally aim to kill and retaliate whenever they are targeted. But there's also the possibility of having them as prisoners of war. They can be prosecuted for war crimes, interrogated to gather intelligence (things like veritaserum and the imperius do exist), 'indoctrinate' them (this is a grey area for me since it would require turning the Imperius the other way), punish and make examples out of them, etc.

Once they've surrendered or they are knocked down (and the fight is over), there could be better uses to them than just killing them in cold blood.

 

The bolded part is of importance.

Dolohov is the perfect example, they had him at their mercy again and again but their refusal to kill, atleast permanently disable him blinding etc., erase his identity Hermiones parents style lead to Remus death at the battle of Hogwarts.

Voldemort and his death eaters for the most part are irredeemable psychopaths who pose a danger for society with their continued existence but in DH they don't even have a stable goverment to imprison Dolohov their naivety and refusing to accept the reality of war resulted in the suffering of innocent which is dissapointing.

If you have a stable goverment which is able to insure the safety of it's people from these psychopaths it's another thing but under these circumstances they should have killed them imo.

Harry just doesn't want to consider himself a murderer his refusal to use lethal spells in the Death Eater chase in DH was just moronic, it probably lead to the same thing if he had used lethal spells some Death Eaters afterall fell from their brooms wandless.

It should also be mentioned that prisoners in wizarding britain are thrown in a prison where you are fed only enough food not to die, don't have any kind of hygiene and are constantly tortured by soul sucking fiends to the point of insanity a fate to which I personally would prefer death.

 

Personally, for me, the premise for Order of the Phoenix was really hyperbolic and laughable. Yes, paranoia isn't good for governance, but to overlook all of the evidence to this degree? By the end of the book, I thought it was some sort of a parody.

Anyone with a good grasp of potions should be able to brew it. The books don't suggest that it's impossible to make.

 

I wasn't pulling that info out of my arse.

 

Having Snape killed by a fucking snake. Seriously, what the fucking hell? That wasn't the way that fucker should have died. Fuck, if he was going to die, I bloody wanted Harry to kill him.