This is Snape we're talking about.

And as I already said, I equate the Reducto with a hard kick (though it's streght seems to vary, possibly related to intent of the caster or how well the spell is cast). After the bush has taken some of the wind out of it, it's hardly a real danger.

 

Point conceded, as I already agree with you

 

I agreed with this, so I fail to see the need to argue at all.

And I really don't give a shit what JKR says in her interviews. I don't count most of the shit that comes out of her mouth as canon.

 

And this is relevant to the discussion, how?

*Aimed at all the posts about reducto being/not being a duelling spell.

I'm personally with all those who say don't invent a new creature.

Change one that already exists slightly if you must, like the idea of feral house elves.

It serves far better as there is much less chance for over or under powered creatures being pulled out the authors arse.

Of course, this depends on the changes being minor. If the author wants to take away all the vamp weaknesses then they are quite frankly, retarded.

A small change, like a tribe of extremely gold-protective Goblins, ie. no trade with humans, or a group of Nifflers that burrow not only through the ground, but through magical wards as well (Don't even dare start on the existence/non-existence of warding) is sufficient for a 'new' magical creature.

 

Yeah, inorganic wasn't what I should have said. Inanimate is the word I should have used.

As much as I find the arguments of believers amusing, this hardly applies to me. The evidence is in my favor so if you want to claim that it does indeed work on humans, you must have a good reason, such as canon evidence, which there is none. And yes, I should have said inanimate objects instead of inorganic.

Never saw this, and I don't count interviews as canon.

It's harmless. As are some of the other curses. The counter curses are readily available, and any knowledgeable student knows how to reverse them. I don't want to draw out this argument because I doubt it will go anywhere, but I don't consider these spells dark magic for the reasons I've said above. If you consider curses dark magic, then you must consider hexes and jinxes dark magic as well. If you want to believe all offensive magic is dark magic because the whore said so in some interview, that's fine. Then you have everyone slinging around dark magic and there's no need for the stigma and discrimination against it. Dark magic ceases to be dark magic because everyone uses it.

Again, should have said inanimate.

It's not an ad hominem and I don't recall having accused you of trolling/arguing for the sake of arguing, but if I have, that still has no bearing on the argument at hand.

 

Neither hedges or roses are inanimate either.

If cast on a muggle who does not have another wizard to cast the counter curse, this would be irreversible.

 

inanimate: b: lacking consciousness or power of motion

Plants fall under this definition.

Yes, and so would be transfiguring a muggle or charming a muggles' objects. Any spell cast on a muggle is irreversible until another wizard comes along to reverse it. So all magic is dark magic when cast on a muggle. Gotcha.

 

Plants have both limited consciousness and power of motion.

Well, I don't believe in 'dark magic' as a principle, but yes, any magic used in a way to cause permanent unwanted damage or change to a person could be classified as 'evil' or 'dark'.

 

They are not conscious when compared to even animals, let alone us humans. And unless you count growing and swaying in the wind as mobility, they are immobile. This is really stretching it.

Like I said though, with this definition dark magic ceases to be dark magic. You can literally include any magic that causes change as dark magic if the person doesn't know how to reverse it. The word loses its meaning when used in this manner.

 

Actually, the evidence is that there is as of yet no exceptions to what the Reducto applies to. If you're going to create an exception, you have to provide good reason for this to be the case.

Good thing it isn't an interview then.

That the counter-curses are now readily known should not affect whether or not they are dark magic. Snape's Sectumsempra is a curse. Only Snape appears to know the counter to it. If, in the future, the counter was more readily available, does this make the Sectumsempra any less a curse/dark magic? No. It just makes it less dangerous to a person with the correct knowledge.

I did say this above, with canon evidence. All DADA is Dark Arts given a new name because it is used in a defensive way and thus justified and does not ahve a stigma against it.

The position on the Ministry in book 5 was that DADA was dangerous for precisely this reason. Anyone taught the DADA spellscould just as easily turn them around and use them offensively.

Actually, they don't. Plants grow, growth involves movement

Not that it really matters, because you haven't given any reason to believe that the Reducto has any exceptions as to what it can apply to, other than your desire for this to be the case.

 

Ah, so at what point does magic draw the line between conscious and not? Ants? Dogs? All living things have various degrees of consciousness.

And as for plants moving: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_plant_movement

Most plants have varying degrees of motion.

'Dark Magic' is nonsense to begin with. You can only define 'Dark Magic' as one of two things:

a) Any magic that is used in an offensive manner, irregardless of the incantation or effects.

b) Any magic that has no other purpose than to be used in an offensive manner, irregardless of the incantation of effects.

And option b disregards most of what cannon describes to be 'Dark Magic' as fan girls have said over and over and over again. 'Killing Curse can be used to butcher cattle D: squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee'

All other definitions require a governing body to decide what is dark and what is not. Thus making 'dark' a completely useless prefix, because it is then just 'illegal' magic.

 

Yes, but we can make inferences based on observations. I observed that Reducto has not been used on humans in canon in the 4 or 5 instances it was used. Based on this it isn't too much of a stretch to say it can't be used on humans.

I only include the books as canon. If it's not in the books it's not canon. The elder wand having thestral hair core is not canon, nor is the 'love' room containing a fountain of armortentia.

My point being was that these spells are relatively harmless. Sure at one point the counter spell might not have been well known, making it a pain in the ass to go through the day if you are under a babbling/leglocker curse, but I cannot include it with other dark magic that we know of simply because the effects are so minor, and by all means should be a hex or jinx if we consider curses to be the most 'serious' and damaging of offensive spells. Like I said in the other thread, curses, hexes and jinxes seem to be interchangeable in canon, and thus if one group is considered dark magic, they all are.

This is only if you combat dark magic with dark magic. They are not teaching kids killing curses and entrail expelling curses as counters to dark magic. Or to put it simply, fight fire with fire. We don't know what goes on in DADA. In the first few books we are only shown them being taught about dark creatures. In 4th year they are shown curses, but we don't know if they were actually taught to cast any curses. In 5th year it was all theory. In 6th year it was casting curses/hexes/jinxes that they already knew, nonverbally. We never actually see the kids being taught any offensive magic in DADA.

Your reasoning is sound if you consider all offensive magic to be dark magic, but I disagree and do not believe that is the case.

Stretching. Plants don't move. Insects move. Mammals move. Humans move. Plants do not move.


edit: Jesus, you guys are a bunch of pedants. I'm not going to waste time arguing over whether plants possess consciousness and what counts as movement. The original argument I made is that Reducto does not work on humans. You can split hairs all you want, but for all purposes plants are inanimate and immobile.

Fuck.

 

There is no argument to suggest that it does not.

 

Actually, it's a huge stretch. It'd be like saying after the first book that we've only ever seen Wingardium Leviosa used on feathers and troll clubs and so these are the only things that it works on.

If by "offensive magic" you mean all curses, hexes and jinxes, then yes, I do say that all offensive magic is Dark magic, as this is what the author has said. Not only has she said in explicitly on her site, but it's also implicit throughout the books, so claiming to not believe the site doesn't save you from it completely.

Of course, only taking the books as canon is a bit unreasonable in the first place. Do we call Tolkein's letters to fans, which contain much info about the LotR universe, false? We do not. But that's a discussion for another thread.

 

Or that because Accio is never used on a pizza, that you are unable to summon a pizza.

 

Or it would be like saying that since we only see the Harry summoning a broom in canon, there's no reason why you can't summon someone's heart out of their chest. You have to draw a line somewhere or else we can come up with hundreds of ridiculous uses for HP spells simply because it doesn't say you can't do it in canon. I don't think it is a stretch.

You are defending this position quite vehemently despite there not being any evidence that it can be used on humans. Lack of evidence does not equal evidence. Besides the arguments I have already made, I don't like it because it has become a staple of fanon. The author can't show a believable progression of skill for Harry and co. so they simply have them sling around Reducto's blowing gaping wounds in DE's and splattering brains all over the place. Are you really fine with this? Does this not annoy you? My arguments are actually secondary to the peeve. I don't like it because of its overuse and overpoweredness in fanon, not so much as that it isn't canon, although it isn't canon.

Passages please. Tell me where it says minor shit like Furnunculus and hair growing hexes are dark magic.

Yes. Different people consider different things canon, as we see from the thread in General. I only consider the books canon, but if I was a fanfic author, I might include a few things from the interviews or her website if it was relevant to the plot.

 

Back at you.

You are defending this position quite vehemently despite there not being any evidence that it can't be used on humans. Lack of evidence does not equal evidence.

The only difference is that my position is that the Reducto works on all objects until we see otherwise, your position is that it works on only the objects we have seen in work on in canon.

Personally, I find my position more reasonable.

1. I have already said that I equate it with a hard kick. A hard kick which can be used on anything, just as a hard kick in real life can.

2. Not quite as much as I hate arguments based on emotion rather than reason.

I shall quote myself.

"Implicit".

As in, not explicit. We can see that canon supports JKRs assertation that all hexes, jinxes and curses are Dark magic (whatever that is) by the way they are treated by the characters. JKR has said that jinxes and hexes are a sort of mild Dark magic, and we see this in that you get in trouble for using them but nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Curses she says are Darker in nature, and again we see this in the approach of the characters, the fact that they don't learn them until 4 year (and it's suppposed to be 6th) and they way in which they are used. Something like a babbling curse is very similar to the curse which forces you to read a book for the rest of your life, which was in the Restricted Section if I recall PS correctly. The only difference is that the counter to the babbling curse is now widely known.

 

Personally, I think mine is more reasonable. We are at an impasse. Nothing I say will convince you, and nothing you say will convince me. Best to drop it.

Ok. That's really not that bad. As long as it isn't blasting heads apart I'm fine with it. Although I would really like an original spell instead of Reducto if you are aiming for bludgeoning damage. I don't mind if the author creates tons of new spells, as long as they are well thought out and resemble canon spells (see Shezza).

I agree in that I value arguments based on reason much more than emotions. This is probably the only subject where you will see me appeal to emotion.

I somewhat agree. I have my own ideas of what is to be considered dark magic, just like you have your theories on magic. I think my ideas hold more value than arbitrarily declaring all offensive magic dark, just as you think your theories have more value than the extremely common magical core and raw magical power that is so pervasive in canon. I'm stuck in my ways, even it contradicts what the whore says.

 

This is all very interesting, but can we please tackle the important question.

Does the Reducto Curse affect ferral house-elves?

 

You do know that the whole question of whether or not Curses count as dark magic doesn't impact on the Reducto curse much, do you? In any case, the only implicit thing I see in canon is that it holds all its weight on interpretation. When she writes something like 'oooh, it's really dark magic so we can't heal it properly', I read 'we can't heal it properly so it's dark magic'.

Actually, it's very easy to show that you can't summon someone's heart out in canon. Yours is a much more difficult position do defend. However, and I may be wrong about this (which Taure would promptly tell me), there does seem to imply a difference between spells used on animals and spells used on objects. Somehow I can't think of many spells which are used on both. And using the Reducto on humans does seem somewhat ill-adapted.

Magic applied ot the body is almost always during duels, and in duels I don't see which non-specialised spells are used. It might work though. A bit like a screw driver in a fight.