Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » Offence against the dark arts.
Offence against the dark arts. [message #262538] So, 07 Mai 2006 04:55
mystic  
My biggest problem with the Harry Potter series is that he never gets to
take the "offensive against the dark arts" class that he needs. It is
obvious he needs to kill Voldomort, and perhaps a few deatheathers. He
failed casting at least one "unforgivable curse" because his heart was
not in it. While I agree Harry is a good person, sometimes you have to
do something bad to make things right.

*MYSTIC*
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #262550 ] So, 07 Mai 2006 07:36
Thomas Madura  
*MYSTIC* wrote:

>
> My biggest problem with the Harry Potter series is that he never gets to
> take the "offensive against the dark arts" class that he needs. It is
> obvious he needs to kill Voldomort, and perhaps a few deatheathers. He
> failed casting at least one "unforgivable curse" because his heart was
> not in it. While I agree Harry is a good person, sometimes you have to
> do something bad to make things right.
>
> *MYSTIC*
>

I have said this before.

I am still wondering WHY DD did not arrange for special lessons for
Harry to learn skills to defend himself - lessons DD should have
taught himself. I realize that in the books - DD says that HE knew about
the mental connection between Harry and Riddle and didn't want their
relationship (dd and harry's) to cause problems. That still would not
have prevented DD from getting someone to teach Harry more skills.

For instance - Harry should already know how to Apparate - and to do so
well. Harry should also have been taught the ability to use spells
without speach - which is how DD and RIddle went at it for the most
part. It is the surprise of the spells that caught Riddle off guard (not
trying to kill me DD).

However - I don't really think it would be possible for Harry to learn
the AK curse through teaching. Killing spiders and killing people are
two different things. Unless it comes in a fit of supreme rage - I don't
believe Harry will ever be able to use that spell properly - and maybe
not even then.

Unfortunately - that means that we are left with another "love" answer
to killing Riddle - YUCK.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #262553 ] So, 07 Mai 2006 08:10
kilroy  
"*MYSTIC*" <mystic [at] thecave.net> wrote in message
news:445d60d2$0$3708$822641b3 [at] news.adtechcomputers.com...
>
> My biggest problem with the Harry Potter series is that he never gets to
> take the "offensive against the dark arts" class that he needs. It is
> obvious he needs to kill Voldomort, and perhaps a few deatheathers. He
> failed casting at least one "unforgivable curse" because his heart was not
> in it. While I agree Harry is a good person, sometimes you have to do
> something bad to make things right.
>
> *MYSTIC*
>
At its essence, the Harry Potter series is a story of Good v. Evil.
Literarily speaking, Good always has to be better than Evil, and therefore,
the side of Good can't resort to using the kinds of weapons and violent
tactics that the Evil side uses, no matter how much that puts them at a
disadvantage. Despite this, the Good side manages to win.
Harry's attempt at using the Cruciatus curse was ineffective because he was
good, filled with righteous anger and thus, unable to perform the Curse as
effectively as it could have been.

In the end, I don't believe Harry will kill Voldemort through the use of
Avada Kedavra. To do so, would violate the rule that Good has to be better
than Evil. I feel that he will kill Voldemort by some other means, like
knocking him off a cliff or something along those lines, or by some other
magic that JKR comes up with.
--
Kilroy was here.
"Always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to
yours." - Yogi Berra
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #262578 ] So, 07 Mai 2006 12:09
Helena Bowles  
"*MYSTIC*" <mystic [at] thecave.net> wrote in message
news:445d60d2$0$3708$822641b3 [at] news.adtechcomputers.com...
>
> My biggest problem with the Harry Potter series is that he never gets to
> take the "offensive against the dark arts" class that he needs. It is
> obvious he needs to kill Voldomort, and perhaps a few deatheathers. He
> failed casting at least one "unforgivable curse" because his heart was not
> in it. While I agree Harry is a good person, sometimes you have to do
> something bad to make things right.

That may be so in the Real World (although some of us might argue the point)
BUT it is NOT the story JKR is telling. The good guys will, I predict, not
do anything immoral to defeat Voldie.

My second prediction (which is really my first but it didn't make sense
written that way round) is that Harry's physical or magical strength is not
going to be an issue in the end of the series. Think about it. Voldie and
Harry have a knock-down drag out fight. Harry knows one spell Voldie doesn't
or doesn't expect BANG - dead Voldie. Exactly what message does that send?
"Might makes right?" It's okay, folks, as long as you can beat up the
opposition, your way is the True Path? Nope, I really can't see Jo going
this way.
Helena
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #262594 ] So, 07 Mai 2006 15:42
Brent Braten  
"*MYSTIC*" <mystic [at] thecave.net> wrote in message
news:445d60d2$0$3708$822641b3 [at] news.adtechcomputers.com...
>
> My biggest problem with the Harry Potter series is that he never gets to
> take the "offensive against the dark arts" class that he needs. It is
> obvious he needs to kill Voldomort, and perhaps a few deatheathers. He
> failed casting at least one "unforgivable curse" because his heart was
> not in it. While I agree Harry is a good person, sometimes you have to
> do something bad to make things right.
>
> *MYSTIC*
>
Sorry to be so stubborn but I still feel that Wormtail will be the one to
actually take out Voldemort. He has the "hand" and when it comes down to it
he WILL repay the life debt he ows to Harry.

I do, however agree with Mystic about the additional training. On this I
feel Dumbledore most definitely let the ball drop. Of course there is
always the thing about him not wanting to tell Harry about the prophesy, He
couldn't very well give Harry extra lessons without telling him about the
prophecy (apparently my computer accepts two spellings of that word). So,
Mystic, I guess you could chalk it all up to "an old man's mistake."

BB
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #262596 ] So, 07 Mai 2006 15:52
bethbriuk  
*MYSTIC* wrote:
> My biggest problem with the Harry Potter series is that he never gets to
> take the "offensive against the dark arts" class that he needs. It is
> obvious he needs to kill Voldomort, and perhaps a few deatheathers. He
> failed casting at least one "unforgivable curse" because his heart was
> not in it. While I agree Harry is a good person, sometimes you have to
> do something bad to make things right.
>
> *MYSTIC*

He won't need them. The final confrontation will be in the MoM and
Harry will somehow open the sealed door to the "Room of Love" in the
Dept of Mysteries. Bye-bye Tom.

BriD
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264734 ] Mo, 08 Mai 2006 08:00
septithol  
Kilroy wrote:

> Literarily speaking, Good always has to be better than Evil, and therefore,
> the side of Good can't resort to using the kinds of weapons and violent
> tactics that the Evil side uses, no matter how much that puts them at a
> disadvantage.

Ah, this is a very mistaken philosophy which has been crammed down
people's throats by those intent on tyrannizing them. As it was rightly
pointed out in the Lord of the Rings movies, "those without swords can
still die upon them." There is no 'weapon or tactic', which, in and of
itself, is 'evil'. Guns are not evil. They are inanimate peices of
metal. Only human beings, who have consciousness, can be said to be
'good' or 'evil'. Promoting the philosophy that guns are evil simply
results in good people being helpless to fight back against guns in the
hands of evil people.

The real difference between good and evil, is that good people do not
INITIATE the use of violent weapons or tactics against anyone. However,
if an evil person starts out by using a gun or an Avada Kadavra spell,
it is not evil to fight back against them by any means necessary.
Indeed, any philosophy which prevents you from doing so effectively, is
probably evil in intent, as the end result will be not only will the
evil person kill you, but they will have learned that it is easy and
profitable to kill people, and go on to kill other innocents, because
you didn't want to get you hands 'dirty' by using a gun and killing
them when they first attacked you.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264739 ] Mo, 08 Mai 2006 08:48
dicconf  
In article <SP2dnRmDuIjPZMDZRVn-vA [at] bresnan.com>,
Brent Braten <bbraten [at] bresnan.net> wrote:
>"*MYSTIC*" <mystic [at] thecave.net> wrote
>>
>> My biggest problem with the Harry Potter series is that he never gets to
>> take the "offensive against the dark arts" class that he needs. It is
>> obvious he needs to kill Voldomort, and perhaps a few deatheathers.

<snip>

>Sorry to be so stubborn but I still feel that Wormtail will be the one to
>actually take out Voldemort. He has the "hand" and when it comes down to it
>he WILL repay the life debt he ows to Harry.
>
>I do, however agree with Mystic about the additional training. On this
>I feel Dumbledore most definitely let the ball drop. Of course there is
>always the thing about him not wanting to tell Harry about the prophesy, He
>couldn't very well give Harry extra lessons without telling him about the
>prophecy (apparently my computer accepts two spellings of that word). So,
>Mystic, I guess you could chalk it all up to "an old man's mistake."

It's just faintly possible that Dumbledore felt that _teaching_ Harry to
attack other human beings with intent to cause severe and irreparable harm
(as opposed to letting Harry develop that kind of emotion on his own)
might damage Harry's soul, and he was depending on Harry's wholeness of
soul to defeat Voldemort.

By the way, as far as I know, "prophesy" is the verb, "prophecy" is the noun.
That's why there are two spellings.

=Tamar
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264741 ] Mo, 08 Mai 2006 08:51
dicconf  
In article <445dc745$1_3 [at] mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
Helena Bowles <helena.bowles [at] tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"*MYSTIC*" <mystic [at] thecave.net> wrote in message
>news:445d60d2$0$3708$822641b3 [at] news.adtechcomputers.com...
>>
>> My biggest problem with the Harry Potter series is that he never gets to
>> take the "offensive against the dark arts" class that he needs. It is
>> obvious he needs to kill Voldomort, and perhaps a few deatheathers. He
>> failed casting at least one "unforgivable curse" because his heart was not
>> in it. While I agree Harry is a good person, sometimes you have to do
>> something bad to make things right.
>
>That may be so in the Real World (although some of us might argue the point)
>BUT it is NOT the story JKR is telling.

Precisely. This is a spiritual-development myth story, not a D&D plot.

>The good guys will, I predict, not do anything immoral to defeat Voldie.
>
>My second prediction (which is really my first but it didn't make sense
>written that way round) is that Harry's physical or magical strength is not
>going to be an issue in the end of the series. Think about it. Voldie and
>Harry have a knock-down drag out fight. Harry knows one spell Voldie doesn't
>or doesn't expect BANG - dead Voldie. Exactly what message does that send?
>"Might makes right?" It's okay, folks, as long as you can beat up the
>opposition, your way is the True Path? Nope, I really can't see Jo going
>this way.

I agree. It's going to be a spiritual-character solution, done through some
kind of inner-strength development. To make it dramatic it will probably be
tied in with strong emotion, which seems to be involved in magical strength
in JKR's literary universe.

=Tamar
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264742 ] Mo, 08 Mai 2006 08:53
Kish  
septithol wrote:
> Kilroy wrote:
>
>
>>Literarily speaking, Good always has to be better than Evil, and therefore,
>>the side of Good can't resort to using the kinds of weapons and violent
>>tactics that the Evil side uses, no matter how much that puts them at a
>>disadvantage.
>
>
> Ah, this is a very mistaken philosophy which has been crammed down
> people's throats by those intent on tyrannizing them.

Thank you, Ayn Rand.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264748 ] Mo, 08 Mai 2006 09:47
Toon  
On Sun, 07 May 2006 05:36:47 GMT, Thom Madura
<Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Unfortunately - that means that we are left with another "love" answer
>to killing Riddle - YUCK.

"Optic Anime!" And with those awful big eyes, Harry goes, "I wuv you
Uncy Voldemowt!" V will drop dead. Guaranteed.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264749 ] Mo, 08 Mai 2006 09:51
Toon  
On Sun, 7 May 2006 07:42:42 -0600, "Brent Braten"
<bbraten [at] bresnan.net> wrote:


>Sorry to be so stubborn but I still feel that Wormtail will be the one to
>actually take out Voldemort. He has the "hand" and when it comes down to it
>he WILL repay the life debt he ows to Harry.

But it's not the hand of the other, but the hand of Voldemort, because
V created it. The only other mentioned is Neville.

>I do, however agree with Mystic about the additional training. On this I
>feel Dumbledore most definitely let the ball drop. Of course there is
>always the thing about him not wanting to tell Harry about the prophesy, He
>couldn't very well give Harry extra lessons without telling him about the
>prophecy (apparently my computer accepts two spellings of that word). So,
>Mystic, I guess you could chalk it all up to "an old man's mistake."
>

I think DD feels that despite all his non binding prophecy schlock, he
truly believes Harry will win, so why even bother. Harry must defeat
him, training or no.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264750 ] Mo, 08 Mai 2006 09:53
Toon  
On 7 May 2006 06:52:38 -0700, "BriD" <bethbriuk [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>*MYSTIC* wrote:
>> My biggest problem with the Harry Potter series is that he never gets to
>> take the "offensive against the dark arts" class that he needs. It is
>> obvious he needs to kill Voldomort, and perhaps a few deatheathers. He
>> failed casting at least one "unforgivable curse" because his heart was
>> not in it. While I agree Harry is a good person, sometimes you have to
>> do something bad to make things right.
>>
>> *MYSTIC*
>
>He won't need them. The final confrontation will be in the MoM and
>Harry will somehow open the sealed door to the "Room of Love" in the
>Dept of Mysteries. Bye-bye Tom.
>
>BriD

He just needs to enter the combination: 4-8-15-16-23-42. Black smoke
will grab V and kiss him and love him, and call him George.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264776 ] Mo, 08 Mai 2006 14:22
Zenith Nadir  
septithol wrote:
> Ah, this is a very mistaken philosophy which has been crammed down
> people's throats by those intent on tyrannizing them. As it was rightly
> pointed out in the Lord of the Rings movies, "those without swords can
> still die upon them." There is no 'weapon or tactic', which, in and of
> itself, is 'evil'. Guns are not evil. They are inanimate peices of
> metal. Only human beings, who have consciousness, can be said to be
> 'good' or 'evil'. Promoting the philosophy that guns are evil simply
> results in good people being helpless to fight back against guns in the
> hands of evil people.

guns and swords may be inanimate objects, but spells and magic are not.
and since they are also fictional ideas/creations, many authors choose
to follow the conventions of the genre. and one convention of stories
in which we find magic is that there are some spells that (like objects)
have no intrinsic moral value, but that there are others which do. and
in that convention, not all attacking/offensive spells are evil just
because they can take life; nor are all spells which give life good
(necromancy in fantasy is often a dark art, though it can involve giving
corpses new life).

so what you say might have relevance in the real world, this is a
fantasy world. and in this fantasy world, the author seems to have
decided by fiat, through the godlike powers that authorship can grant
her, that the ak spell is evil by definition. you're fighting a
tautology here, so it's something of a losing argument.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264809 ] Mo, 08 Mai 2006 20:43
Helena Bowles  
"Richard Eney" <dicconf [at] radix.net> wrote in message
news:125tqjn326oof38 [at] corp.supernews.com...
> In article <445dc745$1_3 [at] mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> Helena Bowles <helena.bowles [at] tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>"*MYSTIC*" <mystic [at] thecave.net> wrote in message
>>news:445d60d2$0$3708$822641b3 [at] news.adtechcomputers.com...
>>>
>>> My biggest problem with the Harry Potter series is that he never gets to
>>> take the "offensive against the dark arts" class that he needs. It is
>>> obvious he needs to kill Voldomort, and perhaps a few deatheathers. He
>>> failed casting at least one "unforgivable curse" because his heart was
>>> not
>>> in it. While I agree Harry is a good person, sometimes you have to do
>>> something bad to make things right.
>>
>>That may be so in the Real World (although some of us might argue the
>>point)
>>BUT it is NOT the story JKR is telling.
>
> Precisely. This is a spiritual-development myth story, not a D&D plot.
>
>>The good guys will, I predict, not do anything immoral to defeat Voldie.
>>
>>My second prediction (which is really my first but it didn't make sense
>>written that way round) is that Harry's physical or magical strength is
>>not
>>going to be an issue in the end of the series. Think about it. Voldie and
>>Harry have a knock-down drag out fight. Harry knows one spell Voldie
>>doesn't
>>or doesn't expect BANG - dead Voldie. Exactly what message does that send?
>>"Might makes right?" It's okay, folks, as long as you can beat up the
>>opposition, your way is the True Path? Nope, I really can't see Jo going
>>this way.
>
> I agree. It's going to be a spiritual-character solution, done through
> some
> kind of inner-strength development. To make it dramatic it will probably
> be
> tied in with strong emotion, which seems to be involved in magical
> strength
> in JKR's literary universe.

Hooray! Someone agrees! I was beginning to think I was the only one not
imagining Harry with whatever the magical equivalent of a couple of AK 47s
under his arms growling to Voldie:"Make my day, punk!"
Helena
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264837 ] Di, 09 Mai 2006 02:32
septithol  
> and
> in that convention, not all attacking/offensive spells are evil just
> because they can take life; nor are all spells which give life good
> (necromancy in fantasy is often a dark art, though it can involve giving
> corpses new life).

Regarding this, unless a reason is provided for the moral difference
between the two spells is, other than 'The author says so'; the story
in question becomes nonsensical. Take, for instance, two different
spells in a fictional setting which give life. One is defined as 'good'
the other as 'evil'. It may be that there is a reason for this
difference. Perhaps the 'evil' spell uses the power of a demonic
entity, or gives life to one person by draining it from another. Or
causes some sort of magical toxic residue somewhere. Or something. But
if all else is equal, and the so-called 'evil' spell has no causes or
effects which are worse than that of the 'good' spells, or in fact, are
LESS harmful in many ways than the 'good' spells, your story becomes
moral nonsense. You might as well say that it is 'good' to remove a
diseased appendix by cutting from right to left with a scalpel, but
'bad' to remove a diseased appendix by cutting from left to right with
an identical scalpel. Unless you can show some sort of data that
patients heal faster or have less complications with one direction of
cutting vs. the other, claiming one method to be 'evil' is idiotic.

Not that an author does not have a right to create an idiotic story.
But you cannot make the claim that a story is written in such an
idiotic fashion and then also make the claim that the items defined as
'evil' in such a nonsensical story are actually 'evil' in any
meaningful fashion outside the fantasy of a paranoid schizophrenic or a
bureaucrat.

BTW, I do not believe for a minute that this is the case in JKR's
stories. She is the mistress of misdirection. Certain spells are
defined as 'unforgivables' in the Harry Potter series. But consider
precisely what entity is doing that defining. The Ministry of Magic.
Which is hardly a source of good moral information, even within the
context of the stories themselves. Particularily so, since the Ministry
has given ITSELF a special exemption to cast the 'unforgivable' spells.
Which leads to two logical possibilities:

1. The "unforgivable" spells are somehow inherently evil 100% of the
time, regardless of the circumstances and intent under which they are
cast. "Avada Kadavra" for instance, would be an 'evil' spell, even
when used to painlessly kill a non-sentient animal which otherwise
would die in agony from rabies. In which case, since the Ministry is
using such 'evil' spells, the Ministry of Magic is inherently evil, and
the 'good' wizards are being ruled by tyrants no better than Voldemort.

2. The "unforgivable" spells are NOT inherently evil in and of
themselves. In which case, the Ministry of Magic had no right to
unilaterally outlaw them, regardless of how they were used, and by
doing so, and in particular by doing so AND making a special exception
for special people such as themselves, they have proven themselves to
be evil tyrants, no better than Voldemort.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264841 ] Di, 09 Mai 2006 03:21
Zenith Nadir  
septithol wrote:
> BTW, I do not believe for a minute that this is the case in JKR's
> stories. She is the mistress of misdirection. Certain spells are
> defined as 'unforgivables' in the Harry Potter series. But consider
> precisely what entity is doing that defining. The Ministry of Magic.
> Which is hardly a source of good moral information, even within the
> context of the stories themselves. Particularily so, since the Ministry
> has given ITSELF a special exemption to cast the 'unforgivable' spells.

in some ways, i considered that exemption to be along the same lines as
how the state also monopolizes the lawful use of force (in the form of
military and constabulary forces, for example). murder is
illegal/immoral; but shooting someone down in the process of enforcing
the law/conducting a war is not normally treated as the same sort of
illegal/immoral act. and even in those contexts, there are at least
theoretical limits in place that limit what constabulary and military
forces can do.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264852 ] Di, 09 Mai 2006 06:13
septithol  
> Zenith wrote: in some ways, i considered that exemption to be along the same lines as
> how the state also monopolizes the lawful use of force (in the form of
> military and constabulary forces, for example). murder is
> illegal/immoral; but shooting someone down in the process of enforcing
> the law/conducting a war is not normally treated as the same sort of
> illegal/immoral act. and even in those contexts, there are at least
> theoretical limits in place that limit what constabulary and military
> forces can do.

Ah. But, any state which has a monopoly on the 'lawful use of force' is
not a place where you are going to want to live, since for among other
reasons, the moment someone attacked you, intent on murdering you,
regardless of WHAT you did, you would be nearly certain to die. If you
did not defend yourself, the attacker would kill you. If you DID defend
yourself, the state would kill you. Kindly avoid such games as 'well,
you can defend yourself, but just not with certain 'evil' methods. A
person 'allowed' to defend themselves with a razorblade has little
chance against a criminal armed with a machinegun.

I should also point out the other side of that coin, when the state has
a monopoly on the 'lawful use of force' they tend to define anything
THEY want to do, regardless of what it is, as automatically lawful.
Which can and has included anything up to and including the genocide of
millions of people because they had the wrong ancestry or religious
beliefs.

"good" and "evil" have little or nothing to do with whether something
is "lawful" or not. If you want to argue that it is "un-lawful" under
all circumstances, for private individuals in the Harry Potter books to
use the Avada Kadavra curse, then by all means do so. You would be
correct in your assertion. If you want to argue that it is EVIL under
all circumstances, for private individuals to use that cure (in the
Harry Potter books) then you are going to have to have a rational
defense to that point, including as to why there are two seperate moral
codes for two seperate classes of people.

BTW, I think much of your confusion lies in the mis-definition of
language which the government, via public schools, has been foisting on
the public. "Murder" means something very specific, and is always evil,
regardless of WHOM does it (whether it be a private individual or the
state). "Killing" is not necessarily synonymous with murder, and may or
may not be evil, depending on the circumstances. And whether a given
act is evil or not has little to do with who commits the act, or what
job they might have.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264853 ] Di, 09 Mai 2006 06:26
Kish  
septithol wrote:

> "good" and "evil" have little or nothing to do with whether something
> is "lawful" or not. If you want to argue that it is "un-lawful" under
> all circumstances, for private individuals in the Harry Potter books to
> use the Avada Kadavra curse, then by all means do so. You would be
> correct in your assertion. If you want to argue that it is EVIL under
> all circumstances, for private individuals to use that cure (in the
> Harry Potter books) then you are going to have to have a rational
> defense to that point, including as to why there are two seperate moral
> codes for two seperate classes of people.

Anyone attempting to argue that it is evil under all circumstances for
private individuals /and not the government/ to use Avada Kedavra would
have rather missed the point. Sirius Black held up "Barty Crouch
authorized the Aurors to use the Unforgivable Curses"* as an example of
how corrupt Barty Crouch was.

* Also, there's a tense issue with your assertions that the Ministry
allows, present tense, their operatives to use the Unforgivable Curses.
When Barty Crouch was in power, during Voldemort's rise, the Aurors
had special dispensation to use the Unforgivable Curses. Exactly when
that dispensation was revoked, relative to Voldemort's first fall, is
unclear, but Sirius is clear that no one is legally allowed to use the
Unforgivable Curses during the timeframe of the books.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264856 ] Di, 09 Mai 2006 08:26
septithol  
> Sirius is clear that no one is legally allowed to use the Unforgivable Curses during the timeframe of the books.

Except, apparently, the fake Mad-eye Moody.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264870 ] Di, 09 Mai 2006 12:20
Zenith Nadir  
septithol wrote:
>>Zenith wrote: in some ways, i considered that exemption to be along the same lines as
>>how the state also monopolizes the lawful use of force (in the form of
>>military and constabulary forces, for example). murder is
>>illegal/immoral; but shooting someone down in the process of enforcing
>>the law/conducting a war is not normally treated as the same sort of
>>illegal/immoral act. and even in those contexts, there are at least
>>theoretical limits in place that limit what constabulary and military
>>forces can do.
>
>
> Ah. But, any state which has a monopoly on the 'lawful use of force' is
> not a place where you are going to want to live, since for among other
> reasons, the moment someone attacked you, intent on murdering you,
> regardless of WHAT you did, you would be nearly certain to die. If you

self defense is the exception that goes without saying. but each one of
us who lives in a modern state (us, uk, canada, what have you) lives in
a state which retains the monopoly on the use of force.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264893 ] Di, 09 Mai 2006 14:59
septithol  
> self defense is the exception that goes without saying. but each one of
us who lives in a modern state (us, uk, canada, what have you) lives in

a state which retains the monopoly on the use of force. <

You can't have it both ways. If the state has a legal monopoly on the
use of force, then the use of force, even in self defense is illegal.
Which, increasingly, it is, in the US, UK, Canada, what have you. If
you think you can use lethal force to defend your life against a
homicidal maniac and thereafter not go $30,000 into debt with the legal
costs as the government tries to prosecute you, you have been hiding
under a rock for the past 50 years.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264895 ] Di, 09 Mai 2006 15:04
septithol  
Zenith, I should point out that SOME methods of self-defense are
inheritently immoral, and cannot be used. I cannot (or morally should
not) defend myself against a homicidal maniac by, say detonating an
atomic bomb, opening a vial of plague, or using an innocent bystander
as a human sheild. But this principal would apply to the state, as
well. There are no special rights for special people. As applied to the
Harry Potter books, there may be valid reasons why one cannot defend
one's life with the Avada Kadavra spell. But those reasons have yet to
be stated in the book, and if there are such reasons, they would apply
to the Ministry as well as to everyone else.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264898 ] Di, 09 Mai 2006 15:19
Zenith Nadir  
septithol wrote:
>>self defense is the exception that goes without saying. but each one of
>
> us who lives in a modern state (us, uk, canada, what have you) lives in
>
> a state which retains the monopoly on the use of force. <
>
> You can't have it both ways. If the state has a legal monopoly on the
> use of force, then the use of force, even in self defense is illegal.

you're being overly simplistic. part of the modern scholastic
definition of state includes this monopoly. see, for example,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State: "A state is an organized political
community, occupying a territory, and possessing internal and external
sovereignty, that enforces a monopoly on the use of force." basic
polisci 101 stuff. that does not, as you suggest, mean that a state
which regularly enforces its monopoly takes away your inherent right to
defend your own life. and, in some areas, your right to self defense
even includes the defense of your property. however, only states have
the authority to, for example, wage wars - which is why non-state actors
who do wage wars are always labeled terrorists. but in any case, this
is wildly off the topic of HP.

> Which, increasingly, it is, in the US, UK, Canada, what have you. If
> you think you can use lethal force to defend your life against a
> homicidal maniac and thereafter not go $30,000 into debt with the legal
> costs as the government tries to prosecute you, you have been hiding
> under a rock for the past 50 years.

i not only think you can, i know that it is the case that if someone is
making an authentic attempt on your life, you may defend yourself even
if in making a reasonable defense you kill the attacker. this is true
in all jurisdictions which observe the anglo-american common law
traditions. but again, i think we're going off topic.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264928 ] Di, 09 Mai 2006 19:38
aaron  
Kish wrote:
> septithol wrote:
> > Kilroy wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Literarily speaking, Good always has to be better than Evil, and therefore,
> >>the side of Good can't resort to using the kinds of weapons and violent
> >>tactics that the Evil side uses, no matter how much that puts them at a
> >>disadvantage.
> >
> >
> > Ah, this is a very mistaken philosophy which has been crammed down
> > people's throats by those intent on tyrannizing them.
>
> Thank you, Ayn Rand.

How dare you! The rest of the post was certainly true enough. A weapon
isn't evil. Humans can be evil, and use weapons to advance their cause.
Humans can also be good, and use weapons to advance their cause.

What is so hard to understand about assigning personality traits to
people instead of inanimate objects?

-Aaron
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #264988 ] Mi, 10 Mai 2006 17:04
Searcher  
I think that if Albus Dumbledore figuered to give Harry extra lessons
in Defence against the dark arts, he would sit with the problem of who
would teach Harry. I figured that he wouldn't use Snape ( as he is the
only one who has the right qualifications beside Dumbledore) as
Dumbledore wouldnt want Snape to do any Dark arts at the school due to
the fact that Snape was once a Death Eater and he might lapse and go
back to Voldemort (as we read in THBP he did) So if Dumbledore had to
get some one in to teach Harry wouldn't the other teachers and the
Ministry think it strange that Dumbledore was getting a teacher without
a post. I am shure thwat Dumbledore would get one of his old friends in
or someone that he knew. He wouldn't take anybody from the dark side of
the wizarding world.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #265048 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 09:46
Toon  
On 10 May 2006 08:04:10 -0700, "Searcher" <KennyMa [at] tshwane.gov.za>
wrote:

>>would teach Harry. I figured that he wouldn't use Snape ( as he is the
>only one who has the right qualifications beside Dumbledore) as
>Dumbledore wouldnt want Snape to do any Dark arts at the school due to
>the fact that Snape was once a Death Eater and he might lapse and go
>back to Voldemort (as we read in THBP he did)

Are you sure he lapsed?

Just have Lupin teach him in the Shrieking Shack.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #265057 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 12:45
Searcher  
I feel that he was just stringing Dumbledore along until he could go
back to Voldemort. Unfortunately he decided to return the night that
the Deatheaters invaded the castle.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #265228 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 04:55
richard e white  
septithol wrote:

> Kilroy wrote:
>
> > Literarily speaking, Good always has to be better than Evil, and therefore,
> > the side of Good can't resort to using the kinds of weapons and violent
> > tactics that the Evil side uses, no matter how much that puts them at a
> > disadvantage.
>
> Ah, this is a very mistaken philosophy which has been crammed down
> people's throats by those intent on tyrannizing them. As it was rightly
> pointed out in the Lord of the Rings movies, "those without swords can
> still die upon them." There is no 'weapon or tactic', which, in and of
> itself, is 'evil'. Guns are not evil. They are inanimate peices of
> metal. Only human beings, who have consciousness, can be said to be
> 'good' or 'evil'. Promoting the philosophy that guns are evil simply
> results in good people being helpless to fight back against guns in the
> hands of evil people.
>
> The real difference between good and evil, is that good people do not
> INITIATE the use of violent weapons or tactics against anyone. However,
> if an evil person starts out by using a gun or an Avada Kadavra spell,
> it is not evil to fight back against them by any means necessary.
> Indeed, any philosophy which prevents you from doing so effectively, is
> probably evil in intent, as the end result will be not only will the
> evil person kill you, but they will have learned that it is easy and
> profitable to kill people, and go on to kill other innocents, because
> you didn't want to get you hands 'dirty' by using a gun and killing
> them when they first attacked you.

Where this idea falls flat is that the AK is diffrent from a gun. A gun can be
used to kill or wound with out damage to the mind. The effects of useing the gun
are only thing to worry about. The AK is diffrent. You have to really want to
kill for it to work and that means the morals of the user has to be changed
before the AK can be used.
I think it is this moral change of theusers mind that the wizarding world does
not tolerate.
A wand can do other spells where the gun just sends out a bullet to do the
damage.
And while I do belive in fighting back I don't belive you should jump to killing
force just because the other guy does.
Tho I am disapointed in Harry and co not even trying to look up better spells to
fight with. Like that silver lightning spell that DD used. from the way it has
been used I don't think a protago spell would stop it. At least V used a
diffrent shield spell. And Harry does need to find a spell that woun't bounce
back of a standerd shield spell.
Tho I am rather expecting Harry to win of a rebound orsomething like that.
But the no planning is a bit of a downer.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #265229 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 05:08
richard e white  
septithol wrote:

> > and
> > in that convention, not all attacking/offensive spells are evil just
> > because they can take life; nor are all spells which give life good
> > (necromancy in fantasy is often a dark art, though it can involve giving
> > corpses new life).
>
> Regarding this, unless a reason is provided for the moral difference
> between the two spells is, other than 'The author says so'; the story
> in question becomes nonsensical. Take, for instance, two different
> spells in a fictional setting which give life. One is defined as 'good'
> the other as 'evil'. It may be that there is a reason for this
> difference. Perhaps the 'evil' spell uses the power of a demonic
> entity, or gives life to one person by draining it from another. Or
> causes some sort of magical toxic residue somewhere. Or something. But
> if all else is equal, and the so-called 'evil' spell has no causes or
> effects which are worse than that of the 'good' spells, or in fact, are
> LESS harmful in many ways than the 'good' spells, your story becomes
> moral nonsense. You might as well say that it is 'good' to remove a
> diseased appendix by cutting from right to left with a scalpel, but
> 'bad' to remove a diseased appendix by cutting from left to right with
> an identical scalpel. Unless you can show some sort of data that
> patients heal faster or have less complications with one direction of
> cutting vs. the other, claiming one method to be 'evil' is idiotic.
>
> Not that an author does not have a right to create an idiotic story.
> But you cannot make the claim that a story is written in such an
> idiotic fashion and then also make the claim that the items defined as
> 'evil' in such a nonsensical story are actually 'evil' in any
> meaningful fashion outside the fantasy of a paranoid schizophrenic or a
> bureaucrat.
>
> BTW, I do not believe for a minute that this is the case in JKR's
> stories. She is the mistress of misdirection. Certain spells are
> defined as 'unforgivables' in the Harry Potter series. But consider
> precisely what entity is doing that defining. The Ministry of Magic.
> Which is hardly a source of good moral information, even within the
> context of the stories themselves. Particularily so, since the Ministry
> has given ITSELF a special exemption to cast the 'unforgivable' spells.
> Which leads to two logical possibilities:
>
> 1. The "unforgivable" spells are somehow inherently evil 100% of the
> time, regardless of the circumstances and intent under which they are
> cast. "Avada Kadavra" for instance, would be an 'evil' spell, even
> when used to painlessly kill a non-sentient animal which otherwise
> would die in agony from rabies. In which case, since the Ministry is
> using such 'evil' spells, the Ministry of Magic is inherently evil, and
> the 'good' wizards are being ruled by tyrants no better than Voldemort.
>
> 2. The "unforgivable" spells are NOT inherently evil in and of
> themselves. In which case, the Ministry of Magic had no right to
> unilaterally outlaw them, regardless of how they were used, and by
> doing so, and in particular by doing so AND making a special exception
> for special people such as themselves, they have proven themselves to
> be evil tyrants, no better than Voldemort.

Do remember that the caster really has to want the results for an
unforgiveable spell to work right. Bellatrix tells us this. I might have
doubted it but for the fact that harry couldn't get the pain spell to work.
So the AK only works if you want the person dead. This would mean that AK
never kills by accadent. unless it just hit the wrong target. witch is just
as bad as far as the mom is consired.
But each wand can stun rather then kill. So wanting to kill with one means
that you skipped just trying to stay safe.
As to the Minstery being evil. Part of it is. We saw the toad and what the
new minster is willing to do to people that are inocent just so the rest of
the wizarding world thinks they are doing something.
But as with all groups of people not all are evil or good. And most just do
there job and let others make thedecitions.

--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #265310 ] Mo, 15 Mai 2006 13:28
septithol  
Richard White wrote:
>A gun can be used to kill or wound with out damage to the mind. The
effects of useing the gun
> are only thing to worry about. The AK is diffrent. You have to really want to
> kill for it to work and that means the morals of the user has to be changed
> before the AK can be used. I think it is this moral change of theusers mind that the wizarding world
> does not tolerate.

The question which you are evading is whether or not a desire to kill
neccessarily equates with being 'evil'. Which I can think of any number
of circumstances where it would not be. Such as someone already dying
from an agonizing curse that can't be cured. Or killing an animal for
food. Or a murderous assailant who is so good at sheilding spells that
your recommended 'stunning spell' has no effect on them, leaving Avada
Kadavra as your only option for dealing with them. And I do not hold
that a strong desire to kill someone who attempted to kill you first
equates with being morally corrupt.

You also evade the likely results of using just a 'stunning spell' on a
wizard who is trying to kill you. Namely that they will connive or
bribe their way out of whatever charges are filed against them, and go
on to kill other innocent people. So the only winner from banning the
Avada Kadavra spell are those sort of murderers who don't care about
the law against it, and the losers are all the other innocent people in
the world.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #265422 ] Mi, 17 Mai 2006 03:19
scenario_dave  
>
> Ah, this is a very mistaken philosophy which has been crammed down
> people's throats by those intent on tyrannizing them. As it was rightly
> pointed out in the Lord of the Rings movies, "those without swords can
> still die upon them."

Then why didn't the Fellowship of the Ring listen to Borimir and use
the Ring to destroy Sauron. Because the Ring was evil and it corrupts
anyone who uses it.

JKR set up the three unforgivable curses. II wouldn't be surprised that
these curses are inherently evil. Anyone who uses them is likely to be
corrupted. Its her universe, she can set it up any way she wants to.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #267644 ] Mi, 17 Mai 2006 12:16
Aselloth  
Think again - Harry is far from being a brilliant wizard, he just has
lots of curage, common sense and quite some luck. LV will be killed in
a way no-one can predict, I am sure. And it will not be simply with a
well performed curse, otherwise Hermione will have to do it. When
Dumbledore was fighting LV at the MoM, he wasn't exactly enjoying it -
Fawkes actually had to burn to save him. It's not really probable that
in a duel Harry would perform better than Dumbledore, is it? No matter
how much training he would get. Oh, and Dumbledore isn't trying to kill
LV, I'm sure that's enough to show the path JKR will follow in the last
book.
There are some things I'm sure will play a major role in it:
- the already mentioned Wormtail's debt (although I hope not in a very
straight forward fashion, that would be just too similar to Wormtongue
killing Saruman)
- Fawkes (possibly as Harry's new pet)
- Harry's friends (probably the whole lot, in one way or the other)
- Aberforth Dumbledore
- LV inability to understand love
- the fact that LV used Harry's blood for his resurrection (though I'm
not sure in what way, but I'm certain that JKR will come out with some
old magic)
What do you think?
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #270060 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 00:24
richard e white  
septithol wrote:

> Richard White wrote:
> >A gun can be used to kill or wound with out damage to the mind. The
> effects of useing the gun
> > are only thing to worry about. The AK is diffrent. You have to really want to
> > kill for it to work and that means the morals of the user has to be changed
> > before the AK can be used. I think it is this moral change of theusers mind that the wizarding world
> > does not tolerate.
>
> The question which you are evading is whether or not a desire to kill
> neccessarily equates with being 'evil'. Which I can think of any number
> of circumstances where it would not be. Such as someone already dying
> from an agonizing curse that can't be cured. Or killing an animal for
> food. Or a murderous assailant who is so good at sheilding spells that
> your recommended 'stunning spell' has no effect on them,

That is not my pick. We have seen spells that need better shields to stop. We have seen that there are
spells that can kill that arn't as forbiden as the AK. I think you might want to think about why they
arn't forbiden but the AK is.


> leaving Avada
> Kadavra as your only option for dealing with them.

No it isn't the only option. DD proved that. I am not saying that you shouldn't kill I am saying that
the way that spell seams to work is evil. Harry nearly killed Draco with a dark art spell that snape
made. That was not an evil act. It was recluses and stupid.
There are spells that can be used to fight and win that arn't forbiden.

>

> And I do not hold
> that a strong desire to kill someone who attempted to kill you first
> equates with being morally corrupt.

Your trying to say that one spell or none when you have other options. I belive in killing when there is
no option. I also belive in the beath penalty. Not because it may stop others who hear about it. I don't
think that works. I belive in useing the death penalty when you want to make sure that person won't ever
kill again. Putting them in prison only liments who they can kill. Though I also belive in only useing
the death penalty when you have dna evadence to back the belife you have the right person.

>
> You also evade the likely results of using just a 'stunning spell' on a
> wizard who is trying to kill you. Namely that they will connive or

> bribe their way out of whatever charges are filed against them, and go
> on to kill other innocent people.

And what is stopping you from useing a leathal spell that isn't forbiden?


> So the only winner from banning the
> Avada Kadavra spell are those sort of murderers who don't care about
> the law against it, and the losers are all the other innocent people in
> the world.

That depends on how you think the spell works. If you really have to want to kill and have to back that
will with emotions that are not found in a person just wanting to live or a person that is just pist off
about being attacked. But if you really have to crave the death of the other to get AK to work then I can
understand why it is forbidden.

--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #270087 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 10:05
Toon  
On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:24:18 -0700, richard e white <chiphead [at] cox.net>
wrote:

>
>That is not my pick. We have seen spells that need better shields to stop. We have seen that there are
>spells that can kill that arn't as forbiden as the AK. I think you might want to think about why they
>arn't forbiden but the AK is.

AK is a guaranteed death. The others aren't. Crucio causes massive
pain, and can kill, drive you insane if prolonged. Imperius does the
most unthinkable. It takes away a person's free will.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #270196 ] So, 28 Mai 2006 03:43
richard e white  
Toon wrote:

> On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:24:18 -0700, richard e white <chiphead [at] cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >That is not my pick. We have seen spells that need better shields to stop. We have seen that there are
> >spells that can kill that arn't as forbiden as the AK. I think you might want to think about why they
> >arn't forbiden but the AK is.
>
> AK is a guaranteed death. The others aren't. Crucio causes massive
> pain, and can kill, drive you insane if prolonged. Imperius does the
> most unthinkable. It takes away a person's free will.

If you think AK is a guaranteed kill you need to reread books 4, 5, and 6
In all of these books we see that the spell doesn't guaranteed death. We see it dodged and blocked.
It just doesn't have a spell that can defend against it. And even that is a maybe with Harry liveing through
it.
We have seen other spells that aren't stopped by the shield charm. And look at the coment about the twins
shield hats and things. They only stop mid to low level spells. There are spells that it can't be stop by
the shield spell that woun't land you in jail for the rest of your life. My self I would look in to the
other spells that the shield charm woun't stop.
The best defencive spell is the one to move things like tomb stones and stachues as they seam to be able to
stop nearly every spell that can be thrown.
But until I know more about the emotions needed to cast the AK spell it would be a bad pick. And as you are
firmly on the other side of this I don't see the rest of this going anywhere. For the diffrence is how
dangerous we think the AK is to use.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #270218 ] So, 28 Mai 2006 09:53
Toon  
On Sat, 27 May 2006 18:43:03 -0700, richard e white <chiphead [at] cox.net>
wrote:

>If you think AK is a guaranteed kill you need to reread books 4, 5, and 6
>In all of these books we see that the spell doesn't guaranteed death. We see it dodged and blocked.
>It just doesn't have a spell that can defend against it. And even that is a maybe with Harry liveing through
>it.

it's guaranteed when it hits you. That's why nobody can figure out
Harry Potter. He got hit, yet survived. That's not supposed to
happen. and everybody as interested in how he survived. Even Diary
Tom wanted to see for himself the boy who Lived (and beat him). He
only later learned that it wasn't Harry's doing.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #270223 ] So, 28 Mai 2006 13:25
DM  
richard e white wrote:
> Toon wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:24:18 -0700, richard e white <chiphead [at] cox.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That is not my pick. We have seen spells that need better shields to stop. We have seen that there are
>>>spells that can kill that arn't as forbiden as the AK. I think you might want to think about why they
>>>arn't forbiden but the AK is.
>>
>>AK is a guaranteed death. The others aren't. Crucio causes massive
>>pain, and can kill, drive you insane if prolonged. Imperius does the
>>most unthinkable. It takes away a person's free will.
>
>
> If you think AK is a guaranteed kill you need to reread books 4, 5, and 6
> In all of these books we see that the spell doesn't guaranteed death. We see it dodged and blocked.
> It just doesn't have a spell that can defend against it. And even that is a maybe with Harry liveing through
> it.
> We have seen other spells that aren't stopped by the shield charm. And look at the coment about the twins
> shield hats and things. They only stop mid to low level spells. There are spells that it can't be stop by
> the shield spell that woun't land you in jail for the rest of your life. My self I would look in to the
> other spells that the shield charm woun't stop.
> The best defencive spell is the one to move things like tomb stones and stachues as they seam to be able to
> stop nearly every spell that can be thrown.
> But until I know more about the emotions needed to cast the AK spell it would be a bad pick. And as you are
> firmly on the other side of this I don't see the rest of this going anywhere. For the diffrence is how
> dangerous we think the AK is to use.
>

Richard, what do you think of the purple spell Dolohov kept casting
during the battle in the Department of Mysteries? The same spell that
took Hermione out of the action. This spell really stands out for me.

First of all, because it introduced us to incantation-free magic. Many
argued against that when I first pointed that out. But it clearly states
the Death Eater cast this spell with a slashing movement of his wand
*after* Hermione struck him dumb.

Second, it did quite a bit of damage to Hermione when it only "passed
across her chest". She was out for the rest of the battle, and even had
to stay in the hospital.

Third, Harry felt it's energy even as he blocked it. The force knocked
Harry from his feet, but "the Shield Charm had stopped the worst of the
spell".

Personally, I think this is a spell to watch, and maybe one for Harry to
learn.

--
DM
---

,_,
(O,O)
( )
-"-"-

dm1498 (at) gmail.com
---
"RUN, SCABBERS, RUN!" - Jenny Lestrange
"I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
- Lord Voldemort

HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+HBP+++FF= QA
CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++
HP/Gi-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
---
Anti-Hacking Protection provided by Saint Isidore of Seville
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #270235 ] So, 28 Mai 2006 18:46
richard e white  
Toon wrote:

> On Sat, 27 May 2006 18:43:03 -0700, richard e white <chiphead [at] cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >If you think AK is a guaranteed kill you need to reread books 4, 5, and 6
> >In all of these books we see that the spell doesn't guaranteed death. We see it dodged and blocked.
> >It just doesn't have a spell that can defend against it. And even that is a maybe with Harry liveing through
> >it.
>
> it's guaranteed when it hits you. That's why nobody can figure out
> Harry Potter. He got hit, yet survived. That's not supposed to
> happen. and everybody as interested in how he survived. Even Diary
> Tom wanted to see for himself the boy who Lived (and beat him). He
> only later learned that it wasn't Harry's doing.

And that means that it isn't a garentyed kill. Only a good chance. After all saying that it kills when it hits
is like saying that the stunning spell always stuns when it hits.
Granted that there is no spell shielding to directly stop the AK. but it is far from a garenty kill.
We don't know all the attack spells yet either. and until we do the guessing will go on.
I will say that harry not looking into the attack spells used by DD at the end of book 5 is the bigest problem I
have with book 6
Harry should have looked into them to see if they would help him later. But he never looked them up or asked
about them. Hard to belive considering his posistion.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
Re: Offence against the dark arts. [message #270239 ] So, 28 Mai 2006 19:08
richard e white  
DM wrote:

> richard e white wrote:
> > Toon wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:24:18 -0700, richard e white <chiphead [at] cox.net>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>That is not my pick. We have seen spells that need better shields to stop. We have seen that there are
> >>>spells that can kill that arn't as forbiden as the AK. I think you might want to think about why they
> >>>arn't forbiden but the AK is.
> >>
> >>AK is a guaranteed death. The others aren't. Crucio causes massive
> >>pain, and can kill, drive you insane if prolonged. Imperius does the
> >>most unthinkable. It takes away a person's free will.
> >
> >
> > If you think AK is a guaranteed kill you need to reread books 4, 5, and 6
> > In all of these books we see that the spell doesn't guaranteed death. We see it dodged and blocked.
> > It just doesn't have a spell that can defend against it. And even that is a maybe with Harry liveing through
> > it.
> > We have seen other spells that aren't stopped by the shield charm. And look at the coment about the twins
> > shield hats and things. They only stop mid to low level spells. There are spells that it can't be stop by
> > the shield spell that woun't land you in jail for the rest of your life. My self I would look in to the
> > other spells that the shield charm woun't stop.
> > The best defencive spell is the one to move things like tomb stones and stachues as they seam to be able to
> > stop nearly every spell that can be thrown.
> > But until I know more about the emotions needed to cast the AK spell it would be a bad pick. And as you are
> > firmly on the other side of this I don't see the rest of this going anywhere. For the diffrence is how
> > dangerous we think the AK is to use.
> >
>
> Richard, what do you think of the purple spell Dolohov kept casting
> during the battle in the Department of Mysteries? The same spell that
> took Hermione out of the action. This spell really stands out for me.
>
> First of all, because it introduced us to incantation-free magic. Many
> argued against that when I first pointed that out. But it clearly states
> the Death Eater cast this spell with a slashing movement of his wand
> *after* Hermione struck him dumb.
>
> Second, it did quite a bit of damage to Hermione when it only "passed
> across her chest". She was out for the rest of the battle, and even had
> to stay in the hospital.
>
> Third, Harry felt it's energy even as he blocked it. The force knocked
> Harry from his feet, but "the Shield Charm had stopped the worst of the
> spell".
>
> Personally, I think this is a spell to watch, and maybe one for Harry to
> learn.
>
> --
> DM
> ---
>
> ,_,
> (O,O)
> ( )
> -"-"-
>
> dm1498 (at) gmail.com
> ---
> "RUN, SCABBERS, RUN!" - Jenny Lestrange
> "I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
> - Lord Voldemort
>
> HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+HBP+++FF= QA
> CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++
> HP/Gi-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
> ---
> Anti-Hacking Protection provided by Saint Isidore of Seville

It was a spell that I would have looked into. Though the book does say that HG stopping the caster from talking
helped her survive it. But the spell looks like a good one to know. We don't know it's full damage but even the
lower powerd one that hit HG took her out until she was seen to by a healer. And with Harry knowing that it still
knocks people down when they have a shield in place makes it even more intresting. If I was harry That is one of
three I would have looked up before I was sent home from hogwarts in book 5 But then I know that when a loved one
dies I tend to find something to do so I don't have to think about it. Harry seames to be the stand around looking
stund sort of person so far.
But I would have been looking up the silver lightning spell after DD used it in the headmasters office. The purple
one you mentioned. ( and find out if it works on things as well. Oh and what it does if you hit some one in the
legs with it. I don't mean by useing it on some one or thing. I mean looking the spells up)
And the last spell I know I would have looked into was the anti apperation jinx.
Weather I could use it or not it would have let me know how long it would take others to do it to me. oH and even
though V used it I would have looked into that shield spell he stopped DD's silver lightning spell. I would want
to know why V used that spell. But then I would have been looking for new spells ever sence I knew about V. Even
if harry only went for defence he would have been much better at defending him self.
Heck at the right point I would even use that spell of snapes. Though I would have tried it out to see what it did
first. If I couldn't find a book that told me what it did. But then I am rather more nosey then harry.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
Vorheriges Thema:A Thought About the twins
Nächstes Thema:Why just very complicated, why not impossible?
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 05:31:26 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,10810 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered