Harry Potter (Contains Spoilers)

[HardcoreHorn]

[quote]indra wrote:

3 - I think HP will kill LV but will then become bad himself and kill a few people before being stopped himself by ron, snape and hermione.[/quote]

What led you to this idea?

[lucasa]

[quote]nephorm wrote:

Murder is generally accepted to be malicious. A policeman who shoots someone intending to do harm to others did not murder the perpetrator. He killed him, but he didn’t murder him.
[/quote]

This is what I meant about getting into wizarding law. I’m not up on British law or wizarding law, but, in the States, murder is generally accepted to be the unlawful killing of one person by another. An officer who shoots a suspect must be able to justify his shooting otherwise, it could be murder. A robber who accidentally kills someone in the course of a robbery murdered them, whether he meant to or not. A soldier on the field of battle with every intent to kill enemy soldiers isn’t murdering them.

Dumbledore had an important job to do, he couldn’t be bothered with their petty politics. I don’t think that allegiance to politics is an ethical obligation.

I agree that allegiance to politics isn’t an ethical obligation. My assertion is that ‘try and stop me’ is a much different phrase than ‘If try and stop me and I’ll hurt you’ the latter being much less attributable to a truly virtuous character. Seriously, It surprised me when Dumbledore threatened a former student who hadn’t really done anything wron.

Fair enough. Poor example. How about this: I go to the library to look up nuclear weapons. I don’t plan on building any, I don’t plan on working on any, I’m just naturally curious. Or even better: I went to school to study physics, and I learned a ton about nuclear energy. And I happen to be clever enough to use this knowledge to create a nuclear bomb, were I so inclined. Or I am a locksmith, and know how to pick locks for legitimate purposes. It just so happens that I could also use this skill to break into a house if I had to. See why I take issue with your argument? I actually find it a rather scary argument, if we were to generalize it into the real world.

Assuming you read my full post and understand the nature of my arguments, my method is generally accepted. Don’t confuse suspicion with conviction. The police and FBI can make you a suspect and question you on a whim. It’s not until they have proof that they can arrest and more securely detain you. After the anthrax attacks, the FBI went through a list of labs that had access/capability to produce the requisite anthrax. My understanding is that they “talked to” everyone on that list, whether they even worked with anthrax or not.

But that doesn’t mean that he’d want to break off a piece of his soul.

My impression was that Dumbledore would do whatever I takes to cause/ensure LV’s defeat even if it meant generating a horcrux, especially if he already had a “murder” in his pocket.

[lucasa]

[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
lucasa wrote:
ToShinDo, six days? Were you reading aloud to minors or mental patients? ;p

Hahaha It took six days total for both my wife and I to read it. If she hadn’t had to work double shifts, it would have gone by faster. It was hard not to read it!
[/quote]

You win, my wife’s been too busy to even read it.

[nephorm]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
This is what I meant about getting into wizarding law.
[/quote]

I think that the root of our disagreement is this: I do not believe that the standards for “murder” under wizarding law necessarily correspond with the magical standards. You seem to think there is at least some correlation there. We could make arguments either way, but I suppose we won’t know for certain for at least two more years.

As to your legal arguments, I’d add that in the US we have a distinction between “manslaughter” and “murder.”

If a drunk driver kills someone, it is indeed unlawful, but we do not say that he had “malice aforethought,” so it’s generally a manslaughter, not a murder, charge. Anyway, I suppose we’d again have to appeal to JKR’s judgement on that. We could make the argument that any time one person kills another person, whether intentionally or unintentionally, some bit of the soul fractures, or whatever you want to call it. Or we could argue that only specific kinds of killing, engendered by a particular sickness of the soul, might allow horcruxes to be formed. Since this is not science, and JKR makes up the rules as she goes, who knows.

Assuming you read my full post and understand the nature of my arguments, my method is generally accepted. Don’t confuse suspicion with conviction.

Paraphrasing your first post on this topic: a truly good wizard would not know, or want to know, how to break out of Azkaban. Later on you posted about Dirty Harry, implying that Dumbledore is generally good, but “stained” in some important way.

My argument is twofold:
1)That there are morally unambiguous explorations of knowledge that can still equip one with the tools necessary to do things that might, in general, be seen as “bad” and

2. that understanding and knowing how to do an evil or bad thing is not equivalent with doing a bad thing, and that actively researching how to do evil is not morally wrong if the intent to do harm is not present.

You seem to view the knowledge of how to break out of Azkaban as a special class of knowledge, unrelated to any other spells or abilities Dumbledore may have aquired in his studies. You also seem to view this knowledge as being morally questionable. So I’m arguing with you on both points separately.

My impression was that Dumbledore would do whatever I takes to cause/ensure LV’s defeat even if it meant generating a horcrux, especially if he already had a “murder” in his pocket.

You may be right… we’ll have to wait and see.

[lucasa]

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Since this is not science, and JKR makes up the rules as she goes, who knows.
[/quote]

This is more directly what I was trying to say. Since there is no conflicting evidence to the assertion I’ve made about murder (e.g. someone saying Dumbledore has never killed anyone), and the wizarding laws could be/are completely arbitrary, murder isn’t completely out of the question for Dumbledore.

My argument is twofold:
1)That there are morally unambiguous explorations of knowledge that can still equip one with the tools necessary to do things that might, in general, be seen as “bad” and

And by default, those with the tools are more suspect than those without, no matter how they came about those tools.

2. that understanding and knowing how to do an evil or bad thing is not equivalent with doing a bad thing, and that actively researching how to do evil is not morally wrong if the intent to do harm is not present.

My point exactly, the fact that he knows how to make a horcrux (knowledge), knows how to break out of Azkaban, and threatens aurors (intention of harm even if for the greater good), shows me that he is a character aligned with good, but not so tightly as to become ineffetual (not that being good is innately ineffectual, but you get my point).

You seem to view the knowledge of how to break out of Azkaban as a special class of knowledge, unrelated to any other spells or abilities Dumbledore may have aquired in his studies. You also seem to view this knowledge as being morally questionable. So I’m arguing with you on both points separately.

No, I’m viewing the invokation of the knowledge as indicative of a pattern of behavior. Much the same way Dumbledore knows and asserts the use of his abilities to break out of Azkaban if properly motivated, he knows and could effect a horcrux if properly motivated.

Conviction:
Can I say “Yes, he created a horcrux.”? No.

Can I say “There is no way he created a horcrux.”? No, no one can based on the current evidence.

Okay then, is he suspect?

Suspicion:

Can I say “Dumbledore has the means, motive, and opportunity to create a horcrux”? Yes. Additionally, he domenstrates an M.O. in line with the assertion that he created a horcrux in order to defeat LV.

FYI-

Suspicion-n.-
1.The act of suspecting something, especially something wrong, on little evidence or without proof.
2.The condition of being suspected, especially of wrongdoing.
3.A state of uncertainty; doubt. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
4.A minute amount or slight indication; a trace.

Suspect-n.-
One who is suspected, especially of having committed a crime.

Suspect-v.-
To think (a person) guilty without proof: The police suspect her of murder.

[nephorm]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Suspect-v.-
To think (a person) guilty without proof: The police suspect her of murder.
[/quote]

Must we really quote the dictionary on a thread devoted to Harry Potter? Lol.

Anyway, time will tell. We each have our views of Dumbledore, and one never knows.

[indra]

[quote]LocoComoUnZorro wrote:
indra wrote:

3 - I think HP will kill LV but will then become bad himself and kill a few people before being stopped himself by ron, snape and hermione.

What led you to this idea?
[/quote]

In order of phonix we notice harry is struggling to control his temper and in this book and the sixth book he has tried to use the crucio curse.
For a hero his hatred of snape seems very dark and may lead him down the path of evil.
Alos in the 6th book dumbledore’s chat with him about love being the only difference between him and LV got me to think this may be significant.