![[icon]](http://www.journalfen.net/userpic/67365/9138) |
The HMS STFU - A new ridiculous essay by terri_testing
|
| (Anonymous) | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2009-11-10 04:25 pm (UTC) |
|
| They're STILL harping on about Harry using Cruciatus on Amycus Carrow. I really can't see how it makes Harry a terrible person for wanting to inflict pain on the guy who, oh I don't know, TORTURED HARRY'S SCHOOLFRIENDS all year? Amycus handed out Cruciatus the way Snape handed out detentions. I think they're demanding that Harry should display levels of goodness and mercy not possible for a human being.
~~ Fernmonkey | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| Did a Gryffindor murder her parents or something? Jesus...
And on the subject of love potions, I was always under the impression that while they weren't classified as dark, in a way they were. Merope's actions were still morally wrong even if not classified as Dark Magic. But then again, that was implied and not outright stated, so terri won't get it. | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| | Murder her parents? Oh no, Gryffindors did something much, much worse... they were mean to Snape! *dun dun dun* | | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| (Anonymous) | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2009-11-10 04:55 pm (UTC) |
|
| "Disarming an disorientated enemy? Imperius or Expelliarmus serve equally well, eh, Minerva?...It's more like the magical equivalent of knocking off her HANDS (at least for the time being.)"
So...um...stopping someone from stabbing you with a knife is a capital offence, right? If you happen to trap their hands in a door, you've infringed their basic human rights and should knock it off at once.
I vaguely see where she's coming from, but for me it doesn't quite follow as they still have magic, they just can't get it out quite as well. And doesn't NEWT DADA start to teach them how to use wandless magic?
I'm confused now. A think a lie down is in order.
Sin_Thunder. | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| | Yeah, there's a lot of crazy here -- but it also brings out the creepy-as-hell "torture is OK as long as you're torturing a bad person" types quite reliably, so I usually avoid these. | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| (Anonymous) | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2009-11-10 06:21 pm (UTC) |
|
| | I don't think that "torture is OK as long as you're torturing a bad person" but I think that it was reasonable for Harry to have lost his temper under the circumstances. | | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| (Anonymous) | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2009-11-10 09:53 pm (UTC) |
|
| Yeah. The cruciatus curse is an Unforgivable Curse for a reason. Just as bad people can do good things, good people can do bad things, and there is no excuse for Harry using cruciatus.
~ clio_1 | | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| (Anonymous) | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2009-11-10 05:45 pm (UTC) |
|
| Did anyone but me not notice that Harry's Cruciatus didn't even seem to work properly? Despite his statement "You really need to mean it" all it did was cause Amycus momentary pain and knock him out...which is not how that spell works. So either....a)Harry still can't do Cruciatus properly and therefore all arguments he's really a bad person are null and void- the spell was used like a blasting curse, not a torture curse- and he was just being appropriately dramatic.
or b) he did it for like, one second, and then cut it out really quickly, in which case shows he wasn't into doing it for a prolonged time like Voldy and his followers, and the only reason he used the spell was because the hatred he was feeling made that his impulse...so he used it more like a spell to Stun Carrow into submission
Either way, it's not like Harry was reveling in his dark power or anything, or that he did the curse properly at all, or really tortured Carrow-the fact that he chose to use the curse isn't squeaky clean, but we already crossed that moral event horizon in OotP.
-Nev | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| (Anonymous) | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2009-11-10 06:19 pm (UTC) |
|
| No, you're right. He wasn't able to sustain the curse. It was like slapping someone in the face as opposed to bending their fingers back - and he definitely wasn't getting his jollies from it.
~~ Fernmonkey | | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| "It seems to me that the wand is a way of effectively handicapping a wizard. We know that from a young age that they're able to do wandless magic and then when they turn eleven, they're given a glorified stick in which to use their magic even though they didn't need it before. This gives the Wizarding World a way to cripple a student by snapping their wand to deprive them of magic, since the student has now been brainwashed into believing this is how magic works. It's rather creepy when you think about it. You have generation after generation buying into the hoax that they need wands to do magic, when the magic has been within them the whole time. But that's Rowling for you. Completely missing the dark underbelly of her world that could have been expanded on for a simplistic morality gimmick where she makes very interesting villains characters bland in an attempt to go "Don't love them, they're villains! See? See?""
OMG It is a conspiracy! The man is trying to put us under the thumb!
hehe | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| Proof that these people completely ignore the canon and are only reading fanfic because IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO USE A WAND (though, to be fair, there may be alternative foci used outside the Western world) JKR WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT IT BY NOW.
...sorry.
The implication of snapping a student's wand is that he or she won't be able to complete their education and will spend their life being at best only a mostly-competent wizard. I also got the impression that someone who'd had their wand snapped wouldn't be able to take the OWLs or NEWTS, depending on when they were expelled. | | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| "Molly talks about brewing one in her younger years to Hermione and Ginny and it seems like something she considered all in good fun. (Makes one wonder what she did with it. Was that the reason she and Arthur had to elope? Bill's birthday suggests conception around Valentine's Day.)"
Wait, did she... am I reading this right? Did she seriously just accuse Molly Weasley of using a love potion to "trap" Arthur by getting pregnant?!!?! WHAT | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| (Anonymous) | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2009-11-11 12:12 am (UTC) |
|
| Well, now we know where Ginny learned her nefarious potion-wielding, man-snaring ways from. Like mother, like daughter, yo!
Claudia | | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| (Anonymous) | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2009-11-11 01:36 am (UTC) |
|
| I cannot for the life of me recall her ever mentioning that in the first place.
nighttrainfm | | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| | In utterly unrelated news, every time I see that icon I want to feed it cookies. I loves me some Earth King. | | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| The discussion about "why are Horcruxes bad?" must be happening between ROBOTS. It seems fairly obvious to me on an emotional level that killing someone in order to magically prolong your life is much worse than just killing someone.
I think Harry damaged his soul when he tortured Amycus Carrow. That Rowling didn't bother to think this out; that she implies that Unforgivables are perfectly fine when Gryffindors do them (and she does imply this!) doesn't make it so.
I can't properly respond to this right now, so just imagine me staring at this and blinking. (But then, I guess robots who can't see a difference between cold-blooded killing for gain and cold-blooded killing in general would have a difficult time with sliding scales of morality in wartime.) | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| Am I the only one who gets the impression McGonagall was being just the slightest bit sarcastic when she called Harry doing that "gallant"? Was it ever even implied that Unforgivables were fine if Gryffindors used them?
IT WAS A FRIGGING WAR. In war sometimes you HAVE to do morally ambiguous stuff! | | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| (Anonymous) | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2009-11-11 01:28 am (UTC) |
|
| I was skimming, the comments and I found this posted by oneandthetruth
"If Harry is Jesus, who dies for the good of others and comes back to life, that makes Severus John the Baptist, who prepares the way for the Savior and suffers a bloody, violent death for his pains. (Thanks to bohemianspirit for her "Jack and Dora" series in which "Snape Junior" points out Harry could never have succeeded if her father had not paved the way with his spying.) And just as John was decapitated, Severus is killed by having his neck ripped open."
I think these people are reading way too deeply into a children's book series.
~TheLadyAnne87 on LJ
| | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| | SERIOUSLY. Is it a fandom trope to compare anything to Jesus and the Bible so they can "win" an argument? | | (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| The thing that bugs me is how they keep bringing in this Four Elements crap into their meta. And of course, they HAVE to use it as a bludgeon with which to ram their points home about HA HA HA WE PROVED GRYFFINDORS JUST SUCK SO THERE.
It wouldn't be half so bad if they'd have just left it at the Earth, Air, Fire, Water thing. It's kind of like those alchemy folks that don't just say, "Ooh, cool. Alchemy." Oh no, they have to beat that horse to death repeatedly and insistently by teal deering over how the mention of alchemy in the books leads to personality traits which are alchemically ordained to mean One True Love exists only between their chosen characters.
Well, these Four Elements folks are doing the same damn thing. They're using it to try and keep proving that their woobie is really just woobielicious and not a very flawed man who should have been sent off to a Potions research lab somewhere with minimal human contact. *rolls eyes* | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| (Anonymous) | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2009-11-13 08:20 pm (UTC) |
|
| In regard to Harry's use of Unforgivables...
Harry had a piece of the most evil wizard around stuck inside of him. That sort of thing will mess with your behaviour.
- Europa | | (Reply to this) (Thread) |
|
The HMS STFU - A new ridiculous essay by terri_testing
|
|
![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}