New User? Register Now
ShadowKisses
IF-Dazzler
Winner of KSBKBT Debate Champtionship 2
Joined: 26 June 2006
Posts: 4628
The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:
ProdigalStudent,
JanakiRaghunath
IF-Stunnerz
Joined: 20 August 2008
Posts: 36181
ShadowKisses
IF-Dazzler
Winner of KSBKBT Debate Champtionship 2
Joined: 26 June 2006
Posts: 4628
I apologize if you think otherwise, but it seems to me that you are very biased against the Gryffindors. You claim that's because the Gryffindors never get punished while the Slytherins always do. That's totally incorrect. From the very beginning of Sorcerer's Stone, it's the Gryffindors who get punished while the Slytherins are overlooked.
And I'll thank you to explain your perspective/interpretation to me.
Harry meets Draco at Madam Malkins and instantly dislikes him because Malfoy thinks himself as the centre of the world, wishing to be on the school Quidditch team with a fine broom (I'm unsure if this was Nimbus 2000 or w.e). Malfoy also regards himself as better than muggles. What happens throughout the course of the first book? Harry becomes the penultimate. The whole book and the whole series are geared towards showing how special Harry is in the Wizarding world - how he literally IS the centre of this world (The Hero, The Chosen One, The Boy Who Lived, the Jesus Christ figure) and how inferior the muggle race is. He then gets to be the youngest seeker on the Gryffindor Quidditch team (one of Malfoy's aspirations, albeit in another house) and gets an expensive broom. Preferential treatment, much?
AND Snape is constantly condemned for his behaviour. When he does take off points from Gryffindor, we are told AND shown that he is the "git" and "idiot". The condemnation of Snape illustrates that his behviour was unacceptable and wrong. Yet, when Dumbledore adds points to the Gryffindor house for breaking about 50 different school rules - that is completely acceptable because hey, the Slytherins are terrible kids with terrible parents who advocate elitism and believe in prejudice. Ironically, Hermione, who is the target of pureblood elitism, is not above showing elitism herself either. (Ref: Scene where she disparages Firenze and divination).
Disagreed. Zacharias Smith is not against or for Voldemort yet he is treated as "evil" because he does not align himself with Harry and subsequently, Dumbledore. Some of Slytherin house MAY not have been in allegiance with Voldemort (the muggle-borns, the half-bloods etc) yet they are ALL treated as the enemy because they don't support Harry. This is primarily evident in Deathly Hallows where McGonagall throws out all the Slytherins on the basis of Pansy who, while not in allegiance with Voldemort [not explicitly, anyways], was not with Harry and hence, was kicked out along with the rest of her housemates - [start sarcasm] which was the most wonderful example of inter-house unity, wasn't it? [ /end sarcasm].
- one of the teenyboppers being his own mother, who died to save him, only to cheer him to go to his own suicide 16 years later - after which he spent sometime being convinced that compassion should not be bestowed to everyone (scene with the injured baby), after which he returned to life, defeated Voldemort (although this shouldn't even count since LV did it himself), and celebrated this occasion by promoting bigotry and unnecessarily hexing muggles for no reason other than the fact that his brother-in-law was being a lazy arse and couldn't be bothered to do anything but cheat. Ironically enough, that seems to be a recurring motif in HBP and DH - wonderful message to be teaching kids, yes?
, no less, but that doesn't make them any better than the other side of the spectrum because their methods of combat were just as terrible - especially Harry's COC with the UC. He was invisible hence, at more of an advantage than Amycus.
JanakiRaghunath
IF-Stunnerz
Joined: 20 August 2008
Posts: 36181
[quote=_LalithaJanaki_] ShadowKisses,
I apologize if you think otherwise, but it seems to me that you are very biased against the Gryffindors. You claim that's because the Gryffindors never get punished while the Slytherins always do. That's totally incorrect. From the very beginning of Sorcerer's Stone, it's the Gryffindors who get punished while the Slytherins are overlooked.
And I'll thank you to explain your perspective/interpretation to me. I did.
Harry meets Draco at Madam Malkins and instantly dislikes him because Malfoy thinks himself as the centre of the world, wishing to be on the school Quidditch team with a fine broom (I'm unsure if this was Nimbus 2000 or w.e). Malfoy also regards himself as better than muggles. What happens throughout the course of the first book? Harry becomes the penultimate. The whole book and the whole series are geared towards showing how special Harry is in the Wizarding world - how he literally IS the centre of this world (The Hero, The Chosen One, The Boy Who Lived, the Jesus Christ figure) and how inferior the muggle race is. How is the muggle race shown as 'inferior' in Sorcerer's Stone?
Harry himself tells Ron on the train ride to Hogwarts that not all muggles are like the Dursleys. And did Harry ever ask to be the "center of attention'? He became famous for something he doesn't even remember, and at the cost of his parents' lives. Because of his parents' deaths, he suffered neglect, dislike, and mental abuse from the Dursleys for 10 years. He himself expresses dislike for his fame throughout not only the 1st book, but the entire series. He tells Ron in the 4th book that had he a choice between his parents' lives and fame, he'd choose his parents' lives anyday. He NEVER wanted his fame, while Malfoy wanted to be famous.
How can you blame Harry for the preferential treatment? I honestly don't understand this. He then gets to be the youngest seeker on the Gryffindor Quidditch team (one of Malfoy's aspirations, albeit in another house) and gets an expensive broom. Preferential treatment, much? The Gryffindor Quidditch Team was in need of a seeker while the Slytherin Team was not. Would it have been fair if Terence was kicked off the Slytherin team to accomodate Malfoy just so Malfoy would get what he wants? And what are you complaining about? Malfoy got what he wanted in his 2nd year, and not by his own skill, but because his father bought the whole team Nimbus 2001s. Malfoy did not have the skill to be a seeker, and it is proven by his lack of catching the snitch when playing against Harry. To be chosen, one has to have the skill, not just because "he wanted it". If Malfoy was not rich, Flint would never have chosen him as seeker in the 2nd book.
AND Snape is constantly condemned for his behaviour. When he does take off points from Gryffindor, we are told AND shown that he is the "git" and "idiot". The condemnation of Snape illustrates that his behviour was unacceptable and wrong. You yourself have said in a previous HP debate that the series was written in more or less Harry's POV. Harry is a student of Hogwarts, a typical teenager. How many teenagers praise their teachers if they're "unfair" to them? That doesn't mean the author is showing Snape as a "git". We as readers should be able to discern whether or not a character is a "git" not only by the main character's POV but other characters as well. Dumbledore himself tells Harry on countless occasions to call Snape "Professor Snape" and not Snape. Dumbledore always gave Snape the respect he deserved, and so did the other teachers until the end of HBP (for understandable reasons). Hermione herself respected Snape on countless occasions. Is she not another main character? Why can't her opinion, or Dumbledore's be valued? And Snape was never made out to be a git. That was only most of the students (and not only Gryffindors) who thought that. He's one of the many heros of HP, and the way in which Dumbledore refuses to acknowledge Harry's belief that Snape is a death eater later on in the series conveys that there is more to Snape's character than being just a "git" or "idiot". I never felt or thought for a moment that JKR was making Snape out to be a git. That was only 3/4 of the student body's view, and since when are kids' opinions taken to be facts? Yet, when Dumbledore adds points to the Gryffindor house for breaking about 50 different school rules It's not because they're breaking school rules. Please refer back to my above post. - that is completely acceptable because hey, the Slytherins are terrible kids with terrible parents who advocate elitism and believe in prejudice. Hey now, did JKR ever write that?
My dear, now you are the one drawing suppositions. Ironically, Hermione, who is the target of pureblood elitism, is not above showing elitism herself either. (Ref: Scene where she disparages Firenze and divination). Hermione never valued Divination, not because whether Trelawney or Firenze taught it, but because she felt it to be a waste of time (kind of like what I feel about taking foreign language subjects when I don't want to
). Divination seems to be a bit similar to Horoscopes, and in another debate, you yourself expressed disbelief for them, so I don't get what the problem is.
JanakiRaghunath
IF-Stunnerz
Joined: 20 August 2008
Posts: 36181
She was not "evil" because she showed favoritism to the Slytherins, but because she used blood quills on her students. I'm sorry if you think differently, but I find that really sickening. What she did is equivalent to a muggle teacher slicing her students' hands as punishment for speaking out in class. What Harry did deserved writing lines on normal paper or cleaning out her office without magic or something along those lines, not to have her hand sliced. But Oh, I forgot. Since you really don't care for the character of Harry, why would you find that evil? She was ready to use all barbaric techniques as punishment and the only person to stop her was Dumbledore. . Hence the favouritism was condemned unlike in the situation of the Gryffindors where it ISN'T condemned by anyone - not the author, not students of other houses, nor Slytherins. Because what Dumbledore did was not wrong. He awarded points where points were deserved. But of course, since they're Gryffindors, they shouldn't get points even when they deserve them. When Dumbledore favours the Gryffindors (SS/PS last scene) or when McGonagall does (OOTP) What scene with McGonagall are you talking about?, the tone is one of satisfaction, as though it is meant to be this way and people should regard this as a vindication of good over evil. That's your interpretation dear, not ours.
Disagreed. Zacharias Smith is not against or for Voldemort yet he is treated as "evil" because he does not align himself with Harry and subsequently, Dumbledore. Zacharias Smith was hardly ever seen as "evil". Do you even know the meaning of evil? Smith was only seen as an annoying character, and once again, because the book is in Harry's POV. Some of Slytherin house MAY not have been in allegiance with Voldemort (the muggle-borns, the half-bloods etc) yet they are ALL treated as the enemy because they don't support Harry. This is primarily evident in Deathly Hallows where McGonagall throws out all the Slytherins on the basis of Pansy who, while not in allegiance with Voldemort [not explicitly, anyways], was not with Harry and hence, was kicked out along with the rest of her housemates - [start sarcasm] which was the most wonderful example of inter-house unity, wasn't it? [ /end sarcasm]. The Slytherins were not thrown out by McGonagall. McGonagall and the rest of the staff were evacuating the school of underage students and anybody else who did not want to fight. Unlike Voldemort, they weren't forcing people to fight if they did not want to. The kids would be taken to a safe point. McGonagall told Pansy to leave because it was clear from her words that she did not want to fight on behalf of Hogwarts. She did not mean leave as in "get out of our sight". Pansy and any of the rest of the Slytherins who did not want to fight on behalf of the Order were evacuated with the younger kids, not "thrown out". The same with any Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, or Hufflepuff as well. No one was thrown out, they were evacuated. There's a difference.
In the Bhagwad Gita it says, "Where there is Dharma, there is God and where there is God, there is victory." Dharma was on the Pandavas' side, so Shri Krishna was on their side. If the losing side manages to make the winning side stoop to their level, even though the winning side may have won, they have ultimately lost since there is little difference between the winning and the losing side. That's your belief. I strictly follow Hindu scriptures, because for me, Hinduism is not merely a religion but a way of life. Hindu scriptures say that evil must be repressed using its own tactics if peace does not work and if evil also uses immoral ways to fight. If they become exactly what they are fighting against, how are they any better? How are they not hypocrites if they are fighting in the exact same manner that they are saying should be condemned? If you are fighting unfairly (NB - I do think the Pandavas were wrong in having so much extra-help from Krishna Krishna is always on the side of Dharma, and the Pandavas were followers of Dharma, as simple as that; that's equivalent of cheating and thus, morally wrong To cheat to spread righteousness is not morally wrong) because your opponents are fighting unfairly - you may win the battle but morally? The point of a battle of Good vs. Evil is to spread righteousness. To spread righteousness is the goal. If there is no chance of a "fair fight", then one must use unfair means to win. There isn't any difference between you and your adversary. Your adversary is fighting to spread unrighteousness. You are fighting to spread righteousness. It's a big difference.- one of the teenyboppers being his own mother, who died to save him, only to cheer him to go to his own suicide 16 years later - after which he spent sometime being convinced that compassion should not be bestowed to everyone (scene with the injured baby), after which he returned to life, defeated Voldemort (although this shouldn't even count since LV did it himself), and celebrated this occasion by promoting bigotry and unnecessarily hexing muggles for no reason other than the fact that his brother-in-law was being a lazy arse and couldn't be bothered to do anything but cheat. Ironically enough, that seems to be a recurring motif in HBP and DH - wonderful message to be teaching kids, yes?, no less, but that doesn't make them any better than the other side of the spectrum because their methods of combat were just as terrible - especially Harry's COC with the UC. He was invisible hence, at more of an advantage than Amycus. Amycus deserved what he got, the evil git that he was. What right did he have to torture innocent children? Harry was his Karma biting him back on the butt. That it is somehow less corrupted? Yea (This so-called "hero" thinks it's okay to hex muggles simply because one of his bigoted friends [Ron] is too lazy to do anything other than cheat). That is quite naive. Harry has endless "not a hero" moments . Quoting on of my friends here - "Trying to Crucio Bellatrix. Using the mourning of a supposed friend to get Slughorn's memory. Intimidating Slughorn into giving him that memory after Hagrid passed out drunk. Attacking Snape with a fatal spell when he knew there were a thousand other spells that would be more likely to capture the man. Trying to kill Snape with Avada Kedavra. His inability to think or act. The scene where he crucio's Amycus. Harry isn't a hero, save in the eyes of his creator." Actually, he's a hero not only in the eyes of his creator, but the majority of HP heros hun, including me. And I'm sorry, but if my religious beliefs cannot be given importance, since you "don't agree with them", why is your friend's opinion any better or right? It's a shame that she doesn't realize it. If you think that passivity, lack of thought and casual cruelty are "necessary" heroic traits, good for you. I don't. Heroism does not include cruelty or lack of compassion (leaving the injured baby at the train station because DD asked him to - yea, some good hero Harry is.). "Passivity, lack of thought and casual cruelty" is an apt description of Lily, Dumbledore and the Maraurders -->I can't see how James was in any way "brave" or why he should be forgiven for his unnecessarily cruel attitude towards Snape when Draco is still ostracized for being a "bully" to Harry. One fact: James changed and grew up, even saving Snape from Remus in his 7th year (when did Draco ever save Harry? Harry saved his life twice in DH). Draco did not "grow up". He stayed the bully he was. It's the change that matters, not how a person was when he was a child. Both Draco and James were idiots when they were younger, yes, but James became a nobler person when he grew older, but Draco did not. One other thing: Snape was no innocent person when he was younger. He was obsessed with the Dark Arts before he even came to Hogwarts, and was not an "innocent" person. I'm sorry, but that's arrogant of you. Your belief is just that. A belief. And same for me. Neither of us is arguing to prove something, because we're both only arguing on our interpretations of the book. I'm done here; have fun forcing your opinions and offering your advice on/to someone else ;) Ditto.The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:
ElusiveDevotion,| Topics | Topic Starter | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HARRY-GINNY fanfic IS THIS LOVE? | Adwaita | 43 | 3771 | 14 June 2009 at 4:57am By Adwaita |
|
| Luna Lovegood or Ginny Weasley? | Mrs.MuffinSobti | 31 | 2533 | 25 January 2009 at 9:17am By Ahlaam5 |
|
| fav.HP couple/would like see as a couple | pricey28 | 8 | 718 | 01 August 2007 at 11:34am By AY_candy_luver |
|
| GINNY/HARRY OR LUNA/HARRY | sumbulmashluvs | 14 | 2204 | 10 July 2006 at 2:42am By jayanti_dj |
|
| Harry Hermione OR Harry Ginny? | Shining_Star | 10 | 3392 | 27 July 2005 at 9:20am By Charmed1 |
Be the part of India's biggest discussion portal.
It’s easy to Join and it’s free.
Register now while it’s free!
Already a member? Close this window and log in.
