Harry Potter

   

Ginny and harry as a couple??!!! (Page 10)

Post Reply New Post

Page 10 of 10

Page 1 Page 9
Page   of 10

ShadowKisses

IF-Dazzler

ShadowKisses

Winner of KSBKBT Debate Champtionship 2

Joined: 26 June 2006

Posts: 4628

Posted: 27 May 2009 at 5:38pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Tani91

^really great argument
 
but one thing I'd like to say...your argument about Gryffindors not getting penalized for their so called "arrogant" behavior.. JKR's writing is SUBJECTIVE towards the good people/characters in the book (aka Gryffindors) so obviously she will not create situtions in which Gryfindors are penalized...in a real world yes their actions would deserve severe punishments(esp Harry's use of Sectumsempra on Malfoy) BUT you must remember that HP was first wirrten as a children's book in mind..and one thing that is always relevant in a children's book is that good triumphs over evil...so unconsciously the readers dont penalize Ginny or Lee or Harry's actions simply because they represent the good side...and always take thir(meaning Ginny calling Fleur "phlegm" and running into Smith and Jordan's random commentary) as hysterical and not demoralizing.
 
and anywas this is a work of FANTASY FICIOTN written for children(well initially)....and JKR created it wonderfully so lets not spoil it by cover analyzing it and degrading the caracters because millions of HP fans love them the way they are!
 
just my two cents...no offence intended
The fact that it is a children's book does not nullify that her "good" characters in much the same manner as her "evil" characters. Speaking from a Kantian perspective, her "evil" characters are at least moral in the way that they are penalized for their actions unlike her apparent "good" characters. That HP is a children's book is even more the reason to worry. Some children look up to Harry as a role model and to see him act in much the same way as a Malfoy (who symbolizes all that is evil) - even worse in some conditions - is to be setting a despicable example for kids. What kind of message is JKR sending? So long as you are kids of the society-approved "good" people, all your actions are socially sanctioned? Or is it that if you kiss the behinds of the "good" people - who basically are a bunch of hypocrites (DH-last scene) - you'll get far in life? Also, the point you brought up regarding children's fiction -- you're kidding right? Alice in Wonderland, Chronicles of Narnia, and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz etc are all children's literature and I'd like you to try and find a moral inconsistency in those - If Dorothy was as horrible as the witch, Baum definitely wouldn't have shown the triumph over the Wicked Witch. Merely because the series are children's fiction doesn't mean anything. Children's book or not, YA book or not, Adult book or not, moral inconsistencies are just that - moral inconsistencies. That JKR shows them in her books - and how poorly they are handled illustrates that perhaps even she doesn't realize they are there, which, IMO, is a tad pathetic given that her earlier novels were quite tightly written.
 
I'm sorry if you feel that I'm somehow "spoiling" it for you and "millions of HP fans" by analyzing the characters and the books. Degrading the characters? Well, JKR did that pretty well all by her onesy in HBP and DH. I couldn't possibly be further spoiling it  by simply pointing out the character degeneration that does exist, could I?

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

ProdigalStudent

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Ginny and harry as a couple??!!! (Page 10)" in Harry Potter forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 45369

Posted: 27 May 2009 at 8:01pm | IP Logged
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.
 
The Sorcerer's Stone is a perfect place to start....
 
Harry and Hermione break curfew by trying to shift Norbert away from Hogwarts. Malfoy also breaks curfew to tattle-tale on Harry and Hermone. Not only them three, but Neville also gets caught. All four receive rather dangerous detentions. Were not Harry and Hermione punished for breaking curfew along with Malfoy? Where's the "unfair" treatment there?
 
During Christmas, Harry and Ron help Hagrid take a Christmas tree into the Castle. Malfoy sees them there and provokes them. Harry and Ron take out their wands along with Malfoy. Neither of the three says any spells but Snape conveniently happens to come at that time and takes points off of Gryffindor, not Slytherin when clearly Malfoy was just as guilty as Harry and Ron. Now, who was treated more unfairly? Gryffindor or Slytherin?
 
I can go on and on, but the point is that there are many times where Slytherin was favored and an equal amount of times when Gryffindor was favored. You're correct that often, the Gryffindors go with no punishment for things that deserved punishment, but so were the Slytherins: many times. Order of the Phoenix especially is full of Slytherin favoritisms.
 
And in Rowling's world, a simple point defines whether one is "good" or "evil". You believe in Voldemort and follow him, you're evil. That's it. If you're against Voldemort's principles (you don't have to be on Harry's side or Dumbledore's), you're good.
 
And I'm sorry, but there is no way in this day and age that good can triumph over evil by simple honestly and fair game. That's something that was hard even in the Treta Yuga (Hinduism term). If the other side plays bad, then so do you. It sounds terrible, but it's the truth. You claim that the "good side" using the same curses and hexes that the bad side uses makes them just as bad. That's wrong. The bad side uses them on innocent people to spread their leader's intent and purpose. The good side's duty is to stop that in any way, shape or form. If they have to be just as gruesome and unfair, then so be it. It's "tit for tat".
 
The Kurukshetra War is itself a good example of fairness vs. unfairness. The Pandavas would not have won had they not cheated, but they had to cheat because righteousness had to be established. Bhagwan Krishna told them that to use unfair means to kill unrighteous beings is not sinful, because Adharmis can only be killed by unfair means. In the beginning of the battle, the Pandavas proclaimed (with Shri Krishna's approval) that if the Kauravas faught according to Dharma, they too would fight fairly, but if Adharma was used even in one instance, the Pandavas would not hesitate to resort to the same ways.
    Fighting must begin no earlier than sunrise and end exactly at sunset. Multiple warriors may not attack a single warrior. Two warriors may "duel", or engage in prolonged personal combat, only if they carry the same weapons and they are on the same mount (no mount, a horse, an elephant, or a chariot). No warrior may kill or injure a warrior who has surrendered. One who surrenders becomes a prisoner of war and will then be subject to the protections of a prisoner of war. No warrior may kill or injure an unarmed warrior. No warrior may kill or injure an unconscious warrior. No warrior may kill or injure a person or animal not taking part in the war. No warrior may kill or injure a warrior whose back is turned away. No warrior may attack a woman. No warrior may strike an animal not considered a direct threat. The rules specific to each weapon must be followed. For example, it is prohibited to strike below the waist in mace warfare.
  • Warriors may not engage in any "unfair" warfare.
The Kauravas broke the rules first, so then Krishna gave the Pandavs permission to also fight unfairly. 
 
Deathly Hallows was JK Rowling's best book (at least in my opinion) because she showed that evil cannot be rooted out by honesty and sacrifice alone. One had to kill the sinner with the sinner's own method. So no, the Order of the Phoenix or Dumbledore's Army fighting unfairly with the Death Eaters did not anger me, nor did it make me think Rowling developed her characters terribly. The Death Eaters got what they deserved. It was their Karma, and they suffered the fruits of their bad actions. Period.
 
I actually feel that from Goblet of Fire onwards, the HP series was geared more towards young adult and adults rather than kids, because there's a lot of intense stuff in there. I loved how each character was developed in the series, because it showed that living in the age of war, Harry, Ron, and Hermione along with the others would not be innocent "never doing any wrong" children as the years progressed. The war toughtened them, and made them do things they would never do if not for Voldemort, but in the end they vanquished the evil and spread peace in society. Yes, they did unfair things, and for you it is unacceptable, but for me, it was necessary.
 
As for your belief that the Gryffindors never were punished and the "poor Slytherins" were always on the receiving end, I'm afraid you'll have to re-read the series starting from Book 1, and read impartially. I can say no more than that.
 
As for Ginny, you have given your opinions and I have given mine. We shall have to come to a standstill on this one.
 
And you mentioned in your previous post that you don't like Ron because of his "selfishness" in the later books. You also pointed out that Hermione insecurity was others being smarter than her. Well, Ron's insecurity was being overshadowed by Harry. He was one of the truest friends in the series, becuase no matter how many times he fought with Harry or Hermione, he always came back. He realized his mistakes, that he was acting illogically, and he always apologized. Growing up with older brothers, all of whom had a special trait, he had a lot to be compared with. No matter what he did, it wouldn't be good enough because one of his brothers already did it. So it's natural that he'd feel insecure about being Harry's friend, but the best thing about him is that he became a stronger person because of it. Yes, he did leave in DH, but like I said, he came back, and that alone shows his personality.  

ShadowKisses

IF-Dazzler

ShadowKisses

Winner of KSBKBT Debate Champtionship 2

Joined: 26 June 2006

Posts: 4628

Posted: 27 May 2009 at 11:12pm | IP Logged

Originally posted by _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.

Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

The Sorcerer's Stone is a perfect place to start....

Okay so let's start from the beginning then, shall we?

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?

Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

Harry and Hermione break curfew by trying to shift Norbert away from Hogwarts. Malfoy also breaks curfew to tattle-tale on Harry and Hermone. Not only them three, but Neville also gets caught. All four receive rather dangerous detentions. Were not Harry and Hermione punished for breaking curfew along with Malfoy? Where's the "unfair" treatment there?
 
The difference, you ask? Harry, Hermione, Ron and Neville are later praised and given accolades for breaking about 50 different school rules. Dumbledore awards points for "bravery" yet do you ever see him awarding points for a thirst for knowledge, loyalty or ambition? NO. Unfair - hell yes! The Slytherins worked hard to get those points as did Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs. For Dumbledore to insult them at the end ceremony by snatching the house cup from the Slytherins and placing it in the palms of Gryffindors for basically breaking numerous rules? If that doesn't reek of favouritism... The points were awarded for outlandish traits such as outstanding chess skills, "pure nerve", "cool logic" and standing up to friends -- That scene SCREAMED that Gryffindors did everyting right -- can't Ravenclaws play outstanding chess? don't they show amazing logic in times of need? I imagine the Slytherins being the ostraracized groups stand up to peers every day. Simply because DD isn't there to observe them doesn't mean that they shouldn't be awarded points as well. Plus, this wasn't the competition of how well students represented their own house -- if it was, Draco would be taking the trophy for being most ambitious. Valuing one trait above rest - how is that not unfair?
 
Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

During Christmas, Harry and Ron help Hagrid take a Christmas tree into the Castle. Malfoy sees them there and provokes them. Harry and Ron take out their wands along with Malfoy. Neither of the three says any spells but Snape conveniently happens to come at that time and takes points off of Gryffindor, not Slytherin when clearly Malfoy was just as guilty as Harry and Ron. Now, who was treated more unfairly? Gryffindor or Slytherin?

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).

Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

I can go on and on, but the point is that there are many times where Slytherin was favored and an equal amount of times when Gryffindor was favored. You're correct that often, the Gryffindors go with no punishment for things that deserved punishment, but so were the Slytherins: many times. Order of the Phoenix especially is full of Slytherin favoritisms.

Please do so. Because I find the examples provided lacking in conviction.
 
On the issue of Slytherins being let off for their actions - I must point out that Dolores Umbridge, who was supporting this favouritism was often called a "toad" - and the tone when describing her was very critical. Her behaviour was NOT accepted; it was supposed to be "evil". 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. When Dumbledore favours the Gryffindors (SS/PS last scene) or when McGonagall does (OOTP), 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.

Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

And in Rowling's world, a simple point defines whether one is "good" or "evil". You believe in Voldemort and follow him, you're evil. That's it. If you're against Voldemort's principles (you don't have to be on Harry's side or Dumbledore's), you're good.

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].

Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

And I'm sorry, but there is no way in this day and age that good can triumph over evil by simple honestly and fair game. That's something that was hard even in the Treta Yuga (Hinduism term). If the other side plays bad, then so do you. It sounds terrible, but it's the truth. You claim that the "good side" using the same curses and hexes that the bad side uses makes them just as bad. That's wrong. The bad side uses them on innocent people to spread their leader's intent and purpose. The good side's duty is to stop that in any way, shape or form. If they have to be just as gruesome and unfair, then so be it. It's "tit for tat".

Point in fact: this isn't "this day [or] age" - It's a fantasy world which violates its own rules. Crouch-as-Moody in GOF claims that  not only do the UCs cause unimaginable agony to the victim but they also damage the castor's magic. Readers were assured by Moody that these curses carry a life sentence. For JKR to set this rule and then to violate it is a moral inconsistency and shows a preferential treatment of the Gryffindors - rather than the Slytherins who do suffer consequences -- I've listed numerous examples in my last post regarding this.
 
This "side uses the unforgivable curses ... to spread their leader's intent and purpose" - Thank you for pointing out the description of what Dumbledore's people did in order to further DD's purpose. Really, I could not have given a better description myself.

Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

The Kurukshetra War is itself a good example of fairness vs. unfairness. The Pandavas would not have won had they not cheated, but they had to cheat because righteousness had to be established. Bhagwan Krishna told them that to use unfair means to kill unrighteous beings is not sinful, because Adharmis can only be killed by unfair means. In the beginning of the battle, the Pandavas proclaimed (with Shri Krishna's approval) that if the Kauravas faught according to Dharma, they too would fight fairly, but if Adharma was used even in one instance, the Pandavas would not hesitate to resort to the same ways. [snip]The Kauravas broke the rules first, so then Krishna gave the Pandavs permission to also fight unfairly.

Here you are functioning on the basis that Religion is right - when it merely provides a perspective and expects the believers to follow it. If you honestly think that the Pandavas were better people for stooping to the level of the Kauravas, then really, I've got nothing to say. 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. 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; that's equivalent of cheating and thus, morally wrong) because your opponents are fighting unfairly - you may win the battle but morally? There isn't any difference between you and your adversary.
 
I once read this quote where the person stated that the best way to win a battle was to make sure that even if you lost, your enemies had to become so much like you to win than in essence, you won anyway. This is exactly what happened in DH. Even though LV lost, Harry's world is so full of prejudice, so full of bigotry and elitism that really, LV or Harry - makes zero difference in essence (Less people will be killed but the wizarding world is still full of racism, prejudice, regarding muggles as inferior by means of magic etc). Harry has fallen to the level of LV - by demonstrating cool passivity towards an injured child, following orders rather than using his brain, and entertaining casual cruelty (HBP - when Harry first learns of the curse "Sectemsempra", which was listed with the note "for enemies", he was "itching to try it out". This is ironically juxtaposed with the scene two chapters later where DD assures Harry that he is pure, good boy. Contradictory, much?)
 
 
Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

Deathly Hallows was JK Rowling's best book (at least in my opinion) because she showed that evil cannot be rooted out by honesty and sacrifice alone. One had to kill the sinner with the sinner's own method. So no, the Order of the Phoenix or Dumbledore's Army fighting unfairly with the Death Eaters did not anger me, nor did it make me think Rowling developed her characters terribly. The Death Eaters got what they deserved. It was their Karma, and they suffered the fruits of their bad actions. Period.
 
HONESTY? ROFLMAO. Because Harry is SO damned HONEST in his quest for the Horcruxes (ref. scene at Gringotts); Because Dumbledore was so HONEST with Harry about everything. And this "sacrifice" you talk of - it wasn't done out of love or the desire to protect anyone - Harry did not die to save anyone. He died to KILL someone. That isn't sacrifice; that's vengeance. And for it to be paralleled with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ  is not only degrading him but also quite presumptive of JKR (and by extension, the readers who believe what she wrote regarding that). Christ SUFFERED an extremely gruesome death, being abandoned by everyone for three days after which he returned victorious and promoted people to spread the message of faith, love and hope. On the other hand, Harry had a group of cheerleaders advocating the dogma of suicideDeadDead- 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?
 
If both parties play unfairly, there is hardly any difference. Consider the holocaust situation. Germans put Jews in concentration camps. The Americans and Canadians did the same with the Japanese. Both of these situations were harshly condemned and all these countries (Germany, America and Canada had to pay reparations). The way they treated both people (even though Germany was way more ... violent in its approach) was reprimanded (Canada issued a public apology along with monetary ; America did the same whereas Germany had to suffer through the requirements of the Treaty which was quite shameful by Hitler's standards). These three countries were on different sides of the war - Germany being the Axis power (who lost) and the two other countries being the Allies (who won). Both the Allies and the Axis powers had to pay monetary reparations along with public acknowledgement of what they did - which wasn't the case in the previous Treaty of Versaille, the treaty that would eventually lead to WWII. The basic moral of this real and factual anecdote? If Karma only occurs to one half of the population (Treaty of Versaille had extremely harsh conditions for Germany while trying to soothe the socio-economic enviornmnet of France and Britain) , that one side will revolt and with good reason (Hitler's primary reason for going to war was the humiliation the Treaty of Versaille brought). Am I justifying what happened in WWII? Absolutely not, however, I can certainly understand WHY it happened. Paralleling this with HP - even though Harry (Canada/America) won, the fact that they acted in much the same way as the losing side (Germans - concentration camps based on racial segregation) doesn't make them any better (in WWII, as evinced by the similar consequences they had to face).
 
And what of the Karma of the so-called "GOOD" people? Why do they defy the laws of nature? Acta non verba - actions not words. They acted in the same manner as the 'bad' guys - they really shouldn't be treated any better. Yes the won the war, on a technicalityTongue, 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.
 
Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

I actually feel that from Goblet of Fire onwards, the HP series was geared more towards young adult and adults rather than kids, because there's a lot of intense stuff in there. I loved how each character was developed in the series, because it showed that living in the age of war, Harry, Ron, and Hermione along with the others would not be innocent "never doing any wrong" children as the years progressed. The war toughtened them, and made them do things they would never do if not for Voldemort, but in the end they vanquished the evil and spread peace in society. Yes, they did unfair things, and for you it is unacceptable, but for me, it was necessary.
 
"Vanquished evil and spread peace" - Oh PLEASE! You really think that the wizarding society is at peace (psychologically, emotionally) with Harry at the realm? That it is somehow less corrupted? (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." 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.
 
Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

As for your belief that the Gryffindors never were punished and the "poor Slytherins" were always on the receiving end, I'm afraid you'll have to re-read the series starting from Book 1, and read impartially. I can say no more than that.
 
Thanks for the advice, but I could have asked you to do the same thing - "read impartially". I'll thank you to stay out of my reading habits - my interpretations are objective if you try to look at it from an objective point of view. I find it quite incredulous of you to tell me what to do - explicitly pointing out that my interpretation "incorrect" when I've backed it up with more references from the book[s] than you have. That in and of itself is quite an arrogant perspective you're taking, and not with much evidence to back it up either. I would argue that "the Gryffindors never were punished and the "poor Slytherins" were always on the receiving end" (NB - I've never said the Slytherins were ""poor" Slytherins" or someone to be pitied but yes, they were treated unfairly ESPECIALLY Snape) is not a belief but a logical conclusion drawn from the happenings of the book. I'm done here; have fun forcing your opinions and offering your advice on/to someone else ;)
 
Cheers,
ShadowKisses.


Edited by ShadowKisses - 28 May 2009 at 1:02am

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 45369

Posted: 28 May 2009 at 9:29am | IP Logged
Originally posted by ShadowKisses

[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.Big smile 

Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

The Sorcerer's Stone is a perfect place to start....

Okay so let's start from the beginning then, shall we?

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?Confused 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.Ouch How can you blame Harry for the preferential treatment? I honestly don't understand this.Confused 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.

Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

Harry and Hermione break curfew by trying to shift Norbert away from Hogwarts. Malfoy also breaks curfew to tattle-tale on Harry and Hermone. Not only them three, but Neville also gets caught. All four receive rather dangerous detentions. Were not Harry and Hermione punished for breaking curfew along with Malfoy? Where's the "unfair" treatment there?
 
The difference, you ask? Harry, Hermione, Ron and Neville are later praised and given accolades for breaking about 50 different school rules. They were not praised for breaking school rules, but because they saved the Sorcerer's Stone. Honestly, had Voldemort gotten the stone, he'd have become IMMORTAL. That means that he would never die. Of course the trio would receive points for stopping him, and not only the trio but anyone else who would have had a hand in stopping Voldemort. If Draco had accompanied the trop to stop Voldemort, yes, he too would have received points for bravery. Dumbledore awards points for "bravery" yet do you ever see him awarding points for a thirst for knowledge, loyalty or ambition? NO. Unfair - hell yes! The Slytherins worked hard to get those points as did Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs. And the Trio worked hard to stop the Sorcerer's Stone as well. For Dumbledore to insult them at the end ceremony by snatching the house cup from the Slytherins and placing it in the palms of Gryffindors for basically breaking numerous rules? Exactly why I tell you to reread the series. He did not award them points for breaking rules, but because they stopped Quirrel from getting the stone. If that doesn't reek of favouritism... It doesn't dear. The points were awarded for outlandish traits such as outstanding chess skills , "pure nerve", "cool logic" and standing up to friends You would not be saying this if it was Malfoy who had helped Harry and Hermione across the chess, or Luna if she had helped with the potions. It was NOT house favoritism. Harry, Ron, and Hermione all exhibited outstanding skill for someone their age, and it wasn't only because of that skill. That skill stopped Quirrel from getting the stone. -- That scene SCREAMED that Gryffindors did everyting right -- can't Ravenclaws play outstanding chess? Alright, did any Ravenclaw accompany the trio? Did any Hufflepuff? Any Slytherin? It was not because of "chess skill" but because that skill STOPPED Quirrel. Samjhe? don't they show amazing logic in times of need? I imagine the Slytherins being the ostraracized groups stand up to peers every day. Simply because DD isn't there to observe them doesn't mean that they shouldn't be awarded points as well. Plus, this wasn't the competition of how well students represented their own house -- if it was, Draco would be taking the trophy for being most ambitious. Valuing one trait above rest - how is that not unfair? Once again, Dumbledore wasn't valuing one trait over the other. He was awarding points to the trio for using their skill to stop evil. For facing evil at the age of 11 without backing out. Not because they were Gryffindor or not. House did not even come into this. Like I said, if it was Ernie MacMillan, Luna Lovegood, or Draco Malfoy who had done these things, Dumbledore still would have awarded the same amount of points because what they did deserved points, far more than answering questions in class or getting something right.   
 
Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

During Christmas, Harry and Ron help Hagrid take a Christmas tree into the Castle. Malfoy sees them there and provokes them. Harry and Ron take out their wands along with Malfoy. Neither of the three says any spells but Snape conveniently happens to come at that time and takes points off of Gryffindor, not Slytherin when clearly Malfoy was just as guilty as Harry and Ron. Now, who was treated more unfairly? Gryffindor or Slytherin?

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?ConfusedLOL 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 toWink). 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.

I will post the rest of my answers later. 


Edited by _LalithaJanaki_ - 28 May 2009 at 9:30am

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 45369

Posted: 28 May 2009 at 11:12am | IP Logged
Originally posted by ShadowKisses

Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

[quote=_LalithaJanaki_] I can go on and on, but the point is that there are many times where Slytherin was favored and an equal amount of times when Gryffindor was favored. You're correct that often, the Gryffindors go with no punishment for things that deserved punishment, but so were the Slytherins: many times. Order of the Phoenix especially is full of Slytherin favoritisms.

Please do so. Because I find the examples provided lacking in conviction. And I find your replies to them lacking conviction as well.
 
On the issue of Slytherins being let off for their actions - I must point out that Dolores Umbridge, who was supporting this favouritism was often called a "toad" - and the tone when describing her was very critical. Her behaviour was NOT accepted; it was supposed to be "evil" How can you NOT call her evil?Shocked 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.Dead 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.Smile 

Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

And in Rowling's world, a simple point defines whether one is "good" or "evil". You believe in Voldemort and follow him, you're evil. That's it. If you're against Voldemort's principles (you don't have to be on Harry's side or Dumbledore's), you're good.

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.

Oh, and there's proof that all of Slytherin House (or most of it at least) did join Voldemort.
Pg. 641
 
"If you son is dead, Lucius, it is not my fault. He did not come and join me, like the rest of the Slytherins. Perhaps he has decided to befriend Harry Potter?"
 
Voldemort said "the rest of Slytherin House" so I'd take it that anybody 5th year and over in Slytherin joined Voldemort.  
 
Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

And I'm sorry, but there is no way in this day and age that good can triumph over evil by simple honestly and fair game. That's something that was hard even in the Treta Yuga (Hinduism term). If the other side plays bad, then so do you. It sounds terrible, but it's the truth. You claim that the "good side" using the same curses and hexes that the bad side uses makes them just as bad. That's wrong. The bad side uses them on innocent people to spread their leader's intent and purpose. The good side's duty is to stop that in any way, shape or form. If they have to be just as gruesome and unfair, then so be it. It's "tit for tat".
Point in fact: this isn't "this day [or] age" - It's a fantasy world which violates its own rules. It's a realistic fantasy world, as JKR wrote about today's society very clearly in her book. Crouch-as-Moody in GOF claims that  not only do the UCs cause unimaginable agony to the victim but they also damage the castor's magic. Readers were assured by Moody that these curses carry a life sentence. "Moody" was a death-eater in disguise, and most of what he taught the class most likely came from Voldemort. Therefore, I do not give them much importance. For JKR to set this rule and then to violate it is a moral inconsistency and shows a preferential treatment of the Gryffindors - rather than the Slytherins who do suffer consequences You're using this in terms of Gryffindors vs. Slytherins. I'm talking Death Eaters vs. Order Members. First of all, why are the Death Eaters seen as evil? Because they torture innocent people. The Order Members/Dumbledore's Army do not torture innocent people. I've already posted my opinions on "what goes around comes around", so I won't go into that. By the end of the HP series, it is no longer school rivalry that is prominent, but whether or not one was a follower of Voldemort.  -- I've listed numerous examples in my last post regarding this.
 
This "side uses the unforgivable curses ... to spread their leader's intent and purpose" - Thank you for pointing out the description of what Dumbledore's people did in order to further DD's purpose. Really, I could not have given a better description myself. Dumbledore's intent and purpose was not to torture people. Voldemort's was. Dumbledore's purpose was to spread peace in society. Sometimes, to spread peace in society requires bloodshed if one is dealing with an enemy like Hitler or Voldemort. And the good side hardly used the unforgiveables as much as the bad side did. To say that the good side should use peaceful means only to fight with the bad side is foolishness, because it's something that's not going to happen, and never will. And to basically say that Dumbledore's side was evil....wow. 

Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

The Kurukshetra War is itself a good example of fairness vs. unfairness. The Pandavas would not have won had they not cheated, but they had to cheat because righteousness had to be established. Bhagwan Krishna told them that to use unfair means to kill unrighteous beings is not sinful, because Adharmis can only be killed by unfair means. In the beginning of the battle, the Pandavas proclaimed (with Shri Krishna's approval) that if the Kauravas faught according to Dharma, they too would fight fairly, but if Adharma was used even in one instance, the Pandavas would not hesitate to resort to the same ways. [snip]The Kauravas broke the rules first, so then Krishna gave the Pandavs permission to also fight unfairly.

Here you are functioning on the basis that Religion is right - when it merely provides a perspective and expects the believers to follow it. If you honestly think that the Pandavas were better people for stooping to the level of the Kauravas, then really, I've got nothing to say. I've also got nothing to say if you think that the side in which Bhagwan Krishna himself supported is immoral.Shocked 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.
 
I once read this quote where the person stated that the best way to win a battle was to make sure that even if you lost, your enemies had to become so much like you to win than in essence, you won anyway. This is exactly what happened in DH. Even though LV lost, Harry's world is so full of prejudice, so full of bigotry and elitism that really, LV or Harry - makes zero difference in essence (Less people will be killed but the wizarding world is still full of racism, prejudice, regarding muggles as inferior by means of magic etc). Harry has fallen to the level of LV - by demonstrating cool passivity towards an injured child, following orders rather than using his brain, and entertaining casual cruelty (HBP - when Harry first learns of the curse "Sectemsempra", which was listed with the note "for enemies", he was "itching to try it out". This is ironically juxtaposed with the scene two chapters later where DD assures Harry that he is pure, good boy. Contradictory, much?)
 
 
Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

Deathly Hallows was JK Rowling's best book (at least in my opinion) because she showed that evil cannot be rooted out by honesty and sacrifice alone. One had to kill the sinner with the sinner's own method. So no, the Order of the Phoenix or Dumbledore's Army fighting unfairly with the Death Eaters did not anger me, nor did it make me think Rowling developed her characters terribly. The Death Eaters got what they deserved. It was their Karma, and they suffered the fruits of their bad actions. Period.
 
HONESTY? ROFLMAO. Because Harry is SO damned HONEST in his quest for the Horcruxes (ref. scene at Gringotts); Because Dumbledore was so HONEST with Harry about everything. And this "sacrifice" you talk of - it wasn't done out of love or the desire to protect anyone - Harry did not die to save anyone. He died to KILL someone. That isn't sacrifice; that's vengeance. And for it to be paralleled with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ  is not only degrading him but also quite presumptive of JKR (and by extension, the readers who believe what she wrote regarding that). Christ SUFFERED an extremely gruesome death, being abandoned by everyone for three days after which he returned victorious and promoted people to spread the message of faith, love and hope. On the other hand, Harry had a group of cheerleaders advocating the dogma of suicideDeadDead- 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?
 
If both parties play unfairly, there is hardly any difference. Consider the holocaust situation. Germans put Jews in concentration camps. The Americans and Canadians did the same with the Japanese. Both of these situations were harshly condemned and all these countries (Germany, America and Canada had to pay reparations). The way they treated both people (even though Germany was way more ... violent in its approach) was reprimanded (Canada issued a public apology along with monetary ; America did the same whereas Germany had to suffer through the requirements of the Treaty which was quite shameful by Hitler's standards). These three countries were on different sides of the war - Germany being the Axis power (who lost) and the two other countries being the Allies (who won). Both the Allies and the Axis powers had to pay monetary reparations along with public acknowledgement of what they did - which wasn't the case in the previous Treaty of Versaille, the treaty that would eventually lead to WWII. The basic moral of this real and factual anecdote? If Karma only occurs to one half of the population (Treaty of Versaille had extremely harsh conditions for Germany while trying to soothe the socio-economic enviornmnet of France and Britain) , that one side will revolt and with good reason (Hitler's primary reason for going to war was the humiliation the Treaty of Versaille brought). Am I justifying what happened in WWII? Absolutely not, however, I can certainly understand WHY it happened. Paralleling this with HP - even though Harry (Canada/America) won, the fact that they acted in much the same way as the losing side (Germans - concentration camps based on racial segregation) doesn't make them any better (in WWII, as evinced by the similar consequences they had to face).
 
And what of the Karma of the so-called "GOOD" people? Why do they defy the laws of nature? Acta non verba - actions not words. They acted in the same manner as the 'bad' guys - they really shouldn't be treated any better. The Good people's intent is to spread righteousness. Yes the won the war, on a technicalityTongue, 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?Ouch Harry was his Karma biting him back on the butt. 
 
Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

I actually feel that from Goblet of Fire onwards, the HP series was geared more towards young adult and adults rather than kids, because there's a lot of intense stuff in there. I loved how each character was developed in the series, because it showed that living in the age of war, Harry, Ron, and Hermione along with the others would not be innocent "never doing any wrong" children as the years progressed. The war toughtened them, and made them do things they would never do if not for Voldemort, but in the end they vanquished the evil and spread peace in society. Yes, they did unfair things, and for you it is unacceptable, but for me, it was necessary.
 
"Vanquished evil and spread peace" - Oh PLEASE! You really think that the wizarding society is at peace (psychologically, emotionally) with Harry at the realm? Yes, I do.Smile That it is somehow less corrupted? YeaSmile (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.
 
And you keep commenting how Lily was a "bad mother" because she let Harry go into the forest. Come on! She was a ghost for heaven's sake! And at that point in the story, stopping Harry was not what he needed, but her love and support. Alright, you think Narcissa is a better mother than Lily and Molly. That's perfectly fine as it's your own opinoin. Next thing, you'll be saying that Pansy's mother is better than Molly.LOL
 
Originally posted by _LalithaJanaki_

As for your belief that the Gryffindors never were punished and the "poor Slytherins" were always on the receiving end, I'm afraid you'll have to re-read the series starting from Book 1, and read impartially. I can say no more than that.
 
Thanks for the advice, but I could have asked you to do the same thing - "read impartially". I'll thank you to stay out of my reading habits - my interpretations are objective if you try to look at it from an objective point of view. I'm sorry, but they're not objective. I find it quite incredulous of you to tell me what to do - explicitly pointing out that my interpretation "incorrect" when I've backed it up with more references from the book[s] than you have. That in and of itself is quite an arrogant perspective you're taking, and not with much evidence to back it up either. I would argue that "the Gryffindors never were punished and the "poor Slytherins" were always on the receiving end" Actually, that is what you have been arguing.(NB - I've never said the Slytherins were ""poor" Slytherins" or someone to be pitied but yes, they were treated unfairly ESPECIALLY Snape) is not a belief but a logical conclusion drawn from the happenings of the book. So now you're claiming that your belief is fact?Shocked 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.Wink
 
Cheers,
ShadowKisses.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

ElusiveDevotion

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
HARRY-GINNY fanfic IS THIS LOVE?

2 3 4 5 6

Adwaita 43 5315 14 June 2009 at 6:47am
By Adwaita
Luna Lovegood or Ginny Weasley?

2 3 4

cityoflights 31 3102 25 January 2009 at 10:32am
By Ahlaam5
fav.HP couple/would like see as a couple pricey28 8 907 01 August 2007 at 1:40am
By AY_candy_luver
GINNY/HARRY OR LUNA/HARRY

2

sumbulmashluvs 14 3117 10 July 2006 at 10:49am
By jayanti_dj
Harry Hermione OR Harry Ginny?

2

Shining_Star 10 4537 27 July 2005 at 7:57pm
By Charmed1

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Harry Potter Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.