What scene would you like to add to DH? Why?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Something Or The Other

@ShadowKisses

Dazzler

+ 3

Posted: 16 years ago

#31

Due to time constraints I can't reply to all the posts right now but I will get to them as soon as time allows ;)

That said, I will adress whatever I can right now:

The 19 year time gap: Maybe Harry did feel remorse. Maybe he didn't. Yes, there was a 19 year gap and what we may think happened is obviously going to be colored by what we *hoped* happened. That said, I do think a reflection was necessary before the 19 year gap. As someone who regards Harry using Crucio and Imperio, without being concerned that he was using one of the "Unforgivable Curse", as out of character - which is the reason I don't believe it was obvious or even implied that Harry would feel remorse because I don't think the Harry from the previous books would use the UCs [especially Crucio] where another simple curse would have yeilded the same result - I do think that Rowling needed to throw in a scene with lots of introspection for Harry. Excuse the major run-on sentence. I'd been waiting for someone to tell Harry off the Unforgivable curses since OotP. I was impressed he couldn't use it even when his godfather, who was arguably closer to Harry than McGonagall has been, was killed by Bellatrix. That's part of the reason why I find it so hard to believe that the Harry who cast the Crucio in DH is the same Harry who couldn't cast it in OotP. I would accept the Crucio as a lapse of judgment on Harry's part but the Imperio really sealed the deal. It was shocking when Harry used Imperius on the goblins and guards at Gringotts. His reaction was almost 'this ain't so bad' [will edit this after I find the specific page in DH]. Rowling doesn't comment on his use of the Unforgivables beyond that which given the good versus evil theme of the book is quite disappointing because the morals of the author aren't consistent.

[quote=shellytt]

As for his use of Cruico, in defending Prof. McGon., I think at that point he was driven by his outrage at the disrespect shown to her, added to that the adrenaline of the situation and his recently acquired knowledge of the tortures that the Carrows were inflicting on children! I am are not saying that it is excusable for him to stoop to the level of DE in using UC, however it is understandable, and personally given the situation, I don't think that I would have felt much regret myself in using the curse. Harry also used the curse as a means of defense (and don't we all agree that doing something evil as a means of defense is understandable.It may not have been self defense but it was still in defense). [/quote]

I disagree. Harry could have used a plethora of other curses that would have put McGonagall and others out of harm's way. The curses range from the Confounding charm, to the blinding curse. That he chose to use Crucio - the curse that causes the victim "intolerable pain" because the castor truly means to cause the aforementioned person pain - says something not-very-positive about him. . His use of Imperius - I can understand that even if I don't agree with it. His use of Cruciatus is not justifiable in anyway. That he faces no consequences is equally disappointing.

Edited by ShadowKisses - 16 years ago

Quote

Michelle

@shellytt

Navigator

Posted: 16 years ago

#32

@ Shadowkisses - Are we dicussing the use of the Imperious Curse when they broke into Gringots?

If that is the case, I think that the use of Imperio on the goblin was pre-mediated. Remember that Harry et al spent weeks preparing their breakin into Gringotts. They would have analysed every possible situation and have realised that the most effective way to get in would have been to use Imperio. So does this by extension mean that Ron and Hermoine also have a disregard for what is right and true? Does this mean that Ron and Hermoine could be cast into the basket of lacking a sense of morality because they approved of the use of the curse by Harry?

Could the use of these curses by Harry be considered a "necessary evil"? Remembr "Alls fair in love and war? What was more important to Harry at that time? The temporary use of an unforgivable spell or the matter of finding and destroying a Horcrux? Should Harry have been overly remorseful of doing something so reprehensible, if it meant that he could destroy a part of Voldermort's soul?

have alot more to say, but I have to run now, will try to edit this tomorrow.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Something Or The Other

@ShadowKisses

Dazzler

+ 3

Posted: 16 years ago

#33

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_
But for what reason did that guy abuse his wife? For pleasure (as in the case of Death Eaters) or to defend someone else (as in the case with Amycus and McGonagall)? Don't get me wrong. I am totally against someone abusing their wife, but your example does not fit into what we're talking about. I think a better example would be if someone came upon a dangerous criminal, and tortured them. [/quote]
I suppose you could say I delibrately left that part out because I wanted to observe the reaction. I realize that you think intentions are important; and I disagree. I firmly believe that intentions don't matter; actions do. The fact that they guy abuses his wife is what counts not the reasoning behind it.

Quote

catch22

@sentimentalfool

Dazzler

Posted: 16 years ago

#34

Wow guys, great discussion. HP Fans rock!
The things Amycus has done, are beyond any forgiving, or even guilt on Harry's part. Killing is terrible, yes, Amycus is a human being, yes but whatever he has done is WAY beyond all this. And the reason for Harry using an unforgivable curse is totally different from the reason the so called dark side used it( I am not saying I approve of it, just that the reasons were different). The reason for Death-Eaters using it was inherently selfish (they wanted to be in Voldemort's good books so he doesnt kill them and of course Voldemort did it for immortality. These were self-serving motives.) As for Harry, he was not a regular user of Dark Magic. From whatever we know of his character, it is not likely he would do that, so I would say that I was shocked when I read that. But, I agree with Lalitha that this action does not take away from what we know of him as a character through out the books.
However, I do believe the fact that, even after the entire great battle, there is still prejudice against Slytherins (the comment made by Ron in the epilogue kinda proves that...I know it was supposed to be a joke but still) does not sit well with me and I would have liked that, atleast, prejudice would be eliminated if "All was well". I would liked if they would have stopped sorting as well. (Or better yet make different houses and start all over so no student has to carry the burden of being in a "certain group".)
To the person who said that Twilight was the most BORING books ever (because of the exaggerated so called "perfection" of The Incredible Edward), I would like to say HELL YEAH! It was one of the worst books I have read in my life. I have never understood the fascination with Twilight (I am sorry, I don't mean to offend any Twilight fans, just my opinion😊)

Edited by redhotght - 16 years ago

Quote

Vidhoushee

@vid_hurry

Navigator

Posted: 16 years ago

#35

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses

That's part of the reason why I find it so hard to believe that the Harry who cast the Crucio in DH is the same Harry who couldn't cast it in OotP.

I would say that the Harry in DH is not the same Harry as in OotP. He changed. After OotP, he lost many people he loved, like Dumbledore. And he spent nearly a whole year wandering around, searching for horcruxes. This, in my opinion, somewhat hardened him. Also, DEs killed many people during this period. Moreover, Harry had just learned that his friends had been tortured by the Carrows. I think all of these made him use the Cruciatus curse on impulse, especially since he was angry. But I still believe that given time to think about this action later, he would have regreted it.

Edited by vid_hurry - 16 years ago

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 16 years ago

#36

@ShadowKisses,

Sorry I'm not quoting you, but the reply was becoming too long. I remember some of the points you made, and I'll reply to those. Sorry if I leave any out.

Lolz, it's good to know I'm polishing up your Hindu Mythology.😉😆 Yea, I'm mythology obsessed, and am a regulur membr in the Ramayan Forum.

One of the main points you made was that intentions do not matter, only actions. It's true that we must agree to disagree, because this is definitely one of those opinion based points. I continue to stand by my opinion that intentions mean everything. I'll use the example you used.

If someone killed another person despite their great love for them, it's obviously not for no reason. Was their family threatened? I mean, that still does not erase the gravity of the murder, but don't you feel that it's completey different from a random person killing someone for pleasure?

Everyone here agrees that Harry was not a saint, or a "perfect hero", but he is not as criminal like as the Death Eaters. He doesn't even come close.

I want to ask you something. What is your opinion about police then? Police sometimes have to torture criminals to get info about their ringleader or whatever, and they sometimes have to kill them as well. I'm sure the criminals had families who cared about them, like you said. But does that make police just as bad as criminals?

You're right. The Death Eaters also had families who cared for them, and were most probably affected a lot by their deaths, but the Light Side killed them because it was war. For what reason did the Dark Side kill people? The Dark Side tore apart families for no reason, or a very twisted reason. The Light side did so because they had no other choice. It was a war, and during a war, both sides have deaths and casualties. During a war, families will be torn apart.

You used a quote from Mahabharat, so I will also. In the beginning, when Arjun did not want to fight because there were those he cared for fighting on the other side, Shri Krishna told him to do his duty, and that killing the other side was his duty as a kshatriya, because they were Adharmis. Neither side in the Mahabharat were completely pure minded. Even the Pandavas' side used unfair means to kill the Kauravas, but Shri Krishna aided them, because he said that to kill sinners, sinful methods must sometimes be used, because those who immerse themselves in sin attract the same method of dying and torture that they put others through. That's what Karma is. It is not only actions that influence whether a person is an Adharmi or not, but also their intentions. If not, why were the Pandavas then the "Good Side"? By your reasoning, they would be just as bad as the Kauravas. If they were, Shri Krishna would not be on their side, because God is where the pure mind is. This is a quote from the Mahabharat.

"Where there is Dharma, there is God, and where there is God, there is victory."

Dharma is the intention to do good, but for that good to come about, one must sometimes do bad deeds, because where sinners are concerned, a pure soul cannot win unless he uses the same methods as them.

I'll add more later. My comp is being too slow now.

Quote

344471

Suspended

Posted: 16 years ago

#37

*shrugs*

Its amazing to see that so much discussion had happened in just a short amount of time. I mean yesterday it was up to page four and now so many replies had come up...due to my time problems, I am gonna reply to Anu's post here. If I get time (which I doubt, with my o'levels and stuffs getting around me) I would definitely reply to each and every single post out here.

@Anu: Sine I've responded to most of the things you said to Lalitha, I am gonna only quote the parts that were left unexplained (by me) or rather came out as complete new points here.

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
I disagree. For instance, if a totally perfect, the most honorable, noble 'good' guy abuses (sexually or otherwise) his wife for one night, would you be willing to overlook that single instance and say that the person is good?

Depends on to what extent that 'single' crime (from your example, the 'abuse') is. If a person commits an extremely heinous crime, that is greater, larger than all the good deeds he had committed in his life—let's say bombing a city, killing millions and billions of innocent people, children and women (unless of course the person was brainwashed…but since that is a different subject, let's not go into that)—then it logically follows that the person will be labeled as 'evil' (by the society; can't say about each individual) because of the of that very 'single deed', reason being, the consequences and magnitude of the 'bad deed' is far greater than the good deeds he committed [of course, taking the life of a millions of innocents is gonna remove away the few lives he did save before]. In short, I wasn't talking about the number of 'good' or 'bad' deed a person had committed, but rather the magnitude of that action. Surely, saving the life of a child from death (by risking your own self) is gonna drive away the crime of slapping one; surely, taking the life of a child is gonna remove away the act of adoring one.

@ Your example: Use my previous explanation. Raping someone (specially a woman or child) is the worst form of crime (at least in my eyes) the world has ever to see, so naturally it follows that anyone who rapes their wife should be considered as allegedly evil, because, as said above, that single hideous crime will take away all the good ones he did in his life. Though, I highly doubt the example (of the person) you used can really rape a woman; if a person is really "perfect, the most honorable, noble 'good' "then I don't see how he can turn himself into an animal (though, I would like to believe animals are far superior than rapists) overnight…unless of course, the person was being hypocrite and double-faced. However, if the person abuses his wife emotionally, psychologically or even physically, but doesn't rape her, then I am going to overlook the other instances in his life before labeling himself as 'good' or 'evil'. (Though, that is gonna be difficult, owing to the fact that the person had already achieved a high score in my list of evilness by abusing his wife).

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
Existence precedes essence: we are, therefore we act, and it is solely through our actions that we learn who we are. If we commit a morally repugnant act, then that act and the fact that we *chose* to act as such will be a major factor in defining who we are.

Yeah (on the bolded part), but what about our past? Or do they not count? Isn't it being hypocritical to think that our 'present' moment is what all counts, and if, on the present moment we do a particular act (be it good or evil) we will be crowned by the public for it, while forgetting all the deeds we have done previously? If committing a 'morally repugnant' act helps in defining who we are, then isn't it equally valid to say the same for committing a 'morally accepted' act? Since 'existence precedes essence', I would like to believe that our existence (in the earthly sense) should be counted from the moment we breathed the first air, not only our present period.

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
but he doesn't feel sorrow over his actions. Therein lies my major issue with the book. Harry does not display any regret whatsoever for his actions. Not for using the Cruciatus curse on Carrow, not for using the Imperius curse on the goblin. His lack of conscience marginally lowers his character in my eyes.

Not talking about this particular situation, however, I won't deny that Harry's rapid change of character (well, at least to me) had a huge effect on my fourteen years old self. Harry started out as an innocent, vulnerable, defenseless child, to whom I felt extremely protective wanted to shelter him as much I can afford to. And then just in front of my eyes, this same boy (whom once I felt like wrapping in my arms and offering him as much of help as he needs) grew up, became more confident, ruthless [not necessarily in a bad sense], dominating guy [not his fault, though]. This sudden change of his character/personality/nature was too much for me to digest. I could no longer view Harry as that same child I once knew, whom I was willing to assist in every step; rather I could see him dominating and controlling my life. The transition of Harry (all characters had grown up and changed with time, but none of their change can even come closer to Harry's) from book one to book seven seriously put me into a state of depression, because, quiet honestly speaking, I've always preferred that 'vulnerable and innocent' Harry than the 'rough and tough' one, ya know.

Can't say about others, but this was my case, reason being I finished all seven books in the period of a month; others who have grown up reading the saga can possibly feel themselves growing up along with Harry (physically, emotionally and psychologically) hence they might not feel the same 'rapid' change which I felt. They can easily observe how over the lifespan of ten years Harry grew up from a child to a man, whereas I had to watch that in only thirty days. And that was rather difficult and shocking for me to take in.

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
Disagreed. LV's side DID fight for a cause. To say that they didn't is rather absurd. One could argue that they 'liked killing' but I don't think canon can back it up as we are almost never privy to the thoughts of the DEs.

Of course Voldemort's side fought for a cause; I don't believe a person (or a group) does anything without a single motive. Whether small or large, important or unimportant, excusable or inexcusable, every action needs to have a cause behind it. But it totally depends on the individual to see whether that particular 'cause' could be considered nobly good or bad. Terrorists fight for a cause too; however, that doesn't make their actions of murders and bombings right [Not talking of he individual terrorists, but rather terrorism in general].

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
The "greater good" reasoning does not excuse actions that are morally questionable.

Yes it doesn't'. However (as much as I hate to admit it), doing smaller crimes for greater good is necessary in various circumstance, and there, if you do not commit the smaller crime then the consequence of the action could be worse than committing it. Not terribly fond of utilitarian morality myself, but see, that is how the world works. If you are given the opportunity to save the entire human race from extinction, by eliminating/sacrificing one single life, then what? I don't think killing of the entire human race for saving one life would be worth. I know this sounds cruel and disgusting (and hence I don't like it either), but the bitter truth is that the world is like that and we have to go on like that.

A small example: We kill (or make others to the job for us) innocent animals (or at least plants, for those who are vegetarian) to fill our belly, not for once thinking the amount of pain that goes through those living creatures to die, because we human beings consider ourselves to be 'greater' than the animal/plant kingdom, and hence committing a smaller crime (i.e. killing animals/plants) is justified for the greater good (feeding us human beings) done.

Sorry, I hate to say this is how the world goes around, whether we like it or not.

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
If it isn't in the books - which are written in Harry's POV - it didn't happen.

The books aren't written in Harry's POV (sorry if I've said the opposite before; if I did, I did wrong there). The book has been written in the third person omniscient point of view that is limited to Harry Potter (the character). It is lucky of us that the narrator elucidate us almost every actions, thoughts, feelings and psychology of Harry, however, we cannot say it for sure that we know it all, because the books aren't his own words or his own thoughts. The books are described by a separate person, who tries to take looks into Harry's psych. We only get glimpses into Harry's brain when only the narrator wishes us to know; otherwise we do not.

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
Why can't you compare Harry and Bellatrix? They have both done the same actions. Admittedly, Harry's action didn't have as bad a consequence as Bellatrix's did but that they both caused someone torture - fully meaning every minute of the pain the victim suffered - and enjoyed it, is grounds for comparison.

Don't want to get into another discussion b/w Harry enjoying the torture, as I have already done responding to that in my previous posts; however I would like to point out that similarity in character, personality and nature exists in everyone. Dumbledore and Voldemort both shared resemblances b/w them, however I do not believe a few resemblances can make both of the person to be of the same nature. You gotto take the whole picture of the person from up to down in order to see where and where they differ, not just where they resemble each other. Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky is a really great novel to see the similarities and contrasts b/w different characters.

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
Applying an alternative universe scenario: The OOTP is no saint either (The books are a testament of that). They too have been ruthless in their quest for ostensibly 'the greater good' and destroyed numerous homes, no doubt. As such, it is highly possible a new Death Eater (whose home the OOTP destroyed) would feel anger at the OOTP for taking so much away from him or her.

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
Given the restrictive narration of the book, it is impossible to say whether or not the 'good deeds' were done by DEs. One mustn't forget that being in Harry's narration, the books are obviously biased.

You definitely hit home there— "Harry's narration, the books are obviously biased.". I wouldn't bother to disagree with you even at the least on this count. There is not a single doubt left that the books are biased because they are all told by the same narrator who describes Harry (and his group) and not the other way around (except for the first two chapters of HBP and the first chapter of DH, where we get a glimpse into Narcissa, Draco, and Lucias's feelings). Though I highly doubt that the books being in the any of the DE's persepective would have made me feel their actions to be justified or at least equivalent to the actions of the opponent, reason being, I've read more than enough biased books that narrates the feelings and psychology of a rouge, and despite of me sympathizing towards them, I never accept their actions as morally acceptable or valid. However, I would love to see some glimpse into the psych of the DE's and other groups of people as well; would it not have been great if J. K. Rowling had created the Harry Potter books narrating from a omniscient POV but not limited to anyone? But then again, Jo's intention wad to write about the boy named Harry, not about the wizarding world or any thing as such.

As I read your reply, (the first quotation here) I remember reading a novel long ago that touched my soul like no other work of art had ever done before, and that was what gave me an insight into criminal psych. It was called 'The Sands of Time' by Sidney Sheldon (yeah I know he is no better than Stephen Meyer at writing, however, I would like to believe this novel to be an exception). It focuses on a group of nuns who comes to meet a group of terrorists by chance, and the nuns (and the readers too) are fascinated by the story the terrorists says to the nuns about their life. Maybe given proper descriptions and written in a good way, we [readers] would have sympathized with the DE's (at least the new one, who are totally brainwashed into joining the group]?

Quote

344471

Suspended

Posted: 16 years ago

#38

Anu,

@ "Intentions do not matter; actions do": I'm not gonna indulge into that monotonous discussion yet again; I have already given my reasoning and explanations to everything you stated regarding that (however, I haven't seen you responding). I will rather wait for your reply (to my posts) than repeat the same statements another time. However, there are various examples you used (in your reply to Lalitha) which I found to be self-contradictory, paradoxical and ambiguous. That might be due to my own lack of understanding; hence I will like it if you clarify the following:

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
The fact that they guy abuses his wife is what counts not the reasoning behind it.

'Reasoning' is not the same as 'intention' (you haven't stated them as similar in exact words, but your post to Lalitha clearly indicates that). Reasoning, broadly speaking, means the 'motive' or 'reason' (your own) for which an action is done. Intention, on the other hand, means the goal or aim (that the actor is willing to achieve) by the action. Though analogous, they are different. The reasoning for abusing your wife could be valid, i.e. your wife was unfaithful and had extra marital affair with another guy; but the intention cannot be, reason being, the intention is always to hurt/harm the other person, and harming others for pleasure is always morally unacceptable.

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
It doesn't matter if I tell you that I love you if I immediately follow that statement by trying to kill you. It doesn't matter if I honestly do love you and still try to kill you;

The examples you used in the above paragraph ironically fits my own definition, and contradicts yours (correct me if I'm being mistaken).

Why would you come to say 'I love you' and moments later drive away to get my life killed (unless of course, your action [i.e. saying the typical 'I love you' thing] was hypocritical, whereas you're main motive or, in other words, intention was to get me killed)? You see, you yourself have stated that it is the 'murder' which is going to be counted, not the words (or rather, phrase) 'I love you'. The thought of taking your life is what the intention of the actor is here (action being the act of murder and the act of speaking the 'I love you' term). Hence this example (of yours) clearly indicates that it is not the 'action' that matters (though, the action of the actor was just as ugly as the intention of him, except the 'I love you' part, which wasn't harmful) but the intention, which was to take away your life.

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
the action of the attempted homicide still stands and I will be charged accordingly regardless of how much remorse I feel about it. If I kill somone and then say "I made a mistake", or that "I loved him/her", the fact that I feel remorse does not change the irreversible fact that I did, in actuality, kill someone.

Not really; like you very correctly stated (in your previous posts) killing another's life in/for self defense isn't incorrect, doing the most nauseating, sadistic and brutal act unintentionally (without having the motive) isn't considered as 'incorrect'. Also, such actions are not punishable under laws, nor are they seen as 'immoral' by the society (unless, of course the society is ignorant regarding current laws and ethics). As long as ones intention wasn't to harm the other, he wouldn't be considered as an amoral individual even if he had committed an action that, in other cases would be considered as purely unethical. There is no law against killing in self defense (the action of killing some is wrong, even if it in self defense, however, the intention is being right), just as there isn't any law against killing someone accidentally which you have never meant to do (again, because though the action might be horrible, your intention wasn't to do that). However, if you have the evil intention of taking another's life, and despite of not getting the opportunity to be put this 'intention' into action, you will be termed as 'evil', due to your evil intentions (of course the public wouldn't know, unless you slip in anything, but nevertheless, you will be considered unprincipled person by definition). FYI, attempting a crime, let's say attempted murder, is punishable by the law, reason being, that though the person has not been able to put his evil intentions into actions, he still wanted to, and took his opportunity in doing so, thus he would be considered as a criminal, not matter whether he had committed the action or not. His intention is what counts (by the law), not his actions.

Sorry, didn't want to get into that same debate of 'action vs. intention' but like always, couldn't help myself. *giggles*

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
To quote you "Just like it's not "written" that Harry felt pleasure it's also not "written" that he did not."

And hence, it will be equally invalid to say that he did feel pleasure (which I can see have been) just like it will be to say that he didn't *wink*. J. K. R's property, her creation, her genius?unless and until she opens her mouth, we can only guess and speculate.

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
Doesn't it all come down to opinion?

Aha, couldn't have put it myself any better 😆 Second you to the last bit on that.

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

Maybe it does, but isn't that what is happening all around, and aren't we human beings being accepting that for centuries? Maybe not in person, but criminals are being hanged down by the polices, and that could be termed as "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". In your previous post, you stated, some criminals does, in fact, deserves death penalty when you stated the following:

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
I do believe in the death penalty as I think there are some people who really don't deserve to live - for example, the people in Rwanda who beheaded children at their desk - I think those sort of people shouldn't be allowed to live

Isn't taking their lives being equivalent to 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'?

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
Perhaps not random families (How can anyone be certain of this? Harry's limited and biased perspective doesn't allow much room to argue this)

And since we cannot be, wouldn't it be equally invalid to say that they [random families] were destroyed by the Order, just as it would be to claim that they weren't? However, if you go through the posts, you would see that the fact 'the orders were destroying random families' had been brought up first; the opposition merely denied that claim and asked for a source for that. If it hasn't been written what the Orders had and had not done, then we cannot make it up just to fit our beliefs. As I said, as long as J. K. Rowling doesn't open up her mouth (how I wish I could make her read this topic, and she would then answer?😆 ) we can only guess, assume and speculate, and have our own opinion. However, stating those opinions as a given fact without a single shred of evidence would be wrong, IMO.

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
but they did end up destroying many families, no doubt. They too were families, no matter how horrendous the fathers/mothers might have been. Just because they are DEs doesn't mean that their family lives are less worthy than that of the Light side's. As seen in the Malfoys, they do love each other.

Then what should we human beings do? Forget about the HP scenario, think about this real world were we are living (eh, honestly speaking, I believe we have long ago stopped talking about HP, and are more concerned with moral /ethical issues rather than the HP ones, what say?). Should we leave the numerous terrorists who are killing and shedding innocent bloods around just because they have got a family and the ability to love as well (I definitely don't hold the view as the terrorists being people who don't have the capacity for love or loving someone)? Because most of the terrorists are brain-washed during young age (when they do not have the capacity/capability of differentiating right from wrong and good from evil) with drugs, hypnosis and stuffs that totally alters their brain (both physiologically and psychologically) and their actions are done to help their own cause (according to them) as well. But isn't leaving them being too much and a threat for the society? Also wouldn't sparing them encourage more people to go onto that path seeing that people who committed the same action haven't been punished (*or are, at the least, less severely punished)? If we punish them, then to what extent? And should we think of their families, too, whom they [the terrorists] love (despite them being so cruel and all) and who loves them back?

Seriously, criminology is one of the most difficult branch of study, and I'm having a damn headache even thinking about these stuffs! LOL.

Anyway, I really want to see your response to my previous posts. I can understand your time problem (trust me, I'm suffering from the same) but I really find your post to be highly entertaining and fun to read.

BTW, just out of curiosity: did you quote the Mahabharata or Gita or whatever that was without opening the books, i.e. from your memory?

Shelly,

[QUOTE=shellytt]For Harry's character not to feel some form of unrighteous anger at the Carrows, which caused him to mean the spell when he says it, is saying that we believe Harry to be perfect and immune to the inhuman acts that was being performed by the Carrows. That Harry didn't feel at that moment an equal level of hatred for Amycus that he held for Voldermort, and that hatred resulted in the effective use of the spell., is implying that we believe Harry to be the perfect idea of a Hero we all have. Harry's use of the CC curse in this instance proves to us that Harry is not perfect. [/QUOTE]

Agree with you to the last bit. This was my fault too; I have always viewed Harry as the most perfect and angelic/saint kind of person (even though, I knew it very well, that he isn't). As the saga started (I've already said this before) he was rather a defenseless and vulnerable child to be loved by all. As the saga grew darker, Harry changed too. He grew from that innocent, ignorant of his real identity child from a ruthless [again, not necessarily in a bad sense] young guy who is willing to fight, for, one ? to take revenge on the person who had made him homeless, two ? to save the wizarding world, even without really fearing his own death. This rather rapid change of the same eleven year vulnerable and innocent boy to the ruthless and dominating guy is too much for many to digest (me being one of them). Our inability to understand this, however, does not make him [Harry] morally incorrect.

Not quoting your post as this debate had already gotten clumsy and messy or so to speak; would just say I loved reading up your posts, and our points matched exactly (except for your reference from the series Bones, about which I was totally ignorant of).

[QUOTE=shellytt]I agree, Good literature stimulates the mind and encourages discussion. We can be grateful to Harry Potter for giving us so much to discuss! [/QUOTE]

Yeah just look at the number of fan fictions being written or the number of sites and forums that is only devoted to this?seriously, I haven't come across another critically-accalimed that had caused this much of mania, and is being discussed worldwide by people of all age, gender and color! HP rocks, no doubt 'bout that?

Lalitha,

Hey, tell us what do you meant by 'cough' 'cough'!

Khushboo,

All the credit goes to you for opening this topic (though, I cannot see anything being discussed 'bout the actual topic, that is, "what scenes would we love to add to DH", LOL)?

************

So I can see ppl not replying here anymore...which is kinda sad, owing to the fact that I was really enjoying debating heree😭😳

Edited by PhoeniXof_Hades - 16 years ago

Quote

Michelle

@shellytt

Navigator

Posted: 16 years ago

#39

@Labib

I know, the discussion seems to be dying dowm a bit, which really is sad, because it was going so well.

I think that its because of time constraints, and speaking of which it would be remiss of me not to admonish you for spending so much time on Harry Potter debates instead of studying for your O'levels. :) lol. Your exams are important!

Personally, I don't have anything else to contribute at this stage, unless someone brings about another point I need to take issue with. Everyone here has fantastically covered all the opposing views, there isn't anything left for me to say!

As for the series Bones, its really an enjoyable show, and if you get time you can probably watch an episode or two. I no longer get it on television here in my country, but I still am able to see it online. PM me if you want the website.

Lastly, on the note of the amount of discussions that Harry Ptter has sparked, I think that it stems from the fact, that Harry Potter fans are not boxed into one segment, but it is a series loved by all ages and all genders, so we have a host of people from different backgrounds bringing their own personal views and experiences into the interpretation of the books, which makes a truly wonderful time! (Case in point, this very debate!)

Oh and one more thing, I realised awhile ago that we strayed from the topic, but this discussion was too stimulating not to continue!

Quote

Michelle

@shellytt

Navigator

Posted: 16 years ago

#40

I also have a point regarding the Hindu Scriptures in relation to this debate. It is stated in the Bhagvad Gita with Shri Krishna speaking to Arjuna

"Treating alike victory and defeat, gain and loss, pleasure and pain, get ready for the fight then, fighting thus, you will not incur sin."

"..... Equipped with this attitude of mind, you will be able to throw off completely the shakles of Karma."

Shri Krishna is advising Arjuna, that to fight a rightous war, (and the statement rightous war is used in the Scripture), and by understanding that all things are equal (All's fair in Love and war) you will incur no sin, and you would be free of the Karmic consequences of or actions.

Drawing the parallel to Harry, Harry understod that his fight against against Voldermort was the right path to take, when told of the prophecy, he chose to fight for good (the right), therefore by understanding that and by also realising that to kill was the only way to save the situation he is also acknowleging (in my opinion) that in a war of this magnitude, all it fair.

The difference here is that the good side (Hary) realises that it is necessary to kill, torture, hurt persons in order to attain the goal of killing Voldermort and therefore their use of the of Unforgivable Curses was not only a necessary arsenal in their fight, but also to an extent it can be condoned and accepted. Whereas in the case of the Dark side, their use of the curses as not really about being necessary, but taking pleasure in its uses. They would go out of their way to use an Unforgivable Curse, whilst, the good side uses it sparingly.

Therefore Harry's use of the Unforgivable Curses, should not bring into question of his morality, because it is really his morality that allows him to use use the curses in the first place.

@ Labib - contrary to my post above, I guess I did have something more to say. lol

This is just my personal disclaimer as I try not to indulge in too many religious debates or use the Scriptures in any debates\discussion. :

Please note that this is my understanding of the Gita and its relation to the discussion. (it may be wrong, I don't profess to be a great interpreter of the Scriptures, so please don't take offense anyone)

Edited by shellytt - 16 years ago

Quote

1 2 3 4 5

What scene would you like to add to DH? Why? - Page 4

Related Topics

Explore Topics