|
|
Post by anti on Sept 2, 2004 13:53:32 GMT -5
that's interesting. hey, remember when harry saw a triumph look in dumbledore's eyes when he heard that voldemort can now touch harry? maybe dumbledore and voldemort are actually working together, lol. ;D I thought that for a while after book four. Now I just think that Dumbledore was pleased that Voldemort is properly human again and that means he can be killed once and for all. oh.  yes, i guess you are right, but i did not think of that. you see, actually that "triumph in dumbledore's eyes" is so obvious that it is, again, obvious that dumbledore is not mean, otherwise j.r. would hide that fact as something completly insignificant so that we find it out in the end of series. |
|
|
|
Post by Essy on Sept 2, 2004 17:09:10 GMT -5
It's funny that I'm defending him here, because there's a thread in the Slytherin common room at the moment, where I'm arguing that Dumbledore is mean!
That's based on him leaving Harry with the Dursleys though, not him colluding with Voldemort.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkbearcat on Sept 2, 2004 19:47:56 GMT -5
well he had to leave him with the dirsleys, right? so that no harm can come to him. dumbledore used old magic on him, so as long as he is with his blodd relatives, he cannot be harmed, remember he explained it to harry?
|
|
|
|
Post by Essy on Sept 2, 2004 20:57:00 GMT -5
Yes, but he didn't take any sort of precautions to ensure that Harry would have a decent quality of life there.
I mean it's not hard to keep the Dursleys cowed. Once Harry was old enough, he managed to do it himself, first with threats of magic and then by threatening to get Sirius involved.
Dumbledore didn't do anything to help Harry during the eleven years he spent living with the Dursleys full time. I think that was appallingly neglectful. The fact that Dumbledore made light of it in OotP only made me angrier.
I don't object to him leaving Harry with Petunia if that was the only way to keep Harry safe from Voldemort. I object to the fact that nobody ever bothered to keep Harry safe from the Dursleys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 4, 2004 12:55:28 GMT -5
true, but i know the dursleys would never hurt, hurt harry. I mean, even if they are mean and crappy, harry is family, and i cant even see the dursleys intentionally hurt family... even if they do make him their slave, but really hurt, naw.
and dumbledore probably never reveled himself before, because he thought it was best for harry to not know he was a wizard untill he was old enough, or else he would try to run away or something, and be in mortal danger. i am posistive that dumbledore routinely checked up on him though, even if he didn't show himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Essy on Sept 4, 2004 13:23:30 GMT -5
Well, I agree with you that I don't think the Dursleys would have ever hit Harry, but I think the way they treated him when he was growing up is still child-abuse. It makes me angry that Dumbledore either didn't bother to keep proper tabs on what was going on or even worse, that he knew exactly what was happening and didn't do anything to stop it.
I got so angry in the fifth book when Dumbledore was justifying his decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys. He says that it stopped Harry from becoming spoiled and turning into a "pampered little prince". I was like, "Oh, fine! That completely makes it okay to leave a one-year-old baby with people who will lock him in a cupboard and starve him!"
I feel silly getting so worked up about this, when he's not even real. But I've just been reading about that school in Russia, so any discussion about cruelty to children right now sends me crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 5, 2004 0:41:58 GMT -5
yeah, well, i think him growning up with the treatment of the dursleys made him a but humble, and i am sure being a spoiled lil' prince woulda been a bad thing.  and as far as the sursleys abusing him, i dont really think thats abuse, compared to what could happen if death eaters get ahold on him |
|
|
|
Post by Lil' CherryBlossom on Sept 7, 2004 15:49:11 GMT -5
well..........i guess so............ :-/lol
(i'm just posting cuz adam has been the last person to post on this WHOLE 'discussion' topic!! ;Dlol)
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 16, 2004 22:17:24 GMT -5
*sets his computer to eat LCB's computer  * uuuh.... adam is cool! ;D adam is a good poster! anyways, the durley thing... its kinda like me and my family.... i fight with them sometimes... make them cry.....uuuuh... sometimes. but i would never really hurt, hurt them. |
|
|
|
Post by Starlight on Sept 18, 2004 20:57:12 GMT -5
Ya huh. lol j/k
he wasnt really abused abused, i mean, they did give him food, even tho it wasnt much, and they did give him clothing, even tho they were hand me downs. they never really took like a weapon and beat him.. atleast i dont think..
((P.S: Adam I like your smiley;D))
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 2, 2004 12:12:53 GMT -5
((lol, i 4got the url. credit for smiley goes to essy. ;D))
....yesh. and we were talking about why voldy didn't die? then dubblydore related to harry (*caugh* fat chance *hem*)... eeer, then we were talking about the dursley beating up harry? woah.
anyways its all good. i think some of it has to do with the dursleys are afraid. if they beat him, or tryed, they are afraid harry might turn them into cockroaches, or else sirius would come and turn them into dung bugs! they dont know that sirius is dead, do they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Essy on Oct 2, 2004 20:27:53 GMT -5
Well, Dudley and his friends did used to hit Harry, back when Harry was little. He just stopped when he found out that Harry was a wizard.
Even if you don't count Dudley though, the Dursley's behaviour to Harry was way out of line. Neglect and exploitation are just as illegal as physical abuse. If the police had found out about how Harry was treated when he was little they could have been arrested and Harry would have been taken off them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 9, 2004 16:29:43 GMT -5
i dont tihhnk he would. dumbledore wnats him there, so dumbledore would keep him there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lil' CherryBlossom on Oct 10, 2004 15:07:31 GMT -5
dats true......i mean dumbledore put harry wit the dursleys for a reason
|
|
|
|
Post by Starlight on Oct 11, 2004 11:21:19 GMT -5
Yeah we know that for a reason.. Dumbledore told harry in the 5th book remember?  He put harry at the dursley's because soem ritual his Aunt Petunia had to renew or w/e you wanna call it: |
|
yes, i guess you are right, but i did not think of that. you see, actually that "triumph in dumbledore's eyes" is so obvious that it is, again, obvious that dumbledore is not mean, otherwise j.r. would hide that fact as something completly insignificant so that we find it out in the end of series.
He put harry at the dursley's because soem ritual his Aunt Petunia had to renew or w/e you wanna call it: