[pKgGpUlF]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Here's the problem. I think you are the ONLY one who thinks that a few wizarding folk can defeat the masses of humanity with weapons beyond comprehension.

I agree with Drake in that the only way the wizards win is if they imperius the leaders.

The fact that the government has to tell them what guns are does NOT mean that the wizards think they are so beneath them!!! It's because they've been segregated so long they have no clue what is going on with humanity.. not because they found it was the 'least amount of effort involved' (what a joke... I don't even think that you can find that plausible), but because of fear.
If they fear the non-magical world so much, why did they keep themselves so aloof from it? If it was such a strong presence, they should be quite knowledgeable about it, given the fact that it affects them so much.

But let's agree to disagree on this point. This debate is going nowhere.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The point remains that the most powerful one is not the chosen one.

So? Rowling saying that technical ability isn't the only determiner in the chosen one? That you need great courage as well to be a wizard? What does this 'prove' exactly.

It isn't like Harry is any slouch in the magic department either, as witnessed by his impressive patronus at the end of PoA.
But Harry was chosen when he was a baby. How could he have displayed any bravery then?

And though I do not wish to disparage his magical ability, he was so utterly confident about his patronus because he knew he'd done it already.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Of course such a system runs counter to Rowling's goals! That's the whole damn point! I'm saying that in spite of that fact, it still exists. Hufflepuffs are not thought of as highly as the other three houses - they're portrayed as well-meaning and hard-working, but a little light minded. This is a thing that is quite obvious. Try asking any unbiased observer or reader of the books.

As stated before, you are completely mad. There is NO hierarchy in houses, except for those looking for one (ie, you).

And I'll say it again, Cedric Diggory, Cedric Diggory, Cedric Diggory! He's from the "inferior", in your mind, house. Yet, he was the Triwizard challenger. We haven't seen anyone in Ravenclaw who comes close to Diggory in skill.
Very well. I agree that there is no explicit hierarchy.

But let me put to you this way - if I asked a child of, say, age eleven, which house he would want to belong to, he would almost instinctively go for Gryffindor. If not that, then Ravenclaw. If not that, then Hufflepuff. Only with extreme reluctance would he go for Slytherin. Why is that? It is because though there is no hierarchy, some houses are simply better than others.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Um.. YES!! There are probably people out there who consider themselves superior, in every way, to those with down syndrome. We don't allow discrimination even though those *******s, I'm sure, would think since they are superior can trample over them (and for controversy, they are probably correct that they are superior to mentally retarded folk in doing day to day things.. that doesn't make them superior people, FFS!!).
That's a bit off. I'm talking about comparing two normal, healthy individuals from two species (not from within the same species), or from the same species with some genetic advantage which confers upon them powers which effectively make them as different as another species. People afflicted with ailments aren't really representative.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Though such ideas are comforting, they are unfortunately (or fortunately) untrue. A true hero is usually self-reliant, and does not need his friends or associates to aid him in his worst hour. Help never hurts, but should never be made as central as it has been.

Ah... it's a "Voldemort isn't all that bad" type of essay.

Call me when you write about Darth Vader was right and the rebels are communist scum, will you?

I'm done with this drivel.
Very definitely NOT!

You'll note that (at the end) I explicitly mentioned that the Dark Lord's actions and choices were completely indefensible and deplorable. I also mentioned that this was not meant to be a defence of the Dark Lord in any way.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Oh, but one more for the road:

The one good Slytherin in the series, Slughorn, is no paragon of virtue. He shows blatant favouritism, he has no regard for the instructions given by Dumbledore regarding the revelation of the secret of Horcruxes to students, and he tries to cover up his role in revealing the secret. He is portrayed as a person who is not man enough to admit to his mistakes, and is in general not a pleasant character if you're not among his favoured lot. He is a person who goes totally contrary to the egalitarian ethic the books seek to promote, and he is shown as the best Slytherin can offer.

Dumbledore shows favoritism (tell me he doesn't favor Harry and we can all laugh in your face). Ignores instructions given by the Ministry of Magic (after they fail to believe Voldemort is back). And he makes horrible mistakes because of his ego (why, in trying to get a horcrux does he ONLY go with Harry, when there is an entire Order of the Phoenix to chose from as well?).

*gasp* Slughorn as well as Dumbledore are HUMAN. They make mistakes. They aren't perfect. To use Slughorn's faults to show his house in a bad light is silly.

That's all right.

But Dumbledore is shown favouring the "good guys", whereas Slughorn favours people who can get him stuff, or sometimes even the "bad guys". That is why their favouritism cannot be compared, and if compared, still paints Slughorn in a negative light and Dumbledore in a positive one.