= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Anubhav comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 13, chapter 81 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1099)
For that matter, why didn't Dumbledore mention the Imperius debt when they were talking about debts?
Dumbledore's being awfully incompetent... Wonder why that would be.
I think Dumbledore is more into the "general wanting to win a war" mindset. In that mindset, you don't spend a trump card like a blood debt from one major enemy just to save one life. So he shouldn't (in his pov) speak about that issue to Harry.
I think this would be a more meaningful consideration if he had much reason to expect he'd be able to control how Harry would cash in that debt, and by the time it came up I think his acquaintance with Harry should have largely disabused him of that.
He has shown to be a slow learner with respect to his ability to control Harry. In the last chapter, in fact, when he tries to stop Harry from accepting the debt. This slow learning is to be expected, because he's been able to control every other rebellious child he's had to deal with in N years of being headmaster, plus most of his political opponents, etc. And he believes that of course the Hero will listen to the guidance of the Wise Old Mentor.
I think it hasn't sunk in yet that he's not Harry's mentor; Quirrel is.
I suspect that everyone discounts the "I was Imperiused!" claim for being an obvious lie, and thus discounts the implications of it being officially true. It's certainly a plausible hole in worldview - ignoring the implications of a false statement being "true" is an easy mistake to make.
It seems like a pretty glaring one to me; I argued in the tvtropes discussion thread that I didn't think this solution was going to be implemented, because I found it hard to believe that Dumbledore wouldn't have thought of it. It was actually the first thing that came to my mind when I was reading chapter 80, and trying to think of holds Harry had on Lucius; when you know someone's been lying, catching them out in the consequences of it is one of the handiest ways to gain advantage over them. By the time I finished the chapter, I had already dismissed it on the grounds that if Dumbledore, who's been maneuvering against Lucius in the realm of politics for over a decade, hadn't suggested it, there was probably some reason why it wouldn't work. The fact that he would let such a clear opportunity to use his opponent's deceptions against him slip has forced me to revise my estimate of his cunning considerably downwards.
Dumbledore may simply not have considered Hermione WORTH the debt.
That seems rather more cynical than I'd expect from a Gryffindor with a phoenix riding around on his shoulder.
Do we actually know that Dumbledore came out of Gryffindor in the MoRverse? He did in canon, and he certainly talks a good game, but neither one's necessarily decisive in this context.
Chapter 27:
I think it's been mentioned a few times, but I can't remember a specific citation off the top of my head.
... who also watched as his friends, loved ones, and family all died in a pointless, futile war against an enemy who is not dead.
Pointless and futile? They didn't lose.
The mere fact that they defeated their enemy does not mean that they did not lose. A war fought for no greater reason than that your opponent wishes to fight you is a pointless and futile one: you have nothing to gain, and only things to lose.
They were victorious, yes; but they lost. Based on the descriptions of how "everyone" has someone they lost in that war -- they lost greatly. Winning a war doesn't mean you don't lose things during the fight.
If you suffer far lesser consequences than if your opponent were victorious, you didn't lose. Obviously, yes, you lose things in the process, unless you have a ludicrous mismatch like the Anglo-Zanzibar War, but if you're going by a definition by which nearly anyone who has fought in a war on any side has lost, you're being misleading and abusing your words.
The mere fact that you, personally, dislike the contextual definition I am using does not make that context nor the definition illegitimate.
You didn't lose ... as much as you could have. You still lost. If you do not gain at least as much as is taken from you, that is a loss. If you gamble twenty dollars and win a five dollar pot; you have won your wager but have lost fifteen dollars. Did you lose as much as you could have had you lost the wager altogether? No. But you still are down in real terms; you have still lost compared to before the wager.
There is absolutely nothing misleading about this. There is nothing abusive of the words about this. It's a simple factual and literal use of the term "to lose". It really doesn't matter if you were forced into the wager; you have still lost.
This is a legitimate usage of the term, "to lose", and I really don't see why you're so vehemently opposed to it.
Interesting. I'd thought this chapter gave us evidence of Snape being evil, because a greater-than-or-equal-to-double agent should think immediately of disguises that need to seem real. And if we assume he's not evil then he probably sympathizes with Hermione's anti-bullying campaign. But he might not go against Dumbledore if DD didn't want to use the debt. (Still seems slightly sinister that he didn't tell Harry secretly. But not much, given their history and the likelihood Harry would think of it anyway.)
Wait -- where does Snape, of all people, come into this discussion?
Eh? Snape was there when they discussed a possible exchange of debts. I was saying that I'd expect him to think of the solution even if Dumbledore did not.