You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Alsadius comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 15, chapter 84 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: FAWS 11 April 2012 03:39AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (1221)
Tags: fanfiction harry_potter hpmor fiction

Comments (1221)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Alsadius 14 April 2012 02:35:51PM *  1 point [-]

Find me a protection scheme that applies to the situation at hand with a second point of failure, and I'll accept your criticism of the plan they had. Highly-placed traitors are really, really hard to defend against.

Similarly, find me an example of Voldemort having backup on any of his attacks, and I'll believe that him lacking it here is relevant.

Rationality is about winning. Lily Potter won that night, as much as she believably could have. I'd say she did okay by "throwing her life away".

Comment author: pedanterrific 14 April 2012 03:17:49PM 2 points [-]

Find me a protection scheme that applies to the situation at hand with a second point of failure, and I'll accept your criticism of the plan they had.

Have Dumbledore be the Secret-Keeper.

Similarly, find me an example of Voldemort having backup on any of his attacks, and I'll believe that him lacking it here is relevant.

The Ministry raid at the end of OotP.

Comment author: Alsadius 14 April 2012 06:31:08PM 0 points [-]

So you want to replace a single point of failure for defending a baby with a single point of failure for the entire Order? Remember what happens when the Secret-Keeper dies, after all.

And there's a bit of a difference between hitting a single-family house and a large battle.

Comment author: pedanterrific 14 April 2012 06:37:46PM *  2 points [-]

So you want to replace a single point of failure for defending a baby with a single point of failure for the entire Order?

How would Dumbledore be any easier to kill as a Secret-Keeper than otherwise? Wait, before that, how would Dumbledore's death be any more crippling to the Order if he was a Secret-Keeper than otherwise? He dies, they've pretty much lost the war, baby Harry Potter or no baby Harry Potter.

Remember what happens when the Secret-Keeper dies, after all.

I am. Are you?

(Dumbledore's death resulted in everyone read into the Secret of 12 Grimmauld Place becoming Secret-Keepers themselves; the Fidelius was still in place.)

Edit: The wiki claims- unfortunately without attribution- that Dumbledore offered to be the Potters' Keeper, and was turned down.

Edit2:

Similarly, find me an example of Voldemort having backup on any of his attacks, and I'll believe that him lacking it here is relevant.

The Ministry raid at the end of OotP.

And there's a bit of a difference between hitting a single-family house and a large battle.

Emphasis mine.

Comment author: [deleted] 15 April 2012 08:06:58PM *  0 points [-]

The wiki claims- unfortunately without attribution- that Dumbledore offered to be the Potters' Keeper, and was turned down.

I definitely remember this from the third book. The adults are talking about the Potters' deaths in the Three Broomsticks Inn and someone mentions that Dumbledore himself offered to become the secret keeper, but was turned down with insistences that Sirius Black would never betray them.

EDIT: Found it.

"So Black was the Potters' Secret-Keeper?" whispered Madam Rosmerta.
"Naturally," said Professor McGonagall. "James Potter told Dumbledore that Black would die rather than tell where they were, that Black was planning to go into hiding himself... and yet, Dumbledore remained worried. I remember him offering to be the Potters' Secret-Keeper himself."

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit