= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alsadius comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 16, chapter 85 - Less Wrong Discussion
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)
Comments (1106)
Granted, "Voldemort won't look so bad from a distance" is absurd. But the ultimate decision he made seemed pretty good, as such things go.
He's an 11 year old, he's allowed to still be stupid in his idealism.
I agree that it's absurd to find it probable that the future beings would value all lives, even the lives of the incredibly stupid and evil ancients. It's conceivable, and plausible, but we don't have any evidence, and we have lots of bias from fiction.
But this comment doesn't seem relevant to what Vaniver said. Harry being idealist in no way is related to the probability that future beings will think that Voldemort should or should not have been killed. Your comment makes sense if you're addressing why Harry came to the conclusions he did, but not if you're discussing whether or not the sentient creatures would value Voldemort's life.
My point is that Harry's beliefs are dumb(getting better, but still dumb), and therefore the conclusions that he draws from those beliefs are silly and poor.
That said, a thought occurs. Doe the True Patronus work for someone willing to do murder(even if it's to save net lives)?
Hmm, if not, then there's mutual exclusivity between some Dark Wizard and Light Wizard abilities.
You can cast a Horcrux, OR a True Patronus, but not both. Interestingly, both are ways of avoiding encounters with death.
Which is good, because I'm judging him too.