Reaction to MAGIC DISHWASHER (TBAY INTRO)

[bluesqueak]

No: HPFGUIDX 81097

Pip!Squeak:
I'm combining replies to Jen and Remnant in the same post.

[See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/81010 for 
the post referred to as 'the original post']

Jen Reese wrote:
The third time--anger--if this is true, then Dumbledore needs to go. 

Because if this scenario is true, then we aren't talking about a 
battle between Good and Evil anymore, this is more like a morally 
compromised battle of egos and agendas--is it really better to 
sacrifice the WW of today for the "nameless, faceless" WW of 
tomorrow? If you believe Good and Evil are Yin and Yang, as I do, 
then evil never truly dies--you can't truly know Good without an 
introduction to Evil and you can't know Death if you don't know Life.

Pip!Squeak:
There we have a clash of philosophies, because I do not believe in 
Good and Evil as Yin and Yang. My philosophy is that evil cannot 
create, only destroy. It is a parasite, a cancer, a destructive 
force. It takes what good has created and tries to destroy or 
corrupt it. If good sometimes seems to come out of evil, it is only 
because good is so powerful that it can repair what evil has done.

Death is not necessarily evil; it can be a transformation. 

This is the canonical view of death, incidentally. Sir Nicholas 
talks about lacking the courage to `go on'. [OOP Ch. 38, p. 759]. 
Dumbledore talks about death as `the next great adventure' [PS/SS 
Ch. 17 p.215] Luna is convinced that she'll meet her mother again 
when she dies [OOP Ch. 38, pp.760-761]

Making someone choose is not evil. What is evil would be to force 
them to choose a particular path. Voldemort is evil partly because 
his philosophy does not allow for choice. Follow him or die. 

And yes, if the WW is irredeemably evil, it is better to sacrifice 
it for the future. That is a decision that has been made before. You 
may well be right that the new society won't be perfect (people 
being irritatingly inclined to choose `those things which are worst 
for them'). But a society set up to disapprove of evil, and which 
believes in actively opposing evil is going to be a lot better for 
people to live in. The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is 
for good people to do nothing. [I apologise that I don't know who 
originally said that]

Jen:
So, if indeed Dumbledore plans to sacrifice the WW for his ideal, no 
matter how noble and perfect, he needs to realize that there are a 
lot of different ways to "force" an agenda on other people besides 
the brute force of Voldemort (including never letting them in on the 
agenda in the first place) and he needs to make his Exit, posthaste.

Pip!Squeak:
But as I argue in the original post, Dumbledore has already tried 
the route of simply defeating the Dark Lord. He defeated Grindelwald 
in 1945. He's been working on educating the children of the UK since 
either the 40's (if you count  his time as Transfiguration Professor 
[CoS]) or the 70's [Lexicon estimate based on Lupin's likely age].

There is a significant section of the Wizarding World (judging by 
the DE support in the Quidditch World Cup, the support given to 
Voldemort in the first war by people like the Blacks, the section of 
Slytherin House who don't toast Harry for fighting Voldemort ) who 
support Voldemort. 

If Voldemort truly dies, will they go away? Will their ideals go 
away? 

I think the canon I quoted in the original post shows that many 
people could probably give a good breakdown of 
Dumbledore's `agenda'. What the Order of the Phoenix represents are 
the people who've worked out that they're going to have to fight to 
get it.

Jen:
Jen, climbing off her soapbox to write her next post entitled, "Why 
Lucius is a Spy" based on an acceptance of the MAGIC DISHWASHER as 
the underlying theme of the HP series...who said I can't play both 
sides? ;)

Pip!Squeak:
That's quite a convincing post, actually [grin].



Remnant says:

In the opinion of this Remnant, this new (Tom is quite convincing) 
theory

Pip!Squeak: No, it's part of MD. Or you might see it more clearly if 
you think of it as part of the Spying Game, rather than the potion 
bit. This part of the theory could be subtitled `Why we fight'. 

Up to GoF, we've been analysing tactics, because that's the canon we 
have. OOP gives much more background. We know much more about 
Dumbledore's team, for one thing. But the war being fought is still 
undercover. Literally so; Voldemort spends most of the book trying 
to work so deeply undercover that most people think he doesn't exist 
at all.

If I had to make a prediction about Book Six, it will be that this 
will be the book that will see the Mysterious Agendas finally out in 
the open. The `dishwasher phase' will end (though it may be very 
close to the end of book 6).

Remnant::
He [Dumbledore] simply has his own set of 
views that he does not try to impose on the WW at large. To do so 
would be against his/JKR's value of personal choice.

Pip!Squeak:
I think that like Jen you are getting confused between `imposing 
views' and `forcing people to make a choice'.

Dumbledore is *not* forcing his views on people. He is forcing them 
to recognise that a choice must be made. 

If those who believe in choice face those who believe in no choice, 
what do you do?

Remnant:
He respects others' boundaries. Haven't we had that drilled into us 
again and again? 

Yup. He respects their right to make a choice.  However, the WW has 
chosen to ignore the return of Voldemort. Does he respect that 
choice? Or does he make his own choice about the best route to 
follow?

The MoM chooses to arrest him, as they legally can do. Does he 
respect that boundary? Or does he impose his belief that ` I can 
think of a whole host of things I would rather be doing' [OOP Ch. 27 
p.546 ] by attacking law enforcement officers and the political head 
of the UK WW and departing via Phoenix Airlines?

The thing about choices is that they often conflict. Respecting the 
boundaries of those who respect your boundaries is a virtue. 
Respecting the boundaries of those who impose their views on others 
is not. 

Random:
Occam's Razor has been much used of late, so I hope it's still sharp 
enough for my purposes, but I'd like to posit that the simplest
answer is, in this case, still true. Dumbledore is plotting LV's 
downfall. If the MoM supports him, so much the better.

Pip!Squeak:
It is the simplest answer. Why, then, is Dumbledore admitting 
that `Merely taking your life would not satisfy me' [OOP, Ch. 36, 
p.718]

If he's *just* plotting LV's downfall, why is he not satisfied with 
killing him? 

Remnant::
My view, this is just saying that DD needs to destroy Riddle's soul
so he never comes back again.

Pip!Squeak:
::Blinks:: There we do have a philosophical difference, because to 
me destroying a person's soul, however evil they may be and whatever 
crimes they have committed, would make Dumbledore the most evil of 
Evil!Dumbledores.

At least, I assume that by 'soul' you refer to whatever ghosts are 
made of - considering that agreeing on a soul definition might prove 
to be a tad difficult on such a varied list as this one

Forgive me, but I think I'll stick with a Dumbledore who just wants 
to force people to choose between good and evil.

**Yellow flag violations**

A `yellow flag violation' is a speculative theory based in 
significant part on anything that is not canonical. 

Remnant quotes me:
what seems a losing battle next time - and if [the endless 
succession of Dark lords are] delayed again and again, why, [they] 
may never return to power.' [Original quote in PS/SS Ch. 17, p.216, 
comments in square brackets are my additions] <

> But in twenty years time, there will likely be another Dark Lord, 
willing to use 'any means to achieve their ends' [PS/SS Ch. 7 p.88] <

Remnant:
You've changed these way past their initial intent. Nearly a yellow 
flag.

Pip!Squeak:
I'm not sure that the first part you quote (where I add my own 
comments in the square brackets) is a yellow flag violation. 
Firstly, I say what I'm doing. Secondly I give the reference to the 
original quote. People can then decide for themselves whether my 
interpretation is the correct one. 

Secondly, the quote 'any means to achieve their ends' [PS/SS Ch. 7 
p.88] is a direct quote from the Sorting Hat's description of 
Slytherin, which (so Hagrid says) Voldemort went to. 

Remnant:
Oh, and in the following quote:
Pip!Squeak: Well, even the muggle born Hermione doesn't announce 
that she hopes not to get put in Slytherin. [PS/SS Ch. 6 p.79-80] 
Perhaps the books she's read don't suggest anything is wrong with 
Slytherin House? Perhaps the people she's been asking don't think 
anything is wrong with Slytherin? <

Remnant: No canon here at all.

Pip!Squeak:
Uh, I thought there was a reference to  [PS/SS Ch. 6 p.79-80]? That 
sounds like canon to me. ;-)

The exact quote is:
`Do either of you know which House you'll be in? I've been asking 
round and I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best, I 
hear Dumbledore himself was one, but I suppose Ravenclaw wouldn't be 
too bad
'

So, no mention from Muggle born Hermione that she wants to avoid 
Slytherin House. 

People *not* mentioning something is often more revealing than 
mentioning it. The entire LOLLIPOPS theory has been built on Snape 
*not* mentioning Lily Evans.

So they're not yellow flag violations. 

Inference from canon is allowed. That is, I am allowed to reach a 
conclusion by reasoning about canon evidence. Having inferred, I am 
allowed to use that inference to reach further conclusions.


And finally:

Remnant:
OOP could have just been named after Fawkes, for all we know.

Pip!Squeak:
Uh, yeah. It could.

Do you know who `Fawkes' is probably named after?

Guy Fawkes (or Guido Fawkes), who on 5th November 1605 attempted to 
blow up the English Parliament, together with much of the government.

Still think I'm wrong about Dumbledore?

Pip!Squeak