Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 124382


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" 
<jmrazo at h...> wrote:

> I argue that it doesn't matter that Harry isn't screwed up.  DD 
made  a mistake by leaving Harry with the Dursleys regardless 
of whether  or not Harry had the strength to endure it. It is not a 
good act to put someone in danger just because you suspect 
that they can survive  it.  Morally wrong, no matter the outcome.
> 

Pippin:
Then it would also have been morally wrong to leave Harry in the 
WW, where he would have been abused by fame and fortune. If 
you don't think so, consider the fate of so many child movie stars 
of the thirties and forties, compared to the way famous children 
are sheltered today. There's a reason that Chelsea Clinton and 
the English princes weren't in the news much when they were 
minors.

 But the WW has no idea that vultures like Rita Skeeter shouldn't 
be allowed access to  children. Besides the fame, Harry would 
have grown up with money he didn't earn, and no one to restrict 
his use of  it. The WW doesn't seem to know anything about trust 
funds either. There was nothing but Harry's good sense 
stopping him from blowing all his gold on a Firebolt.

 It wasn't a choice between the Dursleys and a normal wizard 
childhood, because no one in the WW would have had the 
faintest idea that Harry should have one. 

Dumbledore had a choice between an abusive family in a 
(relatively) enlightened culture and the blood protection, or a 
loving family in a much less liberal culture with no blood 
protection. He says the blood protection tipped the balance and I 
can understand that.

Pippin