Regressed Harry and DD

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 163176

> Carol responds:
> I didn't say "has to." That's your phrase. I said "ought." IOW, 
Harry
> *should* respect DD, not Harry *absolutely must* respect him. 
There's
> an important difference, and "should" or "ought to" is, of course, 
my
> opinion.

Alla:

Yes, sorry for misquoting you. The objection that I stated to **has 
to** I apply to **should** as well though.


Carol:
<SNIP>
  If Harry is going to mature into a man worthy of respect
> himself, he needs (IMO) to understand that the principles DD stood
> for--fairness, choices, second chances, and all the rest--are *at
> least* as worthy of respect as reckless courage and a saving-people
> complex.
<SNIP>

Alla:

I agree - Dumbledore's principles are worthy of respect, but I also 
hope that Harry realises that Dumbledore's execution of those 
principles is not always worthy of respect and sometimes of 
contempt. Second chances are great, unless they are given 
selectively, second chances are great unless they lead to near death 
experience for his students IMO of course.

So, yeah, I'd say Harry should respect Dumbledore's philosophy often 
enough, how he practices that philosophy is a different story for me 
though.

Carol:
 Dumbledore genuinely cares about people, even those who have
> gone beyond his ability to help, like Voldemort. He subtly guides
> people yet allows them to make their own choices, including 
mistakes.
> And Harry, thanks to Dumbledore, now has the makings of a hero.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Thanks to Dumbledore? Didn't other people contributed  too?

 > Carol, realizing that the distinction between "ought" and "has 
to" is
> subtle but noting that it's real, nonetheless
>

Alla:

As I said, sorry for misquoting you, but since it makes absolutely 
no difference for my argument, I am confused.