Second Task points/Draco and Dumbledore

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 152036


> Alla:
>   
> > From the beginning Harry hears the people DIED in the Tournament 
in 
> the 
> > past. Why is it stupid to assume that it is can happen now too?  
> 
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> Yes, and obviously there was a real danger in this tournament. A 
> dragon is not harmless, for example. But neither of this is a 
reason, 
> to believe that the judges wouldn't have done anything to assure 
the 
> hostage's safety.  


Alla:

Why is it not a reason to believe that people may die in the 
Tournament if you get the information that people well died in the 
Tournament in the past?

I think it is a very good, rational reason to believe exactly that. 
Not saying that this is the only conclusion to make, but I consider 
it to be quite a sound conclusion. And again, it does not even imply 
that judges would not have done everything possible, it just implies 
that deadly incidents happen and people are still willing to play 
this game.

Doesn't somebody tells Harry at some point that deadly incidentts 
happen even in Quidditch? Not sure here.


> Alla:
> 
> > Another thing, which IMO bears repeating - another champion was 
> > hysterical and wondering whether her sister is DEAD. Is she 
stupid 
> also 
> > or maybe she made the same assumption Harry did, which IMO is 
> > reasonable.
> 
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> Yes, I think Fleur was pretty stupid in this scene as well, even 
> though I liked her reaction after Harry saved Gabrielle. ;-) But to 
> be fair, I realize that both Harry and Fleur were highly emotional 
at 
> that time, and that it's not exactly fair from me, to judge them by 
> completely rational standards. 

Alla:

Well, then we are far apart then on this issue. If Fleur did not have 
the information that hostages were not in danger, why her automatic 
assumption should have been that nothing would happen to them?

She knows what happened in the past, I would imagine. Nothing changed 
in the tournament rules, as far as we know, except the age line, 
right?

Well, I guess we don't know that since we don't have the written 
rules at our disposal, but wouldn't we have been informed if other 
significant changes were made?

I would say that Harry and Fleur while being emotional made quite an 
understandable conclusion, which to me passes rationality muster.


 
> Hickengruendler:
> <SNIP>
But the 
> reason for Dumbledore not to act here, was because Draco's life was 
> in danger as well, and he wanted to save him, too. Even though his 
> decisions here are ambiguous and were nearly fatal (and had in fact 
> serious consequences for Bill in the end), I do not think it's on 
the 
> same level, than simply letting four children on the ground of the 
> lake, because the champions failed in their task.
> 
Alla:

Frankly, I think the reason why Dumbledore acts as an idiot here 
(IMO) is because JKR again makes him juggle too many 
responsibilities – teacher and leader of the Order.

But yes, his decisions in HBP are not on the same level as to 
consciously let four children die ( and as I said I don't think Harry 
even needs to reach this conclusion – just that this is an incident 
and people MAY die).

Nevertheless his actions in HBP are ENOUGH in my book to support the 
idea that Dumbledore MAY put the safety of the kids in danger 
unwillingly at least.

That is why I don't consider Harry's actions very emotional or 
stupid. NOT the only right actions, but definitely not stupid AND the 
ones to be rewarded too.

Especially since he helped Krum to save Hermione too and I completely 
forgot that till yesterday.

JMO,

Alla