Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 159147

> > Alla:
> >
> > Both, actually. Harry certainly does not **tell** everything to
> > Dumbledore, but Dumbledore looks in his eyes way too often for my
> > taste to be sure that Harry indeed witholds information from him.
>
> Pippin:
> Does Dumbledore ever use legilimency on Harry
> when Harry hasn't tried to lie to him first? I think not, otherwise
> he would have known about Trelawney being attacked and
> things might have fallen out very differently. Whooping is not
> a crime, attacking a teacher is. Too bad Harry didn't remember
> to tell him about it.

Alla:

Huh? Are you arguing that we should praise Dumbledore for not using
Legilimency on Harry like every minute when they talk? I mean, of
course Dumbledore does not use Legilimency on Harry every single
time, of course he uses it on him when he suspects Harry lies to him.

Does it make the use of Legilimency more appropriate? Does
Dumbledore has sense of entitlement to know truth every time Harry
wants to conceal it from him? Not in my book.

ETA:

Not that I think that it has any relevance to the ethics of 
Dumbledore and Snape using Legilimency on Harry and other students, 
but I am wondering what are you basing your assertion on that if 
Harry told him that in addition to celebrating Draco attacked 
Trelawney.

Do you think that Dumbledore for some reason behaved differently? 
Why?

Supposedly he gets ( that is if he knows as much about Draco 
activities as he claims) that Draco celebrating means that he 
finished the cabinet and he still decides to leave.

Are you saying that If he knew that in addition to celebrating Draco 
threw Trewlaney out he would not have gone after horcruxes?

Why? Just curious.

> Alla:
> > As to Marauders, well, yeah, they managed to kept something from
> > Dumbledore, AFAIK - once, which DD himself calls extraordinary
> > achievement, I still would not call that equal footing - meaning
that
> > usually Dumbledore gets the information he needs, whether other
> > person wants him to or not.
>
> Pippin:
> You mean that they were animagi?
> What about the secret keeper switch, the marauder's map,
> and the monthly outings with the werewolf? What about
> the secret entrance through the one-eyed witch?

Alla:

I group Marauders Map and monthly outings with the werewolf in
**they were animagi** topic. :)

As to Secret Keeper switch, I am not sure I remember any proof that
Dumbledore **tried** to find out that information. In fact, via his
behaviour towards Sirius, I think there are hints to the contrary.

I said originally ( paraphrasing or maybe clarifying myself) that
barred very few exceptions Dumbledore can always find out
information he wants to and I think that if he wanted to find out
that information, he could have. IMO of course.


> Pippin:
> So it is all about Dumbledore's subjective judgement of how much
> the person is being emotionally tortured by not knowing? I guess
> Lupin would never be told anything then :) Harry probably wouldn't
> either. I mean, most of the questions that burn up the bandwidth
> around here haven't received even a first thought from Harry.

Alla:

I don't know the exact answer to that, frankly. I would say - common
sense on Dumbledore behalf maybe?

>> Pippin:
> Dumbledore does not tell Harry how to feel, he waits till Harry
tells
> him how he feels, then tries to deal with it.

Alla:

Except maybe with information given by Dumbledore Harry would have
felt differently on different topics.

Pippin:
> I'm sure Dumbledore thought Harry would think he had enough to do
> with classes and homework and adolescence generally without being
> expected to save the world from Voldemort singlehanded.

Alla:

Harry was already doing that by the time of OOP with Ron and
Hermione and by himself too, all that he would have learned is why
he is doing that. As I said, it was significant burden to add, I get
it, but not as significant as for any **normal** child, who did not
encounter Voldemort yet IMO.


>
> > Alla:
> >
> > That's easy to say that they can quit IMO. Because they do not
just
> > **work** for Dumbledore, they fight for the Light, for all that's
> > good, no?
> >
> > So, if they quit where does that lead them? To Voldemort? I
disagree
> > that if they don't like his style, they can quite ( I mean Order
of
> > Phoenix fighters), because IMO there is nowhere else to go.
>
> Pippin:
> There's the Ministry, there's what we might call the Fred and
George
> route, there's lone resisters like Regulus. If Dumbledore's group
> is the most effective, well, that speaks for itself, IMO.

Alla:

LOLOLOL. Most effective? No, that is not what I meant. I meant that
it is quite clear to me and it is of course IMHO that according to
books Dumbledore's views are morally right and whoever does not
support him, does not support the morally right side.

Therefore suggesting that the fighters who agree with Dumbledore's
general morals, but disagree with his leadership style ( which yes,
I think of as dictatorial) have somewhere else to go does not ring
true to me.

Ministry? JKR beats us over the head IMO that Ministry is morally
corrupt. So, should members of OOP who think that Dumbledore has
right goals in mind but wrong ways to achieve them maybe or at least
not always right, go and join morally corrupt people? I don't think
so personally.

Regulus' way? I mean I love Regulus' character without even properly
meeting him, but he joined DE before figuring out that this is not
the way to go.

Are you suggesting that members of OOP who do not like how
Dumbledore leads, should go to DE first and then return to the right
side?

Um, we already have one, I don't think I want to see any more Snape
like behaviour, frankly. IMO of course.

So, yeah, I stand by my assertion that people who do not like
Dumbledore's leadership style did not have much choice, that is if
they fully support Dumbledore's side of course.


Pippin:
<SNIP>
> There is a lot of challenging of received wisdom going on in
> the books, but there is also an insistence that sometimes, as
> frustrating as it is, the old guys really do know stuff that they
> can't explain to you because you don't yet have the background
> or the experience to understand it.

Alla:

Well, I agree with the first part and of course second part is true
to RL, but I think we are still to see whether in the books old guy
was right in a major way ( to trust Snape I mean)

For now I think Dumbledore was rather clear that his wisdom isolated
him from other people and made him to make rather monumental
mistakes.

He knows stuff yes, but he failed so many times because he forgot
about how youth feels IMO


> > Alla:
> >
> > Oh, I don't know. I had a rather strong feeling for
> > example that Lupin was feeling pretty bitter that he
> > was to go to werewolves. <SNIP>

> bboyminn:
>
> But doesn't every solder feel pretty bitter about being
> used as cannon fodder by generals who are sipping tea back
> at their nice safe headquarters and moving toy soldier
> and tanks around on a map with little /apparent/ concern
> for the fact that real men are wasting their lives?
>
> Yet, they go and they do. They go where they are told to
> go and they do their duty, and they hope and pray that
> there is some greater good to it all. Sometimes the
> Generals are right, sometimes the Generals are wrong, but
> either way, the Generals are almost always safe.
>
> No Lupin did not like going and living amoung the very
> aspect of Werewolves that he had been trying to escape
> his whole life. But he knew there was a strategic
> importance and, as much as he didn't like it, he did his
> duty just like every other soldier who is asked to serve.
<BIG SNIP>

Alla:

Well, yes I think on this part we are pretty much in agreement.

I think this would be as good place as any to go off some other
Dumbledore leadership tangent.

I mean, there is no doubt in my mind that JKR intends to portray
Dumbledore as moral authority on major issues ( I will not be
surprised that till she heard some outcries from the fandom, she
intended Dumbledore to be a moral authority on all issues, but
people were not buying it, so we got blood protection, chasticising
Dursleys etc. In my speculative opinion of course), but what I am
not comfortable with is the means Dumbledore uses to do it.

I mean on one hand he supposedly lets people make their own choices
on the other hand, it seems that he drags people to better future
even if people do not really want to.

Suddenly I am having flashbacks of "let's go and build comunism"
slogans in my former homecountry.

As I said, I am sure Dumbledore had better future for WW in mind, I
just don't think that dragging people there is necessarily the way
to go.

Although I have a rather strong feeling that JKR approves of that
way and this is what matters, I suppose.

Just look at Hermione and STEW. Do House elves, erm... want to be
freed? Does not look so to me.

But JKR came out and said that this is slavery, no? Sorry, Steve, I
am not buying that elves are born to serve humans as I think you
postulated in the past.

I think JKR means for the enchantment to be broken whether elves
want that or not and eventually they realise the wisdom of dear
Hermione and be grateful for that.

Okay, must stop rambling. To make a long story short - yeah, I don't
like Dumbledore leadership style a la ** I am the only one who knows
and you lot must just follow me to the better future**.

I realise that during the war he must have felt that necessary, do
not feel obliged to like it though.

JMO,

Alla, who really tries hard to remember Dumbledore as he was in HBP,
at his best IMO.