Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of

[hickengruendler]

No: HPFGUIDX 159813

  
> Alla:
> 
> Erm.... my question was where in canon it shows that Dumbledore 
**has 
> a history of knowing what is best**.
> 
> So, let's go through your examples - he defeated Grimdewald, 
indeed - 
> if we will learn that he indeed did without hurting many people in 
> process that is 
> indeed a good one.
> 
> He removed the stone from Gringotts - you are joking, right? He 
> brought the stone to Hogwarts to *give Harry a chance to fight 
> Voldemort** ( paraphrase) - NO, I do not think that this is what 
was 
> best from within the story.

Hickengruendler:

Did he really, though? I know that this is what Harry speculates, but 
do we know that this really was Dumbledore's motivation? Hagrid said, 
that Gringotts was the safest place in Britain except for Hogwarts, 
therefore I assume it makes sense to transfer the Stone from the 
second safest to the safest place. However, I will give Dumbledore 
both plus points and a minus point. A plus point for realizing, that 
the Stone was in danger in Gringotts and that something needed to be 
done to safe it. An additional plus point for having the idea to use 
the Mirror of Erised. This really was a great idea. Quirrell never 
would have gotten the Stone out of the mirror, if it weren't for 
Harry appearing, therefore I assume the Stone was indeed as safe as 
possible. But a negative one, because he could have guessed that 
putting the Stone into Hogwarts would endanger the students, because 
of Fluffy and because of Voldemort. That's not good, even though I am 
sure this was mostly done for the plot.

Alla:
 
> He knew that Voldemort would returned, erm and he failed to 
recognise 
> the DE in Hogwarts and actually prevent Harry from being tortured? 

Hickengruendler:

According to Neville, Augusta Longbottom also said, that Voldie would 
return someday. Therefore I don't think this is a question of 
Dumbledore knowing best anyway, it's more a question about Dumbledore 
being realistic, instead of putting his head into the sand. But 
whatever Dumbledore's flaws may be, I will not condem him for not 
recognizing every Death Eater as a such. And after all, Gandalf 
trusted Saruman in the beginning as well. (In the beginning of LoTR 
that is, in "reality" he trusted him for several centuries).
 
Alla: 
> He knew that Hagrid was innocent and what exactly he did to show 
this 
> to the world? What exactly he did to make sure Hagrid completes his 
> education?He took him in as a groundkeeper, not nearly enough IMO.

Hickengruendler:

What could he have done, though? He knew it was Riddle and kept an 
eye on him. And Riddle was clever enough, not to do anything anymore. 
One could argue, that Dumbledore, afte rhis talk with Tom in the 
orphanage, should have had a very close eye on him even earlier. 
However, I would argue Dumbledore was in a lose/lose situation from 
the very beginning. First of all, I assume it wasn't in his decision, 
to allow Tom entering Hogwarts. Dippet was the headmaster at this 
time. And even if Dumbledore had some say in it, as creepy as Tom-Boy 
in the orphanage was, he hadn't done anything yet, to deserve being 
expelled from Hogwarts before his schooltime there even begins. No 
matter what became of him, not allowing Riddle to enter to enter the 
school, would have been the worse crime, IMO, since he would have 
written an eleven years old boy off, simply because of this one 
conversation. I believe him, when he said, that he kept an eye on him 
from the very beginning, but he's also a teacher and can't be 
everywhere all the time. The real question is, if he should have told 
some other teachers about Tom (maybe not the gullible SLughorn, but 
someone, who might have listened to Dumble). Maybe, but then, his 
reasoning, that he wanted to give Tom the chance for a fresh start 
also is a pretty good one, therefore I'll give him a pass on this. 
But about Hagrid? I really don't know, what else he could have done. 
I assume Hagrid told him the story about Aragog and Dumbledore 
believed it, but like he said, he does not have the power to make 
anyone see the truth. He helped Hagrid as good as he can, IMO, which 
sadly is more than can be said about the next case.

Alla:

> And yes, indeed he recognised that Sirius was innocent, took him 
> thirteen years. Thank goodness for Sirius escaping I guess.

Hickengruendler:

You know, I have been a Dumbledore defender in this case in the 
beginning, but the more I read, the more I am convinced by his 
critics in this case. At the very least Dumbledore should have tried 
to convince Crouch, to give *everyone* a fair trial. Considering that 
Crouch went to Dumbledore and not to the ministry, after his escape 
and shortly before his murder in goF, he might have listened to old 
Albus' advice. But then, maybe Dumbledore did try to give everyone a 
trial and Crouch did not listen. He certainly is one of the very few 
adult characters, who actually went through a development, therefore 
he might have changed regarding his stubborness in this case as well. 
I think I'll continue to assume, that Dumbledore did try his best at 
least in this case, but simply hadn't the power to convince Crouch. 
It makes me help to continue liking him.

Hickengruendler