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

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 160043

> Alla:
> 
> Really and truly? I never thought that it was unclear that when I 
> write not in my book it means not in my opinion. I guess it was 
> unclear, sorry about that.  So, let me rephrase it - **in my 
> opinion** Dumbledore is not off the hook for what I consider to be 
> careless disregard of lifes of other students, while being concerned 
> with saving one, in my opinion that is.
> 

Pippin:
My point was that it's JKR's opinion that counts. :)
But are you saying you don't think Dumbledore's precautions kept
the danger to the students to its usual and customary level? I
think we can check that. 

Year one:
Four students threatened by Fluffy
Broomstick attack on Harry
Troll attack on Harry, Ron and Hermione
Dragon attack on Ron
Quirrell attack on Harry
Chess piece attack on Ron
Quirrell attack on Harry

 Second year certainly wasn't any safer. Third year, dementors, oh my! 
Fourth year, Cedric was *killed*. Fifth year: Umbridge, Snape's
jar of cockroaches, Marietta, Montague, Grawp, centaurs.

Sixth year, Katie, Ron, bathroom fight...am I missing something?

Up to the moment the DE's arrived, I'd have to say sixth year
was probably the safest one on record,  especially considering
all the mayhem that was happening outside the school.  
It's not clear to me that stopping Draco would have stopped
the DE's from entering. Couldn't another agent of Voldemort's
have fixed the cabinet if Draco wasn't available?

> Alla:

> I am **not** buying the argument that child who is taken in 
> protective home, together with his father and mother, if I may add, 
> and who may agree, if I may add on behalf of the child,  no scratch 
> that, not even protective custody, who says that in that place 
> Malfoys will be somehow restricted in their movements, constitutes 
> prison.

Pippin:

I've never said that Draco couldn't have been placed under DD's
protection if his parents agreed to it, but we saw what kind of
protection Narcissa wanted for her son. We saw Draco
deny to Snape that he needed protection at all. How was
Dumbledore supposed to get Draco or Narcissa to accept it, 
if not by force?

You seem to have the idea that when Dumbledore says
"Jump!" the whole WW says "How high?" but the reality is
he can't even get people to say 'Voldemort'.

Pippin: quoted in 1600032
> I haven't forgotten about the Vow, by the way, but I think that
Dumbledore and Snape meant to circumvent it by a ruse all along. The
simplest way out for Dumbledore and DDM!Snape would have been for
Snape to pretend to jump the gun and "murder" Dumbledore before
Draco had a chance to fail. But Dumbledore wanted to bring Harry up
to speed on the horcruxes first, and he wanted Snape to continue to
serve as double agent and protect Draco as long as possible, which
would have been impossible once the 'murder' had been committed.
This is what Snape didn't want to do any more, IMO.
>

Dungrollin:
See, I don't think that would've worked. If Snape had *pretended* to
kill DD, but DD was actually still alive and in hiding, DD would
have 'escaped' from Draco. Draco would have given up. Thus Draco
would have failed. Thus ... etc.

But I dimly remember arguing this once before, so you've probably
got a good reason for thinking otherwise.

Pippin:
Snape is only sworn to carry out the task 'should it prove necessary...
if it seems Draco will fail.' If Voldemort was satisfied that Dumbledore
was  dead, then  Draco would be released from his task and it 
would not be necessary for Snape to fulfill it. If  Narcissa did not
think Voldemort would be satisfied by Dumbledore's death then 
the third clause of the vow would not protect Draco anyway and 
Narcissa had no reason to impose it.

Pippin