Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 179747

> Magpie:
> This is an important conversation and there's nothing to be gained 
by 
> them talking in torturous loopholes.

Alla:

Sorry. It is how I read it at the first read. It feels as torturous 
loophole to you, but it was how I understood that conversation from 
the get go. I did not have to try hard to understand it that way.

Magpie:
<SNIP>
 I see 
no 
> believable reason whatsover for either the characters or the 
author 
> to choose to have them say that Dumbledore did kill if they mean 
he 
> avoided the temptation to kill (Harry would be the first to defend 
> Dumbledore if that were the case)<SNIP>. 

Alla:

Well, we differ, that's all. To me if you could avoid it was brought 
up specifically to show that he struggled with it.



Magpie: 
> If Dumbledore tried "really hard" to avoid it but still did it, 
> that's exactly what they just said.
<SNIP>

Alla:

I meant that Dumbledore tried really hard and did NOT do it, sorry.

> Alla:
> > Same way here, I think it is reasonable to say if Dumbledore 
never 
> > killed that he never killed if he could avoid it, because it was 
> > hard for him to do so. Like he knew he was tempted to kill, but 
> > never did, etc.
> 
> > interpretation, but surely you would agree that it is nothing 
> > **more** but interpretation?
> 
> Magpie:
> No, I don't really get it. Sure I get how you can easily find a 
> loophole in the phrase "if you could avoid it." If you had never 
read 
> the series and were asking about Dumbledore's philosophy and I 
> said, "Dumbledore doesn't believe in killing if he can avoid it" 
that 
> wouldn't mean that Dumbledore actually killed anybody, just his 
views 
> on killing. But in a scene where people are talking about one 
> person's past behavior, which is known to both of them, if they 
say 
> somebody never did something and added an exception to that rule, 
> they do it to pre-emptively head-off the obvious objection to 
saying 
> he "never did it" at all.

Alla:

What? You do not see that Dumbledore killing Morphin and Hockey is 
nothing more but intepretation?

Where is the quote Dumbledore kills them? Not the inference about 
them dying because Dumbledore extracted memories from them. But 
clear canon which says that Dumbledore killed them, I do not 
remember such exists, but I am glad to be proven wrong.

Actually, where is the canon that taking memories from the people 
means that they will die? Not Voldemort, who **murdered** Bertha 
afterwards of course. I mean, I would be surprised had Morphin NOT 
died in Azkaban, after all Sirius' keeping some of his sanity seemed 
to be a surprise
And it would be really helpful if you could specify what past 
behaviour of Dumbledore is known to Harry. As in whom did he kill 
that Harry knows?. Surely Ariana would not count as one he tried to 
avoid to but could not?


Mus responds:

By the same token, are we allowed to assume that Snape did not kill,
on the grounds that when he said "Only those I could not save", he
meant that he had been able to save all the potential victims. In
that case, the only death that can be attributed to him is DD's
subsequent assisted dying.

No, that doesn't work either, does it?


Alla:

It does not work for me because we KNOW IMO that there are people 
whom Snape could not save ( Charity for example), but most 
definitely after he comes back I do not think he killed anybody. I 
certainly think that there are people he could not save from killing.

Of course I am not willing to say that he did not kill anybody back 
in his DE days, that to me is a different game.