Being friends with either group would be somewhat terrifying. I went for Harry and Hermione simply because I think it would be easier to be friends with them while avoiding a lot of the scary shit while Anakin and Ahsoka lived with it pretty much 24/7.
Harry - tortures and mind-rapes people with life-sentencing, forbidden curses when officials aren't looking, adores breaking all kinds of rules and moral standards on daily basis, dreams about murdering his opponents, enjoys taking vengeance on his non-magical family, is effectively a living horcrux an object made with a murder curse which literally makes him half-Voldemort, kills his main villain in cold blood without any regret the moment he gets a chance, becomes a man-hunter after graduating who's job is to put people into a hell of earth that is Azkaban.
Internet: I WANNA BE FRIENDS WITH HARRY, SCREW ANAKIN, AFTER ALL HE WAS MANIPULATED INTO KILLING SOME YOUNG JEDI BY AN INCARNATION OF THE DEVIL THREATENING HIM WITH HIS WIFE'S LEFE!
Both Harry and Anakin ended up being horrible people that none of us would ever want to meet in real life giving everything they've done. The problem is it took a years of behind the scenes manipulation by a mastermind like Palpatine, also perfect circumstances like threatening Anakin's wife with sure death, and finally it took the presence and EXISTANCE of actual dark-side energy to finally corrupt Anakin's heart into becoming a murderer. Harry is just Harry, and he's always been doing Harry things without a second of regret or reflection. Nobody in the HP universe even seems to acknowledge that countless things he's been doing over the years were morally shady and only resulted in some positive things happening out of sheer dumb luck. I'd choose Anakin without taking a second look. If you inserted him when he was still a jedi into our reality, he'd never become a sith in the first place. If you inserted Harry into our reality, he'd end up in a prison in a week.
Harry - tortures and mind-rapes people with life-sentencing, forbidden curses when officials aren't looking, adores breaking all kinds of rules and moral standards on daily basis, dreams about murdering his opponents, enjoys taking vengeance on his non-magical family, is effectively a living horcrux an object made with a murder curse which literally makes him half-Voldemort, kills his main villain in cold blood without any regret the moment he gets a chance, becomes a man-hunter after graduating who's job is to put people into a hell of earth that is Azkaban.
Internet: I WANNA BE FRIENDS WITH HARRY, SCREW ANAKIN, AFTER ALL HE WAS MANIPULATED INTO KILLING SOME YOUNG JEDI BY AN INCARNATION OF THE DEVIL THREATENING HIM WITH HIS WIFE'S LEFE!
Both Harry and Anakin ended up being horrible people that none of us would ever want to meet in real life giving everything they've done. The problem is it took a years of behind the scenes manipulation by a mastermind like Palpatine, also perfect circumstances like threatening Anakin's wife with sure death, and finally it took the presence and EXISTANCE of actual dark-side energy to finally corrupt Anakin's heart into becoming a murderer. Harry is just Harry, and he's always been doing Harry things without a second of regret or reflection. Nobody in the HP universe even seems to acknowledge that countless things he's been doing over the years were morally shady and only resulted in some positive things happening out of sheer dumb luck. I'd choose Anakin without taking a second look. If you inserted him when he was still a jedi into our reality, he'd never become a sith in the first place. If you inserted Harry into our reality, he'd end up in a prison in a week.
Just wow. Could you be any more biased? Most of this is blatantly incorrect.
Harry uses 2 of the Unforgivable Curses a total of 3 times throughout the story. He used the mind-control curse once in Book 7, when it was the only way to avoid capture. He used the pain curse in Book 5, against the person who had just murdered his godfather. The second time he used it was in Book 7, against a terrorist, who has been torturing his friends for the better part of a year, and just assaulted his teacher. Keep in mind, all these are during war, and Aurors have been allowed to use Unforgivable Curses against Death Eaters in the past. Even so, Harry never used the Killing Curse.
Harry does have a penchant for disregarding rules and regulations, but he mostly does this with good intentions.
Harry does not wish to murder anyone. Even Voldemort he only wants to kill out of necessity, not because he enjoys killing. He refuses to kill captured Death Eaters, and goes out of his way to save people, who are trying to kill him, like Stan Shunpike and Draco.
The Dursleys abused Harry for over a decade, and continued to treat him with utter contempt long after. Of course, he hates them. Still, he never wishes them real harm, and his first instinct, when he and Dudley are attacked, is to protect his cousin.
Harry being a horcrux is only relevant when Voldemort is around, and is actively trying to control him. It certainly isn't enough on its own to make him dangerous to his friends.
That's especially funny because, when Harry confronts Riddle for the last time, he gives him the opportunity to seek remorse, and try to mend his soul. And of course, he doesn't deal the killing blow. And besides, killing a vastly superior opponent in the midst of battle is hardly considered "in cold blood".
Harry becomes a cop to fight against dark wizards, which is what Aurors specifically deal with, not just any minor crime. And Azkaban goes through major reform following the 2nd Wizarding War, which sees to the expulsion of the dementors.
You hyper-focus on Harry's faults, which are extremely minor, compared to Anakin's. Killing younglings is okay, because he was "manipulated"? He wasn't tricked into it, he chose to carry out that command, because the person giving it had something he wanted. He chose to help Sidious kill Windu, because he needed Sidious more. He chose to take part in Order 66, which saw to the deaths of not only the jedi council, but all of his former comrades. And the final nail in the "he was tricked" argument is the fact that he was going to kill Palpatine himself, so that he could rule the galaxy. This is the ruthless enforcer, who oversaw the genocide of Aldaaron, without any objection, and you're trying to compare him to a rebellious teenager.
OT: Harry and Hermione easily. Ahsoka is nice too, but her appearance would raise too many questions in our world.
Just wow. Could you be any more biased? Most of this is blatantly incorrect.
Nah, not really, but let's see those arguments of yours.
Harry uses 2 of the Unforgivable Curses a total of 3 times throughout the story.
Correct. This is where the debate on Harry's morality ends. All 3 times times should've resulted in Harry getting 3 consecutive life-sentences in his own world. I can't see how is there any gray area here.
He used the mind-control curse once in Book 7, when it was the only way to avoid capture.
Ends do not justify the means. That's morality 101 dude. Just because we all agree Putin is evil now, it's not okay to bomb Russia with chemical weapons or to order an assassination attempt on Putin. The goal you fight for is just as important as the methods you use while fighting. Harry should've made a plan that didn't include using an unforgivable curse, that's all there is to. Similarly just because your wife is dying in a hospital, it doesn't give you the right to steal my car to drive your ass there. It's your responsibility to figure out how to get into a hospital on time by legal means, buy a taxi, hitch-hike, figure something out. But the moment you bust open my windshield, I have a right to sue your ass. You freedom ends where my begins. Harry had no moral grounds to use Imperio on anyone just because his cause is just. That is all.
He used the pain curse in Book 5, against the person who had just murdered his godfather.
Yes, lynchment and torture are perfectly normal reactions. It's not as if Harry could've taken the time it took to torture Bellatrix to hit her with Stupify and bring her to justice so she could properly anwser for her crimes via judiciary system. Nah. It's perfectly normal for teenagers to just catch criminals by themselves, and then torture them. Totally justified.
Holy shit man.
The second time he used it was in Book 7, against a terrorist, who has been torturing his friends for the better part of a year, and just assaulted his teacher.
Same as the above.
Keep in mind, all these are during war, and Aurors have been allowed to use Unforgivable Curses against Death Eaters in the past. Even so, Harry never used the Killing Curse.
Harry received no such permit. He is breaking the law and willingly signing up for a life sentence in Azkaban. He only didn't get it because there were no witnesses to his crimes. And no, war doesn't justify torture either. Normal teengares DO NOT TORUTURE PEOPLE FOR PLEASURE. There are plenty of spells that can neutralize criminals, that aren't unforgivable curses. Heck, obliviate is basically erasing person from existence and neutralizing her/him completely and it's perfectly permissible.
Harry does have a penchant for disregarding rules and regulations, but he mostly does this with good intentions.
Once again, ends do not justify the means. Morality 101. Just because I'm hungry or even starving to death, it doesn't mean I can steal your sandwich. If we operated by such laws we'd be no different than animals and there would be no way to establish a society at all.
Harry does not wish to murder anyone.
Bro, Harry had murderous instincts since he was 13.
He refuses to kill captured Death Eaters, and goes out of his way to save people, who are trying to kill him, like Stan Shunpike and Draco.
Just because he refused to kill some people doesn't excuse his desire to kill other people in the past, and the people he's actually killed, or almost killed. Not to mention other curses he's put on people. I mean he would've literally murdered Draco Malfoy if Snape didn't save him at the last moment.
And for the record, yes, I know Harry didn't know what Sectumsempra does, but he was still perfectly fine with casting an unknown spell that was marked as "for enemies" that he acquired from an unknown source, on another person. That's an equivalent of me putting some chemical in your drink in order to hurt you. Just because I didn't really know what the chemical does, doesn't mean I wouldn't be responsible for you dying after drinking it. Harry is an AWFUL kid bro. Like I said, he would've ended up in a prison in our world 10 times over.
And btw, it's worth mentioning that Harry then tried to use the exact same spell on Snape, even though he wasn't defending himself (Which we call "in cold blood") and even though he knew EXACTLY what it does at the time. Yes, Harry was about to kill another human in cold blood out of vengeance too.
The Dursleys abused Harry for over a decade, and continued to treat him with utter contempt long after. Of course, he hates them. Still, he never wishes them real harm, and his first instinct, when he and Dudley are attacked, is to protect his cousin.
Answering abuse with violence is not the answer. Of course, Harry is perfectly justified to defend himself and even use magic against Dursleys, but only if his life or his personal health is somehow in danger. I mean how is blowing up his aunt and sending her flying over London justifiable simply because she said a mean comment? Is that really your view about morality? So in your world, Will Smith wasn't only entitled to smacking Chris Rock, he actually could've tied him to a bunch of drones set autopilot at "random" and set him flying as punishment? And you would've applaud that? THINK man.
Harry being a horcrux is only relevant when Voldemort is around, and is actively trying to control him. It certainly isn't enough on its own to make him dangerous to his friends.
If Harry is actually doing all of the stuff we've talked about above out of his own uncorrupted choice, and not because of Voldemort's influence on his soul, than Harry is even worse than I thought.
And besides, killing a vastly superior opponent in the midst of battle is hardly considered "in cold blood".
I would agree that killing Voldemort is justifiable, especially since he was trying to kill Harry at the same time. But that's not what a hero should've done. Luke also could've killed Vader, he would be perfectly justified to do that. But he didn't because that's not what heroes are supposed to do. Harry should've looked for ANY other choice. But he was perfectly fine with the prophecy and Dumbledore and everyone else sending him to a direct confrontation to kill Voldemort from the start. Harry is an awful human being.
You hyper-focus on Harry's faults, which are extremely minor, compared to Anakin's.
I've clearly said that Anakin became an awful human being that I never would've want to be friends with. But that happens AFTER his turn to the dark side, which without Palpatine's master plan, never would've happened. Harry never took a bad turn, he simply is evil throughout all 7 books and he never feels any remorse. That's the big difference between the two.
Killing younglings is okay, because he was "manipulated"?
No, none of what Anakin did after his turn was okay. But we still need to acknowledge that Anakin didn't just make a free decision to become an evil person. He was expertly manipulated into making that decision for years by an incarnation of the devil himself, and his wife, who was the love of his life, was literally put on the scale of the whole thing to force him to make that step.
Harry - tortures and mind-rapes people with life-sentencing, forbidden curses when officials aren't looking, adores breaking all kinds of rules and moral standards on daily basis, dreams about murdering his opponents, enjoys taking vengeance on his non-magical family, is effectively a living horcrux an object made with a murder curse which literally makes him half-Voldemort, kills his main villain in cold blood without any regret the moment he gets a chance, becomes a man-hunter after graduating who's job is to put people into a hell of earth that is Azkaban.
Internet: I WANNA BE FRIENDS WITH HARRY, SCREW ANAKIN, AFTER ALL HE WAS MANIPULATED INTO KILLING SOME YOUNG JEDI BY AN INCARNATION OF THE DEVIL THREATENING HIM WITH HIS WIFE'S LEFE!
Both Harry and Anakin ended up being horrible people that none of us would ever want to meet in real life giving everything they've done. The problem is it took a years of behind the scenes manipulation by a mastermind like Palpatine, also perfect circumstances like threatening Anakin's wife with sure death, and finally it took the presence and EXISTANCE of actual dark-side energy to finally corrupt Anakin's heart into becoming a murderer. Harry is just Harry, and he's always been doing Harry things without a second of regret or reflection. Nobody in the HP universe even seems to acknowledge that countless things he's been doing over the years were morally shady and only resulted in some positive things happening out of sheer dumb luck. I'd choose Anakin without taking a second look. If you inserted him when he was still a jedi into our reality, he'd never become a sith in the first place. If you inserted Harry into our reality, he'd end up in a prison in a week.
Being friends with Anakin is suicide, so Harry and Hermione, they're more useful too since magic is just better than the Force for everyday stuff in the real world.
Ends do not justify the means. That's morality 101 dude.
Actually, there is an entire sub-category of moral philosophies (Consequentialism), based around the idea that ends do justify the means. Most people believe that, at least on some level. But Harry is no Lelouch, he never does anything truly evil, in pursuit of a positive end.
Harry should've made a plan that didn't include using an unforgivable curse,
He did. His original plan did not include the use of Imperius. He improvised it, because he saw no other choice. Sometimes things don't go as planned, and you need to made difficult decisions quickly, to keep people safe.
Yes, lynchment and torture are perfectly normal reactions. It's not as if Harry could've taken the time it took to torture Bellatrix to hit her with Stupify and bring her to justice so she could properly anwser for her crimes via judiciary system. Nah. It's perfectly normal for teenagers to just catch criminals by themselves, and then torture them. Totally justified.
The movie took liberties with the scene, and made Bellatrix look like a defenseless victim. In the book she actually fought back, and was kind of owning Harry. And his Crucio didn't even work, because he didn't mean to hurt her enough. He is not a sadist, and he is not Batman. He's a 15 year old kid, fighting for his life, and can't afford to be selective on how to take down a trained killer.
Harry received no such permit. He is breaking the law and willingly signing up for a life sentence in Azkaban. He only didn't get it because there were no witnesses to his crimes.
Harry's enemy was, at the time, the de facto dictator of Britain. There was no way to stop him legally. If Harry was limited to obeying the law, he'd have had to turn himself in to the Ministry, the same day they put up his wanted poster. Are you serious? The entire Rebellion in Star Wars was also illegal, and they blew up the Death Star, with probably many innocent tachnicians and custodians on it. Desperate times, desperate measures.
And no, war doesn't justify torture either. Normal teengares DO NOT TORUTURE PEOPLE FOR PLEASURE.
I agree with both these statements, but Harry did neither. He did not use prolonged torture on anyone. He only ever used the Cruciatus Curse for a quick offensive. In contrast, Bellatrix used it to torture Neville's parents into insanity. And he certainly didn't do it for pleasure. He did enjoy it with Amycus, but only in the way you'd probably "enjoy" beating up somebody, who just hit your mom, not in a sadistic sort of way. Those are different things.
Just because I'm hungry or even starving to death, it doesn't mean I can steal your sandwich.
If your only alternative is dying, I'd say, you have a very compelling moral argument for stealing that sandwich. You would have to be an extreme deontologist to see that as morally reprehensible.
Bro, Harry had murderous instincts since he was 13.
I knew you were going to bring that up, but I did not mention it, because I was hoping you'd see the difference between saying you want to kill someone, and actually trying it, without me having to point it out to you. Harry was in a hightened emotional state, having just learned that this man is responsible for his parents' death. It is not unusual for people to react the way he did. Also, in Book 7, Harry tried to save Pettigrew's life, so he clearly wasn't as keen on killing the traitor, as you claim.
I mean he would've literally murdered Draco Malfoy if Snape didn't save him at the last moment.
He did that in response to Draco trying to cast Crucio on him. Had Draco finished that spell, he'd have been the one with a life sentence in Azkaban. In a way, Harry helped him out there. Since Sectumsempra was not Unforgivable, Harry was actually retaliating with a lesser degree of force than would have been proportional.
That's an equivalent of me putting some chemical in your drink in order to hurt you. Just because I didn't really know what the chemical does, doesn't mean I wouldn't be responsible for you dying after drinking it.
That is not equivalent at all. It would be more like you grabbing a random chemical, and throwing it in the face of someone who's aiming a gun at you, and is about to pull the triger. That's the actual equivalent of what Harry did there.
And btw, it's worth mentioning that Harry then tried to use the exact same spell on Snape, even though he wasn't defending himself (Which we call "in cold blood") and even though he knew EXACTLY what it does at the time. Yes, Harry was about to kill another human in cold blood out of vengeance too.
As far as Harry was aware, Snape was the equivanlent of an active shooter, who had just commited murder on school grounds. He had no way of knowing whether Snape would kill more people, so it was morally justifiable to chase him. Snape is also an expert duelist, so against him, anything goes.
I mean how is blowing up his aunt and sending her flying over London justifiable simply because she said a mean comment?
That was unintentional. Harry did say she deserved it, but he was, once again, in a hightened emotional state, so it's understandable. There was also nothing he could do about it at that point.
I would agree that killing Voldemort is justifiable, especially since he was trying to kill Harry at the same time. But that's not what a hero should've done. Luke also could've killed Vader, he would be perfectly justified to do that. But he didn't because that's not what heroes are supposed to do. Harry should've looked for ANY other choice. But he was perfectly fine with the prophecy and Dumbledore and everyone else sending him to a direct confrontation to kill Voldemort from the start. Harry is an awful human being.
Harry did not kill Voldemort in the end. He even tried to help him. Voldemort was never going to stop coming for him. And, as an exceptionally powerful dark wizard, he had to be stopped by any means. I don't see how destroying his horcruxes, which would only make him vulnerable, makes Harry evil.
Harry is a flawed character, that I agree with. He is not purely heroic, nor devoid of selfish motives and personal biases. But your reading of him, as some sort of sociopath, especially next to Anakin, is not vindicated by the text.
Being friends with Anakin is suicide, so Harry and Hermione, they're more useful too since magic is just better than the Force for everyday stuff in the real world.
Doesn’t it disrupt electronics? You’d get locked out of a lot of stuff in the modern world, as well.
@last0fth3risen: TBF Harry (or rather Hermione, but he defended her) gave a girl lifelong facial scars, and neither of them felt any remorse.
Yeah, for that, I got nothing. My guess is, Rowling wanted it to come off like a soldier in a war commiting treason by conspiring with the enemy, but instead it played like a scared and confused schoolgirl tattling to a teacher, so the punishment was way too extreme.
But it's still nowhere near as cold as intentionally making your son an invalid, right before calmly asking him to join the family business, like nothing happened.
I still end up in a war that highlights me as potential bait for protagonist. Not sure what happens to people who were friends with Anakin Post-Vader that weren't Jedi.
@last0fth3risen: TBF Harry (or rather Hermione, but he defended her) gave a girl lifelong facial scars, and neither of them felt any remorse.
If I remember correctly, Harry did. Hermione didn't, probably because she sold them out to a woman who'd been torturing her best friend for months until he was left with physical scars and who would have had him expelled and (presumably) either sent to Azkaban or an asylum.
I also don't think the scars were permanent. I'm pretty sure they were fixed a year or two later.
@breakofdawn: IIRC, Harry outright praised Hermione for coming up with the idea.
The girl was scared, confused, and had her family’s livelihood to worry about. She only joined in the first place, because got pressured into it.
Harry and Hermione’s inability to empathize with that is kind of shitty, and comparing it to Ron‘s situation was just poor logic on their part.
Not to mention the curse is a failure as a deterrant if no one knows about it. If she announced it after they signed the contracts, then it makes sense as a justified precaution. But without an actual warning, it’s just vindicative vengeance, with no care as to the extenuating circumstances that might pressure some of the students more than others.
Anyways, my issue isn’t even with Harry and Hermione committing the act. It’s that the story as a whole treats it as a justified situation and makes Cho and her friend out to be the irrational ones.
Log in to comment