"I sure hope that the F/11 crack was uncharacteristic on your part."
I had a point.
I assume that you didn't see it, as I didn't, and yet we have both read a good deal about it and heard it discussed, and think that we have enough information about it to have an opinion.
I'm quite willing to extend that assumption to you with regard to Moore's filth, yet you are unwilling to extend it to Potter poopers. If the subject is HP, one must have actually read the books before one can have a valid opinion.
"There are a few spells which Harry cannot successfully cast"
Being able to cast *any* spells is a short-cut to power.
"--if you were familiar with the book, we could discuss what that says about the kind of boy Harry is."
See my "F/11 crack."
"Most of the actions that you have cited are not glorified at all."
They turn out well in the end. That is sufficient glorification.
"And no, he does not go unpunished or unscathed for his digressions."
In the end, he is the victorious hero.
"You are trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong. Different goals."
The essence of debate is to present one's case as strongly as one can, consistent with truth. There have been several times that people have convinced me that I was wrong in such discussions, and I am grateful to them.
My goal is to arrive at the truth; if you can show me that the opinion I now hold is incorrect, I will be in your debt. But for that to happen, both parties have to take their best shots.
"When it comes to specific content of the book, however, having read it helps when arguing a point."
Only true when you are quibbling over irrelevant trivia. Otherwise, as with Farenheit 9/11, knowledge gained from reading about and discussing the work suffices.
Therein, I suppose, is our biggest obstacle: I have not seen F/11 and I do not recall ever having discussed the work. I have discussed Fatty Moore at length, mostly relating to the horror and revulsion I feel when I think about us both being Michiganders. I've never seen The Passion of the Christ, and I've never commented on how the movie portrays the final days of Jesus. To me, relying on second-hand critiques is not sufficient. Couple that with the fact that the work we are "discussing"--if you consider the HP books published to date as one large work--now runs over 2,000 pages and you might begin to understand why I find your reliance on second hand critiques insufficient. Before you say it, I said "understand"--not agree with. Clearly we do not. A bit of an impasse.
One of the things that becomes evident to any child who reads the Potter books is that magic is no short cut to anything. Althought some of the characters experss sympathy for people without magic powers, in actuality, magic makes life no easier or happier than electricity or any other "natural" source of power. It has advantages, in the same way that being born into a rich family has advantages -- but then look at the Kennedys.
For those who havent't noticed, magic is a metaphor.