Is this the level of argument that you want to sink to??? Really scraping the bottom there, FRiend.
What is it, just a desperate attempt to deny that intelligent, educated people could possibly disagree with you?
I invite people to disagree with me. This forum would be the conservative version of the goosestep party known as DU if we all agreed on anything.
He's got special powers that the school is merely refining and developing.
...which requires study and effort, and does not always yield results. There are a few spells which Harry cannot successfully cast--if you were familiar with the book, we could discuss what that says about the kind of boy Harry is.
And along the way, we see him breaking school rules, disobeying teachers, lying, and doing things that the dumb old teachers couldn't get done.
Most of the actions that you have cited are not glorified at all. In fact, it shows Harry to be a pretty common teenage prat. And no, he does not go unpunished or unscathed for his digressions.
(me) "I have no problem with discussing controversial aspects of the books"
(you) "Yeah, you do."
No, I do not. We have different goals. I am enjoying a discussion--I am, really. If I weren't, I'd be weeding the flowerbed or something. You are trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong. Different goals. I am not insisting that you must read the book. That is no different than telling someone that they must NOT read the book. When it comes to specific content of the book, however, having read it helps when arguing a point.
I sure hope that the F/11 crack was uncharacteristic on your part.
"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.