Why did you downvote, that doesn’t seem justified at all??
Two: Quirrell’s not stupid. He went through that whole Groundhog Day Attack rigmarole specifically to avoid leaving detectable Legilimency traces; he would be a fool to try it now, after Dumbledore’s specifically warded her against “hostile magic [...], or any spirit”.
This is the first legitimate counterargument that’s been made and we’re seven layers in, that should tell everyone something.
I’ll lower the probability of mind reading, but I still don’t buy it. Hostile magic is obviously not the same as Legilmancy, that passage is talking about Dark Curses like Imperio. The Groundhog Day Attack argument makes sense, but I think Quirrell’s already played his hand. Why would Dumbledore care and what would Dumbledore do differently if Dumbledore found out that Quirrell had looked into Hermione’s mind? Also, if Quirrell succeeded in getting Hermione to leave, which he probably expected to do, then there would have been zero risk of detection.
I think textual clues outweigh extratextual extrapolation, too. The fact that the eye contact was specifically mentioned seems important, it was probably mentioned for a reason. I trust what the author writes more than what the commenters on this site write because EY doesn’t always make characters perfectly consistent and rational because he’s not God, and also because EY has knowledge about the book that we don’t. It makes sense to privilege what the writer has written over a fan’s opinion of what will probably happen next.
Even if I was mostly wrong I would still expect more argumentation and less group ritual display from a website like this. But I have way more -karmas than I do plausible counterarguments to what I’m saying, and in my mind downvoting should be used for punishing (or expressing disapproval of) immoral things rather than of mistakes, or things that aren’t even mistakes but are just theories you don’t believe in. That’s lame.
When commenters downvote everything I write, even if it’s mostly useful or prompts interesting discussions, it makes me want to leave this site. That’s not a good thing for people purportedly trying to promote rationality. People should probably be more laid back about downvoting. You guys kind of suck.
Hostile magic is obviously not the same as Legilmancy
It’s also not the same as the sort of LifeAlert wards Quirrell (claims that he) put on Draco, which we know (that Quirrell claimed that) Heh specifically forbade.
Why would Dumbledore care and what would Dumbledore do differently if Dumbledore found out that Quirrell had looked into Hermione’s mind?
Well, for one thing, he might look at the Map again. (He suspects Voldemort is trying to influence Hermione’s mind; the Defence Prof is caught trying to read Hermione’s mind; it doesn’t take a genius.)
The fact that the eye contact was specifically mentioned seems important
But it wasn’t, though. “The pale blue eyes watched her intently” is not an unambiguous indication of eye contact.
in my mind downvoting should be used for punishing (or expressing disapproval of) immoral things rather than of mistakes
How astonishingly strange. (I don’t agree.)
People should probably be more laid back about downvoting.
This is the first legitimate counterargument that’s been made and we’re seven layers in, that should tell everyone something.
It tells me that you see far fewer counterarguments as “legitimate” than you should.
I think textual clues outweigh extratextual extrapolation, too. The fact that the eye contact was specifically mentioned seems important, it was probably mentioned for a reason.
As I mention in a comment above, Quirrel’s intent gaze is also mentioned in ch. 70, in a situation where we’re pretty sure no Legimancy occurred.
Even if I was mostly wrong I would still expect more argumentation and less group ritual display from a website like this.
You refused to accept argument, and you take offense at being corrected as if making you less wrong is a hostile act.
and in my mind downvoting should be used for punishing (or expressing disapproval of) immoral things
Fuck that (ie. I viscerally disapprove of and hold in honest contempt this asserted social norm.) Moralizing gets annoying.
That’s not a good thing for people purportedly trying to promote rationality.
ie. Not trying to promote moral purity.
People should probably be more laid back about downvoting.
You’re the one getting worked up about it. Really, getting voted down isn’t that much of a big deal and even if it was directly challenging it is a tricky social move to pull off.
Why did you downvote, that doesn’t seem justified at all??
This is the first legitimate counterargument that’s been made and we’re seven layers in, that should tell everyone something.
I’ll lower the probability of mind reading, but I still don’t buy it. Hostile magic is obviously not the same as Legilmancy, that passage is talking about Dark Curses like Imperio. The Groundhog Day Attack argument makes sense, but I think Quirrell’s already played his hand. Why would Dumbledore care and what would Dumbledore do differently if Dumbledore found out that Quirrell had looked into Hermione’s mind? Also, if Quirrell succeeded in getting Hermione to leave, which he probably expected to do, then there would have been zero risk of detection.
I think textual clues outweigh extratextual extrapolation, too. The fact that the eye contact was specifically mentioned seems important, it was probably mentioned for a reason. I trust what the author writes more than what the commenters on this site write because EY doesn’t always make characters perfectly consistent and rational because he’s not God, and also because EY has knowledge about the book that we don’t. It makes sense to privilege what the writer has written over a fan’s opinion of what will probably happen next.
Even if I was mostly wrong I would still expect more argumentation and less group ritual display from a website like this. But I have way more -karmas than I do plausible counterarguments to what I’m saying, and in my mind downvoting should be used for punishing (or expressing disapproval of) immoral things rather than of mistakes, or things that aren’t even mistakes but are just theories you don’t believe in. That’s lame.
When commenters downvote everything I write, even if it’s mostly useful or prompts interesting discussions, it makes me want to leave this site. That’s not a good thing for people purportedly trying to promote rationality. People should probably be more laid back about downvoting. You guys kind of suck.
It’s also not the same as the sort of LifeAlert wards Quirrell (claims that he) put on Draco, which we know (that Quirrell claimed that) Heh specifically forbade.
Well, for one thing, he might look at the Map again. (He suspects Voldemort is trying to influence Hermione’s mind; the Defence Prof is caught trying to read Hermione’s mind; it doesn’t take a genius.)
But it wasn’t, though. “The pale blue eyes watched her intently” is not an unambiguous indication of eye contact.
How astonishingly strange. (I don’t agree.)
Yes. People should. (Hint hint.)
Groupthink triumphs again. This is disappointing.
I’m done with this.
I’ve been looking at it, and I really have no idea what part of my comment you are referring to here. Which is mildly concerning. Could you clarify?
It tells me that you see far fewer counterarguments as “legitimate” than you should.
As I mention in a comment above, Quirrel’s intent gaze is also mentioned in ch. 70, in a situation where we’re pretty sure no Legimancy occurred.
You refused to accept argument, and you take offense at being corrected as if making you less wrong is a hostile act.
Fuck that (ie. I viscerally disapprove of and hold in honest contempt this asserted social norm.) Moralizing gets annoying.
ie. Not trying to promote moral purity.
You’re the one getting worked up about it. Really, getting voted down isn’t that much of a big deal and even if it was directly challenging it is a tricky social move to pull off.
So did your… nevermind.