#Sirius is honestly justified in whatever he did afterwards

[a-great-tragedy]

Marauders quotes but it’s conversations I’ve had

Sirius: *Showing James a portrait* And this is my brother, Regulus.

James: …

James: Smash.

Sirius: WHAT!? How can you even say that?? He’s my BROTHER

James: Then why is his jawline better than yours?

Sirius: haha …WHAT!?

[thepinkseat-askthemoonbunny]

My responses to some Dumbledore hating douche on another forum. His comments and the comments of the Dumbledore fan he was replying to are in bold, mine are in italics. I added on some things to my responses as I was typing from here, but it’s mostly copied from my reply on that other forum. Y’all, this guy’s quotes about Dumbledore literally pissed me off so much I couldn’t let it slide bro, I just couldn’t. Now this isn’t all of that person’s post but it is everything I responded to. WARNING, SUPER LONG POST!

Dumbledore made it quite clear that Harry was to grow up without magic.

He had no legal or moral authority to make that decision. Magic was part of Harry's heritage and DD had no right to keep it from him (or any other magical).

He didn’t keep it from him though, he found out when he was eleven like any other Muggle-born. Anyway it’s GOOD Harry didn’t know or we’d have an Obscurial on our hands. And here we go, talking about morals again

.He stressed how important it was to keep Harry away from magic and shield him from the fame that he would have received.

Didn't do much good now did it. He still received a ton of fame (even is Surrey, as evidenced by the wizard to bowed to him in a shop) and was ill prepared to deal with it because he spent his formative years in Durzkaban. Placing him with a good wizarding family would have helped him deal with his fame.

Yeah, and placing him with a “good wizarding family” would’ve helped Harry’s ass DIE a lot quicker too. Durzkaban? Who came up with that.

There were good intentions behind dropping him off at the Dursley's doorstep.

If you believe that, you'll believe any line of bull. DD was conditioning his child soldier cum martyr by keeping him isolated, unloved, and actively abused. That way he wouldn't form deep attachments that would prevent him from eating an AK on command.

Congratulations DD, you're an ISIS/cult leader.

NO THE FUCK HE ISN’T! AND THIS THEORY NEEDS TO DIE!  We have literally no evidence to support this, none at all. We have no evidence to prove that Dumbledore wanted Harry to be abused. However, we DO have ample evidence that the blood protection exists, Quirrellmort, Voldemort taking his blood, the protection shielding everyone during the Battle, and not to mention Harry coming back to life. And no deep attachments, honestly? Sirius, Remus, Hermione, Ron, Ginny, the Weasley family. Need I go on? Anyway that would be dumb because Harry knows who put him at the Dursleys. He could've hated Dumbledore just as easily.

And I think you misread my post, I never said there were no negative effects on Harry, because of course there are. I was merely making a point that the Dursley's treatment really helped prepare him for the next five years of isolation and cruelty. You can't deny that.

I can and do deny that. Aside from it being morally wrong and criminal to knowingly place a child in an abusive environment, it was abysmally stuipid. Voldemort grew up in almost the same sort of environment (thanks to DD at that) and look how he turned out. Dumb-as-a-door risked creating another Dark Lord rather than a Savior/martyr

Now I do deny that abuse=preparation. But everything else, hell no!  Voldemort wasn't abused though! He wasn't, and I don't know where people are getting this from because nothing in the books suggests that he was. Also it wouldn't be Dumbledore's fault anyway even if he was, because he wasn't headmaster at the time so he wasn't the one sending him back.

Wait a minute, are you comparing these people (terrorists) to Dumbledore?

Absolutely.

Adolf Hitler wiped out millions of Jews. He was a racist.

So was DD. He came from a racist family (per his history) and was the lover of the magical Hitler (Grindlewald). DD's favorite phrase was in fact coined by Grindlewald. The only difference between them is that Grindlewald advocated direct violence and brute force while DD favors manipulation as a weapon. BOTH wanted dictatorial rule.

He hated the Jews and blamed everything on them. Saddam Hussein executed loads of people because he believed he had to rule with an iron fist. Al Qaeda is an extremist group who has extremist ideas in the name of religion.

Again, manipulation vs direct violence. Same end result: a world under the rule of HIS idea of how things should be.

Dumbledore did NOT come from a racist family! His mother was a Muggle-born, and his father only attacked those Muggles because they permanently traumatized his daughter. Completely justified in my opinion. And Dumbledore WAS in love with Grindelwald but they weren't LOVERS, JKR says this. Just because you love somebody doesn't mean you're like them. And just because your family was racist doesn’t mean you are! Sirius, anybody?! It wasn't Dumbledore's favorite phrase, Dumbledore didn't use that phrase once in the series, not once. Only in a letter written a hundred years ago. And yeah, Dumbledore wanted to rule the world as a young man but he didn't try to take over the world since then, he had a hundred years and could've done it but he didn't so I think that speaks for him. He didn't even really manipulate people, it's not like he took away their free will. Yeah he was manipulative but in the end the choices were theirs.

I don't even have to say why comparing Dumbledore to the terrorists is totally and completely wrong. They did it because they wanted to remake the world in their own image or gain power, Dumbledore did what he did to, I dunno...STOP PEOPLE FROM BEING MASS MURDERED! So whatever manipulation he supposedly used as a weapon, I really don't care about. It worked didn't it? 

Yes, sometimes he did things and made decisions there weren't morally right.

"Sometimes" as in all the time.

No bitch, he did ONE really morally questionable thing and that was leaving Harry with the Dursleys.

Yes, he lied to Harry.

And abused him by sending him to Durzkaban. And kept him isolated and alone to psychologically break him to he would martyr himself. And a host of other things. And that's just Harry. He betrayed the entire Order by posting them as guards at the Ministry over a prophecy which could only be removed by either Harry or Voldemort and which therefore did not need guarding.

And lets not forget not doing anything to help Sirius, either before he escaped prison or afterwards. Or never actually doing anything to help the wizarding underclass (muggleborn, werewolves, house elves, et). Refusing to act for the genuine good where action is needed is just as bad as doing bad acts.

I already explained why the whole psychological thing is complete and utter bullshit.  Never mind that JK Rowling herself says that he used his power to try to better conditions for the marginalized, Hermione has said it and so have several people. He helped Hagrid, Remus, Dobby and others when he didn't even have to. He tried to keep Sirius safe in his old house, I think that's helping him. And no it's not! Just because somebody can't stop a bad situation doesn't make them the same as the one causing it. I already explained why the abuse theory is wrong, again we have no proof of this.

But he did struggle with those things.

So he claims, if you believe him. As many lies as he told I wouldn't believe him if he told me the time without checking a clock fir

Where are all these lies he supposedly told? Hm? Where? Assuming that every word somebody says is a lie is called paranoia.

I find that sometimes in order to be a good leader, you have to be shrewd.

That's a synonym for "abusive manipulation" I've never seen before.

No, it’s not. Being shrewd is not the same as abuse. Again, paranoia.

But it says NOTHING of who you are. Neither does it define you.

On the contrary, it says a great deal about who you are.

And whatever wrong he did do, he regretted them.

Well bully for him. Doesn't bring back the dead or undo all the evil things he did.

He wanted to keep the wizarding world safe and the people alive.

The ends do not justify the means

"The ends do not justify the means." They totally do. In my opinion, if the whole entire freaking world is in danger and everyone is going to be wiped out, you do what you have to do to stop it. Morals be damned. Dumbledore was the perfect commander, the only really morally questionable he did was the Dursleys and that's already been explained. Because morality doesn't mean shit if you're not alive to act on those morals. What's the most immoral thing, letting millions of people die, or getting your hands a little dirty? I know which one I'm thinking. When stopping mass genocide, morals don't matter. You don't have time to think about what's the most moral thing to do, it's a matter of life or death. "Doesn't bring back the dead?" The dead aren't Dumbledore's responsibility and there weren't even that many of them. Also what are all these evil acts he supposedly committed? Dumbledore isn't some evil monster, far from it. JKR didn't even write him that way. People just tend to exaggerate what he supposedly did to make him worse looking, but I don't buy it. You claim that he lies constantly, what's the proof? Dumbledore doesn't lie that much. We have no reason to believe he's lying and just assuming that every word somebody utters is a lie is paranoia. Now we all have our different opinions, but almost all of this has no evidence to back it up.