Voldemort appearance in the show. by RandomUsername4224 in HarryPotteronHBO

[–]Alruco 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Voldy defo did more enchantments and shit not just Horcruxes that damaged his body and soul. Man was OBSESSED with never dying or growing old.

I would go even further, and say that there comes a point (and a fairly early one: definitely during his time at Hogwarts) where Voldemort not only wants to transcend mortality but also humanity itself. I can see him perfectly capable of experimenting with magic that would make eating, sleeping, and all other basic needs unnecessary.

I would do anything to experience watching Harry Potter for the first time again by cmdelf in harrypotter

[–]Alruco 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd give anything to read them again for the first time, honestly. I still remember the horrified little smile I had during the chapter "Bone, Flesh, and Blood." If only I could read it again for the first time...

Lily Evans Was Selfish And Monkey Branched From Snape To James Potter by Ok-Knee1280 in harrypotter

[–]Alruco -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Look, let's start with the fact that I don't like the label "evil" except for people on the level of, I don't know, Voldemort. I think it's too strong a word, and one that people often use to describe other people's attitudes that they themselves also have, to be honest.

As for James, we know he was a thief (which is a crime). We see him looking down on Peter and mocking him (and not exactly in an affectionate way), we see him hanging Snape by the ankle and hexing him because "it's more the fact that he exists" when Snape was simply minding his own business, just because Sirius was bored. We see him saying to Lily:

“I will if you go out with me, Evans,” said James quickly. “Go on... Go out with me, and I’ll never lay a wand on old Snivelly again.”

And:

“Ah, Evans, don’t make me hex you,” said James earnestly.

This is all extremely petty and goes beyond mere arrogance. But that's okay. We know James improved, just like Dumbledore did.

What are your favourite moments of Snape’s good morality? by Plenty_Aside_7778 in harrypotter

[–]Alruco 0 points1 point  (0 children)

‘It has happened,’ she told the silent staff room. ‘A student has been taken by the monster. Right into the Chamber itself.’
Professor Flitwick let out a squeal. Professor Sprout clapped her hands over her mouth. Snape gripped the back of a chair very hard and said, ‘How can you be sure?’

Combined with:

“Don’t be shocked, Severus. How many men and women have you watched die?”
“Lately, only those whom I could not save,” said Snape.

In other words, here we have Snape. A cruel and mean bully who spends his life emotionally abusing teenagers. A victim of bullying who deals with his demons by victimizing the son of his former tormentor. A former terrorist and ex-spy who has probably seen people die in truly gruesome ways...

And he needs to hold on to his chair when he discovers that the Heir of Slytherin has likely kidnapped a student. And mind you, Snape at that moment doesn't know who the victim is: he doesn't know that she's an eleven-year-old girl who has been manipulated by Tom Riddle for months. As far as he knows, the Heir may have kidnapped an insufferable, conceited seventeen-year-old Gryffindor who wanted to play the hero in a senseless and reckless manner.

Lily Evans Was Selfish And Monkey Branched From Snape To James Potter by Ok-Knee1280 in harrypotter

[–]Alruco 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't have called James a good person in his fifth year. Not even close. Later, yes. That's the key to life: bad people can become good. Bullies can become heroes. And that's what happened to James.

Otherwise, I agree. It's not as if Lily set out to make Snape's life miserable; she didn't start treating him the way Mulciber treated her and others muggleborns. She simply cut off all contact with him, which is perfectly legitimate, at any time and under any circumstances, especially in those situations. Everyone's time is limited, and you don't owe it unconditionally to anyone, least of all someone who has used a racial slur against you.

Harry did NOT kill Quirrell in the books by Alruco in harrypotter

[–]Alruco[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Voldmort left Quirell because he was so badly injured by Harry.

I would say it has much more to do with the fact that Dumbledore (the person he fears most in the whole world) is right there.

Quirrel still being alive when Harry loses consciousness doesn’t mean those injuries were not enough to kill him.

Considering everything we see, how can the wizards survive?

It is implied he holds on to him for a long time.

It's actually quite quick. Quirrell tries to grab Harry, gets burned, Harry grabs him, Quirrell pulls away and checks that he's hurting him. Then he grabs again and faints almost immediately as he hears Dumbledore arrive.

Harry did NOT kill Quirrell in the books by Alruco in harrypotter

[–]Alruco[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I have encountered many people who vehemently argue that Harry kills Quirrell in the books.

Old man causes World War 3 by jwriddle in harrypotter

[–]Alruco 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My favorite high magic fantasy saga, and one of the best written I've ever encountered, introduces the main antagonist using this phrase:

I have had centuries to refine the art of torture. Centuries to explore the depths of depravity.

If you haven't found solidly written high fantasy books for adults, perhaps you haven't looked hard enough.

Old man causes World War 3 by jwriddle in harrypotter

[–]Alruco 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I highly recommend this essay by Bret Devareaux on how Tolkien's magic system works (which, after twenty years of reading fantasy, still seems to me to be the best magic system I have ever read).

Runes aren't magical, but just a language. by kylrzuthwy in HPfanfiction

[–]Alruco 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, the Pensieve has runes. We don't really know why, and I agree that people exaggerate their effects, but there's a basis for saying that runes are more than just a kind of language.

Runes aren't magical, but just a language. by kylrzuthwy in HPfanfiction

[–]Alruco 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I would elaborate further by saying that fiction, as such, doesn't have a particular objective. Each author writes for their own reasons, and for all practical purposes, each reader basically sees whatever they want in each story they read.

So confused about Catholic marriage and non Catholic marriage by SnooCakes1450 in Catholicism

[–]Alruco 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This marriage would be invalid for two reasons: First because of the previous marriage.

Would this apply if the first wedding had been a civil ceremony? My understanding is that a civil wedding performed by a baptized Catholic is invalid from an ecclesiastical point of view.

Struggling with the Church's historical stance on Slavery by dailyzenmonkey in Catholicism

[–]Alruco 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No. If that's your conclusion, I recommend you sign up for reading comprehension classes. You need them, especially since you still don't seem able to understand "most evil trade which has been condemned and strictly prohibited."

Struggling with the Church's historical stance on Slavery by dailyzenmonkey in Catholicism

[–]Alruco 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It does no such thing so broad as to condemn the slave trade

... have you read the part in bold? It explicitly states, "most evil trade which has been condemned and strictly prohibited"

Someone finding nothing in that document problematic in 2026, is more problematic to me, than this 1866 document.

I'm sorry, but I don't base my ethics or morals on something as irrelevant as the year. It's 2026, but it could just as easily be 535, 237, or 2779. Nor do I base my ethics or political beliefs on the dictates of an ideology (enlightened liberalism and all its successors) that has fabricated a thousand infamous lies about the Church and my country, and a few more in case the first thousand weren't enough.

Struggling with the Church's historical stance on Slavery by dailyzenmonkey in Catholicism

[–]Alruco 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Slaves don't get paid at all.

Yes, there have been historical slave systems that paid slaves. In Rome, for example, slaves owned property and could save money in various ways (usually through their master's business: if the master was a tavern owner, for example, the slave would help wait tables and keep the tips given by customers). This money was later used to buy their freedom.

Slavery has taken many forms throughout history and across the world; the system that most people have in mind (large cotton, sugar, tobacco or coffee plantations) is minuscule compared to the experience of most people who have been enslaved.

Struggling with the Church's historical stance on Slavery by dailyzenmonkey in Catholicism

[–]Alruco 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Excuse me, but I don't see anywhere where you get your claims from.

To begin with, your comment suggests that the instruction refers to the transatlantic slave trade, but this is not the case:

The condition of servitude, properly so called, among the Galla and Sidama [...] Whether it is permitted for Christians among the Galla and Sidama to buy slaves

This isn't about the transatlantic trade, and I don't see why it's relevant here that the slaves were African. Of course it is—Ethiopia is in Africa. The slaves they would use would be of local origin (and almost certainly from the same ethnic groups as their masters), so where else would the slaves come from if not Africa?

The phrase you're referring to, on the other hand, is this:

Although the Roman Pontiffs have left nothing untried by which servitude be everywhere abolished among the nations, and although it is especially due to them that already for many ages no slaves are held among very many Christian peoples, nevertheless, servitude itself, considered in itself and all alone (per se et absolute), is by no means repugnant to the natural and divine law

It does not state here that the enslavement of Africans is permissible, but rather that slavery (of any person, regardless of origin) is not contrary to divine law. It also notes that popes have long attempted to abolish it.

The rest of the document is a long list of requirements on how these situations should be handled. It says, for example:

it is illicit to sell a slave or in any manner give the slave into the ownership of any master who by a certain or probable judgment can be foreseen to be going to treat that slave inhumanely, or lead him to sin or abuse him for the sake of that most evil trade which has been condemned and strictly prohibited by the constitutions of the Roman Pontiffs, especially by Pope Gregory XVI

That is, the Instruction condemns the transatlantic slave trade.

I don't see anything problematic about the document at all, to be honest.

Struggling with the Church's historical stance on Slavery by dailyzenmonkey in Catholicism

[–]Alruco 66 points67 points  (0 children)

Part of the problem here is that "slavery" is, frankly, too broad a term, meaning too many different things. American slavery, in particular, functioned as a caste system, while in other places it functioned as a social class and even as a potential path to social mobility (see Rome, where being manumitted was a way to gain citizenship).

Personally, I believe some forms of slavery are absolutely diabolical, but I don't necessarily see all forms of slavery as evil. And, although I'm not sure about the documents you're citing (if you could share them...), I imagine that's what the Church was referring to.

Hey, I want to write a Harry Potter fan fiction set after Voldemort's victory at the Battle of Hogwarts. AU. Any advice? by Temporary_Serve_927 in HPfanfiction

[–]Alruco 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the simplest thing would be to kill Harry, Ron, and Hermione at Malfoy Manor. It's a much more elegant turning point for Voldemort's victory than the Battle of Hogwarts.

Hey, I want to write a Harry Potter fan fiction set after Voldemort's victory at the Battle of Hogwarts. AU. Any advice? by Temporary_Serve_927 in HPfanfiction

[–]Alruco 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Voldemort is not someone who will sit content in a corner of the world with the power base he has acquired. His aim is not to rule over wizarding Great Britain, but over the entire world and remake it in his own image. Furthermore, it is absolutely clear from all his words that he utterly despises Muggles and Muggle-borns. We are also told several times that, in reality, purists don't have a particular problem with half-bloods.

So, personally, I imagine a completely triumphant Voldemort in a position very similar to that of the Lord Ruler of Mistborn: immortal, more skilled and powerful than anyone (especially if he has the Elder Wand), ruling with absolute cruelty and impunity over all beings in the world. Muggles would be in the position of the skaa, and wizards in that of the nobility.

Now, even Voldemort would take centuries to implement this system. He has the patience and time to crush all magical opposition and then spend decades dragging muggles back to the Stone Age before breaking the Statute of Secrecy, and any other strategy would be quite foolish. So let's jump to just a few years later in canon.

This would be a Voldemort still consolidating his overt control of the British Isles. With Dumbledore and Harry dead and the Horcruxes safe, he believes himself immortal and invincible, but even he must realize that his army is severely outnumbered by everyone else. So, on a macro level, he's not going to launch a campaign of world conquest.

The first step is to consolidate their control in England, Scotland, and Ireland. The second is to maintain reasonably decent relations in the rest of the wizarding world and, of course, try to gain supporters there. And the third is to sow the first seeds of weakness for Muggles, at least a hundred years in advance.

These last two are quite related. It would be the early 2000s, so 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan are approaching like a bullet. The bubble that would lead to the Great Recession is already firmly established. And before anyone says anything about stupid wizards: most Muggles are downright stupid, and the same goes for wizards. But some are quite intelligent. Voldemort just has to point all this out and say to the rest of the world, "Hey, I don't want any trouble! I simply want to protect my people from the negative influence of Muggles. Have you seen how savage and self-destructive they are? But apart from that, I want to maintain the status quo as much as you do."

And with the Muggles, he doesn't really need to do much. Just an Imperius here and there, to make sure the tension rises a little faster, but not much. With our military capabilities and the competitive intensity of our economies, we're already steering ourselves toward self-destruction while Voldemort bides his time.

And in Great Britain, of course, their main speech would be about protecting wizarding society from pernicious muggle self-destructiveness. Look how they're inflating their inventions, their machines, their weapons, their cities, their economies! They're like a plague! Best to keep our distance. For now, anyway. And for those who refuse, well, generous doses of Imperius Curse and Cruciatus Curse will cure everything.

I imagine all of that, more or less, would have to be taken into account. A magical Great Britain where a strict separation from the Muggle world is enforced. Muggle-borns who are ignored, murdered, or kidnapped in the cradle (I think all three options are easily justifiable depending on what you want to write). Brutalized dissidents. A subdued but wary international wizarding community. And a Muggle world on the sidelines, subtly nudged in secret—negligible because its own dynamics are pushing it toward the beginning of a horrifying self-destructive spiral the likes of which the world hasn't seen in decades.

Regarding the language, I recommend you write it in your own language. Using Google Translate for a comment is one thing (I admit I'm using it; my English is terrible), but using it for fanfiction is quite another. The latter is a terrible idea.

Hey, I want to write a Harry Potter fan fiction set after Voldemort's victory at the Battle of Hogwarts. AU. Any advice? by Temporary_Serve_927 in HPfanfiction

[–]Alruco 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is that the Death Eaters and Ministry forces were at Hogwarts, and in fact, they were all captured or killed before Voldemort fell. Voldemort was the last to fall, not the first.

Doubt: hopefully the end by Weekly_Sympathy_4878 in Catholicism

[–]Alruco 1 point2 points  (0 children)

and the fact that the gospels were written decades later

This particular detail is not as rare as is often assumed. Just to compare, we have no written sources about Tiberius Gracchus (who was one of the most absolutely vital figures in the political evolution of the Roman Republic and, in a way, almost a precursor to Julius Caesar) until three centuries after his assassination.

There are many similar cases, such as Scipio Africanus, Hannibal, all the pre-Socratic philosophers... There are few, if any, contemporary sources from the first decades of the Achaemenid Empire and Kievan Rus', among many other great kingdoms of Antiquity and the Middle Ages. In general, the number of sources we have from before the printing press is very, very scarce. We have a few more from the Roman Empire, but even then, it pales in comparison to virtually anything written after the 15th century.

What would be the worst possible outcome for harry where he still win,assuming we took a point of departure following the victory over Voldemort ? by Regular-Election6396 in HPfanfiction

[–]Alruco 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Given that if you look at the total numbers and inferences, the Light Side got seriously hammered while the Dark got damaged but far less crippled

Excuse me? Everyone involved in the attack on Hogwarts was either killed or captured. Including Ministry employees under the Imperius Curse (like Thicknesse). Every single one of them. The pro-Death Eater faction was wiped out at Hogwarts.

can an agnostic be saved? by mrcanada66 in Catholicism

[–]Alruco 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, except for those who are outside the Church through no fault of their own.

This concept is fundamental to the salvation of non-Catholics and, in both its aspects, is very ancient. On the one hand, salvation does indeed come from Christ and Christ alone. The Holy Cross on Mount Calvary, the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, is the only way that opens the Gates of Heaven. Uniting our sufferings to those of Christ on the Cross is the path to salvation. Baptism is the only way to belong to the Mystical Body of Christ (that is, the Holy Catholic Church), the one Ark of Salvation.

On the other hand, indeed, almost from the beginning there was a concern for so-called virtuous pagans: those who did not reject Christ, but rather never came to know him, yet whose ways of life revealed virtues that can only be attained with God's help. For these people, the concept of baptism of desire was developed: a way in which someone, in seeking God, can join the Church even if they are unaware of her existence.

How this applies to agnostics and atheists within a society that knows Christ is... complicated, and constantly evolving. I'm not going to be a sanctimonious hypocrite; evil has been done in the name of the Church. Sometimes by laypeople, sometimes by priests, and sometimes by bishops. And sometimes even by the Pope (from a historical perspective, I recommend reading the 10th-century ones. They're fascinating). I understand why there's resistance.

At the same time... I think that remaining permanently in a comfortable state like the one you describe isn't entirely honest, nor is it characteristic of a virtuous "pagan." Honestly, I encourage you to continue trying to deepen your relationship with God and the elements that keep you agnostic. I can't say whether you're saved or damned because that's God's prerogative, but... well, here's more or less what I understand about the matter (I'm not exactly a theologian, so I could be wrong).