Hogwarts Legacy - Whimsical Wizardry
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
I'd love you to go onto a Doctor Who forum and claim that the daleks just choose to be gits, that they weren't created to be death machines, and that 50-plus years of lore has been entirely wrong. Even Chibnall couldn't fuck that up.
It's actually impressive how you manage to miss the point so severely.
Humans aren't a fictional species. Humans operate under the rules of biology as we understand them, a fictional species operates however the authors want them to act.
Again, Lord of the Rings. Orcs, trolls, etc., are evil by their nature. Humans aren't. In part because we know how humans operate in the real world.
Then we have completely different definitions of free will.
If there's good Daleks, then Daleks aren't inherently and always evil, good for them. Got any other non-Harry Potter media you want to wildly deflect on to?
lmao
Yes, the Warhammer world, the D&D monster manual, and you all have different definitions of free will
...I'm sorry, I have no idea how you have watched/read anything involving Rusty and come to this conclusion. Rusty, by his own admission, isn't even "good."
Either you're not familiar with Doctor Who, in which case this is a waste of time, or you are, in which case I have no idea how you could have watched Into the Dalek/Twice Upon a Time and had THAT as a takeaway. And that's not even the only example.
Oh sure, plenty. Waste of time to discuss any of it with you.
Also, you've done plenty of the same - you brought up Drizzit for example, not me.
Not an argument.
And where are the text-based definitions of free will in these settings? What quotes can you provide?
J.K. Rowling Claims Her Statements On Transgender Women Have Been ‘Profoundly’ Misunderstood In New Podcast
Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, whose statements on transgender people have drawn widespread criticism over the years as transphobic – including from some of the Potter film franchise’s biggest stars – now says her viewpoint has been “profoundly” misunderstood. In a trailer for the new podcast...
deadline.com
J.K. Rowling Claims Her Statements On Transgender Women Have Been ‘Profoundly’ Misunderstood In New Podcast
Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, whose statements on transgender people have drawn widespread criticism over the years as transphobic – including from some of the Potter film franchise’s biggest stars – now says her viewpoint has been “profoundly” misunderstood. In a trailer for the new podcast...
************, I said "if" for a reason
As a throwaway example of a well known character that proves his race isn't always evil. For morons, that only proves his race is always evil somehow. The contradiction regarding that relationship to Slytherin House being always evil is somehow not noticed.
Mate, you think a demonic entity being able to choose between tacos and burgers while being inextricably bound to an alignment is Free Will, we aren't resolving this argument.
No, you said "It's establishing they're gits because they choose to be, not because it's part of their inherent nature." I then explained why this isn't the case. You went on a tangent about "if" there are good daleks," despite the fact that I'd just stated as to why there are no "good" daleks. You're either missing the point or ignoring it.
There aren't good daleks. The closest daleks have ever come, like Rusty or Lumpy, aren't "good" in any reasonable sense of the word. Even if they were, you're talking about a handful of individuals out of a population of trillions,* who by their very nature, seek to eradicate anything that isn't a dalek. Even if there's a dalek that could be called a true, decent, caring squid creature, that doesn't change the norm.
*As in, across time and space, I don't have a dalek pop. count.
So I'm going to step back a bit here - I've been scouring the Forgotten Realms wiki, and yes, there's 'good' drow outside Drizzit.
However, if Drizzit was the only "good" drow and that remained the case, then yes, it would be fair to say that drow, as a whole, are always evil, and that the exception proves the rule.
If a race is evil, and one of them just happens not to be evil, that doesn't change what's generally true.
1: Drow are a species, Slytherin is a group - there's a choice in the latter, not the former.
2: Drow are elves, Slytherins are human - elves can operate under whatever rules a writer chooses for them, humans are, well, human
Does Warhammer even use an alignment system like DnD does? If so, I've never encountered it. There's not really a single faction in WFB that can be called "good," IMO, even if some factions/species come closer than others.
It's a moot point by my reckoning anyway, because we're using different definitions of free will.
If any member of an always evil species can "just happen" to be not evil, short of divine intervention or other meddling, then the species isn't always evil and you keep using that phrase wrong. What's the threshold? Two individuals? 5? A villiage? There's lots more than one Tok'ra after all
Irrelevant to the argument about Nazi house
Wizards aren't human and are, in fact, a distinct fictional construct
I watched Jim for probably 5 years and he was a guy at that point. That's the association I have, that's what I think of when I think of him, and, I'm sorry, but I just don't care to change that to spare the feelings of someone who is never going to read what I write anyway.
I also still call Mark Wahlberg 'Marky Mark' so you can choke on that as well.
Yes daddy.
The fuck should I know? Usually it's up to the author.
If an author spends their time crafting a species that's inherently evil (not a species that does evil things), it's very rare for that to be reversed. If anything, it's more common to use this to emphasise the specialness of the individual.
Yes, and you might recall that I'm the one who cited the Tok'ra as one of the few examples I could think of that met the critiera.
But the Tok'ra are a whole faction and culture, not a handful of randoms.
"If any member of a Nazi house can "just happen" to be not a Nazi, short of divine intervention or other meddling, then the Nazi house isn't always evil and you keep using that phrase wrong."
Or, going by your critiera, Slytherin can't possibly be a Nazi house, because there's at least one Slytherin (there's more, but whatever) that isn't a jackass.
I couldn't possibly generalize Slytherin, because exceptions exist.
Shoo, troll.
Irrelevant, factions and cultures are made of individuals.
In the main book series, there really aren't. Best you can say is there's one (1) shiftless grifter who happens to be more self-serving than evil. Bring in the expanded universe and you have one (1) person who quit and 2 kids who *really* don't seem like they belong there.
'Tis true: humanity cannot use magic and magic use is hereditary. Meanwhile, Wizards are capable of interbreeding and passing along said magic not only with humanity, but with Veela, a race of all female, barely sentiment shapeshifting siren-like harpies that don't count as people; Giants, a race of stupid, well...giants whom also don't count as people; and House Elves, everybody's favorite slave race who're almost entirely incapable of withholding consent; probably among others
I still watch Jim Stephanie and I often find that I have to mentally correct myself when I incorrectly misgender them, since my history is similar to yours. You said you don't care, but I want you to know that you encourage others to think of them as a male when you refer to them with male pronouns.
How can you be non-binary if you're trans too? Like what's the difference between a nonbinary who isn't trans and one who is? If it's just becoming the other gender, isn't non-nonbinary? (binary)
Male is sex not gender so that bit hasn't changed, you can only change your gender which is a cultural and behavioral thing, male is about your chromosomes and stuff lol.
And aren't these all individuals?
I can go point by point, but within the same post, one minute you're championing the individual (Tok'ra), the next, you're generalising the group (Slytherin).
Wizards/witches are humans. Humans with magical abilities, but humans.
This is pure sophistry.
I think GX is the guy you want, not me.
There is no difference.
Some non-binary people refer to themselves as trans and some don't. There isn't a single definition of what makes a person trans. Some people might be uncomfortable calling themselves trans if they don't intend to socially or medically transition or if they don't suffer from gender dysphoria while others feel that treating being trans purely as a medical condition is insulting and that trans is an identity available to anyone who feels they belong to it. Some non-binary people feel that the term trans should be reserved for binary trans people and non-binary people should just be our own thing. There's no right or wrong answer.
For someone like James Stephanie though, very few people would dispute that they are trans because they are transfeminine. They have socially and medically transitioned to present more like a cis woman. Being non-binary isn't really a matter of how you look. You can be clearly feminine or masculine and still be non-binary.
"Male pronouns" doesn't mean the pronouns have chromosomes. "Male clothing" doesn't mean the clothes have a literal penis.
Don't treat the sex/gender distinction as something sacred. It's a useful pedagogical tool for introducing very basic ideas about things like gender socialization, but it's overly-simplistic for talking about a lot of the actually complex issues involving trans people.
But humans don't have magic abilities.. therefore, how can you say that wizards are human?
Centaurs are humans with the lower bodies of horses. Are centaurs humans?
Last edited:
Oh that's easy: not all wizards are evil. But except for our specialist boy, the sorting hat *does* choose via innate characteristics.
The Wizarding Gene might skip a generation or two in particularly weak bloodlines but those are called Squibs. Humans never make the make the jump from human to wizard spontaneously
Fucking obviously. We're talking about a decent whimsical children's series that's made catastrophic world building decisions trying to be a grown-up series for adults on a videogame forum.
Ok, even if we can't agree if Rowling set out to create Slytherin as the evil Nazi house or not, can we at least agree that someone could look at the series and get the impression that's what she did?
(Also, has it been mentioned yet that what house you get put in is often determined by your star sign? There's a reason why the prophecy involved birthdays and could have applied to both Harry and Neville, they are heroes)
(Also, has it been mentioned yet that what house you get put in is often determined by your star sign? There's a reason why the prophecy involved birthdays and could have applied to both Harry and Neville, they are heroes)
I know about squibs, and muggles, and all that, all of these things are human.
Definition of SOPHISTRY
subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation; sophism… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
Sophistry has nothing to do with the subject matter.