proof about negative views on Harry Potter

[VeritasLuxMea]

And have mass applications that could’ve changed the face of our civilization in less than a century.

Yet still, 2000 years after the Resurrection and our advancements still can’t compare to the powers found in fanciful myths. I mean it took us only until the early 20th century to invent the flamethrower, yet mages in fantasy generally consider such things as one of the most basic fire spells since the dawn of their world’s time.

My ruby wizard cloak of the redeemer gives me a +2 bonus to Detect Magic. I can’t tell you how many dungeons I’ve run through and I still haven’t found a witch! Detect Magic is useless IRL!

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You are aware that those are coming from a log of Faith?

So is the Church’s view on (real) witchcraft.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

It is their opinion.

Before we continue on, might I remind people that ONE person --Loyal Views–linked to a WEB SITE article. It was the WEB SITE ARTICLE which apparently contained some slanderous views. . .and Loyal Views acknowledged being ‘half-asleep’ when posting and also only linked because of being curious about what a self-professed witch might have to say.

Actually it’s not just LoyalViews I believe. PennyinCanada over there also linked a video reciting said letter from the Ex-Witch.

NOBODY HERE on the thread so far has said ANYTHING derogatory or slanderous about Ms. Rowling or her works. At all. And the one person who posted a link to the WEB SITE which did apparently say such things did not support what was said personally OR say anything derogatory on this thread. about Ms Rowling.

And that’s the reason that I at least, and probably others, have been puzzled at the charges of ‘defamation’ and ‘slander’. . .because there has been nothing said on this thread of that nature, except through a ‘link’ which people don’t even have to look at!

The thing is those who criticize Harry Potter, throughout the long history of the subject being discussed on CAF, usually do approach it from a defamatory angle. You’d be surprised how literary opinions like yours actually pale in number compared to the number of posts (and posters) who downright accuse Rowling (and even Tolkien) of promoting the occult.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

My ruby wizard cloak of the redeemer gives me a +2 bonus to Detect Magic. I can’t tell you how many dungeons I’ve run through and I still haven’t found a witch! Detect Magic is useless IRL!

Hah! If you think that’s bad, my Grimoire of the Dead lets me reanimate all creatures in all graveyards. My undead army has yet to arrive and kneel at my doorstep IRL.

So much for my dreams of world zombie domination.

 

[irishpatrick]

Actually it’s not just LoyalViews I believe. PennyinCanada over there also linked a video reciting said letter from the Ex-Witch.

The thing is those who criticize Harry Potter, throughout the long history of the subject being discussed on CAF, usually do approach it from a defamatory angle. You’d be surprised how literary opinions like yours actually pale in number compared to the number of posts (and posters) who downright accuse Rowling (and even Tolkien) of promoting the occult.

Literary merit is not the only consideration. Some people think the books aoiire spiritually dangerous…independent of their literary merit.

 

[Baelor]

Literary merit is not the only consideration. Some people think the books aoiire spiritually dangerous…independent of their literary merit.

That does not make every statement about the subject accurate, nor does it make any such claim an opinion that is unable to be disproved.

It is their opinion.

Re: Rowling’s motives. The answer is no, because someone’s motives exist in a factual sense. Either she sought to encourage witchcraft, or she did not. This is a factual issue.

 

[irishpatrick]

Actually it’s not just LoyalViews I believe. PennyinCanada over there also linked a video reciting said letter from the Ex-Witch.

The thing is those who criticize Harry Potter, throughout the long history of the subject being discussed on CAF, usually do approach it from a defamatory angle. You’d be surprised how literary opinions like yours actually pale in number compared to the number of posts (and posters) who downright accuse Rowling (and even Tolkien) of promoting the occult.

Literary merit is not the only consideration. Some people think the books aoiire spiritually dangerous…independent of their literary merit.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Literary merit is not the only consideration. Some people think the books aoiire spiritually dangerous…independent of their literary merit.

Which actually just proves that there is a sound difference between literary opinion and slanderous accusation.

 

[irishpatrick]

Which actually just proves that there is a sound difference between literary opinion and slanderous accusation.

Holding the opinion that the books are dangerous is not slanderous. It is opinion.

 

[irishpatrick]

That does not make every statement about the subject accurate, nor does it make any such claim an opinion that is unable to be disproved.

Re: Rowling’s motives. The answer is no, because someone’s motives exist in a factual sense. Either she sought to encourage witchcraft, or she did not. This is a factual issue.

One can hold any opinion they want…
O

 

[Baelor]

One can hold any opinion they want…

And those that are incorrect should be corrected, because the truth is worth defending.

 

[irishpatrick]

And those that are incorrect should be corrected, because the truth is worth defending.

Opinions about cannot be corrected. You can disagree with an opinion…but not correct the opinion regarding fiction.

 

[jilly4ski]

Literary merit is not the only consideration. Some people think the books aoiire spiritually dangerous…independent of their literary merit.

However, if someone who has never read the books starts spouting off his"literary opinion" about the books, we would rightly criticize his opinion.
Likewise we will criticize anyone who proclaims books as spiritually dangerous, without ever having read the book in question. In fact we will probably call that person a liar, because they not only lie about what is in the book (a fact), but the very fact that others have shown otherwise.

The OP was merely asking for real criticisms of the Harry Potter books, from someone who has actually read the books, and thus is not being dishonest in some form.

So the OP did ask for opinion, but from an informed opinion. I will not call what people say when they have not read the books an opinion. It is less than an opinion. I have never seen anyone with a real opinion (someone who actually has information to base their opinion on) say that these books are spiritually dangerous. (Literary problems, yes, but not spiritual problems).

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Holding the opinion that the books are dangerous is not slanderous. It is opinion.

No. It is accusatory. Going back to my example, your logic would have me holding the ‘opinion’ that your BBQ meat has aborted fetus cells.

 

[irishpatrick]

However, if someone who has never read the books starts spouting off his"literary opinion" about the books, we would rightly criticize his opinion.
Likewise we will criticize anyone who proclaims books as spiritually dangerous, without ever having read the book in question. In fact we will probably call that person a liar, because they not only lie about what is in the book (a fact), but the very fact that others have shown otherwise.

The OP was merely asking for real criticisms of the Harry Potter books, from someone who has actually read the books, and thus is not being dishonest in some form.

So the OP did ask for opinion, but from an informed opinion. I will not call what people say when they have not read the books an opinion. It is less than an opinion. I have never seen anyone with a real opinion (someone who actually has information to base their opinion on) say that these books are spiritually dangerous. (Literary problems, yes, but not spiritual problems).

I have.

 

[irishpatrick]

No. It is accusatory. Going back to my example, your logic would have me holding the ‘opinion’ that your BBQ meat has aborted fetus cells.

Holding the opinion that the books are spiritually dangerous can easily be held. It is an opinion.
I

 

[curlycool89]

I have.

And which parts do you have issues with?

And by the way, you are not allowed to use the words “witchcraft”, “wizardry”, or “school of” in your critique without defining them and using deductive logic to show how they are in fact equivalent to Church teaching.

For those unaware, deductive logic means that if your premises are true, then the conclusion is true. An example would be “If you have a tv, you use electricity (P1). You have a tv (P2). Therefore, you use electricity (conclusion)”; that is the form “If A then B. You have A, therefore B”. That means no innuendoes, no implying that something is true without actually proving it, and all the other fun fallacies that people normally use.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Holding the opinion that the books are spiritually dangerous can easily be held. It is an opinion.

How easy you can hold it is way besides the point. Stop throwing red herrings and parroting assertions.

Again, how is me claiming your BBQ has aborted fetus cells not an opinion while you calling Rowling’s work ‘spiritually’ dangerous is?

 

[irishpatrick]

How easy you can hold it is way besides the point. Stopi throwing red herrings and parroting assertions.

It seems when opinions of HP do not support HP…then those opnions are attacked…sometimes visciously attacked and there is imbalance there to consider imo.

 

[irishpatrick]

And which parts do you have issues with?

And by the way, you are not allowed to use the words “witchcraft”, “wizardry”, or “school of” in your critique without defining them and using deductive logic to show how they are in fact equivalent to Church teaching.

For those unaware, deductive logic means that if your premises are true, then the conclusion is true. An example would be “If you have a tv, you use electricity (P1). You have a tv (P2). Therefore, you use electricity (conclusion)”; that is the form “If A then B. You have A, therefore B”. That means no innuendoes, no implying that something is true without actually proving it, and all the other fun fallacies that people normally use.

You do not get to make the rules behind discussions. Sorry.