Can Dumbledore REALLY Be Trusted? | Harry Potter Film Theory 

I feel like Harry would still be attacked and marked because how much snape cares for Lilly. Though in that case Harry would be marked through snape

We need this fr

​@ked49 how would Harry be attacked still if Snape never heard the prophecy? Only Albus would've heard it, Tom wouldn't have known a prophecy existed, so why would Harry be attacked?

⁠@@tfahad2051because the prophecy would be shared to the other members of the order of the pheanix, so Peter Petigrew could tell Voldemort after that.

@@tfahad2051 I feel like the Potters would still be attacked because they were defying Old Moldy but I don't think there would be anything special about the attack.

And you can trust that if he'd want to give your life for the greater Good, it is the last remaining option and that what Dumbledore thinks is the Greater Good, is indeed for the Greater Good.

But it's a loop, so the trolley hits everyone whichever way it is switched...

​@gjallagher I immediately saw that. Funny and cute, but the tracks need to continue on, not loop around.

@@scaper8 There is a trend of creators putting deliberate mistakes into their videos to stimulate engagement. Very naughty.

The picture is indeed awesome, but would've been even more so if they pictures the Hogwarts Express instead of the Knight Bus.

@@PAVx_so true

Yeah, I saw that as well. I can think of two explanations for it, one is that they saw the meme version of the trolley problem and accidentally used it as their example, the other being that they purposefully put a mistake in the video to breed conversation in the comments. He also stated that the scenario would have five people on the right rail and one on the left, but the picture only shows four characters on the right.😂

true

It's because if Harry actually dies then everyone else will also follow soon. No one was capable of stopping Voldemort anymore.

@@missingLEGACY There actually are five characters on the right! You might've missed Dobby 😂

@@jordanne229 you're right, I completely missed Dobby. 😂

case in point dementors in school grounds?

​@@gajeelnats1151one positive for Dumbledore is he was always against the dementors being there and compromised by not letting them roam the school halls

He could have overrule the Minister since he does have the chief warlock position which literally makes the laws of the British Ministry of Magic

⁠@@gajeelnats1151 The installation of the dementors in hogwarts was actually the ministry’s idea . Dumbledore actually refused to put dementors in hogwarts for the safety of the students but settled when the ministry said they were essential for catching Sirius black , and he only let them in the grounds.

You have to understand that many things are taken out of proportion to make the book more interesting for children, otherwise they might as well read about a mundane school life that they themselves already experience every day. Consider Quidditch, a sport played on broomsticks some 30 feet in the air with large iron balls hurtling towards you at high speeds, threatening to knock you off. Dumbledore didn't invent Quidditch, yet it's encouraged by every student and teacher. Or for example McGonagall, she sends Harry to serve his detention in the Forbidden Forest in his very first year, as an eleven year old. Potions. Potions as a subject is dangerous by nature, I'm surprised there are no known cases of students incinerating themselves (they don't even wear protective gear), yet it's still a mandatory subject. It's clear that the Wizarding World doesn't hold safety in high esteem, so all things considered Dumbledore's decisions are more or less justified.

If someone believes that they are not trustworthy it's probably because they are not, when the leader of the light is just as manipulative as the dark lord you know you have a problem, if harry was smart he would see both voldemort and dumbledore as an enemy, in fact harry would pity voldemort because they had similar childhood's and hate dumbledore because dum is responsible for tom becoming voldemort in the first place, so the entire harry potter story is harry cleaning up after bumbledore's mess

@@scarameowSucksAtGaming I mean there are definitely some good points there, but saying Dumbledore is responsible for Voldemort is a huge stretch. At WORST he had the opportunity to keep a closer eye on a suspicious little kid and didn't. And that's not near the same thing as it being his fault. Incidentally, Harry absolutely does pity Voldemort, and empathizes with him on their similarities. They were both orphans, both place a very high value on Hogwarts, and I think some other things I'm forgetting. But empathy and pity don't have to override "you're doing evil things and I'm going to stop you." You can do both at once. And just to be clear, none of this is me saying that Dumbledore is some perfectly innocent angel that can do no wrong. As a firm believer in the Carlin Brothers theory on Dumbledore's Big Plan, I absolutely see him as a manipulator pulling strings in the shadows to achieve his own ends. I just think he does a better job of fighting for the right things than Voldy does, and uses less cruel and malicious means to do so. Not perfect, not even necessarily good, but still significantly better.

@@riluna3695 tom wasn't suspicious he was neglected that's why he didn't express emotion, if dumbledore actually got him out the orphanage and showed care and attention tom would trust him, dumbledore being suspicious of tom from the first meeting just because of what the matron of the orphanage said only reaffirmed toms belief that no-one cares about him and he has keep up a mask being heartless lest he be hurt again, and being sorted into sliterin the house of the cunning meant he would have to keep up the mask, which unfortunately led tom to become voldemort which could have easily been avoided if dumbledore treated him better, i relate heavily to tom cause im autistic in a way that makes it difficult to express emotion, and tom seems to do the exact same thing i do put on a mask of being heartless to protect one's self from being hurt, that's why i say dumbledore caused tom to become voldemort, edit: im not saying let voldemort live im saying let dumbledore kill him and allow harry to live in peace

@@scarameowSucksAtGamingDumbles wasn’t the headmaster then though… Plus Voldemort couldn’t feel love and empathy even if he had a nice childhood because he was born under a love potion (SCB made a video on it)

@@thenon-chosenone so it's a teacher's responsibility to teach and protect the students, so let's agree to disagree, im voidhearted meaning i don't feel any emotion but im not heartless which is get what you want even if others die in the process, i have friends that know i don't care about them but they stick around cause even so i still help them when needed and they care about me; i keep them around cause i find them useful; so it's a win win

Just the tought of James blaming himself for Lily's death and Harry's future makes me so sad.

@@Not_a_muggle I'm sure Sirius and Remus could convince him it wasn't his fault. It doesn't seem too far-fetched to imagine one of them saying something like "He would've just killed both of you if you were there, Prongs. At least this way, Harry still has you. And if there is anyone to blame for this, it's Peter."

He would have been sent to Azkaban for killing Peter, cause he would have known he told Voldemort

Dumbledore is unequivocally the *Master* of planing. He set up the *Golden* *Trio* to succeed and did this knowing his *death* would fuel their resolve to battle evil with the power of righteousness on their side 🪄

That is true.

The Greater Good.

SHUT IT

The Greater Good!

people tend to believe that there's always a good and a bad choice, sometimes the choices are all bad

Really? In the Harry cycle, even before the Prophesy is made, he avoided directly confronting Voldemort (for example, when Voldemort came looking for the DADA job, despite the reports of his "exploits" Dumbledore doesn't attempt to have him arrested). Earlier in his life, despite the fact that he knows that the Blood Pact doesn't prevent him confronting Grindelwald (witness how he does so when G used the Cruciatus on Aberforth) Dumbledore CHOOSES to use an under-qualified Newt rather than acting himself. I can't help but wonder whether, for Dumbledore, his own health and safety is ALWAYS "The Greater Good"...

@@michaelodonnell824 Dumbledore had no power to have Riddle arrested. Yes, there may have been RUMOURS about Riddle, but he can't just go up to the Ministry and say "hi, remember that Riddle boy? I think he might be a dark wizard can you come arrest him please?" DUMBLEDORE may 'know' he is, but he doesn't have any proof And as for getting Newt to fight Grindelwald, Dumbledore DIDN'T 'know' the Blood Pact didn't prevent him from fighting Grindelwald. The truth is, none of the details are known about that night, it's very possible that Albus and Grindelwald attempting to duel each other is what killed Arianna, and DEFINITELY a chance that's what Albus thinks/fears what might be the case, which would obviously make him wary about trying again. And then in Secrets of Dumbledore, when Albus even thinks about defying Grindelwald, the blood pact starts strangling him. As for using Newt, he recruits the people he thinks will have the best chance, and from what we've seen from the Fantastic Beasts films, Newt is certainly very capable (and also has 2 fully trained aurors on his side)

@@thethreerailwayengines825 Firstly, Dumbledore was head of the Wizzengamont, so, yes he had the power. Secondly, where is there ANY evidence that the Magical World cares about evidence or trials? Sirius was jailed without a trial. Harry only avoided punishment for defending himself and Dudley because of Dumbledore. Barty Crouch Jr was jailed despite loudly claiming his innocence. So, yes, he could easily have gotten Voldemort arrested and sent to Azkhaban. And even if he doesn't take that step, he NEVER overtly opposes Voldemort or confronts him. Other members of the Order do directly confront Death Eaters and get killed. Dumbledore NEVER does so. Repeatedly, either with Grindelwald or in his pre-prophesy dealings with Voldemort, we find a Dumbledore HIDING from danger behind others. After he ALONE hears the Prophesy, he's able to use that as an excuse, despite his own admission to Harry that most prophecies NEVER COME TRUE. Dumbledore was never a good person. Throughout his life he hid behind others he knew were far less powerful than himself. Such behaviour is not ethical in any way, shape or form...

​@@michaelodonnell824Dumbledore was head of the Wizengamot, meaning he presided over trials, but he did not have the power to actually call them Sirius was openly admitting he was guilty, and Dumbledore says he gave evidence that Sirius was the secret keeper, so there was clearly SOME trial. And as for Barty Crouch Junior, so what? He HAD a trial, and he was found guilty, which he was. What does it matter if he was "loudly claiming his innocence". I'm sure lots of people who are jailed loudly claim their innocence. He did it, had a trial, and was found guilty. The whole argument of saying he didn't have a fair trial because he loudly claimed his innocence and was still sent to Azkaban makes absolutely no sense whatsoever So no, he couldn't easily have gotten Voldemort arrested and sent to Azkaban And yes, he does confront Voldemort and other Death Eaters. Have you actually read the books? Dumbledore is not "hiding", he is doing more than anyone else to make sure of their downfall. In the same way you didn't see Churchill, Roosevelt and Eisenhower leading the charges on D-Day at World War 2 There's a difference between a prophecy not coming true, and a prophecy being wrong. For example, if, say, Harry died from falling off his broom in Prisoner of Azkaban, then the prophecy about Harry and Voldemort wouldn't have come true, BUT it doesn't change the fact that Harry is the ONLY one who CAN defeat Voldemort, so the prophecy doesn't come true, but it wasn't wrong Dumbledore was a good person. He worked harder than anyone else to make sure first Grindelwald and then Voldemort fell. Sure, a lot of his decisions may LOOK bad and unethical, but people need to remember that they were AT WAR, and when you're leading your side in a war, decisions HAVE to be made that would look bad, because the alternative is even worse

There is a theory in another magical universe, that magical energy and tech energy are incompatible. Thus when magic is in use, by a wizard (not sure whether the Fae are as awkward around tech), tech becomes unreliable or just dies. (source: another Harry ... Dresden files. )

I don't, if i was in Harry's place I'd kill bumbledore for manipulating me and kill voldemort or just let dumbledore clean up after his own mess and defeat voldemort himself😑

​@@scarameowSucksAtGamingand that's why you're not the chosen one. 😂 No Gryffindor energy here 😂

Well his plan did hibge on Harry being a brave and self sacrificing hero. If Malfoy was the chosen one his plans would have had to of changed lol

@@spencercorpuz harry shouldn't have to be a hero when dumbledore was fully capable of killing voldemort quite easily, dumbledore is turning harry into a child soldier which im pretty sure is illegal in our world

@@georgiamackinlay5706 im talking about the chosen one/ horrcrux having to die to defeat voldemort

Thats nonsence. Dumbledore does listen to other people too and takes their advice. He is also more than ready to let other people take the lead instead of himself, even if that leads to a worse outcome, just think of Fudge becoming prime minister instead of Dumbledore. The thing is, Dumbledore is much smarter than anyone else and his plans are far better than anyone elses. Dumbledore himself as well as all of his allies know that, and why follow a worse plan just because Dumbledore didnt come up with it? He also never forces people to follow his plans. The people around him trust him unconditionally, and for a very good reason. He is the best fitted person to do the plans, and his plans almost always work.

The actual reason most people can't be a leader is that you don't actually have to make hard choices. A leader's choices are easy. The hard part of being a leader is ignoring your own goals in favor of the goals of your subordinates.

​@@dontmisunderstand6041 Not if your goals are better ideas. Leaders should pursue the best ideas, regardless of whether it was their idea or one from their supporters. Leading is about improving life for all, not about my goals or yours.

@@thareelhelloagain I didn't say ideas. I said goals. If you're the one setting the goals, you're not leading a group, you're commanding minions. Much the same way a shepherd does not lead their flock. They herd them. It's in the name. Getting other people to do what you want does not in any way require the same skillset as guiding others toward a path that better achieves their own goals.

@@dontmisunderstand6041 Both doing what you want AND doing what others want are requirements for a good strong leader. Nobody wants a leader with no identity of their own. You seem to need to separate the two, but good leaders need both their own goals and the goals of their people in mind, or else they won't be well rounded. I don't see how you're not grasping this very simple concept.

@@dontmisunderstand6041 Also, the whole "I didn't say ideas I said goals" thing is just a nothing argument and something you can contradict me on without actually contradicting. I made it very clear in my first comment that I was using goals and ideas (Quote "not if your goals are better ideas") interchangeably. You either didn't realize that, meaning you didn't actually read my comment very closely, or you did realize and ignored it, because you needed to contradict me on something. Neither of those reasons is a good look for you in a debate setting such as this.

the Protection Harry gets from Privet Drive is different from the one that Tom worked on over coming in GoF, though the later is used as a basis for the former. The protection at Privet drive was created by Albus and had use the blood that connected Harry to Lily's blood Relatives and the power that persists through the protection made by Lily on the night Tom attacks the Potters. Realistically speaking, Privet Drive through this protection is the safest location for harry(against Tom) especially during his younger days as a child, but only A. Harry is at Privet Drive and B. considers Privet Drive his home which he does so yes it is important he stays there over the summer. And don't mistaken Albus's opinion on the matter of Harry's history their since literally the next book after he tell Harry about the protection he addressees this fact to the Dursly's and the anger is palpable. As far as him not doing anything more, the simple fact is that Albus doesn't have any right to interfere in what's going on within Privat Drive, he's an outsider and not family so can't get involved in the matter no matter how angry or disappointed he gets. Worse case scenario Vernon and Pertunia could would just disown Harry from the house and they be able to do so and put harry into grave danger.

He had no other choice. Dumbeldore did everything he could to make sure the abuse stopped.

@@JoshuaB1194 So not reporting abuse if I see it is acceptable I shall remember this since having a house with a fidelious or you know sending harry to fuckng japan and leaving him there do keep harry safe so if it was just a matter of keeping harry save and untraceable a random orphanage in japan would have worked fine or even the US for that matter Do you really think death eaters operate that far out?

Supposed protection. Voldemort could just wait outside no 4 and wait for Harry to go to the shops and kill him. Like how the dementors were able to get him. I seriously can't see how the protections can do anything. If it's based on lily's sacrifice, Voldemort would logically be able to bypass it regardless, and if it is separate, that just raises way bigger questions.

Even more, you can justify them that way even if that's not actually why you did them, as long as you have plausible deniability.

@@dontmisunderstand6041 I've found, in general, villains rarely think of themselves as the badguy.

While that is true, the people who commit those atrocities oftentimes are not at all doing things for the greater good whether they believe they are or not. Right is right and wrong is wrong and it's all about what your motivation and goal is. It is also about what it is you are doing for the greater good. If it's a righteous motivation and a righteous goal, "for the greater good" is valid and righteous in itself. Dumbledore had a righteous goal to end Voldemorts reign of terror therefore he is totally justified. Grindelwald had no such noble goal and only wanted power. Dumbledore went along with it, believing the goal was something different even though that goal was still wrong but the point is that he realized it and he abandoned the goal.

@@DeadSezSo Not everything is as black and white as you seem to want to believe.just because you do a terrible thing for what you believe to be the right reason, doesn't make the terrible thing any less terrible, nor does it change if a reason may not be as just as you thought. That said, it's usually better to do the wrong thing for the right reason than the right thing for the wrong reason. For example, Dumbledore was willing to sacrifice Harry's life if that's what it took to defeat Voldermort. Even if he was wrong and Harry would not be able to come back. On the other hand, Snape joined Dumbledore only because the Prophesy sent Voldermort after Lily. And he wanted to protect Lily (not anyone else, just Lily. Dude didn't particularly care who else might live or die so long as Lily survived). Dumbledore left Harry with the Dursleys to protect him so wrong thing, right reason for Dumbledore, right thing, wrong reason for Snape. Or here's another example in super heroes. The Punisher kills criminals instead of turning them over to police because his family was murdered. Meanwhile, Batman does his best to keep the streets clean without killing anyone. Who is right? Who is wrong? Life is not black and white. Most villains don't see themselves as the badguy. Magneto sees himself as just fighting for mutants, like Exavier. Magneto's just willing to fight dirtier and be a terrorist. And if you keep crossing lines under "I was doing the right thing" where does it stop? At some point, if you go far enough, you become what you hate. The thing you were fighting against.

@@alanalirkani Sure, not everything is as black and white as others but my comment isn't a philosophical musing about moral absolutism vs moral relativism so I don't understand why you are turning this into a philosophical debate. Your original comment even presented the belief that there are "atrocities" done so you clearly don't believe that everything is morally relative/subjective. If you don't believe in morality ever being black and white then you can't believe that "atrocities" actually exist in the first place because there is no objective moral truths to allow us to make that judgement. If you DO believe there are at least some objective moral truths then your whole comment is completely irrelevant to what I said because I wasn't making any claims about which beliefs are moral truths. It's merely operating under the assumption that at least some moral truths exist. So, in those instances where society agrees somebody committed atrocities, they weren't actually doing anything for the greater good whether they believed they were or not. I'm not trying to debate who is actually doing things for the greater good and who isn't. I am saying that in any instance where someone is claiming to be doing things for the greater good which you yourself believe to be atrocious, they are not actually doing anything for the greater good. But if someone is doing something which society considers reasonable for what society considers to be the greater good, then they absolutely are doing things for the greater good. Whether or not some cases are tougher to judge than others (like your punisher vs batman example) is irrelevant to my point. Unless you're trying to tell me that there is no such thing as "for the greater good" because it's all relative to an individual, your entire comment is pointless and does nothing to dispute what I'm saying.

"The greater good." "SHUT IT!" - Hot Fuzz

*Dumbletable

ofc no. ppl are flawed

🧹🪄⚡@SuperCarlinBrothers⚡🪄🧹Lord Of The Rings Film Theory Video.?🙏🙏🙏

Nope 🙅🏻🙅🏻🙅🏻🙅🏻🙅🏻🙅🏻🙅🏻🙅🏻🙅🏻🙅🏻🙅🏻🙅🏻🙅🏻🙅🏻🙅🏻🙅🏻🙅🏻

That was a movie addition, in the books Rita’s stories are questionable but her information is almost always truthful. In some ways she was more reliable than Xenophilius Lovegood.

@@krisynthiagomez5883 No... the entire point is she takes a grain of truth and folds it into a ton of lies. She manufactures quotes from Harry, gets his classmates to lie about him, makes up relationships that don't exist, etc.

@@nathans9764 She didn’t lie about Harry being a Parseltounge, his classmates being afraid of him because of it, or him passing out and having “attacks” because of his scar. She didn’t lie about most students hating Hagrid’s classes ( the trio wasn’t an exception, in the end even they refused to continue the classes) or him bringing dangerous illegal animals in or him being half giant and who his mother was. She found out about the flying car incident and things about Dumbledore’s past that I’m guessing even his closest friends didn’t know. She was a honestly a scary kind of reporter, because she had all the facts that nobody could deny.

@@krisynthiagomez5883 in order; Harry's classmates aren't afraid of him. There was a brief time that some of them were, 2 years ago, over a misunderstanding. That's like reporting that Hilary Clinton is expected to win the election. That was true 7 years ago and every knows now that it isn't. He wasn't passing out and having attacks. He had one vision when he fell asleep in class that year... So that's a lie. Yes, most kids disliked hagrids class, but that's not what she asserted. She asserted that they were all terrified of hagrids, which has never been shown to be true, and that goyle was injured by a flobberworm, which is not true. As I said. Hints of truth wraps in lies, lies of omissions, or twisted and irrelevant half truths.

​@@krisynthiagomez5883 That still doesn't change how her fictitious additions hurt the credibility of everything else she writes. You have to be right as much as possible and have integrity all the time, not just when you feel like it.

well yea everybody dies either way, only difference is the order.

No win scenario. 🤔

That’s good advice

2:10: Well, did YOU watch at least the super-UN-political channels of Not-Just-Bikes and Edenicity? Let alone issue-listing and problem-exploring Channels like Some-More-News and Second Thought? Do you really wanna better society??

So good old Grindy is actually redeemed in old age!😃😀😁

​@@hackman669 Maybe... Because I feel Grindelwald knows love definately more than voldemort and Dumbledore's faith in Grindelwald may have been paid off and strengthen his belief in love and its power

it is a valuable test of character, not about good or evil, but about whether or not you have what it takes to act when given the opportunity.

@@windhelmguard5295 Yet it still can cause conflicts between people. You answer the problem 1 way & your friend answered it a different way. That difference could cause conflict in the friendship. Additionally, it's still not accurate because it's not in an actual situation. The true test of character is when you are in an actual situation & the pressure is on.

Yeah, the guy who didn't try to use his powers to solo the racist death eaters is such a good guy.

​@@cyslammerx8011 Thank you! I can understand that after Dumbledore hears the prophecy that he doesn't go and kill Voldemort & the death eaters. But before he hears it? No excuse

@catman-du8927 and even after he heard it, he could raise Harry himself in an actual loving home, training him to be strong enough that him and Harry and many other wizards and witches canbeat voldemort together.

@catman-du8927 it makes sense that he didn't kill voldemort because of the prophecy But it does not make sense the he let's all the other death eaters he knows of from having Snape as a spy get off scot free; so they can teach their kids and send those kids to his school where he does nothing but put them in a place where their hatred can grow.

@@cyslammerx8011 The books give a good enough reason for Harry to be raised with his aunt & uncle that I can accept that part even if I don't like it. It just feels like if Dumbledore is so powerful then why didn't he do anything to stop this stuff!!

Oh no he got to you too?!

Sounds like someone who isn’t willing to think about it.

@@atlasreacts6483 no, it's just that this is Albus Dumbledore we're talking about. Who wouldn't trust him? Everyone does.

@@magiskhan-rex What do you mean?