I mark myself a Slytherin. Yepp, I said it and I feel no shame.
After all, we can't say that all of them are bad. (Regulas Black, and Severus Snape being notable examples.) as well as Narcissa Malfoy and Horace Slughorn (the fun, jolly fellow he is)(As noted in comments)
Its just a house with a bad rap, because of a few bad people.
Saying all Slytherins are evil would be like saying Germany is an evil, and horrible country JUST because Adolf Hitler originated there.
My personal opinion is that, yes some Slytherins went as bad as you could go, but others just got wrapped up in the "misconceptions."
Many Slytherins are not evil, they are strong willed, independent, ambitious, and cunning people who desire to be the best.
And on a further note, lets look at a few less then 'chivilrous' Gryffindors.
Peter Pettigrew- Enough said I do believe.
James Potter, however brave and loyal, was an arrogant bully.
Did the king Gryffindor himself, Albus Dumbledore not dabble (however temporarily) in the Dark Arts himself?
So what say you Gryffindors, who have turned blind eyes to your fellows, who are less then Gryffindor-esque
Dumbledore said, "Its our choices that make us who we are"
So weather a person is evil or not, isnt based on the house they were put in, its based off of they choices thay make within that house.
Do they choose to conform to the hipe, and be evil, muggle hating freaks, or do they choose to be good, and attempt to break the reputation?
SLYTHERINS AREN'T EVIL
Just leave us alone people.
After all, we can't say that all of them are bad. (Regulas Black, and Severus Snape being notable examples.) as well as Narcissa Malfoy and Horace Slughorn (the fun, jolly fellow he is)(As noted in comments)
Its just a house with a bad rap, because of a few bad people.
Saying all Slytherins are evil would be like saying Germany is an evil, and horrible country JUST because Adolf Hitler originated there.
My personal opinion is that, yes some Slytherins went as bad as you could go, but others just got wrapped up in the "misconceptions."
Many Slytherins are not evil, they are strong willed, independent, ambitious, and cunning people who desire to be the best.
And on a further note, lets look at a few less then 'chivilrous' Gryffindors.
Peter Pettigrew- Enough said I do believe.
James Potter, however brave and loyal, was an arrogant bully.
Did the king Gryffindor himself, Albus Dumbledore not dabble (however temporarily) in the Dark Arts himself?
So what say you Gryffindors, who have turned blind eyes to your fellows, who are less then Gryffindor-esque
Dumbledore said, "Its our choices that make us who we are"
So weather a person is evil or not, isnt based on the house they were put in, its based off of they choices thay make within that house.
Do they choose to conform to the hipe, and be evil, muggle hating freaks, or do they choose to be good, and attempt to break the reputation?
SLYTHERINS AREN'T EVIL
Just leave us alone people.
*Diagon Alley is a cobbled wizarding street and shopping area located in London behind a pub called the Leaky Cauldron. Many of the set pieces were re-dressed and repurposed as Hogsmeade for Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
*To create the magical moment when Harry's wand chooses him in Ollivanders, filmmakers slowed the film speed, which is normally twenty-four frames per second, to one hundred and twenty frames per second.Remarkably, this dilation of time, some clever lighting, a smoke machine, and a fan were all they needed to produce this effect.
*To create the magical moment when Harry's wand chooses him in Ollivanders, filmmakers slowed the film speed, which is normally twenty-four frames per second, to one hundred and twenty frames per second.Remarkably, this dilation of time, some clever lighting, a smoke machine, and a fan were all they needed to produce this effect.
I recently found a strange contradiction in the concept of wizarding money.I'd like to know if my idea is true or if there is a counter-argument against it.
In pg.65 of HP and the Chamber of Secrets,we learn that Muggle money can be exchanged into wizarding money.
We also know that potentially valuable(in a Muggle point of view) objects such as chairs can be Conjured by magic(eg:Dumbledore does this in the courtroom in HP and The Order of the Phoenix).
So any wizard who knows basic Transfiguration can Conjure objects such as chairs,sell them to Muggles to obtain Muggle money and then exchange this money into Galleons,thus obtaining an infinite amount of wealth.
Doesn't this contradict the whole point of wizarding money?
Thanks in advance for any help.
In pg.65 of HP and the Chamber of Secrets,we learn that Muggle money can be exchanged into wizarding money.
We also know that potentially valuable(in a Muggle point of view) objects such as chairs can be Conjured by magic(eg:Dumbledore does this in the courtroom in HP and The Order of the Phoenix).
So any wizard who knows basic Transfiguration can Conjure objects such as chairs,sell them to Muggles to obtain Muggle money and then exchange this money into Galleons,thus obtaining an infinite amount of wealth.
Doesn't this contradict the whole point of wizarding money?
Thanks in advance for any help.
