So isn't the whole point of the killing curse that you can't perform it without deep malice?

So isn't the whole point of the killing curse that you can't perform it without deep malice? Because if you're telling me that killing someone with Avada Kedavra is somehow worse than killing somebody with incindio or confringo or sectum sempra or that slug curse Ron did in the second movie, you're out of your goddamn mind. In fact, it's quantifiably the most human form of execution ever conceived. Lethal injection is less humane by leaps and bounds.

I thought the problem was that you have to REALLY want it bad. Like, you have to get hard when you do it. But then how can Snape do it? Is JK Rowling just a giant fricking fraud?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    those movies are shit. you should read the books in elementary school and never watch the movies

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The more you think of the logic in that franchise, the worse it gets

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The reason it's bad is because you have to want to do it and it serves no purpose ever beyond killing someone.
    Confringo is a bit sussy but realistically has other uses.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Its a combo of and

      >So isn't the whole point of the killing curse that you can't perform it without deep malice?
      You have to actually want to kill the person.
      And you have to be strong enough to cast the spell.

      The reason its a forbidden spell is because it only serves one purpose - killing. Theres no self-defense, disarming, or non-lethal aspect about it, just point and kill. Like anon said you have to be powerful enough to cast it, which also requires strong intent to use the spell. Snape was powerful enough and did want to kill dumbledore (but unbeknownst to Voldi this was part of the plan).

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        No, you have to be powerful enough for it to have the desired effect. Mad Eye Moody says it straight - the entire class could point their wands and cast the spell, and MAYBE he'd get a nosebleed. It requires both talent AND will.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't it easier to use a gun?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      yes. by a lot

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Why didnt the wizards just shoot voldemort!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      "No!"

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      avada kedavra was a metaphor for guns.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        No it's not!
        Avada Kedavra is a metaphor for eating too much Sauerkraut
        >Green Beam out your Ass!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        But guns exist in Harry Potter. Honestly the more you think about the moronic divide between wizards and muggles the worse it gets.
        JK wanted to make a full on alien wizarding world but keep it relatable for her teenage readers.
        So you end up with a lot of shit that just doesn't line up in any sensible way. Like the wizards being grey skins secretly mind wiping government officials while still not know how to wear a suit.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I wrote a fanfic as a kid about a muggle special forces team invading hogwarts and killing all the dirty wizards.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I think the guy who shot up Dunblane would have taken a lot longer if he had recite a chant every time he killed a kid

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    iirc the idea is that you 100% have to be convinced of killing the person you're firing at, snape killing dumbledore makes sense considering the stakes, its meant to show his determination against his conscience

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >iirc the idea is that you 100% have to be convinced of killing the person you're firing at
      I feel like there are many instances that doing so would be justifiable. For instance, had James Potter done it when Voldemort got into his house, should that be considered "unforgivable"?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        its probably unforgivable de jure because its really powerful, a kind of law that attempts to prevent the usage of the curse because its too powerful or something
        im sure its de facto forgivable, ie james potter probably would have gotten away with it

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >iirc the idea is that you 100% have to be convinced of killing the person you're firing at
          I feel like there are many instances that doing so would be justifiable. For instance, had James Potter done it when Voldemort got into his house, should that be considered "unforgivable"?

          It's unclear. Generally Aurors are forbidden to kill unless there is no other way. But this hasn't always been the case. For example, this rule was lifted during the first war against Voldemort, with only Moody continuing to follow it. But there are ways to kill with love in this universe and it's sketchy and not really thought out. Molly Weasley kills Bellatrix in this manner. The curse she uses isn't really named, but the fandom seems to think it has something to do with the sort of ancient magic that lives at the peripheries of the canon when JKR doesn't feel like explaining something adequately. They actually vaguely canonize this in Hogwarts Legacy, where the main character does the "make the other guy pop like a balloon" spell from the movie.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >had James Potter done it
        James Potter is a loser homosexual who only managed to shart his pants before ragdolling on a staircase, leaving his wife to protect their child. Look at this potato nose homosexual, he looks like a balding bag of dried ass skin, at age 21

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >here’s that 21 year old I was telling you about

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >seething slithercuck detected

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >James Potter is a loser homosexual
          >Had a loving wife and child by 21
          And what the frick have you accomplished by that age anon? You're complaining about harry fricking potter on Cinemaphile. You don't have any ground to stand on to call anyone a loser homosexual unless you're looking in god damn mirror you Black person.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >married at age 19 and got teen pregnant like chav trash
            wow

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            if he's so cool why is so dead?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              for his legendary son to realize the prophecy, slithercuck

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >british genes

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I know americans are like this, but the magical world has a very good judicial system and you aren't justifiable on doing so
        >Short trials with little evidence
        >No lawyers
        >Straight to the nastiest place ever
        >B-b-b-but I HAD to kill them they were in my house!!!!
        Grindelwald was Voldemort levels of power WITH the elder wand and he rot in Azkaban, there's no reason to believe Voldemort would escape or something

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >not allowed to kill a person that has broken into your home
          Pussies. Richard Ramirez types must fricking love it there. Imagine actually telling someone they have to wait and see if the intruder wants to rape and murder you or simply take your telly. Lmao.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >if you kill a mass murderer you are just as bad!
          How childish one's mind must be to harbor such a conviction.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Oi you goi loinces for dat spel?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You have to remember HP was written by a britcuck.
        Lethal force from a civilian is never acceptable, not even in self defence.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Snape is a lonely, miserable homosexual who has never had sex in his life. It shouldn't be hard for him to conjure enough hatred to make it work, even if he didn't hate Dumbledore specifically. All he has to do is remember that his life will either end at Voldemort's hand in a few weeks or he will be grading potions essays for the rest of his miserable life. Easy peasy

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Snape did hate Dumbledore for forcing him to do it.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      He also hated him for abusing snakeshits for his entire career

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >So isn't the whole point of the killing curse that you can't perform it without deep malice?
    You have to actually want to kill the person.
    And you have to be strong enough to cast the spell.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    it's green moron
    how did you miss the color coding on good and bad

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The green lasers in star wars are bad and the red lasers are good. Unless we're talking about lightsabers, in which the opposite is true, but suck my ass

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    JK is a hack of a writer and while the whole killing curse this is kinda interesting for the whole the babies survives and no one else ever did angle it really makes the universe feel lazy as a whole if you have this magical 1 shot spell that can kill anyone but most people don't use it because uhhhhh

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >the whole the babies survives and no one else ever did angle it
      You could have achieved this with any sort of evil killing spell. My problem with Avada Kedavra is that it's just boring. I also feel like Voldemort should be sadistic enough to not use it all the time, but it's his favorite spell for some reason

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I think it's supposed to be worse than any other spell because it can't be blocked or countered while spells like incindio could. Like other anons said the casting of the spell could also have to do more with conviction to kill rather than malice, but I'm not really sure.

    Ultimately, Rowling just REALLY sucks at deeper world building. We already know that souls are canonically implied to exist and can be damaged, as demonstrated by Voldemort's horcruxes. The obvious play to make the unforgivable curses less appealing to the heroic characters would have been to establish that they can be harmful to the soul. That provides adequate justification for good characters to be adverse to using them, while also allowing dark wizards with no reservations about the state of their soul to continue using them indiscriminately.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, the entire point of the horcruxes was that KILLING does irreparable damage to your own soul, so of course the KILLING CURSE will do the same. JK just didn't spoonfeed it like you seem to need.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >without deep malice
    Without intent.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The problem with that is that I really don't understand what makes it "evil" then. I think the big problem with the way Rowling approaches dark magic is that there isn't enough of a cost. I feel like if the killing curse is meant to be as taboo as it is, there should be some reason for it. Like, you need to commit to being an evil person in some way in order to make it work, or else it just falls flat for the reason OP pointed out. If it's simply a matter of intent, you can intend to kill someone for a noble or otherwise acceptable reason. And honestly, if the alternative is to kill the person in a painful and inhumane way, then that's shitty and sadistic for no reason. If I kill someone in self defense with Avada Kedavra, does that make me a worse person than if I did it painfully with a baseball bat? Why?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        There are tools to defend yourself without using Avada Kedavra. When you use the killing curse you just want that person dead for malicious intent

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    > I thought the problem was that you have to REALLY want it bad. Like, you have to get hard when you do it. But then how can Snape do it?
    He wants revenge for Lily and was willing to kill to keep his cover , simple as

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      this. Snape is the biggest chad in the whole series, even though he is obviously virgin coded. The lengths and risks he took are impressive

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    He hated that gay Dumbledore for HOWEVERing Slytherin that one year

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    it's unblockable (except for statues and furniture and trees and pillars and other, less difficult spells), so in terms of combat it's the most efficient killing spell so long as you're powerful and butthurt enough to pull it off.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You can block it using a suit of armor unless you are wearing it

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I thought the "REALLY wanting it" thing was more to do with the Crucio curse, the torture/pain curse. Like you have to WANT to hurt that person.
    Avada Kadavra or whatever, it just kills no matter what. That was how I understood it anyway.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Slytherins as Pixar characters; inspired by past thread

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It won't make Snape look badass, he always look like a wimp
      Pixar Draco at least looks like a villain

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Make Draco a girl. For science.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I tried. She became a bobblehead e-girl; I can rebake.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'd still frick it.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Please wait till your pureblood bride is of marrying age

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Draco looks like he is up to something mean

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          That's pretty out of character for him

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Like he looks like the main villain instead of just a bully

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          That's pretty out of character for him

          [...]
          Last attempt

          Maybe he has stolen Hagrid's umbrella

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Oh Lawd he coming

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Hagrid if he Clash of Clans.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                He is definitely a good disciplinarian here

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Alright this is the second last one

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Little Luna

                [...]

                I draw as well fren, I just like to play with AI

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Do you wanna play anon?

                stop shitting up the thread with this garbage

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Kay its the last one I was baking anyway. Hope the other anons got their requests

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It won't make Snape look badass, he always look like a wimp
      Pixar Draco at least looks like a villain

      Tom Riddle
      Who else should I AI

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Colin Creevey

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Kay, need to figure out the prompt; here's Luna Lovegood meanwhile

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Not happy with it, I am baking a new guy. Any other requests

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Helena Carter looking girl. He has a cute based wife

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Buckbeak the hippogriff

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Derp result; I am rebaking

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Derp result; I am rebaking

          Still a bit too 2000s vidya game for my tastes but better

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          Still a bit too 2000s vidya game for my tastes but better

          Last attempt

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They're all pretty decent. Do Madeye Moody

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Moody
              So much time to bake and such a disappointment tesk, tesk
              I'll try again

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Last one. I think Hagrid and Luna gives the best results

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Pansy Parkinson

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Pansy was a good girl that didn't do nothing; poor girl was framed!

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Pansy was a good girl that didn't do nothing; poor girl was framed!

          A e-girl version to keep itty bitty Draco company

          I tried. She became a bobblehead e-girl; I can rebake.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Voldemort but as the trolley witch

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I tried and got a boy scout sweet-salesman Tom

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous
  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    deep intent
    homosexual
    also he's pretty mad a ol' d-dore in the moment.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Why? Because of the rapes?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        no the rapes were the only upside

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    MUDBLOOD

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      She cute

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Isnt the reason its unforgivable is because it steals your soul, not simply because it kills you?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No, you’re thinking of Dementors, which are canonically the dumbest thin JK Rowling ever wrote. Not their existence in and of themselves, but that the “good guys” would ever think this was an acceptable form of punishment. Even Dumbledore only disapproves of them insofar as he realizes they will fight for Voldemort. In a world where we can prove souls are a thing, destroying a person’s soul should be the most heinous possible crime, but they’re perfectly okay with it for uppity crooks.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >In a world where we can prove souls are a thing, destroying a person’s soul should be the most heinous possible crime
        Why? There is no God in Harry Potter and thus no binding, objective morality.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          They're (somehow) Christian. They celebrate Christmas

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Which is hilarious given that the none of Christ's miracles would be impressive

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Rising from the dead is a pretty good trick.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Not true. Jesus resurrected people. Wizards can't do that. He also healed blindness, which for some reason seems difficult for wizards

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You can also eat food conjured by Jesus. Wizard's cannot conjure food.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Rising from the dead is a pretty good trick.

                He also multiplied food, which they can technically do but only poorly and with exponentially diminishing returns

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >what are the deathly hollows
                why discuss franchises youre completely ignorant about?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The stone doesn't work you moron, anyone you try to bring back comes back as a shade without a real body and quickly turn restless and distraught at being drawn from the afterlife. Death made it as a frick you to the brother

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >what are the deathly hollows
                The cloak of invisibility, the elder wand and the resurrection stone. But that last one evidently doesn't do what you think it does. In fact, I'm perplexed as to how you can even make that reference without knowing that it doesn't actually resurrect people fully. That is explained at the exact same time the concept is introduced. Did you get to the part where Hermione is telling the story of the three brothers and go, "AHA! I NOW FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS MOVIE AND WILL HEREBY EXIT THE THEATER FOREVERMORE" the moment she said "resurrection stone"? That's the only way you could conceivably have enough knowledge to recognize what the Hallows are yet still not know what they do.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              True resurrection is impossible for wizards, even the deathly hallow stone is a fake mockery that doesn't work, that alone makes Christ more powerful than magic.
              Also he makes food out of nothing which is also impossible for magic which needs the raw materials to make anything available

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                To be fair, it's impossible to say whether Christ conjured the food out of thin air or simply multiplied it. Wizards can do that, but poorly.

                >what are the deathly hollows
                why discuss franchises youre completely ignorant about?

                Are you trolling? I hope you're trolling.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >youre a wizard jesus
            was that so hard to think up? besides yule was a long established holiday before christianity and even if it wasnt its still a cultural holiday for bongs. theres literally no reason they wouldn't celebrate it. remember this was a pre woke world before "happy holidays"

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >There is no God in Harry Potter and thus no binding, objective morality.
          Cool, just like real life!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        no im thinking of goblet for fire when the souls of all the people voldemort killed come out and how you never see a ghost who was killed by the killing curse

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Those aren’t their souls. I don’t know if they explain it in the movie, but in the book Dumbledore has a whole speech about priori incantatum and how the wand will play back a sort of echo of the last people killed. But they aren’t the actual souls themselves

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >In a world where we can prove souls are a thing, destroying a person’s soul should be the most heinous possible crime, but they’re perfectly okay with it for uppity crooks.
        No, that's inline with classic Anglo culture.
        >"it would be immoral to keep someone in gaol for more than a week or two, so let's just hang them until dead, instead"

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    the point is that the spell is specifically for killing and only bad people can use the spell.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus can levitate, set himself on fire and shoot swords out of his mouth. Harry Potter can't do that.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Wizards fear him 🙂

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      a simple avadakedavra would kill issou

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >accio nuke
    >bombarda
    >protego

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It's crucio that needs the malice, Barty Crouch Jr just said the students' power levels aren't high enough to perform it on him

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      mine is. I am extremely powerful. I could have done it no clap

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >9 Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, 10 and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.” 11 They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery. 12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.
    Wizards BTFO.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, man. I don't know. Simon Magus seems to have butthurt early Christians in a way that seems pretty based. Gnostics love him

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Simon Magus and the Apostle Paul might be the same historical person. I don't feel like explaining it, look it up.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Gnostics love him
        This alone is proof he was probably a giant homosexual.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Gnostics love Paul as well.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I know a lot of people are anti-Paul. Haven't made up my mind yet.

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Snape didn't kill him with that curse.
    In the books Dumbledore's body binding curse on Harry only disappears when he hits the ground.
    Snape basically just pushed Dumbledore off the tower.
    He should have used that curse that makes you throw up your insides, now that would have been a way to go.

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What about the spell Pettigrew used that blew up like a whole city block and killed a bunch of aurors and muggles? One which presumably required no malice and which we never see or hear of again? (To my recollection at least)

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    i hate hate hate hate when these fights are nothing more than wand gun flicking

    use different spells, yell them out goddamnit

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I think the biggest flaw/mistake in harry potter is exactly what you said, making the killing curse so easy to perform. It would have been much better if only truly skilled but evil people could use it, and the rest of the characters had to come up with other spells to fight.
    Goyle and Crabbe running around avada kedavra-ing was really dumb

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Do you wanna play anon?

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >without deep malice
    I thought it wasn't about malice per se, but that you had to really MEAN it, you had to genuinely want to end someone's life and couldn't half ass it. A mercy killing knowing that the alternative would be much, much worse could absolutely make AK work even if you had no malice for the person at all. That's also what makes it unforgivable, because if you successfully cast it it removes all plausible deniability about your intention. You wanted to kill someone, there's no possibility it was an accident.

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Presumably Snape has enough malice built up from a lifetime of being a cuck that he can channel it into killing as needed.

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It was premeditated, he could have practiced using the curse without hating Dumbledore, using hateful thoughts. He's a master of legilimency. It's also not hard to concieve that a really talented wizard would be more flexible in using spells compared to your average wizard who would need strong emotions to cast it

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *