Dumbledore is gay O_O - Gaming World Forums

Dumbledore is gay O_O (Read 7114 times)

Print

Frisky SKeleton

#101 October 21, 2007, 09:22:48 pm

aye ess dee eff el cay jay ache
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jun 24, 2005
Posts: 5149

Yeah man, satan's goal is to convert everyone to gay pagans ffff

I USE Q'S INSTEQD OF Q'S

Logged

Acid

#102 October 21, 2007, 09:32:15 pm

The Dude With The Gun Glasses
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 150

I blame Society.

Logged

Fire Mage

#103 October 21, 2007, 10:05:16 pm

Woof Woof
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1048

This was just pretty much bullshit she thought up with rumors to "boost series morale" or something.

And I like how everyone is going "I noticed this blah blah" (I'm not talking about the ones joking like steel and climbtree) and all this sheet. How about this: She announced it and NOW YOU ARE READING TO MUCH INTO IT and making excuses because you don't want to admit that J.K. Rowling is officially bullshitting now.

Steam ID: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Dravvad

Xbox 360 Gamertag: https://account.xbox.com/en-US/Profile?gamerTag=HARDLUCKDUCK

last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/MaidenRocks99
(Yeah, great name, but I was like 14)

Logged

Artis Leon Ivey Jr

#104 October 21, 2007, 10:14:38 pm

Insane teacher
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 10515

oh apparently one big piece of evidence is what dumbledore sees in the mirror of erised which shows you what you want in your heart.

which strikes me as kind of demeaning, honestly. GAYS ONLY WANT MEN IN LIFE.

brian chemicals

Logged

Frisky SKeleton

#105 October 21, 2007, 10:20:35 pm

aye ess dee eff el cay jay ache
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jun 24, 2005
Posts: 5149

if he had seen a line of cocaine it would be even more demeaning, GAYS ONLY WANT COCAINE IN LIFE

I USE Q'S INSTEQD OF Q'S

Logged

NightBlade

#106 October 22, 2007, 01:37:44 am

Red Eyes Black Jacket
Group: Member
Joined: May 16, 2002
Posts: 1364

Sounds kind of trivial, unless this had some direct impact on the story. I don't know, I never read the books; nor do I care to.

Logged

Lars

#107 October 22, 2007, 01:45:53 am

Fuck off!
Group: Member
Joined: Apr 7, 2003
Posts: 2360

What's amazing... are the headlines.

Oh well, those American conservatives are gonna have a field-day on this!! Now they can regret not assassinating Rowling once she started infusing pagan rituals on their children!

It's a trap!!

Last Edit: October 22, 2007, 05:48:35 am by Lars

Logged

kermit the toad

#108 October 22, 2007, 04:17:27 am

Pretend Moderator
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2001
Posts: 548

Quote from: dangerousned on October 21, 2007, 10:14:38 pm

oh apparently one big piece of evidence is what dumbledore sees in the mirror of erised which shows you what you want in your heart.

which strikes me as kind of demeaning, honestly. GAYS ONLY WANT MEN IN LIFE.

Oh, come on, straights only want women in life (unless they are women, then they only want babies).

But, seriously, you've got a pretty good point.

Logged

The Truth

#109 October 22, 2007, 05:25:33 am

SB is unaware that Dimmu sucks
Group: Premium Member
Joined: May 15, 2003
Posts: 1204

Quote from: Alec on October 21, 2007, 12:18:39 am

The Christian hate groups on TCGs are retarded. Didn't the pope praise M:TG as an effective learning tool for developmental children? I mean, you're life's gotta suck to be playing into your twenties, but I don't see why the religious hate.

On topic: It does seem like an out of the blue thing that Rowling just decided willy-nilly, possibly after reading rumors on fan sites. I refuse to believe that she is a capable enough writer that any subtext that people are now finding in the novels are more than the I-see-what-I've-been-told property. I'm sure if someone influential to any reasonably long series announced one of the characters was really into bestiality, you would begin to view the subject with that in mind, and find things to affirm that, whether they were originally intended to or not.

Also, it's a CHILDREN'S BOOK SERIES. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with teaching children tolerance, but this announcement was obviously made for the older, minus-a-life fans who wanted something juicy to nibble on, as with the encyclopedia that's being planned.

hey man fuck you

i've won money man don't hate

--- Back when we were young and loved the internet....

Logged

headphonics

#110 October 22, 2007, 05:56:37 am

sea of vodka
Group: Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2003
Posts: 6432

Quote from: dangerousned on October 21, 2007, 10:14:38 pm

oh apparently one big piece of evidence is what dumbledore sees in the mirror of erised which shows you what you want in your heart.

which strikes me as kind of demeaning, honestly. GAYS ONLY WANT MEN IN LIFE.

who, exactly, did he see? if it was just a dude holding his throbbing, engorged member, then yeah, you have a point. but if it was grindelwald or whoever, then i don't really think you can call it demeaning. it's not as if he just wanted him because DICK'S DICK'S DICK'S, if that was the case. it would've been because apparently he was legitimately in love with him, and it's not really fair to say desiring the person you loved the most in your life is demeaning to homosexuals just because it's a man desiring another man. it's a natural thing, something to be expected. would it be demeaning to heterosexuals if, assuming dumbledore was a straight, he saw a woman instead? or if ron looked in and saw hermione, or something like that?

Last Edit: October 22, 2007, 05:58:24 am by bazookatooth

Logged

baseball19225

#111 October 22, 2007, 08:16:55 am

Paranoid Android.
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Nov 6, 2003
Posts: 1918

Quote from: bazookatooth on October 22, 2007, 05:56:37 am

who, exactly, did he see? if it was just a dude holding his throbbing, engorged member, then yeah, you have a point. but if it was grindelwald or whoever, then i don't really think you can call it demeaning. it's not as if he just wanted him because DICK'S DICK'S DICK'S, if that was the case. it would've been because apparently he was legitimately in love with him, and it's not really fair to say desiring the person you loved the most in your life is demeaning to homosexuals just because it's a man desiring another man. it's a natural thing, something to be expected. would it be demeaning to heterosexuals if, assuming dumbledore was a straight, he saw a woman instead? or if ron looked in and saw hermione, or something like that?

but all gays do just think about dongs and men (sex). that's why they can't be in the proud military.

Logged

JakeyZombie

#112 October 22, 2007, 12:28:13 pm

DIZ ISN'T MYSPAEX?
Group: Member
Joined: May 14, 2007
Posts: 79

Quote from: Adeline on October 22, 2007, 08:16:55 am

but all gays do just think about dongs and men (sex). that's why they can't be in the proud military.

This is a sad truth.

Who we doing, what we doing, where we going, taking over.[/size][/b]

Logged

HL

#113 October 22, 2007, 12:50:38 pm

Will you walk the realms of Chaos with me?
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Mar 20, 2006
Posts: 3525

Quote from: bazookatooth on October 22, 2007, 05:56:37 am

who, exactly, did he see? if it was just a dude holding his throbbing, engorged member, then yeah, you have a point. but if it was grindelwald or whoever, then i don't really think you can call it demeaning. it's not as if he just wanted him because DICK'S DICK'S DICK'S, if that was the case. it would've been because apparently he was legitimately in love with him, and it's not really fair to say desiring the person you loved the most in your life is demeaning to homosexuals just because it's a man desiring another man. it's a natural thing, something to be expected. would it be demeaning to heterosexuals if, assuming dumbledore was a straight, he saw a woman instead? or if ron looked in and saw hermione, or something like that?

he sees his family alive and well

he tells harry he saw socks though, which isnt the case.

Logged

Artis Leon Ivey Jr

#114 October 22, 2007, 02:24:01 pm

Insane teacher
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 10515

Quote from: bazookatooth on October 22, 2007, 05:56:37 am

who, exactly, did he see? if it was just a dude holding his throbbing, engorged member, then yeah, you have a point. but if it was grindelwald or whoever, then i don't really think you can call it demeaning. it's not as if he just wanted him because DICK'S DICK'S DICK'S, if that was the case. it would've been because apparently he was legitimately in love with him, and it's not really fair to say desiring the person you loved the most in your life is demeaning to homosexuals just because it's a man desiring another man. it's a natural thing, something to be expected. would it be demeaning to heterosexuals if, assuming dumbledore was a straight, he saw a woman instead? or if ron looked in and saw hermione, or something like that?

I'd say its just kind of lol that all dubbledores wants....is wuv...

like no one else sees themselves with JUST WOMEN. whats his face, RON, sees himself being KING OF THE SCHOOL. Harry sees his dead family. and before this, it was that Dumbledore saw his sister alive, which is really like...infinitely better.

I dunno if my sister was dead because of something I did, I would definitely want her back more than FREE PUSSY or whatever, which is what I meant.

brian chemicals

Logged

baseball19225

#115 October 22, 2007, 10:53:58 pm

Paranoid Android.
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Nov 6, 2003
Posts: 1918

Quote from: dangerousned on October 22, 2007, 02:24:01 pm

I dunno if my sister was dead because of something I did, I would definitely want her back more than FREE PUSSY or whatever, which is what I meant.

are you gay

Logged

Pasty

#116 October 23, 2007, 04:49:39 am

Here are some of their hands
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jun 6, 2004
Posts: 942

Quote from: Adeline on October 22, 2007, 10:53:58 pm

are you gay

i swore i wouldnt tell but

you know the band mudvayne?

don't let him tap your mudvayne

Logged

SpiralViper

#117 October 23, 2007, 06:26:16 am

Evil at its horniest.
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2004
Posts: 277

When an author publishes his or her work, it is no longer in his/her power to shove implications through peoples' eardrums. Whether or not Dumbledore was gay should have been up to the reader to decide, but now the author has fed the masses her own interpretation of her writing. It's like being forced to watch a Hollywood adaptation of a deep, involving book getting massacred.

And no, the deep, involving book wasn't Harry Potter FYI.

Logged

headphonics

#118 October 23, 2007, 08:09:46 am

sea of vodka
Group: Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2003
Posts: 6432

to be fair, i don't really think you can call it the author's interpretation of her own writing. the fact that it wasn't explicitly stated in the books, so much as implied, doesn't mean that she's just adding shit on afterwards, necessarily. the way she said it made it seem like, in her mind, this has always been the case, which also means that it... has always been the case, since she created the books. whether the information was in the books doesn't really change that, i don't think. it's more of an addendum than an interpretation, really, which is well within the permission i think an author should be granted after they publish their work.

Logged

SpiralViper

#119 October 23, 2007, 08:40:06 am

Evil at its horniest.
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2004
Posts: 277

There is no law against an author saying "Oh yeah and blah was actually a blah and was blahed hard in the anus as a blah." I'm not saying it was slapped on needlessly, but rather that she is, indeed, by stating her own interpretation (Yes, since Dumbledore is not explicitly defined as homo in the books it is an interpretation. Even authors have them), forcing the otherwise subtle hints of his sexuality into the forefront. It would have been far better practice to also be subtle in answering the question that was posed rather than going slightly out of her way to announce what she always thought of Dumbledore.

Logged

headphonics

#120 October 23, 2007, 08:58:43 am

sea of vodka
Group: Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2003
Posts: 6432

i think you're just being a little liberal with what you consider interpretation. i don't really think you can say that because it wasn't overtly stated in the books, it's an interpretation on her part, since she said that he'd always been that way, even before there were published works of hers TO interpret to begin with. if it was something she decided to add on afterwards after reflecting on the entire experience, then that would be something she interpreted. but similarly to if she suddenly mentioned that, although never mentioned in the books, harry's middle name (maybe they mentioned this idk) is actually JOSEPH, it is not quite the same as if a reader absorbs information from the books and afterwards interprets it to mean whatever, both because of the order of the two events (absorption and interpretation, i mean), and because it's her own work. mostly my point is that i think the author's vision of the universe, and the universe itself, are one and the same, even after the book is published, but definitely before, which is the case here. i don't believe that it somehow belongs to the collective after it's released to the public. it's still HER work, and therefore i don't really think it's fair to consider this her personal interpretation of the information she presented, so much as the final word.

buuut, i'd be lying if i said i really gave a shit about any of this. mostly i am bored and arguing semantics here. i do agree, though, that if she was going to say anything at all, the answer should've been surreptitious, and not what she said.

Last Edit: October 23, 2007, 09:01:48 am by bazookatooth

Logged