Wizards must accept muggles

>Wizards must accept muggles
>The dwindling of the pure-bloods is a most desirable circumstance

(((Charity Burbage)))

Aren't all purebloods just old wizard families anyway? They're more of a tradition than anything else. It's not like their genetic makeup is different in any way compared to muggles.

>Squibs exist
You can't really play the race card with Harry Potter

That really makes you think.
What did she mean by that?

Except for the fact that they are superior beings

That can still spit out a useless cunt who can't do magic, the blood thing doesn't really make sense

Sauibs only happen when they inbred too much, for example the malfoys dont inbred but marry all the 27 families and they dont have squibs

Are they, though? The strongest wizards in the series are all half-bloods or mudbloods, except for Dumbledore.

>for example the malfoys dont inbred but marry all the 27 families
I want you to think about doing that over hundreds of years, with the same 27 families over and over again. They're all a little inbred by now

Squibs are what happens when a wizard gets cucked by a muggle.

Muggleborns are the opposite, Hermione's mother was probably fucked by a wizard and then got her memory wiped.

>Sup Forums literally thinks that Voldemort did nothing wrong
Did it ever occur to you guys that if you sympathize with the villains all the time, something might be wrong with you

Gas the muggles.

Mage war now.

The strongest wizards in the books were half bloods

Voldemort, Harry, Snape, Dumbledore

>despite the actual work telling time and time again that there's no connection between magical aptitude and genetics
>Sup Forums still acts like edgelord retards just to be contrarian

Did it ever occur to you that taking a fictional children's story seriously might be retarded?

>Squibs are what happens when a wizard gets cucked by a muggle.

Except the Black Family which is all purebreeds had a squib. Do you not remember how they said it stained their families legacy?

>Muggleborns are the opposite, Hermione's mother was probably fucked by a wizard and then got her memory wiped.

Rowling said both her parents were muggles and fully non wizard

Why apply outside politics to a childrens book?

>Why apply outside politics to a childrens book?
Because this is the political media board now, where all threads must be political

>Do you not remember how they said it stained their families legacy?
lol, no, I haven't read this in years

>Why apply outside politics to a childrens book?
Because I'm joking instead of taking a fantasy story at face value, you fucking nerd.

>lel BTFO xD

what do you expect? Harry Potter was easily one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the seriesüf only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but itüfs certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books are g-g-good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King

I love this one, somebody post the counter.

did it ever occur to you that if media makes reasonable characters evil all the time, something is wrong with media?

I can't enjoy this pasta since someone actually confirmed the "stretched his legs" part is bullhit.