InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "correct horse battery staple"

Greta Grindelwald has an army. (_greatergood) wrote,
@ 2013-05-16 00:01:00

Squibs at least belong to magical families. Now there are muggles? Tsk, tsk.

I wonder if he's ever considered that perhaps not having magical ability is unnatural. I do not expect much, of course.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	licenceto 2013-05-16 04:49 am UTC (link)
	I know your name. In my world, you had no magic. It isn't unnatural not to possess something that does not exist. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	_greatergood 2013-05-16 04:55 am UTC (link)
	What did I do in your world? You can apply that to a number of things. In a world where magic precedes non-magic, magic is the norm and non-magic would be considered unnatural. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	licenceto 2013-05-16 04:59 am UTC (link)
	German military. If you take the entire population of your world, what is the ratio of magic-users to non-magic-users? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

_greatergood
2013-05-16 05:05 am UTC (link)

Interesting that I find another cause. Magic-users are significantly lower in number. That does not prove that non-magic users have always outnumbered magic-users, or preceded us; populations change over time, as do perceptions. My point is greater, still. That is to say that neither should be viewed as unnatural because what is deemed natural is often an arbitrary perception in and of itself. However, such a view does not take away from the fact that magic-users are more powerful and thus I believe we should not be forced into hiding because our numbers are smaller.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

licenceto
2013-05-16 05:10 am UTC (link)

I would agree that neither should be labeled unnatural. Coming from a world where, to the best of my knowledge, magic doesn't exist, I wouldn't discount the power of non-magic-users. They can just as easily create and destroy entire countries and civilizations as I would imagine magic-users can. I've seen it happen to a lesser degree, but my history books are full of examples of crippling man-made destruction. ~~H[ermione] would know more about that, though.~~

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	_greatergood 2013-05-16 05:15 am UTC (link)
	Precisely. Society is governed by those in power, that is of more importance and what fluctuates the most. I am from 1899. Wands can do much more than a gun. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

licenceto
2013-05-16 05:19 am UTC (link)

That is absolutely accurate. I would argue, however, that wands and guns, just like society, depend on the person in power behind them. I know little of wands, admittedly, but stealth, timing, precision, skill, etc. are equally as powerful as the wand or gun that one carries. If you give one to an amateur and the other to a trained soldier, there is really no competition, I'd expect.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	_greatergood 2013-05-16 05:12 pm UTC (link)
	Well it is the goal, of course, that every witch and wizard know of the power they hold. (Reply to this) (Parent)

commentative
2013-05-16 12:56 pm UTC (link)

1899's a long time ago though, isn't it? I'm from 2006 and long before I was born muggles developed a weapon that can be dropped from the sky and destroy an entire city and everyone in it. It hasn't been used since then, but I'd imagine they've developed something that could wipe out a whole country by now. In the future, we're not necessarily more powerful than they are. We haven't developed spells of mass destruction that match their weapons of mass destruction, so in this day and age, I wouldn't consider a war with the muggles very feasible. A wand isn't going to do much against a bomb dropped from the sky by a person in a machine that avada kedavra wouldn't even penetrate.

All the same, I don't personally consider these the shining achievements of the muggle world, but if you're talking just in terms of power, it'll only take about 46 years after your time until that's no longer an objective truth.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	licenceto 2013-05-16 02:20 pm UTC (link)
	Is magic confined to one-on-one combat, then? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	commentative 2013-05-16 04:53 pm UTC (link)
	More or less, yeah. There certainly aren't spells like bombs or those drone things everyone's talking about nowadays. Most wizards like our friend Grindelwald here don't even know about this stuff. My dad's a muggle though, so I have a foot in both worlds. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	_greatergood 2013-05-16 05:18 pm UTC (link)
	That is useful information to be considered. I have to admit I cannot fault the muggles for how well they control masses, whether by leadership or bomb. However, a witch is still more powerful because of the very gift she is born with, is she not? Yet, they are forced into hiding their abilities or risk certain death. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -