Tony’s Comments (group member since Mar 05, 2024)

Tony’s comments from the Fast Moving Killas group.

In response to Ryan's question

I believe he would still be respected in the mid-seventeenth century since he was still revered as a healer. Having a profession like this can bring in good money and he'd still be able to pass down this skill to his children, as society by then was more lenient to descendants of executioners.

In response to Ryan's question:

I didn't realize that both of our questions are quite similar until after I finished mine. Regardless, Frantz views these acts as dishonorable since it can tarnish the perpetrators family name and that repeating the offense (which was common in most of Frantz's criminals) can gain you less sympathy from both your families, community, and court officials. He also found that these acts go against his core Lutheran beliefs.

In response to Ryan's question:

Woah, your question seems more fitting for 'The Apprentice' section of this book! Regardless, since my options are limited for a response, I will happily answer!
I believe that the reason why executioners suffered from a negative social status all boils down to generational stereotypes. It's possible that people may believe that being near criminals all day can lead to some of their characteristics clinging onto the executioner, which can be displayed with their brutal public executions. As mentioned somewhere in the book, many executioners liked to hangout in sketchy establishments that hosted a variety of unwanted fiends. These examples may reinforce the stereotypes that people had for executioners at the time.

In response to Ryan's question:

I do not believe that a more modern approach would've decreased crime rates. According to this chapter (The Journeyman), we see that crowds are pleased with a good execution, showing that violence has been a part of German culture for generations and that this is how common people expected criminals to be dealt with. Integrating more modern ideas suddenly could possibly cause protests and mass disproval throughout the empire.

Here is my response to Ryan's question:

When reading this first chapter, I thought that Frantz and his father had a close relationship, even if they bonded over a gruesome career! Since executioners were often isolated from society in Germany, Frantz likely didn't have any masculine role models besides his father in his life. This could lead to him wanting to be just like his father by taking up the family mantle as executioner. I can't say this for certain since most executioners were forced to take up their father's jobs due to societal norms.

We have finally reached the end of the book! Give yourself a pat on the back for making it to the end! For this discussion post I have decided to include the epilogue as well since it is short and wraps up the story. As always, please post one question and one response.

Here is my question:

Do you think Frantz's successor ruined any reputation that he built for himself and other executioners in Nuremburg? Or did the city council giving the replacement the same pay rate as Frantz prove that his sobriety and faith was something that was expected from all future executioners?

For this discussion post, please post at least one question and one response. I would request (though not require) that with your discussion posts, utilize your critical thinking skills. I know you all have them!

Here is my question:

In this section, we learn that Frantz has a mostly unsympathetic view on thievery compared to today's society. Frantz believes that the thieves allowed themselves to be hung since they knew the risks of stealing. Meanwhile modern society would be against a death penalty for burglary. Do you agree with Frantz's stance, or do you think it is a barbaric mindset? Is it possible that most people in that time period thought the same as Frantz or did his job influence his opinions?

Things are getting intense! For the third chapter of this book, please add one question and one response to this discussion post.

Here is my question:

What were some reasons why thieves cut down/looted bodies that were hanging from the gallows? Do you think common people in Nuremburg found these barbarous acts appalling, or something they can easily dismiss?

This is the second discussion post for Faithful Executioner. As usual, post one question and one response. Get creative!

Here is my question:

To help build his reputation, what was one thing that Frantz vowed to do? During his lifetime, why do you think it was important to avoid being placed in a common stereotype?

Here is another question if you can't answer the first:

Why do you think Frantz walked on foot? Does the author give any clues for this method of travel?

Here is the first discussion post for the Faithful Executioner! Like the previous book, please post at least one question and one response!

Here is my question:

In early modern Germany, executioners were seen as a stain to society. We see this when Frantz and his father lived in Hof (a Lutheran town). When they later moved to Bamberg (a Catholic city), the people were less bothered by the role of an executioner. What are some possible reasons why executioners were treated differently throughout Germany? Do you think it was due to religious reasons or was it a geographical issue?

Did Chatgpt write this

In response to Joe P's question about chapter 14:

I do agree that the parts with the dragon were unnecessary and was probably J.K. Rowlings's way of adding more length to the book and an excuse to let Harry see the mysterious person drinking unicorn blood in the Forbidden Forest.

To answer your other questions; Harry sees himself with his family, something that he always wanted. This reveals that Harry has always felt alone throughout his life with no one to love and support him. The mirror gives him a small taste of this, which can be dangerous since it can leave people to be stuck in the past, never being able to move on.

In response to Ryans question regarding the philosopher stones future:

Dumbledore mentions that after having a conversation with his dear friend Nicolas Flamel, they reached a verdict and decided that the stone must be destroyed to prevent Voldemort (or another evil wizard) from getting his hands on it.
In the hands of someone pure of heart, the stone may be used for recreational purposes and its powers won't be abused. In the wrong hands however, the stone will grant the user immortality and perpetual wealth.

In response to Ethanks question, I think he would've found it eventually as there are other kids who probably come from muggle families who go the same way via running through the wall.

Final Discussion for Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone! As always, please add at least one discussion question and one response.

Here is my question:

Had Harry and friends minded their own business and didn't pursue Professor Quirrell into the trapdoor, would anything significant have changed? When Harry finally reached the last defense, Quirrell was still struggling to figure out how to retrieve the stone. Dumbledore would still arrive at the castle in a hurry, already suspecting someone trying to steal the stone. Is it possible that Dumbledore can stop Quirrell (and Voldemort) from getting the stone without Harry being present?

If anything, Harry Potter made it easier for Voldemort to get the stone by solving Dumbledore's mirror trick. Just like in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Nazis would still end up opening the ark even if Indiana Jones wasn't present in the movie. Quirrell will still solve the trials but get stuck at Dumbledore's puzzle and the Nazis would eventually find the ark with further excavations.

Please post at least 1 discussion question and one response for chapters 11 through 14. I made this discussion shorter to balance out the last two sections.

Here is my question:

When Harry and Ron were looking at the mirror, how did they not notice Dumbledore who was watching them intently? Do you really think Dumbledore sees himself holding socks when he looks in the mirror?

Make sure to add one question and one response to this discussion post!

Here is my question:

Do you think Harry and Draco could've gotten along better had they sat together on the Hogwarts Express? Growing up in the Dursley household, you'd think that Harry would resent muggles once learning about magic, something that Malfoy is clearly proud of. If the two had more time to talk without having Ron in the picture, is it possible that they have more common ground than what we think?

Joe wrote: "I have some questions concerning the family Dursley:

What is their relation to Harry Potter?
Why do they treat Harry so poorly and not accept him as family? Is this justified?
Do you believe it is..."

1. Petunia is Harry's biological aunt through his mother. Making him and Dudley first cousins. Vernon is Petunia's husband.

2. Harry Potter is NOT treated poorly by the Dursleys. Though they may be slightly cold to him at times, the Dursleys are preparing the boy for the cruel world he will face as an adult. Harry is given chores and responsibilities, which in turn can benefit him once he is living independently, which isn't the case for Dudley who is coddled for most of his life. Having Harry live off scraps while sleeping in a cupboard is to give him realistic expectations of the harsh life most Englishmen face when trying to survive in London. In my opinion, yes, the Dursley family was justified in treating Harry this way.

3. I do believe they were in the right to keep the wizarding world away from Harry. Vernon has a high position at a power drill firm. What if he loses his job over his nephew being a freak? From what is gathered from the first two chapters, Petunia is a housewife meaning that the whole family (including Harry) rely on Vernon's income. Furthermore, when Hagrid confronts the Dursleys on the 'mistreatment' of Harry, Vernon says that keeping magic away from Harry can make him a respectable young man, showing that they genuinely cared for Harry's future.

If you guys have any discussion questions or want to talk about the first five chapters, feel free to add them!

Here is my question:

What was the pale boy talking about in Diagon Alley? Should Harry befriend him once he arrives in Hogwarts? Do you agree with the boy's ideologies/beliefs, and if so, why?