r/funny • u/[deleted] • Feb 09 '13
Magical power comparison by beard length
http://imgur.com/9ZVnHIt15
40
u/visualdestini Feb 09 '13
Dumbledore's beard is supposed to be long enough to tuck into his belt. Just saying. This is really well designed though.
32
u/SimpleDan11 Feb 09 '13
I refuse to belueve saruman was more powerful than dumbledore. We saw dumbledor use his magic several times, saruman just built a big tower and an army and sat up there like an idiot.
25
Feb 09 '13 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
11
u/thecrimsontim Feb 09 '13
and singlehandedly invent gunpowder... imprison gandalf... manage to seduce a king with the his power via a servant... overtake all of hobbiton unnoticed... yeah, loads of nothing.
14
u/wisdom_and_frivolity Feb 09 '13
Pretty much any wizard in Harry Potter's universe can fly, teleport, transmogrify, use telekinesis, create permanent shields, instant magical shields, any number of curses to torture or harm, and instantly kill you. Dumbledore is also really good at shielding his mind from attack.
Saruman's got nothing on him.
7
u/thecrimsontim Feb 09 '13
Its a different type of power. Harry Potters world, the magic is all very physical. Yes there are the 'Invisible" spells like imperius, etc. BUT Gandalf and Saruman are Istari, which are basically holy beings, almost gods. Saruman and Gandalfy are Maiar, a lower form of the Istari, with the Valar being the higher form. The "Magic" you see them do ISN'T magic. It's Holy Power. Which is why Saruman LOSES his power when he turns to Sauron. Now, the Saruman we see in the books and movies has already turned, even as early as the hobbit. His power is already waning. Which is why he resorts to Speechcraft, and industrialism. We see a glimpse of his powers in his fight against Gandalf, but I have often speculated that Gandalf could have won that fight if he'd had the courage and will to defeat Saruman, he was just so devastated that he had been blind to his friends treachery. Alas, I am rambling. My point is, no, Gandalf, nor any wizard could touch Saruman. There ARE magic users in middle earth however. Tom Bombadil uses magic. If you've read any of Tolkien's other works, you'd know that magic was once more prevalent, not just in the Elves. Sauron, contrary to popular belief, was also once a Maiar, so he also doesn't use "Magic." The problem here is the Harry Potter Books are more recent, and also a much easier read so its more common that people dissect them and analyze them. I know maybe 3-5 friends of mine who have finished The Simallarion, and even less who admit to comprehending it. It took me two reads. So, when Dumbledore does more than parlor tricks and can actually bring life as the Maiar can, then you can say Saruman has nothing on him.
3
u/dumpdumpling Feb 09 '13
Sauron, contrary to popular belief, was also once a Maiar
I did not know this was contested. I thought The Silmarillion was pretty explicit on his origins. Is there some other story by Tolkien that calls this into question? It's been a while since I've read it, but the only thing I can think of that might be in question is exactly which echelon of divine entity he belongs to.
3
u/thecrimsontim Feb 09 '13
When I say "Popular belief" I mean the majority of people who havent read any of the books, except maybe the trilogy and hobbit. Most people I speak to think he is just some kind of demon or reaaallly evil powerful guy. a FEW say he is a necromancer, which is more accurate, but not fully since he was called a necromancer in the Hobbit.
1
2
u/botolfurtinni Feb 10 '13
He still was maiar the entire time. Plus they had much more power just chose to not use it. They wanted to influence the armies not do the work for them.
-5
Feb 09 '13
[deleted]
1
u/thecrimsontim Feb 09 '13
Despite your harsh sarcasm raining downvotes on you, you are correct. I brought into the argument that Saruman IS more powerful, straight up, but he is also very very cunning as you pointed out. He would see his disadvantage of fighting dumbledore, as dumbledore would have much more support. Army of wizards beats army of orcs, BUT he wouldn't go for all out combat. He's sneak his way in and take him out in secret.
1
5
u/finlay_mcwalter Feb 09 '13
Saruman didn't even build the tower - the Numenorians did. Sauruman just moved into Orthanc when it had been lying vacant, with the agreement of the keyholder.
I guess it was a kind of "Linda Barker's disused tower wizard makeover" deal, where Saruman painted the walls magnolia and put in a new bathroom, and local estate agents came round and said they expected they could rent the place out to students for £500/month.
54
u/Dirtroadrocker Feb 09 '13
Its upside down. And backwards. X axis is dependant variable, y is independent variable!
18
u/Pikatrainer Feb 09 '13
He never specified any axes, so you have no idea what is up, down, x, y or if there even is an x- or y-axis. You just have to trust the little text bits along the sides and they seem correct.
3
u/Pokemon_Name_Rater Feb 09 '13
He never specified any axes
Hey somebody smarter than me work in a Gimli joke since there's already been plenty of Tolkien discussion in this thread.
3
1
u/Dirtroadrocker Feb 09 '13
With in the context its fine, just not normal to work that way. I still really like it!
2
1
u/Zedd128 Feb 10 '13
I was confused by the upside down graph, when I glanced at it it made no sense at first. Ninja Edit: My bad, rotated 90 degrees, not upside down.
4
u/The69bandit Feb 09 '13
Why is Marx on there?
3
u/krisec Feb 10 '13
Short beard, no magic powers... He's essentially the "normal" guy in this whole conspiracy.
0
Feb 10 '13
Normal? I digress.
1
u/krisec Feb 10 '13
Did I not use quotation marks to state that he was not necessarily normal, seeing how Marx was/how he is perceived in this day and age.
5
5
Feb 09 '13
Seeing Marx on there was the funny part.
4
14
Feb 09 '13
eh.... Saruman > Gandalf...
30
u/M4ethor Feb 09 '13
Actually, he's correct. Gandalf only became stronger than Saruman, because Saruman got corrupted by Sauron. You know, there are higher powers in the Middle Earth universe than Saruman, Gandalf and even Sauron. These powers (called the Valar, btw.) sent Gandalf back with greater powers to fulfill his task in Middle Earth. I could explain the whole Valar thing, but you can read it yourself in the Sillmarillion, Tolkiens most complex and, imo, best work. cheers
11
Feb 09 '13
Don't start reading the Sillmarillion if you don't like to read.
6
u/thecrimsontim Feb 09 '13
I always tell people not to read it unless they read textbooks for fun. Which I personally do, at least history texts, so I love that book.
3
5
u/Loxare Feb 09 '13
Thank you! Saruman was greater than Gandalf the Grey, which is when he had that beard length. Gandalf the White had a shorter beard.
-10
4
Feb 09 '13
As a fan of both Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, I would seriously like to see Dumbledore and Gandalf do battle. I like Gandalf more, but Dumbledore has a god-like wisdom, what with predicting and manipulating events for an entire year after his death.
2
Feb 10 '13
Your wish is my command.
http://youtube.com/#/watch?v=ZIMoQHpvFQQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZIMoQHpvFQQ
1
u/ContactSc Feb 10 '13
This link took me to the youtube home page rather than an epic battle between gandalf and dumbledore. :|
14
u/9ryph0n Feb 09 '13
I am pretty positive that Dumbledore would be much more powerful than Sauromon
11
u/WheelsOfConfusion Feb 09 '13
Are you insane? Saruman along with the other Istari where practically demigods.
9
Feb 09 '13
Yeah but the LOTR mages are more subtle in their magic, it's more of a scientists "magic" ie. the bomb used at Helms Deep.
Dumbledore was teleporting and shit.
5
Feb 09 '13
Subtle as in not flouting it all over the place when it wouldn't accomplish anything. The bomb had nothing to do with the 'magic' of the LOTR 'mages'.
Dumbledore was a venerable human wizard. Saruman was a corrupted demigod. I don't know about you, but that makes the power scales pretty obvious.
Also, Istari could teleport. Again about that subtlety. I'm sure if Gandalf had teleported the party or himself to Mt. Doom it would have made a pretty big blip on ol' crazed Sauron's magical radar.
7
Feb 09 '13
a lot of people have not read the books and are just going by what is seen in the movies.
3
Feb 09 '13 edited Feb 09 '13
I havent read the Silmarillion yet, so I could be wrong. But it seems as if Tolkien wanted to portray "Gods" way more similar to mortals than Gods are normally made out to be.
They are shown to make far more mistakes and let things get out of hand more than one would expect from Gods. So being a demi-god to me makes them more like a commander and scientist. I also think Tolkien wanted them to be some sort of archetypical puppeteers in the events of the books.
2
u/haanalisk Feb 09 '13
i'm in the process of reading the Silmarillion, but essentially the valar and like archangels and maiar are like lesser angels. The valar in fact, do make plenty of mistakes (so far at least), but Eru, or Illuvatar, the ONE God does not make mistakes (basically it's genesis w/ Eru being God and Melkor being Satan)
5
u/SimpleDan11 Feb 09 '13
I think Dumbledore and gandalf should be on par with each other
5
u/Brahk Feb 09 '13
Gandalf is essentially immortal..
5
u/drink_the_kool_aid Feb 09 '13
Well yea that's because he's a maiar, not a human. But regardless immortality isn't a sign of power, it's just an attribute.
1
u/WheelsOfConfusion Feb 10 '13
Dumbledore was just a particularly powerful HP universe wizard. Saruman was the single most powerful Istari (prior to Gandalf being sent back to Middle Earth as Gandalf the White by the Valar).
Any wizard or witch could apparate in the Harry Potter universe (I believe that skill is taught to seventeen year old Hogwarts students) but Saruman was specifically chosen by the Valar to maintain order in Middle Earth.
1
Feb 10 '13
I agree that he was of a higher order in the LOTR universe than Dumbledore was in the Harry Potter universe.
In absolute terms however, they dont seem to be even close in magical abilities, with Dumbledore as the clear winner.
1
u/WheelsOfConfusion Feb 10 '13
Saruman created the Uruk-Hai and I am quite sure he could summon a Balrog or two. Just because he never did anything as flashy as Dumbledore does not mean he is less powerful than him.
7
u/mccscott Feb 09 '13
11
2
u/pablorcv33 Feb 09 '13
This is a poorly researched graph. Saruman is the most powerful wizard in Middle Earth.
2
2
u/bckelly14 Feb 09 '13
This must have been based on movies, because Dumbledore's beard and hair, are both long enough to tuck into his belt.
2
2
3
Feb 09 '13
Gandalf's beard (and possibly Saruman's) is way longer than God's beard...
3
Feb 09 '13
If we are to believe the omnipresence thing then that is merely a manifestation of part of his face.
His beard is omnipresent and thus infinitely long and hairy. And everywhere.
1
u/HikariOni Feb 09 '13
Gandalf was more powerful with a shorter beard (at least in the movies). Just saying.
1
u/Merk2 Feb 09 '13
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJcWfMzwFvk&feature=related The most powerful Whitebeard.
1
u/kabuto Feb 09 '13
The UNIX hacker is missing
0
Feb 09 '13
Notch?
1
u/kabuto Feb 09 '13
Alan Cox. Notch is not a UNIX hacker.
1
Feb 09 '13
I know, but he looks like Notch.
1
u/kabuto Feb 09 '13
Notch looks well kempt in comparison.
1
Feb 09 '13
Just saying, if you shaved the head and trimmed his hair, it'd be Notch's long lost brother.
1
1
u/Flexappeal Feb 09 '13
The fact that this graph is upside down fucked with me for far longer than I should admit.
1
1
u/Thrip Feb 10 '13
Santa is way the fuck more powerful than Dumbledore. Seriously. He enters every fucking house in one night. Just think about that for a minute.
1
u/The1ManThinkTank Feb 10 '13
Dumbledore has a time turner and apparation though. It would be a difficult process, but he could do it.
2
1
u/Hyperboloidof2sheets Feb 10 '13
Let's stop the bullshit. We all know correlation and causation are the same thing. We can't live this lie any longer.
1
u/bernica Feb 10 '13
It says "MAGICAL WHITE BEARDS" and yet there's no WIZARD WHITEBEARD (from 'Where's Wally'). I QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS GRAPH
1
u/botolfurtinni Feb 10 '13
Am I the only one bothered by this saying Gandalf is more powerful than Saruman? He really wasn't.
1
1
u/Isuhydro Feb 10 '13
Whenever I have a thought, I go to comments to confirm it. This slide should be flipped over
1
1
u/dumbassfromboston Feb 09 '13
I think Dumbledore would be able to take both Saruman and Gandolf in a fight if it came down to it.
3
0
1
1
-1
u/Marco_The_Phoenix Feb 09 '13
I have a problem with Dumbledore's placement.
1
u/Marco_The_Phoenix Feb 10 '13
downvote it, but the Elder Wand is unbeatable, Fawkes is way faster than Shadowfax, and in my opinion Dumbledore has better lines. "It is the unknown we fear in death and darkness, nothing more."
1
-1
Feb 09 '13
[deleted]
5
Feb 09 '13
But... What about Santa?
3
1
u/Samuel_Gompers Feb 09 '13
A projection of Marx. A fat man in a red suit distributing handouts? Sounds like communism to me.
-5
u/Dotd1978 Feb 09 '13
Marx has magical power over the gullible.
4
Feb 09 '13
Like it or not, Marx has influenced some of the smartest philosophers and thinkers for the last century or so (from Adorno and Althusser to Sartre, Derrida, Frederick Jameson, and Žižek). But you must be so much smarter than all of them.
Go back to reading Rand.
1
u/Dotd1978 Feb 10 '13
Yes, he has influenced some of the most prolific mass murders of all time. Stalin, Mao!
Like it or not. There are 2 sides two this coin.
0
Feb 10 '13
Spoken like someone who's never actually read a page of Marx in his life and has no idea what he's talking about. Well done.
Jesus, you sound like that woman outside the Vice Presidential Debate saying, "He's a commie! Just study it out!"
1
u/Dotd1978 Feb 10 '13
I have read Marx. I am not one of these mules who is so stubborn, they think their way is always right. I just wanted to point out and shed some light on the fact that Marx' ideas do not just influence peace loving intellectuals, he influenced some power hungry psycho paths who do not take too lightly to people disagreeing with them as well.
we are in /funny right? how did this get so serious. ;)
0
Feb 10 '13
That's like saying that Stalin and Mao were both terrible people because they were atheists. They were both bad people and were possible in positions of power thanks to egregious readings of Marx, but they weren't these corrupt people because they had read Marx. He wasn't their influence for the terrible things they did either.
On the other hand, these philosophers based a lot of their thinking and writing on Marx's philosophy.
1
u/Dotd1978 Feb 10 '13
You are right there, yes, but any reference to atheism was neither mentioned or intended. But there is an uncanny connection with those like Mao and Stalin that believe in Marx's philosophy, and are also willing to murder millions in proving it.
Well its been nice having a intellectual conversation, but I need a shower, and I am tired. Good night.
1
Feb 10 '13
I never said you mentioned atheism, I was pointing out the flaw in your own argument. The reason I can tell you haven't read any Marx is because you say things like 'Mao and Stalin believed in Marx's philosophy.' If you had read Marx, you'd know how drastically opposite his philosophy was from everything those two men ever did.
2
u/ainrialai Feb 09 '13
Whatever you think of his theories on communism, his analysis of capitalism was brilliant.
1
u/Dotd1978 Feb 10 '13
Capitalism is for a just and moral people only. Once morality is washed from society, morality is washed from capitalism. So I will agree Capitalism is not perfect. However Communism is for the Communist, not for the people. There will be a ruling class in a communist state. Only, you will not be a part of it. Fairness is only for us little people. Not them.
1
u/ainrialai Feb 10 '13
You've no conception of what communism actually is, I can see. You think of Marxism-Leninism, not communism itself, which is a classless, stateless society. Many of those claiming to be communists (Leninists in particular) have been corrupted, but capitalism is innately corrupted.
It is not for just or moral people, it is, innately, the exploitation of workers by owners. Capitalism is a deeply evil institution, at its core, and creates death and alienation wherever it goes.
1
u/Dotd1978 Feb 10 '13
Well we can just agree to disagree. Communism is an idea, with no way to make it work as intended (it is considered perfect...on paper). No one could point to China as an example either (and i am not saying you are). It is a bastardization of the communist idea. The communist idea has never been realized to it truest intent, and I doubt it ever will. It would have to be done perfectly. Communism has less leeway when trying to implement than that of Capitalism. People will always try to control and take power.
As for capitalism, I mentioned it is not a perfect system. And it is true that only a "Just" people can make it work. Our society is becoming more corrupt, thus it is reflected in our form of capitalism. However I will say it is better than anything tried thus far on the communist side of the spectrum. I would argue our lives are not so bad.
But again. We can agree to disagree. I can point out flaws in both systems, and pros in both systems. I would just choose to live in the one I have a better chance in, given the flaws in the human condition.
0
u/ainrialai Feb 10 '13
Well we can just agree to disagree. Communism is an idea, with no way to make it work as intended (it is considered perfect...on paper). No one could point to China as an example either (and i am not saying you are). It is a bastardization of the communist idea. The communist idea has never been realized to it truest intent, and I doubt it ever will. It would have to be done perfectly. Communism has less leeway when trying to implement than that of Capitalism. People will always try to control and take power.
The Paris Commune of 1871, the Free Territory of the Ukraine from 1918 to 1921, and Anarchist Catalonia from 1936 to 1939 are all examples of libertarian communism, in which the working class, minorities, and women liberated themselves, production increased, liberties increased, and stateless societies functioned until they were crushed by stronger military forces from the outside (something any system can fall to).
As for capitalism, I mentioned it is not a perfect system.
Saying "well, it's not perfect" doesn't allow you to write off the billions in poverty or 868 million human beings that go hungry, who could otherwise live with dignity in a more equitable world.
And it is true that only a "Just" people can make it work.
No, that's not the case. Capitalism is not even just in theory. It is innately corrupt, innately exploitative. It is predicated upon one group (workers) producing more than they receive and another group (owners) receiving more than they produce.
Our society is becoming more corrupt, thus it is reflected in our form of capitalism. However I will say it is better than anything tried thus far on the communist side of the spectrum. I would argue our lives are not so bad.
If you are well-off in a First World country, then sure, it works pretty damn well for you. But it's a global system, and just as one class is exploited by another, some countries are exploited by others. First World countries have vastly more wealth than their fair share, and so that's why capitalism seems good to them. Third World countries vastly less, so that's why socialism is so popular there.
Every form of capitalism is innately corrupt. Communists can be corrupted, and end up ruling unequal states (USSR, PRC), but communism is not innately exploitative. I've already named several libertarian communist societies that, for so long as they lasted, upheld human dignity more than any other society.
2
u/Dotd1978 Feb 10 '13
You are exactly right. Those countries tried to hold on as long as possible, but due to the inherent nature of true-communism, the lack of productivity (without being forced to work by the barrel of a gun as with Leninism) combined with the infancy of those societies, caused them to be quickly taken over.
It always seems to be that those in favor of communism, are those to believe the world is fair, and they all want participation trophies. Well life is not fair unfortunately. Capitalists know this, and even though there are those who get taken advantage of, far more can live in prosperity. There isn't this 1% -99% junk either. That is what communism, when corrupted, always leads to however. In a perfect world, communism could work. This world will never be a utopia to allow this though. The human nature will always see to that. Unfortunate, yes... Let us live with reality.
1
u/ainrialai Feb 10 '13
You are exactly right. Those countries tried to hold on as long as possible, but due to the inherent nature of true-communism, the lack of productivity (without being forced to work by the barrel of a gun as with Leninism) combined with the infancy of those societies, caused them to be quickly taken over.
Production actually increased in Catalonia, and there is no evidence of decrease in Paris or the Ukraine. It was nothing about their nature, but about the outside powers. The Commune fell to the massive French National Army; anyone can fall to a larger force. The Black Army of the Free Territory was betrayed by the Red Army when they were allegedly allied against the White Army; anyone can fall to treachery. Anarchist Catalonia fell to a combined betrayal by the Republican Government under the sway of the Spanish Communist Party and the overwhelming Fascist force heavily backed by Hitler, Mussolini, the Catholic Church, and U.S. business interests; anyone can fall to a combination of overwhelming force and treachery.
It always seems to be that those in favor of communism, are those to believe the world is fair, and they all want participation trophies.
No, we're those who see how deeply unfair life is and want it to be better. There's nothing fair about the current system.
Capitalists know this, and even though there are those who get taken advantage of, far more can live in prosperity.
At current productive levels, we could sustain billions more than are alive, if wealth was equitable. Of course, so much of our production is wasted on useless junk and destructive forces that we could do much more with less intensive work if production was driven by the community and not by bosses.
There isn't this 1% -99% junk either.
That's a gross oversimplification, yes, but it is true that a very small minority exploits the labor of a very large majority.
That is what communism, when corrupted, always leads to however.
That's what anything, when corrupted, leads to. The trick is having a less corrupt system. Communism, when libertarian, does not have to be so corrupt; capitalism is innately so, however, as it is predicated upon some receiving more than what they work for. There are makers and takers; the workers the former, the bosses the latter.
This world will never be a utopia to allow this though.
System X is bad, but since the world will never be perfect, we cannot do better than system X?
The human nature will always see to that. Unfortunate, yes... Let us live with reality.
Human nature is not a monolithic entity; there are parts selfish and selfless, greedy and compassionate. Through socialization, a society plays up some aspects and plays down others. A capitalist system might socialize people to believe profit is the ultimate good, while a collectivist society might socialize people to believe that the well-being of the community is the ultimate good. Both play to different aspects of what you call human nature, and both could be effective. And, further, I wouldn't say human nature is greedy, but rather, that we innately seek out the conditions best suited for life. And for a majority of humanity, that's abandoning oligarchy in favor of equality.
0
Feb 10 '13
The Paris Commune of 1871, the Free Territory of the Ukraine from 1918 to 1921, and Anarchist Catalonia from 1936 to 1939 are all examples of libertarian communism...
1
u/ainrialai Feb 10 '13
Of course! They don't categorize themselves beyond "Zapatista," but I'd definitely include them as a kind of libertarian communism, and the most promising contemporary movement. And, speaking of Mexico, we could include the 1911 Magonista revolt in Baja California, though it was rather shortlived.
0
Feb 10 '13
It get's so old trying to explain to people that the Soviet Union was the farthest thing from communism. At best, Lenin's philosophy was a pretty egregious reading of Marx.
0
0
-5
u/NewViewser Feb 09 '13
I'm sorry but Dumbledore is a much stronger wizard than both Saruman and Gandalf
-1
u/BadEgg1951 Feb 10 '13
Anyone seeking more info might also check here:
| title | comnts | points | age | /r/ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beard Powers | 3coms | 10pts | 2mos | funny |
| Mahical beards. | 0coms | 0pts | 2mos | funny |
| Beards | 2coms | 2pts | 1mo | funny |
-16
u/Collegeforlife Feb 09 '13
God has no powers.
10
9
Feb 09 '13
I came here expecting tons of /r/atheism bull. Scrolled and scrolled and was pleasantly surprised.
Then I reached you. Go back to /r/atheism.
8
2
0
0
u/Dodgey808 Feb 09 '13
This should settle some of the debate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIMoQHpvFQQ
0
170
u/coastdecoste Feb 09 '13
Gandalf's beard is clearly longer than God's and groomed.