Harry IS Snape.

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 141339

Eggplant:
<SNIP>
> Actually I think a nasty uncompassionate man with no empathy is the
> very definition of evil, and I certainly don't understand why a person
> with those tendencies would be loyal to Dumbledore and devote 16 years
> of his life to defeating Voldemort.


I certainly agree with the first point. A nasty, uncompassionate man
with no empathy is evil by definition. However, I do have to say that
although Snape is, by definition, evil, I can see several reasons why
an evil man of Snape's type might side with Dumbledore, at least for a
period. He might be trying to save his own hide. He might be trying
to gain revenge for one thing or another. But certainly it is
impossible to call Snape good, regardless of who he's working for.


Carol:
> Even if killing him was the only way to save Draco and Harry and get
> the Death Eaters out of the school? If Snape had died (killed by the
> UV or the Death Eaters), quite possibly both boys would have died as
> well. And there was no way to save Dumbledore, who would have been
> killed by the Death Eaters if he wasn't killed by the potion first.
> 
> I'm not saying that's the case, but *if* it's the case, wouldn't it at
> least complicate matters and partially excuse Snape? It does for me.


No, I don't think it would excuse Snape in any way.  The end does not 
justify the means, and there are some things you just don't do. Killing 
a defenseless man, your mentor no less, in cold blood (or hot blood or 
lukewarm blood) is one of them. If Snape did indeed kill Dumbledore, 
and I have yet to see one single shred of evidence saying he did not, 
then I say his action is inexcusable.

Lupinlore