Re: This shall be Salman Rushdie´s words (Spoiler????)!?

[houyhnhnm102]

No: HPFGUIDX 156538

wynnleaf:

> I'm afraid, Neri, that you've set up a very common 
> fallacy.  One of Rushdie's comments was basically, "[if] 
> Snape is a villian, [then] Dumbledore's killed."  That's 
> a very obvious conclusion and practically no one has ever 
> argued against that.  If Snape is evil, he definitely 
> killed DD.  But that being true, does not make the converse 
> true.  In other words, the above being true does not in 
> any way imply that if Dumbledore is really dead, Snape 
> must be evil.  To consider that to be true is to fall 
> for a very common fallacy, the Latin name of which I 
> can't recall at the moment, but the basic construction 
> is: If A then B, does NOT mean the same as If B then A.

houyhnhnm:

I don't know the Latin name either. "Converting a conditional" 
is what it is called in English.

wynnleaf:

> Hm, I believe the DDM Snapers have got a huge boost 
> from JKR's comment.  It seems to take a logical fallacy 
> to believe otherwise.

houyhnhnm:

All that pussy footing around about "the character who died 
at the end of book six" because she didn't want to be 
"indiscrete" is what has me still convinced that there 
was more to what happened on the Tower than met the eye.