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

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 156550

 
> wynnleaf
> You are taking Rushdie's argument, which were basically "Snape is good
> *and* DD isn't dead" and claiming a different argument from him,
> namely "*If* Snape is good, *then* Dumbledore isn't dead."  Rushdie
> did *not* present an if/then argument.  
> 

Neri:
Your logic problem is as follows: JKR said that Rushdie's argument is
true. So if she understood the Rushdie's argument as "Snape is good
*and* Dumbledore isn't dead", she said it's true, and then she said
Dumbledore *is* dead. Contradiction!!!

I'm not sure what Rushdie meant exactly, but I'm pretty sure JKR
understood it as "*if* Snape is good, *then* Dumbledore can't be
dead". Otherwise she's contradicting herself.
 

> wynnleaf
> Yes, I'll agree that JKR was saying DD is dead.  But if she heard and
> understood Rushdie's comments, she was not validating a theory that
> Snape's goodness depends on DD's being alive.
> 

Neri:
Then what was she validating?

Neri