[HPforGrownups] Re: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore

[Marion Ros]

No: HPFGUIDX 156963

Julie:
>>>I don't see how Snape refusing to give Harry Occlumency lessons 
after the pensieve incident is an indication that Dumbledore
doesn't trust him. Or that Snape can't be trusted. Dumbledore
could very well have demanded Snape resume the lessons, and I
feel certain Snape would have done so even if he delivered
some vituperous commentary over that demand. Instead Dumbledore
recognizes his *own* error in expecting Snape and Harry get 
beyond their extreme animosity toward each other. (And, yes, 
he did lay it on Snape's wounds that are too deep to heal, but
I'm sure he knows Harry's unauthorized snooping in the pensieve
rubbed salt directly in those wounds. He just didn't feel it
necessary to kick Harry when he's down by pointing this out).<<<

Snow:

>>>Dumbledore made a mistake that he had trusted Snape too much. 
Dumbledore put too much faith in the fact that Snape could be trusted 
to do anything Dumbledore asked of him, it was a mistake but one that 
didn't scrap the plan, it just made it a bit harder. <<<


Marion
Snow, Julie (and Betsy) are talking about wether Dumbledore trusted Snape completely or not, they are not talking about wether Dumbledore was right or wrong to trust Snape completely. Wether Dumbledore was right or wrong to trust Snape is a matter of *opinion* and will only be resolved after book 7 has come out.
To say that Dumbledore didn't trust Snape completely because it would be wrong for him to do so is a logical fallacy. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_fallacy )
You're basically saying "If Dumbledore trusted Snape completely, Snape would be trustworthy. Snape was not trustworthy, therefore Dumbledore did not trust Snape completely."
But you're also saying "Dumbledore admitted to making mistakes, therefore his trust of Snape was a mistake" and "Dumbledore said he trusted Snape, but since Snape can not be trusted, Dumbledore is lying."
There are actually several logical fallacies at work here, from ad hominem to affirming the consequent.
Your opinion on what a character in a book *should* feel has no influence to what that character *actually* feels. Dumbledore is not infallible. He's not in the habit of lying, though. If he says that he trusts Snape completely, we have no reason to believe otherwise. Wether Dumbledore was right or wrong about Snape does not in retrospect make him a liar. The fact that Dumbledore *can* be wrong does not automatically mean that he is wrong to have trusted Snape (we won't know that until book 7, until that time all speculation is based on opinion)
I won't even go into the whole can of worms about the black and white thinking which dictates that "if Snape was trustworthy, he wouldn't have killed Dumbledore". I'll just say that after the PoA every HP fan would be wary of 'open and shut cases'. ("Sirius Black is a traitor and a mass-murderer. He killed 13 muggles - we have witnesses! - and betrayed the Potters. In fact, because Black was untrustworthy, the Potters never trusted Black completely, even though they said so and made him Godfather of their son.")

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]