Of essence divided?

[houyhnhnm102]

No: HPFGUIDX 154445

Peggy W again:

> Actually, that's not what I mean to say at all. It's not 
> that I think Snape's statement is beyond doubt, but rather, 
> I choose to believe what he is saying because it makes 
> sense to me. It fits Voldemort's past behavior.

houyhnhnm:

And to me it makes sense that Snape is lying based on 
Snape's past behavior.

Annemehr:

> It's an appeal to logic, actually, and you're changing 
> the subject.

> But your second paragraph does not logically follow from 
> the first. My only intent was to point out the existence 
> of a perfectly plausible alternative, not to prove such 
> an alternative had in fact happened. The plausibility of 
> the alternative means that Snape *could* know of such an 
> order and still not be a loyal DE or privy to Draco's plans.

houyhnhnm:

An appeal to ignorance can be a valid logical argument but 
it gets misused a lot on this forum.  We are never told that 
such-and-such didn't happen, therefore it must have happened.

If you are saying that if Snape is telling the truth it 
doesn't necessarily follow that he is a loyal DE, because
Voldemort could have issued a general order to spare 
Harry, then I take your point.

But if you are saying that we have no evidence that 
Voldemort didn't issue such an order, therefore it is 
likely that he did, that is not a valid argument.

I don't think there is enough evidence either way, so 
I don't think the *fact* that Voldemort is saving Harry 
for himself is a sound foundation on which to build a theory.