DDM!Snape & the UV.

[eggplant107]

No: HPFGUIDX 149872

"pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

> Dumbledore overcame his enemies
> without killing them.

So if Snape ignored this rather ridiculous scruple in a time of war
then he'd have an even easier time of it than Dumbledore did.

> kill four relatively defenseless people

A previous Snape apologist said Snape would have no chance if he
fought those same 4 people, now you say Snape could kill them so
easily it would be an unfair turkey shoot so it would be more
sportsmanlike to murder Dumbledore instead. It does not compute.

> The more powerful we make Snape, 
> the less justification he has 
> for killing in battle.

So lets see, killing 4 incredibly evil Death Eaters would be immoral
even if it saved an innocent life, but murdering good kind Dumbledore
is perfectly moral. I don't think so.

The next book is going to be a book about war. If JKR makes one side
in the war so effete, so nasty nice, so squeamish at the thought of
killing the enemy even in self defense that they'd rather murder
someone on their own side then she is going to produce one stinker of
a book. If JKR does that I'll be rooting for Voldemort to win, the
nauseatingly sweet good guys would be just too wimpy to live.    

> Dumbledore wants him [
.] 

The devil with what Dumbledore wants. Snape and only Snape is the one
responsible for vowing to become a traitor and a murderer.

> [Snape] couldn't possibly fake an
> Avada Kedavra.

Yes, and for an unforgivable curse like Avada Kedavre to work you must
really feel the hatred; if I felt such hate I'd probably have hatred
etched into the harsh lines of my face.

Eggplant