DDM!Snape & the UV

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 149954



juli17 at ... wrote:

> that of choosing a lesser evil.
>  There was no possible  *good* outcome.
> Someone--or someones--was  going to die
eggplant:

Murdering the most powerful and kindest wizard on the  good guys side
is not less evil than killing 4 homicidal Death  Eaters.
 
Julie:
However it's not a straightforward choice between Dumbledore and
4 Death Eaters, but whether in the course of trying to kill those  Death
Eaters Harry, Draco, and Dumbledore himself, will end up dead in the
aftermath also. As I noted, and you snipped out.

Julie earlier:
> fighting off the effects of the UV
> which  are presumably trying  to make
> him drop dead. 
 
Eggplant:
There is quite simply no way, absolutely no way, you can use  that vow
to excuse Snape's actions that horrible night in the tower! Snape  is
the one who decided to make a vow to become a traitor.
 
Julie:
You realize you have a tendency to quote the parts you want to refute
while ignoring the context? Is this because you don't want to address
the actual issue? In this case, I was arguing why Snape's success at
taking out the DEs while protecting DD, Harry and Draco would be 
questionable. I in no way used that as an excuse for Snape's actions
on the Tower, rather as a reason why he (and DD) might have made
the choice he (and DD) did. The vow, and whether that makes Snape
a traitor is another issue (though I don't think it does).


Julie:
> Can he succeed? There is no definitive answer
 
Eggplant:
That's true, one can never be certain of the results of ones  actions.
Certainly attacking the Death Eaters would have been more  dangerous
than murdering Dumbledore, but he had a decent chance of  success.
 
Julie:
Whether he had a decent chance is questionable, since we don't  know
how the Unbreakable Vow works, and whether it would give him the 
opportunity to follow through with an action that went against it.  But
even if he had a "decent" chance, it's not the same thing as  *certain*
success. And if DD wanted Snape to go for the *certainty* of Harry's
survival (which is the most important issue, for Harry and the WW),  then 
the only choice is for Snape to kill DD and remove the DEs from the  
Tower. 
 
eggplant:
By the way I notice nobody tackled my question, "did  Dumbledore know
about the vow?". I don't blame you, if I was a Snape lover I  wouldn't
want to tackle it either; one answer makes Snape look evil,  the
opposite answer makes Dumbledore look like an imbecile.
 
Julie:
I've answered it before, as have others. I believe Dumbledore did  know
about the vow. Dumbledore's goal, his *only* goal, is to preserve the
WW (and hopefully Harry in the process). Dumbledore knows for the
WW to survive, HARRY MUST LIVE. The end. Whatever it takes, and
his own life--one that appears to be fading anyway--is certainly a  very
small sacrifice. Nothing stupid about it. 
 

Julie earlier:
> Draco who is a student, thus someone  Dumbledore
> and perhaps Snape--believes must be protected 
> at all  costs 


eggplant:
My father invented a phrase I quite like, "nasty nice", I  can't think
of a better example of it than an effete Dumbledore who would  risk his
life, and the life of millions of other people around the world,  and
the very future of civilization itself to protect a piece of  stinking
excrement like Draco Malfoy. That my friend is nasty nice.
 
Julie:
I'm not sure how you equate Dumbledore dying with him risking
the lives of millions of other people around the world. After all,  it's
the DDM!Snape theory which rests mainly on a Dumbledore who 
is willing to die *FOR* those millions of other people around the 
world who would likely perish if Voldemort isn't defeated. Though I
do believe Dumbledore would give up his life for Draco, as Draco  is
a student, and worthy of a second chance from DD's POV. But
Dumbledore is dying for much, much more.
 
Julie earlier:

> Dumbledore wouldn't be selfish. He  doesn't
> fear death; he sees it  as the next great
>  adventure. And he has lived a long and 
> useful life, so why wouldn't he  want his
> death to be equally useful? 
 
eggplant:
Dumbledore doesn't enter into it, I was discussing Snap's  virtue (or
lack thereof) not Dumbledore's. Snape had a choice, he could pick  the
easy path and murder Dumbledore or he could pick the right path  and
attack the Death eaters. He went down the easy path.


Julie:
Dumbledore does enter into it. Remember in the wood, when  Dumbledore
reminded Snape of his promise? It may well be Snape's action on the  Tower
was his way of keeping that promise he made. Certainly Dumbledore was
asking *something* of Snape when he said "Severus...please..." though  we
certainly don't have to agree about what he was asking.
 
Regarding right versus easy--again, if the easy path *was* for Snape  to
die while taking out as many DEs as he could, BUT he stood by his 
promise to kill Dumbledore rather than chance any more deaths  (Harry,
Draco, other students, etc), then Snape made the right choice. Not  the
easy one. 
 
Really, it all depends on WHAT Snape's true choices were, and we  don't
know the whole story yet. You are of course welcome to your preferred 
theory, while I stick to mine :-)
 
Julie



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