LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+15 15 0
Published 3 years ago with 2 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • Konijn

    It applies logic, but its flawed. It follows:

    If H lives, then V dies.

    If V lives, then H dies.

    But with this logic, both may die. There is nothing stating that the other is alive if one is dead, only that if one lives the other is definitely dead.

    For further clarification. If Harry is dead, it doesn't mean that Voldemort has to be alive and done it. Harry could have been mauled by a hippogriff (or w/e) and it wouldn't be proof of Voldemort's aliveness. It just means that Harry is dead.

  • Tawsix

    That... is pretty deep. It would have been interesting if that had actually been touched on in the books.

Here are some other snaps you may like...