The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Did Michael lie?
nadia.skylark:
--- Quote ---In Proven Guilty, Michael never says there's a documented case of someone getting rid of the shadow by walking away from their power. He only says that's the only way he knows how.
It's entirely possible that this is a theory that someone in the Church came up with based on what they know of the Shadow and how they work.
It's also entirely possible -- probable, even -- that the average magic user who gets a Shadow into their head has the exact same reaction as Harry to the suggestion.
Ergo, even if your interpretation of Michael's line is correct, there's not necessarily a contradiction.
After all, Michael and half the villains know how to unmake one of the Swords; but it's apparently something that's never happened. Knowing how to do something doesn't mean that something has actually happened before.
--- End quote ---
This is actually extremely close to something I suggested earlier, that Michael was exaggerating his certainty in order to be more effective at convincing Harry. This is actually my preferred interpretation, one that I consider to be Michael lying (lack of any evidence whatsoever and complete certainty really should not be combined in any truthful statement (I'm not talking about faith here, so please don't bring it up)), and one which I have pointed out is extremely dangerous--similar to telling someone that you can cure cancer by changing your diet.
--- Quote ---In the meantime, I'd like to see something that indicates that Michael definitively learned that he was wrong. Where did he do the research (of records that Nicodemus regularly destroys)? Did he find another magic user in the intervening two years that -- again, in that time frame -- gave up the power and still had the Shadow?
Where are we positing that Michael learned this?
--- End quote ---
No idea. This was brought up as a way to reconcile Michael's statements without having him commit a lie of commission, and I have acknowledged that it is possible, but I don't know any details of the theory that haven't been posted in this thread, and I'm perfectly happy to say that it might be wrong.
--- Quote ---My problem is that his statement in Small Favor is so absolute.
--- End quote ---
Mine too.
--- Quote ---Honestly, I just think it is a continuity error that can be explained away in a manner that reminds me of a Babylon 5 quote.
--- End quote ---
The doylist explanation may well be a continuity error, yes--but I'm still having fun debating watsonian explanations.
--- Quote ---I don't think anyone is proposing that Michael was lying in Small Favor.
--- End quote ---
I think I proposed it once, but I wasn't being particularly serious--I don't believe he actually did, and trying to claim that this is where he lied would make him something close to an actual villain.
Mr. Death:
--- Quote from: nadia.skylark on February 26, 2019, 10:08:50 PM ---This is actually extremely close to something I suggested earlier, that Michael was exaggerating his certainty in order to be more effective at convincing Harry. This is actually my preferred interpretation, one that I consider to be Michael lying (lack of any evidence whatsoever and complete certainty really should not be combined in any truthful statement (I'm not talking about faith here, so please don't bring it up)), and one which I have pointed out is extremely dangerous--similar to telling someone that you can cure cancer by changing your diet.
--- End quote ---
How is that a lie at all? Michael believes it. He says what he says because he believes it to be true.
Are you expecting him to only assert something if he has, personally, completely verified it beyond a shadow of a doubt?
That is simply not a reasonable standard to hold anyone to.
nadia.skylark:
--- Quote ---How is that a lie at all? Michael believes it. He says what he says because he believes it to be true.
Are you expecting him to only assert something if he has, personally, completely verified it beyond a shadow of a doubt?
That is simply not a reasonable standard to hold anyone to.
--- End quote ---
I expect him to tell Harry if he has no evidence whatsoever to back up his position, because this is not a reasonable claim to make without any evidence whatsoever. Like I said, it is like telling someone that cancer can be cured through diet--you may well believe it, but if the person has no knowledge of cancer beyond their experience and what you tell them, then it is your responsibility to make sure they also know that no one has actually been cured of cancer through diet. Otherwise, they might not go to a doctor about the cancer, and when/if your diet thing doesn't work they'll die.
In the context of the world Harry lives in, people will die if Harry gives up his magic, and there's a big difference between saying "if you let these people die, it will definitely save your soul and prevent you from murdering more people than will die from this," and saying "if you let these people die, there is an indeterminate chance that it will save your soul and prevent you from murdering more people than will die from this--it could be 90% or it could be 5%, but I believe that it will all work out." If the second statement is true but you tell someone the first statement, then I believe that is a lie.
Mr. Death:
--- Quote from: nadia.skylark on February 26, 2019, 10:45:14 PM ---I expect him to tell Harry if he has no evidence whatsoever to back up his position, because this is not a reasonable claim to make without any evidence whatsoever. Like I said, it is like telling someone that cancer can be cured through diet--you may well believe it, but if the person has no knowledge of cancer beyond their experience and what you tell them, then it is your responsibility to make sure they also know that no one has actually been cured of cancer through diet. Otherwise, they might not go to a doctor about the cancer, and when/if your diet thing doesn't work they'll die.
In the context of the world Harry lives in, people will die if Harry gives up his magic, and there's a big difference between saying "if you let these people die, it will definitely save your soul and prevent you from murdering more people than will die from this," and saying "if you let these people die, there is an indeterminate chance that it will save your soul and prevent you from murdering more people than will die from this--it could be 90% or it could be 5%, but I believe that it will all work out." If the second statement is true but you tell someone the first statement, then I believe that is a lie.
--- End quote ---
That's just ... not how people work or talk to each other.
If they believe something to be true, they say it as truth. It would be nice if they offered evidence, but, this might surprise you, two friends talking to each other do not operate as if they were making a legal case or a pitch to a board room full of people demanding evidence. And it is absolutely not a lie if they don't back up their own beliefs by pointing out that their own beliefs are unfounded.
That is, again, just not how people work or should be expected to work. If Michael goes, "You can get rid of the Shadow by giving up your magic. Oh, by the way, there's no evidence of this and it's never happened," then he might as well have never said anything in the first place.
Michael isn't thinking about the whole world -- he's thinking about Harry and trusting his God that, if Harry does give up his magic, the world won't end. Michael has no responsibility to foresee the outcome of the choice Harry makes. Likewise, despite his protestations to the contrary, it is not Harry's responsibility to stop every bad thing from happening to everybody.
You're holding Michael to an unreasonable standard.
I feel compelled to ask at this point, why is it so important for this to be spun as Michael "lying"? The conversation happened years ago, and everything in it is moot at this point. Hell, the whole point of the conversation is that Michael doesn't know everything about the coins and their history and can't know everything about the coins and their history, so I really don't see the point in posing, "Michael lied, because he must have -- in both cases -- knew everything as a completely verified fact. And he also lied if he believed he was telling the truth, but didn't include a full presentation of evidence contradicting his beliefs."
nadia.skylark:
--- Quote ---That's just ... not how people work or talk to each other.
If they believe something to be true, they say it as truth. It would be nice if they offered evidence, but, this might surprise you, two friends talking to each other do not operate as if they were making a legal case or a pitch to a board room full of people demanding evidence. And it is absolutely not a lie if they don't back up their own beliefs by pointing out that their own beliefs are unfounded.
That is, again, just not how people work or should be expected to work.
--- End quote ---
Maybe I have different expectations than you do--my family and I frequently do present evidence to back up our positions in casual conversation. Even without that, however, I don't feel that it is an unreasonable expectation for someone not to present a statement with no evidence behind it as if they have evidence when it comes to life-altering decisions. People might not always share evidence in conversation, but I've always understood the assumption to be that they have evidence if they're making a statement of fact, even if they're not coming out and saying so.
--- Quote ---If Michael goes, "You can get rid of the Shadow by giving up your magic. Oh, by the way, there's no evidence of this and it's never happened," then he might as well have never said anything in the first place.
--- End quote ---
Which is why he didn't say that. That has nothing to do with whether it is the truth.
--- Quote ---Michael isn't thinking about the whole world -- he's thinking about Harry and trusting his God that, if Harry does give up his magic, the world won't end. Michael has no responsibility to foresee the outcome of the choice Harry makes. Likewise, despite his protestations to the contrary, it is not Harry's responsibility to stop every bad thing from happening to everybody.
You're holding Michael to an unreasonable standard.
--- End quote ---
So, what you're saying is that Michael doesn't care if innocent people get killed, and further doesn't care that this will hurt Harry and risks him being more likely to take up Lasciel's coin? (If this isn't what you're saying, I apologize. Could you please clarify?) Whether he has a responsibility or not, he ought to care about that stuff. I don't feel like that's an unreasonable standard.
--- Quote ---I feel compelled to ask at this point, why is it so important for this to be spun as Michael "lying"? The conversation happened years ago, and everything in it is moot at this point. Hell, the whole point of the conversation is that Michael doesn't know everything about the coins and their history and can't know everything about the coins and their history, so I really don't see the point in posing, "Michael lied, because he must have -- in both cases -- knew everything as a completely verified fact. And he also lied if he believed he was telling the truth, but didn't include a full presentation of evidence contradicting his beliefs."
--- End quote ---
First, I'm not claiming that he must have known everything. I just can't see an interpretation that doesn't involve him lying/concealing information based on what he does know, and I want to know if other people have/can come up with one that fits the facts.
(Also, I really want to talk about Dresden stuff, I don't know anyone in real life that cares, and this is the thread I'm interested in that gets the most responses. Otherwise I'd probably drop it.)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version