The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Did Michael lie?
Mr. Death:
--- Quote from: nadia.skylark on February 27, 2019, 03:59:22 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
And I think the assumption here should, likewise, be that Michael has some reason to believe what he does. Do you think he made it up himself?
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
No, that is not what I'm saying. Obviously Michael cares.
But the conversation is not, "What are all the possible implications of doing this?" They're not having an in-depth discussion of the pros and cons of Harry's decision. The conversation is, "You should get rid of the Shadow," "Sure, how?" "Give up your magic." "No."
The conversation is about Harry; and before either of them could possibly get into all the implications, Harry outright rejects the premise entirely and cuts off any discussion of it. If anything, Harry should be the one pointing out that he needs his power to help people, but he doesn't -- does that make Harry a liar?
Again, Michael has Faith. Largely, he has Faith that things will work out OK.
He has Faith in the world and his God that, if Harry gets rid of his magic, things will work out for the better. He has Faith that, if Harry doesn't get rid of his magic, things will also work out, one way or another.
Michael doesn't work on the big scale. He works on a personal scale, because that's what a literally-one-dude-with-a-sword is about.
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
You keep arguing as if Michael must somehow know, with certainty, that his earlier statement is false. And that he must somehow know that if Harry goes through with it, it won't work, and Harry will be more likely to take up the coin.
That's the heart of it. You seem to be operating on the assumption that Michael found out -- factually and accurately -- that giving up magic definitely does not get rid of the Shadow, when the whole point of the conversation in Small Favor is that Michael doesn't have all the facts, he just thinks he does. The whole idea that he's "lying" is premised on an idea that's contradicted by the scene itself.
nadia.skylark:
--- Quote ---And I think the assumption here should, likewise, be that Michael has some reason to believe what he does. Do you think he made it up himself?
You keep arguing as if Michael must somehow know, with certainty, that his earlier statement is false. And that he must somehow know that if Harry goes through with it, it won't work, and Harry will be more likely to take up the coin.
That's the heart of it. You seem to be operating on the assumption that Michael found out -- factually and accurately -- that giving up magic definitely does not get rid of the Shadow, when the whole point of the conversation in Small Favor is that Michael doesn't have all the facts, he just thinks he does. The whole idea that he's "lying" is premised on an idea that's contradicted by the scene itself.
--- End quote ---
Okay, it seems like the premise of my argument has been lost. Here is what I'm saying:
In Proven Guilty, Michael tells Harry that if he gives up his magic then it will absolutely rid him of the shadow. In Small Favor, Michael tells Harry that no one has ever gotten rid of the shadow without first picking up the coin. These statements appear contradictory.
To resolve them, I see seven possible explanations.
1) Michael genuinely believed his statement in Proven Guilty, then later found evidence proving it wrong, but did not tell Harry.
This is possible, and is what I am calling a lie of omission.
2) Michael had some reason to believe his statement in Proven Guilty, but was in some way exaggerating/misrepresenting the chances of it working such that his statement in Small Favor is also true.
This is possible, and is what I am calling a lie of commission.
3) Michael has some evidence for his statement in Proven Guilty such that he knows that it is true, even though no one has ever done it.
This is technically possible, but given that I cannot think of any evidence that would fulfill these requirements, I personally do not accept it.
4) Michael was lying in Proven Guilty to give Harry hope.
This is possible, but I like it less than explanations 1 and 2.
5) Michael was lying to himself in Proven Guilty so that he would not have to face the fact that Harry would inevitably take up the coin.
This is possible, but once again I like it less than explanations 1 and 2.
6) Michael was lying in Proven Guilty for nefarious purposes of his own.
I do not think this is possible.
7) Michael was lying in Small Favor for nefarious purposes of his own.
I do not think this is possible.
I have primarily been switching between arguments for explanations 1 and 2, and asking for evidence supporting explanation 3.
--- Quote ---No, that is not what I'm saying. Obviously Michael cares.
But the conversation is not, "What are all the possible implications of doing this?" They're not having an in-depth discussion of the pros and cons of Harry's decision. The conversation is, "You should get rid of the Shadow," "Sure, how?" "Give up your magic." "No."
The conversation is about Harry; and before either of them could possibly get into all the implications, Harry outright rejects the premise entirely and cuts off any discussion of it. If anything, Harry should be the one pointing out that he needs his power to help people, but he doesn't -- does that make Harry a liar?
Again, Michael has Faith. Largely, he has Faith that things will work out OK.
He has Faith in the world and his God that, if Harry gets rid of his magic, things will work out for the better. He has Faith that, if Harry doesn't get rid of his magic, things will also work out, one way or another.
Michael doesn't work on the big scale. He works on a personal scale, because that's what a literally-one-dude-with-a-sword is about.
--- End quote ---
The issue here is that my concern is what would happen if Harry says yes later. I think it is Michael's responsibility to take that into account, and you don't. Since I doubt either of us are going to change our minds, how about for this specific point we agree to disagree. (I'm perfectly happy to debate every other point, however :) .)
Mr. Death:
--- Quote from: nadia.skylark on February 27, 2019, 05:53:19 PM ---Okay, it seems like the premise of my argument has been lost. Here is what I'm saying:
In Proven Guilty, Michael tells Harry that if he gives up his magic then it will absolutely rid him of the shadow. In Small Favor, Michael tells Harry that no one has ever gotten rid of the shadow without first picking up the coin. These statements appear contradictory.
--- End quote ---
OK, that clears things up. I do not see them as contradictory, however.
Say, for instance, it's 1960. Someone at NASA asks, "How do we go to the moon?" and some other rocket scientist replies, "Well, we can get there by strapping three lads to a rocket and giving them a pod wrapped in gold foil to land with."
This is true. He knows that it's possible, because he -- and others -- have worked out the physics of it.
But until 1969, the statement, "No human has ever stepped foot on the moon in the last 2000 years," was also, 100% true.
Point is, people can know for sure that something is possible without that thing having actually happened before.
Everyone knows that the Swords can be unmade -- a bunch of people even appear to know the exact mechanism. But to our knowledge, the statement, "In 2000 years, no one has unmade one of the Swords of the Cross," is true.
--- Quote ---To resolve them, I see seven possible explanations.
1) Michael genuinely believed his statement in Proven Guilty, then later found evidence proving it wrong, but did not tell Harry.
This is possible, and is what I am calling a lie of omission.
--- End quote ---
I see this as unlikely; with how Nicodemus regularly destroys records and only two years passing between the two conversations, I find it very hard to believe Michael found new evidence on that front while he was also busy being a Paladin.
--- Quote ---2) Michael had some reason to believe his statement in Proven Guilty, but was in some way exaggerating/misrepresenting the chances of it working such that his statement in Small Favor is also true.
This is possible, and is what I am calling a lie of commission.
--- End quote ---
No exaggeration or misrepresentation necessary for both to be true, as above.
--- Quote ---3) Michael has some evidence for his statement in Proven Guilty such that he knows that it is true, even though no one has ever done it.
This is technically possible, but given that I cannot think of any evidence that would fulfill these requirements, I personally do not accept it.
--- End quote ---
This, as I say above, is the simplest and most likely scenario. Remember that Michael and his whole group have a fairly direct line to up above; and, as stated, somehow the bad guys know how to unmake Michael's sword, even though that's never happened before.
Is Michael also a liar for telling Harry in Grave Peril that his Sword could be unmade by killing an innocent, even though that, too, clearly has never happened before?
--- Quote ---4) Michael was lying in Proven Guilty to give Harry hope.
This is possible, but I like it less than explanations 1 and 2.
--- End quote ---
I see no reason for him to lie like this. It's at best counterproductive.
--- Quote ---5) Michael was lying to himself in Proven Guilty so that he would not have to face the fact that Harry would inevitably take up the coin.
This is possible, but once again I like it less than explanations 1 and 2.
--- End quote ---
Simply not in Michael's character, considering the conversation ends with Michael all but outright saying, "And if you do pick up the coin, I'll be there to take your head off."
--- Quote ---6) Michael was lying in Proven Guilty for nefarious purposes of his own.
I do not think this is possible.
7) Michael was lying in Small Favor for nefarious purposes of his own.
I do not think this is possible.
--- End quote ---
Agreed.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, if Michael's line in Small Favor had been, "釘ecause in two thousand years, no one has rid themselves of the shadow of one of the Fallen容xcept by accepting the demon into them entirely, taking up the coin, and living to feel remorse and discarding it [or by giving up their magic entirely]," there'd be no problem?
--- Quote ---The issue here is that my concern is what would happen if Harry says yes later. I think it is Michael's responsibility to take that into account, and you don't. Since I doubt either of us are going to change our minds, how about for this specific point we agree to disagree. (I'm perfectly happy to debate every other point, however :) .)
--- End quote ---
How is Harry saying yes later any different from Harry saying yes now?
Michael says, 的f you should change your mind about the coin, Harry, if you want to get rid of it, I promise that I値l be there for you," so clearly he is, in fact, considering Harry changing his mind and saying, "Yes" in the future.
nadia.skylark:
--- Quote ---OK, that clears things up. I do not see them as contradictory, however.
Say, for instance, it's 1960. Someone at NASA asks, "How do we go to the moon?" and some other rocket scientist replies, "Well, we can get there by strapping three lads to a rocket and giving them a pod wrapped in gold foil to land with."
This is true. He knows that it's possible, because he -- and others -- have worked out the physics of it.
But until 1969, the statement, "No human has ever stepped foot on the moon in the last 2000 years," was also, 100% true.
Point is, people can know for sure that something is possible without that thing having actually happened before.
Everyone knows that the Swords can be unmade -- a bunch of people even appear to know the exact mechanism. But to our knowledge, the statement, "In 2000 years, no one has unmade one of the Swords of the Cross," is true.
--- End quote ---
So you're a believer in explanation 3.
--- Quote ---I see this as unlikely; with how Nicodemus regularly destroys records and only two years passing between the two conversations, I find it very hard to believe Michael found new evidence on that front while he was also busy being a Paladin.
--- End quote ---
One possibility that's been suggested for this is that he got black magic corruption mixed up with the corruption of the shadow--in which case, it would have been simple to clear up.
--- Quote ---No exaggeration or misrepresentation necessary for both to be true, as above.
--- End quote ---
The fact that explanation 3 is a possibility does not automatically invalidate statement 2.
--- Quote ---This, as I say above, is the simplest and most likely scenario. Remember that Michael and his whole group have a fairly direct line to up above; and, as stated, somehow the bad guys know how to unmake Michael's sword, even though that's never happened before.
Is Michael also a liar for telling Harry in Grave Peril that his Sword could be unmade by killing an innocent, even though that, too, clearly has never happened before?
--- End quote ---
This is possible, but given the information restrictions Michael was operating under, it's difficult for me to accept. For one thing, do you really think Nicodemus wouldn't do his best to erase any information that might let someone rid themselves of a shadow?
--- Quote ---I see no reason for him to lie like this. It's at best counterproductive.
--- End quote ---
I tend to agree. On the other hand, I don't see Michael telling Harry "you have to take up Lasciel's coin in order to be rid of the shadow" even if it is true, so...
--- Quote ---Simply not in Michael's character, considering the conversation ends with Michael all but outright saying, "And if you do pick up the coin, I'll be there to take your head off."
--- End quote ---
Very likely the case. On the other hand, it's been pointed out that he was probably in denial about the fact that if Harry did give up his magic it would mean that Molly would be executed.
--- Quote ---So if I'm understanding you correctly, if Michael's line in Small Favor had been, "釘ecause in two thousand years, no one has rid themselves of the shadow of one of the Fallen容xcept by accepting the demon into them entirely, taking up the coin, and living to feel remorse and discarding it [or by giving up their magic entirely]," there'd be no problem?
--- End quote ---
Yes.
--- Quote ---How is Harry saying yes later any different from Harry saying yes now?
Michael says, 的f you should change your mind about the coin, Harry, if you want to get rid of it, I promise that I値l be there for you," so clearly he is, in fact, considering Harry changing his mind and saying, "Yes" in the future.
--- End quote ---
There's no difference whatsoever. I brought it up in response to your claim that the reason Michael had no reason to consider the negative consequences or tell Harry what evidence (if any) he had was because Harry said "no." My claim is that if he would have considered those consequences and shared that information if Harry had said "yes," then he should have done so regardless of Harry's initial "no" because Harry could have changed his mind at a time when Michael was not around.
Mr. Death:
--- Quote from: nadia.skylark on February 27, 2019, 07:12:41 PM ---So you're a believer in explanation 3.
--- End quote ---
Yes.
--- Quote ---One possibility that's been suggested for this is that he got black magic corruption mixed up with the corruption of the shadow--in which case, it would have been simple to clear up.
--- End quote ---
Very unlikely; Michael is not a magic dude. He's just plain not well-versed in how magic works.
--- Quote ---This is possible, but given the information restrictions Michael was operating under, it's difficult for me to accept. For one thing, do you really think Nicodemus wouldn't do his best to erase any information that might let someone rid themselves of a shadow?
--- End quote ---
So wait -- you find 3 unlikely because Nicodemus would have suppressed any information about how the Shadow works, but 1 is likely because Michael would have been able to get information about how the Shadow works?
--- Quote ---Very likely the case. On the other hand, it's been pointed out that he was probably in denial about the fact that if Harry did give up his magic it would mean that Molly would be executed.
--- End quote ---
The Doom of Damocles, as far as we know, only mandates Molly's death if Harry dies; to my knowledge, it doesn't say anything about what happens to Molly if Harry retires. After all, even if Harry doesn't use magic himself, he still has the knowledge to tell Molly how to do things.
--- Quote ---Yes.
--- End quote ---
So, to reiterate what I said before, the whole idea of his lying is predicated on him not saying an extra clause that would only bog down the sentence because both he and Harry know it obviously hasn't happened in Harry's case, so it would be pointless to bring up?
This is a conversation between two human beings -- two emotional human beings, one of whom is worried that his friend is being taken over by a fallen angel. It is not a legal brief wherein they have to exhaustively list every if, and, or but. That is just not how people talk.
When people talk and they're emotional, they get right to the point and speak directly. They typically don't bog down their speeches with extra and/or clauses that are not relevant to the thing they're saying.
--- Quote ---There's no difference whatsoever. I brought it up in response to your claim that the reason Michael had no reason to consider the negative consequences or tell Harry what evidence (if any) he had was because Harry said "no." My claim is that if he would have considered those consequences and shared that information if Harry had said "yes," then he should have done so regardless of Harry's initial "no" because Harry could have changed his mind at a time when Michael was not around.
--- End quote ---
That is not my claim.
My claim is that Michael is concerned about Harry; concerned with helping Harry get rid of the Shadow, and he has faith that the world will continue to spin if Harry doesn't have his magic. Michael is a small-picture guy, who believes that doing the right thing on a personal level will lead to good happening in the larger world.
He is there to help his friend Harry; he will also gladly help the rest of the world the same way he's helping Harry, but he's not making a cold, rational, tactical decision on the state of the War With [Insert Nasty Supernatural Here] because that is just not who he is.
Michael is not responsible for arguing against saving Harry's life and soul to let Harry take up dark power for the "greater good." That is the exact opposite of his personal beliefs and his calling as a Knight.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version