The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Did Michael lie?
Bad Alias:
--- Quote from: Mr. Death on February 22, 2019, 03:11:19 PM ---That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of the circle is to cut it off from everything else. And the whole point of the coin is to keep the Fallen from affecting anything outside the coin.
How can it cut off the Fallen from Harry, but not cut off the Fallen from the Shadow which is inside Harry? How can the Fallen be connected to the Shadow when it's incapable of affecting anything outside its coin?
And Lash herself makes it clear that she isn't connected to Lasciel anymore; if she was connected to Lasciel, she'd be reabsorbed.
It's not "draining" energy on that scale because it's just plain not something that big. The Shadow is, well, a Shadow -- it explicitly does not have access to the Fallen's power, just its knowledge and allows access to Hellfire. The most the Shadow does is stuff that's internal to Harry along those lines. The point of the Shadow is to be a tiny taste of the Fallen to tempt the coin holder into taking the whole thing.
Lash doesn't use Harry's energy to "go against the Fallen," she uses it to change herself. The Fallen isn't there; it can't be there, it's doubly trapped, in the coin and in the circle.
--- End quote ---
If I was going to use a spell targeting you with some blood, hair, fingernail clippings, etc., I would do it from within the circle. A shadow is a piece of its corresponding fallen. That's how they're connected. Does the fallen allow access to hellfire, or does it provide the hellfire itself? If we knew the answer, and the answer is as you say, I'd agree with you.
--- Quote from: nadia.skylark on February 22, 2019, 04:27:09 PM ---As such he can at least slightly compromise his morals to account for circumstances, where an angel cannot do so without Falling.
--- End quote ---
I'd say he can compromise his morals because he is human. Like Murphy. I wouldn't say TWG is okay with it when Michael engages in situational ethics.
--- Quote from: Mira on February 22, 2019, 10:14:33 PM --- What you are calling a lie, isn't...
--- End quote ---
We don't know if he was just wrong or knew what he was saying wasn't true. I think he was wrong (or it was a continuity error) and not lying, but I don't know that. We can only guess.
nadia.skylark:
--- Quote ---What you are calling a lie, isn't...
--- End quote ---
It was either a lie or a deliberate omission severe enough that I would consider it equivalent to a lie.
--- Quote ---Yes, if Michael believed his proposal would help Harry rid himself of the shadow is not a lie...
--- End quote ---
Define "help." Because I've proposed a theory in which Michael absolutely believed that his proposal would help Harry rid himself of the shadow that also had him lying to Harry.
--- Quote ---Simply because Michael sincerely believed it, he wasn't blowing smoke... He was simply wrong about that or mistaken about that, that is quite different from telling a lie.. It is like if you have a bad cold, I drink a lot of tea and sincerely believe that if you drank a lot of ginger tea it could cure it and suggest it to you... It soothes but it isn't a cure. Did I lie to you or am I just mistaken?
--- End quote ---
Which statement of Michael's do you think he sincerely believed, then? Because he made two contradictory statements. Even if he sincerely believed the first statement and later found out that he was wrong, I find the assumption that telling this to Harry just slipped his mind to be utterly untenable--in which case it was a deliberate omission intended to leave Harry with misinformation. That's not technically a lie, granted (it's something the fae could do) but I think it's equivalent.
--- Quote ---I'd say he can compromise his morals because he is human. Like Murphy. I wouldn't say TWG is okay with it when Michael engages in situational ethics.
--- End quote ---
I think TWG objects to the Knights engaging in situational ethics that lead to actions. I don't think He objects necessarily to situational ethics that lead to non-actions (ie Michael is not allowed to torture non-repentant former Denarians. He is allowed to stand by while they get tortured).
Snark Knight:
--- Quote from: Mira on February 15, 2019, 02:27:03 PM ---I also don't think Michael wanted to go up against his best friend, Harry, so he was grasping at straws that Harry could pull it off, but at the same time not believing it was possible.
--- End quote ---
On some level, as of PG, he probably also wasn't all that keen on the supervisor of his daughter's life-saving parole walking away from being a wizard.
I mean, he's good, but he's still human.
nadia.skylark:
--- Quote ---On some level, as of PG, he probably also wasn't all that keen on the supervisor of his daughter's life-saving parole walking away from being a wizard.
I mean, he's good, but he's still human.
--- End quote ---
Definitely :). I always assumed that he was in denial in that scene about the actual consequences of Harry abandoning his magic.
Mira:
--- Quote ---Define "help." Because I've proposed a theory in which Michael absolutely believed that his proposal would help Harry rid himself of the shadow that also had him lying to Harry.
--- End quote ---
Thank you for making my point, I think the problem here is we see what constitutes a "lie" differently.
What Michael told Harry may have been untrue, but only because Michael was mistaken, not because he deliberately told Harry this knowing it wasn't true, which would be a lie. Huge difference.. Also who knows? Since Harry didn't try Michael's suggestion, no one knows if it would actually have worked. To me a lie is something knowingly told as true when the teller knows perfectly well that it isn't..
--- Quote ---Which statement of Michael's do you think he sincerely believed, then? Because he made two contradictory statements. Even if he sincerely believed the first statement and later found out that he was wrong, I find the assumption that telling this to Harry just slipped his mind to be utterly untenable--in which case it was a deliberate omission intended to leave Harry with misinformation. That's not technically a lie, granted (it's something the fae could do) but I think it's equivalent.
--- End quote ---
Welcome to the real world.... Frankly you've lost me here... When Michael first told Harry, he wasn't lying, he was mistaken... Actually he may not have been mistaken because that theory was never tested by Harry.. It was an unrealistic suggestion, understood by the time Small Favor rolls around.. And actually it was Michael who thought Harry was doing the lying because in 2,000 years no one has ever rid themselves of the shadow of the Fallen before Harry, but they do work it out.
--- Quote --- think TWG objects to the Knights engaging in situational ethics that lead to actions. I don't think He objects necessarily to situational ethics that lead to non-actions (ie Michael is not allowed to torture non-repentant former Denarians. He is allowed to stand by while they get tortured).
--- End quote ---
Not unlike angels... The question of ethics here isn't a simple one, you leave out the part about how the lives of thousands were in the balance if Harry hadn't gotten an answer out of Cassius.. Is that ethical?
--- Quote ---It was either a lie or a deliberate omission severe enough that I would consider it equivalent to a lie.
--- End quote ---
What was it exactly that he omitted?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version