I've spoilered this because I'm really talking to myself.This truly begs the question of Harry's ethical position vis a vis the Reds, upon who he committed genocide. As a sentient being being eaten isn't really on my agenda, and anything that tries, will pay if I can arrange it. In a real sense evil is meaningless in that context.

I've been saying that there is no such thing as evil, good, bad, or otherwise *objectively* for a bit now and even said I don't think free will as we typically think of it even exists. Of course, the subjective experience is something different, though only "real" in the same way that the sociological phenomenon of "definition of situation" is real (where you, for example, see someone wearing a lab coat and decide they have medical authority and so grant them that authority even if they don't have any medical training). It's not the true situation, but, for one acting under that thought process, it becomes the true situation.

Further, I'd say that sentience is not a hard line binary; either you're exactly like us or you're not sentient. I'd express it's more of a slope and we're only at the top of it because we've created the measurements. However, even by our own measurements, all other mammals, birds, even fish share the same biological structures. We all evolved from the same sources, after all and, the closer another animal is to us, the closer they are to us on our self-determined scale. Of course, it's easier to see everything as binary as that removes all pesky complications like thinking about how we, as a species, interact with other species.

It's a good question about the genocide. You should start a discussion about the ethicalness (is that a word?) of said action.

Harry's world has a very Christian ethic, evidenced by this passage from the fight at the pyramid at Chichen ItzaObviously God has a point of view, the Red's were evil, and they had to pay when the check was presented.

But, all characters in the books have a point of view. Each one is just expressing their nature or desires through thought and action (or inaction). To say that, because one of the faeries or magic beings proclaimed something makes it the dominant viewpoint might be going a bit far. Mab takes plenty of action, judges and so in the books. It doesn't follow that the world they live in therefore has a Mab ethic. Neither does it follow that it has a christian ethic because of the pronouncements of those characters. It only demonstrates their particular point of view.

The difference between Thomas and Lara is that Thomas cares and struggles against what he is.  It's a narrow hair and JB splits it.

I'd say there is no difference in the end. And, why would one struggle against being who they are? That's a common theme in literature to be certain, but, in practice, it's just self-torture. And, if a society imposes that struggle, then one might even say that it's cruelty.

I had three lovely cats and they drove me crazy in a very fun way.  I miss them.

Aww. We lost two cats within a month of each other a few years ago. It was really terrible. You ever think about getting a new kitty?

Not surprising because the word evil is all about emotion. It is about empathy and fear. Without emotions the word evil has no meaning.But the word evil is about value judgements. You assign value to what is good and you judge evil what is threatening good.

But *you* were the one who said it is all very logical.  Are you a politician? 

If you create too much distance the words good and evil become meaningless.

Wot? I said it’s a combination of evolutionary biology, chemical reactions, and circumstances. I.E. a subjective experience only “real” like a sunset because of perspective (since the sun doesn’t actually set, it just spins and follows its orbital trajectory). Also, each perceiver’s perceptions are different, so, while a great deal of overlap exists because of shared biology, true understanding of another’s experience doesn’t quite exist and even shared broad concepts are wobbly.  But, objectively, none of it is actually how things are because things just *are* (or are not (what’s the sound of one boddisattva clapping? Om mani padme ho hum?)).

On that note, I think we may be talking past one another anyway. This format doesn’t make it easier.

Our first cat ate everything that came out of a tin and was labeled cat food. Our current cats only eat a few things and we have tried everything on the shelves. We humans here only eat free ranged meat but cats....

Have you tried tundra or carnilove cans? They’re pretty expensive, but very high quality. It’s funny what different cats will love. One of our cats shared breakfast with my husband every morning for years because she loved the little swedish style pancakes (plätter) he’d have with a spoon of jam and gladly finish anything sweet left on his dessert plate. Our cat now has no interest at all in his breakfast, but goes crazy for croissants if I buy one to coffee from the bakery downstairs and eats about a quarter of it. She’s also fond of camembert. She sticks her nose up at the cat food our previous cat used to love, too. She has a savoury tooth to the other’s sweet.

What bit broke off?

I knew that I could count on you! 
A finger. According to the text, she wasn’t going to use it at first, but ended up using it ... in the end. 

I was going to skip over the sex scene with Mavra in Peace Talks, but it was actually very well done and, surprisingly, rather steamy despite the near vomit inducing portion when one of her bits broke off during the encounter and she used it as a sex toy on her shocked partner.

That Ridley Scott series sounds interesting.

The Merlin being a member would require things such that literally everything we've ever heard anyone say about it would be a lie.  And while Harry might not know everyone, Eb probably does, because someone's got to be able to organize things, and he's said jackall when the subject came up.

Well, it is my opinion, after all. Also, it would not require “literally” everything we’ve heard about the merlin to be a “lie.”  I heard he was the merlin. I also heard he was a man. I also heard, et cetera. Apply some of that expertise on idioms you have and you will quickly find that 1: you actually know very little about the man and, b: it’s a first person pov story where the narrator is unreliable, prone to personal bias, and knows very little of the larger picture by necessity for the story surprises to work.

Also, no one ever said Eb was the leader, if I remember correctly. He said that he and a few people he trusts are doing something. Even if he were a defacto leader, this doesn’t negate the possibility of the merlin being a string puller, covert member, or open member. The only thing we actually know is that Dresden doesn’t know who most of them are. That said, it’s still, like, my opinion, man (big lebowski reference). I don’t feel strongly about it.

I think the merlin is a member. He told Dresden he was going to wipe out the reds which means he had a plan to wipe them out that day. I think something close to what happened was his plan. He may be disguised to other members or a string puller.