Did Michael lie?

[nadia.skylark]

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.

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.

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?

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.

My problem is that his statement in Small Favor is so absolute.

Mine too.

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.

The doylist explanation may well be a continuity error, yes--but I'm still having fun debating watsonian explanations.

I don't think anyone is proposing that Michael was lying in Small Favor.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

Which is why he didn't say that. That has nothing to do with whether it is the truth.

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.

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.

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."

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.)

[Mr. Death]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No exaggeration or misrepresentation necessary for both to be true, as above.

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.

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?

4) Michael was lying in Proven Guilty to give Harry hope.

This is possible, but I like it less than explanations 1 and 2.

I see no reason for him to lie like this. It's at best counterproductive.

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.

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."

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.

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?

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 .)

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]

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.

So you're a believer in explanation 3.

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.

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.

No exaggeration or misrepresentation necessary for both to be true, as above.

The fact that explanation 3 is a possibility does not automatically invalidate statement 2.

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?

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?

I see no reason for him to lie like this. It's at best counterproductive.

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...

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."

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.

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?

Yes.

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.

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]

So you're a believer in explanation 3.

Yes.

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.

Very unlikely; Michael is not a magic dude. He's just plain not well-versed in how magic works.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Yes.

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.

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.

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.

[nadia.skylark]

Michael is not a magic dude. He's just plain not well-versed in how magic works.

Which is why he might reasonably get mixed up.

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?

I think Nicodemus would be far more likely to get rid of information about how to get rid of a shadow than he would be to get rid of information saying that there is no way to get rid of a shadow without taking up the coin. This is because the former information in detrimental to Nic's cause, while the latter information is beneficial.

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.

Maybe. On the other hand, if Harry is no longer a wizard, he would presumably have no authority to sponsor Molly under the Doom, causing her to be killed by default. Honestly, we don't know enough about how the White Council works to know for sure.

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.

The point is that I consider there to be a substantial difference between the statements "No one as ever done x" and "The only people who have done x have also done y." I don't consider being accurate to a reasonable standard as something which "only bogs a sentence down," nor do I consider the information you are claiming Michael didn't mention as irrelevant. For one thing, it is possible to temporarily not use your magic and then pick it up again. (A lot of the issue here revolves around what Michael means when he says "give up your magic,"--if he means that Harry must believe that using his magic is intrinsically wrong, then I doubt that Harry could get it back later, but if it means pretty much anything else then I don't see why he couldn't go back to using magic after the shadow was gone.)

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.

You might want to reread my arguments on the subject. One of my early posts in this thread explains the risk that if Harry followed Michael's advice it could make him more likely to pick up Lasciel's coin. I'll re-post it here:

I mean, what happens if Harry goes through with it, gives up his powers, and still has the shadow? Is he just going to be fine with it? Given that Harry uses his powers to protect people (and based on the books, it is entirely likely that Harry would have to deal with innocent people dying because he refuses to use his power to save them) I think if he realized that Michael had lied to him he would be far more likely to disregard everything that Michael says/has said...and given that Harry still has Lasciel's shadow...

[Mr. Death]

Which is why he might reasonably get mixed up.

More likely that he just wouldn't be aware of it enough that it'd be in the forefront of his mind. But eh.

I think Nicodemus would be far more likely to get rid of information about how to get rid of a shadow than he would be to get rid of information saying that there is no way to get rid of a shadow without taking up the coin. This is because the former information in detrimental to Nic's cause, while the latter information is beneficial.

The description we have is just of Nicodemus destroying records. Saying that he's picking and choosing with that exactness smacks of trying to have cake and eat it too. He's only destroying the records whose existence would support my position, but he leaves around the records that support yours?

Maybe. On the other hand, if Harry is no longer a wizard, he would presumably have no authority to sponsor Molly under the Doom, causing her to be killed by default. Honestly, we don't know enough about how the White Council works to know for sure.

True.

The point is that I consider there to be a substantial difference between the statements "No one as ever done x" and "The only people who have done x have also done y." I don't consider being accurate to a reasonable standard as something which "only bogs a sentence down," nor do I consider the information you are claiming Michael didn't mention as irrelevant. For one thing, it is possible to temporarily not use your magic and then pick it up again. (A lot of the issue here revolves around what Michael means when he says "give up your magic,"--if he means that Harry must believe that using his magic is intrinsically wrong, then I doubt that Harry could get it back later, but if it means pretty much anything else then I don't see why he couldn't go back to using magic after the shadow was gone.)

"Accurate to a reasonable standard," again, they are not debating this in a courtroom. This is an arbitrarily exacting criteria to put on Michael while he's in a personal, emotional conversation. We can't expect him to be talking like a lawyer in that context.

That is what I'm saying is unreasonable.

And I say the point is irrelevant because obviously Harry hasn't given up his magic; ergo, there's no point in bringing it up as a point.

You might want to reread my arguments on the subject. One of my early posts in this thread explains the risk that if Harry followed Michael's advice it could make him more likely to pick up Lasciel's coin. I'll re-post it here:

That argument is predicated on the unsupported idea that Harry giving up his magic will not get rid of the Shadow, and the even more unsupported idea that Michael knows or should know this; therefore, I don't find it at all relevant to anything Michael would or should have done.

[nadia.skylark]

The description we have is just of Nicodemus destroying records. Saying that he's picking and choosing with that exactness smacks of trying to have cake and eat it too. He's only destroying the records whose existence would support my position, but he leaves around the records that support yours?

There is every possibility that he is destroying all records. But if he does destroy records selectively, then it would indeed be in such a way that it would support my position rather than yours

"Accurate to a reasonable standard," again, they are not debating this in a courtroom. This is an arbitrarily exacting criteria to put on Michael while he's in a personal, emotional conversation. We can't expect him to be talking like a lawyer in that context.

That is what I'm saying is unreasonable.

And I say the point is irrelevant because obviously Harry hasn't given up his magic; ergo, there's no point in bringing it up as a point.

I think the issue here is that you and I have very different conversational expectations. What I am saying is reasonable by the expectations of myself, my family, and my friends. That is obviously not the case with you.

That argument is predicated on the unsupported idea that Harry giving up his magic will not get rid of the Shadow, and the even more unsupported idea that Michael knows or should know this; therefore, I don't find it at all relevant to anything Michael would or should have done.

No. This argument is predicated on the very-much-supported idea that Michael can be wrong and should know that his information can be wrong because he points it out himself in Small Favor when he says that the Church sometimes doesn't discover the lies of the Fallen in their information for centuries. It is also predicated on the idea that Michael could be lying/exaggerating, which he definitely would know.

The possibilities here are:

1) Michael believes that he is right and is presenting a theory with evidence, but knows that it is possible that evidence is compromised.

2) Michael believes that he is right but is presenting a theory with no evidence.

3) Michael is lying/exaggerating in an attempt to help Harry.

4) Michael knows he is right because he was told by TWG.

5) Michael knows he is right because he has seen someone/knows someone who has seen someone who has gotten rid of the shadow by giving up their magic, and never mentions this for...reasons.

In scenarios 1-3, I believe that he should at least consider the consequences if he is wrong, and I am explicitly disregarding scenario 4. I find scenario 5 to be exceedingly unlikely, especially since he (according to his actual words) explicitly contradicts the possibility in Small Favor.

[Mr. Death]

There is every possibility that he is destroying all records. But if he does destroy records selectively, then it would indeed be in such a way that it would support my position rather than yours

So, like I said, trying to have your cake and eat it too.

This is also assuming that "wizards getting rid of a Shadow" is such a big problem that Nicodemus is not only aware of the possibility but actively working against it. Consider the events of Small Favor, where Nicodemus is caught completely off guard by the fact Harry no longer has the Shadow, plus Lash's own admission that she's never had to tempt anyone for more than a couple weeks before they gave in.

If anything, that indicates that Nicodemus isn't even aware it can be done, not that he's actively and specifically controlling information about that specific thing. Harry getting rid of the Shadow is such a rare thing that, even if it's technically possible, it's so unlikely that the one person on the planet with the most knowledge and experience with the coins completely ignores the possibility that it happened.

I think the issue here is that you and I have very different conversational expectations. What I am saying is reasonable by the expectations of myself, my family, and my friends. That is obviously not the case with you.

I honestly don't see how it's a reasonable expectation -- certainly not to the point of calling someone a liar if they don't conform to that expectation.

No. This argument is predicated on the very-much-supported idea that Michael can be wrong and should know that his information can be wrong because he points it out himself in Small Favor when he says that the Church sometimes doesn't discover the lies of the Fallen in their information for centuries. It is also predicated on the idea that Michael could be lying/exaggerating, which he definitely would know.

Michael believes that he's saying something that is true. He would not be saying it if he did not believe it to be true. When you say things you believe to be true -- to the point you're advising your best friend on a pivotal life choice without an ounce of hesitation or doubt -- do you immediately follow up with, "If I'm wrong, this won't work and you'll be worse off than if I'd never said anything"?

What you're proposing is that after Michael says something that he fully believes is true, he should immediately contradict himself and tell Harry the exact opposite of what he was just saying, otherwise he's a liar.

That is, again, not a reasonable expectation.

[Mira]

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.

No, he doesn't make that claim..   The exact quote from Proven Guilty is page 459 paper back

"Give up the coin of your own free will.  And set aside your power.  If you do, Lasciel's shadow will dwindle with it and waste away."
"What do you mean set aside my power?"
"Walk away from your magic," he said.  "Forsake it.  Forever."

Let's not forget that this is what Michael's own wife did to keep from becoming a warlock and it worked.   Something that is very unusual because most of the time when the line is crossed there is no going back that is why most would be warlocks get the chop.  So it stands to reason he thinks it might work in Harry's case.   However he wasn't "absolute" about it and when Harry said, "fuck that."   He didn't argue the point

No. This argument is predicated on the very-much-supported idea that Michael can be wrong and should know that his information can be wrong because he points it out himself in Small Favor when he says that the Church sometimes doesn't discover the lies of the Fallen in their information for centuries. It is also predicated on the idea that Michael could be lying/exaggerating, which he definitely would know.

But makes Michael mistaken, not a liar..   If Michael deliberately had told Harry to give up his power knowing it wouldn't work.. That would be a lie....  That isn't what he did, more importantly there is no motive for Michael to lie to Harry in the first place...  It isn't Michael's motive to get Harry to forsake his power, it is to rid him of the shadow.