Casuistry: Suck and Blow; This is not lying but it is close Casuistry may seem an obscure word, but it is a noun, used more often but not derided in the world at the moment than any other I can think of: used widely in all advertising, political rhetoric, advocacy groups and legal selectivity. It does not always use hyperbole. Worse! It is a more subtle word, more damaging and employs deceptive reasonableness. It sucks up what it wishes to ignore and blows on about what it wishes that you not ignore on any subject. It can be seen in newsprint and the internet and in the clever constructions from the comment sections. It is more convincing to those who hear or read things; the spectators of life, than those who do things. Unfortunately, there is such a limited breadth of things we can do, and such a wide breadth of things we can observe! The only object of the casuist is to convince! When I had to testify so often in court as a medical witness I was required to swear that I would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The whole truth is the enemy of the casuist. The reasoned ethics of the lawyer, working diligently for his client however, avoids when possible, revealing the whole truth. We must always ask what is in the interest of the convincer? Evidence used to be “In the Eye of the Beholder'” but now technology is so artful and casuistry so slippery that in beholding we often can't tell where we're at. It may be fine however, and suit us if we choose to slide on the slippery slope of the casuist. It shouldn't! We can't live with the axiom forever, “Who's kidding Who?'