quote:

Originally posted by krekk:

quote:

Why he might as well have plunged that knife in Sawyers arm himself..

YES...But he didn't...

But for a doctor to stand there and condone the brutal torture..after swearing an oath never to harm people and all of that..well for me that makes Jack's actions [or inaction] worse that Sayid's.

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:


It wasnt merely for going to the toilet though was it. Jack specifically tortured Sawyer for the inhalers and the resentment he held towards him..AL put Nathen in the pit because she thought that he was involved in the abduction and possible death of her companions. Yes, she was wrong to do so but she did not kill him and i dont know why this is being used against her. It's like saying that an inmate who kills his cellmate shouldnt get the blame and instead the prison should..i mean yes she should feel some regret and remorse but ultimately it's Goodwins fault.

Am in a slight hurry so can't go through all of this, but I do think that a prison system that tortures and incarcarates an innocent man who is then killed by a cellmate does deserve a hearty degree of condemnation. I've already said that Goodwin is guilty of murdering Nathan...and Ana Lucia is guilty of torturing him.

I would like to repost my reply to this

quote:

Originally posted by Paradroid:

quote:

Considering the brutality of the torture inflicted on Sawyer, when compared to AL's meagre [in comparison] throwing a man in a pit 'torture' i would've thought Jack would come in for sterner critism?

There are other considerations, though: Jack was clearly very uncomfortable with his decision (though it is certainly no credit to him that he persisted in it nevertheless, that does not make the bare-faced ruthlessness of Ana Lucia virtuous by comparison).

But Paradroid, as a doctor who swore and oath never to harm people and to uphold medical ethics etc, the fact that he was uncomfortable with it doesnt in any shape or form excuse his inaction..in fact it could be argued that this makes it worse. Since he clearly knew that it was wrong..he was in control of all of his faculties and knew that what he was allowing to tranbspire was criminal. Remember AL is a Cop..her role as a cop often requires isolating a threat or potential threat..this is exactly what she did..she wasnt breaking any of her 'police training' codes or ethics. Jack on the otherhand is a doctor..now his role requires helping people and making them better..this is precisely what he DIDNT do..instead he allowed a most criminal act to transpire. See, although AL made some bad choices at least she didnt 'totally' go against what she has been trained to do..she didnt do a perfect job but she applied her training to her leadership role on the island. Jack did go against everything his profession stands for.. This is a major major part of my argument against Jack. Im sure you will pick holes in it but surely you can appreciate this fact?

quote:

Ana Lucia also intended to go further than Jack: had she made her threats of finger-cutting to Nathan himself, we might have dismissed them as mere psychological warfare, but since she dropped them in conversation to Goodwin, we have no reason to disbelieve her. The fact that her intention was never carried out (through Goodwin's intervention) does not excuse her of the crime.

See, you've forgotten about Sayid threatening to cut Sawyers eye out. So this shows that Jack did intend to allow it to go further than AL. I would consider having an eye cut out more grusome than having a finger cut off. I would be interested to hear what you have to say now.

Btw, I just thought i'd make it clear that I consider both acts [finger and eye severing] both morally wrong. It's just that in the context of this debate I think Jack condoning Sayid's threat to cut Sawyer's eye out to be worse than AL's threat to cut Nathen's finger off.

I realise that it is not a 'competition' but since the comparison was made between AL's 'torture' and Jack's torture I thought that Sayids/Jack's 'eye-severing' threat was a big omission.

quote:

Originally posted by Murgatroyd:

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:

See, this is the problem I have..you're speculating in favour of Kate [in another thread] in terms of the [other] reason why she 'may' have killed Wayne [eg abuse etc] and yet you specualte against AL! I dont have a problem with specualtion but when it's biased it's hard to contend with

I mean, whose to say that she really would've cut Nathen's finger off. The fact remains that she didnt. Just like the fact remains that Jack [however 'uncomfortable'] did allow Sayid to torture Sawyer. Furthermore..whats the difference between 'threatening' to cut someones finger off and 'actually' allowing someone to stick bamboo up someones fingernails? Surely there's a major difference there....surely [Jacks] actions [or inactions] are worse than [Ana's] words..surely Jack allowing Sayid to brutally stick shoots up Sawyers fingers is far more crude than a mere threat?

Also..You say that AL threatened to cut Nathens finger off..well i seem to recall Jack allowing Sayid to threaten to cut Sawyers eye out! Conveniently forgotten about methinks I know i'd rather loose my finger than my eye anyday!

First off, Paradroid hasn't commented in the Kate thread at all, so I guess you're actually talking about me.

Sorry Murgatroyd [and Paradroid], I posted this when I was in a rush last night and I really should've waited to today when I had more time to post. So I apologise, i should have looked at the name to ensure it was Murgatroyd.

quote:

Second, I don't consider my speculation as to Kate's true motives as an attempt to talk her up: I was simply interested in exploring her actions and questioning the notion that she was not in some way reacting to abuse. That happens to be the way my speculations ran in that case - I think it likely she was to some extent taking revenge and acting to protect her mother and I willingly admit that this is nothing more than idle psychological speculation.

Ok thats fair enough, i must have misinterpreted your post, it seemed like you were finding 'speculative' ways of talking Kate up over AL and portraying such speculation as 'firm evidence'. Speculation is fine and dandy but i just thought it strange that despite your earlier stance on Kate, you seemed to be [blindly] protecting her in favour of AL. ALmost making AL's crimes out to be far worse than Kates, despite you saying otherwise.

quote:

I said quite plainly that I wasn't going to decide who behaved worse than whom, primarily on the grounds that I'm not a high court judge and don't really feel qualified so to do.

But surely you have an opinion. I mean, im not a judge but i can still give my opinion. But if you dont feel comfortable doing so then thats ok too. I just think that I made a very valid point by bringing up the issue of 'if they were both in court for their crimes, who would get the larger sentance'. It just seemed like people were avoiding giving their opinion because they knew AL would come out on top, in this instance and they wouldnt want that.

quote:

I also said quite plainly that I don't like Kate and abhor her actions. I'm not favouring one over the other - I don't like either character. Neither have I at any point stated that Jack's actions are more defensible than Ana Lucia. I believe I stated at one point that I consider him marginally more culpable on the grounds that he's taken the Hypocratic oath.

Yes, true you did say that..i suppose i just interpreted some of your posts to be saying Jack was wrong yet underlying that AL is worse. You may not of said so but that was how i inferred or interpreted some of your posts. Sorry if i got that wrong.

quote:

It also happens to be the case that I think Ana Lucia would've gone through with her intent to sever Nathan's finger on the grounds that she expressed that extent to a third party and we saw no evidence of wavering. You speculate that Ana Lucia would not have cut off Nathan's finger - fine. You also speculate that Kate has no hidden or unknown motivation behind her murdering Wayne - fine. I have no firm evidence to state that you're exhibiting biase because you prefer one character over the other, yet you do claim that my own speculations are biased. I don't see how your own opposing speculations are inherently different to mine and I'm frankly a bit miffed that you seem to think otherwise.

Ok fair point..i was in a bit of a rush when i posted that and so i dont think i converyed myself as well as i would've liked to but still i do see your point and it is a fair one. I was trying to make a point but it didnt come accross how i wanted it to..it's hard to convey what i meant but nonetheless i do recognise that it didnt come across as I had hopedn and you have a right to feel a bit aggrieved.

This whole thing with 'speculation' theres nothing wrong with it..heck, i do it all the time and it's necessary for Lost if you want to theorise..i did mean it in another way but ihavent got the clarity right now to convey how i meant it exactly. I think in the first instance i misinterpreted your post where i thought you were defending Kate in order to defamate AL despite Kate's crimes..anyway i think i was confused because you earlier said that you thought she [Kate] was wrong etc and yet you were [apparently] defending her based upon intangible evidence. Anyway, big mix up..sorry about that, lol.

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:


Ok thats fair enough, i must have misinterpreted your post, it seemed like you were finding 'speculative' ways of talking Kate up over AL and portraying such speculation as 'firm evidence'. Speculation is fine and dandy but i just thought it strange that despite your earlier stance on Kate, you seemed to be [blindly] protecting her in favour of AL. ALmost making AL's crimes out to be far worse than Kates, despite you saying otherwise.

It wasn't 'blind' protection, thank you...my thoughts on Kate's motives were speculative but nonetheless speculation that I happen to feel was drawn fairly logical from the premise presented in the episode. I don't think it was a particularly crazy conclusion to come to and I don't think it was completely without evidence to back it up. And let's clear up this 'despite what I say' business. I'm not lying. I have no desire to make a character I don't like seem better than another character I don't like. I'll state my unprofessional opinions if that what it'll take to convince you: I don't think Ana Lucia deserves more condemnation for her crimes than Kate does for hers. Okay? I think that more or less tallies with your own conclusions. Believe me now?

quote:

Originally posted by Murgatroyd:

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:


Ok thats fair enough, i must have misinterpreted your post, it seemed like you were finding 'speculative' ways of talking Kate up over AL and portraying such speculation as 'firm evidence'. Speculation is fine and dandy but i just thought it strange that despite your earlier stance on Kate, you seemed to be [blindly] protecting her in favour of AL. ALmost making AL's crimes out to be far worse than Kates, despite you saying otherwise.

It wasn't 'blind' protection, thank you...my thoughts on Kate's motives were speculative but nonetheless speculation that I happen to feel was drawn fairly logical from the premise presented in the episode.

Murgatroyd, sorry..i didnt mean it like that..i was trying to explain how i perceived what you were saying at the time.

quote:

I don't think it was a particularly crazy conclusion to come to and I don't think it was completely without evidence to back it up.

No you're right..i just got made the wrong interpretation of your post. I can see what you were saying now. Might not agree with it but the conclusion you reached was logical and possible.

quote:

And let's clear up this 'despite what I say' business. I'm not lying. I have no desire to make a character I don't like seem better than another character I don't like. I'll state my unprofessional opinions if that what it'll take to convince you: I don't think Ana Lucia deserves more condemnation for her crimes than Kate does for hers. Okay? I think that more or less tallies with your own conclusions. Believe me now?

Yes, I would agree with that..although i personally would go a bit further by saying that in my opinion Kate's crimes are worse than those of AL's but I accept and respect your opinion.

quote:

Remember AL is a Cop..her role as a cop often requires isolating a threat or potential threat..this is exactly what she did..she wasnt breaking any of her 'police training' codes or ethics.

Police are trained and/or encouraged to keep suspects in a bare earth pit for days on end, on the basis of mere suspicion, starve them, pelt them with rocks, and threaten them with mutilation until they cough up a confession? I know the Home Office has its problems, but this is quite a stretch of the imagination...

quote:

See, you've forgotten about Sayid threatening to cut Sawyers eye out. So this shows that Jack did intend to allow it to go further than AL. I would consider having an eye cut out more grusome than having a finger cut off. I would be interested to hear what you have to say now.

Are we drawing up a moral heirarchy for acts of mutilation? I question the value of such a project. And no, I hadn't forgotten about the eye, but that was Sayid's innovation. Jack, as you may recall, lost his bottle when the matter moved from inflicting pain to permanent injury, and even - albeit too little too late - attempted to undo the damage. Sayid, of course, went on his penitential retreat. Neither of them bothered to apologise to Sawyer, and don't think I've forgiven them on that point...

Castaways in general repeat their sins and follies on the island. Charlie has, in all probability, fallen back on addiction, Jin's over-protectiveness of Sun made him an outcast and even an antagonist for much of S1, Sayid broke his no-torture vow, Jack's egotism has become a liability, ditto Locke's fatalistic dependence on destiny, and vengeful vigilante Ana Lucia - convinced that she is a law unto herself - has aptly demonstrated that civilised values, for all their faults, can't be beaten in some respects (justice in particular).

To praise her for her errors and condemn other castaways for theirs would make little sense on the face of it, unless you are convinced that Ana Lucia is going to be established as the perfect moral paradigm, the ideal synthesis between "primitive" and "civilised" values, an example for all the castaways to emulate etc. I have my doubts...

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:

quote:

Originally posted by Murgatroyd:

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:


Ok thats fair enough, i must have misinterpreted your post, it seemed like you were finding 'speculative' ways of talking Kate up over AL and portraying such speculation as 'firm evidence'. Speculation is fine and dandy but i just thought it strange that despite your earlier stance on Kate, you seemed to be [blindly] protecting her in favour of AL. ALmost making AL's crimes out to be far worse than Kates, despite you saying otherwise.

It wasn't 'blind' protection, thank you...my thoughts on Kate's motives were speculative but nonetheless speculation that I happen to feel was drawn fairly logical from the premise presented in the episode.

Murgatroyd, sorry..i didnt mean it like that..i was trying to explain how i perceived what you were saying at the time.

quote:

I don't think it was a particularly crazy conclusion to come to and I don't think it was completely without evidence to back it up.

No you're right..i just got made the wrong interpretation of your post. I can see what you were saying now. Might not agree with it but the conclusion you reached was logical and possible.

quote:

And let's clear up this 'despite what I say' business. I'm not lying. I have no desire to make a character I don't like seem better than another character I don't like. I'll state my unprofessional opinions if that what it'll take to convince you: I don't think Ana Lucia deserves more condemnation for her crimes than Kate does for hers. Okay? I think that more or less tallies with your own conclusions. Believe me now?

Yes, I would agree with that..although i personally would go a bit further by saying that in my opinion Kate's crimes are worse than those of AL's but I accept and respect your opinion.

Okay - thanks, Korevo. No hard whatsnames.

quote:

Originally posted by Paradroid:

quote:

Remember AL is a Cop..her role as a cop often requires isolating a threat or potential threat..this is exactly what she did..she wasnt breaking any of her 'police training' codes or ethics.

Police are trained and/or encouraged to keep suspects in a bare earth pit for days on end, on the basis of mere suspicion, starve them, pelt them with rocks, and threaten them with mutilation until they cough up a confession? I know the Home Office has its problems, but this is quite a stretch of the imagination...

But she's in the wild..unfortunately she didnt have handcuffs or a warm interrogation room or even a cell to put him in. She still applied the ethos of her police training. I think it's an important fact that whilst she at least applied her professional training the situation/s..Jack has on many occassions disregard his and not applied them [eg torturing Sawyer, not tending the Locke's gun-shot wound]. I do concede that AL was OTT in her methods of interrogation..im not apologising for her putting him in the pit of throwing a few rocks at him..but she at least didnt completely break her civilised professional training. She maintained much of her real world philosophy.

quote:

See, you've forgotten about Sayid threatening to cut Sawyers eye out. So this shows that Jack did intend to allow it to go further than AL. I would consider having an eye cut out more grusome than having a finger cut off. I would be interested to hear what you have to say now.

quote:

Are we drawing up a moral heirarchy for acts of mutilation? I question the value of such a project.

I think it's very valuable because just like there are 'degree's' of murder an degree's of assult..there are also degree's of torture. Im not happy with the claim that AL 'tortured' nathen but if we are to go along with this viewpoint then surely we can't label her torture in the same category as Jack/Sayid's? We cannot simply 'pigeon-hole' AL's treatment of Nathen because it had elements of Jack's treatmetn of Sawyer. In a court of law both acts of 'torture' would not carry the same sentance..we do not have to be a qualified judge to know that.

quote:

And no, I hadn't forgotten about the eye, but that was Sayid's innovation.

An innovation that Jack was happy to see transpire. What kind of Doctor would even consider allowing that act to take place? A bad one imo.

quote:

Jack, as you may recall, lost his bottle when the matter moved from inflicting pain to permanent injury, and even - albeit too little too late - attempted to undo the damage.

Redemption cannot be sought so quickly after inflicting or allowing damage on another human being..no amount of remedying the situation will undo what Jack did or allowed to happen to Sawyer. The only redemedy that Jack can seek is to change his ways and not be so savage in his acts and then claim to be a civilised man. It's quite clear that this has not happened. Becuase since Sawyer's torture in CM, Jack has gone on to beat Locke up, rush out guns blazing to kill Ethan, rush out guns blazing to kill AL, threaten to withold vital medication from Sawyer..lets not forget that it was 50% Jack's fault why Sawyer needed that medication in the first place..

quote:

Sayid, of course, went on his penitential retreat. Neither of them bothered to apologise to Sawyer, and don't think I've forgiven them on that point...

True..though i personally am more willing to forgive Sayid because at least he truely recognised that he had done wrong and as far as i can remember he hasnt recommitted vile crimes since..in fact he even spared AL's life, which shows that he has learnt from his mistakes. Jack on the other hand..well jack has gone from bad to worse..beating up a defenseless middle-aged man, hastily arranging a shoot and kill mission whilst dumping a loaded rifle in Michael's untrained hands etc etc etc..

quote:

Castaways in general repeat their sins and follies on the island. Charlie has, in all probability, fallen back on addiction, Jin's over-protectiveness of Sun made him an outcast and even an antagonist for much of S1, Sayid broke his no-torture vow, Jack's egotism has become a liability, ditto Locke's fatalistic dependence on destiny, and vengeful vigilante Ana Lucia - convinced that she is a law unto herself - has aptly demonstrated that civilised values, for all their faults, can't be beaten in some respects (justice in particular).

Yes you have a point here..and therein lies a message form the writers. I particularly respect the part that i bolded..well said. I would'nt aim that at AL alone alone however but i do agree with that and im sure AL is starting to see that. I hope she is.

quote:

To praise her for her errors and condemn other castaways for theirs would make little sense on the face of it, unless you are convinced that Ana Lucia is going to be established as the perfect moral paradigm, the ideal synthesis between "primitive" and "civilised" values, an example for all the castaways to emulate etc. I have my doubts...

Well thats an interesting concept..one which i do think will be portrayed at some point in Lost. But, no..im dont think AL is above critism..im prepared to accept points which i think are valid and im prepared to accept the fact that people critise her. I just think she has been given a rough time of it by us on the whole. Im not praising her for her errors but im looking at what she has done in 'context'. Context is very important..in fact it's vital when debating..alot of what has been aimed at AL i feel has been out of context and unfair. I just hope ive done my bit to help put eevrything in context. She's really not that bad.

I still believe Jack is a fine surgeon....But on the island, they will all make mistakes. They will all change and they will all at some point do something we don't like or agree with..

I do not get why AnaL has come under MORE criticism than Jack..I can only assume it is because she is relatively new and we have yet to see the other side to her character..As yet what has been shown is pretty one dimensional isn't it?
I have to say, for me, seeing her flashback gave me a better understanding of her. I could understand her anger and sorrow at losing her child. But I ca also see why alot of people don't like her.

quote:

Originally posted by krekk:
I still believe Jack is a fine surgeon....But on the island, they will all make mistakes. They will all change and they will all at some point do something we don't like or agree with..

Yeah that's fair enough..although the fact that Jack is leader and now seems to be enjoying calling the shots and doing things his way make's his mistakes that much more dangerous..not just for him but for the whole group.

quote:

I do not get why AnaL has come under MORE criticism than Jack

You and me both krekk..you and me both.

quote:

..I can only assume it is because she is relatively new and we have yet to see the other side to her character

But i remember in exodus..people were even disliking her from that moment which for me is wholly unfair. The poor woman didnt do anything wrong In fact when i think back to that scene with jack she seemed to much happier..so much more in control of her self..almost as if she had just begun to straighten out her life..she even gave Jack a bit of mentoring advice for which he seemed grateful.

quote:

..As yet what has been shown is pretty one dimensional isn't it?

Not at all..she's a tortured soul and tortured souls are never one dimensional [unless they do a Charlie on us, that is ]

quote:

I have to say, for me, seeing her flashback gave me a better understanding of her. I could understand her anger and sorrow at losing her child.

Yeah!

quote:

But I ca also see why alot of people don't like her.

Hmph

Yes..

I thought the scene at the airport with Jack was rather sweet.. She was very sympathetic to him, and so she maybe was a tad forward..Heck, she thought he was hot, who can blame her??

I kinda like the way he repayed her at the end of the last eppy with a similar gesture..

quote:

Originally posted by krekk:
Yes..

I thought the scene at the airport with Jack was rather sweet.. She was very sympathetic to him, and so she maybe was a tad forward..Heck, she thought he was hot, who can blame her??

Yeah, I admit she was a tad forward wasnt she..like you say though she was very sympathetic towards him and i think he needed someone to understand him..someone who he could talk too who wouldnt judge him etc..and i reckon that she was like his angel at that moment..someone out of the blue who gave him hope and strength. And heck, he thought she was hot..and who could blame him!

quote:

I kinda like the way he repayed her at the end of the last eppy with a similar gesture..

Yeah..that was a nice touch by the producers wasnt it..I love the way they do full-cirlce parallels like that.

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:


I think it's very valuable because just like there are 'degree's' of murder an degree's of assult..there are also degree's of torture. Im not happy with the claim that AL 'tortured' nathen but if we are to go along with this viewpoint then surely we can't label her torture in the same category as Jack/Sayid's? We cannot simply 'pigeon-hole' AL's treatment of Nathen because it had elements of Jack's treatmetn of Sawyer. In a court of law both acts of 'torture' would not carry the same sentance..we do not have to be a qualified judge to know that.

Would you please go and have a look at the Wikipedia entry on 'Torture'? I'll quote the salient points below anyway:

"Torture is any act by which severe pain, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, a deterrent, revenge, a punishment, or as a method for the extraction of information or confessions (i.e. "third-degree methods" of interrogation)...."

And these are taken from the list of recognised torture methods:

* Extended solitary confinement
* Blackmail
* Being kept in confined spaces
* Being forced to sleep on hard surfaces
* Conditions of detention
* Constant shouting, verbal abuse and taunting
* Beatings and physical violence
* Disfigurement
* Limb/finger removal
* Starvation (forced) ...

quote:

since Sawyer's torture in CM, Jack has gone on to beat Locke up, rush out guns blazing to kill Ethan

In all justice to Jack, we shouldn't lay Charlie's impulsive and idiotic crimes at his door.

In any case, I think Murgatroyd has made my point better than I ever could have: it is now official that Ana Lucia tortured Nathan, and thus committed a parallel crime with Jack. This is important to the structure of the plot, as it provides some allegorical linkage between the two groups and emphasises the point that civilised institutions (represented by Doctor Jack, Officer Ana, and - I regretfully concede - Soldier Sayid) are built on shaky moral foundations. If Ana - as you say - remained true to her ethical training, it only demonstrates that these "ethics" were as hideously flawed and inadequate to civilised purposes as those that Sayid was educated in. It still remains for her to seek redemption, and (dare I say) transformation of her "dead" personality, and her efforts have so far not been very positive. Mind you, she's not the only one on this island with a blind spot when it comes to apologies...

In summary, both Jack and Ana are equally flawed and culpable, and any desire to exonerate one or the other is entirely down to personal taste. I speak as someone who dislikes them equally...

quote:

Originally posted by Murgatroyd:
Okay - thanks, Korevo. No hard whatsnames.

..hey, we may not agree on certain issues but i do respect your views and opinions. Afterall, thats what it it's all about. And maybe one day i'll convince you to see things my way

quote:

Originally posted by Murgatroyd:

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:


I think it's very valuable because just like there are 'degree's' of murder an degree's of assult..there are also degree's of torture. Im not happy with the claim that AL 'tortured' nathen but if we are to go along with this viewpoint then surely we can't label her torture in the same category as Jack/Sayid's? We cannot simply 'pigeon-hole' AL's treatment of Nathen because it had elements of Jack's treatmetn of Sawyer. In a court of law both acts of 'torture' would not carry the same sentance..we do not have to be a qualified judge to know that.

Would you please go and have a look at the Wikipedia entry on 'Torture'? I'll quote the salient points below anyway:

"Torture is any act by which severe pain, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, a deterrent, revenge, a punishment, or as a method for the extraction of information or confessions (i.e. "third-degree methods" of interrogation)...."

And these are taken from the list of recognised torture methods:

* Extended solitary confinement
* Blackmail
* Being kept in confined spaces
* Being forced to sleep on hard surfaces
* Conditions of detention
* Constant shouting, verbal abuse and taunting
* Beatings and physical violence
* Disfigurement
* Limb/finger removal
* Starvation (forced) ...

All very well and good, but we must remember that anti-torture laws and definitions are fundamentally based on the presumption of being in a 'civilised society'. It's quite clear that the tailies are not in a 'civilised society' [well despite the existance of Dharma we should assume that they are in the 'wild'].

This is important because all those great and wonderful values and laws that we hope would still exist in the wild simply fall down on the basis that they are all founded and implemented in civilisation. In fact it is civilisation which gives such laws and definitions of torture etc their basis..outside of civilisation they no-longer exist [it could be argued].

Dont get me wrong, the challenge is indeed to retain such civilised standards no matter where you are, be it the in wild or New York [for example]. The challenge is perhaps to let civilisation define who were are, our values and our morals and not to let the savage in us come to the fore even when in the most dire circumstances. Or perhaps the challenge is to find a happy medium? Eitherway thier actions will no doubt set in place new laws and new standards to a previoulsy law-less state [the island] and i agree that civilised standards should prevail..however this cant be easy when you have those [the Other