quote:

Originally posted by Murgatroyd:

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:

I certainly do think she should feel seme remorse Murgatroyd. I also hope that Bernie and Libby feel some remorse too.

Indeed, she was wrong to throw Nathen in the pit..I think that is quite clear. But of course we have the wonderful luxary of 'hindsight', she unfortunately didnt. So at the time she was within her rights to throw him in the pit. The wild doesnt have the same laws as normal society. What she did was no worse than what Sayid did to Sawyer..to excuse Sayid and not AL is to be subjective and not objective, which isnt really fair in my book. [nb. from Murgatroyd - I didn't.]

Yes she made many mistakes but she made them with good intentions at heart. Also the like's of Bernie have not made as many 'mistakes' because they are not the leaders..they have the luxary of not having to make the hard decisions or put their necks on the line. I would like to see what wouldve happened had Bernie been the leader..they would all be dead no doubt.

AL didnt fire a gun at Mike, she clearly moved the pistol away from him..it was a warning shot and no more. It is no worse than when Locke threw the knife in the direction of Sawyer in an early episode.. Didnt hear anyone complaining about that..we all thought it was cool..[nb. from Murgatroyd. It was dangerous and foolish, but it was meant as a rather sick joke and a dramatic entrance, and a short cut for saying 'I have knives'. Ana Lucia's actions were a threat. It was a warning saying 'If you don't do what I say, I'm going to shoot you.']

Of course eating is important but anyone can pick fruit..whereas not everyone could have elimiated the potent threat of Goodwin and kept them all alive..remember Bernie himself thanked Ana for keeping them alive, "I wouldnt be alive if it wasnt for you"..think that says it all.

I still dont see why AL should take most of the blame for Nathens death..Goodwin was the one who killed him..you open up a whole can of worms with other issues if you start suggesting that AL is mostly to blame.

Yes she was planning on legging it..but that was after it was clear that her companions were turncoats. If she'd legged it as soon as she shot Shannon then that would have been a terrible message as it has parallels with a 'hit and run scenario'.

Some good points but I still think AL has been treated very harshly considering some of the deeds done by others both i this episode and previous episodes.

Like Paradroid, I don't think there's much point in my dragging this impromptu debate out any further because I think we've both been repeating ourselves in increasingly imaginative ways for the past few turns.

lol, well it was a good debate whilst it lasted I must say.

quote:

The original premise against which I was arguing, as I remember it, all those years ago, was that Bernard and Libby ought to feel ashamed of themselves for abandoning Ana Lucia at the end of 'Collision'. I know we got a bit sidetracked with the sub-debate about whether or not torture was fine and dandy behaviour in certain circumstances – though actually I think that as Ana Lucia made the decision to torture Nathan, it does impact on the questions of whether or not she's been so good for the group as a whole that she deserves its unswerving loyalty, and whether or not she's capable of actions so ill-judged that her companions would have to put aside their loyalty towards her if they wanted to walk away with their consciences intact. And I have to state this again – I don't believe anybody has the right to torture anybody else regardless of the circumstances. I acknowledge that extreme circumstances make it much more likely but they do not make it any less wrong. And essentially, we're the ones making these moral decisions, not these fictional characters. And we are not in the wild – we are watching a TV programme from the comfort of our own homes. Real people are stating right now that extreme circumstances give them the right to torture people who may or may not be a threat to them. I consider it crucially important that people lucky enough to live in safety and comfort continue to state objectively that torture is never right under any circumstances. Then one day a person in the wild – like Sayid, if not like Ana Lucia – might remember it.

Yes, torture is wrong and we as viewers have a responsibility to condem acts which we deem to be wrong and unethical etc. However, I dont think i ever said that AL's decision to 'torture' [as you put it] Nathen was 'right'..it's not right..even in such extreme conditions it's still not 'right'. However what im saying is that it's 'understandable'. I can fully understand why AL did it and I can appreciate the fact that she did it to protect her companions. It's not 'right' in classic terms, but she had to do something. To ignore her gut instincts again would have been a crime. Lets not forget that in the wild, instinct is key for animals as it is for humans [and vice versa] and therefore this instinct shouldnt have been ignored..she couldnt let another 'Jason' scenario happen..she had to act and although it was ultimately wrong to put a man down a pit..it was understandable imo. Also I wouldnt say that she 'Tortured" him..I think to say that would be stretching it a bit.

quote:

In addition, I have never, as far as I can recall, stated that Ana Lucia is more to blame for Nathan's death than Goodwin or anyone else. In fact, I don't think it's the done thing to divide up the blame into percentages in that way. In my view, Goodwin (ignoring, for the sake of a simple argument, any mitigating circumstances) is 100% responsible for his actions: namely murdering an innocent man in cold blood. Ana Lucia (same qualifiers apply) is 100% responsible for her actions as well: namely torturing an innocent man and placing him in mortal danger. Ana's responsibility for those actions is not tempered in any way by the method of Nathan's death. Had a wild boar broken into the put and gored Nathan to death during the night, Ana would still be 100% responsible for precisely the same crime:

Not sure about that one..I remember Locke saying something to CHarlie about "choice" and how if you dont choose then you might as well be as dead as a boar [that he had just killed using CHarlie as bait - The Moth episode]..well AL made a 'choice' to put Nathen down in that pit..it was a well intentioned choice [group-wise] and if [in the unlikely event] a boar came into his pit and killed him then surely that would've been an accident since it wasnt her intetion for that to happen. Yes she would have had to take a proportion of the blame but this is the wild were talking about..she would'nt have been 100% responsible in that situation surely!

quote:

torturing an innocent man and placing him in mortal danger. I also think that Libby, Bernard and Mr Eko are 100% for their own actions, which include being complicit in the torture of an innocent man, encouraging the torture of an innocent man and disagreeing with the torture of an innocent man but sitting by and letting it take place all the same. If you want to create a hierarchy of judgement, you do it on the severity of the crime and you start considering who was and wasn't in his or her right mind. But the blame levels don't change. The fact that Goodwin did something worse than Ana doesn't make her crime any less vile.

Yes, AL is 100% repsonsible for her actions..that is that she's 100% responsible for putting a man down a pit. That's it. She did notn kill him so how can she be totally responsible? I accept that she should feel guilty and that she is responsible for her part in the tragic events but AL is less responsible that Goodwin in my view. For example if the case had gone to court..then Goodwinn would have gone down for far far longer than AL..hence he is more responsible.

quote:

Anyway. Your premise requires that we ask and answer the following question: has Ana done so much for her group that its members owe her their unflinching loyalty? My answer is no. Regardless of the fact that I don't feel, on balance, that her leadership has been the best thing for that grouo, I don't believe anyone can ever do enough to earn that degree of loyalty: to pledge unflinching, unquestioning loyalty is to accept that you will never again make a moral decision. You owe it to nobody to go against your own conscience in order to help them, which is precisely what Ana was asking Bernard and Libby to do. Ana Lucia has made some terrible judgements in the past and is in the process of making several more at the beginning of 'Collision' – she is contemplating the murder of two innocent men.

But she wasnt asking them to 'never make another moral decision again'..all se wanted was for them to stick by her and to have a bit of faith in her. Showing loyalty sometimes requires that you place faith and trust in a person..it doesnt mean that your own moral choice gets stripped away from you. Showing loyalty is to be faithful and to not inflict hurt or betrayal upon a person who you either love or who has done so much for you. All AL wanted was that in this instance her companions stick by her for a few more hours. It's not like what she did was so in excusable that they HAD to flee. Sayid tried to kill Eko, i think many people are conveniently forgetting this fact..he was about to pull the trigger when AL saved Eko's life by hitting Sayid on the head. See, the situation was a volatile one but in those type of situations bailing out is the last thing that you should do. How can they cross to the other side so easily after all they had been through with AL?..im sorry, I just dont understand that.

quote:

At any rate, Ana has not demonstrated that it's the right thing for Bernard and Libby to follow her to the ends of the earth, damaging a few people in the process. Yes, she's done a lot for them, but they've done a lot for themselves and for her too, and I really don't like the whole idea that Bernard in particular ought to feel ashamed and indebted because he is incapable, primarily on the grounds of more advanced age, lower levels of fitness and lack of appropriate training,

Thats my point though..he shouldnt feel ashamed because of that..he should realise that due to his lack of all-round capability he is alive because of AL..in fact he does acknowledge this but he should therefore feel ashamed by the fact that he turned his back on the woman who has basically protected him and kept him alive all of this time. Thats what he should be ashamed about imo. He even looked ashamed when he walked away from her to head back to camp..and so he should imo.

quote:

of fulfilling the roles in the group that Ana Lucia has fulfilled: primarily defence and a degree of organisation – who should pick some fruit this morning, that sort of thing. I do need to rewatch the episode, but I genuinely don't recall her making many significant leadership decisions along the lines of where to stop, where to go – Eko and, while he was alive, Nathan had at least an equal hand there. I do remember her quite rudely ordering Jin to catch some fish with no knowledge of the best way to go about such a thing. Jin's justly smug 'Fish' line was one of my favourites in the entire series: one of many examples in the show that reaching decisions via group discussion and democracy is a better course of action than dictatorship.

Yes, Eko and Nathen contributed to the decisio-making but not to the extent that AL did. It's quite clear who they looked up to for leadership..it was not Eko..remeber his 40 day silence? and it was not Nathen..it was AL. She's the one who had the weight of the world on her shoulders. I agree that democracy and group decision making is vital..but wasnt democracy founded in civilisaiton?..democracy in the wild doesnt always work..it may work for a while but if the group isnt 'together' like AL's clearly wasnt then it falls to pieces and a stronger leader [not dictator] but leader is required. Btw rewatch '48 Days' and [im sure] you will see that at first AL was more than pleasant and always listened to the opinions of others..it wasnt until NAthen started acting shady and the kids were taken that she had to impose some form of organisation. A toilet code should've been adhered to. It wasnt asking much was it.

quote:

But more important than what she's done for them in the past in the question of whether or not her current actions are worthy of support. They're not. When she judges well, Ana Lucia can act in a way that keeps her companions alive: recognising the danger that Goodwin posed, for example, convincing Bernard to grab the tree (though please stop blaming Bernard for being paralysed with fear after being hurled at who knows how many miles per hour out of a burning aeroplane and landing precariously at the top of a very tall tree next to a corpse) or being alert enough to realise that the group was under attack in the middle of the night. Bernard acknowledged that openly. When she judges poorly – and I think the whole Nathan incident was designed to make the viewer see that she is more than capable of that – Ana is capable of putting innocent lives in appalling danger.

What, you mean Nathen? Yes, but she didnt do it with the idea that Goodwin would kill him. She made a mistake, surely she's allowed one of these in such circumstances? I know it's terrible that this caused Nathen to die she was not an accomplice nor did she intend for this to happen, so we cant be too harsh on her. Im mean if we start blaming people for indirect action which cause tradegy then we are all to blame for something tragic then arent we. That sort of outlook, whilst remorse is necessary, will not do any good..least of all in the wild. The crucial point is that AL doesnt try to act all oralistic..unlike JAck she knows that she has had to make soe tough choices and even some wrong ones but she doesnt then get on her high horse. I thinks he deserves credit for that at least.

quote:

Bernard acknowledged that too. And mitigating circumstances might be relevant to the question of whether or not Ana Lucia can be held wholly responsible for her actions, but they cannot be allowed to impact on the question of whether or not it's always the right thing to do as Ana Lucia says...to do that unthinkingly is to put innocent lives at risk. Bernard and Libby eventually walked away from Ana Lucia because they could no longer condone behaviour that was threatening innocent lives. They did not take with them the due respect they had expressed to her for her help in the past; they simply refused to help kill Sawyer and Sayid and they refused to sanction random gunslinging.

But they are in the wild and AL was doing it for their safety. Also, you said in another post that AL should've just "legged it", well if she did then who do you think Sayid would have taken his vengence out on?..Im pretty sure it would've been Eko or Bernie. So at least she wasnt a coward and faced up to what she had [accidently] done.

How did Libby and Bernie refuse to help kill Sawyer? Sawyer had already been taken away by Eko..they left after that so that pretty much kills that point. ..and surely by them just walking off like that it pretty much showed that they couldnt give too hoots about Sayid..because if they really thought that she was going to kill him then SURELY they should've stayed to talk her out of it!? This therefore implies that they didnt think that she was really going to kill him and so you using that as a reason for their leaving doesnt really apply. So eitherway Bernie and Libby were wrong to leave..

quote:

I consider that the morally correct decision and one for which they needn't feel even an ounce of remorse.

But eitherwya they should've felt guilty for leaving..because if they left because they thought AL was going to kill Sayid then surely they are wrong for just leaving and not doing anything to try and talk AL out of it? ..and if they left because they didnt think she was going to kill him but just wanted to get to the othe camp, then surely you cannot claim them to have left because they didnt want to be involved in or condone a murder..because obvioulsy they werent expecting one and just wanted to leave because they saw an opportunity and took it, to heck with loyalty and all that. lol.

You will never know the amount of self-restraint I'm having to exercise to resist replying to this post....

quote:

Originally posted by Murgatroyd:
You will never know the amount of self-restraint I'm having to exercise to resist replying to this post....

Teehee

quote:

Originally posted by Murgatroyd:
And I know it's bad form to return to a post after bowing out, but the following really backs up my main point:

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:


Also, thanks to her [and her crew..but mostly her because she was the one who decided to travel to the otherside of the island] Bernie ius back with Rose, Jin is back with Sun, Mike is back with Vincent and Sawyer is back with Beach Crew..well, Sawyers just back.

That's quite incorrect. It's only because the group defied Ana Lucia on at least two occasions that Sawyer is still alive. Her leadership choices would've killed him.

If the previous 4 or so days hadnt taken place then yes that may be so..but you're forgetting that if it wasnt for AL making the decision to head back to the losties camp then Sawyer would surely have died [assuming he doesnt]. See, they all have so much to thank AL for..her decision making has not only kept the 'turncoats' [Bernie and Libby] alive..but also Sawyer..at least now he's got a chance to recover what with the losties having medication at their camp.

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:


If the previous 4 or so days hadnt taken place then yes that may be so..but you're forgetting that if it wasnt for AL making the decision to head back to the losties camp then Sawyer would surely have died [assuming he doesnt]. See, they all have so much to thank AL for..her decision making has not only kept the 'turncoats' [Bernie and Libby] alive..but also Sawyer..at least now he's got a chance to recover what with the losties having medication at their camp.

'Turncoats'....turncoats...I just...turncoats?

Sorry. Don't answer that one. But anyway. Two decisions to abandon a dying man in the jungle (a. He's unconscious: let's leave him because he'll only slow us down, followed by b. I need to tie this bloke up: let's use the dying man's stretcher and leave him to conk out quietly on the floor) knowing that said decisions would kill him are wiped out by her having decided to allow Sawyer and co. to cross the island with her and her companions in the first place.

I stand in awe.

quote:

Originally posted by Murgatroyd:

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:


If the previous 4 or so days hadnt taken place then yes that may be so..but you're forgetting that if it wasnt for AL making the decision to head back to the losties camp then Sawyer would surely have died [assuming he doesnt]. See, they all have so much to thank AL for..her decision making has not only kept the 'turncoats' [Bernie and Libby] alive..but also Sawyer..at least now he's got a chance to recover what with the losties having medication at their camp.

'Turncoats'....turncoats...I just...turncoats?

Sorry. Don't answer that one. But anyway. Two decisions to abandon a dying man in the jungle (a. He's unconscious: let's leave him because he'll only slow us down, followed by b. I need to tie this bloke up: let's use the dying man's stretcher and leave him to conk out quietly on the floor) knowing that said decisions would kill him are wiped out by her having decided to allow Sawyer and co. to cross the island with her and her companions in the first place.

I stand in awe.

Fair point..I therefore accept that on two occasions she possibly jeapodised his life..although I would temper that by the fact that she had about 5 other people's lives and safety to consider and not just his. I mean, it's not as if she was being that way towards Sawyer out of spite was it..she was worried that they would get ambused by the others etc.

Also, despite her regrettable stance towards the injured Sawyer I would also like to emphasise that whilst i do accept your point..we surely have to thank her for making the initial decision to go to the losties camp. She started that "chain of events" if you will

Oh..and before I forget, i'd just like to make one final point..

It was Nathen who after the first round of abductions got them to stay on the beach..AL wanted to leave because she thought it would be safer that way. Nathen however got his way and guess what happened that night?...yep..the Others came and took 9 more of them, including the kids. Now with this in mind it can be seen that Nathen put all of those 9 people in grave danger. If they had moved from the beach as AL had earlier suggested, then they may not have been taken. This also shows why AL was the leader and NOT Nathen..because he was simply not a good judge of the situation and his error put all of those people great danger. Maybe this is also why AL was hard on him from then on!? Maybe this explains why she didnt trust his judgement or his motives..I can now understand even more now why she acted the way she did towards him. Im not saying that it excuses putting him down the pit because with hindsight it probably doesnt..but nonoetheless Nathen was a major cause of the abductions whether or not he was an 'Other'.

I just thought i'd post this because I feel that it is a vital point which all of us omitted.

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:

quote:

Originally posted by Murgatroyd:

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:


..And yet they are all still alive?

Well...4 of them are....

Well those are all the Others left behind..she did a good job keeping them alive, god knows what Badwin would have done to them otherwise

Also, thanks to her [and her crew..but mostly her because she was the one who decided to travel to the otherside of the island] Bernie ius back with Rose, Jin is back with Sun, Mike is back with Vincent and Sawyer is back with Beach Crew..well, Sawyers just back.

Ow....

Ow....seriously



I just spotted this...oh...can't breathe...oh my...I'm giggling so bad. I know this wasn't posted today...but thanks for making my day!

I might have missed something, cause I didn't see the last episode (the one on C4 on 20/6), but should we bring Nathan into this?

As far as I know, neither we nor they know whether Nathan was good or bad yet... How can we judge her fully? She may have been spot on...

quote:

Originally posted by Cherry Blossom Girl:
I might have missed something, cause I didn't see the last episode (the one on C4 on 20/6), but should we bring Nathan into this?

As far as I know, neither we nor they know whether Nathan was good or bad yet... How can we judge her fully? She may have been spot on...

Seeing as how Nathan's more than a little bit dead now, I very much doubt we're going to return to his story, but I'm confident that the point the writers were trying to make is that when you allow paranoia and a disregard for decency and human rights to take over to the extent that you torture people on speculative grounds, the results are very much not good. That point would be severely undermined by Nathan's turning out to be guilty and some would interpret that as meaning the programme was advocating torture...and I really don't want that to be the case.

quote:

Originally posted by Beach Crew:

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:

quote:

Originally posted by Murgatroyd:

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:


..And yet they are all still alive?

Well...4 of them are....

Well those are all the Others left behind..she did a good job keeping them alive, god knows what Badwin would have done to them otherwise

Also, thanks to her [and her crew..but mostly her because she was the one who decided to travel to the otherside of the island] Bernie ius back with Rose, Jin is back with Sun, Mike is back with Vincent and Sawyer is back with Beach Crew..well, Sawyers just back.

Ow....

Ow....seriously



I just spotted this...oh...can't breathe...oh my...I'm giggling so bad. I know this wasn't posted today...but thanks for making my day!

Hehe..thought i'd give you a mention babe..cant have Sawyer without Beach Crew

quote:

Originally posted by Cherry Blossom Girl:
I might have missed something, cause I didn't see the last episode (the one on C4 on 20/6), but should we bring Nathan into this?

As far as I know, neither we nor they know whether Nathan was good or bad yet... How can we judge her fully? She may have been spot on...

Yeah that's what I was saying before..Personally I still think that Nathan could well have been another Other but for the context of this debate ive let that one go. But not inside i havent..I still think he was dodgey

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:
Hehe..thought i'd give you a mention babe..cant have Sawyer without Beach Crew

Thank you. I really mean it.

I'm having such an awful day. My exams...guess who's crying again.

And then I looked through some threads, found this and laughed. For the first time in a while.

I appreciate it. Thanks.

And you're right....you CANNOT have Sawyer with Beach Crew!

quote:

Originally posted by Beach Crew:

quote:

Originally posted by KoR-evo:
Hehe..thought i'd give you a mention babe..cant have Sawyer without Beach Crew

Thank you. I really mean it.

I'm having such an awful day. My exams...guess who's crying again.

And then I looked through some threads, found this and laughed. For the first time in a while.

I appreciate it. Thanks.

And you're right....you CANNOT have Sawyer with Beach Crew!

Aww thats ok hun..im glad I could make you smile!

I hope your day gets better..and that the ultimate outcome of your exams is everything you hope it will be.

And remember, keep smiling..isnt that what Sawyer would want?

I guess he would want me to smile. I prefer when he smiles though...as that in turn makes me smile.

Thanks Roco....I hope so too. On both counts!

Wish me luck...I'm off to revise some more!

hehe..yeah i bet you like his dimples dont you ..he has got quite a nice smile actually..have to complement him on that.

Good luck hun, hope it goes well and try to take some breaks every now and then!

quote:

Originally posted by Murgatroyd:

quote:

Originally posted by Cherry Blossom Girl:
I might have missed something, cause I didn't see the last episode (the one on C4 on 20/6), but should we bring Nathan into this?

As far as I know, neither we nor they know whether Nathan was good or bad yet... How can we judge her fully? She may have been spot on...

Seeing as how Nathan's more than a little bit dead now, I very much doubt we're going to return to his story, but I'm confident that the point the writers were trying to make is that when you allow paranoia and a disregard for decency and human rights to take over to the extent that you torture people on speculative grounds, the results are very much not good. That point would be severely undermined by Nathan's turning out to be guilty and some would interpret that as meaning the programme was advocating torture...and I really don't want that to be the case.

I see your point, but after the Sawyer/Sayid thing, they've made it clear that torture is bad and wrong!

Plus, I'm hoping we'll hear more about him anyway... Some other -than may come looking for him. OR, ooh!, some people aren't sure that Ethan's dead, so maybe Nathan isn't either...

BUT that's way off topic...

Back to the point... Nathan may be bad AND Ana Lucia may have seen something that we didn't that backs it up. Remember, they could have arrested Jason but she chose to go it alone. It could be the same thing here - she saw something but instead of telling everyone she wanted him to admit it.

Maybe?