The Others self-righteousness is really pissing me off now. If Toms only line of defense against Jacks charges of kidnapping and lynching is "Glass Houses" then I don't think I'm ever going to be convinced by this "The Others are the good guys" crap.

Two things that really made my blood boil...

- The Others abduct children for their own good?! I'm sorry but I really can't see how kidnapping Walt at gunpoint, blowing up the raft that his father and two of his friends were on in front of him, putting him in rooms and making him take tests, dragging him away from his father when he is screaming for him and then returning him to his parent after Michael has been transformed (by them) from a decent man into a wretched half-crazed murderer is REALLY in Walts best interests.

- The Lostees killed your surgeon, Ben? Diddums. Well maybe you should have kept your doctor in the OR and have him heal people rather than send Ethan out to kidnap, drug and traumatise Claire...lynch, threaten and traumatise Charlie...beat Jack to a bloody pulp...hit Jin with a rock...brutally murder Sceve and threaten death on the 45 plane crash victims that you "good people" never even considered helping out. The fact that Ethan was a doctor just makes his actions even worse.

If the writers really want us to buy into "the Others are really the good guys" they have to do better than this. I mean seriously. I still think they are pretty much evil, brutal and manipulative - and now they are annoyingly self-righteous to boot.

I think the last word of your first paragraph pretty well sums up the whole episode. I think this is one episode where burning the master copy would be a good idea. :)

Well, perhaps you're right. But neither can we say the Losties are good guys either.

-- Sayid, the torturer, tortures Sawyer. Sayid tortures Ben. Is torture ever justifiable?
-- Charlie killed Ethan out of vengeance, and not justice. With justice, the Losties could have dug up some information, and deliver the proper punishment.
-- Ana-Lucia killed Shannon, even though accidentally, she had poor skills.
-- The Losties are lazy. Remember when Ben (Rose's husband, not Ben Linus) tried to get the S.O.S. signal? No one wanted to do it.
-- Sawyer had promiscuous sex with Ana-Lucia, which in turn Ana-Lucia took the gun to initially kill Ben.
-- Michael killed Ana-Lucia and Libby, without the Others even ordering that!
-- Need I go on? The Losties, too, are destructive toward the Others, even amongst themselves. What makes the Others any different?

The Losties, too, are destructive toward the Others, even amongst themselves. What makes the Others any different?

As Jack reminds us in this ep - in the very beginning when the Lostees had done NOTHING to provoke the Others, when the Lostees didn't even know the Others existed, Ethan kidnapped a pregnant Claire and hung Charlie from a tree.

THAT was the Lostees first impression of the Others. As Sayid says at the end of 'One of them' the Others have presented themselves as merciless. If the Others had come to the Lostees after the crash, wrapped them in blankets and offered them food and medical care like "good people" would the Lostees feel so hostile and destructive towards them? Have the Lostees tortured and killed Desmond because he isn't one of them? Or Danielle for that matter? The Lostees have managed to form some peaceful relations with strangers on the island (even with Dessy and Danielle being a bit loopy and threatening at times). They welcomed the tallies into their group even after the accidental shooting of Shannon by Ana Lucia. They can be civil!

The main motive for the Lostees "descrutiveness" is fear of the Others and their manipulation by the Others. If it wasn't for Ethan's initial attack on Claire and Charlie, the kidnapping of the Tallies and the bombing of the Raft then this warfare might not be happening. The Others have given the Lostees plenty of serious reasons to feel very hostile towards them.

Besides the Lostees aren't boasting that they are "the good guys".
Just because the Lostees are no angels it doesn't make the Others good.

I agree Cap. This bothers me. But what bothers me more is that there are still people out there defending the Others and think that just because "nobody's perfect" that means they have free reign to terrorize people without recourse. It's that position that I find most frightening, that people are actually convinced by this argument.

We did learn something in this ep. We learned that the Others make a moral distinction between how they treat their own people and how they treat people outside the group. Killing one of your own is punishable by death, but killing someone outside the group is a-ok. Basically, if you are not part of their group, you are of no more importance than a bug and can be murdered, kidnapped, terrorized and exploited at will. That's their moral code and yet people still defend them.

And we're not talking about rules of war here. May I say again that the Losties were plane crash victims, not an invading force.

Well...I think this season will explore why the Others do the things they do. They are supposed to be brutal and raw, but we don't know exactly why. I'm not trying to justify their actions because they did attack unprovoked, but it will be interesting to find out what their mission is and why they chose to go about it the way they did...

And I think the fact that they have a self-righteous complex too adds to the mystery of who they are and how they came to be that way. It's supposed to be awkward and weird and not make sense right now.

We did learn something in this ep. We learned that the Others make a moral distinction between how they treat their own people and how they treat people outside the group. Killing one of your own is punishable by death, but killing someone outside the group is a-ok. Basically, if you are not part of their group, you are of no more importance than a bug and can be murdered, kidnapped, terrorized and exploited at will. That's their moral code and yet people still defend them.


You are exactly right. And that's what made Tom's speech so idiotic. He's just watched Jack essentially sacrifice his life for his friends, even after he saw Kate with Sawyer. He knew they'd just threatened Sawyer with death if Jack wouldn't operate, and he knew damn well that Danny Pickett had gone to murder Sawyer as soon as Jack started the operation. And for what? Because his wife had beed killed--in self defense--by a woman who'd been on the same plane flight as Sawyer.

Tom himself had been willing to kill Kate in front of Jack and had tried to kill Michael in front of Walt,

Even if Tom thinks he's got perfectly good reasons for doing so, and even if Tom knows about terrible things Jack's done that we don't yet know about, saying that to Jack wasn't just the dumbest thing I've ever seen on LOST.

It's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on television.

Hostile, aren't we? :grin:

I don't think the writers want us to think of the others as the GOOD GUYS. The Others want the Losties to think that.

Were the viewer, the observer, we're here to watch.

Hostile, aren't we? :grin:

I love your avi, by the way. Pearls Before Swine rocks. :)

I don't think the writers want us to think of the others as the GOOD GUYS. The Others want the Losties to think that.

Were the viewer, the observer, we're here to watch.


Good point, but all the more befuddling if true. Their conduct towards the Losties since Day One has been no way to endear themselves to them or make themselves understood. As the victims of the crimes, it will be even harder for the Losties to see their side as it is for us.

Well, perhaps you're right. But neither can we say the Losties are good guys either.

-- Sawyer had promiscuous sex with Ana-Lucia,


You really think promiscuous sex makes someone a bad person?? did I just time travel to the 20's??

I think Lost has a lot to do with PERSPECTIVE. Evey season opens with someone new's perspective. First it was the Losties, then the Hatch and now the others. I think the others THINK they are good and justified. They THINK that kidnapping, murdering, brain washing, whatever serves a purpose, the greater good, means to an end, etc.

I think Lost has a lot to do with PERSPECTIVE. Evey season opens with someone new's perspective. First it was the Losties, then the Hatch and now the others. I think the others THINK they are good and justified. They THINK that kidnapping, murdering, brain washing, whatever serves a purpose, the greater good, means to an end, etc.

I have no doubt that the Others have justifications for what they do. But for Tom to act shocked and offended that Jack would think they were going to kill him now that they were finished with him is simply absurd. He couldn't possibly be that stupid.

Let's review:

1) Tom himself tried to kill Michael in front of Walt.
2) Tom himself was ready to kill Kate in front of Jack.
3) In Lost Moment #7 Tom said to Jack, "You do understand the only reason you're still alive right now is because we need you to do this operation."
4) Tom knows damn well that they threatened Sawyer's life to try and get Jack to do the operation. And it's quite clear they were ready to do the same with Kate once they'd proved they were serious with Sawyer.
5) Tom knows damn well (by the time he said that to Jack) that Pickett was going to kill Sawyer for something Sawyer had nothing to do with.

I could go on and on, but is there any need?

But for Tom to act shocked and offended that Jack would think they were going to kill him now that they were finished with him is simply absurd. He couldn't possibly be that stupid.

We still have no concrete evidence that Ethan killed Sceve, or that he wasn't acting against orders because he had become obsessed with Claire. Pickett was also acting completely deranged. Other than that, the Others have never been known to murder, and Ben said "we are not killers."

Tom himself tried to kill Michael in front of Walt.

No, first, Tom was not the one who fired, and he was trying to take Walt peacefully. Furthermore, he prevented others from shooting at Michael in Three Minutes.

Tom himself was ready to kill Kate in front of Jack.

There is no way of knowing whether he would have followed through on the threat. And when it comes to following through on threats, the Losties beat the Others easily with the regular torture sessions.

In Lost Moment #7 Tom said to Jack, "You do understand the only reason you're still alive right now is because we need you to do this operation."

Another threat that has no meaning unless carried out, even if it were in the actual episode and not on the cutting room floor. Jack threatened to let Ben die.

We still have no concrete evidence that Ethan killed Sceve, or that he wasn't acting against orders because he had become obsessed with Claire.
It would be a coincidence of mammoth proportions if the murderer were not the person who had just that day threatened to murder the survivors one by one, until he got his way. Presumably Ethan also hung Charlie - attempted murder - and that was before he really knew Claire.

Other than that, the Others have never been known to murder

Goodwin. And Ben himself would have killed Ana-Lucia if Locke hadn't stopped him.

Ben said "we are not killers."

He also said his name was 'Henry Gale' and that he didn't push the button.


No, first, Tom was not the one who fired, and he was trying to take Walt peacefully.

Then why bring guns and a do-it-yourself arson kit on the trip? Just in case the intended kidnapee's father might object? Tom could have told his goons at least not to fire the raft, as there was no way Michael & co. could have caught up to a motorboat.

Furthermore, he prevented others from shooting at Michael in Three Minutes.

Didn't they need him to infiltrate the survivors' camp, though?

I don't think the writers are trying to make us think that the Others are the "good guys." I think that's what the Others are trying to make the Losties think, but I'm pretty sure we aren't meant to like them.

We still have no concrete evidence that Ethan killed Sceve, or that he wasn't acting against orders because he had become obsessed with Claire. Pickett was also acting completely deranged. Other than that, the Others have never been known to murder, and Ben said "we are not killers."

He threatened to, and a day had passed. You think he was bluffing? And what do you call what Goodwin did to Nathan? A neck massage?

No, first, Tom was not the one who fired, and he was trying to take Walt peacefully. Furthermore, he prevented others from shooting at Michael in Three Minutes.Tom was part of the group that did it. Did he do anything to stop it? And I'm not talking about the shooting as the attempted murder, but the utterly unnecessary firebombing of the raft in shark-infested waters.

There is no way of knowing whether he would have followed through on the threat. And when it comes to following through on threats, the Losties beat the Others easily with the regular torture sessions.Are you really going to argue that he was bluffing? And what exactly do you think happened to Kate to put those marks on her wrists? She was crying. Do you think she was riding the Tilt-a-Whirl?

Another threat that has no meaning unless carried out, even if it were in the actual episode and not on the cutting room floor. Jack threatened to let Ben die.Again, are you really going to argue that he was bluffing? And since ABC broadcast it in prime time, I think we can take it as canon. And whether or not you believe it, it was a DIRECT contradiction of what he said later. He told Jack the only reason Jack was still alive was because they needed him to operate on Ben. Then, when Jack suggests they're going to kill him because they don't need him any more, Tom says, what kind of people do think we are?

How is that not absurd?

I'm not going to defend the Others' actions, but in a way, Tom is right. Jack was being self-righteous when he was listing the Others' dirty deeds. The Losties have been involved in their fair share of poor decisions that don't exactly frame themselves in a positive light.

What it boils down to is this: The Losties are on the Others' turf. It is "their island." As a result, they either play by their rules or suffer the consequences (of which there have been many). Right or wrong, that is the law of the jungle.

I'm not going to defend the Others' actions, but in a way, Tom is right. Jack was being self-righteous when he was listing the Others' dirty deeds. The Losties have been involved in their fair share of poor decisions that don't exactly frame themselves in a positive light.

What it boils down to is this: The Losties are on the Others' turf. It is "their island." As a result, they either play by their rules or suffer the consequences (of which there have been many). Right or wrong, that is the law of the jungle.

I'm still on Jacks side here. The crimes Jack listed - Claires kidnap, Charlies hanging and the Tallies abductions - were all examples of the Others attacking them first. They were examples of the Lostees being the innocent party. If the Lostees are doing bad things and making poor descisions then maybe its because they all went through the huge trauma of a plane crash only to be terrorised by the islands natives. The Lostees didn't choose to come to the island. The majority of them would love to leave and go home, but they are marooned. The Others can't justify abusing and victimising people who are stuck on their island with no way of escaping themselves.

You really think promiscuous sex makes someone a bad person?? did I just time travel to the 20's??

I can understand why that is on the list. The sexual connection between Sawyer and Ana Lucia was IMO shown as cold, selfish, manipulative, and having a large degree of cruelty (i.e. the way Ana Lucia speaks to Sawyer when it's over - it led me to think that Ana Lucia had sex with Sawyer principally to get the gun.) I don't think the writers were trying to make a moral point, per se, but rather were showing us a very clear principle of characterization - how you have sex really reflects your underlying personality and character.

Sex between Jin and Sun, between Rose and Bernard, between Sayid and Shannon - while not shown explicitly - would not have had the same emotional "tone.". Nor would sex between Hurley and Libby, had it happened.

Further, Ana Lucia and Sawyer's sex turns out to be lethal for both herself and Libby, as Michael ends up killing both women with the gun she lifted from Sawyer.

So in the event of making a naughty/nice list for the Losties, I'd put the Sawyer / Ana Lucia tryst at the top.

It would be a coincidence of mammoth proportions if the murderer were not the person who had just that day threatened to murder the survivors one by one, until he got his way. Presumably Ethan also hung Charlie - attempted murder - and that was before he really knew Claire.

I'm of the belief that there is a lot more to those first season events that we have yet to learn.

Tom was part of the group that did it. Did he do anything to stop it? And I'm not talking about the shooting as the attempted murder, but the utterly unnecessary firebombing of the raft in shark-infested waters.

Meh, I would have done the same. Honestly I refuse to pass judgement until I know more about the Others. I think there are some circumstances under which what they did on the boat may have been perfectly acceptable.

Again, are you really going to argue that he was bluffing? And since ABC broadcast it in prime time, I think we can take it as canon. And whether or not you believe it, it was a DIRECT contradiction of what he said later. He told Jack the only reason Jack was still alive was because they needed him to operate on Ben. Then, when Jack suggests they're going to kill him because they don't need him any more, Tom says, what kind of people do think we are?

How is that not absurd?

It's not absurd because Jack followed through with fixing Ben. If he had let Ben die, I think they would have killed him. Since he showed himself to follow through on his commitments, I think they decided to let him live.

I can understand why that is on the list. The sexual connection between Sawyer and Ana Lucia was IMO shown as cold, selfish, manipulative, and having a large degree of cruelty (i.e. the way Ana Lucia speaks to Sawyer when it's over - it led me to think that Ana Lucia had sex with Sawyer principally to get the gun.) I don't think the writers were trying to make a moral point, per se, but rather were showing us a very clear principle of characterization - how you have sex really reflects your underlying personality and character.
I think what you're saying is that it's not the promiscuous sex that makes them 'bad' people, but that 'bad' people - and I prefer 'flawed' - tend to engage in sex we would call 'promiscuous' by virtue of the flaws in their personality. OK, I can certainly buy why the Others would think this way.

By the way, welcome to the Fuselage, I've been enjoying your posts. I think we've got a rookie to keep an eye on here. ;)

I'm of the belief that there is a lot more to those first season events that we have yet to learn.
Certainly could be. I'll be impressed if the writers could plausibly explain those events so that the Others come out smelling like roses, though.


Meh, I would have done the same.
:shock1:

Honestly I refuse to pass judgement until I know more about the Others. I think there are some circumstances under which what they did on the boat may have been perfectly acceptable.

Such as?

I flatly disagree with you here. Kidnapping a child from his father's arms and trying to kill innocent people is never "perfectly acceptable". Even if you could convince me that they absolutely had to have Walt, there must have been a better way of going about it.

The Others self-righteousness is really pissing me off now. If Toms only line of defense against Jacks charges of kidnapping and lynching is "Glass Houses" then I don't think I'm ever going to be convinced by this "The Others are the good guys" crap.

Two things that really made my blood boil...




Hey Cappy, look over here...

It's not about the Others being "good guys". It's about them Believing that they are. That's all. You called them "self-righteous"... that's absolutely correct. They believe themselves to be correct and everyone else wrong. That's not to say that WE are supposed to agree with them though.

Wha it's beginning to look like with them is they punish the "bad" as they see fit... if you mess up you're put in a cage, if you try to escape, they brainwash you with a video, if you kill then they put you to death. The days of "maybe the Others are just misundersstood" are long gone.

I can understand why that is on the list. The sexual connection between Sawyer and Ana Lucia was IMO shown as cold, selfish, manipulative, and having a large degree of cruelty (i.e. the way Ana Lucia speaks to Sawyer when it's over - it led me to think that Ana Lucia had sex with Sawyer principally to get the gun.) I don't think the writers were trying to make a moral point, per se, but rather were showing us a very clear principle of characterization - how you have sex really reflects your underlying personality and character.

Sex between Jin and Sun, between Rose and Bernard, between Sayid and Shannon - while not shown explicitly - would not have had the same emotional "tone.". Nor would sex between Hurley and Libby, had it happened.

Further, Ana Lucia and Sawyer's sex turns out to be lethal for both herself and Libby, as Michael ends up killing both women with the gun she lifted from Sawyer.

So in the event of making a naughty/nice list for the Losties, I'd put the Sawyer / Ana Lucia tryst at the top.

Your right it didnt turn out good for anyone but I dont know that there is a correlation between sawyer and ana's creek sex and the fact that Michael shot her. She got shot because she took a gun to kill Ben..and then Michael did something that would belong at the top of the list, her murdered her and libby. If Anna's guilty of anything its using Sawyer (althought I doubt he was offended), people use people in all kinds of ways and I dont know that her using sex as a means to an end is any worse than any other method of using someone. I understand people have hang ups with sex but to put their little tryst at the top of a list of very bad behavior doesnt seem fair. All the violent behavior has to at least come first, you gotta give me that (well you dont have to but, I wish you would)
I mean come on, Michael killing Ana and libby, Charlie and Sawyer attacking Sun, Jack and Sayid torturing Sawyer , Locke attacking Boone, those have to be tops.

Besides the Lostees aren't boasting that they are "the good guys".
Just because the Lostees are no angels it doesn't make the Others good.
But if the others are Jonestown-like fanatics, they will believe that they really are the good guys, no matter what they do.

I wouldn't be surprised to see another "room 23" scene someday where the phrase
"We are the GOOD GUYS!We are the GOOD GUYS!We are the GOOD GUYS!..."
is flashed on the screen over and over before some helpless inductee.

When I mentioned that in the list (post #2 of this thread) about Ana-Lucia having promiscuous sex with Sawyer, I understood the possibly controversial statement I made. But here it is, if you believe sex without love is harmful, then most likely you would think the same with the incident between Sawyer and Ana-Lucia.

Your right it didnt turn out good for anyone but I dont know that there is a correlation between sawyer and ana's creek sex and the fact that Michael shot her. She got shot because she took a gun to kill Ben..and then Michael did something that would belong at the top of the list, her murdered her and libby. If Anna's guilty of anything its using Sawyer (althought I doubt he was offended), people use people in all kinds of ways and I dont know that her using sex as a means to an end is any worse than any other method of using someone.

Yes, there is a big correlation with the sex between Ana-Lucia and Sawyer, it's that she used him to take the gun! What happened next? She intended to use the gun to murder Ben. Even though her conscience prevented her from murdering, she faced consequences for the intent to kill Ben. Michael then stepped in and killed her. I'm not saying Michael is exempt from the murder, what I'm saying is, is that one bad thing leads to the other.

When writers script tragedy, it begins with revenge, and then a screw-up. I think when writers demontrate this, they might be making moral statements as well. In this case, abusive sex led to Ana-Lucia's own death.

+++++++++++

In regards to the Others (I hope we get a real name soon, because I think the term is a little outdated (http://thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=70294)), I think they're good/bad depending on each character. I mean, what about Karl? Or what about Alex?

And here's a bomb... What about Jack? What if he shifts his leadership from the Losties to the Others? Would that make Jack bad? The question is, what makes the Others bad - as a group, or a number of certain individuals?

I think the biggest difference between the short-comings of the Losties and the Others is this; the Losties feel remorse for their wrong-doings, the Others defend them.

Sayid was very remorseful after torturing Sawyer, and left the camp to try and atone. He even felt some remorse at torturing Ben, but because he intuitively knew Ben was one of the Others, it was not complete remorse. Michael felt remorse for his actions in order to get Walt back. He was manipulated, but never enjoyed or wanted to do what he did. Sun felt remorse for shooting a person in self-defense.

The Others, however, never show remorse for their actions, and always claim to be walking the high road. Ethan was not sorry for what he did to Sceve, Claire, Charlie, or Jack. Goodwin was not sorry for killing Nathan and misleading the Tail-folks. Ben was not sorry for lying to the Losties and manipulating them, or any of the things he did after being freed. Tom & co. felt no remorse for firebombing a raft full of people and leaving them for dead in the middle of the ocean. Even Juliet shows no remorse for killing Pickett.

Either the Others have come to terms with what they are, or they honestly don't believe they can do wrong. Either way, they aren't "good people, and sure as hell aren't making great strides to be better. The Losties at least seem to make efforts to atone and not repeat their mistakes or failures (Charlie, anyone?).

When I mentioned that in the list (post #2 of this thread) about Ana-Lucia having promiscuous sex with Sawyer, I understood the possibly controversial statement I made. But here it is, if you believe sex without love is harmful, then most likely you would think the same with the incident between Sawyer and Ana-Lucia.



Yes, there is a big correlation with the sex between Ana-Lucia and Sawyer, it's that she used him to take the gun! What happened next? She intended to use the gun to murder Ben. Even though her conscience prevented her from murdering, she faced consequences for the intent to kill Ben. Michael then stepped in and killed her. I'm not saying Michael is exempt from the murder, what I'm saying is, is that one bad thing leads to the other.

When writers script tragedy, it begins with revenge, and then a screw-up. I think when writers demontrate this, they might be making moral statements as well. In this case, abusive sex led to Ana-Lucia's own death.

?

I dont think sex without love is bad, in fact it can be theraputic, opinions vary. And I dont agree about the correlation, I still say she died because Michael killed her, he may have killed her with a knife if thats what he had to do to free Ben. I see your point because she got the gun from Sawyer but what if she just flirted with Lostie X and then took his gun, would the flirting be the reason for her death? Or what if she won the gun in a poker game, would gambling be the cause of her death? It seems to me that your trying ot equate what you consider sin as the reason for the death. As if the sin somehow caused the world to conspire against her. But no matter how you rationalize her death in the end in all cases no matter what your view point the ACTUAL cause of her death was Michael. He had to make a choice to kill her, he had his reasons but still it was his conscience choice to kill her and libby for the sake of his son. But opinions vary and we're all entitled to our own. Good Day.

There's more and more of these things coming up from the writers where you think 'hang on, that just doesn't make sense'. It's a matter of waiting and seeing what the explanation is. It's interesting because it's almost like a matter of faith - in the writers. I personally think there is the chance that they aren't going to explain everything and that in the end it will be possible to go back through some of the episodes and saying 'well that just doesn't fit with the explanation'. But on the other hand, if they have planned it all carefully, there may very well be a valid explanation for it.

However, Tom is delusional if he thinks Jack is just as 'dirty' as the people who have him held hostage. As other people have said, the Lostees only did anything negative to the Others once they had been attacked. I imagine that Tom was probably referring to how they held Ben hostage. But Ben wouldn't have been treated that way if it wasn't for everything else that had happened - they had a right to be suspicious after what Ethan did. Even so, Jack didn't torture Ben and was opposed to it.

Maybe Tom has been misled about Jack and the Lostees. Maybe the people in charge have told them something about them which makes them feel better about terrorizing them.

OK-- first of all, I want you to know I'm playing the Other's advocate here because I love them and they just don't get enough representation. It's all in the spirit of friendly debate.

So, Ram, you asked me to envision a scenario that could justify the Others' actions. Well this fits into my bigger theory of the island. And it involves a lot of "greater good" type thinking, because in the end, if it involves saving the human race, I don't get all choked up about a few kidnapped kids and a couple of viscious murders. :bigrinan:

I think the island is a unique central metaphysical hub of the planet Earth. It mysteriously draws entities to it over time, including whatever civilization built the four-toed statue, the Black Rock, Eko's drug plane, Dharma, Desmond and so on. This is also why it is impossible to leave. I believe either Dharma or the group immediately after them that comprises the Others discovered this through their research. They were looking for a way to counteract the Valenzetti equation which would ultimately lead to the destruction of mankind.

They discovered that the island is, in fact, a potential utopia and last refuge for humanity because of its unique properties. Since then, their objective has been to recruit individuals who would be a part of their new civilization. Through Dharma's research on parapsychology, they also became able to identify and enhance the abilities of people with extra-sensory powers, who represent the next stage of evolution. This is why they wanted Walt.

They see the presence of the Losties as an unwelcome element in their plan to create a utopia. For the greater good, they have tried to keep the Losties from discovering who they really are.

To me, such a prospect justifies some of the acts of violence they have committed that seem minor by comparison. I do believe there are rogue elements in the Others, such as Pickett and possibly Ethan. SO there's one theory that could possibly make the Others look better.

No, first, Tom was not the one who fired, and he was trying to take Walt peacefully. Furthermore, he prevented others from shooting at Michael in Three Minutes.

There is no way of knowing whether he would have followed through on the threat. And when it comes to following through on threats, the Losties beat the Others easily with the regular torture sessions.


Another threat that has no meaning unless carried out, even if it were in the actual episode and not on the cutting room floor. Jack threatened to let Ben die.

I keep seeing these defenses of things the Others did which revolve around the viewer not knowing for sure if something was done, or that a threat not carried out is not that bad...

Its all about preception. If you threaten someone with death, they have no way of knowing that you are just kidding! That is the whole point of the threat, to make the person think you might do it!

Look at it another way. What have the Others done to the Losties to show that they are good people? I see no action that they have done that can be preceived by the Losties as nice!

Tom wanted to peacefully kidnap Michael's son??? :ohwell: How can anyone be defending that action as not that bad? As a parent it is the most horrific thing I could imagine to have my child taken away screaming!!!! I don't care if I am living in the middle of a war zone, if someone came up to me and pulled out a gun and ripped my child out of my arms I would be destroyed! You can show me til your blue in the face that the people that took my child were trying to save their life, it doesn't justify how they did it!

Sawyer, Kate, Sayid, Anna Lucia have killed people, but what exactly did Claire, Charlie, Steve, Michael, or most importantly Walt do to justify what was done to them? We have had NOTHING in their flashbacks to date that justify what happened to them! They may have a reason for their own purposes, Claire's baby or Michael's son, but to say that they deserve what happened to them because Sawyer killed some one or :eek2: "they are lazy"...!!!????

That is where I think TPTB are making the biggest mistake. They have given us 2 1/2 seasons of some really horrible actions by the Others, and have represented them as being all powerful, shady, and unemotional. I just have this feeling that it will be revealed that the Others have some information about the future in which all the Losties do some really horrible things and so feel justified in not treating them nicely. But it can't be what they have already done, cause nothing they have shown us so far justifies what they are doing now.

Whatever they come up with will have to turn the show 180 degrees, and it will seem false cause they gave no hint of it other than the smugness of the Others!

OK-- first of all, I want you to know I'm playing the Other's advocate here because I love them and they just don't get enough representation. It's all in the spirit of friendly debate.
Absolutely. And for the record, I love 'em too - as the megalomaniacal, self-delusional villains of the piece. Ben's my favorite character, and Tom and some others (no pun intended) add a lot to the show, too.

I think the island is a unique central metaphysical hub of the planet Earth. It mysteriously draws entities to it over time, including whatever civilization built the four-toed statue, the Black Rock, Eko's drug plane, Dharma, Desmond and so on. This is also why it is impossible to leave. I believe either Dharma or the group immediately after them that comprises the Others discovered this through their research. They were looking for a way to counteract the Valenzetti equation which would ultimately lead to the destruction of mankind.
Interesting. I don't know "Valenzetti equation", though, that must be a "Lost Experience" element. I'm not playing and I shouldn't have to. But I cannot think of an example of anyone having left the island, so you're on to something there. Although someone must fly over it to make the supply drops. Ethan's the only one who maybe came and went, although we saw him in Miami 3 years ago, and it certainly could have been a one-way trip for him, too. Which may explain why he was so cranky in Season 1! :)

I'm with you so far. Let's continue.

They discovered that the island is, in fact, a potential utopia and last refuge for humanity because of its unique properties. Since then, their objective has been to recruit individuals who would be a part of their new civilization. Through Dharma's research on parapsychology, they also became able to identify and enhance the abilities of people with extra-sensory powers, who represent the next stage of evolution. This is why they wanted Walt.
OK, that would be a satisfying development, but you have to posit basically the worst thing conceivable to make the Others' behavior at all sympathetic. I also think that if we find out that the island is basically Heaven instead of Hell, it changes the dynamic of the show in an uncomfortable way. I go back to Ben's dialogue last year, "God doesn't know where we are. He can't see this place any more than anyone else can." That made it sound like some place forsaken, rather than a new Eden.

And I still say that even if Walt represents the next stage of evolution, maybe leaving his father and friends for dead isn't the best way to get him on board.

They see the presence of the Losties as an unwelcome element in their plan to create a utopia. For the greater good, they have tried to keep the Losties from discovering who they really are.
If they're an "unwelcome element", why not just eliminate them? Right, because they're "not killers", so says Ben. Except when they are. If "the greater good" demands the deaths of Michael, Sawyer, Jin, Nathan, Charlie, etc., why not all of them?

And would they be less "welcome" in a utopia than, say, Pickett? I can see your thinking here - it's tough to assimilate 40+ people you know nothing about - hence the lists. "Good" in this case meaning "people we think we can work with". In that scenario, I can see why Ben would consider Locke "one of the good ones", and why Jack wouldn't be on the list, and of course children are infinitely malleable.

OK, you've sold me on this point.

To me, such a prospect justifies some of the acts of violence they have committed that seem minor by comparison. I do believe there are rogue elements in the Others, such as Pickett and possibly Ethan. SO there's one theory that could possibly make the Others look better.
Pragmatic utopians? Desperately trying to keep the flame of humanity alive, and tragically losing their souls in the process? It's an interesting angle. I think the problem I have is that the Others seem to enjoy their work a little too much. Ethan, Pickett, and Goodwin, for example, showed no remorse for their actions, the former two in particular being sadistic buggers. The writers set these individuals up as nasty threatening people, but if they want us to believe the Others as a whole are somehow "pure", you have to dismiss more and more as the work of 'rogue elements'.

In the end, I have no doubt that there will be an explanation for the Others' crimes, and it will not be wholly sinister. I guess at that point, the fans will have to debate whether whatever goal they're pursuing is worth the evil they have done. Good stuff.

Yeah, well, you know, I dig it. Obviously there are some spots where the theory could use some tweaking.

Ben -"We're the good guys, Jack."
Jack -"Well, what about that time Ethan brutally murdered a competely innocent bystander, following up on a threat of mass murder in order to keep hostage of a pregnant woman?"
Ben -"Oh, he stubbed his toe that day, but he really was a swell guy!"

And I think Othersville may suffer the same fate as San Francisco did in South Park.

Ben -"We're the good guys, Jack."
Jack -"Well, what about that time Ethan brutally murdered a competely innocent bystander, following up on a threat of mass murder in order to keep hostage of a pregnant woman?"
Ben -"Oh, he stubbed his toe that day, but he really was a swell guy!"

And I think Othersville may suffer the same fate as San Francisco did in South Park.

LMAO! I really think the Others need to erm...define "good".

Ben -"We're the good guys, Jack."
Jack -"Well, what about that time Ethan brutally murdered a competely innocent bystander, following up on a threat of mass murder in order to keep hostage of a pregnant woman?"
Ben -"Oh, he stubbed his toe that day, but he really was a swell guy!"

And I think Othersville may suffer the same fate as San Francisco did in South Park.


More likely:

Ben: "We're the good guys Jack."
Jack: "Well, what about that time Ethan brutally murdered a competely innocent bystander, following up on a threat of mass murder in order to keep hostage of a pregnant woman?"
Ben: smiling "How much do you really know about your fellow survivors? You were all killers, con men, torturers... Have you ever considered that the world might be Better fi all of you did not exist?"

More likely:

Ben: "We're the good guys Jack."
Jack: "Well, what about that time Ethan brutally murdered a competely innocent bystander, following up on a threat of mass murder in order to keep hostage of a pregnant woman?"
Ben: smiling "How much do you really know about your fellow survivors? You were all killers, con men, torturers... Have you ever considered that the world might be Better fi all of you did not exist?"

And how well does Ben know his fellow Otherineans? Both Goodwin and Ethan killed, Pickett was immediately about to, and Ben himself seemed pretty damn foccused on choking Ana to death.

And as for con-men - well, by their own admission, they're much better. And we know that. Henry Gale (Ben himself!), the Micheal incident, Zeke's Beard, etc.

And the Brainwashing room doesn't seem too far off of torture to me.

And how well does Ben know his fellow Otherineans? Both Goodwin and Ethan killed, Pickett was immediately about to, and Ben himself seemed pretty damn foccused on choking Ana to death.


GUYS... the Others will be fine with killing Losties because to them they are Evil. Ridding the world of evil, in the mind of a person who believes they are just, is not a Bad thing. That's the logic that they'll use to excuse the killings.

Are the Others really good? No, but they believe that they are.

Yes, I know, I think it's universally understood that they think they're good. It's been stated by them like a dozen times in the show.

But if their definition of good is "Not Killing, Not Conning, Not Torturing", then they can't possibly have logical minds, as they do all of those things in excess.

The only way, in my mind, that they can possibly think they are doing good, is that they have an 'ulterior motive', and not just 'those guys are evil'.

Yes, I know, I think that's universally understood.

But if their logic of good = "Not Killing, Not Conning, Not Torturing", then they can't possibly have logical minds when they do all of those thigns in excess.



I'm gonna try one more time...

The Others feel that they can kill the Losties because they consider the Losties to be evil. In their eyes, killing a Lostie may even Help the world, so it's not a Bad thing. The Losties... they kill "innocent" people.

Looking back, since "The Other 48 Days", all the way up until this past episode, we're starting to see the Others' rules. The first night they captured all of the children (they haven't killed or anything yet) and anyone else they deemed to be "good". All that they left behind was the "evil"... the 'trash" basically. Benry mentioned that Goodwin thought that Ana Lucia could be redeemed, that apparently means that if they listened to Goodwin, they would have captured her, put her in that chair that Karl was in and try to get her to be a "good" person. If a person does something Really bad, they get branded. If they murder One Of Their Own, then they are put to death.

They have rules, a a sheriff to enforce the rules, and by following them, they consider themselves to be "good" and The Losties to be "evil" (or maybe "lost") and have no problem killing or torturing them because the less evil in the world the better.

No, first, Tom was not the one who fired, and he was trying to take Walt peacefully. Furthermore, he prevented others from shooting at Michael in Three Minutes.:confused: :eek2:

That's the most ironic, contradictory statement I've read here yet. Trying to kidnap Walt peacefully? No such thing as a peacefull armed abduction of a child where a parent would not try to stop it by any means necessary. Do you think Michael should have said oh well they're trying to pull this off without a hitch, so I won't put up a fight. Hell, let Walt go, the Other's must know what's best for him. He's better off & after the way they've treated us in the past, I know he won't be harmed!

I'm gonna try one more time...

The Others feel that they can kill the Losties because they consider the Losties to be evil. In their eyes, killing a Lostie may even Help the world, so it's not a Bad thing. The Losties... they kill "innocent" people.

Looking back, since "The Other 48 Days", all the way up until this past episode, we're starting to see the Others' rules. The first night they captured all of the children (they haven't killed or anything yet) and anyone else they deemed to be "good". All that they left behind was the "evil"... the 'trash" basically. Benry mentioned that Goodwin thought that Ana Lucia could be redeemed, that apparently means that if they listened to Goodwin, they would have captured her, put her in that chair that Karl was in and try to get her to be a "good" person. If a person does something Really bad, they get branded. If they murder One Of Their Own, then they are put to death.

They have rules, a a sheriff to enforce the rules, and by following them, they consider themselves to be "good" and The Losties to be "evil" (or maybe "lost") and have no problem killing or torturing them because the less evil in the world the better.So the Others believe they are good because they are self righteous cult members who have their own code of conduct and see stomping out non-cultist Lostees as equivalent to stomping out cockroaches? Sounds good to me - but I think that makes them rather delusional . ;) They haven't won my sympathy yet, at least as a group, I kind of like Alex and can feel some sympathy for Julliette - possibly because they are attractive but hey thats part of my code of fandom so it's valid.:biggrin:

So the Others believe they are good because they are self righteous cult members who have their own code of conduct and see stomping out non-cultist Lostees as equivalent to stomping out cockroaches? Sounds good to me - but I think that makes them rather delusional .

I absolutely agree.

They haven't won my sympathy yet, at least as a group, I kind of like Alex and can feel some sympathy for Julliette - possibly because they are attractive but hey thats part of my code of fandom so it's valid.:biggrin:

Cradle-robber. :)

But, TPTB haven't been showing them in a sympathetic light lately (brainwashing, trying to put Juliet to death, branding her) so I think that they have decided that the "sympathy" is out the window.

Cradle-robber. :)

But, TPTB haven't been showing them in a sympathetic light lately (brainwashing, trying to put Juliet to death, branding her) so I think that they have decided that the "sympathy" is out the window.I will have to re-read some of your prior posts. I didn't realise you were such a fan of understatement. ;)

I think what you're saying is that it's not the promiscuous sex that makes them 'bad' people, but that 'bad' people - and I prefer 'flawed' - tend to engage in sex we would call 'promiscuous' by virtue of the flaws in their personality. OK, I can certainly buy why the Others would think this way.

By the way, welcome to the Fuselage, I've been enjoying your posts. I think we've got a rookie to keep an eye on here. ;)

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed them.

I need to drop in here more often, though - I'm really behind.

One thing about The Others I've observed so far - they act like "true believers" (the phrase was used by writer Erik Hoffer in a book by the same name.) True believers are fundamentally not rational - they think that they are perfect; that everyone else is "the enemy," and anything they do to the "unbelievers" is justified.

RodimusBen, I think that's a fascinating idea, of The Island being "the metaphysical hub of the Earth." The ancient Greeks believed that Delphi was the "navel" of the world - sort of the same idea. That's why the Oracle there was able to tell the future. (The laurel leaves she chewed didn't hurt either.)

This isn't a criticism here - just an observation - but one reason I think some of this show is a mystery to people is because there has been more focus on "clues" as opposed to "themes." I'm new and haven't found my way through all the vast #s of posts here, so just tell the n00b to shut it if I'm off here. However, I haven't found too many thematic discussions, and that's why this thread is fun. It may be that a closer look at some of the show's themes might make the show make more sense.

One theme I see with The Others vs. the Losties is that you have two radically different kinds of ways of life. The Others are based on force - on a kind of "dogma" if you will (even if we don't know exactly what it is yet.) To me they seem cultish and obsessed.

The Losties, OTOH, are basically a free society, libertarian almost. No one really seems to be able to force anyone else to do anything (Bernard attempting to build the SOS markers comes to mind.) Jack was "leader" in S1 and S2, but largely by default - and because he was the "medicine man." No one attempts to structure an economy or force people to live anywhere.

The Tailies either have died, been kidnapped by the Others, or incorporated into the Losties (Bernard.) They essentially seemed to be a brutal dictatorship - I don't say that in a spirit of blame; they did what they felt they had in order to survive.

But this is where RodimusBen's idea comes in - not only is the Island perhaps the "navel" of the world, but also perhaps in some ways an "amplifier." Everything becomes "more" of what it is. There's the healing, yes, but that's not what I'm focusing on now. Rather, perhaps the Island brings out the worst - or the best - in people, depending on what they bring to The Island. IOW, it's their own personality / predispositions / weaknesses / fears / loves that get amplified - and thus there's a kind of sorting out process going on.

The Others would call this "picking the Good people from the Bad people." Perhaps their tendency to always see things in black/white categories (good/bad, with us/against us, people deserving to live in a house/those who deserve to live in a cage; people/animals) is what they brought to the Island, and consequently it forms a major organizing principle of their society.

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed them.

I need to drop in here more often, though - I'm really behind.

One thing about The Others I've observed so far - they act like "true believers" (the phrase was used by writer Erik Hoffer in a book by the same name.) True believers are fundamentally not rational - they think that they are perfect; that everyone else is "the enemy," and anything they do to the "unbelievers" is justified.

RodimusBen, I think that's a fascinating idea, of The Island being "the metaphysical hub of the Earth." The ancient Greeks believed that Delphi was the "navel" of the world - sort of the same idea. That's why the Oracle there was able to tell the future. (The laurel leaves she chewed didn't hurt either.)

This isn't a criticism here - just an observation - but one reason I think some of this show is a mystery to people is because there has been more focus on "clues" as opposed to "themes." I'm new and haven't found my way through all the vast #s of posts here, so just tell the n00b to shut it if I'm off here. However, I haven't found too many thematic discussions, and that's why this thread is fun. It may be that a closer look at some of the show's themes might make the show make more sense.

One theme I see with The Others vs. the Losties is that you have two radically different kinds of ways of life. The Others are based on force - on a kind of "dogma" if you will (even if we don't know exactly what it is yet.) To me they seem cultish and obsessed.

The Losties, OTOH, are basically a free society, libertarian almost. No one really seems to be able to force anyone else to do anything (Bernard attempting to build the SOS markers comes to mind.) Jack was "leader" in S1 and S2, but largely by default - and because he was the "medicine man." No one attempts to structure an economy or force people to live anywhere.

The Tailies either have died, been kidnapped by the Others, or incorporated into the Losties (Bernard.) They essentially seemed to be a brutal dictatorship - I don't say that in a spirit of blame; they did what they felt they had in order to survive.

But this is where RodimusBen's idea comes in - not only is the Island perhaps the "navel" of the world, but also perhaps in some ways an "amplifier." Everything becomes "more" of what it is. There's the healing, yes, but that's not what I'm focusing on now. Rather, perhaps the Island brings out the worst - or the best - in people, depending on what they bring to The Island. IOW, it's their own personality / predispositions / weaknesses / fears / loves that get amplified - and thus there's a kind of sorting out process going on.

The Others would call this "picking the Good people from the Bad people." Perhaps their tendency to always see things in black/white categories (good/bad, with us/against us, people deserving to live in a house/those who deserve to live in a cage; people/animals) is what they brought to the Island, and consequently it forms a major organizing principle of their society.

Well said, mate. Couldn't have said it better myself. I, too, notice there are many things here at the Fuselage which focus too much on the details, and not on the whole scheme. And hey, there may be value in it! But by focusing so much on the trees, you won't see the forest.

I notice too, that we should focus on the perspective of the different groups. Just like I am interested in different perspectives on Lost, it's also interesting how religious groups call each other names because of their perspective. I may not agree with the perspective (and one in a while, I'm in a flat-out disagreement, such as terrorism), I am at least in understanding.

Sometimes I think there is too much name calling because of misunderstanding.

Ah, this old chestnut, The Others are EEEVVVVIIIILLLLL thread, part 2,098,472.

Ben: And here we go again........

I'll skip the usual "PROVE Ethan strung up Charlie" stuff, because not one person on this board can do so, not a single person, and I'll refrain from typing out the Losties very lengthy list of crimes, both on and off-Island, because that gets in to a tit-for-tat thing. However.... May I say again that the Losties were plane crash victims, not an invading forceWhy is it an either/or situation? One of my pet questions is: why did Ben need Ethan (RIP) and Goodwin (RIP) to run off and make lists? No proof, of course, :) but I suspect that the reason Ben looked up to the sky right after coming out of his house in ATOTC was because they were expecting the plane. When it crashed, they had to see who was and wasn't on Jacob's list. More questions, of course, but it's quite possible that Ben and Company saw the crash survivors as invaders.And Ben himself would have killed Ana-Lucia if Locke hadn't stopped him[Ben voice] Would he?

:)

Seriously, why does everyone assume that Ben would have strangled her? How about: he was going to strangle her until she passed out and then escape. John's crutch put an end to that. Same with Goodwin and Ana-Lucia, minus the crutch, of course. :biggrin: "YOU'RE the killer, Ana-Lucia". I think the biggest difference between the short-comings of the Losties and the Others is this; the Losties feel remorse for their wrong-doings, the Others defend them.So? That gives them a Get Out of Moral Failings Jail card compared to The Others? Ben's face ca. treating Kate to yummy eggs and strawberries is testimony to how much "remorse" Sayid felt after his career as a torturer in the Republican Guard and his involvement in the appalling torture of James.What have the Others done to the Losties to show that they are good people?They didn't kill all 65+ survivors stone dead the first night they were on the Island.I do believe there are rogue elements in the Others, such as Pickett and possibly EthanWell, Juliet sure didn't seem to put up much of a fight about wanting to kill Ben, did she? I love that little twist, that not all is Book Clubs, muffins and plumbing problems in Otherville. :)Although someone must fly over it to make the supply dropsNo, not necessarily. On the blast door map, where the Arrow is, is a notation about a "possible light manufacturing" facility. I think the DHARMA mac-n-cheese is made there on the Island. I also think that if we find out that the island is basically Heaven instead of Hell, it changes the dynamic of the show in an uncomfortable way. I go back to Ben's dialogue last year, "God doesn't know where we are. He can't see this place any more than anyone else can." That made it sound like some place forsaken, rather than a new EdenWell, some of us think the world we live in right here, right now, is pretty farking hellish, so that's not such a stretch. It would also tie in to the "Idealism gone wrong" theme that's been hinted at. I took Ben's comment to mean that the Island is isolated from the rest of the world. Now that the sky has turned purple, they've lost contact with the outside world too.Right, because they're "not killers", so says Ben. Except when they areOne. That's the exact number of people that The Others have killed, ONE (Goodwin killing Nathan). Kidnapped, brainwashed, made to live on fishbiscuits, sure, but ONE death outside of their group. Michael in 30 seconds doubled that.In the end, I have no doubt that there will be an explanation for the Others' crimes, and it will not be wholly sinister. I guess at that point, the fans will have to debate whether whatever goal they're pursuing is worth the evil they have done. Good stuff.I'm going to quote one of my favorite Morrissey lines (from The Smiths Shoplifters of the World Unite):

My only weakness is a list of crimes
My only weakness is...
Well, never mind, never mind

And I think Othersville may suffer the same fate as San Francisco did in South ParkSince I hate South Park with all the fire of all the suns in this and all other possible universes, not to sound all Karl/Brady Bunch here, but what's the reference about?They have rules, a a sheriff to enforce the rules, and by following them, they consider themselves to be "good" and The Losties to be "evil" (or maybe "lost") and have no problem killing or torturing them because the less evil in the world the betterOr: they actually need the people they integrate for a larger purpose, the ones they don't need are surplus to requirements. I'd be really disappointed if it all came down to some dreary, religion-based notion of good and evil.But no matter how you rationalize her death in the end in all cases no matter what your view point the ACTUAL cause of her death was Michael. He had to make a choice to kill her, he had his reasons but still it was his conscience choice to kill her and libby for the sake of his sonNote, however, that Bea Klugh didn't say "OK, kill whoever you need to, just get them here". I think that's cool how they made that situation Michael's choice, his free will in play. He certainly had other options for letting Ben escape. He could have told Ana that Jack needed her on the beach, said he'd guard Ben, give him the combo so he can feed him, Ana leaves, he lets Ben go, still shoots himself. Bingo! Same result, no murder on his part. "YOU'RE the killer, MIchael".

Ah, this old chestnut, The Others are EEEVVVVIIIILLLLL thread, part 2,098,472. More of a truism than chestnut. Individuals may vary within their group but as a group they show little regard for the lives of those outside their group; as you put it, "the ones they don't need are surplus to requirements.".
Ethan? OK I see your side of that argument. Having made the threat to kill a captive, if they kept following him, kindly sweet Ethan relented and turned Charlie loose to be hung by some unseen stranger or puff of smoke in the short time between his release and the arrival of Jack & Kate. Having threatened to kill them one by one shortly before, Ethan just happened to be in the neighborhood when Scott/Steve's body showed up. Just as with Charlie, Ethan's threats were empty and his having motive, proximity and means indicates nothing. It's all coincidence.:cool:
but it's quite possible that Ben and Company saw the crash survivors as invaders.Which does not make them invaders. Ben did not send out an armed force to repel the crash victims he sent out spies to infiltrate and inventory them. I think that argues more towards seeing them as targets of opportunity than as invaders.
[Ben voice] Would he?{Locke voice} Yes! Just watch the scene to refute your own argument, Ben was not engaged in a reasoned moderate attempt to render Ana-Lucia unconcious.
They didn't kill all 65+ survivors stone dead the first night they were on the Island.Seriously? They are good & not killers because they didn't kill every stranger in sight at the first opportunity? :eek2: Well possibly but as you pointed out, "Or: they actually need the people they integrate for a larger purpose" It is generally kind of hard to recruit from a pile of bodies.
One. That's the exact number of people that The Others have killed, ONE (Goodwin killing Nathan). Kidnapped, brainwashed, made to live on fishbiscuits, sure, but ONE death outside of their group. One that you concede to and what does outside of their group have to do with it, killings killing no matter which goup's member dies. Looks to me like your argument may boil down to; Their threats and attempts to kill do not really prove intent to kill. They have been unsuccessful in those attempts that we have witnessed, therefore they must not be killers.:rolleyes:

Wow great thread I had to read it from start to finish to be sure I didn't say anything redundant. Lots I agree with too! I think that the others are protecting whatever is happening on the island and the survivors are a huge threat to something that must be protected at all costs so the ends justify the means in their minds. I believe that the others believe that life is sacred, but when it comes to protecting the island and advancing their cause, anything short of killing like kidnapping or imprisonment, as unsavoury as it is, is acceptable. On the other hand, when it comes to killing people the Losties are definately in the lead.

I agree TK421.

I think one reason that the Losties have a one-sided view of things is that they don't know their own history ... they, as a group, aren't aware of the history of everyone else in their group. Of course they would see the Others as "evil" - they don't know that they're sharing a beach with murders, con-men, torturers, etc, etc.

In addition, I think the Losties as a group parallel the Others in so many ways. Take Sayid and Pickett as an example. Both capable of great brutality in general. Both inproportionately violent towards someone who is not 'one of them'. Both suffered the loss of a loved one. In both cases that brutality escalated as a result of that loss : Pickett towards Sawyer, Sayid towards Ben.

As we begin to know more about the Others and their motivations, will we discover more parallels? I think so.

We identify with the Losties because we have had two seasons to get to know them and to love them *despite* their pretty major flaws. We are only just starting to know the Others. Give it time and I am quite sure that we will find that they are very similar. Possibly even a mirror image of each other?


BTW: This is a great thread. One of the best.
I've been happy just lurking and enjoying the arguments. :biggrin:

I agree TK421.

I think one reason that the Losties have a one-sided view of things is that they don't know their own history ... they, as a group, aren't aware of the history of everyone else in their group. Of course they would see the Others as "evil" - they don't know that they're sharing a beach with murders, con-men, torturers, etc, etc.

We have seen the Losties ever since the beginning of Season One *fail* to share information with each other (highly unrealistic; I've discussed it elsewhere.) However, I wonder if The Others share that flaw. They seem to know an enormous amount about the Losties - how? Do they share information telepathically? Do they just *talk* to each other (which the Losties don't seem to be able to do)? My suspicion is that The Others *do* know whom they're dealing with, while even the Losties themselves are in the dark about most everything.

In addition, I think the Losties as a group parallel the Others in so many ways.

A good point, and something to watch.

I think the Others are not essentially evil, but not really moral either. They, rather than the Losties, have had the time, money, and ability to put together a systematic society with rules of conduct. By what we have seen and some of the Losties have seen so far it does not appear that the Others have put together a moral society, but an amoral society. Nevertheless, the way some of the Losties have acted before and after the crash has not been the best either. However, all of us have fallen short of perfection. All societies, nations, cultures and religions have fallen short as well. The Others are still mysterious and the Losties are still lost. What we have learned more is how far many are from any type of redemption from this experience.

. By what we have seen and some of the Losties have seen so far it does not appear that the Others have put together a moral society, but an amoral society.

I'm interested in what you would consider amoral behaviour in the Others, that the Losties haven't also demonstrated. :confused:

I'm interested in what you would consider amoral behaviour in the Others, that the Losties haven't also demonstrated. :confused:

Kidnapping, Forced Labor, inducing labor (Claire with her life on the line), sending spies, and coercing a man to do things because of his son, I'm sure there are much more. They talk about "good" people, but it seems they do what is best for them and their goals no matter who is hurt or damaged in the process.

I'm interested in what you would consider amoral behaviour in the Others, that the Losties haven't also demonstrated. :confused:Why? To satisfy curiosity? The question of how moral or amoral one group is, is not based on what the other group is like.

Both groups, only one of the groups or neither group may fit the description of "Evil, brutal, manipulative...and self-righteous too." But each group should be judged on its own merits unless you change the question to which group is better (or worse). All the Lostees could be mass murdering self righteous con-men far worse than the Others and it would not affect the answer to the question of are "The Others: Evil, brutal, manipulative...and self righteous too?".

Why? To satisfy curiosity? The question of how moral or amoral one group is, is not based on what the other group is like.

Both groups, only one of the groups or neither group may fit the description of "Evil, brutal, manipulative...and self-righteous too." But each group should be judged on its own merits unless you change the question to which group is better (or worse). All the Lostees could be mass murdering self righteous con-men far worse than the Others and it would not affect the answer to the question of are "The Others: Evil, brutal, manipulative...and self righteous too?".

Very good point.

well, Jack and Sayid torture Sawyer (season one), and they are the good guys.....
and nobody evil (like Hitler, Stalin, Ho Chi Min, Franco, Mussolini...) calls himself evil; all bad people calls himself "the good guys".....(nobody wants to be the bad guys....)

well, Jack and Sayid torture Sawyer (season one), and they are the good guys.....
and nobody evil (like Hitler, Stalin, Ho Chi Min, Franco, Mussolini...) calls himself evil; all bad people calls himself "the good guys".....(nobody wants to be the bad guys....)LOL Yes the groups we belong to or identify with are the good guys. Ben is an Other so he thinks they are the good guys. Jack is a Lostee so he thinks they are the good guys, I identify more with the Lostees so even if they were to act worse than the Other's I think they are the good Guys. Nope no reason to be objective when our self image is involved.:biggrin:

the Others are BAD.

Bad tv. Boring. I simply could not care less about them. I don't want to know
WHY they do the things they do. I just want them to disappear from LOST.

... Like the Tailies disappeared(some of whom I found entertaining).

I liked Ben when he was interesting (Season 2). Now, he's just taking up episodes
that could be showcasing interesting characters instead.

. Nope no reason to be objective when our self image is involved.:biggrin:



You're right, Dude! ;)

In answer to "What have the Others done to the Losties to prove that they are good people?" You said:

They didn't kill all 65+ survivors stone dead the first night they were on the Island.

Erm... This made me laugh. There is a name for this kind of "argument" (besides illogical) but I can't think of it at the moment.

One heinous behavior that we cannot attribute to the uh-thers (slaughter of all the survivors that first night) is supposed to prove to the Losties that the uh-thers are good people?

Still chuckling.

Lilac Moon