It just seems kind of strange, don't you think? Kate killed her dad to get back at him for what he did and they are not very forgiving of that (or so Locke says when he tells Kate goodbye). But then they are actually encouraging Locke to kill his dad to get back at him. Maybe there is a lot more to Kate's story that we don't know yet, and she is way worse than we thought!:confused::confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I agree. Whatever/whoever these people are, they are so NOT the "good guys" that they claim to be. Plus all those people coming out to watch the murder - ick.

Kate has done a lot of bad things, including killing an innocent man because she couldn't let go of him. Robbing banks and getting people hurt to get toy airplanes. She got the old man killed who tried to turn her in, and ultimately she got the Marshall killed.

As opposed to locke who never did anything wrong except trusting the father figure he never had.

Uh if there was an award for "Longest Thread Title," this should take the Gold. =P

I think it was explained in the episode that in order for them to be an "other," they have to demonstrate the free will. For most it seemed to have the idea that they could leave at anytime so eventulaly they'd WANT to stay. For John, it's much more than that. They say he is special but his whole (adult at least) life he's been shadowed by what his dad did those times. Even Helen saw it... Locke was ruled by his father and well, a coward to the point that he could not face him until that fateful time before his big fall... Locke HAD to kill his dad (and I think it was a cop out that he didnt do it himself, just like Locke got Boone to get the plane, he gets others to do his dirty work... shame the island loves him so much when he does all that). Cooper had to die for John to be accepted...

It just seems kind of strange, don't you think? Kate killed her dad to get back at him for what he did and they are not very forgiving of that (or so Locke says when he tells Kate goodbye). But then they are actually encouraging Locke to kill his dad to get back at him. Maybe there is a lot more to Kate's story that we don't know yet, and she is way worse than we thought!:confused::confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I think it has more to do with Locke being "special" in their eyes, and Kate being expendable. Unless she's pregnant. Can't remember if that was said, so better to be safe. His killing his father only makes his "purpose" attainable (I'm still a bit fuzzy on how exactly), whereas Kate doesn't seem to have a purpose. At least not one that will benefit the Others.

If what Richard Alpert said is true, and Ben was trying to humiliate Locke in front of the group, then maybe Ben is trying to manipulate Locke into doing the wrong thing. He wants the group to deem Locke a bad person, so he will no longer be looked at as the one who is special. Ben wants to remain the special one.

Kate has done a lot of bad things, including killing an innocent man because she couldn't let go of him.

I'm assuming you're talking about the doctor with the plane in season one. If that's the case, then no, she told him to get out of the car, and he said he wouldn't. That was his choice, not hers, though she feels guilty for what happened.

She got the old man killed who tried to turn her in, and ultimately she got the Marshall killed.Nope, again, she pulled him from the wreckage and saved his life. She was even talking about making sure he got the reward with the Marshall when the plane broke up, as she explained to him when he was dying from the shrapnel and infection on the beach.

As opposed to locke who never did anything wrong except trusting the father figure he never had.How about keeping the money his father grifted? How about sacrificing Boone to the island? Sure, they may not be on the same level, but Locke is no angel.

And they are overlooking Locke's faults because he's "special."

How about keeping the money his father grifted? How about sacrificing Boone to the island? Sure, they may not be on the same level, but Locke is no angel.

The money thing was a little sketchy, I think it was obvious the remorse he felt from Boone's death when he was crying on the hatch. He was confused, I'd like to believe that the sacrifice to the island thing was a device to justify Boone's death and rid himself of the guilt and remorse he had.

Did Boone not forgive him in Locke's vision anyway?

short answer to your long question: because Ben is lying. The Island won't be okay with it, and Ben knows that.

It just seems kind of strange, don't you think? Kate killed her dad to get back at him for what he did and they are not very forgiving of that (or so Locke says when he tells Kate goodbye). But then they are actually encouraging Locke to kill his dad to get back at him. Maybe there is a lot more to Kate's story that we don't know yet, and she is way worse than we thought!:confused::confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

It doesn't seem strange to me. It seems completely typical of any thoroughly psychopathic ideology; Murder to further the purpose of the ideology is reasoned into some kind of virtue -- if nothing else the virtue of being willing to murder for the ideology -- whereas even the smallest flaws belonging to those who oppose the ideology, or those outside the ideology, are reasoned into proof of their inferiority.

Locke HAD to kill his dad (and I think it was a cop out that he didnt do it himself, just like Locke got Boone to get the plane, he gets others to do his dirty work... shame the island loves him so much when he does all that). Cooper had to die for John to be accepted...

But, like you just said, Locke didn't kill his dad. And the island would know that. So operating under this theory, he won't be accepted. It will backfire.

If what Richard Alpert said is true, and Ben was trying to humiliate Locke in front of the group, then maybe Ben is trying to manipulate Locke into doing the wrong thing. He wants the group to deem Locke a bad person, so he will no longer be looked at as the one who is special. Ben wants to remain the special one.


See, I am not entirely sure that Richard was acting on his own. He had the red file. I am still going with my theory that Ben somehow knows the future. He has to ensure that certain things happen. But because of free-will, he has to use a lot of suggestions and trickery. He's pulling a big Con.

D/

But, like you just said, Locke didn't kill his dad. And the island would know that. So operating under this theory, he won't be accepted. It will backfire.

I think the test was one that Ben gave to Locke, and not the Island to Locke.

It doesn't seem strange to me. It seems completely typical of any thoroughly psychopathic ideology; Murder to further the purpose of the ideology is reasoned into some kind of virtue -- if nothing else the virtue of being willing to murder for the ideology -- whereas even the smallest flaws belonging to those who oppose the ideology, or those outside the ideology, are reasoned into proof of their inferiority.

Now I get it! Actually, no I don't! Little slow. Explain that again?

There is a difference between life and death. Kate's father was alive and even tho in her eyes he was a bad person, she didn't have the right to take his life.

Locke however, was not killing his dad. Locke's dad was already dead. IMO what transpired is that the real Sawyer ( was in a coma and just about to die) unrepented sins (Real Sawyer was on his way to hell) and he was brought by the Island via Locke's desires, to resolve issue both Locke' and James Ford had.

It seemed imparative to resolve the real Sawyer issues as he stated he only had a "week to stay there," which I think he knew his final destination. James didn't really want to commit another murder he might have beat him silly but not kill him if not for the fact of Sawyer being so calous and ripping the paper as a sign - I could care less about you, your mother, much less your father.

If you watched even the Others were scared of the real Sawyer using a stun gun for protection. The real Sawyer was and evil presents on the Island.

While I don't think Locke killed his dad, he is just as guilty as a person hiring a hitman to kill him. He maniputlated events quite well to get someone else to do his dirtywork. "Death by Sawyer" is just like "suicide by cop." Locke knew what he was doing.He cheated the test ben gave him and practically forced Sawyer to do it by looking him in the same room together.

F

How about keeping the money his father grifted? How about sacrificing Boone to the island?

How about siding up with that pot community?

As opposed to locke who never did anything wrong except trusting the father figure he never had.

And manipulating James into doing his dirty work for him. That seems kind of wrong to me.

It might be just as simple as, they don't think Kate's reasons were good enough to kill someone, yet they think it was okay for John to kill his dad.

Now I get it! Actually, no I don't! Little slow. Explain that again?

It's the same thing that everyone has at least some tendency to do... to rationalize behavior in themselves that they would condemn if they saw anyone else doing it. That is, having a double standard.

But this is sometimes institutionalized into a whole system of thought and societal structure. Like in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia both had entire systems of thought, the former based on all the latest science and the latter based on all the latest political philosophy, to prove why it was a virtuous thing to kill certain classes or races of people. It doesn't mean that either of these systems actually made sense. But they sounded good enough to be convincing.

It just seems kind of strange, don't you think? Kate killed her dad to get back at him for what he did and they are not very forgiving of that (or so Locke says when he tells Kate goodbye). But then they are actually encouraging Locke to kill his dad to get back at him. Maybe there is a lot more to Kate's story that we don't know yet, and she is way worse than we thought!:confused::confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
TPTB have insisted that "What Kate Did" showed us What Kate Did -- i.e. the main part of her backstory, her big crime -- and that there's not another big skeleton in her closet.
I agree. Whatever/whoever these people are, they are so NOT the "good guys" that they claim to be. Plus all those people coming out to watch the murder - ick.
These Others now remind me of a criminal gang where the initiation rites for new members is that they have to kill someone. And having everyone gather to watch it is just sick. Nothing they can say will convince me the Others are "good."

It doesn't seem strange to me. It seems completely typical of any thoroughly psychopathic ideology; Murder to further the purpose of the ideology is reasoned into some kind of virtue -- if nothing else the virtue of being willing to murder for the ideology -- whereas even the smallest flaws belonging to those who oppose the ideology, or those outside the ideology, are reasoned into proof of their inferiority.
Fascinating. This seems to be what the Others have adopted into their twisted ideology. I guess we'll find out more about them soon.

I think "The Brig" made this entire question (that is, the title question of this thread) irrelevant. That is, it simply didn't happen. Ben told Lock he could go say goodbye to Kate, who was being held a few doors away. He didn't say "and tell her we wont take her with us because she's bad." Locke just SAID that. Perhaps he didn't want to assume the esponsibility for just leaving her behind. In any case, now that we have seen what led up to Locke's visiting Kate to say goodbye, we see that there was nothing at all said about her having failed some sort of "decency" test.

It just seems kind of strange, don't you think? Kate killed her dad to get back at him for what he did and they are not very forgiving of that (or so Locke says when he tells Kate goodbye). But then they are actually encouraging Locke to kill his dad to get back at him. Maybe there is a lot more to Kate's story that we don't know yet, and she is way worse than we thought!:confused::confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I hope so. i've been rooting for a real bad *** kate background for ages. I hope she like went on a killing spree or something to merit all the condescention she's had to weather. If all she did is what we've seen, she doesnt' deserve all the s**t she's put up with.

Oh, just read the post above that says we know the worst thing she's done. I profess myself disappointed.

short answer to your long question: because Ben is lying. The Island won't be okay with it, and Ben knows that.

And I think Locke knows this as well. I believe what Albert said to Locke about Ben wanting to humiliate Locke was true. Whatever communion Locke has with the island has Ben nervous, if not flat out envious, and degrading him in the eyes of the camp was what he was trying to do.

It just seems kind of strange, don't you think? Kate killed her dad to get back at him for what he did and they are not very forgiving of that (or so Locke says when he tells Kate goodbye). But then they are actually encouraging Locke to kill his dad to get back at him. Maybe there is a lot more to Kate's story that we don't know yet, and she is way worse than we thought!:confused::confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:Locke did not say "for killing your father". In fact Locke did not say exactly what it was that they were not willing to be forgiving of, where Kate is concerned. So here you are discussing an assumption that the Other's were upset by her killing her father. Since they want Locke to kill his father while they watch, Kate's killing of her father may not bother them at all. It could just as easily be that they are not very forgiving of the way she resisted their attempts to control her or the way she returned to their area to rescue Jack and involved more Lostees in a fight against them or the way she slept with James instead of Jack etc etc.

Locke's Others' initiation test was to see if he could be as manipulative as Ben.

Ben, obviously, is a masterful manipulator, but I don't necessarily think he is the only one. Is it possible that The Others, as a group, are testing Locke? They have worked on cons as a group before. Is it not possible that the whole scene, including their reactions to Locke's refusal, was staged? I do believe they view him as special, but there is something odd about their coordination...how perfectly everything fell into place. I can't help but feel it was constructed.

The idea that The Others sanction human sacrifice is just so...sudden and maybe even out of character. In the past they seem to have gone to pains not to kill people (and bunnies...if that scene is to be believed), even when it would have been more expedient. They've done everything else...but not cold-blooded murder. Ben was violent toward Ana Lucia for killing good people (whether he would have killed her...I'm not sure). His long look at Michael on the dock seemed to show his loathing for the killing of even 'bad' people like Ana Lucia.

I don't know. Explaining the situation as the result of a twisted ideology just seems, somehow, too easy. And I think it is pretty essential to the story that The Others remain at least a little sympathetic. How can you sympathize with ideaologues willing to sanction human sacrifice? They are Machiavellian, but not inhuman. I kind of enjoy the notion that they are trying to do their best under extraordinary circumstances. It's probably not true, but oh well.

On the other hand, I think the idea of Ben humiliating Locke purely in order to maintain control is interesting, even if it destroys some of the moral ambiguity of that character (making him wholly selfish). That particular plot track might be redeemed for me if Ben has a higher reason for wanting to stay in power.

What can I say? I love my antagonists redeemable / sympathetic. They're boring otherwise.

I'm pretty sure we don't know much behind Ben's actions--what he told Locke about free will might not be what the Others were thinking.

Remember that the Others have an "eye for and eye" philosophy. Kate's father--to our knowledge--never did anything to Kate. He abused Kate's mother, and no matter how vile a creature he was for doing this, a death sentence was unwarranted. Furthermore, Kate's mother (who was the victim here) stayed with her husband of her own free will. Kate stepped in and killed the man.

Contrast this with Locke, whose father attempted to kill him. Perhaps this is the reason that Locke had the right to kill his father, according to the Others' societal laws.

Maybe it was a test to see what Locke would do.

The idea that The Others sanction human sacrifice is just so...sudden and maybe even out of character. In the past they seem to have gone to pains not to kill people (and bunnies...if that scene is to be believed), even when it would have been more expedient. They've done everything else...but not cold-blooded murder. Ben was violent toward Ana Lucia for killing good people (whether he would have killed her...I'm not sure). His long look at Michael on the dock seemed to show his loathing for the killing of even 'bad' people like Ana Lucia.

No cold-blooded murder?? They made good on their promise to kill one of the Losties per day until they handed over the pregnant woman... not only killing one of them, but breaking every bone in his body. They attempted to murder Charlie just to slow Jack down when pursuing her. They were going to kill Claire, probably for research purposes, after they extracted her baby. Ben tried to kill Ana Lucia for revenge for Goodwin. He did disaprove of Michael, but probably because of his disloyalty, rather than because of murder itself. Ben implied approval of picket's desire to murder Sawyer, when he said "he will have to wait". Picket's attempted to murder Sawyer, with approval of his companions. Juliet, in the span of a few minutes, tried to cause the death of Kate, Sawyer, Ben and Picket, depending on whose death would most benefit her (with picket ultimately drawing the short straw).

I think these few things we know only scratch the surface of what we will find the others capable of.

I don't know. Explaining the situation as the result of a twisted ideology just seems, somehow, too easy. And I think it is pretty essential to the story that The Others remain at least a little sympathetic. How can you sympathize with ideaologues willing to sanction human sacrifice? They are Machiavellian, but not inhuman. I kind of enjoy the notion that they are trying to do their best under extraordinary circumstances. It's probably not true, but oh well.

On the other hand, I think the idea of Ben humiliating Locke purely in order to maintain control is interesting, even if it destroys some of the moral ambiguity of that character (making him wholly selfish). That particular plot track might be redeemed for me if Ben has a higher reason for wanting to stay in power.

What can I say? I love my antagonists redeemable / sympathetic. They're boring otherwise.

I agree that they have to stay sympathetic. And it takes skilled storytelling to do that. I think the fact that we want to think they're above human sacrifice despite what we know about them illustrates that the writers are doing a great job in keeping them sympathetic.
100%
I think "The Brig" made this entire question (that is, the title question of this thread) irrelevant. That is, it simply didn't happen. Ben told Lock he could go say goodbye to Kate, who was being held a few doors away. He didn't say "and tell her we wont take her with us because she's bad." Locke just SAID that. Perhaps he didn't want to assume the esponsibility for just leaving her behind. In any case, now that we have seen what led up to Locke's visiting Kate to say goodbye, we see that there was nothing at all said about her having failed some sort of "decency" test.

No, Locke didn't go say goodbye right after that. Because at that point he still didn't know what she had done or who she was. So he had to have had a conversation with Ben (or someone else) at some point after the scene we saw ended.