Jacks NOT Foolish...

[IM-LOST-WITH-LOST]

I dont understand why people keep saying Jack is being foolish etc. If you were stuck on the island, its more than likely that you would love to get off and be with your loved ones. Put yourself in his shoes at the end of season 3, someones parachuted onto the island who seems trustworthy, and has stated that she can get everyone rescued... which would save them from the constant attacks by the others, and various things in the jungle. Would you really say, no im staying, i dont want to see any of my family or friends ever again, I'd rather stay here and have my life constantly put into danger? If anyone is being foolish, or selfish, its Locke. He has noone to go back to, although its not his fault. But he has showed countless times that he wants to stay on the island, as he believes its special. Which is good enough for him, but when he attacked sayid in early season 1 he was being selfish, because He wants to stay on the island, so he doesnt want anyone else to leave. But anyway, back to the point If you had a chance to phone a boat and get rescue for yourself and the rest of your people, would you not do it?? The only warning you have is from locke, and everyone knows he wants to stay on the island... and as we learned from sayid, he'd do anything to achieve it. So whose to presume he isnt being selfish again??? Jack was only doing what he believed would save himself and his people, so i think everyone should stop having a go unless they they have evidence which shows otherwise! Its also visable that Jack is questionning what he did at the end. He learned what had happened with charlie, and when the parachuter man landed, he didnt exactly jump around saying 'were rescued,' he didnt even smile, he approached with caution...

Oh and i do actually like Locke, i just like Jack more , and i cant see why he's getting a hard time for his actions

[Him]

I just replied to this in the other thread a few seconds ago. Whoops. I'll repost it, hang on.

Tada:

Originally Posted by IM-LOST-WITH-LOST

I dont understand why people keep saying Jack is being foolish etc.

I don't think anyone is saying Jack's being foolish.

If you were stuck on the island, its more than likely that you would love to get off and be with your loved ones. Put yourself in his shoes at the end of season 3, someones parachuted onto the island who seems trustworthy, and has stated that she can get everyone rescued... which would save them from the constant attacks by the others, and various things in the jungle. Would you really say, no im staying, i dont want to see any of my family or friends ever again, I'd rather stay here and have my life constantly put into danger? If anyone is being foolish, or selfish, its Locke. He has noone to go back to, although its not his fault. But he has showed countless times that he wants to stay on the island, as he believes its special. Which is good enough for him, but when he attacked sayid in early season 1 he was being selfish, because He wants to stay on the island, so he doesnt want anyone else to leave. But anyway, back to the point If you had a chance to phone a boat and get rescue for yourself and the rest of your people, would you not do it?? The only warning you have is from locke, and everyone knows he wants to stay on the island... and as we learned from sayid, he'd do anything to achieve it. So whose to presume he isnt being selfish again??? Jack was only doing what he believed would save himself and his people, so i think everyone should stop having a go unless they they have evidence which shows otherwise! Its also visable that Jack is questionning what he did at the end. He learned what had happened with charlie, and when the parachuter man landed, he didnt exactly jump around saying 'were rescued,' he didnt even smile, he approached with caution...

I think most of this is irrelevant, as the main reason for approaching such rescue with suspicion is nothing to do with Locke's trustworthiness, or with them wanting to stay on the island or something, but the fact that Charlie's dying message was that the people on the boat aren't who they say they are. They do want to get rescued, there's no question about that, but they certainly don't want to get killed.

[IM-LOST-WITH-LOST]

I don't think anyone is saying Jack's being foolish.

Read the board, half the people on the site have said similair things.

I think most of this is irrelevant, as the main reason for approaching such rescue with suspicion is nothing to do with Locke's trustworthiness, but the fact that Charlie's dying message was that the people on the boat aren't who they say they are. They do want to get rescued, there's no question about that, but they certainly don't want to get killed.

Jack approaching the parachuter isnt the focus of the thread, and i didnt say he approached cautionally due to Lockes claims, i acknowledged both lockes claims, and Charlies dieing wish. This meant that Jack Now understands that these people may not be who they say they are, but they didnt at the time he made the call... But this isnt what the post is about, I was meerely resolving it. "Its All Relevant Him"

[Him]

Originally Posted by IM-LOST-WITH-LOST

Read the board, half the people on the site have said similair things.

Well, where? I don't see how Jack can be construed as an idiot (based on this episode) - the proper course of action is quite obfuscated, mainly because this is Lost.
If you mean most people are siding with Locke here in that they should run away from the people, rather than run towards them, then well, that's down to personal opinion. Just because they opt for one choice, does not mean that they don't believe Jack's is not at all valid.
Most people will probably disapprove of Jack pulling the trigger and trying to kill Locke, but again, that doesn't make them think he's foolish.

I just don't get any 'Jack's foolish' vibes, but I'd be happily corrected if you pointed them out.

Jack approaching the parachuter isnt the focus of the thread,

I know. I may have confused you by using similar language in 'approaching rescue with suspicion', but I am referring to what's going on in general.

and i didnt say he approached cautionally due to Lockes claims, i acknowledged both lockes claims, and Charlies dieing wish.

I highlighted where you put the only warning was from Locke... They now have three people's word.

This meant that Jack Now understands that these people may not be who they say they are, but they didnt at the time he made the call...

They were celebrating when they had no reason to suspect Naomi's motives...

"Its All Relevant Him"

[/quote]
I think don't think it is, as you overlook the fact that they now believe their is danger in trusting these people. Their desire to get home takes a back seat for that reason.

[Murgatroyd]

I agree with Him (I think - it's early). I certainly wouldn't say Jack's foolish for disbelieving Locke and Ben, who gave him reasons neither to believe them nor trust them, and nothing in the way of an argument. Charlie, however, is a trustworthy source and gave everyone a genuine reason to be concerned in stating that the boat wasn't Penny's and thus the people on that boat were lying - that, I think, is a good enough reason to think twice. I agree that Hurley was off when he lambasted Jack before even telling him what had happened to Charlie, but I do think Jack's wrong to dismiss Charlie's information in the same way he did Locke's and Ben's unsubstantiated orders - though I can understand why, being Jack, he's hardheadedly sticking to his original plan even while the stakes have dramatically changed.

And I think that whole scene was kind of deceptive in making it look like a 'Vote for Locke' situation. It was hard to pick it out of Hurley's speech, but he said nothing about Locke except 'He's not crazy' - he was voting for Charlie, as, I think, was everybody else, not for Locke, and certainly not for Ben. Which is why it was kind of admirable of Rose to risk her safety purely so she isn't seen to be giving support to a man whose methods she so vehemently disagrees with.

I rather hope the group ousts Locke as its leader to make it clear that they want safety but don't care for Locke, but probably that won't happen. This is, after all, the long awaited Jack/Locke conflict, and I doubt it'll be cut short.

[D-Roc]

ILWL, I'll move this to the 4.01 forum where it can be seen better

[IM-LOST-WITH-LOST]

Sorry i didnt reply last night, it was 1.30am before i eventually got to sleep and i was up at 6!! needed to get some rest

Originally Posted by Him

Well, where? I don't see how Jack can be construed as an idiot (based on this episode) - the proper course of action is quite obfuscated, mainly because this is Lost.
If you mean most people are siding with Locke here in that they should run away from the people, rather than run towards them, then well, that's down to personal opinion. Just because they opt for one choice, does not mean that they don't believe Jack's is not at all valid.
Most people will probably disapprove of Jack pulling the trigger and trying to kill Locke, but again, that doesn't make them think he's foolish.

I just don't get any 'Jack's foolish' vibes, but I'd be happily corrected if you pointed them out.

Right, i think because i derailed my original thread so much, the focus wasnt as direct. I was stating at the very end of last series, jack made a call to the boat, and the only warning not to do so, is from a man who wishes to stay and has proved it before. People have definately said that Jack was a fool for calling the boat, i know that i have read people say that he is a fool for not listening to locke, and if you really dont believe then i guess i can read through around 10 months worth of posts and find you a quote. If you really want me to then say.

I completely agree that Jack isnt an idiot for his actions, that is the point in this thread, and i wasnt saying that people should stay with jack or go with locke. I included charlie in my argument because i was defending Jack calling the boat, because at the time he didn't know it wasn't pennys. The only reason Jack had not to call it, was the words of a 'madman,' Sorry if it was a little hard to understand, it made sense when i was writing it...

know. I may have confused you by using similar language in 'approaching rescue with suspicion', but I am referring to what's going on in general.
I highlighted where you put the only warning was from Locke... They now have three people's word.
They were celebrating when they had no reason to suspect Naomi's motives...

Oh i see, but they did only have the warning from locke, at the time of the call. I know that they now have other reasons

[IM-LOST-WITH-LOST]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

I agree with Him (I think - it's early). I certainly wouldn't say Jack's foolish for disbelieving Locke and Ben, who gave him reasons neither to believe them nor trust them, and nothing in the way of an argument.

I agree

Charlie, however, is a trustworthy source and gave everyone a genuine reason to be concerned in stating that the boat wasn't Penny's and thus the people on that boat were lying - that, I think, is a good enough reason to think twice.

Still Agree

I do think Jack's wrong to dismiss Charlie's information in the same way he did Locke's and Ben's unsubstantiated orders - though I can understand why, being Jack, he's hardheadedly sticking to his original plan even while the stakes have dramatically changed.

He didnt dismiss this information did he? When hurley made his speech, Jack neither agreed or disagreed with him... Instead he let His people join locke, he may not have been happy with it but i think he understood why they were doing it - because of the information about Charlie. I dont think he's being hardheaded by sticking to his plan, If jack thought the people coming were 100% truthful, and that there was no chance that they're a danger, he wouldnt have let his people leave so freely. He would have said something to persuade them to stay, because whether you like him or not, he does what he believes is best for his people, so his decision to go ahead with his plan is not hardheaded, its hope... and he acknowledges the risks.

Which is why it was kind of admirable of Rose to risk her safety purely so she isn't seen to be giving support to a man whose methods she so vehemently disagrees with.

I agree and disagree with that, because i think she said something roughly like, 'im not going anywere with that mad man,' depending on how you interpret that, she could be saying he's a madman due to his belief that the rescuers are bad. But contrary to this, she doesnt exactly say 'No i believe Jacks right...'

I rather hope the group ousts Locke as its leader to make it clear that they want safety but don't care for Locke, but probably that won't happen. This is, after all, the long awaited Jack/Locke conflict, and I doubt it'll be cut short.

I agree Hurley should be leader of team locke Another thing i didn't get, If hurley went with locke, and Jack went for rescue, how did they both end up being rescued???

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by IM-LOST-WITH-LOST

He didnt dismiss this information did he? When hurley made his speech, Jack neither agreed or disagreed with him... Instead he let His people join locke, he may not have been happy with it but i think he understood why they were doing it - because of the information about Charlie. I dont think he's being hardheaded by sticking to his plan, If jack thought the people coming were 100% truthful, and that there was no chance that they're a danger, he wouldnt have let his people leave so freely. He would have said something to persuade them to stay, because whether you like him or not, he does what he believes is best for his people, so his decision to go ahead with his plan is not hardheaded, its hope... and he acknowledges the risks.

Fair point. I suppose I meant that, by deciding to meet the freighter people, he was disregarding Charlie's warning, but then again I've said elsewhere that I can understand his not wanting to run away anymore - I can see why he'd want to take this chance, however small it is, to escape. And, oddly enough, it seems to work on some level.

I agree and disagree with that, because i think she said something roughly like, 'im not going anywere with that mad man,' depending on how you interpret that, she could be saying he's a madman due to his belief that the rescuers are bad. But contrary to this, she doesnt exactly say 'No i believe Jacks right...'

I think she just says 'I'm not going anywhere with that man', though I could be mistaken - I certainly read it as an expression of contempt for Locke and by extension a desire not to let him get all self-righteous about the fact that are lot of people are going the same way he's going. And I wish more of the group had made that clear - said in passing 'I can't stand you, Locke, but I'm running for the hills as well'.

I agree Hurley should be leader of team locke Another thing i didn't get, If hurley went with locke, and Jack went for rescue, how did they both end up being rescued???

I think that's this episode's biggest mystery, but I couldn't even begin to guess at what it means. Seemingly both Jack and Locke are simultaneously right and wrong - Hurley wishes he'd sided with Jack, but he wishes that he could return to the island at the same time. It's fascinating.