Put a geneade in it!!!

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

What's his justification for what he's actually doing to Miles?

No justification. I'm even struggling with the logic.

All I can think of is Locke's trying to terrify Miles into complying with his rules; similar in the way 'The Others' threatened to kill Sawyer if Kate didn't make Jack do the surgery.

I also found it strange, illogical, and perplexing that Locke didn't even ask Miles about his conversation with Ben (did he? I can't remember..); he merely took Kate - who he had, at the time, deemed sly and shifty - on her word.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

I get that, but my foundation for my opinion is that what Locke did to Miles is a textbook example of psychological torture - convincing someone that only by maintaining an extremely uncomfortable and difficult physical position can they avoid a violent death is torture. What more is there to say? I honestly didn't mean to dismiss you, but I really don't have an argument (well, that you haven't already heard in reference to Ben/Kate/Sawyer and Ana Lucia/Jason) so much as a bald statement.

And actually first and foremost in my mind was the knowledge from experience that you wouldn't be convinced whatever kind of an argument I put forward - all that was left to do was to state my opinion and know you'd disagree. You didn't really want to be stuck in this thread for the next twelve years, did you ...?

Actually you offered no foundation whatsoever - you simply said "You're wrong", which is an indication of a baseless argument. Had I said that in response to one of your posts, I think you'd understand

Just because you say someone else is wrong, Murgatroyd, it doesn't mean they are - particularly when you're unable to back your POV up with anything else except "You're wrong" I'm surprised you would conduct yourself in this manner. But, meh.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

Getting out of the issue of how unpleasant or otherwise it is to hold what you think is a live grenade in your mouth, and putting aside the idea, if you like, that this is no way to treat any prisoner ever, I'd also have to question the sense in doing anything whatsoever to put Miles at risk or to 'punish' him or whatever Locke thought he was doing seeing as Miles is the only one offering them a concrete way out of their situation. For $3.2, he says he'll tell his colleague that Ben is dead, which presumably means the freighter will leave the island. That's precisely what Locke, self-proclaimed saviour of the island, ought to want - and not to justify Miles' greed (I'll take that back if it turns out he wants to donate the $3.2 to charity, but I kind of think not), but if the island's worth as many lives as Ben's willingly sacrificed to it, surely it's worth the money. Maybe Locke doubts Miles' sincerity, but surely it behoves him to discuss the offer. What's his justification for what he's actually doing to Miles?

"YOU'RE WRONG"

Medicine, taste?

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by IM-LOST-WITH-LOST

But when you go back like that, you can always go further. I understand that if Kate hadn't done what she had done, the events that came to pass probably wouldn't have happened. But that can be said about any character because the slightest thing changes the outcome of an event. If sawyer hadn't have helped her, she wouldn't have got to ben. If hurley hadn't slipped up about Miles, Kate wouldn't have seen him. If ben and Miles had there discussion quicker, locke wouldn't have found them. Do you see how going further into the past makes every bit of difference?

Unlike those that you mentioned, Kate was directly responsible. Everything else hinged on her actions..everyone else was literally a 'pawn' in her selfish plan.

I suppose, but it was important to her. Other characters have done things in the past to get answers that are important to them. Perhaps you could relate it to everything that Locke had lost in his flashbacks, I.e helen, just because he wanted to know why cooper stole his kidney

I don't how can you compare it to Locke wanting to know why Cooper stole his kidney?? Kate's actions in the real world were self-inflicted, whereas Locke's weren't. Kate was trying to get info save her own ass, whilst Locke wanted to know how his own flesh and blood could betray him. Quite a difference set of agenda's there..

To put it another way - Kate deserves to go to jail for what she did, whereas Locke didn't deserve Cooper stealing his kindey. Kate has no business trying to establish whether the Feds are still after her or not, she should accept her punishment, not try to plan according to the how the land lays.

Well we dont exactly know why she has Aaron, she may have saved him. We do know that she didn't want to use him as a bargaining tool, as she was extremely adamant that he was kept out of it.

Right you are, however it still reeks of something underhand. This is Kate, afterall.

Fair enough, your welcome to your opinion

As are you bud

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by D-Roc

Actually you offered no foundation whatsoever - you simply said "You're wrong", which is an indication of a baseless argument. Had I said that in response to one of your posts, I think you'd understand

Just because you say someone else is wrong, Murgatroyd, it doesn't mean they are - particularly when you're unable to back your POV up with anything else except "You're wrong" I'm surprised you would conduct yourself in this manner. But, meh.

Sorry to dig this up again, but I've been desperate to explain this for days now - I think this is a bit of a crossed wires thing, but yes, it's totally my fault for the way I chose to phrase my initial post: obviously 'you're wrong' was far from clever or helpful and I apologise unreservedly for that. Basically I was thinking in terms of accepted definitions: legally, unless I'm horribly mistaken, and probably philosophically, what Locke did would be recognised as torture, so that's what I meant when I said you'd be 'wrong' if you deemed it less than torture, but patently I should've phrased it like that at the time - I didn't mean to suggest that you didn't have a right to differ from (what I believe to be - please correct me if I'm mistaken) the legal opinion. So yeah. Sorry for my rubbish use of language there.

I'm still really interested, though, in the issue of why Locke didn't accept the (admittedly twisted) 'help' Miles was offering - blackmail it may be, but it's the only solution anyone's suggested other than running and hiding, and I genuinely think this is the time Locke and Ben need to start working together. Though I can understand why neither or them are terribly well suited to doing so at present ....