The one question that really matter.

[Kiowa Warrior]

Just to add for example say I was in charge of a school full of hundreds of kids and said to someone, 'how can I save the school?' yes it means that I want the actual school building to be saved, but does that mean I couldn't care less about the kids and staff inside it just because I didn't specifically say 'how can I save the children and staff?' Or does it mean that I'm simply using the word school as a collective to include both the actual place and everyone inside it, as well as the long term survival of it as a place for others to eventually use?

[Murg]

Originally Posted by Reed

You make excellent points but my point was Locke feels "something" on this Island and has done so from the very beginning. Yes he may be wrong but would that not be a terrible conclusion to Lost if it were all false?

He thinks he has a Destiny on the Island and that the Island is special, of which he has SOME evidence due to his experiences on it. He is definitely going on faith and it is a risk, but in my opinion a calculated risk.

The point others were making is that NONE of them attempted to stop Jack, and the majority have never viewed Locke in a nice way - some have been rather nasty to him. And purely because they are too ignorant and/or stupid to even hear him speak about faith regarding the Island.

I think it is like someone saying during World War Two - "what can I do to save this Country"? I think it is a case of it is ALL he has in life and he has reason to want to save it, even if it has treated him badly in the past. You cannot choose whom or what you love.

I do actually agree with your assessment of Locke here, but I'm afraid it doesn't make me warm to him any further - I still consider his prioritising an unproven and occasionally very malicious entity over human lives extremely problematic and symptomatic of his current character. Even his admittedly very sympathetic past (don't forget he was my favourite character until the middle of season two) doesn't excuse that sort of selfishness.

I also don't think that 'How do I save the Island?' is quite the same as 'How do I save this country?' A country or a city implies very clearly all the people within it because they're nothing without a society. But the Island can be referenced without including the people who happen to be on it because Locke and numerous others - probably correctly - view it as an entity within itself. Sure, saving those people is a side-effect of saving the island, but I don't really think it's foremost in Locke's mind. I half-suspect that if saving the island involved killing some of those people, Locke would be up for it because that's how powerfully he venerates the entity ... largely because of how special it makes him feel. And I continue to have issues with that.

I also contest the idea that people who don't share Locke's blind faith in the worthiness of the island (not his partially-sighted faith in its power, which is fairly evident) are either stupid or ignorant. Probably because I don't want to be labelled stupid or ignorant myself ...?

[Murg]

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior

Just to add for example say I was in charge of a school full of hundreds of kids and said to someone, 'how can I save the school?' yes it means that I want the actual school building to be saved, but does that mean I couldn't care less about the kids and staff inside it just because I didn't specifically say 'how can I save the children and staff?' Or does it mean that I'm simply using the word school as a collective to include both the actual place and everyone inside it, as well as the long term survival of it as a place for others to eventually use?

See my reply to Reed - being an entity in itself, the Island doesn't incorporate its population in the way that a school or a city does. I think Locke was a referencing a being ... not a society.

[Reed]

Originally Posted by Murg

I do actually agree with your assessment of Locke here, but I'm afraid it doesn't make me warm to him any further - I still consider his prioritising an unproven and occasionally very malicious entity over human lives extremely problematic and symptomatic of his current character. Even his admittedly very sympathetic past (don't forget he was my favourite character until the middle of season two) doesn't excuse that sort of selfishness.

I also don't think that 'How do I save the Island?' is quite the same as 'How do I save this country?' A country or a city implies very clearly all the people within it because they're nothing without a society. But the Island can be referenced without including the people who happen to be on it because Locke and numerous others - probably correctly - view it as an entity within itself. Sure, saving those people is a side-effect of saving the island, but I don't really think it's foremost in Locke's mind. I half-suspect that if saving the island involved killing some of those people, Locke would be up for it because that's how powerfully he venerates the entity ... largely because of how special it makes him feel. And I continue to have issues with that.

I also contest the idea that people who don't share Locke's blind faith in the worthiness of the island (not his partially-sighted faith in its power, which is fairly evident) are either stupid or ignorant. Probably because I don't want to be labelled stupid or ignorant myself ...?

I am not sure what else to say really, because in the end it is all about perceptions and opinions. Some believe he included the lives of the Island's inhabitants in his statement and others do not. I think it was NOT a choice between the Island and the people so we need not really pretend that is the case because it is an "if" statement and a prediction to state what Locke WOULD have done.

He is killing "two birds with one stone" and the Survivors' - ungrateful ones at that - ARE being saved.

I do see what you are saying here however. And yes perhaps he would surrender lives, but we will never know. Perhaps it is justifiable - currently the Island is just a piece of land, though some of us believe it is significant to the world - the infamous bigger picture. So significant that lives MUST be lost to protect it in such a scenario? Who really knows. Jack was willing to let Sayid, Bernard and Jin die when there were other ways to go about saving everyone - which was NOT really fair in my opinion.

I think they have all seen how magical, weird and abnormal the Island is, yet they choose to ignore it and label John a madman.

[Beach Crew]

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior

Just because Locke didn't specifically state that he wants to know how to save the people on the Island in no way means that he couldn't care less about them...how do we know for certain that he doesn't want to save the people that stuck by him?

And how do we know for certain that he does? To me, it wasn't just the fact that he chose to first claim that the island was the most important thing to save. It's purely that he pauses, and thinks about it, but still it's the island that comes to mind first.

Like Reed says, Locke knows that if the Island is saved then by association then everyone on it will be saved, so just because he's looking at the bigger picture - at the greater and long term aim for survival - first, I really don't understand why he's now being accused of not caring about anyone else! Yes the Island may be his primary priority heavily tainted by selfish motives, but why can't the wellbeing of everyone else be just as important to him?

For me, we all know how obsessed Locke is with the secrets of the island and with the island itself. He seems willing to put anyone's life at risk in order to find out what he wants to know. Boone and Hurley to name but a few. If I had seen Locke to care more about the people on the island, I might be more willing to overlook his statement. But I can't.

With regards to Jack, lets not forget that Locke could easily have killed him in the S3 finale but he didn't. He couldn't. So he spared Jack's life only for Jack to beat him up and try twice to put a bullet through his head If you had been in Locke's place would Jack's safety be at the forefront of your mind? I don't believe that Locke would ever willingly let Jack die at all, but I don't blame him at all for not having Jack's safety in his mind first

If I had been in Locke's place, and Jack had treated me in such a manner, I still don't think I'd act the same. Granted, I'd be crazy angry but I couldn't let everyone else on the island be in peril just so that I could get back at Jack. I would put my feelings for Jack aside knowing that there were so many others on the island that I cared for.

And I don't seem to remember Kate, upon hearing of Jack's plan to kill Locke when he next saw him, raise so much as an eyebrow against him...so, that along with her awful and dangerous betrayal when she came to camp Locke, I can't blame her being a priority to Locke either! But just because she may not be a priority does in no way mean that Locke doens't care about her future at all.

Well Kate's not the highest in moral standings now is she? But Jack and Kate are just two people. What about Aaron? About Claire? What about sweet Rose and Bernard and all the lovely extras who we never get to know. There are some many people Locke should care about but it appears he can't see past his petty differences.

Yes Locke can be all too quick to jump at the command of the Island at times (well at pretty much every time really) even if it does have some negative consequences for people, but I would confidently bet that if Locke had the clear choice between following the orders of the Island or ensuring the lives of everyone on it, especially if such a choice would result in their deaths, he would ultimately opt to do his best to save everyone. Yes Locke is incredibly selfish at times but given his past I find it very difficult to hold such a thing against him to a large extent, but everyone on the Island is selfish in one way or another, but unlike the majority of those people Locke has shown some truly and wonderfully selfless moments.

Cough. All the time. Negative Consequences - Boone died! I don't know if I agree Ki. I feel that if Locke had to put someone in peril to save his precious island that he would do it, or, like Ben, work out a way to make these people think that they're doing it through their own choice. I know I might be biased, but I think Locke is troubled when it comes to The Island and it will always take priority over anything/anyone else.

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior

Just to add for example say I was in charge of a school full of hundreds of kids and said to someone, 'how can I save the school?' yes it means that I want the actual school building to be saved, but does that mean I couldn't care less about the kids and staff inside it just because I didn't specifically say 'how can I save the children and staff?' Or does it mean that I'm simply using the word school as a collective to include both the actual place and everyone inside it, as well as the long term survival of it as a place for others to eventually use?

This is different though. A school is an entity that involves children in the title. We know that by saving the school that you mean to also save the children because a school's ONLY purpose is to teach. The kids come attached to the school. The island is different. The Island is a thing on it's own. It's different, and freaky and exists seperately from the survivors. To claim that The Island needs saving, suggests to me, the island first and the survivors second. That's how I feel anyways.

Originally Posted by Reed

I
I think they have all seen how magical, weird and abnormal the Island is, yet they choose to ignore it and label John a madman.

Sorry to jump in here, but it's something I've been thinking about for a while and you're the first person to bring it up. Personally, I have seen the "unusual" things that the island can do, and it's all very impressive, but I still think Locke is a bit crazy. I don't believe the island is all that. I think there's something else - the people, the very survivors themselves that makes the place the way it is. I don't trust Locke and I never will and I don't care what that makes me, but at least I know where I stand with my Girl of Science nature.

[Reed]

Originally Posted by Beach Crew

Sorry to jump in here, but it's something I've been thinking about for a while and you're the first person to bring it up. Personally, I have seen the "unusual" things that the island can do, and it's all very impressive, but I still think Locke is a bit crazy. I don't believe the island is all that. I think there's something else - the people, the very survivors themselves that makes the place the way it is. I don't trust Locke and I never will and I don't care what that makes me, but at least I know where I stand with my Girl of Science nature.

They all seem a little blind for my liking. I find their stance rather annoying to say the least being that they are there in person and have seen things on the Island which would be more suited for a Hollywood Blockbuster, YET they still look down on him for his views.

Is he simply crazy..... or motivated? I think were we Survivors on that Island, we would find the Island incredibly special, and this need not necessarily mean we would want to stay on it ala Locke. But I think we could all appreciate what we have seen and perhaps lend an ear to what he has to say.

I surely hope the Survivors end up apologising to Locke ONCE they find themselves in the wrong. As of this moment, calling that Freighter was a terrible idea - something Locke foretold. What else he foretells shall come true?

[Beach Crew]

Originally Posted by Reed

They all seem a little blind for my liking. I find their stance rather annoying to say the least being that they are there in person and have seen things on the Island which would be more suited for a Hollywood Blockbuster, YET they still look down on him for his views.

Is he simply crazy..... or motivated? I think were we Survivors on that Island, we would find the Island incredibly special, and this need not necessarily mean we would want to stay on it ala Locke. But I think we could all appreciate what we have seen and perhaps lend an ear to what he has to say.

I surely hope the Survivors end up apologising to Locke ONCE they find themselves in the wrong. As of this moment, calling that Freighter was a terrible idea - something Locke foretold. What else he foretells shall come true?

Well then I guess I'm blind too? I've tried to believe in the island, I understand that it's something important, but I can't believe that it is the greatest and most wonderful thing in the world. Locke believes too much in the island and is too damn willing to risk people's lives because he believes it is special.

You might, but I wouldn't. Just like the survivors on the island are split, I think if we were survivors on the island, we would also be split. I really think there's a part of him that is too "motivated" if that's the term you wanna give it. He sometimes strikes me as odd, and too willing to believe in the island. If I were a survivor, that would scare me and I'd want to distance myself from that.

But why should they apologise? I don't believe they've done anything wrong. So they didn't believe the island had magical powers, is that such a crime? Like I said, I don't think it's the island that holds all the mystery - the survivors, the others, heck even the frieghter people - they all bring something. I just don't trust in what Locke believes, sorry.

[Reed]

Originally Posted by Beach Crew

Well then I guess I'm blind too? I've tried to believe in the island, I understand that it's something important, but I can't believe that it is the greatest and most wonderful thing in the world. Locke believes too much in the island and is too damn willing to risk people's lives because he believes it is special.

You might, but I wouldn't. Just like the survivors on the island are split, I think if we were survivors on the island, we would also be split. I really think there's a part of him that is too "motivated" if that's the term you wanna give it. He sometimes strikes me as odd, and too willing to believe in the island. If I were a survivor, that would scare me and I'd want to distance myself from that.

But why should they apologise? I don't believe they've done anything wrong. So they didn't believe the island had magical powers, is that such a crime? Like I said, I don't think it's the island that holds all the mystery - the survivors, the others, heck even the frieghter people - they all bring something. I just don't trust in what Locke believes, sorry.

I did not expect people to take offence to my comments about the Survivors. I was solely referring to the characters on Lost. Just as I am not assuming I am being called "crazy" and "odd" for believing in Locke, I also fully expect no one to take my comments personally.

If it were real-life then yes perhaps I would hate Locke for the very reasons you do. Who really knows. But in the setting of 'fantasy' and 'make-believe' I like Locke very much.

For the sake of an arguement, I will leave it at that. Regarding the last paragraph I meant Locke has been right once and in the future he may be right again.

Once again, I am sorry you are taking offence - and Murg also.

[Beach Crew]

Lol, I'm not taking offense Reed. Honest. I just like to stand up for the survivors and I'm very anti-Locke, in case you hadn't guessed . Don't worry hun I'm gonna edit and reply properley but I just wanted you to see this first

Like I've said, I'm totally not taking offense, so don't worry. Also, I'm sorry if I came across too strong . And no, I don't think you're crazy and/or odd, because you are real and Locke it not. It's just a matter of belief. I'm guessing you'd vote on the "fate/faith" side of the island, whereas I come down on the science side.

Lol, I guess sometimes I treat Lost as if it's real and that's why I get caught up in it. Don't get me wrong, I think Locke is a great character, but I just don't like him as a person, does that make sense?

Oh ok, I see what you mean. I'm very grateful for Locke for saving our survivors, that's for sure, and if he's going to save them in the future, then he can go for it. I'll be glad for that. But if he's going to risk a life - like Boone, then I'd like him not to, lol.

Me too, Reed. Sorry hun . How about we just go back to being semi-mean to Kate

[Murg]

I'm not taking offence. I agree that the weird happenings on the island point strongly to a powerful entity and I think anyone continuing to believe there's nothing peculiar going on is deluding themselves - I thought back in season 1 that Jack's believing the hatch could contain nothing more significant than shelter or supplies was limited. Then again, it hardly contained the miraculous salvation that Locke believed it would either - it contained a man on the verge of a nervous breakdown and a button that drove everyone mad. I think it's foolish to completely dismiss the clear supernatural element evidenced on the island, but it doesn't follow that, like Locke, you have to fall head over heels in love with the entity to the extent that people come second to its whims ... especially when it has a track record in doling out cancers, giving and taking away the ability to walk, killing Eko because he wasn't worthy etc.

That's why I have every sympathy with those who want nothing to do with Locke. His faith in not only the power of the entity but also in the value of worshipping it is, more often than not, downright dangerous. I'd suggest that he's being just as blind in his way as Jack was in season 1.