Isn't It Ironic?

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by KoRevo,September 26, 2006 07:03 pm

If i do this would you be willing to list the faults of your fave?

What, Locke? Again? That's too easy.

He's self-centred and mono-focused to the point where it becomes deadly to other people. While I consider the manifestation of his brand of faith to be tragically misguided, I don't consider it ammoral in itself, but the things he's used it to excuse in the past most certainly are. Albeit unmaliciously, he encouraged Boone to accompany him on a dangerous mission and hid the truth about Boone's injury, with ultimately fatal consequences, purely in order to preserve a secret that he then gave up about 24 hours later and that he was misguided in hiding anyway. He handed Sayid a knife and pinned the blame on Sawyer for an incident he himself committed - and that's incitement to murder and accessory to any damage committed on Sawyer as a result: it's as bad as what Ana Lucia did - in order to preserve his condition on the island. He allowed Sayid access to Henry Gale knowing that the man was going to be tortured. He then allowed Jack to apologise to him over the incident and did not in any way accept that he was wrong. While mild-mannered for much of the time, he is prone to fairly devestating losses of temper that sometimes result in physical violence. He will also (along with most of the Losties, to be fair) quite calmly use physical violence in a total belief that it's justified to get him what he wants - whacking Boone on the head, tying him up and giving him a vision quest, for example. He's too lax about the security to which he's been entrusted - giving Michael guns, for example - and he doesn't always respect the authority of other people - teaching Walt to throw knives without gaining Michael's permission.

And I love him to bits.

Will that do for now?

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,September 26, 2006 08:06 pm

Okay, that was sidestepping. The previous example of sidestepping was as nothing compared to the above. Why are we harping on about the previous example as though it in any sense matters? Surely it shouldn't be the issue under discussion. Why don't we all just talk about Satan instead? He's the ultimate personification of evil. Anything Michael did is TRIVA. Trivia I tells you.

:P

Yes. Anyway. I'll happily discuss the issue of Mike's brutality when you claim that it wasn't brutality. While you claim that handing people guns knowing that they're going to murder people with them is akin to stealing chewing gum on the immorality stakes, I'd rather discuss that.

I dont think i sidestepped the issue. Im just pointing out that we seem a tad over-zealous when it comes to recapping the fact that Ana 'killed' Shannon [despite it being an accident] and how she killed Goodwin [despite the fact that she 'had' to in order to protect her friends]..oh and the fact that she gave Mike the gun, which is nothing, when we look at the bigger picture.

I think it would be healthy if we didnt feel it necessary to drag up negative facts about Ana in order to devalue Mikes crime. Because thats what i feel has happened. And that is a shame.

I havent ever said that Ana's handing the gun to Mike wasnt 'wrong'..but i just fail to see how it can be compared to Mike's actual execution of the poor poor girls.

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by KoRevo,September 26, 2006 07:23 pm

I havent ever said that Ana's handing the gun to Mike wasnt 'wrong'..but i just fail to see how it can be compared to Mike's actual execution of the poor poor girls.

I don't want to compare the crimes. I want to discuss what Ana did without reference to what Michael did, because this constant referral to him seems to stifle the debate somewhat: it's not a reason as to why Ana Lucia's behaviour is moral or immoral, it's just a blocking point to suggest that we ought to be discussing something else entirely. Yes, we can compare the crimes and say 'double murder is worse than giving murderers guns', which is fine and dandy in itself, but if given in reponse to a question about whether or not Ana did a bad thing, it's fairly irrelevant and just closes off the debate about handing murderers guns, which I actually think is way more interesting because there's not so much contest about the first issue. When you're repeatedly told that the debate you're interested in talking about is 'nothing', it's hard to see where you can go from there.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,September 26, 2006 08:31 pm

I don't want to compare the crimes. I want to discuss what Ana did without reference to what Michael did, because this constant referral to him seems to stifle the debate somewhat: it's not a reason as to why Ana Lucia's behaviour is moral or immoral, it's just a blocking point to suggest that we ought to be discussing something else entirely. Yes, we can compare the crimes and say 'double murder is worse than giving murderers guns', which is fine and dandy in itself, but if given in reponse to a question about whether or not Ana did a bad thing, it's fairly irrelevant and just closes off the debate about handing murderers guns, which I actually think is way more interesting because there's not so much contest about the first issue. When you're repeatedly told that the debate you're interested in talking about is 'nothing', it's hard to see where you can go from there.

Im not saying the debate is 'noting' - just that Ana's supposed crime in hading over the gun is nothing in camparison to what Mike did. imo.

I understand and respect that you want to explore the whole Ana side of things..though i want to discuss Mike's crimes without the whole Ana thing blocking that side of the debate. See..im sure you can understand that because essentially it's the same as you wanting to explore the handing over the gun issue etc. Except i feel that the what Mike did debate should be allowed to deveop without the more 'minor' crime diluting his evil deeds.

Personally i would love to debate the nature of Ana's contributions to that whole 24TR debacle..however i feel that people have used their negative interpretation of Ana as a devise to defamate her and nagate Mike of responsibility. Sure, no-one has called him a 'saint' but at the same time i dont really feel that he has been rightly condemed. Especially considering were all moral beings and that..

I would just like to hear people condem Mike without mentioning Ana..because it's ridiculous to think that Ana should even be blamed in light of what happened! Why cant we condem Mike without bringing Ana into it..surely thats the rightful thing? Should this happen then i would be more than happy to focus on the seperate issue of Ana handing the man the gun and all that entailed.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,September 26, 2006 08:16 pm

What, Locke? Again? That's too easy.

He's self-centred and mono-focused to the point where it becomes deadly to other people. While I consider the manifestation of his brand of faith to be tragically misguided, I don't consider it ammoral in itself, but the things he's used it to excuse in the past most certainly are. Albeit unmaliciously, he encouraged Boone to accompany him on a dangerous mission and hid the truth about Boone's injury, with ultimately fatal consequences, purely in order to preserve a secret that he then gave up about 24 hours later and that he was misguided in hiding anyway. He handed Sayid a knife and pinned the blame on Sawyer for an incident he himself committed - and that's incitement to murder and accessory to any damage committed on Sawyer as a result: it's as bad as what Ana Lucia did - in order to preserve his condition on the island. He allowed Sayid access to Henry Gale knowing that the man was going to be tortured. He then allowed Jack to apologise to him over the incident and did not in any way accept that he was wrong. While mild-mannered for much of the time, he is prone to fairly devestating losses of temper that sometimes result in physical violence. He will also (along with most of the Losties, to be fair) quite calmly use physical violence in a total belief that it's justified to get him what he wants - whacking Boone on the head, tying him up and giving him a vision quest, for example. He's too lax about the security to which he's been entrusted - giving Michael guns, for example - and he doesn't always respect the authority of other people - teaching Walt to throw knives without gaining Michael's permission.

And I love him to bits.

Will that do for now?

I have to rush off now otherwise im gonna miss Lost! But i will come back to this tomorrow and give you my critique of Ana [once ive got the finale outta my system].

[Murgatroyd]

Well, yeah, if you feel that people are constantly and irrelevantly dragging Ana Lucia's actions into a debate about what Michael did to the detriment of that specific debate, that's precisely the same issue. Just... please understand that this is precisely what I feel's been happening sometimes when other people have been trying to argue that Ana did wrong: that the answer has simply been 'but Michael did worse', and that has as little to do with the issue as the Others having kidnapped dozens of people has to do with the question of whether or not Sawyer's wrong to hoarde medicine... just because the former is worse than the latter, it doesn't make the latter okay or unworthy of debate.

Anyway, enjoy the finale - as ever, I am looking forward to the discussion afterwards (and being able to type Lost into Wikipedia without fear of spoilers! Joy!)

[Murgatroyd]

This is a shameless *bump* - I never did get to see Korevo's promised list of Ana Lucia's faults (you can put them in the character forum if you've still a mind to do it, Korevo).

[haelle03]

Isnt it ironic,dont ya think? its liek rain! on your wedding day! * turns down alanis morrissette*

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,October 18, 2006 09:17 pm

This is a shameless *bump* - I never did get to see Korevo's promised list of Ana Lucia's faults (you can put them in the character forum if you've still a mind to do it, Korevo).

Hehe, well im not one to shy away from a debate/critique.

I was going post it here (as this will eventually get transferred to the character forum) but i might as well start a new thread for it