Sayid: Does he deserve a beating?

[Cavegirl]

No, he doesn't deserve a beating. No one does. Like many of the survivors he deserves a long break in a padded cell. He clearly was not in his right mind when he unleashed his fists on poor Ben, and he still isn't in his right mind now. His life has been one long trauma lately.

Whatever counselling Sayid needs, I don't think Benry is the man to dish it out. This is another man who clearly needs help, as he seems to think it's okay to kidnap children, keep people in cages, electrocute them, and feed them fish biscuits. In fact, padded cells all round, and no sharps for anyone!

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Cavegirl,November 22, 2006 06:55 pm

No, he doesn't deserve a beating. No one does. Like many of the survivors he deserves a long break in a padded cell. He clearly was not in his right mind when he unleashed his fists on poor Ben, and he still isn't in his right mind now. His life has been one long trauma lately.

Whatever counselling Sayid needs, I don't think Benry is the man to dish it out. This is another man who clearly needs help, as he seems to think it's okay to kidnap children, keep people in cages, electrocute them, and feed them fish biscuits. In fact, padded cells all round, and no sharps for anyone!

Why shouldnt Benry dish it out? Sayid was quite happy to crucify the man..

I dont think Ben will..but if he decided to get himself some retribution then Sayid couldnt really complain, imo.

What was it Frank Duckett said again? Oh yes, "it'll come back around"

[haelle03]

No he does not deserve a beating!!!!

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by haelle03,November 23, 2006 07:25 pm

No he does not deserve a beating!!!!

On what basis?

[haelle03]

Hes the second best!!! Thats the basis!! (obviously the first best is shannon )

[D-Roc]

You might be right, maybe the Others do have more guns in thier possession than the losties - but then look at how many of the Others have been killed by a gun toting lostie (Ethan, Colleen, Other in the jungle, Ben - almost!) the list oges on and on..the only time that the Others have used the guns is to deter - like when they grazed James' ear or when they 'wanted to deliver a message'..as Alex even admitted.

Let's remind ourselves of why these people were killed. Ethan - because he kidnapped and nearly killed two people.

Whose to say that it was Ethan who hang Chucky up to die? ..furthermore do we have any proof that it was Ethan who killed Scott? Whereas theres no element of doubt as to who killed Ethan, Goodwin and a whole host of other others..

Colleen, because she was stealing the boat, suprised Sun and put her in a position where (from Sun's POV) she could either not shoot her and be taken to the other encampment, or shoot her in a non fatal place (certainly wasn't the head, heart, lungs, stomach etc). The other in the jungle, because they were following them and Kate believed she was going to save Walt who had been kidnapped (let's remind ourselves).

To be honest i think Sun was just startled bu the Other above deck -i dont think she meant to pull to trigger, so i wont be too hard on her. But still..it adds to the statistics..people still to this day blame Ana for killing Shannon so it looks like murder is murder. Again, there is no evidence to suggest thatthe Others have killed any losties.. surely it has been presented like this for a reason?

Well Juliet and Ben are trying to extract info from Jack, yet i dont see them crucifying the man or beating him into a pulp! On the contrary, theyre giving him Tv to watch and letting him know things from his past! I know which i'd prefer..and it aint Sayid's methods..

Are they? I got the impression they already knew everything about Jack. As for letting him watch TV, they only showed him that to prove they can get him back. As for letting him know things about his past - is that really to make Jack feel more comfy or is to make him do what they want him to do? 

Yes, they do already know alot about Jack, but theyre still extracting info from him for whatever reason. They could easily pummel the man into submission but theyre giving him choice and a meal to boot. Now where was Sayid's hospitality? ..and Jack's for that matter. I guess it's no fun when the boot is on the OTHER foot

At the endof the day, surely their reason for letting Jack watch the tv is irrelevent? It's a far sight better than the reading material Locke gave Benry

What's more our losties were in a very different situation. They had one man and his son captured. Now the others are in a very different position - they appear to be safely hidden and have all the time in the world, they're in no rush to get to the real world.

I recall Sayid beating 7 bells out of Ben before they even knew about Michael being held..

Hmm, i agree with the anti-torture stance..but i just think that Sayid wouldnt have a leg to stand on if Ben tied him to a pole and beat on him..it would be wrong but then so was what Sayid did..

But like i said i dont think Ben would stoop to Sayid's level or immorality

I think Sayid's motives and methods is something we will just have to agree to disagree on. I think his actions were understandable, you apparantly don't.

I agree that we'll just have to disagree.. ..why is it ok for Sayid to beat the living daylights out of a man but not alright for Ben to do the same to that same man? Ah well..agree to disagree

lol, i just dont have as much faith in Sayids luck..sorry, i mean 'judgement' than some do

As i said before i would never condon torture. Despite you joke Sayid has been right about these things. You believe it was luck that made Sayid realsie Mike was a spy. That's some pretty damn good luck there if you ask me. He was right about Ben and was right ot dig up his 'wife's' grave.

Surely Sayid being right is not the issue? Sayid was lucky..hge could so easily have been wrong - heck he might still be wrong! Whose to say that it was the Others who created the whipsers that caused Shannon to be slain?

Sayid is depraved..digging up a grave like that..a man with that state of mind is never the best judge of character or situation. Just look at how he almost got Sun killed! The man needs help, imo. ..and i'd keep him away from all decision making for the time being.

But such a thing doesnt exist surely? I mean whose to say that these 'tell tell signs' werent just the reactions of a man scared for his very life!? In the absense of absolute evidence, restraint should be sought. Sayid couldve been completely wring about Ben..what then? What if he was wrong...

Doesn't exsist? You think people don't give off different body laungage when they're lying to when they are telling the truth? By saying that your disagreeing with several psychological studies into body language and behaviour.

But Sayid only knew he was lying because he dug up the grave - not because of Benrys body language. Again, imo Sayid was lucky and now he feels justified in his horric beating of Benry. This isnt right surely? What message does this give to Sayid..now he thinks he knows it all when he quite clearly doesnt.

Yes, i do understand that if Sayid was wrong then his case would be harder to argue, but he was distraught at the time and acted (incorrectly i agree) in the way he knew how. The way he knew would get the truth.

But thats not 'the only way he knows'..weve seen Sayid act responsibly and with reason. We know that he can be a better person than this savage that we currently see before us. In my view Sayid is being like this because its easier..its easier to blame someone else for a tradegy because..well because it just is. And that is a shame.

Dont get me wrong, i used to adore Sayid..truely i did..he was a fanstastic man, even after what he di to James i still liked him..but he's gone too far now. IN fact it's more his actions than the man himself that i have issues with - the day his boot came crashing down on Ben's face was the day that i saw a different side to Sayid..an ugly side

I agree with you there, Sayid's character has an ugly side but so do most. Like you say, i's more that aspect of his character which acts in that way that i'm against than anything else.

Yes, they all have ugly sides to them..it's just that Sayid has undergone such a horrible regression - far less understandable and condonable than the likes of Locke, Charlie for example.

I dont stick up for the Others blindly - in fact i condemed Ben for rasing his hands to Ana-Lucia..and ive all but washed my hands of Zeke and his overzeolous nature. Thats the thing..i dont judge them on the basis of one or two individuals..i think that the likes of Ben, klugh, Goodwin and Juliet have done not much wrong. Ben in particular seems like a decent fella..sure he's a bit off-key but so's Locke..and there aint much wrong with our Locke

Funny really, i still quite like Tom, i think he's quite funny and hasn't actually shown any real agression (bar kidnapping Walt of course).

I quite like him as a character..however the man is a sadist..still, better thanSaid right now

im reserving judgement on them because we still dont know them from Adam yet.

We don't know them, but we know what they can do. Yeah our losties have done things but just about all of their actions can be lead back to be provoked by the others. I like the others in a mystically, OMG they're super cool way, but on a personal level i can't agree with their methods and i can't understand any of their actions (no doubt by the end of S3 we will do) 

We'll have to agree to disagree...the losties are almost into double figure with Other killings..whereas the Others have killed zero losties..speaks volumes in my book

I feel that im fair with my views on them - afterall we still know so little about them and what ive seen on Ben, Juliet, Goodwin and Klugh, ive liked so far. Sure theyre not perfect..but they dont prefess to be - all they profess to be are 'the good guys'..and you know what..after seeing our lot go barmy in S2..who's to say Ben's wrong..? 

I agree we shouldn't tar all the others with the same brush, they've all shown very different characteristics afterall. However by saying 'we're the good guys' they effectivly condem all the actions of the losties even those done out of self-defence. Not sure how how our lot went barmy though. With Ben do you mean. Looking at the world through your Ben tinited glasses again.  :P

As far as ive seen the Others may well be right in their "good guys" estimation..because theyre surely better than the likes of Sayid, Kate and Sawyer? Furthermore they might mean that theyre good in 'relation' to another island faction which we have yet to see. In that sense they would perhaps be the 'good guys'.

As for going barmy..yeah i meant Said and co beating the heck out of Benjamin..aswell as turning on eachother like they always seem to do.

Lol, this is become quite a discussion.

It has hasnt it

Ana was defending her people - if Shannon was part of those in her group at that time and a strange figure came galloping towards them, i bet you wouldve wanted Ana to shoot  Plus it was an instinct reaction..Ana wasd a cop and the situation confused her..imagine what it wouldve done to anyone else - more bullets may have been sprayed!

I doubt that btw as if memory serves there was only one bullet in there "if you think one bullet and one gun is gonna stop them, think again."

Sorry, i dont get what you mean here..are you saying that Ana is to blame for killing Shannon?

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by haelle03,November 23, 2006 07:50 pm

Hes the second best!!! Thats the basis!! (obviously the first best is shannon )

Oh yeah, Shannon..forgot about her

[The_other_other]

guys i think we should leave this argument untill we can find out what the other's motives truly are. If they are good, then korevo is right. However if they are bad...
anyway i dont think this argument will go anywhere as both sides can be argued sufficiently.

[Cavegirl]

Originally Posted by KoR-evo,November 23, 2006 06:17 pm

Why shouldnt Benry dish it out? Sayid was quite happy to crucify the man..

I dont think Ben will..but if he decided to get himself some retribution then Sayid couldnt really complain, imo.

What was it Frank Duckett said again? Oh yes, "it'll come back around"

That seems a very Old Testament attitude. An eye for an eye? Do we really want to go back to that?

Sayid, in my opinion, has lost it and was acting with diminished responsibility. He needs protecting (from himself, and other from him), not punishing. And it seems to me that Henry has been taught some very skewed moral values, possibly for his entire life. I say this because he seem convinced his people are the "good guys" even though they kidnap, terrorise, shoot at and blow up the boat of a bunch of scared plane crash victims. I don't know how you fix this - but giving him free reign to pummel "the Iraqi" doesn't strike me as a good first step on the road to moral health.

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by The_other_other,November 23, 2006 07:43 pm

guys i think we should leave this argument untill we can find out what the other's motives truly are. If they are good, then korevo is right. However if they are bad...
anyway i dont think this argument will go anywhere as both sides can be argued sufficiently.

I've no problem with holding off judging their capacity to rationalise or to reach sound moral judgements until I know their motives - I suspect that they genuinely consider themselves to be in the right in some sense, which to me suggests that their responsibility is just as diminished as Sayid's. But I'd be very wary of the introduction of any backstory that expects us to conclude 'they're good'. That would mean accepting that people who kidnap, murder, torture, segregate et al can be considered essentially 'good', which would be a very grim and dangerous message for primetime TV. I can only imagine a revelation that they genuinely consider themselves 'good', or that some of the people within the group are better than others, but not that their society en masse is 'good'.

[The_abbott]

I personally think that Sayid has been protrayed as "good" in his flashbacks thus far despite the situations his character has been in.

[Beach Crew]

No. I do not think Sayid deserves a beating.

Sayid's a good boy. Sure, he has a tendance for violence, but I don't think he deserves to be beaten.

We need Sayid, he's going to save the day....I hope...he better...oh god....sorry, distracted. But I don't want Sayid to be hurt, I want him to be there, and to help, and besides two wrongs do not make a right.

Not in that circumstance anyway.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Cavegirl,November 24, 2006 09:46 am