LOST-Theories.com

I don’t think Widmore changed the rules, though… technically, Alex isn’t Ben’s daughter. And Ben is not going to actually kill Penelope himself because that would mean that he would have to break the rule first. That’s why he’s getting Sayid to do it. He loved Alex like she was his daughter, that’s why he wants revenge. But he knows he can’t kill her himself because there will be reprocussions.

I’m not going to go into too much discussion tonight, I’m camping out in the back yard. I see one major flaw in your theory.

Alex is NOT family. She is NOT Ben’s daughter.

I’ll read the rest tomorrow. good luck, good night.

Iroc +1 I posted a comment on your linked post as well !

I think if there was a rule that you couldn’t kill a family member, of the other players in this island game , that Ben negated it when he said “She’s not my daughter”. I also think he may have had more to say for his counter proposal but Keamy did not give him that chance.

And I think he loved Alex as much ,as if she were his own daughter.He was shocked ,I think that he actually killed her.

classic, i think that whether or not Alex is officially Ben’s daughter is beside the point. As you said, he loved her “like a daughter”, making her family in his eyes. That is why Alex and Penny are now considered equal. The point I was trying to make was what the actual “rule” was that was changed.

Abs, you had the same argument as classic so just see above. Enjoy camping out. It’s a good time of the year for it.

loved her “like a daughter” that’s reaching for it. So everyone that Desmond called brotha is off limits too then? I agree with classic and abs, alex isn’t ben’s daughter, it’s not a family thing

canamerica, if it is not a “family thing” then why does Ben say that he is going to kill Penny? She is family, isn’t she?

And you can’t compare the relationship between Ben and Alex to the relationship between Des and anyone he has called “brotha”. That is just his way of speaking.

Maybe the rule isn’t that they can’t kill family members, maybe the rule is that they can’t kill innocents. Just a guess.

Also, I think Charles Widmore was on the Black Rock when it wrecked on the island. Again, just a guess.

Kave, abs had mentioned that in a prior theory.

http://www.lost-theories.com/theories/2008/apr/25/innocents-gotta-love-em/

My argument against that is that it just seems too subjective. So far, the mercenaries have killed Karl, Rosseau, three extras, and almost Claire. Were all these people “innocent”? Maybe, maybe not, but who is the judge of that?

Plus, I don’t think Ben would be p*ssed off to the point where he would track down Widmore and threaten to kill his daughter just because an “innocent” was killed, but I do think that he would do it because his daughter was killed.

irocz deserves much credit for originating this line of arguments

dabs and abs deserve much credit for keeping the line alive

it seems like i have been arguing the following points continuously for about 24 hours now

this afternoon here with lojozz http://lost-theories.com/theories/2008/apr/26/does-ben-need-machine-teleport/

last night here with abs http://lost-theories.com/theories/2008/apr/26/does-ben-need-machine-teleport/

concisely: a rule might or might not have been broken changed, but whatever this rule is does not matter

what matters is that ben is claiming that a rule has been changed

in claiming that it has been changed by someone else, his future line of attack has been opened, changing and defining the shape and scope of the things to come

ben is now justified in his line of attack.

image matters to ben; he plays himself to other as one of the good guys, is he a good guy? who knows, what we do know is that he wants others to believe that he his a good guy, and I know that it is easier to link up with a good guy rather than a bad guy.

i do disagree with the idea that ben’s desire for penny’s death is mere revenge; i understand that ben is a sociopath but dont think that he has some type of blood lust, penny’s death must mean something other than merely sating his appetitie and wounding widmore’s spirit, it must means something to the game they are playing

its not game like chess, but this does not make it any less a game to someone who structures it like a game; ben plays the game

Here is what really happened…

Off camera, while Ben is still staring out the window, Keamy gives Ben the finger. The rule is that things aren’t supposed to get obscene. Widmore pushed things just a bit too far…

Sorry, that’s not funny… sorry. Just got in from an evening out… kinda tired…

If it is not a “family thing” then why does Ben say that he is going to kill Penny? She is family, isn’t she?

Yes, she is family. Ben simply implies that Widmore has the same feelings for Penny as Ben has for Alex. He assumes Penny´s death would affect Widmore equally to Ben´s grief about watching Alex execution. All he wants is revenge for his own loss. I don´t think he´s paying back the rule changing. He´ll give Widmore a taste of his own medicine regarding the emotional suffering.

good theory i totally agree. and even if alex is not bens biological daughter, she is still his daughter and still counts as family. :)

Thanks for the compliment retro…

“He assumes Penny´s death would affect Widmore equally to Ben´s grief about watching Alex execution. All he wants is revenge for his own loss. I don´t think he´s paying back the rule changing. He´ll give Widmore a taste of his own medicine regarding the emotional suffering.”

Sitting, that’s kinda what I said when I implied “an eye for an eye”. I think we are on the same page as far as what the rule is. But, I think Ben wants revenge and paying back for the rule change. They are kinda one in the same. That is why he says “And you’ll wish you hadn’t changed the rules” after he says he will kill Penny.

Irocz I’m with you on all that you say apart from the actual rule. Everything you say makes sense, I just think the rule that has been changed is something else. Something that we have no idea about. Its just too easy for it to be ‘not killing a family member’.

We don’t even know if Penny was covered by the rule in the first place. Whats to say the rules of the game apply in the real world? Ben does not normally kill innocents (or so he says) but he does believe in an eye for an eye, this is why Juliet was going to be killed for shooting pickett.

+1 though because I think you got everything else right.

Thanks Lojozz. I just left a comment and a +1 on your post from yesterday.

This is in no offense to you, but after reading many of the comments on similar posts (including yours and mine) I am actually extremely surprised at how many well-known and well-respected theorists on this site do not think that this is the rule. I really thought they made it painfully obvious that is was. You can’t kill family members.

There are other suggestions for what the rule that was changed is, but isn’t this the most realistic possibility? Instead of taking leaps of faith and making drastic assumptions, can’t we just call a spade a spade for once? I just think everyone is overthinking this.

That’s not to say there aren’t people who agree with me. I am very aware and appreciative of that as well.

Irocz I take your point and it may well be the rule. My main problem with it is that I don’t believe Ben was trying to get Alex killed, as I note you don’t. So with that in mind when he says that Alex is not his daughter and she is killed, why would that be changing the rule that you can’t kill a family member. He cant have it both ways. I believe Ben said what he did to try to save Alex and he was genuinely shocked when it didn’t work, hence the wrath of smokie.

Plus this is Lost and the obvious is rarely the answer.

I take no offense different points of view are always welcome, thats what makes this place fun.

Lojozz, this is in my post:

“The first is that Ben really does care for Alex. Her death was unexpected and hurtful and it certainly wasn’t part of his “master plan” that some people seem to think it was. He says “then you’ll understand how I feel.” I assume that he feels hurt over his daughter’s death.”

I AGREE with you 110% that Ben didn’t try to kill Alex. He loved her. I just think he tried to use his “Benipulation” to try just have Keamy release Alex and it backfired.

Irocz yeah I know thats why I said I agreed with everything but the rule. He also cried and kissed her head out of sight of everyone so I have to assume he loved her.

Its just a small detail we differ on, and i feel we could go back and forth all night!

I don’t know if you are aware but the first Debate Club debate will be tomorrow, and i think this would make a good challenge for the next debate especially as it has got such a split on the site.

Cool Lojozz. BYW I am looking forward to the debate tomorrow.

And good suggestion for next weeks debate. That’s cool with me. I don’t know why, but I am much more defensive regarding this topic than any other I have ever discussed.

Well you should put it forward. Challenge - The rule that was broken was you can’t kill family members. Or something like that. I’m sure it would get voted for.

I dont know if this link is closed (ie nobody commenting on it) but irocz I have what I think is a problem with their being some actual rule … ben’s comment is he changed the rules; this is a material differene from a comment along the lines of a rule being broken.

you can break a posited rule, the rule imputes your behavior deviated from the norm.

changing a rule suggests that in some respect the rules are constantly being written, hence my claim of justification argument

Retro might be right Lojozz. We may have argued this enough during the past couple days. An official “debate club challenge” might end up being regurgitating comments that we have already said. In other words, I really don’t know what else to say to try to make my case :).