Thistleboy 1980 wrote: GratefulFan wrote: Thistleboy 1980 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I just can't help the way I feel, and I don't see how death of someone who blatantly showed no respect for her own body, pumping it full of shit she shouldn't be touching, is a "tragedy". She knew that one day it could happen, and it did. As for the people in Norway and China, that *really* is a tragedy. You can say that one human life is no more important than any other, or than one death is just as sad as another until you're blue in the face, but the fact is, and always will be, it is her own fault, and that is not tragic. A life taken away by someone else, or through an accident IS tragic.
How much self control did you have to exercise to prevent yourself from, say, going on a heroin binge last weekend? Yeah, me too. None. Not an ounce. You and I are not doing anything hard by being clean and sober. For the addict, it's somewhere between difficult and excruciating. I think we've all failed at things that are difficult, or at least had to take a few runs at them. If she ran out of time, that is tragic. If she effectively committed suicide, which would be my guess, that's even more tragic. Tough love and a necessarily hard line don't preclude empathy. To me, 'fault' is just all wrong here.
=============================================================================================
If it's not hard being clean and sober, why was she a junkie? Answer = because she was foolish enough to start it. If she hadn't started, there'd be nothing to be hooked to and she wouldn't be a junkie. As for suicide being a "tragedy" - HELL NO, it's just fucking selfish, and if that's what she did, it just further reiterates that she had no respect for (a) herself (b) her family and (c) her fans. I have said in another similar thread that I have lived with an addict, and also around them. I will now go into the fact that I have also lost friends to an addiction, and two family members to suicide. Did I mourn? No! They were just selfish bastards, and it's the "softly softly" pandering to them approach that lets them think they can do what they want.
_________________________
Let's extend that logic .....Freddie was promiscuous during a time when he would've been aware of the risks. AIDS was far from a secret in the gay community in the early to mid 80's. So he knew what was possible; he happened to contract HIV; his own fault. ...Clearly no mourning required. Simple.
Why did she have to die i did not whant here to die i dont hink eney one did they
TyphoonTip wrote: Thistleboy 1980 wrote: GratefulFan wrote: Thistleboy 1980 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I just can't help the way I feel, and I don't see how death of someone who blatantly showed no respect for her own body, pumping it full of shit she shouldn't be touching, is a "tragedy". She knew that one day it could happen, and it did. As for the people in Norway and China, that *really* is a tragedy. You can say that one human life is no more important than any other, or than one death is just as sad as another until you're blue in the face, but the fact is, and always will be, it is her own fault, and that is not tragic. A life taken away by someone else, or through an accident IS tragic.
How much self control did you have to exercise to prevent yourself from, say, going on a heroin binge last weekend? Yeah, me too. None. Not an ounce. You and I are not doing anything hard by being clean and sober. For the addict, it's somewhere between difficult and excruciating. I think we've all failed at things that are difficult, or at least had to take a few runs at them. If she ran out of time, that is tragic. If she effectively committed suicide, which would be my guess, that's even more tragic. Tough love and a necessarily hard line don't preclude empathy. To me, 'fault' is just all wrong here.
=============================================================================================
If it's not hard being clean and sober, why was she a junkie? Answer = because she was foolish enough to start it. If she hadn't started, there'd be nothing to be hooked to and she wouldn't be a junkie. As for suicide being a "tragedy" - HELL NO, it's just fucking selfish, and if that's what she did, it just further reiterates that she had no respect for (a) herself (b) her family and (c) her fans. I have said in another similar thread that I have lived with an addict, and also around them. I will now go into the fact that I have also lost friends to an addiction, and two family members to suicide. Did I mourn? No! They were just selfish bastards, and it's the "softly softly" pandering to them approach that lets them think they can do what they want.
_________________________
Let's extend that logic .....Freddie was promiscuous during a time when he would've been aware of the risks. AIDS was far from a secret in the gay community in the early to mid 80's. So he knew what was possible; he happened to contract HIV; his own fault. ...Clearly no mourning required. Simple.
=============================================================================================
Yep, at the end of the day, it was Freddie's fault he died. I have never denied that. However, we can only speculate about when Freddie caught HIV. There are many stories surrounding it, but are mere speculation - there is no concrete, official statement of when, where or even who. So let's think about it this way - prior to 1996, scientists estimated that it would take around 10 years for HIV to become AIDS. That would possibly mean Freddie contracted it around 1981, at least. But assuming that there is a couple of years between AIDS and death, this would take him back to the late 1970s. Therefore, he would have contracted it at a time that the possible consequences of one man having unprotected sex with another man was unknown. Just a theory, I know, but humour me. If that was the case, then it was too late for Freddie to do much about it. As for Winehouse.....
This is an incredibly touchy subject for people, addiction, and we're going to get the gamut of opinions, ranging from extremely selfless and empathetic to unsympathetic and hard-lined. I think most people land reasonably in the middle, where we sympathize, but also question the choices the person made, whether it's a stranger, a celebrity, friend or family member.
Assisting addicts to recover and get their lives together is just as tricky. Yes, there are programs, but many question their effectiveness and their philosophies. Family and friends often feel helpless when they perceive that the addict is unable to help themselves. Add to that the anger and mistrust if they've been hurt by the addict's actions. Most people agree that the addict has to want help before it can be effectively given. It might take hitting rock bottom to get there.
The biggest thing is that, for whatever reason, addicts may not have the best coping mechanisms to deal with what goes on in their live. What seems hard to us seems insurmountable to them. Dealing with a loss, dealing with pressures, taking control...all are reasons to withdraw and focus on the things that help them escape. A recovering addict has to learn how to cope with relying on the thing they're addicted to. The lack of coping skills often leads to the dependency, but there's no one answer to why this develops (or doesn't develop). Sometimes it's external, with terrible things happening to the person. Sometimes it's the personality of the person, leading them to make poor decisions in life.
My feelings, as expressed earlier, are that both influences still require choice and responsibility on the part of the person in how they deal with it. I know abuse victims who have their life together and are able to deal with what happened. And I've known addicts who recover and lead productive lives. I don't believe in generalizing *all* addiction as beyond the control of the addict and absolving the addict of any responsibility for their actions.
I never, EVER cared for Winehouse's quote - music - end quote, and her version of Valerie drove me nuts. It was her only hit and it was a cover of another song!!! It is a bit depressing when a life is lost, but I don't feel ANY remorse for her. I see her death as one less '15 minutes of fame' star polluting the music scene. But let's face it, music went down the lavatory as soon as the Spice Girls formed. One negative side to Winehouse's death is her addition to the 27 Club. She doesn't deserve to be there alongside such legends as Kurt Cobain, Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix. It says her cause of death has yet to be determined, but I bet it was some crazy junkie overdose. The main difference between Winehouse and the legends is that the legends are rock gods, she was a plastic and manufactured pop star. If she'd held on for another eight weeks... she'd be 28.
br5946 wrote: I never, EVER cared for Winehouse's quote - music - end quote, and her version of Valerie drove me nuts. It was her only hit and it was a cover of another song!!! It is a bit depressing when a life is lost, but I don't feel ANY remorse for her. I see her death as one less '15 minutes of fame' star polluting the music scene. But let's face it, music went down the lavatory as soon as the Spice Girls formed. One negative side to Winehouse's death is her addition to the 27 Club. She doesn't deserve to be there alongside such legends as Kurt Cobain, Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix. It says her cause of death has yet to be determined, but I bet it was some crazy junkie overdose. The main difference between Winehouse and the legends is that the legends are rock gods, she was a plastic and manufactured pop star. If she'd held on for another eight weeks... she'd be 28. =============================================================================================
Now THAT is twisted logic. The 3 "gods" you refer to were all as bad as Winehouse. You see it's not the music that's relevant. It's the manner in which they wasted themselves.
that was a bitt up steing
Thistleboy 1980 wrote: TyphoonTip wrote: Thistleboy 1980 wrote: GratefulFan wrote: Thistleboy 1980 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I just can't help the way I feel, and I don't see how death of someone who blatantly showed no respect for her own body, pumping it full of shit she shouldn't be touching, is a "tragedy". She knew that one day it could happen, and it did. As for the people in Norway and China, that *really* is a tragedy. You can say that one human life is no more important than any other, or than one death is just as sad as another until you're blue in the face, but the fact is, and always will be, it is her own fault, and that is not tragic. A life taken away by someone else, or through an accident IS tragic.
How much self control did you have to exercise to prevent yourself from, say, going on a heroin binge last weekend? Yeah, me too. None. Not an ounce. You and I are not doing anything hard by being clean and sober. For the addict, it's somewhere between difficult and excruciating. I think we've all failed at things that are difficult, or at least had to take a few runs at them. If she ran out of time, that is tragic. If she effectively committed suicide, which would be my guess, that's even more tragic. Tough love and a necessarily hard line don't preclude empathy. To me, 'fault' is just all wrong here.
=============================================================================================
If it's not hard being clean and sober, why was she a junkie? Answer = because she was foolish enough to start it. If she hadn't started, there'd be nothing to be hooked to and she wouldn't be a junkie. As for suicide being a "tragedy" - HELL NO, it's just fucking selfish, and if that's what she did, it just further reiterates that she had no respect for (a) herself (b) her family and (c) her fans. I have said in another similar thread that I have lived with an addict, and also around them. I will now go into the fact that I have also lost friends to an addiction, and two family members to suicide. Did I mourn? No! They were just selfish bastards, and it's the "softly softly" pandering to them approach that lets them think they can do what they want.
_________________________
Let's extend that logic .....Freddie was promiscuous during a time when he would've been aware of the risks. AIDS was far from a secret in the gay community in the early to mid 80's. So he knew what was possible; he happened to contract HIV; his own fault. ...Clearly no mourning required. Simple.
=============================================================================================
Yep, at the end of the day, it was Freddie's fault he died. I have never denied that. However, we can only speculate about when Freddie caught HIV. There are many stories surrounding it, but are mere speculation - there is no concrete, official statement of when, where or even who. So let's think about it this way - prior to 1996, scientists estimated that it would take around 10 years for HIV to become AIDS. That would possibly mean Freddie contracted it around 1981, at least. But assuming that there is a couple of years between AIDS and death, this would take him back to the late 1970s. Therefore, he would have contracted it at a time that the possible consequences of one man having unprotected sex with another man was unknown. Just a theory, I know, but humour me. If that was the case, then it was too late for Freddie to do much about it. As for Winehouse.....
________________________________
Well I guess I could humour you, that is if your argument held any water.
Your ridiculous alternate Freddie scenario seems to contradict your own philosophy. Say he did contract HIV in 1978-9, unlikely but possible. That would mean one of two things:
1) He didn't know he had HIV, but kept on sleeping around during the early 80's when he absolutely would have known he was dramatically increasing his risk of contracting it. Or;
2) He knew very early on and continued to sleep around, putting others at serious risk.
Either way, from your perspective, there is no way to remove 'fault' from Freddie's actions.
Now for the extension of your logic that you conveniently didn't address. Given that we can't remove 'fault' from Freddie, that means he isn't worthy of being mourned or deserving of any sympathy. His actions were risky, it cost him his life. Exactly the same could be said for Winehouse.
I find it disturbing that someone could be so cold as to separate who is deserving of sympathy and grief, by virtue of mistakes they made during their life, with no regard to the complexities of why those mistakes may have been made.
Unfortunately your tightly reigned definition of 'tragedy' reveals you to be one callous individual.
Hendrix and Winehouse in the same basket .... er, sure. If you're mental.
br5946 wrote: I never, EVER cared for Winehouse's quote - music - end quote,
cool, thats YOUR opinion. But to others she was an inspiration to a generation.
"...and her version of Valerie drove me nuts."
again, that is YOUR opinion
"...It was her only hit and it was a cover of another song!!!"
actully, Amy Winehouse's version of The Zutons's song Valerie isn't a cover by her, it's a cover by Mark Ronson, it just happens to feature Amy on lead vocals. Get your facts right.
secondly it wasn't her only hit, her Back to Black spawned 6 singles alone, many of which are still played on the radio and tv still to this date. She also wrote her own songs.
"But let's face it, music went down the lavatory as soon as the Spice Girls formed"
Really, thats the turning point of music? What you just said there is nothing new, in fact, every generation would say that about the current musical craze. A generation who grew up with in the 50s or 60s would generally hate music in the 70s, 80s 90s etc. That idea has even been carried over in films, and books today.
"One negative side to Winehouse's death is her addition to the 27 Club. She doesn't deserve to be there alongside such legends as Kurt Cobain, Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix"
Almost everyone in that club has died from drug related causes. So why not place her in that club
"The main difference between Winehouse and the legends is that the legends are rock gods, she was a plastic and manufactured pop star"
Nope, the term legend is word describing a figure of greatness and/or inspiration down through the generations.
She wasn't at all manufactured. Give me proof, stating she was.
TyphoonTip wrote:
.........................................
I find it disturbing that someone could be so cold as to separate who is deserving of sympathy and grief, by virtue of mistakes they made during their life, with no regard to the complexities of why those mistakes may have been made.
Unfortunately your tightly reigned definition of 'tragedy' reveals you to be one callous individual.
=============================================================================================
I'm afraid you don't understand the complexities of why I am a "callous" individual. Maybe something made me that way? Perhaps it was being shat on by addicts and alcoholics? Maybe there comes a point in life when they suck any feeling you may have for them right out of you. It's easy to let your guard down and then be taken advantage of, and also easy to go from being sympathetic to feeling pissed off. I'm afraid that's human nature. Like I say, I can't help the way I feel. And at a time where I felt I was being shat upon, I found comfort in finding out about the music of Queen. It became a passion. Freddie became a hero. That was a positive, so I'm naturally going to look at Freddie in a more positive way - like I say, it's human nature. Negative experiences can often breed contempt - positive experiences the opposite. And I also think that the fact that we KNOW just how horrible, painful and drawn-out Freddie's death was, yet he still battled to make some output, makes his story touching - even if deep down we know it's the consequence of stupid actions. Anyone with a heart will feel something. Same for Winehouse. Of course she deserves to be mourned, and it was completely unfair of me to suggest otherwise. But because she happened to be an addict who was always shit-faced, and similar to a group of folk which have affected my life in a negative way, it's just nature to forget that she was a human being and be pissed off that she was so stupid and wasted every chance she had. I know what you are saying is true, and maybe I am a hypocrite. But are you saying you've *never* felt contempt towards someone, or a group of people that act in a similar way?
Look, at the end of the day, we are BOTH arguing about something neither of us actually knows the whole story about. It's all speculation, theory and generalisation. Under the rubble, it's just your opinion/feelings and mine, and we are both entitled to that without getting personal. I hope that this strong clash in opinions will not breed contempt between us? :)
I acted like a real dick over my Winehouse comments. Addicts sure do rile me, but I could've said it a bit better, and show a little compassion too...and I've kinda been feelin' an attack of the guilts. To anyone I've offended, sorry :)
Thistleboy 1980 wrote: I acted like a real dick over my Winehouse comments. Addicts sure do rile me, but I could've said it a bit better, and show a little compassion too...and I've kinda been feelin' an attack of the guilts. To anyone I've offended, sorry :)
___________________________
No problem. It shows a lot of character to admit you could've approached things differently. Many would have just left it alone.
I guess everyone (me included) have particular things that annoy them to such an extent that it's hard to get perspective, and before you know it, you say or do something you regret. If addiction is that for you, then it's completely understandable.
No harm done from my end.
Anyway, how could I be anything but forgiving on a day when I found a West German first press (target) CD of NOTW. Bugger me if it isn't the best freakin' thing I've ever heard.
Hey I'm sorry you were feeling bad about some of your comments Thistleboy. Don't sweat it at all. Your thoughts were appropriate in terms of how addicts affect those around them, and in terms of the physical/mental/emotional distance friends and familes often have to impose to prevent the harm from spreading further into their own lives. I think where people differed with you it was in separating those sad realities from the fundamental worth of the human being. There are a tremendous number of recovered addicts who are exceptional people on many fronts. Off the top of my head I can think of Robert Downey Jr. (drugs), Warren Zevon (alcohol), Anthony Hopkins (alcohol), Elton John (alcohol), James Taylor (heroin), and endless others. An addict will stop when being an addict finally becomes more painful than facing themselves sober, which is an immensely sad thought when you see how dark it gets for some people.
Speaking of Zevon, I've been on a major Warren kick as of late and until yesterday I had thought I had lost the CD with what is probably my favourite song of his. I found it, and listened to it about three times in a row. Kind of like a fix! Ha ha. Anyway, the favourite song is about time he spent in Los Angeles in the final stages of his alcholism in the period before he quit. Amazing song. A desperate man hearing hymns in the air conditioner hum is just such a brilliant image. When he's good, he's so good.
