Amy Winehouse dead

menalawyerguy wrote:

Danny wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Difficult to feel sorry for a millionaire who fucked up her own life drinking, snorting and injecting herself to death. Feel sorry for her family though.

What does her being a millionaire have to do with it? She earned her money through her talent. She had an illness and the illness won. There's plenty to feel sorry for.

In her case she did bring the illness on herself though.

You've never dealt with somebody who had a hardcore drug addiction. It's as bona fide an illness as cancer and it's almost as deadly. It seems like an illness of choice to people like you and me but we don't suffer from it. You and I can act like big strong men who control ourselves but the truth of it is nobody chooses to be a drug addict just like nobody chooses to have cancer. It's a devastating disease and the fucks in this thread who are making light of it are miserable cunts.

I think the main difference is that people start the drug addiction themselves, comparing it to cancer is a bit insulting. Obviously some people do it through circumstance to survive, but I'm guessing Winehouse started it for recreational reasons. Maybe no one wants to be an addict, but I'd wager most of them understand the risks when they try it the first few times.

Tbf Mena she was the one who started experimenting with the stuff in the first place, brought it upon herself.

Rest in Peace.

It was always going to happen, with all the drugs and the drink, feel sorry for her family.

Could see it coming, but still a shock

One of the most talented singers we've had for a long time, shame the drugs fucked her up.

R.I.P Amy

She brought it on herself the same way somebody with depression brings on a suicide. It's pretty obvious that pretty much all of you have never had somebody you cared about who had a severe hardcore drug addiction. The fact that they chose to experiment with drugs in the first place is beside the point. People who suffer from an addictive disposition always wind up addicted to something. Unless she lived on a totally drug free planet, the drugs were always going to find her.

Lots of people are expressing sorrow for her family but not the deceased herself. The ironic part about that is that if her family were as coldblooded and heartless towards her as some of the people posting in this thread, she might have actually survived. Sometimes, the only thing that shakes hardcore addicts into proactively dealing with their affliction is the loss of personal relationships that they care about. But I am talking out of school on that because I have no idea what her relationship was with parents, siblings or other loved ones. It is quite possible she had nobody.

menalawyerguy wrote:Lots of people are expressing sorrow for her family but not the deceased herself. The ironic part about that is that if her family were as coldblooded and heartless towards her as some of the people posting in this thread, she might have actually survived. Sometimes, the only thing that shakes hardcore addicts into proactively dealing with their affliction is the loss of personal relationships that they care about. But I am talking out of school on that because I have no idea what her relationship was with parents, siblings or other loved ones. It is quite possible she had nobody.

Her daddy thought she was fine, according to her music.

menalawyerguy wrote:She brought it on herself the same way somebody with depression brings on a suicide. It's pretty obvious that pretty much all of you have never had somebody you cared about who had a severe hardcore drug addiction. The fact that they chose to experiment with drugs in the first place is beside the point. People who suffer from an addictive disposition always wind up addicted to something. Unless she lived on a totally drug free planet, the drugs were always going to find her.

Not a good analogy. Someone doesn't voluntarily become depressed.

ahlycotc wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:She brought it on herself the same way somebody with depression brings on a suicide. It's pretty obvious that pretty much all of you have never had somebody you cared about who had a severe hardcore drug addiction. The fact that they chose to experiment with drugs in the first place is beside the point. People who suffer from an addictive disposition always wind up addicted to something. Unless she lived on a totally drug free planet, the drugs were always going to find her.

Not a good analogy. Someone doesn't voluntarily become depressed.

Nor does somebody voluntarily become a drug addict. If you think they do, you haven't got the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Explaining it away by saying they chose to do the drug in the first place is utterly naive and smacks of hubris. It is as bona fide an illness as depression, cancer, AIDS, etc. Nobody chooses it.

You look at things deeply enough and nothing is a choice, they're all just chemical reactions in the brain (unless you subscribe to that Free will religious BS) and interactions with the outer environment. By any useful standards, ingesting an addictive substance is a choice, as is continually ingesting it.

By the way, she was diagnosed with manic depression. Were any of you aware of that? Does that change your stance at all? Or did she still "have it coming;" "got what she deserved;" etc?

She was an amazing talent. The world lost something. Just like it did when the Jims dies, Janice died, Elvis died, Lennon was killed, and so on and so forth.

dupe

f-ing internet

Well she did have it coming, anyone who treats their body like she did does, but I wouldn't say it's what she deserved.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:You look at things deeply enough and nothing is a choice, they're all just chemical reactions in the brain (unless you subscribe to that Free will religious BS) and interactions with the outer environment. By any useful standards, ingesting an addictive substance is a choice, as is continually ingesting it.

I'm not religious but I do believe in free will. I also believe there are mental illnesses that have the power to subvert free will and if anybody has ever suffered from such an illness, it's Amy Winehouse. I honestly believe that she did not have control of herself. She was manic depressive and she had a predisposition to addiction. Most people underestimate addiction because most of us have control of our faculties. We think people with addictions are just weak or lazy. That's a bunch of hubristic horse shit though.

Not unexpected but still pretty shocked. Should have got help, great talent.

RIP

She had a good run.

Shame, had a bunch of talent but ruined her own life.

menalawyerguy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:You look at things deeply enough and nothing is a choice, they're all just chemical reactions in the brain (unless you subscribe to that Free will religious BS) and interactions with the outer environment. By any useful standards, ingesting an addictive substance is a choice, as is continually ingesting it.

I'm not religious but I do believe in free will. I also believe there are mental illnesses that have the power to subvert free will and if anybody has ever suffered from such an illness, it's Amy Winehouse. I honestly believe that she did not have control of herself. She was manic depressive and she had a predisposition to addiction. Most people underestimate addiction because most of us have control of our faculties. We think people with addictions are just weak or lazy. That's a bunch of hubristic horse shit though.

Was she suffering from depression before she had a drug addiction though? If she was then i have more sympathy for her, someone could've helped her before she effectively killed herself with drugs and alcohol abuse.

menalawyerguy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:You look at things deeply enough and nothing is a choice, they're all just chemical reactions in the brain (unless you subscribe to that Free will religious BS) and interactions with the outer environment. By any useful standards, ingesting an addictive substance is a choice, as is continually ingesting it.

I'm not religious but I do believe in free will. I also believe there are mental illnesses that have the power to subvert free will and if anybody has ever suffered from such an illness, it's Amy Winehouse. I honestly believe that she did not have control of herself. She was manic depressive and she had a predisposition to addiction. Most people underestimate addiction because most of us have control of our faculties. We think people with addictions are just weak or lazy. That's a bunch of hubristic horse shit though.

What you do by your own choice is your own responsibility, I really like McDonalds, do I eat it for breakfast lunch and dinner? No, because the pleasure eating McDonalds would give me is outweighed by the catastrophic impact it would have on my health, in the short term I sacrifice eating some nice Nuggets and Chips. The difference between Heroin and McDonalds is that the short term uplift is much higher, but that doesn't mean it's not a choice.

If I got hold of a beloved family member of a crack addict, and I put a blade to their face, threw the crackhead some crack, and said 'You can have the Crack, but if you do I will cut your family member's eyes out then stab you to death, if not, give me the crack' I reckon most crackheads would choose to throw me the cocaine and walk off with their family member.

The fact people actually do quit proves it is a choice.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:You look at things deeply enough and nothing is a choice, they're all just chemical reactions in the brain (unless you subscribe to that Free will religious BS) and interactions with the outer environment. By any useful standards, ingesting an addictive substance is a choice, as is continually ingesting it.

I'm not religious but I do believe in free will. I also believe there are mental illnesses that have the power to subvert free will and if anybody has ever suffered from such an illness, it's Amy Winehouse. I honestly believe that she did not have control of herself. She was manic depressive and she had a predisposition to addiction. Most people underestimate addiction because most of us have control of our faculties. We think people with addictions are just weak or lazy. That's a bunch of hubristic horse shit though.

What you do by your own choice is your own responsibility, I really like McDonalds, do I eat it for breakfast lunch and dinner? No, because the pleasure eating McDonalds would give me is outweighed by the catastrophic impact it would have on my health, in the short term I sacrifice eating some nice Nuggets and Chips. The difference between Heroin and McDonalds is that the short term uplift is much higher, but that doesn't mean it's not a choice.

If I got hold of a beloved family member of a crack addict, and I put a blade to their face, threw the crackhead some crack, and said 'You can have the Crack, but if you do I will cut your family member's eyes out then stab you to death, if not, give me the crack' I reckon most crackheads would choose to throw me the cocaine and walk off with their family member.

The fact people actually do quit proves it is a choice.

That's the type of hubris I've come to expect from a superiority complex such as yourself. That's a dumb analogy anyway. First of all, some crackheads wouldn't react that way. Some of them would actually choose the crack. Secondly, even the ones who would react that way would be thinking to themselves "i'll just score some smack when this guy is out of sight." They honestly do not have full control. Like I said, most people underestimate addiction because most of us have control of our faculties. We think people with addictions are just weak or lazy.

And again, she was diagnosed with manic depression. Do you have any experience with that disease? Do you have any idea what that's like? Or do you just think you know, like most other things you like to act like an expert on?

Don't give me that ad hominem shit. Some things we do not have control over, our reflexes, pulling away when stabbed with a needle, inability to walk into an area of extreme heat etc., but relatively complex tasks which require conscious though, ie. Go to McDonalds, give cashier money, order good or find crack dealer, ask for crack, take it home, prepare it, take it, you cannot serious tell me those are not choice. You cannot seriously tell me that the crack head or the McDonalds addict can not at any stage decide 'No, I'm not going to give him the money, forget it'.

You claim you're a Lawyer, would the excuse 'I mugged the guy because I needed money to buy crack' stand up in court in whatever state you live in? What about any state in the world? Because in my country, the law does not punish people for things they have no control over, but it would certainly not accept that as an excuse.

Not too shocked, maybe that it didn't happen sooner. I don't care about it as long as it doesn't take any focus away from the tragedy in Norway.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Don't give me that ad hominem shit. Some things we do not have control over, our reflexes, pulling away when stabbed with a needle, inability to walk into an area of extreme heat etc., but relatively complex tasks which require conscious though, ie. Go to McDonalds, give cashier money, order good or find crack dealer, ask for crack, take it home, prepare it, take it, you cannot serious tell me those are not choice. You cannot seriously tell me that the crack head or the McDonalds addict can not at any stage decide 'No, I'm not going to give him the money, forget it'.

You claim you're a Lawyer, would the excuse 'I mugged the guy because I needed money to buy crack' stand up in court in whatever state you live in? What about any state in the world? Because in my country, the law does not punish people for things they have no control over, but it would certainly not accept that as an excuse.

It's not ad hominem if it's accurate and relevant. And in this case, you are acting learned on an issue you obviously have no personal experience with and no particular expertise. The mugger analogy is useless. The mugger obviously goes to jail because there's a victim. But where he ought to go first and foremost is rehab. Just like Winehouse, somebody in her life should have dragged her kicking and screaming to rehab and the clinic shouldn't let her leave until she was in a state of mind where she can control herself. Don't get me wrong, she deserves her share of the blame. Ultimately, nobody is more responsible for this than her. But the callousness being shown right now (not just here, but in lots of places I am reading) is disgusting. By and large, people still haven't come to grips with, or developed any sort of mature understanding of, mental illnesses like addiction and manic depression.

It's the way she was meant to go. Her problems basically defined her - if she wasn't so fucked up, she'd never have wrote the songs she did. It's not like she got rich and abused her wealth, the money & the fame just made it worse.

That said, how the fuck can this thread have three pages and the Norway thread only have one?

menalawyerguy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Don't give me that ad hominem shit. Some things we do not have control over, our reflexes, pulling away when stabbed with a needle, inability to walk into an area of extreme heat etc., but relatively complex tasks which require conscious though, ie. Go to McDonalds, give cashier money, order good or find crack dealer, ask for crack, take it home, prepare it, take it, you cannot serious tell me those are not choice. You cannot seriously tell me that the crack head or the McDonalds addict can not at any stage decide 'No, I'm not going to give him the money, forget it'.

You claim you're a Lawyer, would the excuse 'I mugged the guy because I needed money to buy crack' stand up in court in whatever state you live in? What about any state in the world? Because in my country, the law does not punish people for things they have no control over, but it would certainly not accept that as an excuse.

It's not ad hominem if it's accurate and relevant. And in this case, you are acting learned on an issue you obviously have no personal experience with and no particular expertise. The mugger analogy is useless. The mugger obviously goes to jail because there's a victim. But where he ought to go first and foremost is rehab. Just like Winehouse, somebody in her life should have dragged her kicking and screaming to rehab and the clinic shouldn't let her leave until she was in a state of mind where she can control herself. Don't get me wrong, she deserves her share of the blame. Ultimately, nobody is more responsible for this than her. But the callousness being shown right now (not just here, but in lots of places I am reading) is disgusting. By and large, people still haven't come to grips with, or developed any sort of mature understanding of, mental illnesses like addiction and manic depression.

It's ad hominem irrespective of accuracy, and my 'superiority complex' (I'd argue it's not a complex if it's accurate) is not relevant to the points I was making..

Why does he go to jail? In the United Kingdom, if somebody is threatening to kill my family, and they blackmail me, saying I must mug someone, I am considered to have been coerced in the matter, and so I am not liable for my actions, despite there being a victim - you claim that a person has no choice whatsoever in acquiring drugs, surely that would be seen as even more coercive than a threat?

To say someone has no choice in their own complex actions is simply incorrect, and pretending it's true does no-one any good, it just provides an excuse. It needs to be impressed upon addicts that they do have a choice in their behaviour, and that they are responsible for it.

RobbieSavageIsA... wrote:It's the way she was meant to go. Her problems basically defined her - if she wasn't so fucked up, she'd never have wrote the songs she did. It's not like she got rich and abused her wealth, the money & the fame just made it worse.

That said, how the fuck can this thread have three pages and the Norway thread only have one?

I suppose its harder for people to put in words what they think about it, however someone that just talks out of their ass clearly had no problem doing that in either thread. If you look at both you know what i mean.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Don't give me that ad hominem shit. Some things we do not have control over, our reflexes, pulling away when stabbed with a needle, inability to walk into an area of extreme heat etc., but relatively complex tasks which require conscious though, ie. Go to McDonalds, give cashier money, order good or find crack dealer, ask for crack, take it home, prepare it, take it, you cannot serious tell me those are not choice. You cannot seriously tell me that the crack head or the McDonalds addict can not at any stage decide 'No, I'm not going to give him the money, forget it'.

You claim you're a Lawyer, would the excuse 'I mugged the guy because I needed money to buy crack' stand up in court in whatever state you live in? What about any state in the world? Because in my country, the law does not punish people for things they have no control over, but it would certainly not accept that as an excuse.

It's not ad hominem if it's accurate and relevant. And in this case, you are acting learned on an issue you obviously have no personal experience with and no particular expertise. The mugger analogy is useless. The mugger obviously goes to jail because there's a victim. But where he ought to go first and foremost is rehab. Just like Winehouse, somebody in her life should have dragged her kicking and screaming to rehab and the clinic shouldn't let her leave until she was in a state of mind where she can control herself. Don't get me wrong, she deserves her share of the blame. Ultimately, nobody is more responsible for this than her. But the callousness being shown right now (not just here, but in lots of places I am reading) is disgusting. By and large, people still haven't come to grips with, or developed any sort of mature understanding of, mental illnesses like addiction and manic depression.

It's ad hominem irrespective of accuracy, and my 'superiority complex' (I'd argue it's not a complex if it's accurate) is not relevant to the points I was making..

I rest my case. I've been a lawyer for only a few years but I can guarantee nobody I will come up against will give me better evidence against them then you just did. It is apparent that you're decently smart: definitely above average IQ. But you're not nearly as smart as you think you are. The reason I know this is because people who are genuinely exceptionally smart do not go around bragging about it like you do. They do not feel the need to constantly broadcast the fact that they are exceptionally smart like you do. They let their intelligence speak for itself. That's obviously not good enough for you. You do feel the need to constantly remind us how smart you [think you] are. It demonstrates a sort of insecurity that truly exceptionally smart people do not usually have.

Why does he go to jail? In the United Kingdom, if somebody is threatening to kill my family, and they blackmail me, saying I must mug someone, I am considered to have been coerced in the matter, and so I am not liable for my actions, despite there being a victim - you claim that a person has no choice whatsoever in acquiring drugs, surely that would be seen as even more coercive than a threat? To say someone has no choice in their own complex actions is simply incorrect, and pretending it's true does no-one any good, it just provides an excuse. It needs to be impressed upon addicts that they do have a choice in their behaviour, and that they are responsible for it.

He goes to jail because he's a threat to society. But like I wrote, in my opinion, he shouldn't go to jail. He should go to rehab. Just add this to the list of items in American criminal corrections that I disagree with. Regardless, we cannot let him stay on the loose in society because he poses a threat. We still have to protect society from people like that. And I would not say that he has no choice whatsoever. It's not that simple. He has a magnificent urge that subverts his will. And it's not something that normal people like us can understand. We think it's weakness but in truth, it takes an almost superhuman display of internal strength for drug addicts to refrain from doing drugs when the price to obtain them (not just in terms of dollars) is within their ability to pay.

menalawyerguy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Don't give me that ad hominem shit. Some things we do not have control over, our reflexes, pulling away when stabbed with a needle, inability to walk into an area of extreme heat etc., but relatively complex tasks which require conscious though, ie. Go to McDonalds, give cashier money, order good or find crack dealer, ask for crack, take it home, prepare it, take it, you cannot serious tell me those are not choice. You cannot seriously tell me that the crack head or the McDonalds addict can not at any stage decide 'No, I'm not going to give him the money, forget it'.

You claim you're a Lawyer, would the excuse 'I mugged the guy because I needed money to buy crack' stand up in court in whatever state you live in? What about any state in the world? Because in my country, the law does not punish people for things they have no control over, but it would certainly not accept that as an excuse.

It's not ad hominem if it's accurate and relevant. And in this case, you are acting learned on an issue you obviously have no personal experience with and no particular expertise. The mugger analogy is useless. The mugger obviously goes to jail because there's a victim. But where he ought to go first and foremost is rehab. Just like Winehouse, somebody in her life should have dragged her kicking and screaming to rehab and the clinic shouldn't let her leave until she was in a state of mind where she can control herself. Don't get me wrong, she deserves her share of the blame. Ultimately, nobody is more responsible for this than her. But the callousness being shown right now (not just here, but in lots of places I am reading) is disgusting. By and large, people still haven't come to grips with, or developed any sort of mature understanding of, mental illnesses like addiction and manic depression.

It's ad hominem irrespective of accuracy, and my 'superiority complex' (I'd argue it's not a complex if it's accurate) is not relevant to the points I was making..

I rest my case. I've been a lawyer for only a few years but I can guarantee nobody I will come up against will give me better evidence against them then you just did. It is apparent that you're decently smart: definitely above average IQ. But you're not nearly as smart as you think you are. The reason I know this is because people who are genuinely exceptionally smart do not go around bragging about it like you do. They do not feel the need to constantly broadcast the fact that they are exceptionally smart like you do. They let their intelligence speak for itself. That's obviously not good enough for you. You do feel the need to constantly remind us how smart you [think you] are. It demonstrates a sort of insecurity that truly exceptionally smart people do not usually have.

Right, thanks Sigmund, hopefully you are done talking about me now.

Why does he go to jail? In the United Kingdom, if somebody is threatening to kill my family, and they blackmail me, saying I must mug someone, I am considered to have been coerced in the matter, and so I am not liable for my actions, despite there being a victim - you claim that a person has no choice whatsoever in acquiring drugs, surely that would be seen as even more coercive than a threat? To say someone has no choice in their own complex actions is simply incorrect, and pretending it's true does no-one any good, it just provides an excuse. It needs to be impressed upon addicts that they do have a choice in their behaviour, and that they are responsible for it.

He goes to jail because he's a threat to society. But like I wrote, in my opinion, he shouldn't go to jail. We cannot let him stay on the loose in society because he poses a threat. We still have to protect society from people like that. And I would not say that he has no choice whatsoever. It's not that simple. He has a magnificent urge that subverts his will. And it's not something that normal people like us can understand. We think it's weakness but in truth, it takes an almost superhuman display of internal strength for drug addicts to refrain from doing drugs when the price to obtain them (not just in terms of dollars) is within their ability to pay.

Well no, he's actually found guilty of committing the crime either wilfully or recklessly. There are alternative means to protect society from a person without resorting to that, such as sectioning, where a person doesn't go to jail, they go to a secure hospital. I understand that he has a big urge to do something, that's what I've been trying to tell you, it's like the fat fucks you see in McDonalds who eat McDonalds every day because they love it, they have these urges as well and they subvert their will, but I don't hear of any sympathy for them, or calling that a disease. You talk to them logically and say 'Do you think this is good for you' they'll say no, but their urges take over.

There's no major difference between loving McDonalds and loving heroin, it's just a sliding scale of how much people want it.

menalawyerguy wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:She brought it on herself the same way somebody with depression brings on a suicide. It's pretty obvious that pretty much all of you have never had somebody you cared about who had a severe hardcore drug addiction. The fact that they chose to experiment with drugs in the first place is beside the point. People who suffer from an addictive disposition always wind up addicted to something. Unless she lived on a totally drug free planet, the drugs were always going to find her.

Not a good analogy. Someone doesn't voluntarily become depressed.

Nor does somebody voluntarily become a drug addict. If you think they do, you haven't got the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Explaining it away by saying they chose to do the drug in the first place is utterly naive and smacks of hubris. It is as bona fide an illness as depression, cancer, AIDS, etc. Nobody chooses it.

No they don't choose to become drug addicts. But they do choose to take drugs in the first place which can lead to addiction. It's the same as a smoker who dies from lung cancer, alcoholic who dies from liver failure, obese who dies from a heart attack, or a person who dies from AIDS by sexual activity.

Amy Winehouse chose to take drugs. Nobody forced her to do it. Anything that resulted from that choice, whether it be drug addiction or depression, is still her fault.

Her death was inevitable really, she's a great example of a wasted talent. RIP.