Poll: "Show a little sympathy; all death is tragic !"

airrazor7

New member
Nov 8, 2010
364
0
0
OP, try to think about it from a different perspective.

First of all, her death, or anyone else's death isn't about how you feel or how it affects you personally. If anything, a person's reaction to death, whether that of a stranger or someone close, is a reflection of their consideration for the lives of others.

I didn't follow any information about Winehouse while she was alive but the general consensus is that she was an addict to illicit drugs and that addiction started due to choices she made in response to the elements of her life. It is currently believed by many that her addiction ended her life in an overdoes. It's sad that her life, or anything for that matter, ends on a bad note.

Life doesn't promise us happy endings but her life consisted of poor choices and suffering and that is the way it ended. She had the potential to be more, to feel content, to be happy but it ended as it did, which was a waste of life. A wasted life is always a shame.

Now, I am not saying that you must cry a river every time you hear about death. Just saying that in my opinion, that is why Ms. Winehouse's passing is a shame.
 

Biosophilogical

New member
Jul 8, 2009
3,264
0
0
I think all death is a loss. Sometimes it is also a gain (like if a serial killer tripped over a cliff and plummeted to his/her death), but that is just balancing the scales.

I don't feel loss from every death, because the loss caused by death is due to the value I place on human life, and if I don't know the person, or have never heard about them, then I know nothing about their life. So I guess it is that, all these "Someone will have died while I was typing this post" responses are a bit skewed. The death is still terrible, but because no-one knew the person, or had any real evidence of them as a human being, then you can't really feel the loss. But when a stranger dies and you hear about it you instantly form some kind of image of the individual, whether it be 'teenager', or 'elderly couple', or 'african american deli owner', so you now view that life as an actual thing, and therefore you can feel the loss of it.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that all life is important because of the capacity for experience that humans have (love, hate, anger, happiness, pleasure, pain, etc), so every death is tragic. But if you have never had any form of connection to someone that dies, then how can you form an image of them? How can you recognise that they are an individual when you know nothing about them? So every death is tragic, sometimes the benefits outweigh the tragedy, most of the time they don't, but just because I don't know the guy/girl on a personal level, and am therefore unable to comprehend what was lost, doesn't mean that something wasn't lost.

Does that make sense?
 

MikailCaboose

New member
Jun 16, 2009
1,246
0
0
No. Death is a natural part of life. All things have their end, and if you're inclined to believe in an afterlife, then isn't there a possibility that they are now better off than being mired in the mortal realm? Furthermore, while all life is important, so to is that all lifeforms will eventually die. The world cannot sustain an infinite amount of life, and thus for the entire sustainability of life, simply put people need to die. Without the death of people, life would not be able to exist.
 

David Hebda

New member
Apr 25, 2011
87
0
0
The problem with living is that everything dies. Death happens, I don't even particularly feel bad if I know the person and they were old (my grandparents are in mind)But ya, like three people die every second or something like that... its part of life. I will die you will die, live with it, or die.
 

Princess Rose

New member
Jul 10, 2011
399
0
0
katsumoto03 said:
Right and just? Says who? And why?

If you put a murderer to death, you are murdering them. Does this mean it would be "right and just" to then kill you? How are you any better than them if you are doing what you condemn them for?
That is a terrible argument. From a debate standpoint, your argument is one step above because "cause you're a stupid-head" as rhetoric.

Putting someone to death is NOT murdering them. It's killing them. Murder describes a specific crime.

Plus, there's no "you" - "you" aren't killing the murder, a jury of the murderer's peers chooses that individual's death, and then the execution is carried out by others chosen by the state.

It's not about anyone being better than anyone else - it's about removing a danger to society.

Some people deserve to die. Some people need to die to protect society. Killing them is not "murdering" them - it is killing a rabid animal.
 

Commissar Sae

New member
Nov 13, 2009
983
0
0
I'm kind of a fan of gallows humour, so unfotunately I find some death hilarious. Yes it is tragic for his family and loved ones but does little to affect me. I can sympathise and show compassion for their loss, but that doesn't mean I can't find some humour in death on occassion.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Showing sympathy =/= day of depression.

Showing sympathy = a heartfelt "My condolences" vs. "Well, bugger."

And yes, I agree with that statement.
 

lettucethesallad

New member
Nov 18, 2009
805
0
0
I got into a fight on facebook with some friends of a friend over the Norway shootings vs. Amy Winehouse and was called ignorant and rude for thinking that the shootings were more important. Seriously. She put herself in her position, so it was her responsibility. The kids in Norway did nothing wrong. In that way, it' more tragic that they died than she did.

That being said, I'm sure Amy Winehouse's death was traumatic for people who knew her, but it's just not in the same ballpark. Hell, it's not even the same sport.
 

Instinct Blues

New member
Jun 8, 2008
508
0
0
TheScientificIssole said:
I've read this many times on forums. What do you think of it? Do you agree? Disagree?
I have to say, no.
If someone who I don't know dies, why does it have to be tragic to ME? If some celebrities death occurs, why should I have to have be personally affected? The fact is I don't know 99% of the Earth population, and death happens every day. Hundreds of thousands of people die every day. I don't enter into a day by day depression over it. Something being horrible is one person's opinion.
You don't have to be personally affected by the death to think its tragic. It tragic to the people who know them and showing those people some sympathy isn't too much to ask. I mean come on I'm sure you'd have a different feeling if it was someone that you knew and people went around saying "Oh thats not tragic in the least I mean people die everyday" you'd be a little offended. Now I'm not saying you have to be heartbroken about every celebrity death, but showing a little courtesy to their families isn't too much to ask.

Its like how Roger Ebert decided to tweet about Ryan Dunn's death in a very innappropriate mannering basically saying something like he got what he deserved. He can think that all he wants, but he doesn't have to say it to the whole world. I'm pretty sure all people are asking for with that statement is for people to show a little sympathy and not going around trashing people's names who are now deceased.
 

Blastinburn

New member
Apr 13, 2011
149
0
0
(I voted no and the page just reloaded, so I tried voting yes and it accepted that vote. I actually did change my opinion in those few seconds.)

I believe that ANY life lost is a tragedy. This isn't to say that no one should be killed, but that even if it is completely necessary/unavoidable (remove a killer/criminal from society, old age/disease) it is still sad that it happened.
 

Korolev

No Time Like the Present
Jul 4, 2008
1,853
0
0
Whenever I hear of people being killed on a mass scale, I usually feel a little bit sad. But I would by lying if I said that I really did feel tragically upset over it.

This is normal - human beings are not, as a general rule, overcome with sadness every time they hear that someone dies. If we did, we wouldn't be able to function, as someone around the world dies (whether by disease, accident, murder, war, misadventure or old age) every few seconds.

Right now, RIGHT NOW, as I am typing this and you are reading this, kids are dying of starvation in Somalia due to a Famine. Somalian militants are not letting any aid in, because they are paranoid that the aid will be used to "somehow" turn Somalis away from Islam (Personally, I don't see how a sack of corn can influence a person's religion, but apparently it can?). A kid dies of starvation every few seconds in Somalia.

And I agree - it's an awful situation and I hope that the world finds a solution to get aid to these people, who have lived miserably for so many years. But unless you are from Somalia or have friends over there, you cannot honestly say you genuinely feel the emotion of sorrow at every single death. If you did, you would be crying every few seconds and you would have probably left your job to try to volunteer for relief work in Somalia. So unless you are planning to board a plane to Somalia, RIGHT NOW, you only feel philosophical sorrow and sympathy on a general scale. That's not real sadness.

And while I am sympathetic to the Somalian people and while I do recognize the awfulness of the famine, I can't really say that I actually feel an sort of deep sorrow. I feel a bit of pity, and I can intellectually comprehend the vast scale of suffering, but personally, I am going about my day to day life as if it's not happening.

Same thing with the 9/11 attacks - I recognized the awful scale of the atrocity, and I felt sympathetic to the victims and their families. But I didn't weep. I wept like hell when my dog died of cancer - and I cried a lot when my grandmother was hurt badly and suffered a stroke. But when I was watching the TV during the 9/11 attacks, I felt dread in my gut, but I didn't shed a tear.

Right now, there are kids in Bangladesh who are being kidnapped, mutilated and put on the street to collect donations. They literally kidnap kids, as young as 6, cut off their legs or their arms, and they send them to get sympathy donations. Are you crying over that? That story was the first to elicit any sort of strong emotion in me in a long time. I've read history - the history of humanity has some dark, dark, dark chapters in it. After reading about how Crassus (Richest man in the Roman Republic, with the exception of Pompey), crucified thousands upon thousands of slaves after a failed revolt, all in one day, I have to say that I really don't connect emotionally with mass suffering. Because if I did, I wouldn't be able to function. I'd fall apart every single day, because something absolutely horrific happens every single day. Right now, RIGHT NOW, THIS IS HAPPENING: Someone, somewhere is dying because they can't afford chemotherapy. Someone, somewhere, is being forced into prostitution. Someone, somewhere is slowly dying of huntington's disease, unable to remember who they are or their family members, their mind slowly dissolving away from them, bit by bit, each day. Someone, somewhere, is being assaulted because they are tired from their ordeal of forced labour. Someone, somewhere, is dying of an easily preventable disease. Someone, somewhere, has been hit by a car, and is dying in incredible pain. Someone, somewhere, has been told that their kid has HIV. Someone, somewhere has decided to sell their body to fund a drug addiction. Someone, somewhere, is burying their child.

There is so much suffering in this world. And you know what the sad thing is? The thing that has actually caused me to cry? We've never had it better. Even with all this suffering, the present world is better than the old world - some still die from disease, but less do today than before. Some people are still kidnapped or murdered today, but you go back 400 years and it was even easier to kidnap and kill people (no modern forensics or modern police). Wars are being fought today, but wars were just as brutal even 2000 years ago (Again, remember what Crassus did to the Roman Slaves). People are starving to death in the 21st century, but people have always been starving since the beginning of time. Even with the horrendous evils of the 21st century, we have less evil today then in the past.

I'm not a pessimist though. We've made progress. Slavery, while still occurring, has been banned in many nations, effectively. It used to be legal, and endorsed by many governments. Now it is illegal and governments fight it. Polio and Smallpox no longer torment the world, thanks to science. And while people starve to death today, LESS people are starving today than ever before. Hundreds of Millions of Chinese citizens are no longer starving. Racism and Fascism, while still around, are not longer socially acceptable. The Right-Wing extremist attacks in Norway were horrific, but the response of the Norwegians against this racism and extreme nationalism has been heroic. Progress, as painfully, horribly slow as it is, IS POSSIBLE. We might never get to Utopia, and it might take 10,000 years for things to really get better, but progress is possible.

Whenever I hear about something sad on the news, I don't get sad, but I do feel a bit more determined to stand against evil and cruelty. That's the proper response.

As for Amy Winehouse: I don't feel anything. I'm not glad but, unlike the poor Somalian children who I do feel a twinge of regret for, I feel nothing in regards to her. She did this to herself, most likely. She was let out of Rehab, and the very next day she was out drinking. She didn't even TRY to get rid of her addictions. I bet she didn't even want to go to Rehab. No one, NO ONE can be so weak-willed as to resume drinking almost the day after leaving a rehab facility. The only explanation is that she didn't even try to get off alcohol or drugs - I can fathom losing to addiction a few weeks after leaving rehab, but to succumb to addiction ALMOST THE VERY NEXT DAY after leaving? She didn't care. She was one of those people who so arrogantly assume that "I'm fine, there's nothing wrong with Crack or Meth, I'm smarter than everyone else and I can handle it, because I know better". Well, well - looks like she didn't. Should have listened to your doctors Winehouse, instead of ignoring them.
 

Iron Lightning

Lightweight Extreme
Oct 19, 2009
1,237
0
0
Of course not, I hope to die by setting myself on fire and jumping out of a plane riding a gold-plated motorcycle into Mount Rushmore (I think I'll aim for Lincoln's mouth so that he'll breathe fire, blood, and molten gold for a few hours.)

My death will hopefully be fucking awesome.
 

Dege84

New member
Jun 3, 2010
34
0
0
TheScientificIssole said:
I've read this many times on forums. What do you think of it? Do you agree? Disagree?
I have to say, no.
If someone who I don't know dies, why does it have to be tragic to ME? If some celebrities death occurs, why should I have to have be personally affected? The fact is I don't know 99% of the Earth population, and death happens every day. Hundreds of thousands of people die every day. I don't enter into a day by day depression over it. Something being horrible is one person's opinion.
Of course all death is tragic but one cannot feel something for every individual on the planet, we are built this way and it is a good thing too. For example, let's say that every minute a child dies somewhere on this planet, a thing which, unfortunately, may be true. You know this fact, you can feel sorry about it, but you cannot feel the pain associated with it, maybe it is a protective mechanism. Imagine the pain you feel when a loved one dies and multiply it by 1440 (the minutes in a day, for every child that dies), you wouldn't be able to cope with it, it will tear you apart, you'll run mad, kill yourself, etc. It's the same with celebrities and other personalities, you can feel sorry, you can also hurt if you liked or admired that person very much, but you cannot feel the pain associated with death. It is a natural thing and we should be grateful it is this way.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
To believe that all death is tragic is to believe that every man's story ends in tragedy.

That's fucking depressing, dude.
 

William Ossiss

New member
Apr 8, 2010
551
0
0
my thoughts on this are simply:

if you cannot care about every living soul, you have NO right to weep over the death of a loved one. it's just you being selfish.
 

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,952
0
0
Winehouses death was not a tragedy. It was a justice. She died before she was able to reproduce, which is a good thing for the species. The tragedy would have been if she had bore an offspring with all of her mental issues and other problems into the world.

viranimus said:
Wow..talk about getting exactly what you asked for. How many points do I get for calling it not even a full month before it happened?
 

Proven Paradox

New member
Apr 10, 2011
17
0
0
Most death is tragic, yes. However, all death is not.

When death comes to someone who is suffering and has no realistic hope of recovery, death is merciful. I would go as far as to say even compassionate. The family of the deceased will likely grieve over their passing, and I have nothing but sympathy for them, but for the deceased themselves? Their suffering is over; the only appropriate response to them I can think of is relief. The events that lead up to that situation is a tragedy perhaps, but the death itself is anything but.

I'm also no subscriber to moral relativism. In many situations--perhaps even most--right and wrong may be unclear or even non-existent, but right and wrong, good and evil DO exist. There are people I wouldn't hesitate to call evil, and I don't just mean in a sense that would invoke Reductio ad Hitlerum. It's quite possible to consistently spread misery around to people you know on a local level. I wouldn't call the death of such people JUSTICE or anything like that--I don't claim to know what a person experiences after death if they even experience anything, so that kind of claim doesn't really have any meaning. However, the world is better off for their end. Their family may mourn, and I have sympathy for them, but the person themselves? Good riddance.
 

Tiger Sora

New member
Aug 23, 2008
2,220
0
0
If I don't know them and they've had no impact on my life I'll show no sympathy to them. Only respect, since I've no emotional bond to them.