Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8
Results 106 to 114 of 114

Thread: Chester Bennington dead at 41

  1. #106

    Default

    I use to suffer from depression, badly. My parents were so concerned when I was 15 they sent me to a psychologist for about 6 months.

    When I was 27 and a single father of a 1 year old boy I had suicidal thoughts to the point where I cried for help. I would rather not discuss the specifics of it because I don't know any of you well enough.

    When I look back it's a miracle my oldest son's mother didn't take him away from me. She was a child support officer for the state of Idaho at the time. I think I'm going to send her a thank you text right now.

    I don't believe depression has a hold on me anymore.

  2. The Following 6 Users High Fived Al Wilson 4 Mayor For This Post:


  3. #107
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Sergio Dipp
    Posts
    30,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aberdien View Post
    Saying that to a person who is of sound mind is one thing - saying it to a depressed person who is unable to think logically is another. I think we all suffer from a sort of detachment to the plight of somebody who is to the point of suicide because AFAIK none of us have ever been in that situation. Ultimately it is a choice they make, but the choice is made in circumstances and with a mindset that none of us really understand because we probably haven't experienced it.

    So I guess we're sending a lot of judgment towards something none of us have ever experienced. Judging it from our perspectives, it is absolutely a selfish thing to do. But it is more complex than that as well. It is a tragedy all the way around.
    Now we've come full circle to this argument, which frey presented and then deleted... I have many problems with it.

    1.) It implies a helplessness that I wouldn't ascribe to any human. Certainly not one with the resources that Chester had. Brain chemistry is a very powerful thing, but it's manageable and someone with 6 kids has a responsibility to understand that.

    2.) Inevitably someone always suggests that we can't possibly relate to their plight because we haven't been there. I always find that to be naive and insulting. Why would you just assume that? I think it's a safer assumption to think that many have had at least some connection to severe depression whether it was them or a family member.

    3.) I think we can agree that it's a tragedy, it's sad, and we can have sympathy for the deceased and their family - all while wishing that this very preventable thing could have been prevented. Being sympathetic, and feeling it was a selfish act, do not seem mutually exclusive to me.

  4. The Following 3 Users High Fived Buff For This Post:


  5. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    Now we've come full circle to this argument, which frey presented and then deleted... I have many problems with it.

    1.) It implies a helplessness that I wouldn't ascribe to any human. Certainly not one with the resources that Chester had. Brain chemistry is a very powerful thing, but it's manageable and someone with 6 kids has a responsibility to understand that.

    2.) Inevitably someone always suggests that we can't possibly relate to their plight because we haven't been there. I always find that to be naive and insulting. Why would you just assume that? I think it's a safer assumption to think that many have had at least some connection to severe depression whether it was them or a family member.

    3.) I think we can agree that it's a tragedy, it's sad, and we can have sympathy for the deceased and their family - all while wishing that this very preventable thing could have been prevented. Being sympathetic, and feeling it was a selfish act, do not seem mutually exclusive to me.
    1. If it's that powerful, and we suspect it is, how do you put a responsibility on him? A strong person can lift something heavy and walk with it, eventually it's going to fall to the ground. Is it not possible that he was strong, but couldn't handle it? Is it not possible that he was strong and understanding, but reached his limit? You have an assumption that this isn't inevitable, and I'm not sure it is or isn't. But I do know that strong people can falter, and if he was on the road, felt alone, distanced, and his wife did cheat on him, then it's not a shocker, and it doesn't make him the villain you're making him out to be. You don't know the specifics, you can't really judge, but you are with a one sides fits all argument that I don't think really holds up under scrutiny.

    2. So relate with it. What was he feeling, what were his circumstance? Be very specific. Tell us what was going on in his life? Medicine doesn't always work - new stimuli can make it brutal. Things can snowball.

    3. It's hard to say 'we can by sympathetic' in the same breath as essentially saying he's this super selfish ******* who killed himself.


    People don't get help because they don't want to be judged. Knowing that you can get help, stumble, and then be judged for it later doesn't make it any easier. And that might come across as an insult, or me attacking you. It's not.
    Crazy how he had a good heart; but those bad, bad hands...

  6. #109
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    56,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aberdien View Post
    But it is more complex than that as well. It is a tragedy all the way around.
    It is indeed.

  7. The Following User High Fived Northman For This Post:


  8. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    I am essentially arguing the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. The whole reason it's so selfish is that as a father of 6 - Chester's life arguably mattered MORE than all of his kids because there are so many people who were dependent on him.

    The part of your argument (and the one Frey was making in his deleted thread) that I continue to disagree with is this idea that IF people don't excuse the action (suicide) based on mental illness - then somehow we are ignorant to the ravages of depression or can't possibly empathize with someone in his position.

    Whereas there is a perfectly legitimate counterpoint that says - "We know a lot about mental illness, and there are many treatments available - you owe it to your family to exhaust all of those avenues."
    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    Now we've come full circle to this argument, which frey presented and then deleted... I have many problems with it.

    1.) It implies a helplessness that I wouldn't ascribe to any human. Certainly not one with the resources that Chester had. Brain chemistry is a very powerful thing, but it's manageable and someone with 6 kids has a responsibility to understand that.
    Some can manage it. The individual is certainly responsible either way.

    2.) Inevitably someone always suggests that we can't possibly relate to their plight because we haven't been there. I always find that to be naive and insulting. Why would you just assume that? I think it's a safer assumption to think that many have had at least some connection to severe depression whether it was them or a family member.
    It's far more naive and insulting to believe that since you've known people with severe depression you understand how if feels and you know how you would act if you had it.

    3.) I think we can agree that it's a tragedy, it's sad, and we can have sympathy for the deceased and their family - all while wishing that this very preventable thing could have been prevented. Being sympathetic, and feeling it was a selfish act, do not seem mutually exclusive to me.
    This is exactly what I've been arguing for.

    This conversation has hit its dead end however.

  9. #111
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    My place in nowhere.
    Adopted Bronco:
    John F'n Elway
    Posts
    16,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeHoof View Post
    What is it with grunge acts and offing yourself?
    Bite your tongue, LP wasn't grunge.
    "Run through a mother****er face, they just ain't gonna want that."
    "You have to hate what you're firing at! Hate it!"
    "Nice reach-around, one-handed grab by Demaryius Thomas"--Jim Nantz

    Quenton Nelson G/C (everything that's right about football), Josh Allen QB, Mike McGlinchey RT, Saquon Barkley RB, Royce Freeman RB, Kalen Ballage RB, Malik Jefferson ILB, Derwin James SS, Arden Key OLB, Chase Litton QB, Kemoko Turay OLB, Lorenzo Carter OLB, Josh Rosen QB (he's dropping).

  10. The Following User High Fived Jaded For This Post:


  11. #112
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Jamaal Siemian & Trevor Charles
    Posts
    9,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    You've kind of made my point for me here that legally we like to introduce all of these gray areas - and that's probably the right thing to do when trying to develop a just legal system... But MY point is that at the end of the day none of that really matters when a family loses a loved one because another person deliberately killed them.

    I said "intentionally" murders someone... So the baseball bat example doesn't apply. I'm talking about intentionality. If you intentionally kill someone - that is never excusable and MY ENTIRE POINT IS THAT I AM UNMOVED BY THE MURDERER'S MENTAL COMPETENCY OR THEIR MOTIVATION FOR COMMITTING THE MURDER. Completely unmoved. Just kill them already as they no longer deserve to breathe my air.
    I'm curious how this line of reasoning extends to killing in war. Easy answer would be that war is a different animal, but I think that justification breaks down upon inspection.

    In general I think the ideal criminal justice system is a good approach to dealing with killers because you get a jury of peers to absorb and process the details which matter when handing down punishment.

    I don't have a big problem with someone offing themselves if they have kids, as long as the other parent is stable. Addition by subtraction in many cases.
    The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over; thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard.

  12. The Following 2 Users High Fived Hawgdriver For This Post:


  13. #113
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Sergio Dipp
    Posts
    30,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawgdriver View Post
    I'm curious how this line of reasoning extends to killing in war. Easy answer would be that war is a different animal, but I think that justification breaks down upon inspection.

    In general I think the ideal criminal justice system is a good approach to dealing with killers because you get a jury of peers to absorb and process the details which matter when handing down punishment.

    I don't have a big problem with someone offing themselves if they have kids, as long as the other parent is stable. Addition by subtraction in many cases.
    I agree that the justice system has it more right than I do... I'm just kind of spouting neanderthal proclivities. My logic is far from air tight. I do believe war is different than outright murder because there is a certain acknowledgement of engagement by both parties. But then it gets really gray when you start to talk about civilian deaths in wartime. We have to allow for some human error I suppose - but then it seems like there is sometimes a disregard or dehumanization that happens and I wonder where that falls on my spectrum.

  14. The Following User High Fived Buff For This Post:


  15. #114
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Jamaal Siemian & Trevor Charles
    Posts
    9,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    I agree that the justice system has it more right than I do... I'm just kind of spouting neanderthal proclivities. My logic is far from air tight. I do believe war is different than outright murder because there is a certain acknowledgement of engagement by both parties. But then it gets really gray when you start to talk about civilian deaths in wartime. We have to allow for some human error I suppose - but then it seems like there is sometimes a disregard or dehumanization that happens and I wonder where that falls on my spectrum.
    Yeah, the war question could fill a semester's worth of ethics. In fact, that was all we talked about in our ethics class back at the zoo, war-related stuff. Was it right to drop the bomb?, lawful orders, and so on.
    The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over; thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard.

Go
Shop AFC Champions and Super Bowl gear at the official online Pro Shop of the Denver Broncos!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
dedicated servers
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group