|
Post by Dave the Rave on Mar 27, 2015 11:40:36 GMT
It's like saying that if someone had a heart attack at the wheel, knocked someone down and killed them, then they should be convicted of manslaughter because the outcome of their illness resulted in someone's death.
Mental health issues are as real as physical health issues, just not always as visible.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Mar 27, 2015 11:53:47 GMT
It's like most things you can determine them how you want ( I should be a politician),I think the point here is that as a sufferer myself (not for long time now thankfully) I sympathize with Clarke but that doesn't make what he did right does it? My friends dad was a train driver and someone threw themselves in front of the train he was driving and was killed very brutally in front of him and it destroyed him broke up the family and is still affecting him now 20 years later now. Ched Evans's situation is absolutely irrelevant here...it's not a matter of interpretation, it's just nothing to do with the topic in hand other than the word "rehabilitation" being used in two different contexts. It's the equivalent of turning the discussion towards Carlisle FC because they share the same name as the footballer. Of course what Clarke Carlisle did wasn't "right", and neither would it have been "right" if he'd sat at home in his bathroom and swallowed a bottle of pills. People do irrational things like jump in front of lorries or trains when they are in the depths of despair and incapable of rational thought- that's neither right nor wrong, it's just a fact of life. The challenge shouldn't be to start picking through the law books to question under what set of circumstances a person trying to take their own life is hypothetically culpable for manslaughter as other posters have done (Jesus Christ : but where we're going wrong as a society that so many young men feel that killing themselves is the only option they've got. It's distasteful to start proclaiming that Carlisle should be convicted for manslaughter if circumstances had transpired to be totally different than they actually were- what's the point? All it does is needlessly reinforce the idea of blaming a mentally ill person for their actions by associating that action with an entirely made-up set of consequences. For the sake of the can of worms comment it is relevant the poster was saying that Clarke has a right to work again after his issues and part of his rehabilitation would be to try get back to as normal life as possible the same with Evans prison IS rehabilitation and him getting back to as normal life as possible for him. Yes I would agree that they are poles apart in one aspect but in the other they are the same, two people trying to get back to normality. Evans case has been done to death on here but what ever any ones opinion of it, he has done his time by the law of the land and should be able to get on with his life. It's not that simple I know and circumstances of his crime are always going to go against him but legally he has that right. We have had 2 convicted murders who have got back to playing football after being released from jail in Mcormack and Hughes.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 12:10:12 GMT
Ched Evans's situation is absolutely irrelevant here...it's not a matter of interpretation, it's just nothing to do with the topic in hand other than the word "rehabilitation" being used in two different contexts. It's the equivalent of turning the discussion towards Carlisle FC because they share the same name as the footballer. Of course what Clarke Carlisle did wasn't "right", and neither would it have been "right" if he'd sat at home in his bathroom and swallowed a bottle of pills. People do irrational things like jump in front of lorries or trains when they are in the depths of despair and incapable of rational thought- that's neither right nor wrong, it's just a fact of life. The challenge shouldn't be to start picking through the law books to question under what set of circumstances a person trying to take their own life is hypothetically culpable for manslaughter as other posters have done (Jesus Christ : but where we're going wrong as a society that so many young men feel that killing themselves is the only option they've got. It's distasteful to start proclaiming that Carlisle should be convicted for manslaughter if circumstances had transpired to be totally different than they actually were- what's the point? All it does is needlessly reinforce the idea of blaming a mentally ill person for their actions by associating that action with an entirely made-up set of consequences. For the sake of the can of worms comment it is relevant the poster was saying that Clarke has a right to work again after his issues and part of his rehabilitation would be to try get back to as normal life as possible the same with Evans prison IS rehabilitation and him getting back to as normal life as possible for him. Yes I would agree that they are poles apart in one aspect but in the other they are the same, two people trying to get back to normality. Evans case has been done to death on here but what ever any ones opinion of it, he has done his time by the law of the land and should be able to get on with his life. It's not that simple I know and circumstances of his crime are always going to go against him but legally he has that right. We have had 2 convicted murders who have got back to playing football after being released from jail in Mcormack and Hughes. regardless of your opinions on those matters and your interpretation of the word "Rehabilitation" (which isn't taking into account the context of the situations and for some reason you fail to realise that one word can be used in completely different ways dependent upon context) i think it's probably best for the sake of the thread to just drop your comparisons completely. they are utterly irrelevant to the subject that was being discussed and it's going to result in nothing more than distracting from the matter in hand. not having a go at you for that mate (genuinely) i can just see the way it's going to end up if we start bringing up the likes of Evans, Hughes etc....they're all very different situations to each other and to lump them all together by being pedantic over semantics is just unnecessary on a thread about a very important subject. P.S. also important to note that neither hughes or McCormack have ever been convicted of murder...to be so pedantic on the definition of 1 word and then throw around inaccuracies like that is disappointing to say the least
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Mar 27, 2015 12:18:31 GMT
Ched Evans's situation is absolutely irrelevant here...it's not a matter of interpretation, it's just nothing to do with the topic in hand other than the word "rehabilitation" being used in two different contexts. It's the equivalent of turning the discussion towards Carlisle FC because they share the same name as the footballer. Of course what Clarke Carlisle did wasn't "right", and neither would it have been "right" if he'd sat at home in his bathroom and swallowed a bottle of pills. People do irrational things like jump in front of lorries or trains when they are in the depths of despair and incapable of rational thought- that's neither right nor wrong, it's just a fact of life. The challenge shouldn't be to start picking through the law books to question under what set of circumstances a person trying to take their own life is hypothetically culpable for manslaughter as other posters have done (Jesus Christ : but where we're going wrong as a society that so many young men feel that killing themselves is the only option they've got. It's distasteful to start proclaiming that Carlisle should be convicted for manslaughter if circumstances had transpired to be totally different than they actually were- what's the point? All it does is needlessly reinforce the idea of blaming a mentally ill person for their actions by associating that action with an entirely made-up set of consequences. For the sake of the can of worms comment it is relevant the poster was saying that Clarke has a right to work again after his issues and part of his rehabilitation would be to try get back to as normal life as possible the same with Evans prison IS rehabilitation and him getting back to as normal life as possible for him. Yes I would agree that they are poles apart in one aspect but in the other they are the same, two people trying to get back to normality. Evans case has been done to death on here but what ever any ones opinion of it, he has done his time by the law of the land and should be able to get on with his life. It's not that simple I know and circumstances of his crime are always going to go against him but legally he has that right. We have had 2 convicted murders who have got back to playing football after being released from jail in Mcormack and Hughes. I understand your point, but do you think it's an appropriate association to make? I don't understand what the rights and wrongs of Ched Evans's situation adds to any discussion about Clarke Carlisle and/or mental health...it's a completely separate subject. I know that you're not deliberately equating mental health recovery to criminal rehabilitation, but to even mention them in the same breath is a pretty strange thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 13:33:09 GMT
If it's true about the co-pilot of the recent plane crash in the French Alps suffering from depression and killing himself and about 150 others, then I guess sympathies should be extended to the co-pilot for the plight he must have been enduring? God only knows what state he must have been in to have the wherewithal to write some kind of suicide note, leave it in his home, then plot a way to kill himself by crashing a plane with around 150 or so other, innocent people on board.
EDIT - I see someone mentioned this plane crash on page 2 of this thread. Apologies!
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 27, 2015 13:49:29 GMT
I don't think he left a suicide note Johnno.
He just had a few sick notes.
Anyway, I've seen the light following the path of the Oatcake do gooders.
I'm off to pray and light a candle for the poor fellow.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 14:01:15 GMT
I don't think he left a suicide note Johnno. He just had a few sick notes. Anyway, I've seen the light following the path of the Oatcake do gooders. I'm off to pray and light a candle for the poor fellow. Light one for me mate. I'm at work so can't get to a suitable house of worship at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Mar 27, 2015 14:15:59 GMT
If it's true about the co-pilot of the recent plane crash in the French Alps suffering from depression and killing himself and about 150 others, then I guess sympathies should be extended to the co-pilot for the plight he must have been enduring? God only knows what state he must have been in to have the wherewithal to write some kind of suicide note, leave it in his home, then plot a way to kill himself by crashing a plane with around 150 or so other, innocent people on board. EDIT - I see someone mentioned this plane crash on page 2 of this thread. Apologies! Didn't think it'd be long before someone brought that up. What a surprise that it's someone who's previously shown themselves up as pig ignorant when it comes to mental health issues. I think you forfeit the personal condolences when you take out 150 people with you by flying a plane into a mountain- as I'm sure you're well aware. An act that, believe it or not, is somewhat different to throwing yourself in front of a lorry, train or off a building. Oh wait, no...someone could walk underneath the building and you could land on them...how selfish can you be?
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Mar 27, 2015 14:36:04 GMT
If it's true about the co-pilot of the recent plane crash in the French Alps suffering from depression and killing himself and about 150 others, then I guess sympathies should be extended to the co-pilot for the plight he must have been enduring? God only knows what state he must have been in to have the wherewithal to write some kind of suicide note, leave it in his home, then plot a way to kill himself by crashing a plane with around 150 or so other, innocent people on board. EDIT - I see someone mentioned this plane crash on page 2 of this thread. Apologies! Didn't think it'd be long before someone brought that up. What a surprise that it's someone who's previously shown themselves up as pig ignorant when it comes to mental health issues. I think you forfeit the personal condolences when you take out 150 people with you by flying a plane into a mountain- as I'm sure you're well aware. An act that, believe it or not, is somewhat different to throwing yourself in front of a lorry, train or off a building. Oh wait, no...someone could walk underneath the building and you could land on them...how selfish can you be? Mate I don't think anyone is taking this lightly and as said before it's started going off track and I am now leaving the subject because as pointed out that it's going way off target. Mental health is very miss understood and often miss diagnosed illness and affects a lot of people some don't even know, I myself was told by my doctor at first when I explained my issues and that the only way I could cope was drinking and it was heavy "well cut down a bit on the beer your liver count is a bit high" and I left the surgery in total bewilderment, I got help myself and had one great friend in particular who really helped me through some pretty low periods. Unfortunately the aftermath of some acts of desperation do leave behind some serious consequences.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 16:31:53 GMT
If it's true about the co-pilot of the recent plane crash in the French Alps suffering from depression and killing himself and about 150 others, then I guess sympathies should be extended to the co-pilot for the plight he must have been enduring? God only knows what state he must have been in to have the wherewithal to write some kind of suicide note, leave it in his home, then plot a way to kill himself by crashing a plane with around 150 or so other, innocent people on board. EDIT - I see someone mentioned this plane crash on page 2 of this thread. Apologies! Didn't think it'd be long before someone brought that up. What a surprise that it's someone who's previously shown themselves up as pig ignorant when it comes to mental health issues. I think you forfeit the personal condolences when you take out 150 people with you by flying a plane into a mountain- as I'm sure you're well aware. An act that, believe it or not, is somewhat different to throwing yourself in front of a lorry, train or off a building. Oh wait, no...someone could walk underneath the building and you could land on them...how selfish can you be? It is no different at all. The only reason you class it as being different is because it crosses your own moral compass as to what is acceptable or excusable and what isn't. At the end of the day, both Clarke Carlisle and this co-pilot took or attempted to take their own life by involving other innocent people, thinking nothing of the impact that it would have on those people or the people they left behind. It is perfectly valid to bring the plane incident up in the context that some of you are debating because mental illness, to some of you, means that almost any suicide act can be excused because a person is suffering from acute mental illness that affects and clouds their perception of what is right or wrong. I've not shown myself to be pig ignorant or anything of the sort. I've simply disagreed with the outpouring of sympathy for Clarke Carlise, believing that there is much more to his plight than meets the eye and that his case is actually to the detriment of those people who really do suffer the extreme consequences of situations bought about by severe mental illness. There is no excusing what this co-pilot has seemingly done and the co-pilot is deserving of no sympathy whatsoever. You seemingly agree with this assertion. For me, Clarke Carlisle falls into the same category with the only difference being that he affected the lives of 1 person as opposed to 150.
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Mar 27, 2015 17:16:34 GMT
Didn't think it'd be long before someone brought that up. What a surprise that it's someone who's previously shown themselves up as pig ignorant when it comes to mental health issues. I think you forfeit the personal condolences when you take out 150 people with you by flying a plane into a mountain- as I'm sure you're well aware. An act that, believe it or not, is somewhat different to throwing yourself in front of a lorry, train or off a building. Oh wait, no...someone could walk underneath the building and you could land on them...how selfish can you be? It is no different at all. The only reason you class it as being different is because it crosses your own moral compass as to what is acceptable or excusable and what isn't. At the end of the day, both Clarke Carlisle and this co-pilot took or attempted to take their own life by involving other innocent people, thinking nothing of the impact that it would have on those people or the people they left behind. It is perfectly valid to bring the plane incident up in the context that some of you are debating because mental illness, to some of you, means that almost any suicide act can be excused because a person is suffering from acute mental illness that affects and clouds their perception of what is right or wrong. I've not shown myself to be pig ignorant or anything of the sort. I've simply disagreed with the outpouring of sympathy for Clarke Carlise, believing that there is much more to his plight than meets the eye and that his case is actually to the detriment of those people who really do suffer the extreme consequences of situations bought about by severe mental illness. There is no excusing what this co-pilot has seemingly done and the co-pilot is deserving of no sympathy whatsoever. You seemingly agree with this assertion. For me, Clarke Carlisle falls into the same category with the only difference being that he affected the lives of 1 person as opposed to 150.
So that's settled then- throwing yourself in front of a lorry is in the same category as killing 150 people. I've heard it all now.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 17:24:02 GMT
It is no different at all. The only reason you class it as being different is because it crosses your own moral compass as to what is acceptable or excusable and what isn't. At the end of the day, both Clarke Carlisle and this co-pilot took or attempted to take their own life by involving other innocent people, thinking nothing of the impact that it would have on those people or the people they left behind. It is perfectly valid to bring the plane incident up in the context that some of you are debating because mental illness, to some of you, means that almost any suicide act can be excused because a person is suffering from acute mental illness that affects and clouds their perception of what is right or wrong. I've not shown myself to be pig ignorant or anything of the sort. I've simply disagreed with the outpouring of sympathy for Clarke Carlise, believing that there is much more to his plight than meets the eye and that his case is actually to the detriment of those people who really do suffer the extreme consequences of situations bought about by severe mental illness. There is no excusing what this co-pilot has seemingly done and the co-pilot is deserving of no sympathy whatsoever. You seemingly agree with this assertion. For me, Clarke Carlisle falls into the same category with the only difference being that he affected the lives of 1 person as opposed to 150.
So that's settled then- throwing yourself in front of a lorry is in the same category as killing 150 people. I've heard it all now. So your saying that the life of 150 people on a plane are more important than 1 man driving his lorry? Is this correct? For an intelligent bloke who writes some clever, witty stuff for the oatcake, I would expect more really. If you cant see how twisted your logic is on this then that's your problem not mine. Carlisle's actions can be excused. He's mentally ill but this co-pilot can't because he's not mentally ill enough. Surely you can see that you're contradicting your own stance on that informed, intelligent moral high ground of yours?
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Mar 27, 2015 17:31:37 GMT
So that's settled then- throwing yourself in front of a lorry is in the same category as killing 150 people. I've heard it all now. So your saying that the life of 250 people on a plane are more important than 1 man driving his lorry? Is this correct? For an intelligent bloke who writes some clever, witty stuff for the oatcake, I would expect more really. If you cant see how twisted your logic is on this then that's your problem not mine. Carlisle's actions can be excused. He's mentally ill but this co-pilot can't because he's not mentally ill enough. Surely you can see that you're contradicting your own stance on that informed, intelligent moral high groin of yours? High groin... ??? I'm assuming that's predictive text's fault! 150 people died in a plane and were guaranteed to die by the pilot's actions, 1 man in a lorry didn't die and was very unlikely to die in that incident. That's an enormous difference. There's no twisted logic at all.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 17:38:41 GMT
So your saying that the life of 250 people on a plane are more important than 1 man driving his lorry? Is this correct? For an intelligent bloke who writes some clever, witty stuff for the oatcake, I would expect more really. If you cant see how twisted your logic is on this then that's your problem not mine. Carlisle's actions can be excused. He's mentally ill but this co-pilot can't because he's not mentally ill enough. Surely you can see that you're contradicting your own stance on that informed, intelligent moral high groin of yours? High groin... ??? I'm assuming that's predictive text's fault! 150 people died in a plane and were guaranteed to die by the pilot's actions, 1 man in a lorry didn't die and was very unlikely to die in that incident. That's an enormous difference. There's no twisted logic at all. OK then. I understand now. Had both Clarke Carlisle and the Lorry Driver died, then Carlisle wouldn't have been deserving on any sympathy, but on the basis both survived and lived to tell the tale, then Carlisle is mentally ill, deserves sympathy, rehabilitation and understanding. I will ignore the groin comment given that I corrected it before you responded. I'll leave you to it.
|
|
|
Post by CraigWally on Mar 27, 2015 17:47:27 GMT
Rather predictably this thread has gone the same way as the previous discussion on the matter. People with no understanding of the issue blindly arguing their point with no sense or care for anyone else's thoughts
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Mar 27, 2015 18:20:36 GMT
High groin... ??? I'm assuming that's predictive text's fault! 150 people died in a plane and were guaranteed to die by the pilot's actions, 1 man in a lorry didn't die and was very unlikely to die in that incident. That's an enormous difference. There's no twisted logic at all. OK then. I understand now. Had both Clarke Carlisle and the Lorry Driver died, then Carlisle wouldn't have been deserving on any sympathy, but on the basis both survived and lived to tell the tale, then Carlisle is mentally ill, deserves sympathy, rehabilitation and understanding. I will ignore the groin comment given that I corrected it before you responded. I'll leave you to it. The groin comment was a genuine laugh Dave, chill the fuck out! You're getting close- but Carlisle would still have been mentally ill regardless of who died or not. Ultimately I don't believe it's helpful to condemn people on what might have been. In all reasonable probability, stepping out in front of a truck (assuming that you do it at the last possible moment) is only going to end the life of one person, the same as a train or leaping off a building. It would be an exceptional turn of events for things to turn out differently. Yeah, it's not the 'ideal' way to end it all, but if you're in that frame of mind then how capable are you going to be of thinking through all the consequences? I'd imagine that 99% of suicidal people wouldn't fly a plane into a mountain, but holding up the traffic on the M6 might not make their radar. Mental health remains an area that's misunderstood and stigmatised, and you'll have probably noticed that it's something I'm passionate about. I found your comments on the subject distasteful on previous threads- in fact I was downright angered by some of them, truth be told, and so were other people. As long as we continue to label sick people as selfish, weak and undeserving of sympathy then all we do is add to the problem.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Mar 27, 2015 18:22:25 GMT
High groin... ??? I'm assuming that's predictive text's fault! 150 people died in a plane and were guaranteed to die by the pilot's actions, 1 man in a lorry didn't die and was very unlikely to die in that incident. That's an enormous difference. There's no twisted logic at all. OK then. I understand now. Had both Clarke Carlisle and the Lorry Driver died, then Carlisle wouldn't have been deserving on any sympathy, but on the basis both survived and lived to tell the tale, then Carlisle is mentally ill, deserves sympathy, rehabilitation and understanding. I will ignore the groin comment given that I corrected it before you responded. I'll leave you to it. Dave - you embarrassed yourself on the previous thread and look determined to do so again here. Clark took a conscious decision to end his life - but didn't take a conscious decision to end anyone else's. He must have been in a really bad place to make that decision. He deserves all our sympathy and support. The behaviour and actions you have criticised previously by Clark are almost certainly the results of the mental illness. Andreas Lubitz (the co-pilot) took a conscious decision to end his life - and the lives of 150 poor souls. He too must have been in a really dreadful place. At the moment it is difficult to understand what his thinking was and therefore hard to extend our sympathy at all. Maybe we will never know. If you can't understand the difference then you really aren't the intelligent and articulate poster that I thought you were.
|
|
|
Post by mywaydesolzan on Mar 27, 2015 18:28:13 GMT
Hold on he just murdered 149 people and you don't know how you feel.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 19:01:11 GMT
OK then. I understand now. Had both Clarke Carlisle and the Lorry Driver died, then Carlisle wouldn't have been deserving on any sympathy, but on the basis both survived and lived to tell the tale, then Carlisle is mentally ill, deserves sympathy, rehabilitation and understanding. I will ignore the groin comment given that I corrected it before you responded. I'll leave you to it. Dave - you embarrassed yourself on the previous thread and look determined to do so again here. Clark took a conscious decision to end his life - but didn't take a conscious decision to end anyone else's. He must have been in a really bad place to make that decision. He deserves all our sympathy and support. The behaviour and actions you have criticised previously by Clark are almost certainly the results of the mental illness. Andreas Lubitz (the co-pilot) took a conscious decision to end his life - and the lives of 150 poor souls. He too must have been in a really dreadful place. At the moment it is difficult to understand what his thinking was and therefore hard to extend our sympathy at all. Maybe we will never know. If you can't understand the difference then you really aren't the intelligent and articulate poster that I thought you were. I can understand the difference. I have no problem at all in differentiating between what Clarke Carlisle did and what other people did, some of whom posted on here about their own plight. I also have no problem in differentiating between what this co-pilot did and what Carlisle did. Your previous thoughts on Clarke Carlisle mean that you should be extending your sympathies to the plight of the co-pilot also. That is what you were all arguing against previously, the fact that I had little sympathy for Clarke Carlisle. You people, the very same who said that sympathy should be extended to Carlisle, a man who chose to try and end his life whilst involving other innocent people, are now prepared to condemn another bloke who was seemingly too ill, mentally, to rationalise just what his decision would mean on other people. I was slated for not extending my sympathy to Clarke Carlisle well by the same measure, those that slated me, yourself and Trouserdog included, should also be adopting the same stance with regard to the illness of the co-pilot. I'm merely interested in observing why this isn't the case when you delighted in telling me that a depressed, mentally ill person, justifiably makes inexplicable decisions without a second thought for those that are being impacted by such irrational thought processes. Why is that same support not being extended to the co-pilot of that plane? I genuinely want to understand why this is the case? I couldn't really give a shit what you think about me as a poster. You're not my friend and I don't know you in anyway shape or form, so what you think of me from behind your computer screen is a complete and utter irrelevance.
|
|
|
Post by hartzchoco on Mar 27, 2015 19:02:08 GMT
Carlisle stepped in front of a truck. Lubitz condemned 149 innocent people to die. I'm a father of three, and if one of the 16 high school students, or one of the two infants on board had been mine, I can sure as hell say I would have much preferred Lubitz step in front of a truck if he was so inclined to end his life. Carlisle attempted suicide. Lubitz committed mass murder. How any logical human being can compare these two incidents is beyond my mental capacity to understand.
|
|
|
Post by draytonstokie on Mar 27, 2015 19:05:32 GMT
Once again I am so pleased that we as football family are having another dialogue about the plight and stigma that surrounds mental illness. Fairly predictably we have managed to simplify what is an enormously complex area of medical science and loose sight that there is not just one type of mental illness and to think that Clark and the co-pilot were suffering from the same type of illness is in my opinion is potentially like comparing apples and pears. Maybe I should just get off the high ground again eh?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 19:06:37 GMT
OK then. I understand now. Had both Clarke Carlisle and the Lorry Driver died, then Carlisle wouldn't have been deserving on any sympathy, but on the basis both survived and lived to tell the tale, then Carlisle is mentally ill, deserves sympathy, rehabilitation and understanding. I will ignore the groin comment given that I corrected it before you responded. I'll leave you to it. The groin comment was a genuine laugh Dave, chill the fuck out! You're getting close- but Carlisle would still have been mentally ill regardless of who died or not. Ultimately I don't believe it's helpful to condemn people on what might have been. In all reasonable probability, stepping out in front of a truck (assuming that you do it at the last possible moment) is only going to end the life of one person, the same as a train or leaping off a building. It would be an exceptional turn of events for things to turn out differently. Yeah, it's not the 'ideal' way to end it all, but if you're in that frame of mind then how capable are you going to be of thinking through all the consequences? I'd imagine that 99% of suicidal people wouldn't fly a plane into a mountain, but holding up the traffic on the M6 might not make their radar. Mental health remains an area that's misunderstood and stigmatised, and you'll have probably noticed that it's something I'm passionate about. I found your comments on the subject distasteful on previous threads- in fact I was downright angered by some of them, truth be told, and so were other people. As long as we continue to label sick people as selfish, weak and undeserving of sympathy then all we do is add to the problem. All well and good. I agree with you. 99% of suicidal people wouldn't fly a plane into a mountain because 99% of them couldn't fly a plane in the first place. This guy was able to fly a plane, wanted to die and knew of a way that he could end his own life without error. I'm just interested to know why Clarke Carlisle is incapable of thinking rationally, hence his actions are deserving of sympathy yet this co-pilot bloke, who would have more than likely had many of the same thoughts and same demons as Carlisle, isn't extended the same leeway from people on here who accused me of being the devil reincarnate.
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Mar 27, 2015 19:07:05 GMT
Dave - you embarrassed yourself on the previous thread and look determined to do so again here. Clark took a conscious decision to end his life - but didn't take a conscious decision to end anyone else's. He must have been in a really bad place to make that decision. He deserves all our sympathy and support. The behaviour and actions you have criticised previously by Clark are almost certainly the results of the mental illness. Andreas Lubitz (the co-pilot) took a conscious decision to end his life - and the lives of 150 poor souls. He too must have been in a really dreadful place. At the moment it is difficult to understand what his thinking was and therefore hard to extend our sympathy at all. Maybe we will never know. If you can't understand the difference then you really aren't the intelligent and articulate poster that I thought you were. I can understand the difference. I have no problem at all in differentiating between what Clarke Carlisle did and what other people did, some of whom posted on here about their own plight. I also have no problem in differentiating between what this co-pilot did and what Carlisle did. It is you that seems to be able to distinguish. Your previous thoughts on Clarke Carlisle mean that you should be extending your sympathies to the plight of the co-pilot also. That is what you were all arguing against previously, the fact that I had little sympathy for Clarke Carlisle. You people, the very same who said that sympathy should be extended to Carlisle, a man who chose to try and end his life whilst involving other innocent people, are now prepared to condemn another bloke who was seemingly too ill, mentally, to rationalise just what his decision would mean on other people. I was slated for not extending my sympathy to Clarke Carlisle well by the same measure, those that slated me, yourself and Trouserdog included, should also be adopting the same stance with regard to the illness of the co-pilot. I'm merely interested in observing why this isn't the case when you delighted in telling me that a depressed, mentally ill person, justifiably makes inexplicable decisions without a second thought for those that are being impacted by such irrational thought processes. Why is that same support not being extended to the co-pilot of that plane? I genuinely want to understand why this is the case? I couldn't really give a shit what you think about me as a poster. You're not my friend and I don't know you in anyway shape or form, so what you think of me from behind your computer screen is a complete and utter irrelevance. It's the involving other people as opposed to actually killing other people thing that's the clincher, Dave. In a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 19:07:36 GMT
Once again I am so pleased that we as football family are having another dialogue about the plight and stigma that surrounds mental illness. Fairly predictably we have managed to simplify what is an enormously complex area of medical science and loose sight that there is not just one type of mental illness and to think that Clark and the co-pilot were suffering from the same type of illness is in my opinion is potentially like comparing apples and pears. Maybe I should just get off the high ground again eh? You don't know what either were thinking so how can you comment on either on that basis?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 19:08:15 GMT
I can understand the difference. I have no problem at all in differentiating between what Clarke Carlisle did and what other people did, some of whom posted on here about their own plight. I also have no problem in differentiating between what this co-pilot did and what Carlisle did. It is you that seems to be able to distinguish. Your previous thoughts on Clarke Carlisle mean that you should be extending your sympathies to the plight of the co-pilot also. That is what you were all arguing against previously, the fact that I had little sympathy for Clarke Carlisle. You people, the very same who said that sympathy should be extended to Carlisle, a man who chose to try and end his life whilst involving other innocent people, are now prepared to condemn another bloke who was seemingly too ill, mentally, to rationalise just what his decision would mean on other people. I was slated for not extending my sympathy to Clarke Carlisle well by the same measure, those that slated me, yourself and Trouserdog included, should also be adopting the same stance with regard to the illness of the co-pilot. I'm merely interested in observing why this isn't the case when you delighted in telling me that a depressed, mentally ill person, justifiably makes inexplicable decisions without a second thought for those that are being impacted by such irrational thought processes. Why is that same support not being extended to the co-pilot of that plane? I genuinely want to understand why this is the case? I couldn't really give a shit what you think about me as a poster. You're not my friend and I don't know you in anyway shape or form, so what you think of me from behind your computer screen is a complete and utter irrelevance. It's the involving other people as opposed to actually killing other people thing that's the clincher, Dave. In a nutshell. As I said at the start then...It's all about the direction of your Moral Compass. Thanks for clarifying. EDIT - I have no intention of criticising or slating you for this opinion. You're perfectly entitled to it. My own moral compass doesn't extend to the plight of Clarke Carlisle, nor for that matter, the co-pilot of this plane, if what little I know about that particular incident is correct.
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Mar 27, 2015 19:10:53 GMT
The groin comment was a genuine laugh Dave, chill the fuck out! You're getting close- but Carlisle would still have been mentally ill regardless of who died or not. Ultimately I don't believe it's helpful to condemn people on what might have been. In all reasonable probability, stepping out in front of a truck (assuming that you do it at the last possible moment) is only going to end the life of one person, the same as a train or leaping off a building. It would be an exceptional turn of events for things to turn out differently. Yeah, it's not the 'ideal' way to end it all, but if you're in that frame of mind then how capable are you going to be of thinking through all the consequences? I'd imagine that 99% of suicidal people wouldn't fly a plane into a mountain, but holding up the traffic on the M6 might not make their radar. Mental health remains an area that's misunderstood and stigmatised, and you'll have probably noticed that it's something I'm passionate about. I found your comments on the subject distasteful on previous threads- in fact I was downright angered by some of them, truth be told, and so were other people. As long as we continue to label sick people as selfish, weak and undeserving of sympathy then all we do is add to the problem. All well and good. I agree with you. 99% of suicidal people wouldn't fly a plane into a mountain because 99% of them couldn't fly a plane in the first place. This guy was able to fly a plane, wanted to die and knew of a way that he could end his own life without error. I'm just interested to know why Clarke Carlisle is incapable of thinking rationally, hence his actions are deserving of sympathy yet this co-pilot bloke, who would have more than likely had many of the same thoughts and same demons as Carlisle, isn't extended the same leeway from people on here who accused me of being the devil reincarnate. Stop being silly. You know perfectly well the point I'm making.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 19:12:13 GMT
Carlisle stepped in front of a truck. Lubitz condemned 149 innocent people to die. I'm a father of three, and if one of the 16 high school students, or one of the two infants on board had been mine, I can sure as hell say I would have much preferred Lubitz step in front of a truck if he was so inclined to end his life. Carlisle attempted suicide. Lubitz committed mass murder. How any logical human being can compare these two incidents is beyond my mental capacity to understand. Is that because stepping out in front of a truck would guarantee that no kids were involved, be they yours or someone elses? Again, for the hard of understanding, I'm not comparing the two incidents nor am I saying they suffered the exact same problems. I am asking how the irrational thoughts of one man are any different to the irrational thoughts of another, given that both are allegedly a result of mental illness.
|
|
|
Post by hartzchoco on Mar 27, 2015 19:27:22 GMT
Carlisle stepped in front of a truck. Lubitz condemned 149 innocent people to die. I'm a father of three, and if one of the 16 high school students, or one of the two infants on board had been mine, I can sure as hell say I would have much preferred Lubitz step in front of a truck if he was so inclined to end his life. Carlisle attempted suicide. Lubitz committed mass murder. How any logical human being can compare these two incidents is beyond my mental capacity to understand. Is that because stepping out in front of a truck would guarantee that no kids were involved, be they yours or someone elses? Again, for the hard of understanding, I'm not comparing the two incidents nor am I saying they suffered the exact same problems. I am asking how the irrational thoughts of one man are any different to the irrational thoughts of another, given that both are allegedly a result of mental illness. Crashing a plane guarantees that kids would die. How many kids, or people for that matter, perished when Carlisle stepped in front of a truck?
The irrational thoughts of these men do differ, drastically. Carlisle attempted suicide, Lubitz is a mass murderer.
The two situations are incredibly different.
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Mar 27, 2015 19:32:56 GMT
Carlisle stepped in front of a truck. Lubitz condemned 149 innocent people to die. I'm a father of three, and if one of the 16 high school students, or one of the two infants on board had been mine, I can sure as hell say I would have much preferred Lubitz step in front of a truck if he was so inclined to end his life. Carlisle attempted suicide. Lubitz committed mass murder. How any logical human being can compare these two incidents is beyond my mental capacity to understand. Is that because stepping out in front of a truck would guarantee that no kids were involved, be they yours or someone elses? Again, for the hard of understanding, I'm not comparing the two incidents nor am I saying they suffered the exact same problems. I am asking how the irrational thoughts of one man are any different to the irrational thoughts of another, given that both are allegedly a result of mental illness. Surely you've had an answer to that? So, if it's the fact that Carlisle involved another person in his suicide attempt that you have a problem with, how far are we stretching that particular definition before you're prepared to show a degree of sympathy to an individual who has taken their own life? Does the guy who throws himself in front of a Tube train involve other people? Yes he does- he makes lots of people late for work and the people who have to clean up the tracks afterwards are going to be met with a pretty harrowing sight. Does the man who jumps off a building involve other people? Yes he does- people might have to witness him hitting the ground, and again someone has to clean up afterwards. Does the man who takes an overdose alone in bed involve other people- Yes he does- the person who finds his body, probably a family member, who will have to live with that sight and the sense of loss for the rest of their lives. Basically, every time someone chooses to end their life, it 'involves' someone else. Are you saying that you'd withhold all sympathy in these cases?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 19:45:36 GMT
Is that because stepping out in front of a truck would guarantee that no kids were involved, be they yours or someone elses? Again, for the hard of understanding, I'm not comparing the two incidents nor am I saying they suffered the exact same problems. I am asking how the irrational thoughts of one man are any different to the irrational thoughts of another, given that both are allegedly a result of mental illness. Surely you've had an answer to that? So, if it's the fact that Carlisle involved another person in his suicide attempt that you have a problem with, how far are we stretching that particular definition before you're prepared to show a degree of sympathy to an individual who has taken their own life? Does the guy who throws himself in front of a Tube train involve other people? Yes he does- he makes lots of people late for work and the people who have to clean up the tracks afterwards are going to be met with a pretty harrowing sight. Does the man who jumps off a building involve other people? Yes he does- people might have to witness him hitting the ground, and again someone has to clean up afterwards. Does the man who takes an overdose alone in bed involve other people- Yes he does- the person who finds his body, probably a family member, who will have to live with that sight and the sense of loss for the rest of their lives. Basically, every time someone chooses to end their life, it 'involves' someone else. Are you saying that you'd withhold all sympathy in these cases? Now who's being silly? I'm not saying that at all and I never said that in the Clarke Carlisle instance. I merely said that my sympathies extended to the family of Clarke Carlisle, the driver of the vehicle that hit him and the family of the man that hit him, because in my opinion, Carlisle was hiding behind depression and his "suicide" attempt as a means of escaping a catalogue of shameful incidents. It is pointless rehashing all of that old ground and I now understand fully where you're coming from. Had Clarke Carlisle happened to kill himself or the other man that he involved in his own attempts to end his life, then your views on the original post would most likely have been very different. Fair enough. It is all about the direction of your moral compass. Each of ours is different obviously and there is no right or wrong in that.
|
|