|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 19:48:32 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. 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.
Fair enough. Had Clarke Carlisle killed both himself and the driver of the vehicle that hit him, what would your opinion be then? Your moral compass clearly points in the direction of harming or involving kids in acts of a horrific nature. So do mine. It is the sole reason that today, I work in the bed industry rather than being a Solicitor which was my intention whilst at University.
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Mar 27, 2015 19:57:24 GMT
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. I'm not being silly- it was a genuine question, because I was struggling to see where you're coming from. So, to clarify, it's not 'involving other people' in a suicide attempt that's the source of your argument, it's that you (somehow) feel that Clarke Carlisle made some sort of sham suicide attempt?
|
|
|
Post by hartzchoco on Mar 27, 2015 19:58:11 GMT
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.
Fair enough. Had Clarke Carlisle killed both himself and the driver of the vehicle that hit him, what would your opinion be then? Your moral compass clearly points in the direction of harming or involving kids in acts of a horrific nature. So do mine. It is the sole reason that today, I work in the bed industry rather than being a Solicitor which was my intention whilst at University. Keep in mind, I jumped into this conversation halfway through. I never alluded having much sympathy for Carlisle, just much more anger towards Lubitz. I think it was incredibly irresponsible for Carlisle to directly involve another person in an attempt to end his life. I just don't think it quite as drastic and horrific as murdering 149 innocent men, women, and children. That being said, I am in no way an expert in the field of mental illness. I can only assume Carlisle didn't think he was endangering the lives of others. Lubitz, as I have stated, is a mass murderer, plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Mar 27, 2015 20:17:04 GMT
You're assuming that the co-pilot intended his actions, planned them. From the reports he was acting normally until the pilot started talking about landing. This then, maybe, changed the co-pilots mindset until he was not in control of his actions as his depression, and the thought of going back to his life, descended. In this way he was no different to Carlisle in that he was not responsible for his actions due to his illness for this particular period. As anyone knows who has suffered depression you can be laughing like a bastard one minute, feeling suicidal the next.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 20:26:23 GMT
Fair enough. Had Clarke Carlisle killed both himself and the driver of the vehicle that hit him, what would your opinion be then? Your moral compass clearly points in the direction of harming or involving kids in acts of a horrific nature. So do mine. It is the sole reason that today, I work in the bed industry rather than being a Solicitor which was my intention whilst at University. Keep in mind, I jumped into this conversation halfway through. I never alluded having much sympathy for Carlisle, just much more anger towards Lubitz. I think it was incredibly irresponsible for Carlisle to directly involve another person in an attempt to end his life. I just don't think it quite as drastic and horrific as murdering 149 innocent men, women, and children. That being said, I am in no way an expert in the field of mental illness. I can only assume Carlisle didn't think he was endangering the lives of others. Lubitz, as I have stated, is a mass murderer, plain and simple. You have no argument from me there. We are singing from the same hymn sheet.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 20:30:11 GMT
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. I'm not being silly- it was a genuine question, because I was struggling to see where you're coming from. So, to clarify, it's not 'involving other people' in a suicide attempt that's the source of your argument, it's that you (somehow) feel that Clarke Carlisle made some sort of sham suicide attempt? My lack of sympathy for Carlisle was always from the perspective that his "attempted suicide" was a sham, a hiding place for a catalogue of shameful incidents which he was trying to escape and exonerate himself from. It was never because his suicide involved others. As you have said, any suicide attempt, in some way, involves others, be it others who witness, discover or become embroiled in the attempt or those that are left behind to pick up the pieces.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 20:33:13 GMT
You're assuming that the co-pilot intended his actions, planned them. From the reports he was acting normally until the pilot started talking about landing. This then, maybe, changed the co-pilots mindset until he was not in control of his actions as his depression, and the thought of going back to his life, descended. In this way he was no different to Carlisle in that he was not responsible for his actions due to his illness for this particular period. As anyone knows who has suffered depression you can be laughing like a bastard one minute, feeling suicidal the next. Very well written. It is this very thing that led me to ask why those who defended the actions of Carlisle so vehemently wouldn't offer the same defence of the co-pilot in the recent plane crash scenario. Totally different scales for sure, maybe totally different illnesses, but you can bet your life that many of the thought processes of the two were very similar...both totally incomprehensible to those who haven't suffered such an illness yet totally reprehensible depending on which direction your moral compass points as an individual.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Mar 27, 2015 21:17:36 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. 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. So you say you get the difference then immediately say you can't understand the difference. I'm sure you don't give a shit about what I think of you as a poster (likewise too). My point being that you normally talk a lot of sense on here. On this, following on from your views on a previous thread, you views are quite objectionable and adds to the stigma that is attached to mental health problems.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Mar 27, 2015 21:34:17 GMT
I'm not being silly- it was a genuine question, because I was struggling to see where you're coming from. So, to clarify, it's not 'involving other people' in a suicide attempt that's the source of your argument, it's that you (somehow) feel that Clarke Carlisle made some sort of sham suicide attempt? My lack of sympathy for Carlisle was always from the perspective that his "attempted suicide" was a sham, a hiding place for a catalogue of shameful incidents which he was trying to escape and exonerate himself from. It was never because his suicide involved others. As you have said, any suicide attempt, in some way, involves others, be it others who witness, discover or become embroiled in the attempt or those that are left behind to pick up the pieces. Stepping in front of a truck "was a sham"? FFS. You really haven't got a clue about this. You see him trying to pull a fast one and faking the depression and attempted suicide to cover for his other problems. In reality his problems look to be entwined with his depression.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 21:37:07 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. 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. So you say you get the difference then immediately say you can't understand the difference. I'm sure you don't give a shit about what I think of you as a poster (likewise too). My point being that you normally talk a lot of sense on here. On this, following on from your views on a previous thread, you views are quite objectionable and adds to the stigma that is attached to mental health problems. It doesn't add to anything. I'm amazed by the hypocrisy to be honest. You preach sympathy for Carlisle then don't extend the same to someone whose actions are borne from similar problems. It should be me whose offended by such hypocrisy given that I was painted as the devil during the last discussion on Clarke Carlisle.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 21:40:01 GMT
My lack of sympathy for Carlisle was always from the perspective that his "attempted suicide" was a sham, a hiding place for a catalogue of shameful incidents which he was trying to escape and exonerate himself from. It was never because his suicide involved others. As you have said, any suicide attempt, in some way, involves others, be it others who witness, discover or become embroiled in the attempt or those that are left behind to pick up the pieces. Stepping in front of a truck "was a sham"? FFS. You really haven't got a clue about this. You see him trying to pull a fast one and faking the depression and attempted suicide to cover for his other problems. In reality his problems look to be entwined with his depression. You should have some sympathy for the co pilot then. The fact that you can't even see your own double standards is actually quite funny given that you resort to questioning my understanding.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Mar 27, 2015 21:57:17 GMT
Stepping in front of a truck "was a sham"? FFS. You really haven't got a clue about this. You see him trying to pull a fast one and faking the depression and attempted suicide to cover for his other problems. In reality his problems look to be entwined with his depression. You should have some sympathy for the co pilot then. The fact that you can't even see your own double standards is actually quite funny given that you resort to questioning my understanding. What I said earlier: "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." Nobody knows enough yet to be able to judge his actions properly. I will hold fire on judging him. No double standards at all.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 27, 2015 22:14:29 GMT
You should have some sympathy for the co pilot then. The fact that you can't even see your own double standards is actually quite funny given that you resort to questioning my understanding. What I said earlier: "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." Nobody knows enough yet to be able to judge his actions properly. I will hold fire on judging him. No double standards at all. Presumably you know enough about Clarke Carlisle and his plight???
|
|
|
Post by prettything on Mar 27, 2015 22:41:26 GMT
To compare the plight of the pilot and Clark Carlisle, is ridiculous. There are so many different variables involved, which would result by the actions commited by an individual whilst suffering from the illness. One case cannot compared to another.
It's never black and white.
The German pilots actions resulted in premeditated murder. While I can sympathise with his suffering, to take other people with him, is a criminal act, but more importantly, his actions have resulted in the death of hundreds of people.
Carlisles actions directly involved the driver of the lorry, and, as a result, his intention was to harm himself and no one else.
Clearly, he gave no thought to how his actions would affect the driver or his surrounding family and friends. Selfish? Yes, but the result would have been to end his own life, nobody else.
Dave, if you can't see the difference in both cases, I advise you stick with the bed game, and stay away from any kind psychoanalytical dialogue all together. It really doesn't suit you.
|
|
|
Post by hartzchoco on Mar 28, 2015 4:53:26 GMT
You're assuming that the co-pilot intended his actions, planned them. From the reports he was acting normally until the pilot started talking about landing. This then, maybe, changed the co-pilots mindset until he was not in control of his actions as his depression, and the thought of going back to his life, descended. In this way he was no different to Carlisle in that he was not responsible for his actions due to his illness for this particular period. As anyone knows who has suffered depression you can be laughing like a bastard one minute, feeling suicidal the next. Very well written. It is this very thing that led me to ask why those who defended the actions of Carlisle so vehemently wouldn't offer the same defence of the co-pilot in the recent plane crash scenario. Totally different scales for sure, maybe totally different illnesses, but you can bet your life that many of the thought processes of the two were very similar...both totally incomprehensible to those who haven't suffered such an illness yet totally reprehensible depending on which direction your moral compass points as an individual. The pilot never talked about landing, not once. They weren't even halfway through the flight. The pilot left to use the restroom, and the co pilot used that opportunity to murder 149 innocent people. So, it's actually not very well written. Not even close.
|
|
|
Post by hartzchoco on Mar 28, 2015 5:10:08 GMT
You're assuming that the co-pilot intended his actions, planned them. From the reports he was acting normally until the pilot started talking about landing. This then, maybe, changed the co-pilots mindset until he was not in control of his actions as his depression, and the thought of going back to his life, descended. In this way he was no different to Carlisle in that he was not responsible for his actions due to his illness for this particular period. As anyone knows who has suffered depression you can be laughing like a bastard one minute, feeling suicidal the next. Learn the facts before you decide to defend a cowardly mass murderer of innocent men, women, and children. He intended his actions. He sat in the cockpit for ten minutes while the pilot desperately tried to re enter, while other planes in the area tried to contact him, while ground control was screaming at him, and while the ill fated passengers were screaming in desperation for their lives. All of this heard on the recovered voice recorder. The pilot never discussed landing. Not once. As I've said, they weren't halfway through the flight. Not that it matters. He is a mass murderer, simple as that. Bat fuck crazy or not, its what he is. And he deserves sympathy from no one, least of all from the loving family members of the innocent victims he killed.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 28, 2015 9:01:12 GMT
You're assuming that the co-pilot intended his actions, planned them. From the reports he was acting normally until the pilot started talking about landing. This then, maybe, changed the co-pilots mindset until he was not in control of his actions as his depression, and the thought of going back to his life, descended. In this way he was no different to Carlisle in that he was not responsible for his actions due to his illness for this particular period. As anyone knows who has suffered depression you can be laughing like a bastard one minute, feeling suicidal the next. Learn the facts before you decide to defend a cowardly mass murderer of innocent men, women, and children. He intended his actions. He sat in the cockpit for ten minutes while the pilot desperately tried to re enter, while other planes in the area tried to contact him, while ground control was screaming at him, and while the ill fated passengers were screaming in desperation for their lives. All of this heard on the recovered voice recorder. The pilot never discussed landing. Not once. As I've said, they weren't halfway through the flight. Not that it matters. He is a mass murderer, simple as that. Bat fuck crazy or not, its what he is. And he deserves sympathy from no one, least of all from the loving family members of the innocent victims he killed. But surely he was mentally ill, clinically depressed and as such incapable of thinking rationally about how his actions would affect the other 149 people? 1 person, 149 people. Does it really matter? We've heard from our resident experts how it is impossible for a man who has hit rock bottom emotionally to consider anything outside of their escape route from life. In that sense and that sense alone, you can't escape the similarities yet apparently one man is deserving of sympathy and understanding whilst one isn't. One should be held as a beacon for mental illness, to highlight how it isn't given the right support from the medical bodies of this country whilst the other should be ignored and treated like the mass murderer he is. Surely the man that took 149 lives as well as his own needs more understanding than a bloke who tried to take only his own life in a way that was never really going to hurt anyone other than himself? That's the logic of what's been presented here by the same people who slammed anyone that failed to have sympathy for Clarke Carlisle.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Mar 28, 2015 9:38:46 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. I think there is a vast difference between accepting and understanding the absolute mental turmoil that both individuals were suffering and condoning their actions. I think I have that understanding based in personal experience of the disease. I can condone the actions of neither. Clarke's actions had fewer potential victims and are therefore somehow less repulsive to our psyche but both were the acts of selfish individuals who didn't consider the impact of their action on other people. The fact remains that mental illness is real and affects a huge percentage of the population to some degree. You don't volunteer for it, in many cases its probably a product of the high pressure fast paced society that we have been born into and are not mentally wired up to cope with. Efficiencies savings everybody rushing
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 28, 2015 10:07:01 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. I think there is a vast difference between accepting and understanding the absolute mental turmoil that both individuals were suffering and condoning their actions. I think I have that understanding based in personal experience of the disease. I can condone the actions of neither. Clarke's actions had fewer potential victims and are therefore somehow less repulsive to our psyche but both were the acts of selfish individuals who didn't consider the impact of their action on other people. The fact remains that mental illness is real and affects a huge percentage of the population to some degree. You don't volunteer for it, in many cases its probably a product of the high pressure fast paced society that we have been born into and are not mentally wired up to cope with. Efficiencies savings everybody rushing I agree 100%.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Mar 28, 2015 10:15:54 GMT
What I said earlier: "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." Nobody knows enough yet to be able to judge his actions properly. I will hold fire on judging him. No double standards at all. Presumably you know enough about Clarke Carlisle and his plight??? Yes. Next question.
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Mar 28, 2015 10:25:36 GMT
Learn the facts before you decide to defend a cowardly mass murderer of innocent men, women, and children. He intended his actions. He sat in the cockpit for ten minutes while the pilot desperately tried to re enter, while other planes in the area tried to contact him, while ground control was screaming at him, and while the ill fated passengers were screaming in desperation for their lives. All of this heard on the recovered voice recorder. The pilot never discussed landing. Not once. As I've said, they weren't halfway through the flight. Not that it matters. He is a mass murderer, simple as that. Bat fuck crazy or not, its what he is. And he deserves sympathy from no one, least of all from the loving family members of the innocent victims he killed. But surely he was mentally ill, clinically depressed and as such incapable of thinking rationally about how his actions would affect the other 149 people? 1 person, 149 people. Does it really matter? We've heard from our resident experts how it is impossible for a man who has hit rock bottom emotionally to consider anything outside of their escape route from life. In that sense and that sense alone, you can't escape the similarities yet apparently one man is deserving of sympathy and understanding whilst one isn't. One should be held as a beacon for mental illness, to highlight how it isn't given the right support from the medical bodies of this country whilst the other should be ignored and treated like the mass murderer he is. Surely the man that took 149 lives as well as his own needs more understanding than a bloke who tried to take only his own life in a way that was never really going to hurt anyone other than himself? That's the logic of what's been presented here by the same people who slammed anyone that failed to have sympathy for Clarke Carlisle. Are you still going at this Johnno? You've had the answer to this spelt out to you by at least three different people, which you seemed to accept, yet you just keep going on and on as if ignoring everyone else's posts and repeating your own points ad infinitum is going to win you some sort of prize. I'm not going to repeat the points that people have already made again. Either read and consider them or just leave the thread alone.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 28, 2015 10:38:00 GMT
Presumably you know enough about Clarke Carlisle and his plight??? Yes. Next question. Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 28, 2015 10:41:36 GMT
But surely he was mentally ill, clinically depressed and as such incapable of thinking rationally about how his actions would affect the other 149 people? 1 person, 149 people. Does it really matter? We've heard from our resident experts how it is impossible for a man who has hit rock bottom emotionally to consider anything outside of their escape route from life. In that sense and that sense alone, you can't escape the similarities yet apparently one man is deserving of sympathy and understanding whilst one isn't. One should be held as a beacon for mental illness, to highlight how it isn't given the right support from the medical bodies of this country whilst the other should be ignored and treated like the mass murderer he is. Surely the man that took 149 lives as well as his own needs more understanding than a bloke who tried to take only his own life in a way that was never really going to hurt anyone other than himself? That's the logic of what's been presented here by the same people who slammed anyone that failed to have sympathy for Clarke Carlisle. Are you still going at this Johnno? You've had the answer to this spelt out to you by at least three different people, which you seemed to accept, yet you just keep going on and on as if ignoring everyone else's posts and repeating your own points ad infinitum is going to win you some sort of prize. I'm not going to repeat the points that people have already made again. Either read and consider them or just leave the thread alone. I'm not ignoring anyone. I can see very clearly what a bunch of hypocrites you are. The more you respond the more you highlight this fact. Enjoy! The pilot is a homicidal maniac. Clarke carlisle is ill. I get it.
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Mar 28, 2015 10:54:07 GMT
Are you still going at this Johnno? You've had the answer to this spelt out to you by at least three different people, which you seemed to accept, yet you just keep going on and on as if ignoring everyone else's posts and repeating your own points ad infinitum is going to win you some sort of prize. I'm not going to repeat the points that people have already made again. Either read and consider them or just leave the thread alone. I'm not ignoring anyone. I can see very clearly what a bunch of hypocrites you are. The more you respond the more you highlight this fact. Enjoy! The pilot is a homicidal maniac. Clarke carlisle is ill. I get it. The pilot was ill and committed mass murder. Clarke Carlisle is ill and didn't. I don't see where the hypocrisy is coming from.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Mar 28, 2015 11:17:06 GMT
As I say I just wonder whether the continual direction of the human race to make peoples lives too demanding, fast paced and hectic is something we are genetically wired up for. Or whether the continued alleged progress, efficiency, productivity actually leaves the vast majority to a poorer quality of life ( not talking about financial) than they are equipped to to deal with mentally. After all we can all trace our roots to some form of subsistence living yet now the vast majority of the worlds population live with some form of capitalism providing pressure on people to achieve the unecessesary.
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Mar 28, 2015 11:20:47 GMT
While we're on the subject of hypocrisy...
"It is no different at all....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. .... 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 it's fair to deduce from those statements that you view Carlisle in the same category as the pilot because his suicide attempt affected the lives of other people. However...a few posts later...
"My lack of sympathy for Carlisle was always from the perspective that his "attempted suicide" was a sham, a hiding place for a catalogue of shameful incidents which he was trying to escape and exonerate himself from. It was never because his suicide involved others. As you have said, any suicide attempt, in some way, involves others, be it others who witness, discover or become embroiled in the attempt or those that are left behind to pick up the pieces."
err..OK. Which one is it then?
I'll ask you again- if every suicide involves and affects other people to varying degrees, would you label all people who take their own lives as selfish and withhold sympathy for them on that basis?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 28, 2015 11:34:48 GMT
Presumably you know enough about Clarke Carlisle and his plight??? Yes. Next question. Good stuff. Pass on my best wishes to him and let him know that I hope his "diminished responsibility" plea keeps him out of jail for a 2nd time...or will it be the 3rd time. I can't quite remember.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 28, 2015 11:44:44 GMT
While we're on the subject of hypocrisy... " It is no different at all....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. .... 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 it's fair to deduce from those statements that you view Carlisle in the same category as the pilot because his suicide attempt affected the lives of other people. However...a few posts later... "My lack of sympathy for Carlisle was always from the perspective that his "attempted suicide" was a sham, a hiding place for a catalogue of shameful incidents which he was trying to escape and exonerate himself from. It was never because his suicide involved others. As you have said, any suicide attempt, in some way, involves others, be it others who witness, discover or become embroiled in the attempt or those that are left behind to pick up the pieces."err..OK. Which one is it then? I'll ask you again- if every suicide involves and affects other people to varying degrees, would you label all people who take their own lives as selfish and withhold sympathy for them on that basis? No I wouldn't as I've said on numerous occasions having nursed someone through such tendencies myself. I do believe that suicide is ultimately a very selfish act but that doesn't mean in many circumstances the perpetrator isn't deserving of sympathy and understanding. For different reasons I have no sympathy for Carlisle or the pilot. My problem is that you do-gooders, supposed occupiers of the moral high ground, having collectively rounded on me for having no sympathy for Carlisle, now seem to think that someone else, who has done something unfathomable that can be attributed to mental illness, isn't deserving of the same understanding and compassion. The only reason for this is the consequence of one action that killed people whilst the other didn't. As I said from the outset, its all about your own moral compass. I'm not going to criticise the direction in which yours points.
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Mar 28, 2015 11:46:14 GMT
You're assuming that the co-pilot intended his actions, planned them. From the reports he was acting normally until the pilot started talking about landing. This then, maybe, changed the co-pilots mindset until he was not in control of his actions as his depression, and the thought of going back to his life, descended. In this way he was no different to Carlisle in that he was not responsible for his actions due to his illness for this particular period. As anyone knows who has suffered depression you can be laughing like a bastard one minute, feeling suicidal the next. Learn the facts before you decide to defend a cowardly mass murderer of innocent men, women, and children. He intended his actions. He sat in the cockpit for ten minutes while the pilot desperately tried to re enter, while other planes in the area tried to contact him, while ground control was screaming at him, and while the ill fated passengers were screaming in desperation for their lives. All of this heard on the recovered voice recorder. The pilot never discussed landing. Not once. As I've said, they weren't halfway through the flight. Not that it matters. He is a mass murderer, simple as that. Bat fuck crazy or not, its what he is. And he deserves sympathy from no one, least of all from the loving family members of the innocent victims he killed. And you learn the facts to. "Describing the sequence of events, the judge said that for the first 20 minutes, there was normal conversation between the two pilots before the commander started his briefing in preparation for landing at Dusseldorf". Up until the pilot left the cockpit the co pilot was acting 'normally'. Something clicked and he decided to do what he did. How am I defending him? The fact is you or anyone else don't know the facts about the mental state of someone who decides to commit suicide other than those who decide to do it or attempt it. Maybe some of the posters on here could tell you. Taking your own life is not a rational thought process. What this thread is about mental health and the fact that people should be not be stigmatised for a disease which is no different to physical illnesses. Unfortunately this area of health is chronically underfunded in this country and deeply misunderstood and ridiculed by a portion of the population. Obviously report's now emerging may indicate that he did plan his actions. But this doesn't alter the fact that his mental state in doing this was not rational!
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 28, 2015 11:47:23 GMT
You're assuming that the co-pilot intended his actions, planned them. From the reports he was acting normally until the pilot started talking about landing. This then, maybe, changed the co-pilots mindset until he was not in control of his actions as his depression, and the thought of going back to his life, descended. In this way he was no different to Carlisle in that he was not responsible for his actions due to his illness for this particular period. As anyone knows who has suffered depression you can be laughing like a bastard one minute, feeling suicidal the next. Nah, he's a murderer.
|
|