Flag lowered for Whitney

snow

BeefJerky wrote: »

Based on your recent posts, it is clear that you don't care about respect at all. However, I find it funny that this is the only response you posted, rather than actually addressing the comments you made. So, I guess I will assume that you really are so dense as to believe that a comparison such as that is truly valid.

I see no reason to argue with you about whether drug and alcohol addictions are illnesses or not, what purpose would that serve? Sure I could point out to you that virtually the entire medical community believes so and treat these addictions as such but you allready have your mind made up, so if me making a statement that reflects that makes you have no respect for me so be it. I really don't care.



REGARDS SNOW

tonyb

snow wrote: »

Sure I could point out to you that virtually the entire medical community believes so and treat these addictions as such
REGARDS SNOW

Really ?? C'mon man, if left up to the "medical community", stubbing your toe will soon become a disease. The medical community has no interest in lining their own pockets by naming everything under the sun a disease, addiction, you really believe that ?

BeefJerky

snow wrote: »

I see no reason to argue with you about whether drug and alcohol addictions are illnesses or not, what purpose would that serve? Sure I could point out to you that virtually the entire medical community believes so and treat these addictions as such but you allready have your mind made up, so if me making a statement that reflects that makes you have no respect for me so be it. I really don't care.



REGARDS SNOW

Even if we assume for a minute that the addiction is a "disease," the person still chooses to drink that first drink, take that first smoke, or snort that first line of coke. However, nobody chooses to get that first cancer cell.

In addition, I've known a few people who have had various addictions, and all them took responsibility for their own addictions rather than trying the pass them blame on to some nonexistent "disease."

tonyb wrote: »

Really ?? C'mon man, if left up to the "medical community", stubbing your toe will soon become a disease. The medical community has no interest in lining their own pockets by naming everything under the sun a disease, addiction, you really believe that ?

Exactly. Maybe I can start claiming that my audio and computer addiction really is a "disease." That way it's not my fault! :rolleyes:

No. Actually, I am willing to take responsibility for my own problems, so that won't work.

snow

tonyb wrote: »

Really ?? C'mon man, if left up to the "medical community", stubbing your toe will soon become a disease. The medical community has no interest in lining their own pockets by naming everything under the sun a disease, addiction, you really believe that ?

Well if we cant believe the experts Tony who can we believe? I am not firmly convinced of everything they say and take it to be the absolute truth no, but there is some logic to their hypothesis, for example drugs are addictive at least some are, well many people try a drug once twice but never become addicted to it while others are seemingly instantly hooked, why is that? Well the theory is that in addition to a gene that can be passed from generation to generation making a person more likely to be addicted than someone else is that in these addicts brains there is a chemical that other people either don't have or have very little of, according to this theory you are either going to become addicted or not depending on whether or not you have this chemical if exposed to drugs. Thereby making it an illness and supposedly the only way to avoid addiction is through abstinence.

You can choose to believe part all or none of it your choice, BTW I still respect your oppinion either way :cheesygrin:



REGARDS SNOW

tonyb

No doubt our gene pools all differ to some extent, but I find that particular theory more so trying to justify the ends by proclaiming a reason that has such variations, anything can be named a disease. Must be one of my gene's responsible for my love of ice cream, maybe I can collect a disability check one day if thats considered.

We are cool man, I just don't have the faith in the medical community as you do is all. Carry on.....

snow

BeefJerky wrote: »

Even if we assume for a minute that the addiction is a "disease," the person still chooses to drink that first drink, take that first smoke, or snort that first line of coke. However, nobody chooses to get that first cancer cell.

In addition, I've known a few people who have had various addictions, and all them took responsibility for their own addictions rather than trying the pass them blame on to some nonexistent "disease."


Exactly. Maybe I can start claiming that my audio and computer addiction really is a "disease." That way it's not my fault! :rolleyes:

No. Actually, I am willing to take responsibility for my own problems, so that won't work.

I will agree with you on the first part for sure that yes everyone chooses to take the first drug or drink and yes no one I know of chooses to get cancer. But certainly people are known to be predisposed to get different types of illnesses. Irregardless of whether addiction is a disease or not yes you need to take personal responsibility for your addiction no differently than getting any other illness the focus needs to be on resolving the issues at hand.

And if one day science can pinpoint the exact cause of addictions most likely the only cure will be not to do the drugs period.



REGARDS SNOW

F1nut

Addiction is a mental disease first and foremost. It manifests itself in many forms, but they are mearly symptoms of the disease. When you see someone addicted to drugs/gambling/alcohol/whatever, it's easy to think they made that choice. The reality is they made the choice to try whatever it may be, but they did not make the choice to be addicted to whatever it is.

Obviously, Houston suffered from addiction. Her symptoms not only included drugs, but Bobby Brown as well. Do I think she deserves the flag at half staff? Not really, but my opinion on that has nothing to do with her addiction issues.

thesurfer

snow wrote: »

No one is celebrating nor endorsing her use of drugs, as mentioned before her use of drugs did not define who she was as a person and what she accomplished as an artist and humanitarian that is what people are in celebration of.

If she had spent her life doing nothing but drugs ripping people off selling herself etc then yes you would have a point.

Or do you believe that because of her drug use alone everything else she has done in her life is meaningless?


REGARDS SNOW

No, not saying everything else she did does not count,, just making a point, if someone like charlie sheen OD, it would be like who cares, but because shes a good looking singer, we should feel sorry for her, Oh, i just couldnt handel things,, im so rich and famous,, ohh the stress, I know, ill start doing drugs, and kill myself, Alot more famous artist than her died of drugs, there was no half flag for them, Getting to the level of wealth and fame she reached, and being good looking, is a gift, if you wanna throw it away on drugs, You get no pity from me,, They should fly the flag at half mass for all the homeless people, and those who struggle to do better, not some rich drug addict.

tonyb

F1nut wrote: »

Addiction is a mental disease first and foremost.

So is Liberalism....no treatment available for that one.:cheesygrin:

Agree on the mental disorder.

I'm addicted to coffee, does that mean I have a mental disorder ? Hmmm....that might explain alot things the wifes been after me about. Now when she says " Hey, did you hear a word I said ?" I can now reply " Leave me alone, I have a mental disability." Have a feeling that won't fly though. She would most likely reply "If you didn't have one before, you sure will when I get through with you."

Seriously, addictions are serious buisness and should be taken as such. Some addictions being more detramental to your well being than others of coarse. Some kick it, some don't, some fight it their whole lives as Whitney did the majority of hers. Doesn't make her a bad person, a crack ****, or anything else of that nature.

headrott

snow wrote: »

Well if we cant believe the experts Tony who can we believe? I am not firmly convinced of everything they say and take it to be the absolute truth no, but there is some logic to their hypothesis, for example drugs are addictive at least some are, well many people try a drug once twice but never become addicted to it while others are seemingly instantly hooked, why is that? Well the theory is that in addition to a gene that can be passed from generation to generation making a person more likely to be addicted than someone else is that in these addicts brains there is a chemical that other people either don't have or have very little of, according to this theory you are either going to become addicted or not depending on whether or not you have this chemical if exposed to drugs. Thereby making it an illness and supposedly the only way to avoid addiction is through abstinence.

You can choose to believe part all or none of it your choice, BTW I still respect your oppinion either way :cheesygrin:



REGARDS SNOW

Perhaps there is something more fundamental in them than a gene that is causing their addiction? Perhaps addiction in some and not others is not caused by their physical body, but something else in them (more fundamental that makes that person who they are) that is weak and "allows" themselves to become addicted?

Greg

headrott

F1nut wrote: »

Addiction is a mental disease first and foremost. It manifests itself in many forms, but they are mearly symptoms of the disease. When you see someone addicted to drugs/gambling/alcohol/whatever, it's easy to think they made that choice. The reality is they made the choice to try whatever it may be, but they did not make the choice to be addicted to whatever it is.

Obviously, Houston suffered from addiction. Her symptoms not only included drugs, but Bobby Brown as well. Do I think she deserves the flag at half staff? Not really, but my opinion on that has nothing to do with her addiction issues.

Ah, Jesse is on the right track, IMO.

Greg

rebuy

I wanna be a post **** too.

At my age, my flag is not flying at half staff.. if ya know what I mean.

thesurfer

rebuy wrote: »

I wanna be a post **** too.

At my age, my flag is not flying at half staff.. if ya know what I mean.

Not to worry, they got drugs for that to.

snow

headrott wrote: »

Perhaps there is something more fundamental in them than a gene that is causing their addiction? Perhaps addiction in some and not others is not caused by their physical body, but something else in them (more fundamental that makes that person who they are) that is weak and "allows" themselves to become addicted?

Greg

Such as? Drug addiction strikes all races and walks of life, it doesnt choose between rich and poor the location your in, the way you were raised educated, uneducated which leads me to believe that most likely it isn't because you are weak or strong phsyically or mentally, some are fortunate enough to break the habit and abstain from further use before it kills them but most die in the throes of addiction.

Stephen King for example is both an alcoholic and coke head when he was on the coke he was so messed up that he doesn't even remember writing two of his books, for now at least he is clean and sober but trust me if he picked up a drink or a crack pipe he would be right back into it as bad or worse than before and would certainly meet an untimely death if he continued, its not a matter of willpower or mental weakness its a matter of abstaining from ever using or drinking again.



REGARDS SNOW

snow

thesurfer wrote: »

No, not saying everything else she did does not count,, just making a point, if someone like charlie sheen OD, it would be like who cares, but because shes a good looking singer, we should feel sorry for her, Oh, i just couldnt handel things,, im so rich and famous,, ohh the stress, I know, ill start doing drugs, and kill myself, Alot more famous artist than her died of drugs, there was no half flag for them, Getting to the level of wealth and fame she reached, and being good looking, is a gift, if you wanna throw it away on drugs, You get no pity from me,, They should fly the flag at half mass for all the homeless people, and those who struggle to do better, not some rich drug addict.

I would feel bad for Charlie too if he died of an drug overdose hopefully he will come to his senses before it's too late lots of talent would be wasted. As far as other singers not getting the flag lowered treatment well I cant make it happen or not happen perhaps speak to the governor in your state if you feel someone is deserving of this honor. I never asked you to pity Whitney only to understand that she did a lot of positive things in her life that she should be recognized for, her drug addiction doesn't define her as to who she was no more than you being a certain race or religion should define who you are. In your last words you say some rich drug addict like that defines who she was as a person, sad in my oppinion.

In other words she was a human that was kind giving and talented that happened to also be an addict and her addiction cost her her life.

Whether she or any other private citizen deserves to have the flag lowered in remembrance is not up to me to decide in any case.

REGARDS SNOW

SolidSqual

. . . . as I listen to her sing the national anthem on youtube. Damn she had some serious pipes.

AsSiMiLaTeD

F1nut wrote: »

Do I think she deserves the flag at half staff? Not really, but my opinion on that has nothing to do with her addiction issues.

Agreed 100%.

thesurfer

snow wrote: »

I would feel bad for Charlie too if he died of an drug overdose hopefully he will come to his senses before it's too late lots of talent would be wasted. As far as other singers not getting the flag lowered treatment well I cant make it happen or not happen perhaps speak to the governor in your state if you feel someone is deserving of this honor. I never asked you to pity Whitney only to understand that she did a lot of positive things in her life that she should be recognized for, her drug addiction doesn't define her as to who she was no more than you being a certain race or religion should define who you are. In your last words you say some rich drug addict like that defines who she was as a person, sad in my oppinion.

In other words she was a human that was kind giving and talented that happened to also be an addict and her addiction cost her her life.

Whether she or any other private citizen deserves to have the flag lowered in remembrance is not up to me to decide in any case.

REGARDS SNOW

Yes it is sad, as sad as it is, alot of her friends well define her as a great singer, who sadly turned into a drug addict, so yes you could, define her in her last years, as a drug addict, as she died from it.

headrott

snow wrote: »

Such as? Drug addiction strikes all races and walks of life, it doesnt choose between rich and poor the location your in, the way you were raised educated, uneducated which leads me to believe that most likely it isn't because you are weak or strong phsyically or mentally, some are fortunate enough to break the habit and abstain from further use before it kills them but most die in the throes of addiction.

Stephen King for example is both an alcoholic and coke head when he was on the coke he was so messed up that he doesn't even remember writing two of his books, for now at least he is clean and sober but trust me if he picked up a drink or a crack pipe he would be right back into it as bad or worse than before and would certainly meet an untimely death if he continued, its not a matter of willpower or mental weakness its a matter of abstaining from ever using or drinking again.



REGARDS SNOW

What are your thoughts and ideas about what I am talking about? What do you think I am alluding to? Where do those thoughts come from?

Greg

Tankman

WTF?. Why ask anyone the why of someones choice of poison?It is what it is.Nothing more nothing less.She/He, we all have a choice.Peace man can ya dig it.

snow

thesurfer wrote: »

Yes it is sad, as sad as it is, alot of her friends well define her as a great singer, who sadly turned into a drug addict, so yes you could, define her in her last years, as a drug addict, as she died from it.

Wow you just don't get it do you? Her being a drug addict is only a small portion of who she was, if you choose to define her as being a drug addict first and foremost and everything else she was as secondary then that's your choice but it would be wrong to do so IMHO.

No different than saying Stephen King is a drug addict that just happens to be a writer or Buzz Aldrin was a drug addict that just so happened to be an Astronaut.



REGARDS SNOW

snow

headrott wrote: »

What are your thoughts and ideas about what I am talking about? What do you think I am alluding to? Where do those thoughts come from?

Greg

Greg I would hate to second guess you and a mind reader i'm not.



REGARDS SNOW

gdb

The much respected by the right, Rush Limbaugh , the paragon of truth and all things virtuous, was/is an oxy junkie. Betty Ford was a **** for prescription drugs. I myself, am without flaws or sins, and, as it would seem, most of the membership here is as well !!

inspiredsports

snow wrote: »

So in your mind every person who has became addicted to some drug is a ****? and or pretty much worthless because of it? Or is it just women? That would make the hundreds of thousands of veterans of all wars that came back addicted pretty worthless huh? And all the men and women today in police stations that are addicted to some substance worthless even past Presidents Astronauts Senators people from all walks of life hell even John Wayne himself a loser in your mind huh? no matter what they have accomplished or sacrificed there all whores and losers right? and they deserve no respect from you because hey guess what your better than all of them right?

REGARDS SNOW

Wow, I'm impressed! You have an incredible talent, seeing as how you were able to put all of those words in my mouth from my original sentence or two.

To set the record straight, I'm happy to give a fair second chance to folks who want one. As the final chapters of this story are written, you will learn this was a 20 plus year situation starting way before Bobby Brown.

shack

I don't care what she did with her life...I don't care how or why she died. She was not a saint. She was not a hero. She was just another performer with some talent who had no influence on my life in any form or fashion, although I do realize there may be some who feel that in some way she touched them. I do think that honoring her or any other "celebrity" with a flag at half staff degrades the honor for all those who have served our country in various ways.

I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment that was in an earlier post...

Lowering the flag to half staff should be reserved only for those who perish as a result of public duty and service, protecting our nation and the Constitution, and for those who served as formal leaders and dignitaries.

thesurfer

snow wrote: »

Wow you just don't get it do you? Her being a drug addict is only a small portion of who she was, if you choose to define her as being a drug addict first and foremost and everything else she was as secondary then that's your choice but it would be wrong to do so IMHO.

No different than saying Stephen King is a drug addict that just happens to be a writer or Buzz Aldrin was a drug addict that just so happened to be an Astronaut.



REGARDS SNOW

It seems you take offence to any one who differs with Your OP, good, thats just fine, as you have that right, keep in mind, the rest of us do also, You seem to shun all others that dont agree with you, You must be a big fan to be this into it, thats cool, But this thread has been deflated by your views of others, that care to differ with you.

BlueFox

thesurfer wrote: »

It seems you take offence to any one who differs with Your OP, good, thats just fine, as you have that right, keep in mind, the rest of us do also, You seem to shun all others that dont agree with you, You must be a big fan to be this into it, thats cool, But this thread has been deflated by your views of others, that care to differ with you.

Was there a special price on commas? Use 1, get 10 free?

Timothy Smith

gdb wrote: »

The much respected by the right, Rush Limbaugh , the paragon of truth and all things virtuous, was/is an oxy junkie. Betty Ford was a **** for prescription drugs. I myself, am without flaws or sins, and, as it would seem, most of the membership here is as well !!

Rush Limbaugh actually defended Christie's decision to lower the flag for Whitney Houston.

Betty Ford had a hidden drug problem, overcame it, and founded a clinic to try to help others. She admitted her problem (back when it was embarrassing rather than fashionable to do so).

Do you also think they should lower the flag when Mr. Limbaugh passes away, as we all will, since he is also famous and influential?

Maybe actually think about the issue at hand and consider being consistent based on principle rather than excusing people you like and attacking people you don't like.

steveducie

i would like to congratulate Whitney Houston on her first full week of sobriety

drumminman

snow wrote: »

According to who you? You all set hear and preach like you you are all so much better than she was and like she is the only music star that has ever did drugs, what a bunch of hypocrites you all are. If anything you should feel empathy towards a lost soul not anger disgust and hate. She accomplished more in her short 48 years than all of you combined will ever accomplish.

Before you judge someone else walk a mile in their shoes, none of us know that we would have done things differently if faced with the same set of circumstances that she faced, sure she made some bad choices but she is being honored for the positive things she done in her life not the negative.


20 years from her death people will still remember Whitney the same cant be said for any of you.

REGARDS SNOW

Snow,

I don't know you, nor you me, so it came as a surprise that you attributed so much of the above to me. That's alot to assume about the couple of lines I posted.

In fact, I feel great sympathy for her, that she destroyed her life with the way she CHOSE to live it. No one deserves to have it end like that, famous or not. But she did nothing that I've read about to deserve a formal recognition that should be reserved for those who made significant contributions to society. I'm an Elvis fan, a John Lennon fan, a Led Zeppelin/John Bonham fan, a Buddy Holly fan, a Billie Holliday fan, a Janis Joplin fan, a Keith Moon fan. There are others I can't think of right now, but my point is that while all of these folks made significant contributions to music, none deserved flags flown at half staff.

IMHO that should be reserved to those who've made a profound positive impact on society.