As you may have known by now, Whitney Houston has departed this life. :'(
Feel free to post your memories of the late musician here.
Here's to you, Whitney Houston. We'll miss you deeply.
As sad as it may sound, Whitney's followers have had about 15 years to prepare for her death with her rollercoaster drug addiction and hospital visits/recovery bouts and public misbehavior. She was literally burning the candle at both ends and rolling the dice for 15 years; oddly enough, much like most addicts, it wasn't the hard drugs in the end but the prescription shit that did her in. Xanax, from what I hear.
Thousands of children are going to die in the next 24 hours from starvation and untreated trivial illnesses.
I don't give a fuck about Whitney Houston.
Also, a week ago, billions of people didn't give a fuck about WH either.
What's your point then? Why are you even posting in this thread? :P
Oh. The maker of cheesiest, sleepiest, most irritating love songs for every straight male worldwide who in his erroneous way tries to impress a girl by acting tolerant and suffers through the cat-in-heat concert for a song or two. She has passed away now.
Farewell, truly.
There's no need to be nasty, people. If you don't care, then don't post. I'm about to not post right now. Just watch how easy it is.
I know, but...
(http://i.imgur.com/2XVoH.jpg)
She was still someone's mother. She still had friends and family. The difference between Whitney Houston and the thousands of dying children and is that Whitney Houston was a household name, someone we can put a face to, whether we're fans or not. She only dies once, therefore it is an event. Sad as it may be, starving children aren't a single person, they're a statistic. One dies every time I click my fingers. It's a sad fact, but it's not an 'event', it's an on-going global problem.
Quote from: Stupot+ on Wed 15/02/2012 22:34:50
Sad as it may be, starving children aren't a single person, they're a statistic. One dies every time I click my fingers. It's a sad fact, but it's not an 'event', it's an on-going global problem.
That's not sad: It's tragic...
Quote from: Noctambulo on Thu 16/02/2012 11:32:07
Quote from: Stupot+ on Wed 15/02/2012 22:34:50
Sad as it may be, starving children aren't a single person, they're a statistic. One dies every time I click my fingers. It's a sad fact, but it's not an 'event', it's an on-going global problem.
That's not sad: It's tragic...
Okay then, tragic ::)
It doesn't really matter which synonym I use, it doesn't change the point I was trying to make.
Requesting thread lock.
Quote from: Stupot+ on Thu 16/02/2012 12:13:39
Quote from: Noctambulo on Thu 16/02/2012 11:32:07
Quote from: Stupot+ on Wed 15/02/2012 22:34:50
Sad as it may be, starving children aren't a single person, they're a statistic. One dies every time I click my fingers. It's a sad fact, but it's not an 'event', it's an on-going global problem.
That's not sad: It's tragic...
Okay then, tragic ::)
It doesn't really matter which synonym I use, it doesn't change the point I was trying to make.
I wasn't trying to change the point, but give emphasis to it. In fact, I should have written "beyond tragic"...
@Noctambulo - Ahh fair enough, my bad :)
For the record, I wouldn't exactly call myself a Whitney fan either, but it's a shame that whenever such an RIP thread is started, people are quick to abuse it by pointing out how much of a shit they don't give . Unless I missed the point and DBoyWheeler actually started this thread as a joke? In which case, I'll get my coat... :/
Quote from: Khris on Mon 13/02/2012 09:00:58
Thousands of children are going to die in the next 24 hours from starvation and untreated trivial illnesses.
I don't give a fuck about Whitney Houston.
Also, a week ago, billions of people didn't give a fuck about WH either.
It's not impossible that DBoyWheeler had, after a life-changing vision, auctioned off his private island, gave his fortune away to Oxfam, then spent years of charity work helping some of the poorest people on the planet. Not likely I know, but because he is sad that Whitney Houston has died, it doesn't mean he's ignorant to what's happening across the planet, and that this thread is just another manifestation of his white-man problems. The OP could care about dying children more than the next person.
I get why people mention it when a celebrity dies. It's because everybody knows the name, so it's kind of interesting.
I just wanted to point out that they're still a human being, and not technically or in any other important sense different from a starving child. So while I understand that people don't open a thread every 24 hours about another 3000 dead children, mourning celebrities to me is shallow, hollow and superfluous in the highest degree.
Houston very likely died of not being able to take drugs responsibly for the better part of her life. She had a great voice and played herself in a successful movie. That's it.
If someone dies who actually made a difference, that's another story.
The difference being that her work was at the very least some sort of experience for many people, which, while they are still tragic, isn't something you can say for the thousands of deaths happening across the world every hour.
When a relative dies, one mourns and feels sad and remembers all the shared experiences, and memories and stories and so on. Maybe they had horrible habits, or weren't the most moral person in the world, or didn't contribute all their money to save starving children, but that isn't the point. This could be taken in a similar way with someone like Whitney Houston, only that the shared experiences (music) and memories of those experiences and stories would play a smaller part in one's life (unless you were a rabid fan). Added to the fact that it is someone so many people know, and shared those experiences and such, it isn't so far-fetched that people would mourn them.
It is a bit odd that EVERY time someone publicly (in this forum) mourns them, there is a contingent of people who must chime in to talk about the silliness or hypocricy of it all. I mean, I realise that everyone has a voice and wishes to, and has a right to share their opinions, but still...
Sure, I understand that the influence that she may have had would vary very greatly person to person. I, for example, don't know much about her, except that her cover of "I will always love you" was probably the best so far.
But if someone bothered to start a thread about the death that wasn't just an informative "Hey, Whitney Houston Died", they PROBABLY were influenced by her more than those who wouldn't care at all. Are their experiences and opinions less worthy because someone else doesn't consider her so important?
Quote from: Babar on Fri 17/02/2012 10:45:19But if someone bothered to start a thread about the death that wasn't just an informative "Hey, Whitney Houston Died", they PROBABLY were influenced by her more than those who wouldn't care at all.
That's the point; I disagree, and that's why I posted. Though I'll admit it is an allegation.
You disagree that some people were more influenced by Whitney Houston or that she played a (marginally) more significant part in their formative memories and experiences than she did with you?
Or are you "disagreeing" in the sense that it is not the same with you?
I disagree with the notion that when somebody opens a thread like this, they were PROBABLY influenced by them more. Because I expect at least a passing mentioning of that influence, and there wasn't one.
Was there a "Hitchens died" thread? That's something I can see myself opening, for instance. Houston was just a singer who couldn't handle a relationship or coke. Way more important people die all the time, and they don't get mentioned.
Well, you should've started one then, no? Evidently DBoyWheeler cared more about Whitney Houston than Hitchens, and he says he will miss her deeply (no idea if that was just hyperbole, but who am I to judge?). Be difficult to make comparisons on who influenced who more and who considered who more important, but then again, it is mostly subjective. Are you suggesting that Hitchens was a better human being than Whitney Houston? If it is a matter of "importance", how are the starving african children that nobody will know relevant?
If someone you consider important died, and you wish to create a thread in their remembrance, you should. But trash talking someone else's influences because they aren't YOUR favourite person or whatever...seems a bit petty, no?
The tail end of this thread seems to have devolved into something that could be mistaken for me and Khris bickering at each other, so just to clear things up, Khris is awesome and codetastic, and this is just friendly forum conversationing!
I'm personally not a fan of the obit threads for random celebrities, but unless you really think the person who died was a terrible human being that the world is better off without and people should rejoice at the death of, crashing their RIP thread to talk about how great they were not is tacky and dickish.
If you don't care, don't post.
Well, you are right, sometimes I'm simply a dick.
And here's a table of arbitrary stuff, ranked by general importance in descending order.
Hitchens' contributions to mankind
realizing that it's asinine to mourn a rich, spoiled, drug addicted singer while thousand of kids starve to death daily
...
...
...
...
...
...
eating your vegetables
...
my opinion about Whitney Houston and her death
Whitney Houston's contributions to mankind
There's an interesting issue ( if a little off topic;)) :
Quote from: Khris on Fri 17/02/2012 09:22:55
(....) died of not being able to take drugs responsibly (...)
Is it possible to take drugs
responsibly? In my experience those that think so, very quickly find it's just an illusion... ;)
There are many people who would say that alcohol is worse than drugs, and it is very possible to drink responsibly.
I'm not taking any drugs but since there are people who manage to only smoke at weekends, I imagine there's also people who only snort up cocaine occasionally.
Quote from: Khris on Sat 18/02/2012 08:54:17
There are many people who would say that alcohol is worse than drugs, and it is very possible to drink responsibly.
I don't know if it is very possible to drink or take drugs responsibly... for everyone. There are people more and less prone to getting addicted - both physiologically as well as mentally. Same as with getting depressed.
It is also highly probable that alcohol and different types of drugs affect people with different strength. You shouldn't simply assume that it is within your power to moderate their use, just because you managed to with another type.
As much as I dislike alcohol and binge drinking, I have to say I don't know anyone who uses drugs like alcohol, on weekends only. It sure always starts like this, but then quickly it becomes an everyday thing...
I've been drinking on weekends only for over ten years now. Sure, occasionally I'll drink a few beers on a weekday, but there are also weekends where I don't drink anything. I still dislike most types of liquor and drink mostly beer. Sometimes, I don't drink anything for ten days or longer on end.
Given how much I'll down on an average night out, I'm as far away from being an alcoholic as you can get (as someone who drinks). I even have a pretty recent liver function test to prove it.
And I only want to drink in fun company; I'd never open a bottle of wine sitting home alone or being depressed.
So, yes, taking drugs responsibly is possible. And btw, that's all I ever said, I didn't depict the majority of methheads as responsible users or something.
I agree with the sentiment that alcohol is worse than drugs. I've never taken drugs myself so I can't back that up with any experience, and my understanding is that drugs are very addictive, but I think alcohol is more dangerous than people give it credit for simply because it's more accepted (at least here in the UK).
It's considered normal to want to drink every friday after work and downright strange if you go along on a night out and don't drink. Like Khris, I never drink during the week. I've always associated drinking with an occasion - a birthday party, a nice meal etc - so i've never had the urge to go out and by alcohol to drink at home. I couldn't drink during the day unless it was a pub lunch or something, it just feels wrong.
Her dad drinks every day and not socially. He literally will sit at home with a bottle of wine each night. He doesn't drink for the pleasure of it: he'll drink any kind of paintstripper he can find. He has the compulsion to always be reaching for a bottle and behavioural problems that go with it. To my mind he is an alcoholic, and her mum isn't far behind. She doesn't drink every night but she too feels the need to drink at home alone.
I've called them both out on it, hoping to sort it out now rather than later as my Uncle drank himself to death basically, but it's an uphill struggle. I've tried to get the whole family to recognise there's a problem and do what we can to work it out. The problem is no-one talks about alcoholism. Drink is so much more accepted.
Sorry, on topic: My sympathies to Whitney's friends and family during this difficult time. I wouldn't call myself a fan - although I loved that film *sniff* - but as a human being I can empathise with loss. It's painful for someone no-matter who it is who has died and how they knew them, and we should respect that and comfort them when it happens.
Quote from: Khris on Sun 19/02/2012 09:03:02
I've been drinking on weekends only for over ten years now. Sure, occasionally I'll drink a few beers on a weekday, but there are also weekends where I don't drink anything. I still dislike most types of liquor and drink mostly beer. Sometimes, I don't drink anything for ten days or longer on end.
Given how much I'll down on an average night out, I'm as far away from being an alcoholic as you can get (as someone who drinks). I even have a pretty recent liver function test to prove it.
And I only want to drink in fun company; I'd never open a bottle of wine sitting home alone or being depressed.
So, yes, taking drugs responsibly is possible. And btw, that's all I ever said, I didn't depict the majority of methheads as responsible users or something.
Apparently you didn't understand what I wrote. One case doesn't prove anything. You shouldn't judge everyone by how you manage to live yourself.
There are people who touch alcohol about once a year and as a result quit life for weeks just to drink and drink until someone helps them out of it.
No, YOU didn't understand what *I* wrote.
I didn't say everybody is able to take drugs responsibly, I said it is POSSIBLE. And one example is enough to prove that. Of course there are people who can't. Does that mean nobody can? NO.
OK - got it now. Sorry for raising my voice.
But you keep using the word "responsibly" as if escaping addiction was dependent mostly on any takers intelligent practices of using the substance. On him/her taking reasonable amounts of it and breaking it up with enough periods in time of being off the thing. That's the notion that I strongly oppose. And I'm sorry I misunderstood you meant that.
I borrowed "responsibly" from the liquor ads and guess I've misused it.
If I understand you correctly, you're opposing the notion that it comes down to self-control. And I agree.
My take on addicts is that they are mostly people who are unhappy about something in their life and have given up on trying to change it.
People who are happy with their life (and I consider myself lucky enough to be able to call myself that) can usually handle drugs/alcohol much better because they use them to get from fun to "extra fun", not from unbearable to bearable.
I'm not saying that addicts are too lazy or stupid to quit btw, on the contrary.