Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:
A number of other drug addicts died yesterday, should we have threads to memorialize each of them? Or do you just not care about them?

I'm sure their families were quite upset.

I'm not sure why being a drug addict is relevant. It seems simply not having an impact on your life should be sufficient.

Ahtman wrote:

Necroshea wrote:So it seems as though best case scenario you want a thread full of yes men

I don't think that wanting people to post in a thread that have an interest in the thread is the same as wanting 'yes men'. You can have an interest in a thread and still disagree. Posting in a thread just to say you don't care enough to post isn't really a discussion or disagreement.

That's just the thing though. In case I'm behind on the times a forum is a place to share how you feel about things. Good, bad or neutral. I believe that you have every right to say you don't care about something, just as much as you have the right to fully agree or utterly disagree with something.

I think what really stands out to me is when people post something along the lines of "huh ok but it's not something I care about" and immediately people get up in arms about it, and it all seems silly to me. For what it's worth though, the most noticeable post in this thread ended on a question, which was answered. I just see threads like this all the time pop up, and as soon as you say something negative or neutral people start screaming troll. Every. Single. Time.

I suppose it can't be helped.

Necroshea wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Necroshea wrote:So it seems as though best case scenario you want a thread full of yes men

I don't think that wanting people to post in a thread that have an interest in the thread is the same as wanting 'yes men'. You can have an interest in a thread and still disagree. Posting in a thread just to say you don't care enough to post isn't really a discussion or disagreement.

That's just the thing though. In case I'm behind on the times a forum is a place to share how you feel about things. Good, bad or neutral. I believe that you have every right to say you don't care about something, just as much as you have the right to fully agree or utterly disagree with something.

So people have the right to post that they don't care enough to post, but not the right to complain about it? Seems a bit odd.

Ahtman wrote:

Necroshea wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Necroshea wrote:So it seems as though best case scenario you want a thread full of yes men

I don't think that wanting people to post in a thread that have an interest in the thread is the same as wanting 'yes men'. You can have an interest in a thread and still disagree. Posting in a thread just to say you don't care enough to post isn't really a discussion or disagreement.

That's just the thing though. In case I'm behind on the times a forum is a place to share how you feel about things. Good, bad or neutral. I believe that you have every right to say you don't care about something, just as much as you have the right to fully agree or utterly disagree with something.

So people have the right to post that they don't care enough to post, but not the right to complain about it? Seems a bit odd.

Never said you didn't have the right to complain. By all means get red in the face and vent your rage for all the world to see.

Houston died. Some people don't care and they say as much. That's fine. Getting mad because people explain how they feel is silly.

Considering a thread is made to discuss a topic, and everyone who reads it is invited to partake in said discussion, perhaps from here on out OP should write in the first post that if you don't care, don't leave a remark. Until that is written, people should feel free and unhindered to write whatever they want regarding how they feel about the subject matter.

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Your point is what exactly?

My point is Ms. Houston's death is no more meaningful to me than thousands of other deaths that happen from year-to-year.

Er...then why are you posting?

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Your point is what exactly?

My point is Ms. Houston's death is no more meaningful to me than thousands of other deaths that happen from year-to-year.

Er...then why are you posting?

Morbid curiosity, mostly. Also because people keep quoting me and asking questions. I'd probably also participate in a discussion on some other drug addict, simply to point out that people who use drugs are ruining their lives.

I suspect she either OD'd on drugs or drug use had some role in her death. Don't do drugs kids, it will feth up your life.

Necroshea wrote:

Ahtman wrote:hey don't care enough to post, but not the right to complain about it? Seems a bit odd.

Never said you didn't have the right to complain. By all means get red in the face and vent your rage for all the world to see.

So the people who are complaining about there being a thread about a person dieing and not being interested aren't 'all red in the face' but the people that question the need for such posts are? Such a strange dichotomy you are a constructing. Is it not possible that people can take note of the oddity of a person pointing out that they have no interest in a thread that they took the time come in to, read, and then posted with being accused of being overly emotional?

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Your point is what exactly?

My point is Ms. Houston's death is no more meaningful to me than thousands of other deaths that happen from year-to-year.

Er...then why are you posting?

Morbid curiosity, mostly. Also because people keep quoting me and asking questions. I'd probably also participate in a discussion on some other drug addict, simply to point out that people who use drugs are ruining their lives.

I suspect she either OD'd on drugs or drug use had some role in her death. Don't do drugs kids, it will feth up your life.

"Crack is wack."

In truth I thought she'd died a few years ago. My kids had no clue who she was.

I don't remember a single song of hers. I remember being a kid and hearing people talking about how Bobby Brown screwed her over (I didn't know who that was either) though.

I've never been one for pop culture though, and my kids will probably ask me about cool stuff that happened in the 2000s, and I'll just tell them about GW's release schedule or something.

Ahtman wrote:

Necroshea wrote:

Ahtman wrote:hey don't care enough to post, but not the right to complain about it? Seems a bit odd.

Never said you didn't have the right to complain. By all means get red in the face and vent your rage for all the world to see.

So the people who are complaining about there being a thread about a person dieing and not being interested aren't 'all red in the face' but the people that question the need for such posts are? Such a strange dichotomy you are a constructing. Is it not possible that people can take note of the oddity of a person pointing out that they have no interest in a thread that they took the time come in to, read, and then posted with being accused of being overly emotional?

Now I remember why I had you set to ignore. I'm done conversing with you.

Necroshea wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Necroshea wrote:

Ahtman wrote:hey don't care enough to post, but not the right to complain about it? Seems a bit odd.

Never said you didn't have the right to complain. By all means get red in the face and vent your rage for all the world to see.

So the people who are complaining about there being a thread about a person dieing and not being interested aren't 'all red in the face' but the people that question the need for such posts are? Such a strange dichotomy you are a constructing. Is it not possible that people can take note of the oddity of a person pointing out that they have no interest in a thread that they took the time come in to, read, and then posted with being accused of being overly emotional?

Now I remember why I had you set to ignore. I'm done conversing with you.

Wait, so you complain that people shouldn't complain about people complaining, then when asked about it blame the person that asked and run away?

Ahtman wrote:
Wait, so you complain that people shouldn't complain about people complaining, then when asked about it blame the person that asked and run away?

That hurt my head. Where do I go to complain?

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
Wait, so you complain that people shouldn't complain about people complaining, then when asked about it blame the person that asked and run away?

That hurt my head. Where do I go to complain?

Apparently you can't, lest you be 'red in the face'.

biccat wrote:

If people who never met or interacted with Ms. Houston are upset with her death, then they should be equally upset with many other deaths that occur. But they obviously are not.

And again As I already stated, this is where your logic fails.

how do you know no one is upset about other deaths or people with addictions?

Because they don't post about them every day?

perhaps a collection of random geeks in the OT forum of a toy soldier forum is not the place that everyone chooses to post things that they feel strongly about, or that are personal in nature.

How do you know who on this forum has personally experienced such loss or the stuggle with addiction?

You don't...

Necroshea wrote:Perhaps from here on out OP should write in the first post that if you don't care, don't leave a remark.

Is that really something that really needs to be said? That you shouldn't enter a thread just so you can post you don't care?

Why don't you step back a second here and actually look at what you're saying, what you're defending. Lets put aside the fact it's pretty gauche to immediately come into a thread where someone has died for the express purpose of saying something edgy so you can be internet cool. If I post a thread showing off a new Necron model I've finished, if I don't explicitly post that I don't want people who don't care about Necrons to post how much they don't care about Necrons, then by my own negligence, I have invited dozens of posts, in my Necron thread, from people who don't care about Necrons and inexplicably wish to express that sentiment.

Perhaps my perception is clouded by the fact I'm "all red-faced and venting my rage for the world to see" over the fact that you appear to be rationalizing the forum equivalent of crapping on the floor, by saying it's your own fault people crap on the floor because no one asked them not to. After all, why would we expect anyone to honor the social contract that comes with part of being a community of like-minded people?

Biccat has hardly been a yes-man in this thread, but he expressed his opinion cogently on why he didn't think her death was particularly meaningful. In other words, he contributed. If you can't see the difference between those things, then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

CT GAMER wrote:how do you know no one is upset about other deaths or people with addictions?

Because they don't post about them every day?

It's not that no one is upset, it's that no one who has no connection to the victim is posting about them.

I will go out on a limb here and say that no one on Dakka knew Ms. Houston personally.

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:how do you know no one is upset about other deaths or people with addictions?

Because they don't post about them every day?

It's not that no one is upset, it's that no one who has no connection to the victim is posting about them.

I will go out on a limb here and say that no one on Dakka knew Ms. Houston personally.

The thing about artists is, one does not have to know them personally to be strongly and personally affected by their work.

Are you seriously confused as to why some people would care that a talented and much loved singer has died?

Ouze wrote:If you can't see the difference between those things, then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

I believe all life has value. I also believe all opinions have value. Sometimes you need to look beyond a front to understand what that value is.

I can see the difference between a crass opinion and one put eloquently, but I never forget the fact they are both opinions regarding how someone feels about the subject.

I don't expect you to understand, and that's fine.

Agree to disagree and all that.

Samus_aran115 wrote:I don't remember a single song of hers. I remember being a kid and hearing people talking about how Bobby Brown screwed her over (I didn't know who that was either) though.

I've never been one for pop culture though, and my kids will probably ask me about cool stuff that happened in the 2000s, and I'll just tell them about GW's release schedule or something.

Bobby Brown was her ex husband. it is said that he dragged her to the death trap. cocaine addiction.

can't remember when the two broke ups.

i ain't no fan of her but iDO remember this stuff through POP Magazine (ones that had been around in Thailand since 1996)

@Samus_aran. what is your favorite genre of music? Punk/Rock/Metal? else?

=^.^=

tis is why I don't like posting threads about deaths here, because you always get some dumb gak who goes out of their way to say they don't care, are indifferent, or something asanine since it's apparently easier than just igoring the thread and going about your business.

DIDM wrote:


that and an abusive husband = fethed up life

Add Lorazepam, Xanax & Valium and you have a dead diva. Sad, but not unpredictable.

Hello all.

I am here to apologise for my for tactless and insensitive posts regarding Whitney Houstons death the other day. It is apparent that i may have upset some people and greatly annoyed a whole mess of others. My first post honestly wasn't intended as a troll post and after a chat with Reds8n (amicable and understanding chap that he is) he is also aware of this.

I could prattle on and on but i won't.

That sucks but I'm not really into her music.

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Your point is what exactly?

My point is Ms. Houston's death is no more meaningful to me than thousands of other deaths that happen from year-to-year.

If people who never met or interacted with Ms. Houston are upset with her death, then they should be equally upset with many other deaths that occur. But they obviously are not.

The only negative that comes from Ms. Houston's death is that maybe she won't release music that I might have enjoyed. However, given that I don't have a particular enjoyment of her past works, it's unlikely.

Albatross suggested I'm selfish for not crying over the loss of someone who had no impact on my life. I counter that, under that standard, anyone who ignores the deaths of others who might be similarly situated is equally selfish.

Actually, my issue is that you wear your lack of empathy for other human beings as a badge of honour, like so many American conservatives. It's an ugly way to behave.

Albatross wrote:Actually, my issue is that you wear your lack of empathy for other human beings as a badge of honour, like so many American conservatives. It's an ugly way to behave.

I have plenty of empathy for other human beings. I donate a ton of money (more than President Obama from '00-04, actually) and time to charities, I just don't feel the need to wear it on my sleeve. Nor do I think that there's an obligation to provide charity under threat or coercion, unlike most Progressives.

feeder wrote:The thing about artists is, one does not have to know them personally to be strongly and personally affected by their work.

Are you seriously confused as to why some people would care that a talented and much loved singer has died?

Nope, I understand it. But there are problems with cults of personality. People tend to follow famous artists to the exclusion of their own family, and that's a problem.

Care about the people in your life, not some distant figure. It will improve your life dramatically.

Albatross wrote:

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Your point is what exactly?

My point is Ms. Houston's death is no more meaningful to me than thousands of other deaths that happen from year-to-year.

If people who never met or interacted with Ms. Houston are upset with her death, then they should be equally upset with many other deaths that occur. But they obviously are not.

The only negative that comes from Ms. Houston's death is that maybe she won't release music that I might have enjoyed. However, given that I don't have a particular enjoyment of her past works, it's unlikely.

Albatross suggested I'm selfish for not crying over the loss of someone who had no impact on my life. I counter that, under that standard, anyone who ignores the deaths of others who might be similarly situated is equally selfish.

Actually, my issue is that you wear your lack of empathy for other human beings as a badge of honour, like so many American conservatives. It's an ugly way to behave.

wait wait! does political affilations has anything to do with the attitude towards the demise of a popstar? is it really 'Survival of the fittest' concept?

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:Actually, my issue is that you wear your lack of empathy for other human beings as a badge of honour, like so many American conservatives. It's an ugly way to behave.

I have plenty of empathy for other human beings. I donate a ton of money (more than President Obama from '00-04, actually) and time to charities, I just don't feel the need to wear it on my sleeve. Nor do I think that there's an obligation to provide charity under threat or coercion, unlike most Progressives.

It says a lot about you that you consider taxing the populace in order to provide public services 'progressive'....

Albatross wrote:It says a lot about you that you consider taxing the populace in order to provide public services 'progressive'....

I was talking about welfare, not public services.

This is awfully OT but welfare IS a public service.

Albatross wrote:

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:Actually, my issue is that you wear your lack of empathy for other human beings as a badge of honour, like so many American conservatives. It's an ugly way to behave.

I have plenty of empathy for other human beings. I donate a ton of money (more than President Obama from '00-04, actually) and time to charities, I just don't feel the need to wear it on my sleeve. Nor do I think that there's an obligation to provide charity under threat or coercion, unlike most Progressives.

It says a lot about you that you consider taxing the populace in order to provide public services 'progressive'....

Define the amount of "taxing," who's doing the taxing, how is tax assessed, and define "public services" first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sonophos wrote:This is awfully OT but welfare IS a public service.

or its stealig money from some people to give to other people. It depends on your definition of public service.