View Single Post
Old 01-12-2002, 04:47 PM   #5
Nic Name
retired
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,930
Quote:
Whit actually said ... As far as the kid goes, my original opinion is largely unchanged. The big difference is that I don't think he should get a Darwin award, he offed himself on purpose, suicides are automaticaly excluded. Heck, I'd love to hear some jokes on this. Of the "What's the last thing that goes through a bugs mind when he hit's a windshield going 60 mph?" variety. He wanted to kill. In my book you lose all consideration given to a victim when that person person seeks to victimize others. I actually chuckled when I found out he was seeking to do real damage and instead wound up doing almost nothing. He was confused? Tough shit. I know people who have been through much worse and they never killed anyone over it. I have no sympthy for him.
I thought that Whit was saying that Bishop shouldn't get a Darwin because his death wasn't accidental stupidity. It is in that sense that Whit called it a suicide. Further in the post Whit says that Bishop wanted to kill and sought to victimize others. So I don't think there is as great a contradiction in saying I agree with what Whit said. I would agree that Bishop's death is more of a suicide than an accident, but I don't think that the clues to why it happened are found in the analysis of suicide, per se.

I think there is a big difference between saying he wanted to end his life, and being prepared to end his life to achieve a result or make a statement. He made a statement ... let's read it. In the same way, the Al Qaeda hijackers were not suicidal but prepared to sacrifice their lives to achieve a result. One cannot argue that the fact that they piloted planes into the WTC is proof that they were suicidal.

I would add, that the one point in Whit's post that I didn't agree with, is that this is a subject to joke about. I don't share that opinion.

Quote:
Maggie said ... that message was so poorly conveyed as to pretty much be lost.
I suspect the message was clearly conveyed in the note ... and that it has been obscured for political reasons, as I've stated.

Last edited by Nic Name; 01-12-2002 at 05:00 PM.
Nic Name is offline   Reply With Quote