fractional slacker Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I beg your pardon as I have not yet had time to hear Stef's podcast on this matter and cannot compare and contrast his take vs. Mr. Albow's. Albow's position has what most of the media lacks: moral condemnation. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/02/06/drug-dealers-didnt-kill-philip-seymour-hoffman-hoffman-did/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duderio Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 goodbye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruben Zandstra Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Three young kids ... I mean he must have never really bonded with them at all ... Or he did, which is going to be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bootoo Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Stef's podcast was great, however he didn't really concentrate on the children who are left behind. Most of the people mentioned in the podcast did not leave children behind. (I think only Elivs, Kurt, Heath, MJ) When I read the news yesterday, that PSH was supposed to pick up his kids ... and missed that ... I mean ... this just makes me so angry and sad at the same time. No single performance or movie of him comes close to the harshness of this real life scene. Three young kids ... I mean he must have never really bonded with them at all ... Ummmm...picture the scene, guy does what he loves for a living, he is rich, he has friends and family, he has access to everything our civilization can offer, he chooses to sit alone and inject drugs. If you see 'choice' there and not 'sickness' you may be a victim of the drug war I suggest you watch stefs video on the matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duderio Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 goodbye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifegoesonbrah Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I agree with Thomas, looking at all addicts as if they are victims denies self responsibility. People are not victims of drugs, because drugs are not to blame to for peoples behavior. This is similar to the belief that people are the victims of guns, not other people. You cannot blame an object for a bad decision but you can blame the person. With that being said, clearly locking people in cages and destroying their future is not the solution to addiction. A person has to come to a self realization of the detriment of their addiction and all of the problems that it causes and really have the desire to overcome. Counseling and rehabilitation centers can certainly help, but from experience it is ultimately up to the individual to change their lives of course! "I got drunk and ran over some children because I had a bad childhood" would be a statement of a madman. c'mon Steph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bootoo Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Your suggestion is kinda pointless, didn't you read my first sentence? Yeah right, I'm a victim of the drug war. So I can let every one with a shitty childhood of the hook? People who get drunk & drive & kill innocent people for instance? But if I blame them for drinking I am a victim of the drug war? If I blame violent people who sign up for the military and kill people overseas I am a victim of pacifist activists? Are you insane? What if something would have happened to his kids while they were alone? Would you still be on his side? He was 47 years old, not 18 ... at some point responsibility comes in, especially after your first kid gets born. Go back to podcast #1 please and start all over and this time, please listen carefully. If someone is acting in a way that is NOT in their best interest, you can assume stupid or sick, in this case clearly not stupid, so has to be sick Why are you talking about sides, blame and letting people of the hook? are you a cop trying to justify that drug war money that keeps your local PD afloat? Victim of the drug war propaganda = assumes all drug use is hedonistic behavior, blames and seeks to punish the person with the least power in the whole thing, the addict Look, the appropriate response is compassion. The points have been made that if you could buy your drugs from the drug store you might find a chemist or doctor who will direct you to the best drug or course of treatment for your ailment...if you have to use a drug dealer you may get the most addictive and most expensive drug he has to offer, and you dont know whats in it so it may kill you...just like if you were able to be open about your drug use you may find support from your family and friends..if you have to hide your drug use then your dealer may become your only friend...and sell you a bad product that kills you You need a hug? I got plenty to give! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifegoesonbrah Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 If someone is acting in a way that is NOT in their best interest, you can assume stupid or sick, in this case clearly not stupid, so has to be sick Why are you talking about sides, blame and letting people of the hook? are you a cop trying to justify that drug war money that keeps your local PD afloat? Victim of the drug war propaganda = assumes all drug use is hedonistic behavior, blames and seeks to punish the person with the least power in the whole thing, the addict Look, the appropriate response is compassion. The points have been made that if you could buy your drugs from the drug store you might find a chemist or doctor who will direct you to the best drug or course of treatment for your ailment...if you have to use a drug dealer you may get the most addictive and most expensive drug he has to offer, and you dont know whats in it so it may kill you...just like if you were able to be open about your drug use you may find support from your family and friends..if you have to hide your drug use then your dealer may become your only friend...and sell you a bad product that kills you You need a hug? I got plenty to give! Blaming people for their actions is important in holding people responsible for their own actions. The moment you dismiss responsibility for behavior you are claiming that people do not have the ability of free will and therefore cannot survive without rule of law. Go ahead, go hug a crackhead that abuses their children because their main priority in life is getting high, poor them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nala Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 The work an actor is exposed to can lead to a wavering of integrity around their recovery from addictions. PSH was a very talented man which also indicates that he is quite sensitive to the needs of others. Art is an expression of the unconscious and can be very dangerous in my opinion. It's my hypothesis that Philip Semour Hoffman was drawn to a particular type of work that appealed to his addictive nature and dragged him out of sobriety right by the ear. There must have been a tremendous threat to his self-confidence during one of his most recent works to have motivated him to these actions. I am very interested in finding out what he had been working on before he died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkIX Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Blaming people for their actions is important in holding people responsible for their own actions. The moment you dismiss responsibility for behavior you are claiming that people do not have the ability of free will and therefore cannot survive without rule of law. Go ahead, go hug a crackhead that abuses their children because their main priority in life is getting high, poor them. No, I'm saying that the "rule of law" is a sick joke that neither solves the problem nor resolves the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fractional slacker Posted February 14, 2014 Author Share Posted February 14, 2014 Blaming people for their actions is important in holding people responsible for their own actions. The moment you dismiss responsibility for behavior you are claiming that people do not have the ability of free will and therefore cannot survive without rule of law. Go ahead, go hug a crackhead that abuses their children because their main priority in life is getting high, poor them. The freewill thing is something I find interesting in the context of addiction. Let me get right to it with some rhetoric. Can addiction and freewill coexist? Is addiction another term for determinism?My opinion on addiction is it seems an argument from effect. If habit produces negative effects, call it addiction. If habit does not produce negative effects, do not call it addiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts