Lou Reed, death debate

This is the place for topical debate and discussion about anything in the world (non-Queen related).

Re: Lou Reed, death debate

Postby Kes » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:37 pm

My apologies to WeeMann then.

Point still stands.

Though death isn't a pleasant topic, it's a great equaliser. We're all going to have a go at it, and when we've done it, it will cease to be a problem for us anymore, however much of a problem it was at this end of the procedure.
What is left of your dream?
Just the words on your stone.
A man who learnt how to teach,
But forgot how to learn.
 
Kes
Moderator
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 14859
Images: 747
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:41 am
Location: London, England
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 362 times

Re: Lou Reed, death debate

Postby Elessar » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:48 pm

Indeed.

Just so that we all end this on the same page, here's the legal UK definition of 'an unnatural death':

An unnatural death

An ‘unnatural’ death has been defined as one where there is suspicion of foul play, wrongdoing including negligence, or some peculiarity other than natural illness. In one case the Court of Appeal held that a woman’s death could be regarded as unnatural after her blood pressure was left unmonitored following a caesarean section delivery, such that the opportunity to provide effective treatment was lost: R v HM Coroner for Inner London North ex parte Touche. The court held that where a person is suffering from a condition which if not monitored and treated in a routine way will result in death and that treatment or monitoring is omitted, the Coroner must hold an inquest unless he or she can say that there are no grounds for suspecting that the omission was an effective cause of death.


Source: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights ... uests.html


All other deaths are natural, regardless of age or how unfair it seems.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11020
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Lou Reed, death debate

Postby Elessar » Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:01 pm

While we're at it, here's some bedtime reading: http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/Homepage ... %20rev.pdf
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11020
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Lou Reed, death debate

Postby icy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:46 pm

Elessar wrote:While we're at it, here's some bedtime reading: http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/Homepage ... %20rev.pdf

:eh: My turn to be lost.
~Godspeed little one~
~Don't talk about angels
Or how I'll be saved
I'm no coward
But I'm not that brave
Rags are blowing
Rain's getting near
I'm done with running
And it's getting dark in here~

~Sleep in peace old friend for me you'll never die~
 
icy
We Are The Champions
 
User avatar

 

And the wounded skies above say it's much too late

      
 
Posts: 16442
Images: 0
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 4:44 am
Location: The one where you be the first to forget and the last to remember...
Gender: Female
Has thanked: 260 times
Been thanked: 562 times

Re: Lou Reed, death debate

Postby Elessar » Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:59 pm

icy wrote:
Elessar wrote:While we're at it, here's some bedtime reading: http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/Homepage ... %20rev.pdf

:eh: My turn to be lost.


Yeah, as Kes said, there are three separate viewpoints and they're not all on the same subject. The slightly confusing factor is that the common thread is the 'natural/unnatural' thing. I am of course of the opinion that things that are part of nature are natural, and things that aren't, are unnatural.

During the whole "is dying of a disease natural?" discussion, I was making the point that when something bad or unfair happens, it isn't necessarily 'unnatural', because nature has no concept or right and wrong or of good and evil. I then gave the example of a previous discussion on this board, in which spousal abuse was discussed, with me disputing the claim that it "isn't natural". I brought this up simply to give another example that I was vaguely familiar with, having already been over that ground on this board, and which some may even remember (the posts got nasty and got split away by Loretta as I recall - in fact it had a very similar trajectory to this one!). That tangent lead to my death-countdown being started, with what I very much hope is something a bit like the New Year's Eve countdown clock at Time Square.

So my two links just now were: 1) Evidence that deaths from natural illnesses are considered to be natural, which puts Lou Reed and Robin Gibb firmly in that category along with George Harrison, Freddie Mercury, Davey Jones and probably Elvis Presley; but not John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobain or Michael Jackson; 2) Evidence that spousal abuse is probably a natural phenomenon, although I accept that there's no absolute legal definition as with cause of death. To combine the two strands of course, a death BY domestic violence would most certainly be considered an UNNATURAL death.

Hope all's clear now.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11020
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Lou Reed, death debate

Postby Elessar » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:10 pm

Elessar wrote:[To combine the two strands of course, a death BY domestic violence would most certainly be considered an UNNATURAL death.


I've changed my mind - you could argue that being beaten to death is a natural death. However, it is also a violent death, and unnatural OR violent deaths have to be reported to the coroner, so the coroner would definitely be involved (as would the police, one would hope!). I convinced myself of this by imagining what would happen if someone got eaten by a lion. It's certainly 'natural', just ask David Attenborough, but I can't imagine it happening without there being some sort of investigation afterwards. That's probably why they specify violent OR unnatural, because as I said before (using the words of Richard Dawkins), nature is extremely violent.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11020
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Lou Reed, death debate

Postby icy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:20 pm

Elessar wrote:
icy wrote:
Elessar wrote:While we're at it, here's some bedtime reading: http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/Homepage ... %20rev.pdf

:eh: My turn to be lost.


Yeah, as Kes said, there are three separate viewpoints and they're not all on the same subject. The slightly confusing factor is that the common thread is the 'natural/unnatural' thing. I am of course of the opinion that things that are part of nature are natural, and things that aren't, are unnatural.

During the whole "is dying of a disease natural?" discussion, I was making the point that when something bad or unfair happens, it isn't necessarily 'unnatural', because nature has no concept or right and wrong or of good and evil. I then gave the example of a previous discussion on this board, in which spousal abuse was discussed, with me disputing the claim that it "isn't natural". I brought this up simply to give another example that I was vaguely familiar with, having already been over that ground on this board, and which some may even remember (the posts got nasty and got split away by Loretta as I recall - in fact it had a very similar trajectory to this one!). That tangent lead to my death-countdown being started, with what I very much hope is something a bit like the New Year's Eve countdown clock at Time Square.

So my two links just now were: 1) Evidence that deaths from natural illnesses are considered to be natural, which puts Lou Reed and Robin Gibb firmly in that category along with George Harrison, Freddie Mercury, Davey Jones and probably Elvis Presley; but not John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobain or Michael Jackson; 2) Evidence that spousal abuse is probably a natural phenomenon, although I accept that there's no absolute legal definition as with cause of death. To combine the two strands of course, a death BY domestic violence would most certainly be considered an UNNATURAL death.

Hope all's clear now.

I've read some of what was in your link, I will promise to read more when I get back.
I know people die. I accept it, but like I posted in my edited post, why do things such as illness/crime happen to some people and not others. That is what is a puzzle to me if I can be honest.
~Godspeed little one~
~Don't talk about angels
Or how I'll be saved
I'm no coward
But I'm not that brave
Rags are blowing
Rain's getting near
I'm done with running
And it's getting dark in here~

~Sleep in peace old friend for me you'll never die~
 
icy
We Are The Champions
 
User avatar

 

And the wounded skies above say it's much too late

      
 
Posts: 16442
Images: 0
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 4:44 am
Location: The one where you be the first to forget and the last to remember...
Gender: Female
Has thanked: 260 times
Been thanked: 562 times

Re: Lou Reed, death debate

Postby Elessar » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:30 pm

icy wrote:I've read some of what was in your link, I will promise to read more when I get back.
I know people die. I accept it, but like I posted in my edited post, why do things such as illness/crime happen to some people and not others. That is what is a puzzle to me if I can be honest.


There is no 'why'. It's blind chance. Nature doesn't care. Most organisms suffer; some get very lucky and get away with minimal suffering. By making it this far you're already by a very long way one of the luckiest creatures ever to have graced the planet - I'm talking top 0.001% or less.

Of course there are other explanations. Some might say the illnesses we suffer in this life are punishments for wrongdoing in a previous one. Others reckon there's an all-powerful being controlling the whole operation, and as random and confusing as it may seem, he's got it covered and knows what he's doing.

Whichever floats your boat. But IF there was a universe with no god, no karma and a nature that is entirely indifferent to pain and suffering with no sense of justice, it would look exactly like the one we're in.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11020
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Lou Reed, death debate

Postby WeeMann » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:35 pm

Kes wrote:My apologies to WeeMann


Arse. How dare you credit JLP with my comment???

I hope you die at 40.

Or within about 50 years of that date.

Give or take a decade or two.
DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a post, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate.
 
WeeMann
Moderator
 
User avatar

 

Not even on the B list...

      
 
Posts: 6337
Images: 102
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:37 pm
Location: Shropshire
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: Lou Reed, death debate

Postby julymorning » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:48 pm

julymorning wrote:
Of all the things we may talk about, some may have a point of view brought on by personal observation/experience, or on the other hand something something other(s) said that sounded plausible enough to repeat. Certainly there are very few of us that have personal experience with everything.


In this case (natural vs unnatural) I was speaking from as I stated in my very first comment laymen's terms. Nothing more than local traditional POV. I would not presume to challenge the educated position.

Animal husbandry and behavior is more my forte'.

If the following article supports your stand, Elessar, for me it more clearly lined it out so that I can accept it, in the context of legality:

"For a coroner, any death caused by disease or old age is natural. When someone dies a violent or suspicious death, medical examiners try to determine both a "cause" and a "manner." The cause refers to the biological condition that killed the victim, such as sudden cardiac arrest. The manner describes all the other circumstances that led up to that particular cause. Most states recognize five different manners: homicide, suicide, accident, natural, and undetermined. If a manner of death is deemed to be "natural," then the victim is thought to have died of an internal disease process or normal deterioration of the body. Outside forces, like chemicals or human intervention, had only a minimal influence. (There are some gray areas: Death by infectious disease is typically categorized as being natural, even though the killer microbes come from outside the body.)

In general, it's much easier to determine the cause of death than the manner. To say that a person died of sudden cardiac arrest means only that the heart stopped beating unexpectedly, a fact that might be explained by any of the five manner classifications. The death might have resulted from "natural" conditions like an enlarged heart, thickened ventricle walls, disruptions in the heart's electrical signals, or clogged arteries. Or it might have followed from the ingestion of drugs (like cocaine) or poisons—making it a homicide, a suicide, or an accident. (A massive blow to the chest can stop the heart, too, but that would have left obvious signs.) Drug deaths can be tough to categorize, because circumstantial evidence is required to separate accidental overdoses from suicides.

When all the tests are back from the lab, the medical examiner or the coroner—typically an elected official without medical training who consults the medical examiner—prepares the death certificate with the cause, manner, and a brief description. There is some variation in the forms. John Lennon's death certificate, for example, contains a series of causes to indicate the cascading physical effects of his gunshot wound.

Even when the facts are clear, medical examiners sometimes disagree on the manner. If a patient is killed by a clot that breaks off during a procedure to clear up his clogged arteries, medical examiners can call it an accident (the medical error) or natural (the underlying disease). A man who has a heart attack while shoveling snow dies a natural death, but if the heart attack happens during a fistfight, his death is usually a homicide. Death from an allergic reaction to a bee sting can be called natural or accidental. While acute alcohol intoxication from a night of binge drinking is always classified as an accident or suicide, the death of a lifelong alcoholic from cirrhosis of the liver is usually classified as natural.

These classifications are medical, and they sometimes diverge from legal usage. For example, if a victim were killed by a drunk driver, the medical examiner would typically classify the death as an accident, but prosecutors may consider it a homicide. The opposite result is also possible. In cases such as a killing in self-defense, the medical examiner might deem a death a homicide, but the prosecutor would not file charges.
******
Explainer thanks Randy Hanzlick of the Fulton County Medical Examiner's Office and Jeffrey Jentzen of the University of Michigan.
.It is my uppermost hope that even histories' genius's lost their minds as they aged. I'd hate to think that I really am an idiot. sjm
 
julymorning
The Show Must Go On
 
User avatar

 

This is probably as good as it gets.

      
 
Posts: 1675
Images: 18
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:17 pm
Location: Missouri, U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Has thanked: 427 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: Lou Reed, death debate

Postby Elessar » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:59 pm

Yeah, that's all reasonable enough. Life would have been so much easier if someone had just posted that two days ago! I wouldn't be thinking up ways to spend all my money on drugs and hookers during my final two decades, for a start!
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11020
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Lou Reed, death debate

Postby Elessar » Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:04 pm

NB re laymans terms vs educated terms: This distinction just creates artificial barriers and intellectual snobbery. Everyone in this thread should know the educated terms now. Education is available to all. I always try (maybe I fail) to explain things when I debate them, because I view myself as a layman with a small bit of knowledge on a small number of things, and I'd like to share that knowledge and add to it.

If someone insists on using 'layman knowledge' despite knowing 'educated knowledge', they're just being willfully ignorant, or deliberately creating a barrier between themselves and something that for some reason they don't want to know about, be it science, law, grammar or whatever. Using layman's terms to explain complex concepts, on the other hand, is a very good (and difficult to master) skill to have.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11020
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Lou Reed, death debate

Postby Elessar » Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:10 pm

As for this strange idea of 'science martyrs' - it would be nigh on impossible to be a science martyr. Science is about acquiring knowledge through study and experimentation. Anyone becoming a martyr in the name of science is a very poor scientist because they haven't followed the scientific method! One can quite easily imagine an anti-science martyr though. Someone jumping out of their top floor window, because fuck science and fuck gravity.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11020
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Lou Reed, death debate

Postby WeeMann » Sat Nov 02, 2013 7:32 pm

I've split some of the recent crap from this thread - if you want to carry on the sniping at each other it's at viewtopic.php?f=22&t=5427 although it would be preferable if you kept it to PMs.
DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a post, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate.
 
WeeMann
Moderator
 
User avatar

 

Not even on the B list...

      
 
Posts: 6337
Images: 102
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:37 pm
Location: Shropshire
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: Lou Reed, death debate

Postby Elessar » Sat Nov 02, 2013 8:46 pm

WeeMann wrote:I've split some of the recent crap from this thread - if you want to carry on the sniping at each other it's at viewtopic.php?f=22&t=5427 although it would be preferable if you kept it to PMs.


Part of me wants to try to get a thread split from a split thread split even further; the other part of me simply cannot muster up the energy to care.

Back to the Lou Reed death debate. Did we reach a verdict? He's definitely dead, right?
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11020
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 172 times

PreviousNext

Return to Views Of The World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests