Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someone loosely in my professional circle (I don't know him but several colleagues did) died of an overdose two days ago. He was 30 and had years of problems with drugs but was nevertheless very successful and well known.
A common theme among the comments of his friends and colleagues in the aftermath is that someone that does drugs is hurting themselves...what they choose to put on their body is THEIR business...we should only acknowledge the wonderful parts of his life...and so on.
First off...that's an amazingly intellectually dishonest sentiment. In 10 seconds anyone can think of a multitude of ways in which his actions affected many other people.
That alone is incensing enough, but some of these people are the first to judge the heck out of you for things like eating a hamburger, or eating gluten, or vaccinating your kids, or shopping at Walmart as if doing any of these things is ruining the planet and all the people on it.
Obviously, addicts are troubled people and simply shaming them isn't going to help matters. But if that's true why is it OK to judge/shame far more innocuous behaviors?
Through the years I have discovered that the dead guy "was a wonderful person" but only after he is dead.
Humans rarely if at all talk about how terrible a person was when they were alive after they have died, no matter how big of a jerk they really were.
Humans are also very quick to judge others without knowing all of the intimate details yet they someone cannot see themselves in the very same mirror.
At that point, what good does judging his actions do?
The time to hold him accountable was while he was alive. Did anyone do that? There's also a difference between judging someone and holding them accountable.
Besides, most people only like to "hold the mirror" facing outward. They rarely want to hold it toward themselves.
At that point, what good does judging his actions do?
The time to hold him accountable was while he was alive. Did anyone do that? There's also a difference between judging someone and holding them accountable.
Besides, most people only like to "hold the mirror" facing outward. They rarely want to hold it toward themselves.
My educated guess is his friends/family/colleagues let his success blunt their motivation to hold him accountable while he was alive.
And these same sorts of people judge the heck out of others for doing far less unhealthy things. Low hanging fruit maybe?
At that point, what good does judging his actions do?
The time to hold him accountable was while he was alive. Did anyone do that? There's also a difference between judging someone and holding them accountable.
Besides, most people only like to "hold the mirror" facing outward. They rarely want to hold it toward themselves.
So someone may learn from his mistakes.
He may have been a decent guy, but made poor choices. Learn from it.
So someone may learn from his mistakes.
He may have been a decent guy, but made poor choices. Learn from it.
That's what I would do. I'm only guessing why some would avoid judging him after death.
As for other "less healthy" habits, it's always easier to judge others for whatever your token offense of the week is. But addiction is viewed differently because of the fact that it's an addiction.
Other people may see "not vaccinating your child" or eating a burger as a choice, unlike addiction.
That's what I would do. I'm only guessing why some would avoid judging him after death.
As for other "less healthy" habits, it's always easier to judge others for whatever your token offense of the week is. But addiction is viewed differently because of the fact that it's an addiction.
Not vaccinating your child is a choice.
I know, I get all that, but where is the gene that tells you to live and let live when someone you know buys something at Walmart...the gene that apparently disappears when you're dealing with a destructive drug addict?
Someone loosely in my professional circle (I don't know him but several colleagues did) died of an overdose two days ago. He was 30 and had years of problems with drugs but was nevertheless very successful and well known.
A common theme among the comments of his friends and colleagues in the aftermath is that someone that does drugs is hurting themselves...what they choose to put on their body is THEIR business...we should only acknowledge the wonderful parts of his life...and so on.
First off...that's an amazingly intellectually dishonest sentiment. In 10 seconds anyone can think of a multitude of ways in which his actions affected many other people.
That alone is incensing enough, but some of these people are the first to judge the heck out of you for things like eating a hamburger, or eating gluten, or vaccinating your kids, or shopping at Walmart as if doing any of these things is ruining the planet and all the people on it.
Obviously, addicts are troubled people and simply shaming them isn't going to help matters. But if that's true why is it OK to judge/shame far more innocuous behaviors?
I don't get it.
Sounds like you've been talking to his enablers. Birds of a feather. . .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
