Who brought it up is irrelevant. Absolute bullshit. You're the one who needs to re-read it. "Teenagers getting bullied and shit is completely different." That is a distinction. FMD.
Fair enough, missed that. He said that teenagers getting bullied is different to Amy Winehouse though, not that there is a difference between a drug addict and a bullied teenager. He was talking about Winehouse, not drug addicts in general...
You criticised her for not seeking help. When I stated that bullied kids often do not seek help you claimed it's "completely different." I'm still waiting to hear in what respect. No I don't. I'm not the one, however, criticising her and saying she deserves zero sympathy. You're the one who ought to know. She could well have had no decent reason to take drugs but I doubt it. There's usually something behind serious addiction like that. I would prefer to err on the side of caution about someone whose life I had nothing to do with and didn't see as a destructive force in the world.
Apparently you missed this post as well. "And if you can't see the difference between being bullied and drugging yourself up then you have problems."
I didn't imply the contrary. I said there is usually something behind it. Money and fame have a habit of magnifying, adding to, or exacerbating a person's problems. If we don't know why, it's pretty absurd to assume she took drugs to such an extent for no reason.
Oh fuck off with that bullshit argument. You clearly said "drugging yourself up" - That is not a statement exclusively confined to Amy Winehouse. This entire time, you have not denied anything I've said you've said or implied. you're only dragging out this horseshit because you have nothing left.
I dunno. He was talking about Winehouse, you compared to bullying, he compared bullyinhg with what Winehouse did. Maybe it was a touch off hand, but it was definitely about Winehouse.
The reason doesn't even matter ffs. Her family tried to help her, get her to rehab and shit and she didn't want a bar of it. If she didn't want to get better then eventually she was gonna kill herself with it, like she did. If I know the brakes are out on my car, and someone offers to fix them for me, and I say "Nah, I'm too much of a badass for brakes", and end up running my car into a tree because of my lack of brakes and killing myself, it's my own stupid fault and I wouldn't expect sympathy from people. This is the same thing.
It was a fucking conversation about her you dumb fuck, who the fuck else would I be talking about? Use a little common sense ffs.
For different reasons obv, like you said. EDIT: Tart's thoughts are that she gets sympathy despite not wanting to get off the drugs. Obviously not all drug addicts are like this...
I didn't say you were talking about anybody else. I said your argument applies to anyone else who does that. I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the implications of your own sentences.
Probably one of the most retarded things I have ever read. I could go down your route and say "if you can't see the difference between so and so, you're a fucking idiot" but I'll illuminate the difference for you as those who believe in dialectic ought to. It's a pretty simple distinction mainly due to the fact that it's a pretty idiotic comparison and obviously shows a complete lack of understanding of what drug addiction is - Addiction being the operative word. The difference is people who refuse functioning breaks are, as you say, probably stupid. Unbelievably stupid to a point that's it's probably a miracle that they can even speak or walk without killing themselves, but stupid all the same. Either that or someone with a death wish (suicidal) which would mean they too have deep emotional problems. People who have drug addictions are not necessarily stupid. In fact, a lot of them are of normal intelligence. Refusing help does not make them stupid either. A refusal of help often indicates denial which is further indication of serious psychosis. I could go on and on but I really cbf as it's pretty pointless.
