Robin Williams' Choice

[PostmodernProph]

When Jesus was dying on the cross, to ease his suffering, he was offered wine mixed with gall, a narcotic which at first he rejected. When he finally took some, when it was offered again, he died immediately. In every gospel he died immediately after taking the drink.

???...why would you try to interpret the scriptures to say the exact opposite of what they say?..........he refused the narcotic......

 

[hobelim]

???...why would you try to interpret the scriptures to say the exact opposite of what they say?..........he refused the narcotic......

Really?

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. John 19:30

Someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink, saying, "Let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down." And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last. Mark 15:37

Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.” And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. Matthew 27:48

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Of all the explanations that have been proposed for Robin Williams' suicide, the most logical one has been totally ignored.

What if he coolly and rationally looked at his life, his prospects for the future, and decided that non-existence was preferable to the existence that he foresaw for himself? it doesn't necessarily mean that he was "crazy" or his mind was addled by drugs. Maybe he just made a rational, well-informed choice.

To be, or not to be; that is the question.

There's nothing "cowardly" about it. Does he have an "obligation" to be there for everyone else in the world? I don't think so. We are all "free agents" and responsible for our own maintenance and happiness.

He had provided financially for his wife and kids to the extent there was a moral obligation to do so, and so what if they would have wanted him to be around in the future? They are all responsible for their own lives and happiness - as we all are. Doesn't he at least have the right to make this ultimate Choice?

It is analogous to a company with a valuable employee, around retirement age, who has in his head some of the essential technology that makes the company's products or services valuable. He may have an obligation to try to pass on that knowledge (sometimes it is literally not possible to do so), but doesn't he have the right to retire and cut off all communications with that company? It is HIS knowledge, no one else's. If the company "suffers" it's not his fault, it just is.

Didn't Robin Williams have the RIGHT to decide that he didn't want to live any longer, given everything he knew about his life and prospects? This is the ultimate "freedom."

To be, or not to be. It is everyone's choice. Other than mothers and fathers of minor children, this is the ultimate freedom that no one can rightly take away. You have no obligation to continue living for the benefit of other people. It's YOUR life, after all.

We all know people, usually elderly, who have grown old and decrepit, and are a tremendous burden to their families and maybe to the society at large. I totally agree that no one should "off" them just to ease the burden, but if they want to end it for themselves, then I totally think that option should be supported.

Robin Williams basically made that choice, only a litle bit earlier than most people would have liked for him. But it was his choice to make. Unless there is some clear indication that he was delusional at the time of his death, I think his choice should be supported and not be a black mark on his memory.

None of us has any experience not existing, so anyone opting for it is by definition mentally ill. Suicide is an act of selfishness. "I'm all that matters, and all the people who know me and love me and will be sad when I'm gone can just bugger off." No sad streak or depressed mood is so bad non-existence is better. If your life totally sucks, but it makes others happy then that's reason enough to tough it out. Instead of living life for yourself, living it for others isn't the worse thing imaginable.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

He was facing a horrible and degenerative disease that would ultimately take away everything he valued. His razor sharp wit, that wonderful humor, his ability to give that to the world, his all-encompassing love for bicycle riding, the time with his family - he was facing losing all of that and more.

Parkinson's, heart disease, the likelyhood he would be wheel chair bound very soon -

I don't understand all the hate we see on this board but I do know that not one of you holier than though bible thumpers have the right or the knowledge to judge anyone.

,

Michael J. Fox has had Parkinson's for years .... he still has his wit, his humor, his acting chops, his family.

Pot, kettle, black.

Nope. That's not the way it works.

Humans are not made with cookie cutters.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Of all the explanations that have been proposed for Robin Williams' suicide, the most logical one has been totally ignored.

What if he coolly and rationally looked at his life, his prospects for the future, and decided that non-existence was preferable to the existence that he foresaw for himself? it doesn't necessarily mean that he was "crazy" or his mind was addled by drugs. Maybe he just made a rational, well-informed choice.

To be, or not to be; that is the question.

There's nothing "cowardly" about it. Does he have an "obligation" to be there for everyone else in the world? I don't think so. We are all "free agents" and responsible for our own maintenance and happiness.

He had provided financially for his wife and kids to the extent there was a moral obligation to do so, and so what if they would have wanted him to be around in the future? They are all responsible for their own lives and happiness - as we all are. Doesn't he at least have the right to make this ultimate Choice?

It is analogous to a company with a valuable employee, around retirement age, who has in his head some of the essential technology that makes the company's products or services valuable. He may have an obligation to try to pass on that knowledge (sometimes it is literally not possible to do so), but doesn't he have the right to retire and cut off all communications with that company? It is HIS knowledge, no one else's. If the company "suffers" it's not his fault, it just is.

Didn't Robin Williams have the RIGHT to decide that he didn't want to live any longer, given everything he knew about his life and prospects? This is the ultimate "freedom."

To be, or not to be. It is everyone's choice. Other than mothers and fathers of minor children, this is the ultimate freedom that no one can rightly take away. You have no obligation to continue living for the benefit of other people. It's YOUR life, after all.

We all know people, usually elderly, who have grown old and decrepit, and are a tremendous burden to their families and maybe to the society at large. I totally agree that no one should "off" them just to ease the burden, but if they want to end it for themselves, then I totally think that option should be supported.

Robin Williams basically made that choice, only a litle bit earlier than most people would have liked for him. But it was his choice to make. Unless there is some clear indication that he was delusional at the time of his death, I think his choice should be supported and not be a black mark on his memory.

None of us has any experience not existing, so anyone opting for it is by definition mentally ill. Suicide is an act of selfishness. "I'm all that matters, and all the people who know me and love me and will be sad when I'm gone can just bugger off." No sad streak or depressed mood is so bad non-existence is better. If your life totally sucks, but it makes others happy then that's reason enough to tough it out. Instead of living life for yourself, living it for others isn't the worse thing imaginable.

I don't know why people have to attach that judgment - that it must be either selfish or courageous.

More than anything else, I think its an act of taking control of one's one death AND life.

Bottom line and as with so many other things that are discussed on this board, this was his decision to make, his life was his to take. None of can ever know enough to judge that decision.

 

[orogenicman]

Of all the explanations that have been proposed for Robin Williams' suicide, the most logical one has been totally ignored.

What if he coolly and rationally looked at his life, his prospects for the future, and decided that non-existence was preferable to the existence that he foresaw for himself? it doesn't necessarily mean that he was "crazy" or his mind was addled by drugs. Maybe he just made a rational, well-informed choice.

To be, or not to be; that is the question.

There's nothing "cowardly" about it. Does he have an "obligation" to be there for everyone else in the world? I don't think so. We are all "free agents" and responsible for our own maintenance and happiness.

He had provided financially for his wife and kids to the extent there was a moral obligation to do so, and so what if they would have wanted him to be around in the future? They are all responsible for their own lives and happiness - as we all are. Doesn't he at least have the right to make this ultimate Choice?

It is analogous to a company with a valuable employee, around retirement age, who has in his head some of the essential technology that makes the company's products or services valuable. He may have an obligation to try to pass on that knowledge (sometimes it is literally not possible to do so), but doesn't he have the right to retire and cut off all communications with that company? It is HIS knowledge, no one else's. If the company "suffers" it's not his fault, it just is.

Didn't Robin Williams have the RIGHT to decide that he didn't want to live any longer, given everything he knew about his life and prospects? This is the ultimate "freedom."

To be, or not to be. It is everyone's choice. Other than mothers and fathers of minor children, this is the ultimate freedom that no one can rightly take away. You have no obligation to continue living for the benefit of other people. It's YOUR life, after all.

We all know people, usually elderly, who have grown old and decrepit, and are a tremendous burden to their families and maybe to the society at large. I totally agree that no one should "off" them just to ease the burden, but if they want to end it for themselves, then I totally think that option should be supported.

Robin Williams basically made that choice, only a litle bit earlier than most people would have liked for him. But it was his choice to make. Unless there is some clear indication that he was delusional at the time of his death, I think his choice should be supported and not be a black mark on his memory.

None of us has any experience not existing, so anyone opting for it is by definition mentally ill. Suicide is an act of selfishness. "I'm all that matters, and all the people who know me and love me and will be sad when I'm gone can just bugger off." No sad streak or depressed mood is so bad non-existence is better. If your life totally sucks, but it makes others happy then that's reason enough to tough it out. Instead of living life for yourself, living it for others isn't the worse thing imaginable.

Suicide is not an act of selfishness. These people mentally ill, are in extreme mental anguish, and just want the pain to stop.

 

[Gracie]

Fox is not Williams. Williams was not Fox. His body. His choice.

 

[PostmodernProph]

???...why would you try to interpret the scriptures to say the exact opposite of what they say?..........he refused the narcotic......

Really?

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. John 19:30

Someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink, saying, "Let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down." And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last. Mark 15:37

Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.” And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. Matthew 27:48

and why don't the passages you quote say the wine was mixed with narcotics?.......

 

[sealybobo]

Of all the explanations that have been proposed for Robin Williams' suicide, the most logical one has been totally ignored.

What if he coolly and rationally looked at his life, his prospects for the future, and decided that non-existence was preferable to the existence that he foresaw for himself? it doesn't necessarily mean that he was "crazy" or his mind was addled by drugs. Maybe he just made a rational, well-informed choice.

To be, or not to be; that is the question.

There's nothing "cowardly" about it. Does he have an "obligation" to be there for everyone else in the world? I don't think so. We are all "free agents" and responsible for our own maintenance and happiness.

He had provided financially for his wife and kids to the extent there was a moral obligation to do so, and so what if they would have wanted him to be around in the future? They are all responsible for their own lives and happiness - as we all are. Doesn't he at least have the right to make this ultimate Choice?

It is analogous to a company with a valuable employee, around retirement age, who has in his head some of the essential technology that makes the company's products or services valuable. He may have an obligation to try to pass on that knowledge (sometimes it is literally not possible to do so), but doesn't he have the right to retire and cut off all communications with that company? It is HIS knowledge, no one else's. If the company "suffers" it's not his fault, it just is.

Didn't Robin Williams have the RIGHT to decide that he didn't want to live any longer, given everything he knew about his life and prospects? This is the ultimate "freedom."

To be, or not to be. It is everyone's choice. Other than mothers and fathers of minor children, this is the ultimate freedom that no one can rightly take away. You have no obligation to continue living for the benefit of other people. It's YOUR life, after all.

We all know people, usually elderly, who have grown old and decrepit, and are a tremendous burden to their families and maybe to the society at large. I totally agree that no one should "off" them just to ease the burden, but if they want to end it for themselves, then I totally think that option should be supported.

Robin Williams basically made that choice, only a litle bit earlier than most people would have liked for him. But it was his choice to make. Unless there is some clear indication that he was delusional at the time of his death, I think his choice should be supported and not be a black mark on his memory.

There are states in America where you can do assisted suicide. Oregon is one I believe. I think it should be a choice in all 50 states. If you are terminal and suffering, you should be able to end your suffering.

I heard a Christian on Christian radio say that the person should just deal with the pain and die naturally. I think that guy is a stupid asshole and I hope that when it is his time, he is suffering and suicide is not an option for him.

I do not approve of suicide like Robin did because it was a very mean thing to do to his family. His family will be haunted by what he did for the rest of their lives. It was a very selfish mean thing to do to them. But yes it is/was his choice and he should have the right.

Just remember, the people in your company won't cry the rest of their lives if you off yourself but your family will. As a family member I would even support your decision if it were near the end and you were suffering but I don't think I would have supported Robin's decision. He wasn't terminal or in pain yet. But then again maybe he was mentally in pain. I guess I would even forgive Robin if I were his family members. I would agree that it is his right to end it if he didn't want to live that way.

My mom has Alzheimers. It's not really bad yet but it's going to get worse and I'm sure she doesn't want to live this way. I'm POSITIVE she doesn't. But now that she's living with it, she doesn't go kill herself. She does say, "I don't want to live" though to my dad when I'm not around. So I guess if she said she wanted to end it, I would support her. Maybe not yet because it isn't that bad yet, but when it gets worse. But then at that point she won't be able to make that decision, and I'm certainly not going to kill her. I love/cherish every moment I get with her. Even with this sick disease I'd rather have her around than not.

Yes it should be the individuals decision though. I just wouldn't do that to my family. Not my parents anyways. They've always said that the worse thing would be to lose a child so just like you shouldn't do that to your kids, you shouldn't do that to your parents either. But once they are gone, if I'm ever diagnosed with something terminal and debilitating I might choose to go out on my own terms. Why not? All death is sad. If it's a premature baby or a 100 year old man it's always sad.

 

[Zoom-boing]

He was facing a horrible and degenerative disease that would ultimately take away everything he valued. His razor sharp wit, that wonderful humor, his ability to give that to the world, his all-encompassing love for bicycle riding, the time with his family - he was facing losing all of that and more.

Parkinson's, heart disease, the likelyhood he would be wheel chair bound very soon -

I don't understand all the hate we see on this board but I do know that not one of you holier than though bible thumpers have the right or the knowledge to judge anyone.

,

Michael J. Fox has had Parkinson's for years .... he still has his wit, his humor, his acting chops, his family.

Pot, kettle, black.

Nope. That's not the way it works.

Humans are not made with cookie cutters.

Correct. Just because MJF's Parkinson's has allowed him to live his life as he does doesn't mean that RW's body would do the same. Doesn't mean it wouldn't either. However, YOU have no way of knowing how RW's disease would progress yet here you are, telling others to stop judging when that's exactly what you're doing.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Fox is not Williams. Williams was not Fox. His body. His choice.

True. However, if he was on medication for anxiety and/or depression, who knows how that affected his outlook/thoughts/emotions/actions.

 

[sealybobo]

He was facing a horrible and degenerative disease that would ultimately take away everything he valued. His razor sharp wit, that wonderful humor, his ability to give that to the world, his all-encompassing love for bicycle riding, the time with his family - he was facing losing all of that and more.

Parkinson's, heart disease, the likelyhood he would be wheel chair bound very soon -

I don't understand all the hate we see on this board but I do know that not one of you holier than though bible thumpers have the right or the knowledge to judge anyone.

,

Michael J. Fox has had Parkinson's for years .... he still has his wit, his humor, his acting chops, his family.

Pot, kettle, black.

My mom has Alzheimers. I believe if she had the power to decide before she got it, "do you want to live that way or be assisted with suicide". I bet you she would have decided before being put in a home, to let her do suicide.

She wouldn't want to die now, even though she's miserable and sometimes does say she wants to die. She still laughs and enjoys a massage so she has quality of life, sort of. No one would like to live this way to be honest with you. I'm sure if she could take a pill and end it she would. But we want her around longer. At least while she is able to live at home. My dad is her 24/7 care giver. He talks about going to a place both of them can go. I hope that happens because he does not want to put her in a home and he will take care of her as long as he can.

If I were her, I wouldn't want to live that way.

Each person is different.

 

[hobelim]

and why don't the passages you quote say the wine was mixed with narcotics?.......

Who can say?

Why doesn't scripture clearly state that a talking serpent represents a type of human being?

Why doesn't scripture clearly state that when Ezekiel was carried by an angel holding his hair through the air it is relating the events of a dream?

Maybe the authors thought that anyone with intelligence wouldn't need to have it spelled out and anyone who did need it spelled out probably couldn't handle the truth anyway..

Perhaps when you get around to conforming to the first commandment and stop perpetuating the lie that Jesus was a triune god that impregnated a virgin to become a man you won't need to have the obvious spelled out for you and other intelligent people wouldn't think that you are full of shit.

 

[AquaAthena]

Of all the explanations that have been proposed for Robin Williams' suicide, the most logical one has been totally ignored.

What if he coolly and rationally looked at his life, his prospects for the future, and decided that non-existence was preferable to the existence that he foresaw for himself? it doesn't necessarily mean that he was "crazy" or his mind was addled by drugs. Maybe he just made a rational, well-informed choice.

To be, or not to be; that is the question.

There's nothing "cowardly" about it. Does he have an "obligation" to be there for everyone else in the world? I don't think so. We are all "free agents" and responsible for our own maintenance and happiness.

He had provided financially for his wife and kids to the extent there was a moral obligation to do so, and so what if they would have wanted him to be around in the future? They are all responsible for their own lives and happiness - as we all are. Doesn't he at least have the right to make this ultimate Choice?

It is analogous to a company with a valuable employee, around retirement age, who has in his head some of the essential technology that makes the company's products or services valuable. He may have an obligation to try to pass on that knowledge (sometimes it is literally not possible to do so), but doesn't he have the right to retire and cut off all communications with that company? It is HIS knowledge, no one else's. If the company "suffers" it's not his fault, it just is.

Didn't Robin Williams have the RIGHT to decide that he didn't want to live any longer, given everything he knew about his life and prospects? This is the ultimate "freedom."

To be, or not to be. It is everyone's choice. Other than mothers and fathers of minor children, this is the ultimate freedom that no one can rightly take away. You have no obligation to continue living for the benefit of other people. It's YOUR life, after all.

We all know people, usually elderly, who have grown old and decrepit, and are a tremendous burden to their families and maybe to the society at large. I totally agree that no one should "off" them just to ease the burden, but if they want to end it for themselves, then I totally think that option should be supported.

Robin Williams basically made that choice, only a litle bit earlier than most people would have liked for him. But it was his choice to make. Unless there is some clear indication that he was delusional at the time of his death, I think his choice should be supported and not be a black mark on his memory.

I think his diagnosis of early stages of Parkinson's disease influenced his decision, as well as other factors. What a talent he was.

 

[hobelim]

I don't know why people have to attach that judgment - that it must be either selfish or courageous.

More than anything else, I think its an act of taking control of one's one death AND life.

Bottom line and as with so many other things that are discussed on this board, this was his decision to make, his life was his to take. None of can ever know enough to judge that decision.

Of course you are right and I think you would agree that people should have the legal right to a more dignified choice than to hang from the rafters.

 

[hobelim]

Suicide is not an act of selfishness. These people mentally ill, are in extreme mental anguish, and just want the pain to stop.

I agree that suicide is not an act of selfishness and that many people who commit suicide are mentally ill or mentally affected by disease, but not in all cases.

It is certainly possible for suicide to be a rationally thought out and deliberate choice of a sound mind.


Therein lies the dilemma. How to differentiate between what is an irrational and impulsive act from what is a well thought out and rational decision.

Dying naturally is hardly better or worse as most people are completely drugged up and unconscious anyway in the last few weeks or days.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I don't know why people have to attach that judgment - that it must be either selfish or courageous.

More than anything else, I think its an act of taking control of one's one death AND life.

Bottom line and as with so many other things that are discussed on this board, this was his decision to make, his life was his to take. None of can ever know enough to judge that decision.

Of course you are right and I think you would agree that people should have the legal right to a more dignified choice than to hang from the rafters.

Absolutely.

What an incredible invasion of privacy we allow. As always, with the condition that its between consenting adults and harms no one, I believe our bodies belong to us to do with as we wish.

Its not just the government we need to get the fuck out of our bedrooms and private lives, its the damn churches as well.

If one believes they will go to hell if they abort a fetus or take their own life, that's their business and they're welcome to it. Now, get out of the private lives of others because their life decisions are theirs to make and its none of your business.

 

[PostmodernProph]

and why don't the passages you quote say the wine was mixed with narcotics?.......

Who can say?

I can.....because you made it up and it isn't IN the scriptures as you claimed it was........

 

[hobelim]

Who can say?

I can......

Sure, and you also say that God made sperm appear out of thin air to impregnate Mary, "because gosh, he is God". You also say that Jesus was God or rather one third of a coequal trinity which makes you an idolator who contradicts the entire OT and NT, perjures himself in the name of God, and desecrates the teachings of Jesus as a matter of religious devotion which, if scripture is true, places you under divine condemnation.

You can say many things but so far, for some mysterious reason, the truth cannot be found in anything that you have said.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything else you say can and will be used against you.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Who can say?

I can......

Sure, and you also say that God made sperm appear out of thin air to impregnate Mary, "because gosh, he is God". You also say that Jesus was God or rather one third of a coequal trinity which makes you an idolator who contradicts the entire OT and NT, perjures himself in the name of God, and desecrates the teachings of Jesus as a matter of religious devotion which, if scripture is true, places you under divine condemnation.

You can say many things but so far, for some mysterious reason, the truth cannot be found in anything that you have said.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything else you say can and will be used against you.

what does any of that have to do with making something up, claiming it was in the Bible when all we had to do was read it to see that it wasn't actually in the Bible?......