To the inconsiderate git . . .

n/t

Once again I find myself agreeing with Clarkson. They're dead... it can't hurt anymore... so why stop the trains? It'll come off in the wash.

I don't want to start another 'DogGate' but just spare a thought for the guy and his family, he must have been pretty desperate to do such a thing. In the grand scheme of things, missing a planned event is annoying and frustrating....but compared to someone depressed enough to end their life is it really that important?

Maybe he'd just had a 15 in Bournemouth

Perhaps. But then I have issues with the need to cause so much disruption as a by-product. That's generally something that is done out of a desire to try to being everyone else down to a similar level.

And before anyone starts yes I have experience of people close to me killing themselves.

n/t

Disappointing response Merc.

I know a guy who has the job of examining the trains after someone throws themselves under them... as well as cleaning it up.

Not nice at all. But he doesn't seem that affected by it. Then again I would hardly call him a well rounded individual anyway.

drive4show wrote:Disappointing response Merc.

Why disappointing, D4S?

Merc

After all the outrage you showed on the 'DogGate' thread over the death of an animal, it just seems a bit insensitive that when some poor sod was so distressed that he decided to take his own life, all you care about is missing a darts match.

LondonJonnyO wrote:I know a guy who has the job of examining the trains after someone throws themselves under them... as well as cleaning it up.

Not nice at all. But he doesn't seem that affected by it. Then again I would hardly call him a well rounded individual anyway.

How often does this sort of thing happen over there?!

Merc, I can see why it annoyed you and I do think suicide is a selfish way out as it only hurts those left behind as their left with the questions as to why and what did they not do to help.

But c'mon fella you must see the irony in this post and it's comparison to DogGate.

More often than you would think venice. Particularly on the underground. I think its a bit of a reaction to the financial situation. People who are going to jump under one are thinking that bringing the transport system to a halt will punish the bankers somehow.

n/t

To be fair, Merc, you didn't mention who "*****" was in your OP - that part seemed a bit off the wall and therefore left only the inconvenience of missing a darts match as the basis of your discontent.

Merc, you are a funny lad

I am with Merc on being unable to find a sympathetic bone in my body for thos choosing to end their own lives. I find it a selfish and cowardly way out of leaving others to face your problems and deal with why they did it. Not to mention the innocent bystamders having to watch as that person throws themselves in front of a train/bus or whatever.

If they must do it, do it somewhere quietly where it has no affect on passers by.

Agreed, i just find it ironic after DogGate

Can't say i disagree hugely with Merc stance on either but to be so firmly of one opinion on the dog and then so firmly the other way on the suicide, it's interesting

It is too different sides of the fence but DogGate was an innocent animal made to suffer by selfish humans! And this was a selfish human making others suffer through their own actions so maybe not so different after all still portrays mans selfishness

Lots of people have more emotional response towards animals or other items which are unable to determine their own actions when faced with a 'superior' being.

Now excuse me... I have to go shoot Bambis mum and eat her.

I'm sure the dead guy was suffering no, or he presumably wouldn't be chucking himself in front of a train?

Without knowing all the facts - as we don't - both are sad stories of someone/thing dying when they probably didn't need to

I don't have any particular sympathy for animals or any particular sympathy towards suicidal people, but to have very strong feelings in opposite directions on these stories i find interesting. Not criticising, just commenting

Fortunately, I don't know how debilitating depression can be but I would have thought that any kind of rational thought would have been one of the first casualties in a change of behaviour. I certainly don't think inconveniencing others would have registered at all.

Wonder if LJ is just testing the tolerance waters on this new site?

Actually Gael I'm pretty much like that with my little fella. I am perfectly happy to tell and show him pictures of what animal we are eating over dinner.

I have issues with people who will happily eat meat but have no tolerance for where it comes from or the processes involved. So am completely open about him that he is eating animal...

In relation to the Bambis mum thing. Often happens where I live. It's in the middle of a deer reserve (or whatever they are called) and the culled animals often end up in the local butchers. Tasty things too.

MustPuttBetter wrote:I'm sure the dead guy was suffering no, or he presumably wouldn't be chucking himself in front of a train?

Without knowing all the facts - as we don't - both are sad stories of someone/thing dying when they probably didn't need to

I don't have any particular sympathy for animals or any particular sympathy towards suicidal people, but to have very strong feelings in opposite directions on these stories i find interesting. Not criticising, just commenting

I don't know what you're saying, MPB?

Are you suggesting I'm being hypocritical?

If so, the two scenarios show the failures of human beings. There's no hypocrisy there.

LJ - you've hit the nail on the head above.

Humans are the superior beings which makes it all the more disappointing when they don't act like they are.

I think Gael is spot on. Depression is an illness, people dont think straight and this person may well not even have had suicide on their mind when they woke up yesterday, let alone had some plan to disrupt as many people as they could.
As it goes my 7 month pregnant wife was caught up in the hell at Victoria caused by the incident, she finally got on a train to Brighton to meet me at an NCT group 90 mins late so I had to sit through most of that on my own. She was frustrated by the utter havoc and lack of organistion of the transport staff but didnt have a bad word to say about the person who was dead despite the inconvenience it had caused to her life.

Mercurio wrote:I don't know what you're saying, MPB?

Are you suggesting I'm being hypocritical?

If so, the two scenarios show the failures of human beings. There's no hypocrisy there.

I'm not suggesting hypocrisy Merc no, i'm saying it's interesting

Explanation - the dog thing garnered a very strong showing of sympathy because the dog had suffered.
We don't know the facts of the suicidal guy but my assumption would be that he was suffering pretty darn badly to feel the only way out was to throw himself under a train. It could be he was suffering because his wife was dying and the bank were repossessing his house after he was made redundant. It could be he was suffering because he'd murdered someone and was a really bad person. We don't know. So, to make a decision on whether we have sympathy for him or whether we label him selfish we have to jump to a conclusion one way or the other.
Given the insight into your character over DogGate i would have thought you would have gone for sympathy. But you've gone the complete opposite way.

I find this interesting
That's all i'm saying

The sympathy for the dog was not the primary emotion on my part. Of greater measure was the anger that someone would a) do that that to a dog, and b) that someone else would mock it.

Sure, but neither A or B would have been felt so strongly if you didn't have sympathy for the dog

Someone who had sympathy for this chap might feel the same anger here. I don't. But that's why i say it's ironic.

Again, we're not talking about the same thing.

The dog had no choice in its death whereas a man has chosen to kill himself in one of the most disruptive ways possible.

Any sympathy I may have had towards the man has been well and truly extinguished by his selfish act.

If the person had severe mental health issues, quite common in suicide cases, then he wouldnt have control of his actions in the sense that a healthy person would and therefore wouldnt be in a position to make a "rational" choice.

I understand the justification for what you're saying Merc. It's not the reasoning i'm talking about.

Again, I'm just saying it's ironic and surprising given the dog affair

As to my view on whether he is selfish or not........it depends. Maybe he thought killing himself was the best outcome for his family. That's not selfish. Maybe didn't want to do half a job and figured going under a tube train was the most probable way of making sure he didn't end up in a hospital bed for the next 30 years.

Everything we do is selfish to someone isn't it?
You don't give all of your monthly pay to charity, you'd gazump someone in a bidding war to secure the house of your dreams, if your wife was in labour you wouldn't think twice about cutting someone up on the motorway to the hospital...... and so on.
All of those things are selfish and at the expense of someone yet we'd all do them because it's in the best interests of those we care about. Selfishness can only really be measured from the view of those most affected. In this guy's situation, i'd be very surprised if that was you.

Was he selfish? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know

diggers wrote:If the person had severe mental health issues, quite common in suicide cases, then he wouldnt have control of his actions in the sense that a healthy person would and therefore wouldnt be in a position to make a "rational" choice.

He had enough rational thought to understand that throwing himself under a train would kill him. Why didn't he choose throwing himself from a tall building or jumping in the Thames?

Mercurio wrote:

diggers wrote:If the person had severe mental health issues, quite common in suicide cases, then he wouldnt have control of his actions in the sense that a healthy person would and therefore wouldnt be in a position to make a "rational" choice.

He had enough rational thought to understand that throwing himself under a train would kill him. Why didn't he choose throwing himself from a tall building or jumping in the Thames?

Because he happened to be on a train platform rather than on the top of a tall building or by the Thames maybe ?

MPB - you can want what's best for you and your family without directly affecting other people. That's not being unreasonably selfish and is a bit of a silly comparison to make.

That is completely different to knowingly causing disruption and cost to hundreds or thousands of people.

diggers wrote:

Mercurio wrote:

diggers wrote:If the person had severe mental health issues, quite common in suicide cases, then he wouldnt have control of his actions in the sense that a healthy person would and therefore wouldnt be in a position to make a "rational" choice.

He had enough rational thought to understand that throwing himself under a train would kill him. Why didn't he choose throwing himself from a tall building or jumping in the Thames?

Because he happened to be on a train platform rather than on the top of a tall building or by the Thames maybe ?

He lived on the platform, did he?

why should he care what effect it has on others...hes dead....doesnt matter to him any more...

I'd do the same...nice quick ending in front of a train.

yorke10 wrote:why should he care what effect it has on others...hes dead....doesnt matter to him any more...

I'd do the same...nice quick ending in front of a train.

And I'd think the same about you.

but thats my point, if I'm dead I won't care what Mercurio thinks of me, will I? There are no consequences for the deceased...

yorke10 wrote:but thats my point, if I'm dead I won't care what Mercurio thinks of me, will I? There are no consequences for the deceased...

My point is that you wouldn't be on here disagreeing with me calling you inconsiderate and selfish.

But knowing that you would do that, I now know you as inconsiderate or selfish.

Is this actually going anywhere?

Davie wrote:Is this actually going anywhere?

Does it have to?

you clearly have no grasp on the ways in which mental illnesses and depression affect people...looking through your posts here that doesnt surprise me, not the sharpest tee in the bag should we say, but you cant just make comments like that...the hell those people go through is incredibly sad, and if they wish to release themselves from that, which many do, then you have to respect that and if that means youre 30 mins late for choir practice then so be it...

Mercurio wrote:

diggers wrote:

Mercurio wrote:

diggers wrote:If the person had severe mental health issues, quite common in suicide cases, then he wouldnt have control of his actions in the sense that a healthy person would and therefore wouldnt be in a position to make a "rational" choice.

He had enough rational thought to understand that throwing himself under a train would kill him. Why didn't he choose throwing himself from a tall building or jumping in the Thames?

Because he happened to be on a train platform rather than on the top of a tall building or by the Thames maybe ?

He lived on the platform, did he?

What an odd comment. No, you seem to be assuming he went to the station with the intention of killing himself. Im saying its perfectly possibly that he decided to kill himself when he saw an opportunity at the train station. Had he been sitting by a river he would have jumped in that instead.

diggers wrote:

What an odd comment. No, you seem to be assuming he went to the station with the intention of killing himself. Im saying its perfectly possibly that he decided to kill himself when he saw an opportunity at the train station. Had he been sitting by a river he would have jumped in that instead.

You seem to be assuming that he didn't go to the station to kill himself.

You think the idea just popped into his head on the platform?

How can you possibly suggest this as a response as if it's evidence?

yorke10 wrote:you clearly have no grasp on the ways in which mental illnesses and depression affect people...looking through your posts here that doesnt surprise me, not the sharpest tee in the bag should we say, but you cant just make comments like that...the hell those people go through is incredibly sad, and if they wish to release themselves from that, which many do, then you have to respect that and if that means youre 30 mins late for choir practice then so be it...

Looking through my posts suggests I'm not too bright - Oh, dear

I respect their right to kill them self but I do not agree that they have a right to cause widespread disruption doing so.

Mercurio wrote:MPB - you can want what's best for you and your family without directly affecting other people. That's not being unreasonably selfish and is a bit of a silly comparison to make.

That is completely different to knowingly causing disruption and cost to hundreds or thousands of people.

I didn't want to get involved in a disagreement about it but if you're going to call me silly........

Why is it a silly comparison to make?
My point is that the same act can be both selfish and unselfish to different people. It could be that you see it as selfish as it disrupted you but to his family it's the most gratuitous thing he could have done.
On balance would that make him a selfish individual? Of course not

What is silly is to think your point of view is the only one

Mercurio wrote:
You seem to be assuming that he didn't go to the station to kill himself.

You think the idea just popped into his head on the platform?

How can you possibly suggest this as a response as if it's evidence?

Using the same logic by which you have labelled him selfish with no evidence Merc?

MustPuttBetter wrote:

Mercurio wrote:MPB - you can want what's best for you and your family without directly affecting other people. That's not being unreasonably selfish and is a bit of a silly comparison to make.

That is completely different to knowingly causing disruption and cost to hundreds or thousands of people.

I didn't want to get involved in a disagreement about it but if you're going to call me silly........

Why is it a silly comparison to make?
My point is that the same act can be both selfish and unselfish to different people. It could be that you see it as selfish as it disrupted you but his to his family it's the most gratuitous thing he could have done.
On balance would that make him a selfish individual? Of course not

What is silly is to think your point of view is the only one

You're talking about a subject I'm not - is it selfish to kill yourself? I don't necessarily think it is selfish to kill yourself but that's not why I've said he was selfish.

My issue is with the selfish manner in which he killed himself.

They're two completely different discussion points.

MustPuttBetter wrote:

Mercurio wrote:
You seem to be assuming that he didn't go to the station to kill himself.

You think the idea just popped into his head on the platform?

How can you possibly suggest this as a response as if it's evidence?

Using the same logic by which you have labelled him selfish with no evidence Merc?

Is the method of disproving a proposition to add your own proposition?