dead Kir5Ty Howard

[Teddy 21]

The point is, that when a child dies, it is generally not as a direct consequence of choices made or actions taken by that child. Children are not responsible for themselves in the same way that adults are.

 

There is a huge difference between the death of a 90 year old who lived a full and long life and a 9 year old whose life has just begun.

For a lot of people, their death is not necessarily a direct consequence of how they lived their lives. In what way would you say that the Pope's death was a consequence of how he lived his? Did celibacy bring on the Parkinsons?

 

And at the end of the day there is little difference between the death of a 9 year old and a 90 year old - they are both dead. Main difference is just how long it took them to make the journey from birth to death.

 

So where do we draw the line? Should we have an age limit for candidates? - no-one under the age of 20? 30? 40?

 

If you believe that mentioning this girl dying is distasteful, may I suggest you also contact the BBC, The Daily Mail, The Scotsman,The Sun, and The Times, all of whom have this week described her as 'terminally-ill Kirsty'

[in eternum+ 20]

The point is, that when a child dies, it is generally not as a direct consequence of choices made or actions taken by that child. Children are not responsible for themselves in the same way that adults are.

 

There is a huge difference between the death of a 90 year old who lived a full and long life and a 9 year old whose life has just begun.

One could argue - NB that's "one", not necessarily "me" - that the two are very similar: neither are actively contributing to society, neither are taken particularly seriously, and more often than not both are dependent on others for support. In fact, "one" could argue that we as a society lose more by the death of the elder than the death of the youth, as with them die knowledge and (some might argue) wisdom.

[Cerberus 273]

For what it's worth, I would support a "no kids" rule, principally because it's a long-standing rule on here that people who are famous merely for being ill (and weren't famous before) aren't considered for the Deathlist. Obviously, young children tend not to be well-known in their own right. I realise that the likes of Jane Tomlinson are still likely to be discussed on the Deathlist forum, but I prefer not to contribute to such discussions.

 

That's my choice, of course.

 

Sorry if that sounds a bit pompous - I'll shut up now.

[Slave to the Grave 22]

Teddy, I think you have misunderstood the point I was trying to make slightly. With adults, quite often, premature death comes either directly or indirectly as a result of choices made and actions taken during life eg drinking, smoking, suicide etc. Most of the younger people discussed on this forum are here because of their own self-abuse or penchant for dangerous living eg George Best, Alex Higging, Pete Doherty, motor racing drivers etc.

 

Then there are those who are discussed on here because they are very old, like the Pope. But the difference with people who have lived to a ripe old age is that they have done just that, they have lived. I agree that physiologically, death is the same for a 90 year old and a 9 year old, but it's (without wishing to sound too emotional) the death of potential for the future that makes the death of a child so different.

 

I don't agree with having a lower age limit, I think it's up to this Forum to regulate itself in that respect, which is effectively what is happening in this case with this discussion. I am merely expressing my own feelings about this particular thread.

 

Finally, I think there is a big difference between simply reporting the fact the Kirsty Howard is terminally ill in the newspapers and the kind of discussion (that generally I enjoy) on this forum.

[Slave to the Grave 22]

The point is, that when a child dies, it is generally not as a direct consequence of choices made or actions taken by that child. Children are not responsible for themselves in the same way that adults are.

 

There is a huge difference between the death of a 90 year old who lived a full and long life and a 9 year old whose life has just begun.

One could argue - NB that's "one", not necessarily "me" - that the two are very similar: neither are actively contributing to society, neither are taken particularly seriously, and more often than not both are dependent on others for support. In fact, "one" could argue that we as a society lose more by the death of the elder than the death of the youth, as with them die knowledge and (some might argue) wisdom.

i e+ I would argue that the elder was once a youth and had they not lived to be an elder then that knowledge and wisdom would not be there to pass on.

[Jimh 4]

Free speech bears a responsibility not to abuse it.  Sorry to sound po-faced but that's the way it is.

Complete and utter bollocks. Free speech is an absolute.

 

I'm also amused by someone else's claim that the kid would not be famous if she did not have some terminal disease so is unworthy of inclusion. Surely that is like saying if we found out that we couldn't add Derek to the list because he is only famous because he can kick a ball straight on the odd occasion. In fact now I come to think about it DL's long term inclusion of HM the QM was unjustified because the reason for her fame was an accident of birth.

 

If I were to make any complaint about her inclusion it would be that it were like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Gunjaman5000 30]

I would argue that 'the child' (indicating any child) is less likely to be noteworthy enough to be drawn to our attention through the fruits of their own endeavours. Miss Howard has been, from what I understand, thrust into the limelight as the face of a fundraising/publicity campaign by way of her condition itself, she didn't audition.

Like Cerebus, I disagree with her and children in a similar position's mention because if there were no illness, there'd be no celebrity.

I agree that physiologically, death is the same for a 90 year old and a 9 year old, but it's (without wishing to sound too emotional) the death of potential for the future that makes the death of a child so different.

I don't disagree with this either, well the sentiment of it anyway, but in my experience the "death of potential future..." isn't something a 9 year old would consider.

"Those who have lost an infant are never, as it were, without an infant child. Their other children grow up to manhood and womanhood, and suffer all the changes of mortality; but this one alone is rendered an immortal child; for death has arrested it with his kindly harshness, and blessed it into an eternal image of youth and innocence." This (for me) gets close.

Kirsty has a rightful place here with anyone else who's met and been photographed with a load of B-List notables. Is merely being in the presence of celebrity reason enough to merit celebrity?

I don't think so.

[Gunjaman5000 30]

Free speech bears a responsibility not to abuse it.  Sorry to sound po-faced but that's the way it is.

Complete and utter bollocks. Free speech is an absolute.

 

I agree. Free speech is an absolute. Good taste however, seems to be another matter.

[Magere Hein 1,397]

Complete and utter bollocks. Free speech is an absolute.

Bollocks indeed. There are legitimate limits to free speech. Libel, perjury and shouting "Fire!" in a full theatre when there isn't are traditional examples.

 

regards,

Hein

[Dr Strangelove 14]

...In fact now I come to think about it DL's long term inclusion of HM the QM was unjustified because the reason for her fame was an accident of birth.

 

If I were to make any complaint about her inclusion it would be that it were like shooting fish in a barrel.

I don't think you've quite understood the rules, people who are famous only for reasons related to their death are excluded. Simple as that.

[The Yeti 14]

There are two separate issues here :

 

Whether someone who is famous just for nearing death should be on the list.

&

Whether children should be on the list.

 

Taking the first - there is a long standing 'rule' that people who are famous just for dying in the nearish future shouldn't be on the list. However the 'list' actually refers to the Top 50 candidates chosen for the year, and potentials for future years. So 'Worlds Oldest Man' isn't sufficient (and it seems to change monthly anyway). And the Howard's & Tomlinson's of this world don't qualify either.

The forums are a different matter - seemingly lately anything goes. The more useless get pruned (Die Brad Pitt !), but it varies. Roughly anything that is relevant (ie death related and vaguely with celebrity status) can stay. Or if we find it amusing. So, for instance, Mo Mowlem, Chuck Berry, even the Osmonds', near demises ARE death related. So they stay on the forum (for now). And this also includes the Tomlinson's & Howard's of this world.

 

Whether children should be on this list - well, argue that they shouldn't ? Why are kids so special that people reading this list (mainly adults & teens) should be protected from the fact that kids die ? Life is tough. Live with it. Or die from it.

I fail to see why on a forum talking, even joking, about the deaths of others, and thereby on the fringes of good taste, means there is some line that shalt not be crossed. Or there is a responsibility involved in this discussions. Don't like death in all its glorious forms ? Go elsewhere. We can't pick and choose the deaths that happen in this world, or who to, or when they happen. Go argue with God if you don't like the idea that children die. Not us - it ain't Deathlist's fault.

Kirsty Howard is in the public eye. She's gonna die. Age is irrelevant. She stays as far as I am concerned.

 

Insert cute picture here of lit'l babie. Awww. Doesn't it make you feel all soft and ... oh God I'm gonna cry. Boohoohoooooooo. ;)

[Slave to the Grave 22]

Yeti, there is always a line drawn by somebody, in this case the moderators, the admins, whoever. The 'more gore' thread was death related but was deleted because it crossed a line drawn by somebody. This is fine, someone makes those judgments, that's what moderators are for I suppose, but everyone has a different threshold and others would maybe draw their line in a different place. Are you suggesting that Forum members shouldn't be able to express their feelings about certain threads because they are at odds with the views of some of the moderators? Is this not censorship also?

 

People aren't being protected from the fact that children die by not discussing them on this forum. Anyone who watches the news is bombarded daily by this very fact. I'm not suggesting that it's deathlist's fault, I'm just expressing my own personal opinion on the subject because a debate was started and I happen to have a view.

[Windsor 2,142]

In fact now I come to think about it DL's long term inclusion of HM the QM was unjustified because the reason for her fame was an accident of birth.

The Queen Mother married into the Royal Family and therefore was not famous due to an accident of birth. She chose to be a member of the Royal family.

 

Anyhow, I believe that it would be impossible for any child to make it onto deathlist because the children who could be candidates are only famous because of their illness. Most if not all child celebrities are not terminally ill and therefore would not be considered for deathlist until later life.

[maryportfuncity 9,990]

I understand your points and don't feel strongly either way. The main suggestion I was making is that we should have one decent thread established - like maybe at the start of a year - on which we can set up some kind of race between the people who are famous simply for being terminally ill. Obviously, this rules them out of the main DL but they're still very much in the thoughts of those of us who post here.

 

If the general feeling is we should leave the kids out of it that's fine.

[Guest Guest]

I'm tempted to say I feel another poll coming on, but I'm not sure that all would feel constrained by the result. As the Yeti says, anything goes on the forum lately.

 

So if some of you want to exchange quips and one-liners about terminally ill kids in the future, by all means go ahead, but, as they say, include me out.

[Cerberus 273]

... and I'll try to remember to log in in future.

[Magere Hein 1,397]

So if some of you want to exchange quips and one-liners about terminally ill kids in the future, by all means go ahead, but, as they say, include me out.

I avoid writing stuff that's certain to meet disapproval by the mods. Fortunately, our Most Esteemed Mods are quite tolerant.

 

Cracking jokes about dying children is close to the edge, tastewise. It's ok if they're funny, but I don't think I'll try.

 

regards,

Hein

[maryportfuncity 9,990]

I was trying to think of where I'd draw the line.

 

Maybe if Sienna Miller turns out to pregnant, splits up for good with Jude Law and rings Marie Stopes.....I mean, does the foetus count?

 

 

I'll get me coat!

 

Incidentally, I reckon the 38 current survivors on the DL will outlive this thread.

[Anubis the Jackal 76]

Maybe if Sienna Miller turns out to pregnant,

Hmmm, interesting...

[maryportfuncity 9,990]

Hatchet man

 

Re the shooting fish in a barrel, you should try it.

 

Firstly the splash of water from the first shot always gets in your eyes before you can close them, the water diverts the bullet making your aim chancy at best and by the time you've blinked your eyes clear of water the inevitable leak in the barrel means a lot of the water has drained out limiting the time available for sport. If you put ten fish in a big wooden barrel you'd be lucky to get five with a revolver before the water had gone. Even with goggles the water gets down your throat, making concentration tough. Don't even think about a metal barrel, the danger of ricochets is too great.

 

Ten stowaways in a lorry back on the other hand.....

[Tuber Mirum 119]

I don't believe we should be discussing this sick child.

 

Arguments about the inclusion of those who are famous because they are sick aside (the unwritten rules seem clear enough on the subject), for purely practical reasons this thread should be deleted.

 

It attracts the wrong kind of attention to the Deathlist (ranters etc.) and shows us in a bad light with those who might otherwise be more tolerant and have something useful to contribute.

 

Citing Free Speech is all well and good, but there are cases where discussing a certain topic, though not actually forbidden, is inadvisible.

 

If we had a poll, it would just come up 50/50 like the Kraut one.

Better would be an arbitrary act of dictatorial decisiveness from the Mods.

[Windsor 2,142]

I agree with the above.

 

Since the Kir5ty thread was created there has been an increase in ranters starting threads.

[The Yeti 14]

Are you suggesting that Forum members shouldn't be able to express their feelings about certain threads because they are at odds with the views of some of the moderators? Is this not censorship also?

I didn't advocate censorship ... in fact the opposite, as the debate started when someone suggested that this thread be deleted in the name of Good Taste.

Well, a) taste is optional ; taste is a personal boundary c) that's censorship.

 

My argument was that the thread should not be deleted just because, effectively, its based on taste. That isn't a criteria I believe should be considered.

 

Still, prove to me that just because a kid (in the news and not by our making) is dying should therefore not have threads ? It seems to rely solely on the fact that its a poor wee kiddie, and entirely an emotional argument, with nothing rational behind it.

[Slave to the Grave 22]

My argument was that the thread should not be deleted just because, effectively, its based on taste. That isn't a criteria I believe should be considered.

 

Still, prove to me that just because a kid (in the news and not by our making) is dying should therefore not have threads ? It seems to rely solely on the fact that its a poor wee kiddie, and entirely an emotional argument, with nothing rational behind it.

Perhaps you can 'prove' to me that no thread has ever been deleted/locked by the moderators of this forum on the grounds of 'taste' or emotion.

 

For example look at the end of the 'world's strongest man' thread, was that not an emotional and irrational response to weeping widows and poor wee kiddies.

 

This being said the 'world's strongest man' thread was, I thought, very entertaining. This thread, is not.

[Guest Mindless Ranter]

And the singular of "criteria" is "criterion".