The case for Axl Rose being bipolar

[Nosaj Thing]

Which is why I think it's key for religious people to take a critical look at their faith and seperate the values of it from the history and mythology of it. Christianity, for example, is an ideology which tells you to love your neighbor, to forgive, to not judge other people, and to value love and relationships with other people. A person living by a Christian outlook ought to have no problem with homosexuality. The anti-homosexual stance of the Christian Church is a holdover from the Jewish traditional lifestyle of 2000 years ago on which early Christianity was founded - it's a useless tradition at odds with the general values of the faith, which should not be followed by modern day Christians.

Both the compassionate and human parts of the particular theism called Christianity as well as the homophobic parts, are confirmed and re-established in the New Testament (by Jesus and Paulus primarily) and hence they both date back to the same time (about 2000 years). I find it challenging to discard parts of the religion's ethics while keeping the "good parts", without having to reject the whole notion that the bible itself is a moral code or indeed, any guide at all to modern people living in 2012. Unfortunately, rejecting the bible and/or parts of it, is met with no understanding from the great majority of people believing in the Christian god. So whereas I agree with you that ideally Christian people should reject the inhuman, indecent, gross parts of their scripture and faith, I don't see how that is possible without discarding the bible alltogether, which, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be an option .

I am also not certain that you can say that there is anything that could be called the "general values of the faith" when it comes to Christianity . Christianity, like any theism that tries to reconcile an existence in a modern, enlightened age with a scripture that dates back almost 1700 years and more, is a complex mixture of dogmas that are both appalling and appealing to compassionate people. Just look at how the larger Christian sects (Catholicism etcetera) have held women back for the last centuries, how they have discriminated against homosexuals, how they have been parts of instigating wars and torture. I am not saying THIS is Christinianity's true nature, either, and I am not denying all the good stuff Christianity has done, just that with any religion that follows the "wisdom" of bronze age goat herders it is bound to be somewhat at odds with modern thinking.

Quit trolling with 500 word Ramblings noone reads.

Nah, SoulMonster do have valid points. Sometimes he's a pain in the ass and just spread nonsense but most of the time, he's spot on.

[SoulMonster]

Quit trolling with 500 word Ramblings noone reads.

Should I do like you, and cupcake with...eight words?

In some cases 500 is required and it is therefore unfortunate if your mental capacity is below that number. Eight will just not always do it. But I do thank you for proving that eight words can hold an infinite amount of ignorance.

Or perhaps I should cave in and present my argument in simple rhyme form, something I think your mind might be more attuned to:

There once was this bloke called Original

who didn't know "earliest", "first" or "virginal"

he once had to read

words 500 indeed

but his mind just shut down after the octoval

Edited May 1, 2012 by SoulMonster

[Flayer]

In Defense of Not Reading Shit

Illiteracy bitch, it ain't no crime,

Tl;dr bitch, I ain't got the time

You made a post with 500 words of shit in it

But what's the use if I can't put my dick in it?

Edited May 1, 2012 by Flayer

[SoulMonster]

Oh, that's hilarious, hahaha

[Kill Devil Hill]

Well, this thread's quality has dropped drastically.

[Apollo]

Uhm, name one thing that exists and in principle can't be explained by science alone.

Existential truth

What is existential truth and how do you know it exists?

moral truths.

How do you know moral truths exist? Of course scientific methods can be used to study what people people think is morally right or wrong; you seem to believe there is something called moral truth that exists outside of the human consciousness but I have seen no evidence of that. And why humans have morals is easily explained by science.

Science provides no answer as to whether something is right or wrong.

Morally right or wrong, right? Of course scientific methods can be used to study what people people think is morally right or wrong.

With regards to eugenics, for example, science cannot say whether it would be morally right or wrong

What is morally right or wrong is what people think is right or wrong. This can easily be explored using scientific methods (or rather, simple surveys and statistics). Again, you seem to believe there is something called universal moral existing beyond the human mind.

however, the philosophy could still be of value to a rational person seeing as science cannot explain philosophical concepts.

Can't science explain philosophical concepts? Name one...

Your own answer just demonstrated that science does not explain any of these philosophical concepts - it can account for the fact that these concepts exist and examine the what and the how of the ways people approach them, but it is not a vehicle to actually reaching conclusions about them. A purely scientific point of view can only conclude that there is no definitive morality, that it's just a subjective human invention.

However, morality is a useful subjective human invention, one that most people generally want to have, and a religious/spiritual/philosophical approach is more useful in reaching that than a scientific one.

Good post Flayer.

It is interesting to see how adamant and confident soul is that his way of believing is 100% correct.

Christians base their belief on the bible, which is how old? The bible never changes.

Guys like soul base their " belief or faith" on the latest methods or whatever the newest technology says. Even though even he admits that scientific evidence changes. Sometimes daily. And the things you have faith in or believe in today.....ten years from now, scientific evidence will prove a portion of it is incorrect.

We all have faith or belief in something. The book I believe in stays the same. It doesn't change every year.

I think that's a main reason non-believers get so mad at people who believe. It infuriates them that believers won't take their scientific facts as gospel.....but they can't defend the fact that their scientific proof is always changing!!!! Showing that their proof/faith basis are based on things that might not ne true!!!! Sort of funny if u think about it.

[maynard]

axl is just an arrogant millionaire who is surrounded by people who please him in every way possible so they can get a good paycheck.

he had a troubled life and had a gigantic turn-around and suddenly from being hated by some he was being "loved" by everybody.

add drugs to the mix. add money, law suits, women. hell, any normal human being would get fucking mental.

it's amazing the guy didn't kill himself at some point. even considering all this spiritual stuff a little hard to believe, i guess that it might have saved axl, eventually.

i don't think axl has any mental issues, in his peak he looked like a person who could handle all the shit. after UYI era, though, i guess things got ugly and since then he's being this really "interesting" person.

no, i didn't study psychology. no, i'm not expert in anything. yes, i'm an entitled to my opinion and i'm probably (certainly) wrong. so, not necessary to post any of these comments axl loyal real true holy fans.

just an opinion, take it easy.

[Apollo]

Look at the emails from the global warming experts.

I'm not implying that science is a joke or that scientific facts don't mean anything. I'm simply stating that we all base our beliefs in a book, and we all have faith that the facts in that book are true.

A poll taken by the Minnesota's Health Partners Research Foundation and published in Nature magazine of American scientists showed that 33% of them admitted to breaking rules designed to insure the integrity of their work. Examples including changing study results to fit the result they wanted. So when you come to me and say the bible OS wrong, and you have scientific proof as to why........does that scientific proof come from the science team that fibs on their results??????? That is who you are putting your faith in - other humans.

[One.In.A.Million]

I think Axl is simply a perfectionist in every sense of the word, and it sometimes consumes his personal life by wanting everything to be his way. In an artistical sense, this means that things may take time to work, but when they do, it is going to be magical.

I do think Axl has been surrounded by alot of "Yes" people, but alot of those people are behind the scenes trying to get a piece of Axl so to speak.... and I don't think Axl would deny that to be honest. It used to be that Axl had to fight his way to the top, by annoying people, and going against the grain. Where now, he is surrounded by people who will do just about anything to please Axl, which makes it alot harder for Axl as he needs honest answers in his quest for perfection.

Of course it's all open to interpretation, just my "Illusions" so to speak.

[SoulMonster]

It is interesting to see how adamant and confident soul is that his way of believing is 100% correct.

Christians base their belief on the bible, which is how old? The bible never changes.

Guys like soul base their " belief or faith" on the latest methods or whatever the newest technology says. Even though even he admits that scientific evidence changes. Sometimes daily. And the things you have faith in or believe in today.....ten years from now, scientific evidence will prove a portion of it is incorrect.

We all have faith or belief in something. The book I believe in stays the same. It doesn't change every year.

I think that's a main reason non-believers get so mad at people who believe. It infuriates them that believers won't take their scientific facts as gospel.....but they can't defend the fact that their scientific proof is always changing!!!! Showing that their proof/faith basis are based on things that might not ne true!!!! Sort of funny if u think about it.

There is a huge difference between realizing that science is the most trust-worthy method we have for figuring things out, and believing in religious revelation (prayers, scriptures, religious epiphanies). The former depends on the presence of rationality and logics, whereas the latter depends on the absence of rationality and logic or at least their subjugation. "Faith" is a word used for this trust in religious dogma despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, we don't use that word for the logical realization that science is a remarkable tool for getting to grips with the world.

It is true that science isn't infallible. The methodology used is pretty strong, but unfortunately it is humans that use them. The good thing about how science is done is that it is always open for correction. So even if some erroneous evidence is brought in, sooner or later it will be corrected by others. Groghan says I can't defend this, I say this is one of the greatest things about science. What does this mean? It means that science never say something is a fact. It is all models and theories with varying degrees of supporting evidence. Even the Earth's orbit around the Sun is a scientific theory. It is of course supported by a stupendous amount of evidence, with little or no disagreeing evidence. But still.

Again, this is in contrast to religious faith which is based upon the absence of evidence and in fact demands that the followers believe even when contradicting evidence exist.

This doesn't mean that science as a whole should be distrusted, or that it changes all the time, like one could interpret Groghan's post. It is only at the very front of science, where new things are studied for the first time, where hypotheses are made, that things are pretty shaky. It doesn't take long before corroborating evidence comes in and the theories gets strong and can't really be overturned. As soon as multiple scientists have confirmed what other have done by duplicating their experiments, and used those results as basis for new hypotheses which have then been tested to be true, it is as good as a fact. An example is the particle experiment from last year where scientists found evidence that contradicted with Einstein's theories that nothing can ravel faster than light. This is at the very front of science, with only one experiment to support the new theory. There are many things that could be wrong with these results. We'd be wise to wait a little bit before jumping to conclusion on that one . Earth's orbit around the sun, the theory of atomic structure, how life on Earth evolves, man-made component to the observed climate change, are, on the other hand, extremely well-supported theories with a huge amount of supporting evidence and very little disagreeing evidence, that we'd be safe to trust.

The reason why people of rationality is opposed to people who have discarded theirs in favour of scripture and religious dogma, is quite simply because these faith-driven people are often an obstacle to enlightenment, progress, and science.

Edited May 2, 2012 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

Look at the emails from the global warming experts.

I'm not implying that science is a joke or that scientific facts don't mean anything. I'm simply stating that we all base our beliefs in a book, and we all have faith that the facts in that book are true.

A poll taken by the Minnesota's Health Partners Research Foundation and published in Nature magazine of American scientists showed that 33% of them admitted to breaking rules designed to insure the integrity of their work. Examples including changing study results to fit the result they wanted. So when you come to me and say the bible OS wrong, and you have scientific proof as to why........does that scientific proof come from the science team that fibs on their results??????? That is who you are putting your faith in - other humans.

I've already explained why there is a fundamental difference in trusting science and believing in revelation, so I won't go there again.

I don't say the bible is wrong in its entirety, I say that parts of it is wrong and that it can't unconditionally be used as a source of information on how things work. For instance the first creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In the bible, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite. So to answer our question: I trust thousands of astrophysics, geologists, and biologists -- in fact the whole body of scientists within these fields -- rather than the uninformed creation myth of some ignorant nomadic goat herders from prehistoric times. That is the rational thing to do.

Edited May 2, 2012 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

A poll taken by the Minnesota's Health Partners Research Foundation and published in Nature magazine of American scientists showed that 33% of them admitted to breaking rules designed to insure the integrity of their work. Examples including changing study results to fit the result they wanted.

Other examples include 'inadequate record keeping' and 'having questionable relationships with students' . In fact, the percentage of scientists who admitted to serious rule-breaking, rather than trivial things as I just mentioned, like falsifying results, were far below 33 %. I admit this is serious and I am not trivializing it, but again, science have built in mechanisms for detecting serious rule-breaking and it is only a matter of time before any erroneous/false results in the scientific body is picked up and corrected. In fact, this very study you refer to which was presented in Nature, one of the scientific journals with the highest impact factor, is a testament to these mechanisms.

And just to repeat my point from earlier: we don't trust individual scientists and their evidence (because humans err) but the conclusions derived from accumulated scientific evidence that has been collected over time from numerous research teams around the world doing their work and building models and theories.

[sailaway]

A poll taken by the Minnesota's Health Partners Research Foundation and published in Nature magazine of American scientists showed that 33% of them admitted to breaking rules designed to insure the integrity of their work. Examples including changing study results to fit the result they wanted.

Other examples include 'inadequate record keeping' and 'having questionable relationships with students' . In fact, the percentage of scientists who admitted to serious rule-breaking, rather than trivial things as I just mentioned, like falsifying results, were far below 33 %. I admit this is serious and I am not trivializing it, but again, science have built in mechanisms for detecting serious rule-breaking and it is only a matter of time before any erroneous/false results in the scientific body is picked up and corrected. In fact, this very study you refer to which was presented in Nature, one of the scientific journals with the highest impact factor, is a testament to these mechanisms.

And just to repeat my point from earlier: we don't trust individual scientists and their evidence (because humans err) but the conclusions derived from accumulated scientific evidence that has been collected over time from numerous research teams around the world doing their work and building models and theories.

*The Dr. Seuss Science manual*

I have an opinion,yes I do

And I will not stop until I convince you

Science is all anyone would need

And Dexter will certainly make you bleed

Edited May 3, 2012 by sailaway

[sailaway]

In Defense of Not Reading Shit

Illiteracy bitch, it ain't no crime,

Tl;dr bitch, I ain't got the time

You made a post with 500 words of shit in it

But what's the use if I can't put my dick in it?

Ha! You listening to Slim Shady Flayer?

[sailaway]

What the fuck is that block of text supposed to prove Sailaway? I just read Soulmonster's post - which is 100% correct and pretty obvious to anyone even vaguely familiar with evolution and then you post this copy/pasted block about Scientists with a grossly loose definition of "spirituality" attached to it.... How does that counter that charisma and creativity are not evolutionary traits? I don't know why I'm getting involved in this but I guess it's just my disdain for ignorance.

You have no idea how evolution works if you don't get his explanation for charisma and creativity.

There's no need to get into a debate about if charisma or creativity can be explained by science.

Of course, they can. Everything can.

I'm going to throw out a wide guess and say it's a balance of chemicals in the brain. Some amounts lead people to be docile, uncreative, orderly, while other amounts of this (mystery to me, could very well be completely known) chemical lead people to think outside the box. That, and one's upbringing. Of course the amount of creativity will vary person to person but we can all admit that even the least creative of us are more creative than almost every other animal on Earth so to say "you're either born with it or you're not"... you just don't get evolution.

Whenever in history people say "science can't explain that, you need faith/it's the work of something higher" it ends up getting fully explained by science. It's very well understood that a particular balance of chemicals in the brain cause depression so to think it would jump from that to something "higher" for a different trait like creativity is.... quite a gosh darn leap of faith.

EDIT: There was a point in my life when I thought like Flayer (who's obviously a smart guy) that "spirituality and science are separate, there's no need for either to breach on eachother's 'turf' and people should believe whatever they want". That sounds great, that sounds liberal (which I am) but unfortunately the more science learns.... it starts stepping into "spirituality's" space and imo spirituality is the one that has to adapt, or evolve, to cope with the changes. If your faith says the world is 6000 years old, well, too bad for you. Why? Because you're going to misinform your children with the same shit and that we as a society shouldn't tolerate. Your faith says evolution doesn't happen? Well, too bad, I suggest you don't try and get involved in biology or your head might explode. Your faith says being homosexual is a sin punishable by death? Well, fuck you. Tonnes of species have gay members but only one, due to religion, is homophobic. (what's unnatural now hmm?).

Science and a growing evolving morality go hand in hand and it is why the West is now so much more advanced scientifically and morally better than countries and times dominated by religion. If people's spirituality gets in the way of that.... THEY have to get out of the way and let civilized society progress or move to Afghanistan or something.

Wrong,I read it but I don't agree with it, and please don't combine spirituality and religion,there is a world of difference. Organized Religion has caused more wars and deaths than any other reason.

They say that serial killers are exposed to a excess of Seratonin in the womb before birth,and that an extra chromasome can affect individuals in a variety of ways.

I never said I was pro-creationism,evolution obviously makes more sense,that said,I don't believe in a big bearded guy up in the clouds that watches us all like some holy voyeur,but I am spiritual.

I believe in Karma,as well.

If humans could bottle Charisma and talent they certainly would've cashed in on those billion dollar babies.

Imo,it is up to the individual what they believe in,I have friends who are Atheist,Agnostic and ecclectic-spiritual as I am.We have interesting conversations and nobody attempts to convert anyone to their basic beliefs.

This certainly has drifted from the original topic,I'll be glad to further discuss religion,Science and/or Politics with you guys,but I think we should use the appropriate section.

[Flayer]

In Defense of Not Reading Shit

Illiteracy bitch, it ain't no crime,

Tl;dr bitch, I ain't got the time

You made a post with 500 words of shit in it

But what's the use if I can't put my dick in it?

Ha! You listening to Slim Shady Flayer?

So far out of my territory I had to look it up to find out he was Eminem.

[sailaway]

In Defense of Not Reading Shit

Illiteracy bitch, it ain't no crime,

Tl;dr bitch, I ain't got the time

You made a post with 500 words of shit in it

But what's the use if I can't put my dick in it?

Ha! You listening to Slim Shady Flayer?

So far out of my territory I had to look it up to find out he was Eminem.

Ha! That comment completely slayed me

Despite the fact that I'm still giggling to myself (makes people wonder what I'm up to) excellent sense of humor and the intelligence to convey it!

[PirateChick]

I really ask, do we care if Axl is bipolar or not? Who gives a fuck. Goddamn people, stop creating stupid threads for no reason.

I totally agree

Some people think Axl is crazy because he doesn't do what they want

[sailaway]

I really ask, do we care if Axl is bipolar or not? Who gives a fuck. Goddamn people, stop creating stupid threads for no reason.

I totally agree

Some people think Axl is crazy because he doesn't do what they want

Refusing to obey and submit, not wanting to "jump and be good",and refusing to "shut up and sing"

All that sounds vaguely familiar,I'm sure I heared it sumewhare.

[Flayer]

I really ask, do we care if Axl is bipolar or not? Who gives a fuck. Goddamn people, stop creating stupid threads for no reason.

I totally agree

Some people think Axl is crazy because he doesn't do what they want

Refusing to obey and submit, not wanting to "jump and be good",and refusing to "shut up and sing"

All that sounds vaguely familiar,I'm sure I heared it sumewhare.

I Am the Walrus.

[sailaway]

I really ask, do we care if Axl is bipolar or not? Who gives a fuck. Goddamn people, stop creating stupid threads for no reason.

I totally agree

Some people think Axl is crazy because he doesn't do what they want

Refusing to obey and submit, not wanting to "jump and be good",and refusing to "shut up and sing"

All that sounds vaguely familiar,I'm sure I heared it sumewhare.

I Am the Walrus.

Goo-Goo-Ca-Choo! John rocked a mean "Stache"

[The_Universal_Sigh]

In Defense of Not Reading Shit

Illiteracy bitch, it ain't no crime,

Tl;dr bitch, I ain't got the time

You made a post with 500 words of shit in it

But what's the use if I can't put my dick in it?

Ha! You listening to Slim Shady Flayer?

So far out of my territory I had to look it up to find out he was Eminem.

haahahaha

So it's fair to assume you're not between the ages of 20-30 right? How can you not know who the REAL slim shady is?!?!

Sick verse yooooooo

Bitch I'ma kill you! Like a murder weapon, I'ma conceal you

in a closet with mildew, sheets, pillows and film you

Buck with me, I been through hell, shut the hell up!

I'm trying to develop these pictures of the Devil to sell 'em

I ain't "acid rap," but I rap on acid

Got a new blow-up doll and just had a strap-on added

WHOOPS! Is that a subliminal hint? NO!

Just criminal intent to sodomize women again

Eminem offend? NO! Eminem insult

And if you ever give in to him, you give him an impulse

to do it again, THEN, if he does it again

you'll probably end up jumping out of something up on the 10th

(Ah!) Bitch I'ma kill you, I ain't done this ain't the chorus

I ain't even drug you in the woods yet to paint the forest

A bloodstain is orange after you wash it three or four times

in a tub but that's normal ain't it Norman?

Serial killer hiding murder material

in a cereal box on top of your stereo

Here we go again, we're out of our medicine

out of our minds, and we want in yours, let us in

[sailaway]

In Defense of Not Reading Shit

Illiteracy bitch, it ain't no crime,

Tl;dr bitch, I ain't got the time

You made a post with 500 words of shit in it

But what's the use if I can't put my dick in it?

Ha! You listening to Slim Shady Flayer?

So far out of my territory I had to look it up to find out he was Eminem.

haahahaha

So it's fair to assume you're not between the ages of 20-30 right? How can you not know who the REAL slim shady is?!?!

Sick verse yooooooo

Bitch I'ma kill you! Like a murder weapon, I'ma conceal you

in a closet with mildew, sheets, pillows and film you

Buck with me, I been through hell, shut the hell up!

I'm trying to develop these pictures of the Devil to sell 'em

I ain't "acid rap," but I rap on acid

Got a new blow-up doll and just had a strap-on added

WHOOPS! Is that a subliminal hint? NO!

Just criminal intent to sodomize women again

Eminem offend? NO! Eminem insult

And if you ever give in to him, you give him an impulse

to do it again, THEN, if he does it again

you'll probably end up jumping out of something up on the 10th

(Ah!) Bitch I'ma kill you, I ain't done this ain't the chorus

I ain't even drug you in the woods yet to paint the forest

A bloodstain is orange after you wash it three or four times

in a tub but that's normal ain't it Norman?

Serial killer hiding murder material

in a cereal box on top of your stereo

Here we go again, we're out of our medicine

out of our minds, and we want in yours, let us in

Music to kill serial with

[The Gunner]

Fuck bipolarity, and fuck doctors, and fuck their bullshit diagnoses. I'm pretty sure I have 'bipolar disorder' myself, I never went to a psychiatrist, but did some tests, and read about it. I think the part in 'Don't Damn Me' explains it best:

"Sometimes I wanna kill,
Sometimes I wanna die
Sometimes I wanna destroy
Sometimes I wanna cry
Sometimes I could get even
Sometimes I could give up
Sometimes I could give
Sometimes I never give a fuck!"

Yes, that's what it's like for Axl, and a thousand more of us. Not a fucking disorder, just a way of life. We are normal. Just a bit more.... I remember thinking about killing myself over some things one night, and literally not giving a fuck about any of those things in the morning. And that's just me. Imagine Axl with all he's been through. So cut the guy some slack, and fuck off with your diagnosis bullshit

[RockerRoller]

Fuck bipolarity, and fuck doctors, and fuck their bullshit diagnoses. I'm pretty sure I have 'bipolar disorder' myself, I never went to a psychiatrist, but did some tests, and read about it. I think the part in 'Don't Damn Me' explains it best:

"Sometimes I wanna kill,

Sometimes I wanna die

Sometimes I wanna destroy

Sometimes I wanna cry

Sometimes I could get even

Sometimes I could give up

Sometimes I could give

Sometimes I never give a fuck!"

Yes, that's what it's like for Axl, and a thousand more of us. Not a fucking disorder, just a way of life. We are normal. Just a bit more.... I remember thinking about killing myself over some things one night, and literally not giving a fuck about any of those things in the morning. And that's just me. Imagine Axl with all he's been through. So cut the guy some slack, and fuck off with your diagnosis bullshit

glad there's more than just me who thinks like this, i'm seeing a therapist now and she wants me on medicine, but i've notice that meditating and smoking cannabis occasionally while getting in good exercise and sleep helps me out much much more.