100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: Finnish on October 27, 2008, 05:04:32 PM

Title: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: Finnish on October 27, 2008, 05:04:32 PM
Most Death fans will say he died of cancer, why does the review of spiritual healing say he died of aids? was he gay in real life? am I missing something?
Title: Re: quick questiong about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: ASBO on October 27, 2008, 05:16:04 PM
Chuck Schuldiner, Christianity, AIDS and Death Metal (http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php/topic,639.0.html)

Chuck Schuldiner Died of AIDS (http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php?topic=2655.15)

Chuck Schuldiner: The Pity Party Never Ends (http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php?topic=2436.0)

Death Did Not Come Before Possessed (http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php/topic,3959.0.html)

Chuck Died of AIDS (http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/general-metal-discussion/315931-chuck-schuldiner-memorial-thread.html) (why anus.com is filtered to ***.com on ultimatemetal.com)

Did Chuck Die of AIDS? (http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=493249&highlight=&sid=5ba1651222316fad4c0cf7a9c3364b41) (we are no longer banned on metal-archives.com, but have been multiple times in the past)

Chuck Schuldiner Died of AIDS (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/remembering-schuldiner-171621.html) (we are banned from this neo-Nazi site for saying that Russian average IQ is 96)

Chuck died of AIDS:

* Pneumonia is COD on his death certificate; is most common diagnosis of person with AIDS.
* Zero access to medical records.
* Known risky MSM (men sleeping with men) behavior including blowing young boys behind shows.
* His declining appearance was more consistent with AIDS than a cancer.
(http://www.fark.com/CHUCK_SCHULDINER_DIED_OF_AIDS)
(http://www.cnn.com/CHUCK_SCHULDINER_DIED_OF_AIDS)
(http://www.metal-archives.com/CHUCK_SCHULDINER_DIED_OF_AIDS)
(http://www.reddit.com/CHUCK_SCHULDINER_DIED_OF_AIDS)
(http://www.returntothepit.com/CHUCK_SCHULDINER_DIED_OF_AIDS)
(http://www.lambgoat.com/CHUCK_SCHULDINER_DIED_OF_AIDS)
(http://www.smnnews.com/CHUCK_SCHULDINER_DIED_OF_AIDS)
Title: Re: quick questiong about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: Clef_Burton on October 29, 2008, 03:22:41 PM
"I cant talk about my dads death. I could say if he'd died of cancer, but I cant say my dad died of Aids."

Cancer is also the most common cover up for clandestine AIDS victims wishing to keep the truth from their family and friends (http://www.headliners.org/storylibrary/stories/1999/thelonelylifeofateenagerwithaids.htm?id=4246437091469385920097)
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: esoteric on October 29, 2008, 05:23:58 PM
Why would he want to cover it up? You can get the HIV virus by a lot of ways, you know.
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: Anfäuglir on October 29, 2008, 07:47:59 PM
Like fucking a guy in the ass.
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: esoteric on October 29, 2008, 10:43:55 PM
Like fucking a guy in the ass.

And blood transfusions, needle sharing or any blood contact at all.
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: Humanicide on October 29, 2008, 11:31:25 PM
just because Chuck may or may not have had AIDS, doesnt mean he had to do a guy to get it.

and so what if he did die of AIDS? doesnt stop me from liking Death's first few albums. sexual orientation has nothing to do with quality of music.
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: Clef_Burton on October 30, 2008, 05:19:41 AM
Why would he want to cover it up? You can get the HIV virus by a lot of ways, you know.

Why would he cover up the fact he had AIDS if he got it from a dirty needle or something similar?
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: Thamuz on October 30, 2008, 06:05:04 AM
Why would he want to cover it up? You can get the HIV virus by a lot of ways, you know.

Why would he cover up the fact he had AIDS if he got it from a dirty needle or something similar?
Gee, I fucking wonder.
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: scourge on October 30, 2008, 07:12:53 AM
I met him 20 years ago on the Leprosy tour. We were hanging around the stage exit talking to one of the band members when Chuck showed up. He looked to me, cast me an unsettling smile, then noticed my girlfriend beside me. He then frowned, looked down and stormed off without a word. It is memory of these details that has me convinced the new information is a sad, ugly truth after all.
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: esoteric on October 30, 2008, 07:26:39 AM
Why would he want to cover it up? You can get the HIV virus by a lot of ways, you know.

Why would he cover up the fact he had AIDS if he got it from a dirty needle or something similar?

The implication was that he didn't cover anything up. Maybe it's time to grow up?
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: istaros on October 30, 2008, 07:43:07 AM
Why would he want to cover it up? You can get the HIV virus by a lot of ways, you know.

Why would he cover up the fact he had AIDS if he got it from a dirty needle or something similar?
Gee, I fucking wonder.

circular reasoning isn't very convincing
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: ASBO on October 30, 2008, 08:33:04 AM
Most people have trouble admitting any illness. It's awkward and makes people nervous.

Do you want to be tell your neighbors:

* I have cancer.
* I've got Ebola.
* I have AIDS!
* My colon wound is draining.

No, you'd rather keep it lite 'n' friendly. Note for antisocial metalheads: it's considered bad form to mention things that connect us to death (pooping, dying, disease, fornication and misery) in polite company, because it makes everyone uneasy as they assess their own status regarding The Grim Reaper Sans Lube.

But if you had to tell them the above... you might prefer they think you lost the cancer lottery, instead of having them wonder if you're an IV drug user or anal banditry expert.
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: istaros on October 30, 2008, 09:19:29 AM
that's understood. but the following is a logical fallacy:

"if he really had AIDS, why would he have hidden it?"
"because he was a spunk chugger and didn't want people to find out."
"and how do you know he was a spunk chugger?"
"because he hid the fact he had aids."

and it's one of the most common arguments i see here. it's not any different from someone claiming the Bible is the word of god because it says so, and that its so is believable since it's the word of god. the two claims are supported by nothing other than each other, in that kind of argument - it's a bit like trying to build a suspension bridge without any earth under the supports

to note, i don't care if he died of AIDS or not. all the evidence that i've come across through here is pretty inconclusive, but not so much so that it's dismissible outright. truth is, i'll probably never know for certain if he did contract AIDS, nor do i care if i ever do. it would change absolutely nothing in my existence, objective or subjective, to find out he did or didn't. it is fun to rile the fanboys, however
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: ASBO on October 30, 2008, 09:44:13 AM
"if he really had AIDS, why would he have hidden it?"
"because he was a spunk chugger and didn't want people to find out."
"and how do you know he was a spunk chugger?"
"because he hid the fact he had aids."

Your summary of it is a logical fallacy. The argument here suggests he had AIDS based on his known high-risk lifestyle, the way his death was covered up, and medical evidence like the cause of death. That his death was covered up IS acceptable evidence for AIDS being the cause, because people frequently hide that cause of death. It is not the sole support of the argument, nor is it used in the way you describe; we know he had a high-risk lifestyle, and the coverup of his death is good proof for types of death THAT ARE COMMONLY COVERED UP.
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: istaros on October 30, 2008, 09:58:19 AM
the interchange i originally quoted did use the argument exactly in the way i described, and it's not the only instance in which i've seen it. and no, all the elements you referred to(and didn't refer to) do not collectively provide proof, because proof is irrefutable by definition. you have evidence. this may seem like semantic nit-picking, but the difference is huge.

as i suggested before, i'm not interested in convincing anyone he did or didn't have AIDS - and i'm familiar with the arguments for saying he did. they aren't absolute, and they rely almost fully on speculation and personal experiences, but it doesn't matter, because that isn't what i'm addressing. circular logic is employed in discussions of this issue, regularly - saying it is a logical fallacy to notice an inherent flaw in a statement doesn't make the flaw go away. which one makes more sense: defending an ineffective argument, or making an effective one?
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: ASBO on October 30, 2008, 11:26:48 AM
which one makes more sense: defending an ineffective argument, or making an effective one?

Then make an effective one.

People are going to use bad logic on these boards, but to lump all arguments asserting a truth in with other bad ones is a fallacy.

FFS
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: istaros on October 30, 2008, 12:27:34 PM
it seems you misunderstood - i wasn't negating all arguments, just the one to which i initially referred
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: ASBO on October 30, 2008, 01:24:17 PM
it's one of the most common arguments i see here. it's not any different from someone claiming the Bible is the word of god because it says so, and that its so is believable since it's the word of god.

I think you're misinterpreting what is being argued here.

A: Chuck had AIDS.
B: Why didn't he tell anyone?
A: Would you tell someone if you had AIDS?
B: But that's not proof.
A: I never claimed it was.

We are trying to reduce the "bicker factor" here and I think there are better ways to do it.....

(http://www.fark.com/CHUCK_SCHULDINER_DIED_OF_AIDS)
(http://www.cnn.com/CHUCK_SCHULDINER_DIED_OF_AIDS)
(http://www.metal-archives.com/CHUCK_SCHULDINER_DIED_OF_AIDS)
(http://www.reddit.com/CHUCK_SCHULDINER_DIED_OF_AIDS)
(http://www.returntothepit.com/CHUCK_SCHULDINER_DIED_OF_AIDS)
(http://www.lambgoat.com/CHUCK_SCHULDINER_DIED_OF_AIDS)
(http://www.smnnews.com/CHUCK_SCHULDINER_DIED_OF_AIDS)
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: istaros on October 30, 2008, 01:45:02 PM
i know, and i wasn't intending to bicker - not just because of that, but rather because i never want to. although i do think it's useful to point out errors, as this can illustrate an avenue towards better information(even if they turn out to be errors in the perception of the one who sees them, enlightenment is achievable via either result), i don't engage in meaningless confrontation

my issue is in how often encounter:

A: Chuck had AIDS.
B: How do you know he had AIDS?
A: [valid argument, valid argument], and he hid it, and [valid argument].

that specific piece of pseudo-evidence holds no merit. it's a leap of faith to go from "medical records weren't made public"(fact) to "because he had AIDS"(conjecture). being unable to disprove something does not prove the opposite is true; i wasn't raping north Dallas women last night just because i live alone and therefore don't have an alibi
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: uvanimon on October 30, 2008, 01:50:44 PM
it's a troll, you doofuses... and obviously a very effective one.

people seem to forget that ANUS is/was a troll organization, in part.

I have the feeling that the Chuck Schuldiner Died of AIDS troll is what ANUS is most famous for, and it has no appearance of weakening either. I can't believe people are still bringing this up- not that it's a really a bad thing, just highlighting the effectiveness of this meme.
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: esoteric on October 30, 2008, 02:28:36 PM
It's not going to be an effective troll if there is little evidence for it. If I wanted to defame Quorthon I could claim he suffocated in a pool of semen. There's no evidence to the contrary, and no evidence that I can find that he died of heart failure, but that's not the point because what I really want to say is "I hate Quorthon/Chuck". I still think it's better to target Chuck's music, because most of it sucks and there are plenty of reasons not to listen to it aside from Chuck's sexual orientation.
Title: Re: quick question about Chuck Schuldiner
Post by: ASBO on October 30, 2008, 02:56:36 PM
Are you volunteering to do the research? If not, maybe your advice is just the bickering of an internet person.