Here's a pretty insightful interview about the Benoit murders straight from Nancy Benoit's sister. This quote especially stood out to me
"The medical examiner told us after the autopsy that Chris was on his way to death within 10 months. His heart was huge, about 3 times normal size, and it was ready to blow up at any moment."
That's just frigthening. Here's the full interview below.
Yeah, the "roid rage" angle always gets overplayed with the Benoit deal. He had drug problems WAY worse than steroids. Plus a neck that was falling apart and a brain that was turning to mush. Much like Eddie Guerrero, even if he hadn't died on that particular occasion, the clock was pretty much at midnight for him.
This is a really great interview, by the way. She's very well-spoken and actually comes across as knowing about the wrestling business.
"Since the investigation’s conclusions were released, WWE has made the decision to ban Chris’ name and likeness from the company in spite of the fact that he was one of the best technical wrestlers the business has ever seen. On the week following the tragedy, Vince McMahon took an oath on air before the SmackDown broadcast to never pronounce Chris Benoit’s name again on WWE programming. How do you feel about this decision?"
ReplyDeleteUgh. What a terrible question.
Not to mention, he made the oath on ECW, not Smackdown.
ReplyDeleteIt would have been a perfectly fine question too, if it wasn't for adding "in spite of the fact...."
ReplyDeleteYeah that's the problem I have with it. I hope this douche never sees a Benoit match on WWE tv ever again.
ReplyDeleteNot to open a can of worms, but the nature, severity, and even biological mechanism of "roid rage" is still open to debate. To blame Benoit's behavior entirely on "roid rage" is a huge stretch, considering his problems with other drugs and concussion history. If the steroids were involved in his behavior they were a contributing factor, part of a terrible collision of many negative variables, and not "the reason."
ReplyDeleteYou two have obviously never been to other corners of the IWC. There was a movement to get Benoit's name trending on Twitter, people held up "Happy Anniversary Chris" signs on Raw, and I got Happy Crossface Day wishes. So basically, whoever asked that question would be right at home in some parts of the IWC.
ReplyDeleteYeah that's ugly.
ReplyDeletefuck "the IWC". shit's stupid.
ReplyDeleteYou know, people were cheering for Aaron Hernandez this week when he was brought in for charges of FIRST DEGREE MURDER and someone in a mock draft I did thought it would be funny to draft him first... so it's not just wrestling fans who are sick fuckos.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention "Without any further ado, here is the transcript of my interview with
ReplyDeleteSandra Toffoloni, sister of Nancy Benoit and sister-in-law of Chris
Benoit. Enjoy!"
Yes. I will "Enjoy!" this article about the emotions behind a brutal double murder.
There's a difference between dark humor and chucking a "in spite of him being the greatest technical wrestler of ALL-TIME" into a serious question in a serious interview.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, it's a great interview, but damn, edit your shit.
Interesting interview...glad it's out there.
ReplyDeleteI said it's good that Benoit's brain were examined. And if the only way that was going to happen is if he did what he did. And if because of the investigation into his brain and the increased awareness about concussions more than two lives were saved?
ReplyDeleteYes, it was a good thing.
The only reason there's more care taken towards concussions and drug abuse is because of shit like the double murder and suicide.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with flair4dagold, though: it wasn't a disturbing comment at all. Thoughtless, insensitive, poorly thought out - those are terms I'd liken more to your comments.
"9/11 was awful... Buuuut it was a good thing because now we're more adept and prepared for terrorism."
No act exists in a vacuum.
ReplyDeleteThere is always a reason, and there is always a result.
IYou can't take my philosophy and apply it to every scenario because every scenario is unique. That's the entire point. No act is inherently good or inherently evil. We need to consider the results of each act independently to measure the good or bad of something.
9/11 was awful because ten thousand Americans died, millions of innocent Iraqi's were turned into refugee's and trillions of dollars were wasted. That's evil. Not the explosion, but the death and mayhem that resulted from such an explosion.
I am not into football at all (well, I am but soccer = football to me) but there is a difference between being charged and being found guilty.
ReplyDeleteI think Toffoloni is not right about the situation between Nancy and Chris. if there wasn't serious stuff going on in their home, why would Nancy fear for the safety of her son?
ReplyDelete...Yeah, that doesn't have anything to do with your previous posts.
ReplyDelete"We need to consider the results of each act independently to measure the good or bad of something."
How utilitarian. Nevertheless, you repeat yourself: "Something isn't good or evil until we've dealt with the fallout." Obviously, this sounds retarded for other harsher subjects. That's beside the point, and the point is (or should be) that the benefits of particular acts do not erase the morality, or lack thereof, of said acts.
In (modern) wrestling, there has never been anything as terrible as the Benoit Incident. Your point was that if it had never happened, WWE wouldn't have advanced in their prevention of something like that happening again. The problem with that logic is that something like this probably wasn't going to happen again anyway.
Even with hindsight, everyone would've been better off with Benoit's heart exploding before he could've done anything. With Guerrero's and his deaths, the Wellness Policy probably would've gone ahead anyway.
What a courageous woman to be able to speak about this with such a level head. I hope that this helps to get a clearer picture of what really went on that weekend. The thing is, she attributes it to steroids, Mike Benoit attributes it to concussions, and the role of painkiller abuse and alcoholism needs to also be considered, and none of them are wrong. Benoit was a powder keg.
ReplyDeleteScott, thank you very much for sharing this article with us. Considering the combination of depression (from the loss of all his friends, et al), prescription medication, alcohol, and testosterone supplements I believe the statement "blacked out" sums up what happened that weekend. However, in no way, shape, or form do I condone his actions whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteI too liken Chris Benoit to the wrestler I knew and loved to watch prior to 2007 than what happened 6 years ago.
Don't worry, I get what you were going for.
ReplyDeletePeople die all the time, but if a sliver of good comes out, it's better than dying pointlessly.
I think blaming it on roid rage is a bit simplistic. Traumatic brain injury (and the CTE that resulted) are where I'd assign the lion's share of the blame. TBI isn't the same thing as a concussion and Benoit doing the German suplexes and headbutts on a nightly basis were just as bad as unprotected chairshots to the head.
ReplyDeleteThe depression, the addiction, these are common for people with TBI, same with problems with controlling their emotions. I think Benoit was a powder keg and I'm sad he didn't die of a heart attack before he committed those monstrous acts.
I don't know why people have a hard time accepting that it was probably a combination of all of these factors that set Benoit off. CTE, depression, a lifetime of severe steroid abuse, the constant loss of friends, plus the stress of life on the road. I have no problem believing that the Chris Benoit who everyone knew for so long was just gone at the end, reduced to a drug-addled, paranoid, emotionally disturbed, brain damaged shell of a human being.
ReplyDeleteI think they're all right. Foley had concussions but didn't snap, Hogan took steroids and didn't snap... but having all of that seems like tempting fate.
ReplyDeleteHis point is that, if Benoit had only died, fuck all would have been done. And it's true. Now it's horrible that Nancy and David died, but how many wrestlers got fucked up on drugs and nothing was changed? Pillman died in 1997, and it didn't lead to shit.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I put a massive what-if in my original post.
ReplyDeleteIF the only way WWE was going to treat concussion differently is through the Benoit thing, it was overall a...positive thing.
I don't know if Benoit's death was the only thing to cause their change in policy, so I can't make a definitive stance in reality, only hypothetical scenarios.
I am utilitarian. Use it as an insult, but deontological viewpoints are fucking crazy IMO.
ReplyDeleteThere is no morality beyond the result.
Nothing like "that" is ever going to happen again? Uh...hello? Mike Awesome, Test, Chris Kanyon. Maybe another double-murder isn't going to happen again, but suicides? Yeah, that's a problem.
And...let's say that ten wrestlers lives are saved because of peoples concern about unprotected chairshots. The lives of ten people are more valuable than the lives of two people.
It's basic math.
There's a lot of Kant fans on the blog, apparently.
ReplyDelete"I am utilitarian. Use it as an insult, but deontological viewpoints are fucking crazy IMO."
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to address you, but anyone else reading this: What he's basically saying is that as long as the outcome is somehow a positive, it negates the evil intent or vice versa.
Here's utilitarianism in a nutshell: Let's say you offer to help an old lady walk across the road. You do, but as misfortune would have it a truck speeds through a red light, runs her over and kills her, but somehow misses you. In Phrederic's world, you're just as guilty as the driver despite having no murderous intent.
Deontology would say that you were doing a decent deed, but you got unlucky. To Phred, this is "fucking crazy". That's right, the guy who helps an old lady is a fucking idiot, apparently.
"The lives of ten people are more valuable than the lives of two people."
Nope. Just about every wrestler that prematurely died (save for Owen, perhaps) had the responsibility of knowing what they were doing to themselves. Nancy and Daniel were FUCKING MURDERED. You don't know the difference because you're a dolt.
Even if that was a good point, it's a glimmering marble in the pile of shit that is his logic and arguments. Go read my latest reply to him.
ReplyDeleteGuilty? Guilt doesn't matter. You're focused on guilt and innocence. Because deontology is a backwards looking philosophy, and utiliterianism is forward looking.
ReplyDeleteAnd deonotology is ridiculous. Let's say you're driving down a road, and you fall asleep at the wheel and you run somebody over and kill them. Well, you didn't mean to kill them so that's okay, right? Kant wrote that murder was equally as wrong as lying.
We live in a world of consequences and results, not some fantasy land where the only thing that matters is what you intended to have done.
Every wrestler had the responsibility of knowing what was going to happen to them? Uh...bullshit. Doctors used to recommend smoking. Mercury was prescribed to cure syphilis. We as a society put faith in organizations greater than ourselves, and while sometimes that fucks us, we have no option.
If we're talking about judging people for their inability to predict the future I could say that Nancy Benoit's decision to stay with a lunatic denotes that she is responsible for what happened to her and her child. Pretty stupid, isn't it?
The result is all that matters. But we need to understand that predicting the future is almost impossible. We will make mistakes, but it's a cop-out to only judge somebodies intent but it's completely meaningless.
"Let's say you're driving down a road, and you fall asleep at the wheel and you run somebody over and kill them. Well, you didn't mean to kill them so that's okay, right?"
ReplyDeleteIt's called manslaughter, dummy.
"We live in a world of consequences and results, not some fantasy land where the only thing that matters is what you intended to have done."
Strawman.
"Every wrestler had the responsibility of knowing what was going to happen to them? Uh...bullshit. Doctors used to recommend smoking. Mercury was prescribed to cure syphilis. We as a society put faith in organizations greater than ourselves, and while sometimes that fucks us, we have no option."
If I were to play along, then still, every wrestler who died post, say, 1990 have no excuse for what they did to themselves.
"If we're talking about judging people for their inability to predict the future I could say that Nancy Benoit's decision to stay with a lunatic denotes that she is responsible for what happened to her and her child. Pretty stupid, isn't it?"
Sure, blame the victim. The victim who probably suffered from Battered Wife Syndrome.
"The result is all that matters. But we need to understand that predicting the future is almost impossible. We will make mistakes, but it's a cop-out to only judge somebodies intent but it's completely meaningless."
Your argument is that once we've benefited from actions in the past, they're no longer morally reprehensible or were in fact good things because we're better off. The logical fallacy is that a progressive mankind will benefit from everything in the past, much like an individual achieves greatness after a string of failures.
A suggestion for your lunch: a bullet, and wash it down with drain-o.
This post makes you a certified douchebag. Congratulations.
DeleteI heard he was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.
ReplyDeleteDude, you are not to be triffled with. In the interwebs, you're replies to him is what they call pwned. He should just quit at this point.
ReplyDeleteHaha. Much like you guys have RAW GM titles, can you give him a DOUCHE title?
ReplyDeleteCalling me a fuckwit is pwning me now?
ReplyDeleteI didn't know it was Scott's Blog of Middleschool.
I don't even know what your point is with the manslaughter thing. Laws are based on morality? Yeah, well morals can be wrong. It's a moral belief that homosexuality is a sin, it doesn't mean it's not wrong.
ReplyDeleteMy point about Nancy Benoit was me taking your argument and pulling it to all the logical extrapolations from it. You cannot make exceptions, which is what you're doing. Addiction is a mental disorder, just as battered wife syndrome is. Treating with one scorn and the other with pity is hypocritical.
My main point is that you need to look at the big picture. If you look at just Benoit's double-homicide you have three dead people. Two of which did not decide to die. That's a bad thing. But things don't stop. No vacuums, right? Things continue, inertia and all that shit.
You can look at the immediate aftermath of an act, and make a statement about how it could be good, or bad. But if you look at the long-term aftermath of an act, your statement could be totally different because the situation (i.e. Reality) changed. And because the morality of an act is based in the consequences of the act. As the consequences shift, so does the morality of it.
Now, considering that we can't predict the future, it's probably not a good idea to kill your wife and child. You might just be a murdering asshole. As in most probably. As in yes, you're a murdering asshole.
Please continue, I'm sure you've got some killer dick joke waiting.
That's mighty selective choosing on your part considering he took every one of your points and stomped and caught you contradicting yourself, which by the way, is not the first time that's happened with you on this board. But hey, yeah, I said he pwned you because he called you a fuckwit....lol.
ReplyDelete"I don't even know what your point is with the manslaughter thing."
ReplyDeleteYou didn't comprehend something? That hasn't happened thus far.
"It's a moral belief that homosexuality is a sin, it doesn't mean it's not wrong."
Human beings are flawed, so... I guess that makes your arguments right?
"Addiction is a mental disorder, just as battered wife syndrome is. Treating with one scorn and the other with pity is hypocritical."
That's like saying pricking someone with a pin and launching a bazooka at them has the same value of malice. Again, you've contradicted yourself: this doesn't fit into your mold of utilitarianism.
"No vacuums, right? Things continue, inertia and all that shit."
Well put.
"And because the morality of an act is based in the consequences of the act. As the consequences shift, so does the morality of it."
You haven't repeated this enough, if you ask me.
"Now, considering that we can't predict the future, it's probably not a good idea to kill your wife and child. You might just be a murdering asshole. As in most probably. As in yes, you're a murdering asshole."
Controversial opinion.
"Please continue, I'm sure you've got some killer dick joke waiting."
I would, but I wouldn't want you to adopt it as a philosophy to live by.
You're also a Ron Paul fan, so I'm taking everything you say with a salt mine.
ReplyDeleteCheapshot, I know.
Picking somebody with a pin and shooting them with a bazooka are different because one is cleaned up with a tissue and the other with a spatula.
ReplyDeleteIf addiction and battered-wife syndrome both result in death. (As they do in the example we're talking about) Why are we condemning the addict and consoling the captive? Because the addict chose to become an addict? The spouse chooses their mate.
I repeat it because it bears repeating. It is one of the core tenets of utilitarianism. Which is the philosophy I'm arguing the merits of.
Nancy and Daniel Benoit's lives are not more or less valuable than the lives of anybody else. No, they did not have to die to make people take concussions seriously. But because they did die, we are taking concussions seriously. (And because of the NFL). The death of Nancy and Daniel Benoit was a tragedy. The death of Chris Benoit...was a tragedy, and a joyous occasion. Unfortunately, the deaths of Nancy and Daniel were connected to the death of Chris Benoit. So...we have to measure the overall tragedy against the overall good.
What is the value of three lives?
"Picking somebody with a pin and shooting them with a bazooka are different because one is cleaned up with a tissue and the other with a spatula."
ReplyDeleteThis is why both you and your idea of utilitarianism are retarded: you think you can justify the sacrifice of human lives for "the better", yet it only helps other humans who are just as expendable at a moment's notice. With that, you've thrown all morality out the window and have entered into Nihilism... which by the way, makes you an even bigger douche because you're not some bearded demigod, you're a dork who thinks he's "deep" by presenting his hackneyed ideas to a wrestling board. And your mother brings Cheetos and places them on the computer desk, and you get crumbs in the keyboard.
"No, they did not have to die to make people take concussions seriously. But because they did die, we are taking concussions seriously."
I'll repeat myself: Now we're taking concussions seriously, but that'll only help people who you'd gladly kill to spare others who you'd gladly to kill to... and so on.
"What is the value of three lives?"
In the highest level of some sort of cosmic, universal meaning, absolutely nothing. This sort of reasoning is not compatible with justice or tragedy however, which is why you're stupid for bringing it into this discussion and your mother drank too far into pregnancy.
That was a good thing though, because now I can bring that up in other posts and I'll get a laugh out of it.
Umm, it would be a cheapshot if I had once uttered that I was a fan. You can't even get that right. Just retire from this thread.
ReplyDelete