Cyber ridicule of an autistic man... TODAY!

Post Reply New Topic

I never paid attention to this guy before but....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJKmcdSSs7U[/youtube]

You have ignored my response. I was saying the bullying is wrong, and you tried to defend that. Now you try to weasel out by saying I should give him some advice. Two different things. :/

I've helped him than you have by asserting that bullying of him, as protected by you, is cowardly, and your assertion that he was asking for it is false.

Pedantry. I said mental health. You twist what I said to say mental illness. There is no statement neurological health. People default to mental health. Geez, how petty.


Argumentum ad verecundiam and hypocrisy. The fact is that people are using the unproven idea that chris demands attention in order to bully him, and you are saying that this is very probably. So the fact is that you are making decisions based on wild speculation.


Where did I say that?

They would if they then use that to decide that they can bully someone, wildly affirm things about the person as proof, stalk them, and indeed defend the bullying against said person. To argue otherwise is to deny the fact that you are deciding that you can ruin another's life without actual reason. That is a sign of megalomania.

It was random because it was not connected to anything I was saying, and you were making an argument about it, like the two paragraphs above that I bothered not to answer. You're trying to argue lines of though that I never even said or involved with me. it's like you're disconnected.


Argumentum ad numerum. Trying to ignore the facts. Just saying that he is asking for it without evidence.

[quote=aghogday"]that it is possible that he is seeking negative attention, that is resulting in ridicule and/or bullying.[/quote] No there isn't any evidence. it's self-serving rubbish.

They are defending the bullying by saying he is asking for it. I never asserted anything. I simply said bullying is wrong. You have failed to comprehend that and have defended bullying because it just happens or on the basis of him asking for it.


Personally, I feel sorry for him, think it is likely he has serious issues of which I am in no position to definitively determine, and believe he needs someone to help him out before someone bullies him in a physical way.[/quote]

After watching more of his videos, there is something more going on with him than just autism.

Also, I do not find this offensive at all nor does it suggest he hates people with aspergers. He's merely just saying how ridiculous the name is.

In the U.S people say ass-burgers. I can agree with that.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqlr2zBgmtk[/youtube]

Seriously who really finds that video offensive?

People with too thin skins do. They have no reason to be threatened by him either. The fact remains that he is of no threat. The fact is that he isn't a masochist. He's just a spoiled brat with severe delusions of grandeur and no work ethic.

That doesn't mean that I didn't say it. That means I don't remember.


That means that I didn't use it in the last post. You were bringing up random arguments again.
How can you read that otherwise?


I already answered that.
It's obvious that my criteria are more stringent than what you want to think.


Exactly wrong. They are using it is a defence of the bullying, and I am counteracting that. it even specifically states that in this sentence.
Another failure in comprehension.


It was superficially connected to what we were talking about, and the fact is that you were arguing against me about it, even though it had nothing to do ith the fact that they were defending the bullying by saying he was asking for it. They were not explaining it only. They were saying he had it coming.

In short: You are trying to say that they only said bullying would happen, which is untrue. They have tried to defend bullying by saying he was asking for it, which not only goes against evidence but is an excuse for bullying. Also you attempted to say that my criteria for megalomania were less stringent than they actually were. Clear manipulation.

You changed your criteria which is fine, that why I said it was a completely different scenario, but in your first statement about megalomania you stated that anyone that tries to come to intrusive conclusions about you is a megalomaniac. It's in the record, Tequila commented on it as well.

When you stated you never said the word megalomaniac in the last post, in a previous post in this thread, it was clearly in your last post before you made that statement in this thread.

I'm not manipulating anything I am just repeating your posts as they exist in the record.

If a person goes into a bad area with underwear and a bra on, and they get beat up, it would be less likely that they would have been beat up, if they had clothing on. That's common sense.

Unacceptable behaviors make it more likely someone is going to receive a negative response to those behaviors. That makes the example a perfect one to explain why Chris Chan is receiving the attention that he is receiving. He has gone out into public with a bra and underwear on, and has been ridiculed for it and in your judgment bullied.

If he had gone out into public with clothes on it is less likely that he would have been ridiculed or bullied. It's not a judgement of anything and I'm not suggesting that everyone is looking at it this way. I didn't say that, I just said his behavior is an explanation of why he is getting bullied.

Objectively with no personal judgement against him for whatever mental problems that may be causing him to do the unacceptable behaviors, it is more likely that these unacceptable behaviors will result in ridicule and bullying, than if the unacceptable behaviors were not present.

Some people here are making fun of him and some are acknowledging his problems and feeling sorry for him in these threads, I have already stated that fact.

Everyone though is not bullying him by stating simple cause and effect facts, that anyone that has spent anytime in the real world would understand.

I have no idea if Chris Chan understands it or not for sure, but the behaviors are what they are and the consequences for those behaviors are something that does commonly happen in real life. Pointing something out that is happening in reality does not necessarily make one a bully.

This is true.

If I went up, say, the Falls Road in Belfast with a Union Jack top on (or the Shankill Road waving an Irish tricolour) I would expect to receive personal abuse. You dress and act according to the situation. It's the same with going to many Muslim countries and dressing provocatively if you're a woman. You take into account local norms and go from there.

If you dress in a way that is offensive and displeasing to others, your clothes and especially your character - or lack of either, in some cases! - will be commented on abusively. You could even be beaten up.

My Northern Irish examples are different in that, while they do not technically break any public indecency laws (which Chris-Chan probably did) it's not wise to do.

You did actually.
You said it was just intrusive conclusions.

I said without definitive and actual evidence on top of that. And to do it without definitive and actual evidence, well that's just bullying. So yeah, you're wrong.

No, I didn't. The post you are reffering to is post three on page 7 and there is no mention of the word megalomaniac. The next post you start talking about emgalomania again.

You're just trying to say what is not true without evidence.

I never said this was wrong. In fact I didn't want to talk about it because it is tangential and irrelevant to the actual issue, which was that people were trying to justify internet bullying and stalking with the hilariously craven idea that Christopher Chandler is asking for it rather than having no clue.

Your attempt at an analogy shows that you have no grasp over what I am saying. I am saying that people have no morally justifiable reason not that they might or might not do something. You're trying to have the argument that you want.

I am sorry but constantly hammering in to, manipulating, insulting and taking advantage of someone is bullying. You're trying to insist the insane conclusion that it isn't bullying because it's socially acceptable.

Last edited by Gedrene on 22 Nov 2011, 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

It was a hypothetical situation. As far as I know Christian Chandler didn't break any public indecency laws. Also aghogday was talking about a social reaction not any laws. Social =/= legal.

Furthermore I wasn't arguing about public indecency at all. This is aghogday's attempt to actually try and somehow pin something on me whilst talking about nothing to do with the whole argument, soemthing only tangentially related and ultimately irrelevant.

I never stated just intrusive, I paraphrased your statement with definitive evidence or definitive proof both times I referred to it. Bullying is not megalomania, I didn't say you didn't think anyone was bullying you. Coming to intrusive conclusions about someone without definitive actual evidence is not Megalomania, you were the one that suggested it was.

On page 7, Nov. 18 at 1:26, you stated you never said megalomanic in your last post, but you did in your previous post to me on Nov. 17 at 7:24, on page 7, with your statement above, which I quoted after that on Nov. 18 at 5:30 on page 7.

I wasn't talking about the people actually doing the bullying I was talking about people pointing out in this online discussion that the ridicule/bullying was a result of negative unacceptable behaviors.

Maybe he has a clue maybe he doesn't we really don't really know, but regardless of that his negative unacceptable behavior made the result of ridicule/bullying a more likely one.

meanwhile last page...

So yeah...

That's a lie of what I said:

That would hold true for christopher chandler too. If someone came to intrusive conclusions about him without definitive evidence and then used them to bully him then he is a megalomaniac. He would also be a bully.

Megalomania is a psycho-pathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, and/or omnipotence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomania

And the fact is feeling one can come to conclusions about someone, intrusive conclusions, without definitive or actual proof is deluded about the relevance of what they say.

I stand corrected, I see where I did miss putting in the definitive evidence part in one of my statements but it is in the rest of my references to your quote that I've made about five times so far in this thread.

My statement, coming to intrusive conclusions about someone without definitive actual evidence is not evidence of Megalomania is a general statement of fact, that is my statement not yours. Your definition for yourself meets the same criteria as my general statement.

Contending that someone is a megalomanic because they come to an intrusive conclusion without definitive actual evidence, in itself is an intrusive conclusion about someone without definitive actual evidence about someone else, because there is no possible way to definitively determine with actual evidence, if a person is a megalomaniac based on that information alone. It in itself is no definitive actual evidence of Megalomania.

Actual definitive evidence for a psychological personality disorder, or other mental disorder, comes from a professional that is qualified to make a diagnosis, not someone's armchair analysis of someone; that's personally intrusive.

Coming to an intrusive conclusion about someone without definitive actual evidence, is no evidence of delusion, it's just evidence of coming to an intrusive wrong conclusion about someone. As I think you know, not everyone forms their opinions or derives conclusions whether they are personally intrusive or not from definitive actual evidence, and it is certainly no definitive actual evidence of megalomania. That comes from a qualified professional, not from armchair analysis.

Lots of people are calling the President a Megalomaniac, with no definitive actual evidence, which is certainly an intrusive personal conclusion. It's not nice, it might be a form of ridicule/and or bullying, or be based on someone's honest opinion, but unless a professional diagnosis is done there is no actual definitive evidence that the President is a megalomaniac.

And, that certainly is no evidence that those people that hold that opinion are megalomaniacs themselves. It's a conclusion based on opinion, and not necessarily a nice one, just like whatever opinion someone might form about Chris Chan, you, or anyone else, regardless of whether or not it is an intrusive one, or based on definitive actual evidence.

It is likely that a diagnosed Megalomaniac might do something like this, but it's no proof that they are a megalomaniac, on it's own credence.

And finally, for the second time I am asking you politely not to suggest that my statements are lies, when you have no evidence that I am lying. That's a good example of coming to a personally intrusive conclusion about somone without definitive actual evidence.

This is a discussion board, where in written communication people do make mistakes and misunderstand what other people say; that is no definitive actual evidence of a lie.

I made a general statement above that related to the statement you made about yourself, I never said you made that specific general statement. At least wait for an explanation of what is said before you come to an intrusive conclusion, with no definitive actual evidence, that something is a lie.

Gedrene, you're putting words in my mouth, and I don't appreciate it, so knock it off please. I did not say "no autistic person is simply socially ret*d," now, did I? I also did not insinuate the this guy is not, I as much as say he isn't right up there. He's not. No socially ret*d person would be capable of what he does. He does it purposefully, obnoxiously, and rudely. Period. Anyone with the skill to read what he's done over the years can see it.

You've got a real problem with an ingrained penchant for arguing with users here just for the sake of it. Everything you post seems to be about you being right and anyone disagreeing with you being wrong.

Say, you ever hear of the concept "Get a life?"

I wasn't saying that you did. :/ I was saying that your insistence that he is using his autism as an excuse to get negative attention is nothing more than craven supposition that ignores the fact that the guy just might have no clue.

A just so fallacy that doesn't use any evidence, more baseless supposition. He is obviously clueless, not grasping for attention through bullying. I could give a hundred examples. The major one is how he drove out to the middle of nowhere to meet what he supposed was a woman on the internet, only to find there was none. He was far too trusting. That's obliviousness obviously. :/

Most people do argue on the basis that they are right. Furthermore what you are saying is disgusting, baseless, destructive, hurtful, unempathetic and a number of other things. And I have explained how too.

Ah, so the good old I am going to whinge like a teenager routine.
You're a 51 year old who is saying that a man is demanding attention because it's 'absolutely clear' and who can't accept the possibility of being wrong, so insults people and makes various accusations. Who exactly needs to get a life?