Cyber ridicule of an autistic man... TODAY!

Post Reply New Topic

Psychologist/psychiatrist. Argumentum ad verecundiam. Argument from authority. How spineless.

Motivation speculation should always be treated as suspect, a cowardly pretext for people to do wrong. The fact is that these bullies are saying he's asking for it and they use that as a pretext for bullying him, so I should challenge it because there are negative consequnces.
My evidence is greater than theirs, which is based on severe supposition. Your only evidence seems to be be that you have evidence. So to try and say that only a psychologist/psychiatrist can decide is a cowardly diversion tactic.

This is a disgusting analogy that attempts to sanitize an act of serial and constant bullying and I am offended by the baseness of its pseudo-eugenic message.

Blatant hypocrisy.

Are you undergoing some sort of disconnect with reality? Because I didn't mention the word megalomaniac in the last post at all.

Here is your quote in your last post:



You've said it twice now, it's clearly in the record.

Whether or you like it or not none us are in a position to determine Chris Chan's mental issues, except for a qualified professional. We can speculate about it all we want based on the evidence that is available.

I am talking about no one other than the people offering opinions in this discussion that Chris Chan is seeking negative attention and receiving ridicule and bullying as a result of it. Just because they have observed his behavior and come to this opinion doesn't make them bullies, they are watching reality like everyone does and forming their own opinions based on their own personal experience.

They pointed out what they see as reality as you are pointed out what you see as reality.

Sorry if you don't like the aquarium example but humans aren't free of their animal natures and never will be as along as they are animals. Life isn't always about what we think is right or wrong, it's about survival and it isn't always a pretty picture.

I don't like it, but it is part of reality.

If you were to go out in public in underwear and a bra in certain areas of the country, in the US, it's possible you would not return back alive.

The best thing anyone could do for you is prevent that behavior so you wouldn't receive the potentially negative results.

It's reality; a moral analysis of it is fine, but it doesn't make the potentially negative results go away unless someone intervenes to prevent the negative behavior from happening.

I bask in your approval...ahhh. It's like the warm sun on a nice day.

It wasn't approval, and if you're being sarcastic well... you were justifying bullying by saying Christopher Chandler wanted it and that's wrong. It had to be said.

First: This is ironic coming from a person who has speculated on my mental health and then used it as a weak and insulting explanation for my reactions.
Second: And so defending him from a bunch of bullies who have no evidence for Chris wanting bullying is still the right thing.
Third: Hypocrisy.

You are doing some determination right there.

And here you are giving them a right to try and determine Chandler's mental issues.
Fourth: If you really thing that speculating isn't determining and feel that only a psychiatrist can determine any definitive psychological results then that's an argument from authority fallacy again.

And should I force you to answer random questions from the past. Furthermore the context in which I use the word is justified.

This is pathetic. This isn't a life or death situation about anyone dying. This is about serial bullying, and you try to turn it in to a survival argument.

What? This is random, and again not related to fighting for scarce resources in order to survive. It's schizophrenic how someone manages to pull all these unrelated elements in and call it a cogent argument.

What? And now you're being wholly inconsistent. You flit from an argument about how nothing people do is wrong to an argument of don't do it if it's pointless. I'll say if something is wrong if it makes sense. I don't need this incoherent appeal to emotion fatalism.

Oh you totally misunderstood then.

Leave your car running with door open and you are practically asking that it be stolen. Of course you are not standing there saying "Please, someone steal my car!"

If can't see that analogy, then take some courses in psychology or something.

Good heavens, are you blind? I knew there was an analogy there. I was just reminding you that a cute game of analogy and sarcasm aren't important compared to someone's welfare. I know you aren't actually saying that you are heartened by my approval. Bleeding hell.

Also your analogy is rubbish and comes to the wrong conclusion. First leaving your car door open can be easily seen and remedied. Chris' condition cannot. He cannot simply close a door. Second even if a carjacker does steal the car then that doesn't mean the cops wont chase the perp down given the glaring opportunity. Third, I already said about mocking someone being acceptable when they do something truly bad, but these people are bullying him and that is fundamentally wrong.

Your motives are good, as are mine.

Of course they are. A lot of people have good motives. What matters really are the consequences.

And his actions have....consequences. Like jail.

People seem to be in denial of the consequences on Christian Chandler about their bullying.

Oh, there is no doubt bullying has greatly influenced his actions, I am saying that he attracts to himself now, because it's familiar, and it's a form of attention that is different from what he got from his father and his mother in a most likely very isolated existence. This is evidenced by his mother being arrested along with him in a rather immature action.

Internet bullying is something he perceives he can fight back against, so he posts the videos he does. In person bullying he would be physically compromised most likely.

By suggesting he investigate computer 3D graphics, one could attempt to draw his method away from a bad way of getting negative attention to a creative and even profitable way of getting good attention. Even art school could be an avenue.

Bullying is indeed wrong. Seeing that someone attracts it to themselves is not justifying anything. Suggesting a positive alternative is right.

I believe that this is very much psychological supposition that doesn't need to be made and only helps to confuse the situation you are proposing.

It's clear to me that he doesn't ask for bullying. In fact it has become absolutely clear since his activity according to what I heard has drawn down to nothing in the last few months. That runs counter to your assertion.

Even more damning is the fact that nearly everyone knows that he is responding like a dog chasing after a bone on the end of his tail, not a masochist. The troll/stalker entourage that hovers about his life like so much of his usual detritus wrote about it when they tricked him several times. For example he wasn't asking for attention when he did that weird video with the doll, he was being tricked in to thinking a gf trolls had invented was watching. He wasn't asking for it. He was clueless.

We can agree on this but I still refute the assertion you made on sensible grounds. But I would rather do something definitive and make the climate difficult for Chris' stalkers. It is more likely to breed success as it gives him breathing space. And if he becomes an inch better then that's good enough for me.

Gedrene: you haven't answered my question.

Are you in touch with the subject and trying to help him or not? If not, why not?

Autism is not a mental illness. It is a neurological disorder. I only suggested that you might have a trait of autism that was causing you difficulty in understanding an opposing view; when you answered you didn't I accepted that. I didn't question your mental health.

Any of us can speculate on whatever we want to try to determine it for ourselves whether or not Chris Chan is asking for ridicule/bullying by seeking negative attention, but when it comes to mental health, and whether or not Chris Chan has a mental health issue related to seeking negative attention, that would be for a psychiatrist or psychologist to determine on a definitive basis.

You were the one that insisted that you never said the word megalomaniac, I just quoted it for you to prove that you did in the previous post. You suggested that people that would make intrusive conclusions about you without definitive proof are megalomaniacs.

If everyone who ever made an intrusive conclusion about someone without definitive proof was a megalomaniac, that would be close to the entire population of the world classified as a megalomaniac at some point in their life. I couldn't make sense out of that statement and was trying to get clarification from how you got from point A (intrusive conclusion without definitive evidence) to point B(megalomaniac).

If Chris Chan goes to jail, it could definitely be a life or death situation for him, depending on his behavior in jail. All he has encountered so far is mental bullying, the physical kind could kill him in jail.

I'm pretty sure the authorities probably understand this, and would hope they wouldn't put him in the general prison population, if he were to be sentenced. I seriously doubt he is going to do time, this time around.

Chris Chan wears a bra and underwear in public, I'm not sure how you think my example of going out into public in a bra and underwear and getting hurt is random and not relevant to this discussion.

Much of human nature is related to resources and evolution, that part of animal nature remains, even when resources are abundant. It is a source of cooperative, competitive, and bullying behavior.

While it may make sense to you that Chris Chan couldn't possibly be seeking negative attention, and receiving it through the actions that you consider bullying, it's pretty much the concensus opinion, that it is possible that he is seeking negative attention, that is resulting in ridicule and/or bullying.

This opinion is based on the behaviors people have seen from him. Some people feel sorry for him, some people don't.

Speculating on whether or not someone is seeking negative attention and getting it, through the negative attention of bullying, does not in itself make one a bully, and it is not necessarily an endorsement of the bullying. It seems to be your opinion that just because some folks have come to that opinion means that they themselves are bullies, no ifs and or buts; this is really the only the only significant thing I am disagreeing with you on, because I don't see that as a reasonable position, if I am understanding you correctly.

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.

Last edited by aghogday on 18 Nov 2011, 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

I didn't pick up on this. This is a decent point you make. Gedrene throws around terms like that too freely.



It's not only that but the mental trauma, even if it didn't kill him when he was in jail, could definitely lead to his eventual suicide afterwards.

I maintain that the best place for someone like Chris Chan is in a residential mental hospital where he could have his needs properly cared for. This man is a danger to himself when he posts on the Internet and is out in public, as his behaviour shows.



I think being admitted to psychiatric/mental healthcare facilities would be the best outcome for him - including sectioning, if necessary. He needs to get his head sorted out well away from other people. In fact, he'd be better off avoiding the Internet altogether as it makes him worse.



That attitude would be considered an argumentum ad populum by Gedrene and therefore won't wash. Only a crackpot theory like his is considered correct - everyone else is a bullying megalomaniac.

I think Chris Chan is being ridiculed more than anything. Viciously. The best thing for him is if he desisted from his behaviour (and received advice on how to do this). A lot of this really is in his hands.