Trolling Ethics Debate Thread

[Godjesus]

PROTIP: putting a ">" in front of quotes from someone's post doesn't magically turn them into fallacies.

Not even if you make the text green.

The moar you know.

Are you actually going to point out why my points are fallacious?

If you can't see them, I can't help you. I'm really not interesting in an argument over semantics but I will leave the discussion with this:

You are on a forum that documents the most intimate information on an autistic adult individual, while you are criticizing those that try to provide the information that you consume in the most benign way they know how to. Literally on a forum where more intimate information is posted about someone you don't even know personally - to such an extent where you may know more about CWC than your closest friends. What are you even doing here? And why are you criticizing people putting out the information you want?

Also using ">" for quotes was in use long before some websites popularized it but I don't know if you have ever seen an email or old school internet forum or newsgroup, but that's hardly relevant.

 

[JustSomeFella]

I realize I'm no better than him because I've enjoyed the content he's provided the community with, but...
The fact that Skyraider has taken pictures of the Chandler household, digged through their trash and knows seemingly endless amounts of personal information about them (even how their landlord feels about them) is really, really fucked up. It's begun to really disturb me and this behavior feels like it's crossed the line into legitimate stalking.

Again, I am no better than him and I am a complete hypocrite because I am stalking Chris by proxy for even posting in this community and eagerly viewing each thread. @skyraider91 If you want to explain why or how you do what you do, I'm open to whatever it is you have to say and I don't mean to judge you as a person.

 

[Clown Doll]

The fact that Skyraider has taken pictures of the Chandler household, digged through their trash and knows seemingly endless amounts of personal information about them (even how their landlord feels about them) is really, really fucked up..

People know lolcows in real life, thanks to the fact that they live/function near them. It doesn't make Skyraider a "stalker" if he happens to know Chris and thanks to his profession has had to be in touch with their shit, both figurative and literal.

The fact that Skyraider has taken pictures of the Chandler household.

Oh no, it's not like Chris hasn't taken any pictures of the house or certainly made a video tour of the insides of the house all by himself!

 

[TrippinKahlua]

People know lolcows in real life, thanks to the fact that they live/function near them. It doesn't make Skyraider a "stalker" if he happens to know Chris and thanks to his profession has had to be in touch with their shit, both figurative and literal.


Oh no, it's not like Chris hasn't taken any pictures of the house or certainly made a video tour of the insides of the house all by himself!

Quoted for Truth.

 

[Godjesus]

It's begun to really disturb me and this behavior feels like it's crossed the line into legitimate stalking.

I don't know why you think it wasn't stalking before. Scrounging for information via internet is not fundamentally different than in physical reality. In the end, it can still produce the same information. There is no rational reason to think it's any different than a troll tricking Chris to scan his old homework etc. and subsequently leaking his information via internet. There is no difference except the troll probably caused him more stress but that's conjecture.

 

[Friends of A-Log]

If you can't see them, I can't help you. I'm really not interesting in an argument over semantics but I will leave the discussion with this:

You are on a forum that documents the most intimate information on an autistic adult individual, while you are criticizing those that try to provide the information that you consume in the most benign way they know how to. Literally on a forum where more intimate information is posted about someone you don't even know personally - to such an extent where you may know more about CWC than your closest friends. What are you even doing here? And why are you criticizing people putting out the information you want?

Also using ">" for quotes was in use long before some websites popularized it but I don't know if you have ever seen an email or old school internet forum or newsgroup, but that's hardly relevant.

You've provided zero fallacies in Absinthe's argument. Here is a fallacy from yours. Reading and investing time in learning about Chris does not make every trolling attempt acceptable. The exploits that happened to Chris as a result of Bluespike does not make it ok simply because I read it nor does it mean I approve of it. I can't control what happens to Chris but I can decide for myself if it crosses the line.

 

[JustSomeFella]

Oh no, it's not like Chris hasn't taken any pictures of the house or certainly made a video tour of the insides of the house all by himself!

I'm not really sure what it is you're trying to say here. Chris is mentally challenged and didn't know any better when it comes to what's okay for him to post. How does that make it okay for someone else to dig through his trash posting photos of his house?

 

[Godjesus]

You've provided zero fallacies in Absinthe's argument. Here is a fallacy from yours. Reading and investing time in learning about Chris does not make every trolling attempt acceptable. The exploits that happened to Chris as a result of Bluespike does not make it ok simply because I read it nor does it mean I approve of it. I can't control what happens to Chris but I can decide for myself if it crosses the line.

For one, this wasn't a trolling attempt from the evidence that has been posted thus far. Next, demand directly contributes to the motivation of producing said information which is my criticism, not that it is ok because it has been done before. I am pointing out those that want to take the moral high ground have none to stand on and are engaging in masturbation. Thirdly, you are judging before you know the facts anyway.

 

[Clown Doll]

I'm not really sure what it is you're trying to say here. Chris is mentally challenged

He is capable for more intelligent actions than his bad judgment makes him out to be. His actions make him seem retarded, but really he's just stupid because he consistently makes bad choices, but every once in a while demonstrates that he has capacity for better judgment.

posting photos of his house?

Everyone knew what 14 BLC looked like, everyone knew Chris' address and it had been a target of some seriously demented trolling attempts(i.e. the Hooker incident even though imo, it was funny) so there was nothing bad that could've come out of photographing the house that was already known to all, location and everything.

dig through his trash

He came across some intel that's interesting to us, but completely worthless to Chandlers. Again, he works in the area and happened to come across that information, it's not like he literally drove out to Ruckersville just to chew through their trash like a raccoon.

 

[Sanic]

I got an awesome idea. Once Chris moves back in his house, let's burn it down again.

 

[CatParty]

I got an awesome idea. Once Chris moves back in his house, let's burn it down again.

i think he can handle that himself

 

[JustSomeFella]

Again, he works in the area and happened to come across that information, it's not like he literally drove out to Ruckersville just to chew through their trash like a raccoon.

I don't see why the first part makes the second part untrue.

When I read, "he happened to come across that information," it makes me think you're trying to say he just stumbled upon those documents and wasn't actively hunting stuff like that down. I realize you're (hopefully) not saying that, I just thought that was funny.

 

[Godjesus]

Obviously, different people have different reasons for being here, don't they, and different ways of seeing the same things?

It was a rhetorical question. I don't care about your rationalization for being on this forum because it's an excuse that will be of the same form that @Thetan and @skyraider91 use to justify their own actions.

I honestly think people on this forum are detached from reality. Since you like hypotheticals, let's try this:
Kiwi user's boss: "I've been viewing your internet browsing history here at work and you go to the place called Kiwi Forums. Can you explain this?"
Kiwi user: "Oh it's just a place where I go so I can get more information about my favorite autistic manchild."
Kiwi user's boss: "..."
Kiwi user: "But it's okay I don't actually actively stalk him. In fact, I actually made a post criticizing the people I get my information from as I compulsively browse the forums. See I'm on the moral high ground here! My behavior is perfectly acceptable."
Kiwi user's boss: "I think you should see the company psychiatrist. Or pack your desk. Your choice."

See how that works?

 

[Marvin]

It was a rhetorical question. I don't care about your rationalization for being on this forum because it's an excuse that will be of the same form the that @Thetan and @skyraider91 use to justify their own actions.

I honestly think people on this forum are detached from reality. Since you like hypotheticals, let's try this:
Kiwi user's boss: "I've been viewing your internet browsing history here at work and you go to the place called Kiwi Forums. Can you explain this?"
Kiwi user: "Oh it's just a place where I go so I can get more information about my favorite autistic manchild."
Kiwi user's boss: "..."
Kiwi user: "But it's okay I don't actually actively stalk him. In fact, I actually made a post criticizing the people I get my information from as I compulsively browse the forums. See I'm on the moral high ground here! My behavior is perfectly acceptable."
Kiwi user's boss: "I think you should see the company psychiatrist. Or pack your desk. Your choice."

See how that works?

How ironic.

 

[Morbid Boredom]

It was a rhetorical question. I don't care about your rationalization for being on this forum because it's an excuse that will be of the same form the that @Thetan and @skyraider91 use to justify their own actions.

I honestly think people on this forum are detached from reality. Since you like hypotheticals, let's try this:
Kiwi user's boss: "I've been viewing your internet browsing history here at work and you go to the place called Kiwi Forums. Can you explain this?"
Kiwi user: "Oh it's just a place where I go so I can get more information about my favorite autistic manchild."
Kiwi user's boss: "..."
Kiwi user: "But it's okay I don't actually actively stalk him. In fact, I actually made a post criticizing the people I get my information from as I compulsively browse the forums. See I'm on the moral high ground here! My behavior is perfectly acceptable."
Kiwi user's boss: "I think you should see the company psychiatrist. Or pack your desk. Your choice."

See how that works?

If the boss is monitoring internet usage, there's little difference between the CWCki Forums and some website full of lolcats. There's always this fear someone's life will be destroyed if they're found to be using or contributing to this site, but Chris's complaint that the CWCki is the obstacle keeping him from a happier life is always dismissed.

I don't think anyone really gives a shit in either case.

 

[TaterBot]

It was a rhetorical question. I don't care about your rationalization for being on this forum because it's an excuse that will be of the same form the that @Thetan and @skyraider91 use to justify their own actions.
I honestly think people on this forum are detached from reality. Since you like hypotheticals, let's try this:
Your boss: "I've been viewing your internet browsing history here at work and you go to the place called Kiwi Forums. Can you explain this?"
You: "Oh it's just a place where I go so I can get more information about my favorite autistic manchild."
Your boss: "..."
You: "But it's okay I don't actually actively stalk him. In fact, I actually made a post criticizing the people I get my information from as I compulsively browse the forums. See I'm on the moral high ground here! My behavior is perfectly acceptable."
Your boss: "I think you should see the company psychiatrist. Or pack your desk. Your choice."
See how that works?

Entertainment is serious business in America, is it not?

I AM the boss, hence my ridiculous amount of free time.
I actually feel sympathy for the people who have to provide content to the ever-gaping maul of the insatiable Cwciforums. It's like an unpaid, thankless job.

The way that people are in here, probably reflects how they are irl; whether vindictive, sympathetic, or just the kind who take gloomy relish to brighten an otherwise drab life. We're like people in a neighborhood who watch, gossip, fuss at and talk to each other.
But, whatever blows your skirt up is fine with me. Out of curiosity, should we all be seeing a psychiatrist?

 

[WilhelmIIofPrussia]

Chris made up his mind that she was his girlfriend simply because she responded to his OKCupid profile. As the texts show, he kept on insisting that Catherine was his girlfriend despite her telling him (repeatedly) that she just wanted to be friends. Chris really didn't give her any say in the matter.

Skyraider said they were in a relationship. He also earlier said that it was "based on mutual respect".

 

[Godjesus]

How ironic.

Probable.

If the boss is monitoring internet usage, there's little difference between the CWCki Forums and some website full of lolcats. There's always this fear someone's life will be destroyed if they're found to be using or contributing to this site, but Chris's complaint that the CWCki is the obstacle keeping him from a happier life is always dismissed.

I don't think anyone really gives a shit in either case.

Fair enough.

Out of curiosity, should we all be seeing a psychiatrist?

Probably yeah.
But to be completely serious, no one is an angel. If it doesn't cause harm to you, no worries. I just think it might be delusional to think that most other people would consider any of this acceptable behavior or morally correct. And I'm not even saying that should bother any of us but what I am saying seems to be hitting a nerve.

 

[Friends of A-Log]

It was a rhetorical question. I don't care about your rationalization for being on this forum because it's an excuse that will be of the same form that @Thetan and @skyraider91 use to justify their own actions.

I honestly think people on this forum are detached from reality. Since you like hypotheticals, let's try this:
Kiwi user's boss: "I've been viewing your internet browsing history here at work and you go to the place called Kiwi Forums. Can you explain this?"
Kiwi user: "Oh it's just a place where I go so I can get more information about my favorite autistic manchild."
Kiwi user's boss: "..."
Kiwi user: "But it's okay I don't actually actively stalk him. In fact, I actually made a post criticizing the people I get my information from as I compulsively browse the forums. See I'm on the moral high ground here! My behavior is perfectly acceptable."
Kiwi user's boss: "I think you should see the company psychiatrist. Or pack your desk. Your choice."

See how that works?

I get what you're saying but it's no different than the average joe reading TMZ. Chris Chan is our Miley Cyrus/Brittany Spears/Kim Kardashian....

 

[Godjesus]

I get what you're saying but it's no different than the average joe reading TMZ. Chris Chan is our Miley Cyrus/Brittany Spears/Kim Kardashian....

I agree. It's voyeuristic behavior. And I think many would agree tabloids like TMZ are unethical anyway as it causes distress to those being documented. But the reason it exists is because there is demand for that sort of content so for me it's like who's worse the people that supply the content or the people that demand the content?? To me it's the two sides of the same coin. This forum is arguably worse since it's mostly about special individuals.

It's nice to have someone that is objectively looking at my argument agree or not. Thank you.