@dj2becker
"Do you think it's ok to tell someone on here that they suffer from Autism?"
This is a legitimate question which deserves a carefully considered answer. However, it may not admit of a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
Initially, I would offer a catalog of examples, what is considered in-bounds or off-limits, and then maybe we can see how it stands, or should stand, with regard to autism.
At the clans forum, people are routinely called "morons" and this passes as acceptable forum etiquette; during the 2016 season, it was almost a term of endearment. In the GF, people are routinely branded as "liars" and this too passes as acceptable forum etiquette.
On the other hand, it has come to be known that certain posters are reformed alcoholics. Taunting reformed alcoholics is off-limits; those who have taunted reformed alcoholics were roundly reprimanded for it, and rightly so, I say. It has come to be known that certain posters are non-heterosexual. Taunting non-heterosexuals is also off-limits; those who have taunted them were roundly reprimanded for it, and rightly so, I say.
On the other other hand, it has come to be known that certain posters have fallen away from a former religion. They were taken to task for this, and some other posters claimed that no one who ever fell away from a certain religion could ever really have been in said religion, on the grounds that anyone who was really in could not possibly have fallen away from it; so the apparent apostates were only fake-religionists to start with. This passes as acceptable forum etiquette, and rightly so, I say (not that someone was called fake-anything, but that a discussion was not ruled out).
I won't mention names here, but certain posters exhibit forum behavior which, if it were presented in a clinical setting, would immediately awaken strong and well-founded suspicions of paranoia. Other posters have taken paranoid posters to task; this passes as acceptable forum etiquette, and rightly so, I say. I won't mention names here, but certain well-known, prolific posters are trapped in a filter bubble (that's a technical term, google it if you're not sure what it means). When people are spouting rubbish, it is right and proper that others should call attention to this and call a spade a spade.
So, on one end of the spectrum, alcoholism and being non-heterosexual are off-limits, but, on the other end, being apostate or paranoid, or captive to an ideology, or a liar and a moron, are in-bounds. Each of these is a profoundly intense personal matter, for the person concerned. And who are we to pass judgment on such things? Yet we do, quite often here in RHP forums.
Is there some general principle at work here, what is in-bounds and what is off-limits? Things one cannot change (like congenital conditions) are off-limits, whereas things which are a life-style choice (this religion or that one or none at all, this political ideology or that one) or a moral failure (lying) are in-bounds? Or can we make such determinations only on a case-by-case-basis, depending on the source-poster's intentions and the receiving-poster's sensibilities??
And where does autism fall within the spectrum? Is it more like alcoholism (off-limits), or is it more like paranoia (legitimate target for criticism)? And what of asperger, borderline, depression, schizophrenia, apostasy, …
I do not have a simple answer. I am willing to consider the matter, given some intelligible input.
Two things I am sure of:
1. When someone punches below the belt and is called out for it, pleading that it was meant facetiously is a coward's excuse.
2. When someone is severely ill, either mentally or physically, and refuses to get help when repeatedly advised to get help, he is at least partially responsible for his condition. (Perhaps some reformed alcoholic or drug addict would weigh in here… )
@moonbus saidMy offer to stop engaging with dj2becker if autism was the reason for his behaviour was not an insult, nor was it a taunt, nor was it a punch below the belt. Autism is nothing to be be embarrassed about.
@dj2becker
"Do you think it's ok to tell someone on here that they suffer from Autism?"
This is a legitimate question which deserves a carefully considered answer. However, it may not admit of a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
Initially, I would offer a catalog of examples, what is considered in-bounds or off-limits, and then maybe we can see how it stands, or should st ...[text shortened]... esponsible for his condition. (Perhaps some reformed alcoholic or drug addict would weigh in here… )
@dj2becker saidThis might be worth a thread of its own.
Paul identifies those who have a seared conscience in 1 Timothy 4:1–2: “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.” In this passage, we learn three things about false teachers who lead o ...[text shortened]... ences. They are past feeling that lying is wrong.
www.gotquestions.org/amp/seared-conscience.html
@divegeester saidSounds like you're talking about Rajk.
Possibly because most of the Christians in this forum are intellectually dishonest, unprincipled, partisan, vindictive individuals with a warped sense of morality and justice.
@secondson saidRajk999 is a follower of Jesus but does not identify with what he sees as the distorted theology of "Christians" [in the conventional sense] that discuss things here on this forum.
Sounds like you're talking about Rajk.
He provides an alternative take on what the teachings of Jesus were and their implications for all of humanity.
His arguments are contentious - for conventional Christians, certainly - but they are coherent. He is brutally honest about them. He is tenacious. He is not boastful about his own 'good works', whatever they may be. And he never asks Christians here to talk about their 'good works'. This makes him principled in my book.
However, his conflict with what he calls 'Church Christians' is about theology and doctrine. He cites the Bible throughout his argumentation and in support of the stances he takes, whether his detractors agree with it or not.
He is robust and abrasive but he has been, over the years, on the receiving end of much harsher and much more sustained vitriol than he has dished out. I say that having been here for 10 years or more.
I do not share his beliefs but they are interesting and in many respects make more sense than the comfort-blanket-feel-good-just-think-stuff-there's-no-onus-to-do-anything-live-forever doctrine that many of the Christians here propagate.
He adds value and diversity of belief to this community and his temporary absence is always felt, as it is at the moment.
@moonbus saidRomans1009, the poster this thread's OP is about, repeatedly claimed that I was "mentally ill", and suffering from "OCD and ADHD" ~ how many times was it? ~ 20 or 30 times or more? ...over the space of 4-5 months. Sometimes it was stated in 3 or 4 posts in a row. Sometimes the 'diagnosis' was repeated simultaneously across 2 or 3 concurrent threads. Sometimes these were word for word copy pastes.
When someone punches below the belt and is called out for it, pleading that it was meant facetiously is a coward's excuse.
When confronted about this kind of posting on his part, he said he thought it was "very funny" ~ and that he didn't care if anybody else did or not; he also conceded that it was his express intention to "insult and ridicule"; he said that Christians were allowed to have a sense of humour; and he also insisted that he was different when he was not online. My diagnosis of him was and still is 'Online Disinhibition Syndrome'.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
@divegeester saidYou have just described yourself and Rajk to a tee. I wouldn’t say you represent most of the Christians though.
Possibly because most of the Christians in this forum are intellectually dishonest, unprincipled, partisan, vindictive individuals with a warped sense of morality and justice.
Other than that, you could be onto something.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
@fmf saidThat’s rich coming from the guy claiming that I am suffering from Autism.
Romans1009, the poster this thread's OP is about, repeatedly claimed that I was "mentally ill", and suffering from "OCD and ADHD" ~ how many times was it? ~ 20 or 30 times or more? ...over the space of 4-5 months. Sometimes it was stated in 3 or 4 posts in a row. Sometimes the 'diagnosis' was repeated simultaneously across 2 or 3 concurrent threads. Sometimes these were word for ...[text shortened]... ferent when he was not online. My diagnosis of him was and still is 'Online Disinhibition Syndrome'.
@dj2becker saidI offered to stop engaging with you if autism was the cause of your interpersonal and intellectual behaviour. I never taunted you about it. I never used it as an insult. And I didn't use it as an ad hominem either: it was about your behaviour, not any argument you'd put forward. I would have done the same ~ given you a wider berth ~ if the way you were stalking me from thread to thread was caused by you being bipolar and if you acknowledged it, for example.
That’s rich coming from the guy claiming that I am suffering from Autism.
What do you make of the way - and the frequency with which - Romans1009 mentioned "mental illness" and "OCD" and "ADHD" with regard to me, in order - as he himself put it - to "insult and ridicule"?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
@fmf saidThe irony of course is that you have a
I offered to stop engaging with you if autism was the cause of your interpersonal and intellectual behaviour. I never taunted you about it. I never used it as an insult. And I didn't use it as an ad hominem either: it was about your behaviour, not any argument you'd put forward. I would have done the same ~ given you a wider berth ~ if the way you were stalking me from thread to ...[text shortened]... and "OCD" and "ADHD" with regard to me, in order - as he himself put it - to "insult and ridicule"?
problem with Romans doing what you did.
@dj2becker saidDo you think what he did was OK?
The irony of course is that you have a
problem with Romans doing what you did.
@romans1009 saidI don't believe ghost-of-a-duke is a liar, that word gets thrown around a lot here,
You’re lying (as Kiddo is.)
There’s nothing at all funny or humorous about what Kiddo claimed I said, but Kiddo’s moral compass blew a gasket quite a while ago. He lies frequently and seems to have no problem doing that.
Sadly, Heartpence joins it. Trolls of a feather lie together!
and many times it is just because someone is disagreeing with them.
@fmf saidI told you, your questions give me pause to believe you ever were a Christian,
You have chosen to brand me a liar though.
because if you were, you would know the answers to some of the things you have
asked. I'm still there to tell you the truth. I also asked you to just share what you
once believed was the gospel, I was willing to accept that as evidence to your
truthfulness no matter your questions, you refused. Why that is all on you it does
not alter my belief you never were for that refusal. I don't badger you over it from
day one other then when it came up, but you keep bringing it up.