Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Frank Walton Teaches Me a Lesson

Update: I emailed Frank Walton the link to this post, and I submitted a comment at his blog with this link as well. While I remain hopeful that he approves my comment with the link to this post, the realist in me doubts that he has the guts to do so.

Frank Walton of the blog AtheismSucks recently posted an entry where he expressed dissatisfaction with Armani's sexualization of little girls. Curiously, Frank included in his blog post one of the pictures of the sexualized girls that he is railing against.

Frank Walton's blog is one of many Christian blogs that I regularly visit. I usually enjoy Frank's rants, and I often post comments at his blog. Sometimes my comments are irreverent, sarcastic, or otherwise trollish. Frank moderates his comments, but usually he approves the comments I submit. Frank and I tend to antagonize each other (as many atheist and Christian bloggers tend to do), but it was usually in good fun. Frank takes jabs at me, and vice-versa, and I enjoyed the interaction.

But in this particular post, things turned ugly. I went into the comments section, and the first comment posted on Frank's blog entry, from an anonymous poster, was this:

Anonymous said...
It's even worse if you look up the armani junior website. I nearly threw up.


I thought about it for a second, and realized that this would be a good opportunity to point out the difference in decency standards between genders. So I posted a comment of my own, which said:

Aaron Kinney said...
Its even worse with the males. Every time I go to the beach, I see countless underage boys with no tops on at all!

It makes me want to vomit like that puppet did in Team America.


While Frank didn't have much of an opinion of the first anonymous poster's comment, for some reason he took issue with mine. Frank replied to my comment thusly:

Frank Walton said...
Aaron,

Really? I'm surprised because the last time we chatted you said, "Anyway, I'd rather live in a nudist colony than in Burkhatown."

Well alright, so it's seeing underage boys naked that makes you want to vomit. Gotcha. So you prefer to see underage girls naked instead. At least they don't make you vomit. I think we understand you all too well, Aaron.


This kind of response is not unusual coming from Frank. At this point, I wasn't upset at all, and I posted a follow up comment. Unfortunately, what I posted is not available, because I didn't save it, and Frank denied the comment. But my follow up comment essentially said that I was trying to point out the difference in gender decency standards and that Frank was putting words in my mouth.

I honestly did not expect Frank to refuse my second comment, for it was a very calm and matter of fact reply. I came back to his blog later to find numerous other comments approved, but my follow up comment was conspicuously absent. At this point, I became a bit miffed. Not so much that Frank was putting words in my mouth and trying to make me look like a pedophile (again, that is not unusual for Frank), but because he was denying my ability to explain my earlier statement or even respond to his charge. And to make it worse, Frank continued to level accusations of pedophilia against me in the following comments:

Daddy Cool said...
Yup, Aaron Kinney is a dumb ass.

Frank Walton said...
Well, seeing how Aaron Kinney is a radical libertarian he shouldn't have a problem with underage relationships or marriages. NAAMBLA ought to give him a call.

Anonymous said...
So Aaron Kinney has no problem with children looking like this? Just perfect.

Frank Walton said...
Well, they're wearing too much clothes even if they look like little skanks. Because in Aaron's world he prefer it that all girls be naked. Apparently, it doesn't make him all that sick to see naked girls than boys.


But even this level of nastiness was not enough for Frank. He decided to take advantage of my own blog's unmoderated comments so that he could slander me there as well. Note that he expected me to afford him the ability to speak in my blog comments while by this point he had refused the same consideration to me. He popped into my previous blog post about parents killing their children due to demon possession and said:

Frank Walton said...
Demon children? Maybe if they were naked it'd make you happier, Kinneypoo.


I had now had enough. I tend to take insults and accusations rather well, especially from people like Frank from who I expect this behavior, but this was simply too insulting and too offensive for me not to act. I decided that my best bet was to write a private email to Frank and try to resolve this like mature adults. So I wrote him this email:

Hey Frank,

This is Aaron Kinney. I am a tolerant person when it comes to jabs aimed at me. I didnt even get offended over your accusation of me liking little girls (would you have taken the same accusation in stride?). But I posted a follow up comment to explain my first comment, and you didnt let it post. You denied it. Then you come onto my blog and accused me of the same thing, in addition to posting additional comments on your blog about me being some pedophile.

Did you seriously think that these deceptive actions of yours would go unnoticed by me? You and I both know that my second comment had no inappropriate material; it was merely an explanation for my first comment. Also, you and I both know that you denied the second comment in order to make me look bad and to prevent me from defending myself and explaining my previous comment.

Please dont be deceptive. Frank, you and I may not see eye to eye, and we may not like each other that much, but I have not -nor would I ever- do something like this to you just to make you look bad. Indeed, I would never deny any comment you post on my blog. I dont even moderate my comments!

In my opinion (and you may disagree) you are lying about me in your blog comments by denying my follow up comment in order to bash my name. It is a sin to lie, even if its about an atheist. You probably dont think that denying a comment is lying, but if your God is real, then he surely is watching you, and I doubt that he would approve of you smearing an atheists name like this and censoring their explanation/clarification.

Logically, just because I said that males would gross me out even more doesnt mean that I like seeing naked little girls. You put words in my mouth. Thats bad enough, but I took it in stride. But when you denied me the chance for clarification by denying my second comment, that really hurt. It was a low blow, and it was uncalled for.

Im asking you as a fellow human being not to be disingenuous like this. Surely it isnt beyond you to treat an atheist with just a little bit of decency. Just because you believe that I cant account for morality or logic doesnt mean that Im not capable of using them regardless, even if I were stealing from your worldview. Im pretty sure that you read my follow up comment, and therefore Im pretty sure that you at least know that I said what I said in order to bring attention to gender inequality. Also, I know that you know that I never expressed any interest in little girls dressing like sluts. You simply put words in my mouth.

Please Frank, have a minimum level of decency here. I have never, nor would I ever, do to you what you did to me today. Im not asking you to not insult me. Im not even asking you not to accuse me of vile things. You can have your fun. But dont lie, and especially dont lie by covering up my follow up comments when Im merely trying to respond to your rather offensive accusation.

I would really appreciate a reply or acknowledgement from you about this. Please reply to this email.

Thanks,
Aaron Kinney


Frank did not reply to my email. Instead, he posted this comment at his blog:

Frank Walton said...
Looks like Kinneypoo is angry because I'm not allowing any of his comments here. Little does he know the rules of commenting here. He'd often give drive-by or flippant "whatever" comments in our blog. And like all immature idiots he doesn't care for a genuine reply. But now that he's been caught in the hop he's doing everything he can to make up for his screw up. And just to make him angry I haven't allowed his comments. I know that's mean but it's funny seeing Kinney lose it.

I'll say this about Kinney - the porno-watching pervert who prefers to live in a nudist colony - he still finds it disgusting that boys would be naked. But then again, he doesn't find it as distasteful as naked girls. But no, oh, no! He's not a pedophile. LOL! You happy, Kinneypoo? But I stand by my words, I don't see how you would have a problem with underage relationships given your radical libertarian views. Just my opinion.


Maybe I'm delusional, but I don't think that my email to him exposed me as "losing it." I think that the email I sent him was calm and reasonable. I offered him a chance to settle the issue rationally, but he opted instead to continue to misrepresent me and put words in my mouth.

He justified his denial of my follow up comment by pointing to his comment policy, but this simply doesn't make sense. You see, many of my comments at his blog clearly violate his policy, yet he allows them to post anyway. But the one comment that didn't violate his comment policy (the second comment I posted to explain my first comment) is the one that he denied. Unfortunately I do not have the exact text of my second comment, but I recall that it was not flippant, trollish, or otherwise in violation of his policy. It was a calm explanation of my first comment. Frank merely denied my comment in order to keep a clear path for his continued misrepresentation of me. What Frank wants to do is engage me while simultaneously denying my chance to respond. But lucky for me, I also have a blog.

Frank was so out of line that even some of his Christian readers came to my defense:

JOR said...
In case people around here aren't just playing stupid, I will say that I'm pretty sure that Kinney's comment was sarcastic.

Beast Rabban said...
Yeah, I think Kinney's comments were sarcastic too, JOR, and I'm sure that Frank and Daddy Cool know it, and are just spoofing his comments.

However, I do think we have to be careful about making comments about people's sexuality in this matter. Child abuse ain't a joke, so let's keep any comments about it for the real perverts.


Beast Rabban speaks wisely in this instance. It is a serious thing to accuse people of pedophilia, and those kinds of accusations should be reserved for serious use only. In response to JOR and Beast Rabban, Frank admitted this:

Frank Walton said...
Yes, I was being sarcastic. You'd have to be a doofus to think I wasn't. But as far as my "libertarian" comment goes, I stand by that.


Frank, (most of) his readers, and even I knew that he wasn't seriously leveling pedophilia charges against me, and it wasn't this accusation of his that upset me. What upset me was his silencing of my responses in order to continue his deceptive actions.

Frank Walton also doesn't seem to mind when anonymous commenters mention things that are "even worse" and how they make him/her want to "vomit." But Frank Walton does seem to mind when I, an atheist, point out something else that is "even worse" and how it makes me want to "vomit like that puppet did in Team America." Frank Walton also does not like to have a level playing field. Finally, Frank Walton doesn't mind posting on his blog the sexualized photos of little girls that he expresses so much disgust for.

Frank later explained his actions in my blog comments:

Look, the main reason I didn't allow your comments was just to piss you off and to teach you a lesson.


He succeeded on both counts. I will touch more on the lesson he taught me later in this blog post. Frank continued:

You constantly make glib remarks in my blog. When you were finally caught on the hop you did all you can to unscrew your screw up. And seeing you go nutts about is quite hilarious...


Well, Frank does almost constantly approve my glib remarks, which surprised me when he denied the one remark that wasn't glib. And unfortunately for Frank, I didn't "screw up," although he tried very hard to make it look like I did. My comment was clearly about gender differences in decency standards, yet Frank wanted to characterize it as an endorsement of heterosexual pedophilia. Nice try. And whether I went "nutts" over it is for the readers to judge, but I don't think that I did. If anyone went nuts, I think it is Frank that did so.

Frank then asked me a few questions:

Do I think you're a pedophile? No. But one things for sure you don't find naked boys nearly as sickening as naked girls? Why is that? If a little 13 year old was strutting around topless like a slut wouldn't that bother you? And seeing how you're a radical libertarian wouldn't you have a problem with a 60 year old marrying a 2 year old? Get real.


Actually, I do indeed find naked girls as sickening as naked boys. Frank still doesn't understand the meaning of my comment. Logically, since society (and I presume Frank) is more tolerant of topless boys than topless girls, it would seem that most people (and again, presumably Frank) find naked girls to be more sickening than naked boys. Otherwise, why do the boys run around with their nipples exposed while girls do not?

And do I have a problem with a 60 year old marrying a 2 year old? Yes. In fact, I have a problem with a lot of things happening in today's world. But Frank doesn't really want to hear my answers. He wants to ask these questions of me and then answer them for me. That is why he is not allowing me to respond to the charges he made against me in his comments. He merely wants to pigeonhole me in order to convince himself that I am guilty of the things he wants me to be guilty of.

At any rate, Frank succeeded in his goals. He wanted to strawman me, silence me, piss me off, and teach me a lesson. He succeeded on all counts.

Although there is one problem. Frank didn't clarify exactly what lesson he wanted to teach me. Indeed, he only said that he wanted to teach me "a" lesson. I suppose any lesson will do, as long as he taught me something. So, the question remains, what lesson did Frank teach me?

Frank Walton taught me that he is a True Christian.

31 comments:

Frank Walton said...

All this ranting over little ol' me?

Aaron Kinney said...

All this ranting over little ol' me?

I should have said that to you first.

es said...

Frank Walton is a great spokesperson for Xianity, that's all I can say. It's enlightening to see someone who's so filled with that hateful, misogynistic, judgmental OT spirit.

Aaron Kinney said...

Thank you, es!

Anonymous said...

Frank is a misogynist? Funny how you can say that after Frank protects them. Where as people like Aaron Kinney would rather see them naked. You people are idiots.

Aaron Kinney said...

And I am still being taken out of context. Fabulous.

What I said was that I would rather live in a nudist colony than in burkhatown. Which would you choose, anonymous #2?

Anonymous said...

LOL! No, I think the question is which would you choose? And you admitted you would rather live in a nudist colony which would include nude kids, ya friggin moron! You admitted it that you'd prefer that, correct? The lesson Frank was teaching you was how many "glib" remarks you make. You finally said something stupid which you obviously regret saying. And now Frank won't allow you to explain yourself so you wouldn't do damage control. Get it, porno boy? Frank owned you. And it's mighty funny how angry you are. I bet a zillion dollars if a 16 year old was enticing you, you'd have sex with her if you could get away with it. And you never refuted the fact that you'd be against underage marriages given your radical libertarian nature. If you allow homosexual marriages why not underage one's? You don't want government to get in the way now, do you?

Anonymous said...

Frank obviously has no intellectual integrity whatsoever. To post a first comment and then to twist it all up and then not post an explanatory comment from the author of the first comment is just wrong. He is playing unfairly.

I think it was smart of you to post all of this here.

I think comments, dissenting and agreeing, should be liberally approved. I posted a dissenting view on an atheist blog (I am an atheist) and I will no longer read that blog because my calmly stated dissent was not posted. If someone can't handle dissent or question their own conclusions, then I have no interest in reading their material.

People.

-MomSquared

olly said...

"LOL! No, I think the question is which would you choose? And you admitted you would rather live in a nudist colony which would include nude kids, ya friggin moron! You admitted it that you'd prefer that, correct? The lesson Frank was teaching you was how many "glib" remarks you make. You finally said something stupid which you obviously regret saying. And now Frank won't allow you to explain yourself so you wouldn't do damage control. Get it, porno boy? Frank owned you. And it's mighty funny how angry you are. I bet a zillion dollars if a 16 year old was enticing you, you'd have sex with her if you could get away with it. And you never refuted the fact that you'd be against underage marriages given your radical libertarian nature. If you allow homosexual marriages why not underage one's? You don't want government to get in the way now, do you?"

Wow, the morons are out in full force today Aaron. Let's see, where to start with this tripe. First off, Aaron's point, as he so well explained, was that there do exist gender inequalities in this society. Any idiot (well, I thought any idiot, but you are proving me wrong) should be able to glean that from his comment. As for the whole 16 year old comment, "methinks thou dost protest too much" and all that.

As for the whole marriage issue, have you ever taken the time to read Aaron's moral stance? (obviously not of course). Aaron's system of morality is based on non-coercion. Using Frank's example, the 60 year old and the 2 year old, the 2 year old would quite obviously be coerced since he/she hasn't matured enough to make those decisions on their own.

As for the nudist colony example, in fact most nudist colonies have restrictions on age, specifically for the protection of children; but even if they didn't, are you really THAT sexually deviant that you have to sexualize everything, even kids? Personally, I could give a shit about nudity. Standards of decency, when it comes to how much or how little clothing is acceptable, are entirely subjective.

Frank himself is railing against the sexualization of children, and he's absolutely right, sexualizing children is immoral -- but the problem lies not in the nudity itself, but in the perception of what nudity means in our society. Nudity = Sex in Western Culture because Christianity and other religions hold the human body in such shame. There are many cultures in the world where nudity is not directly associated with sex.

You Christian's really want to eradicate these things you see as immoral? How about working towards a more progressive society, that sees nudity much more naturally and clinically; it's precisely because you object so much, and make it into such a taboo, that nudity at any age is all of a sudden an issue.

Again, I'll speak slowly here so you can understand me, nudity does not equal sexuality, unless YOU YOURSELF equate it that way.

Grow up, perhaps get rid of some of that repression, and maybe you'll get it.

Or you could just keep calling everyone pedaphiles, because that's an effective way to make a point.

-olly

Aaron Kinney said...

anonymous,

LOL! No, I think the question is which would you choose?

I already told you which I would choose. Now which would you choose? A nudist colony or burkhatown?

And you admitted you would rather live in a nudist colony which would include nude kids, ya friggin moron!

LOL youre just pissed because I dont think that a nudist colony would neccessarily involve the sexualization of everyone just because they are nude. Adam and Eve were nude anyway before they sinned. Indeed, nudity would be the state of unfallen man, even kids, right? Ya friggin moron yakkity yak yak!

The lesson Frank was teaching you was how many "glib" remarks you make.

But he didnt censor my glib comments. He only censored my non glib comments. And now I totally slammed him in this post. Youre just pissed cause I have the upper hand.

You finally said something stupid which you obviously regret saying.

Not at all. I dont regret anything and indeed I reproduced what I said here in my own blog for all to see. I stand by it. So dont put owrds in my mouth or assert what I do and dont regret because you dont know me and you obviously dont understand my position "ya friggin moron!"

Get it, porno boy? Frank owned you. And it's mighty funny how angry you are.

Ha ha! Ever heard of "projection"? Im nto the one angry. Look at you and how you are writing! Look at the crappy tone Frank has, and compare both of those to everythin I wrote in this post. Nice try. Nobody owned me for anything and thats why I made this post which exposed all of Franks bullshit. Youre obviously very pissy over this.

I bet a zillion dollars if a 16 year old was enticing you, you'd have sex with her if you could get away with it.

Now you are accusing me of pedophilia too, huh? Quit projecting. The only people that keep bringing up pedophilia and sexualized children are you and Frank. I proved it in this post. If anyone is gonna be likely to molest any kids, its gonna be a Christian like you. Atheists arent known for their pedophilia.

And you never refuted the fact that you'd be against underage marriages given your radical libertarian nature.

Obviously you dont understand anything about libertarianism and self-ownership. I am personally against 60 year olds marrying 2 year olds. I already said that in my post. The problem is that you are the type of person who thinks you can impose your standards of taste onto everyone else through the barrel of a gun.

If you allow homosexual marriages why not underage one's?

Youre begging the question.

You don't want government to get in the way now, do you?

I think that government should not exist whatsoever.

Man you are sad. Youre the one trying to do damage control for your own ridiculous self in my comments. How about this: since you support Franks censoring of me, and you want to come in here and insult me with all kinds of ad hominem and glib comments, I will return you the favor. Watch your conduct in my comments or I will delete all your comments and turn on moderation, therefore giving you a taste of the medicine that you want Frank to dish out to me.

Thanks for playing, you lose, goodbye :P

P.S. you just got your ass handed to you by the two comments that followed yours. See, youre on my turf now, genius.

Aaron Kinney said...

I think anonymous would choose burkhatown, but he doesnt want to admit it.

Note that in societies with liberal nudity (like tribes in the amazon, etc...) there is no sex crime or sexualization of little children. But in societies where everything is covered up, there IS sex crime and pedophilia.

Note that the profession with the highest rate of sex crime against children is that of the clergy.

Note that, if God exists, it was He who designed human beings to become capable of reproduction around 11-13, and even made girls mature before boys. So while my atheist self thinks that 11-13 is far too early to be having sex, God disagrees with me.

Note that the Bible says nothing about age restriction on sexuality. I invite a Christian to come in here and prove me wrong, citing book, chapter, and verse.

Note that the Bible promotes nudity as the natural and unfallen state of man.

I could go on and on, but I think thats enough for now. Dear Lord, forgive anonymous, for he knows not what he does (or says).

James said...

Wow. :)

I don't have the stomach for the bullshit that people like Frank Walton constantly trot out. I'm glad, however, that you do.

es said...


I bet a zillion dollars if a 16 year old was enticing you, you'd have sex with her if you could get away with it.


Can I just point out that the age of consent is 16 in many US states and European countries? So you could certainly "get away with it" if you were inclined. Whether you, as a considerably older person, find that appealing or not depends largely on whether you are interested in just plain animal sex, or a deeper relationship with the people you fuck.

All the atheists I know are humanists who think there's more to relationships than just sex.

Frank Walton said...

Thank you anonymous (12:12 AM, March 21, 2007) for your comment! Indeed, Aaron has just dug his own grave. I find it interesting, Aaron, that you openly admitted that you would rather live in a nudist colony than a burkhatown. Now, I'm not saying you're a pedophile. However, like a pedophile you think children are better off naked rather than them covering up in a burkha! People like you make it too easy for me.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Frank (3:28 PM, March 21, 2007) for your comment!

Ahhh...I see the f*ck-up fairy has visited us again. And I'm not being rude Frank, you're just insignificant.

It's hard to imagine someone with such a vapid worldview was actually accepted into college...you had to write an application essay, right? I can only imagine the vitriol that eeeked out onto your paper.

You are funny though, in an r'tard kind of way. And I'm continuously impressed at how efficient you are at double speak...you should pat yourself on the back (if you don't already) for such consistency - is it a Christian thang?

People like you make it too easy for me.

Frank Walton said...

Well, lookee here, I left a blogpost on Aaron Kinney for all to see. Enjoy. Happy now, Kinneypoo? I'm letting everybody know about how you think I'm a big meanie.

Bahnsen Burner said...

Hey Frank, you're familiar with presuppositionalism, aren't you? Can you answer a simple question? Is presuppositionalism internalist or externalist?

I look forward to your response.

Regards,
Dawson

Anonymous said...

Aaron,

I already told you which I would choose. Now which would you choose? A nudist colony or burkhatown?

Burkhatown. At least, children are clothed. You'd want to see them naked. A nudist colony entails nude children. And you admitted that you'd rather live in a nudist colony.

LOL youre just pissed because I dont think that a nudist colony would neccessarily involve the sexualization of everyone just because they are nude.

I didn't say that you wanted to have sex with anybody, including children. But, uh, you want to see children naked. No argument there.

Adam and Eve were nude anyway before they sinned. Indeed, nudity would be the state of unfallen man, even kids, right? Ya friggin moron yakkity yak yak!

But what happened after they sinned? GOD CLOTHED THEM! He provided their clothing, because Adam and Eve were full of shame. Try again.

But he didnt censor my glib comments. He only censored my non glib comments.

Uh, the ones where you made excuses for your glib comment? So?

And now I totally slammed him in this post. Youre just pissed cause I have the upper hand.

The upper hand because you want to see children in the nude and not in burkhas? Some upper hand you're giving me.

Not at all. I dont regret anything and indeed I reproduced what I said here in my own blog for all to see. I stand by it. So dont put owrds in my mouth or assert what I do and dont regret because you dont know me and you obviously dont understand my position "ya friggin moron!"

So you don't think it's stupid to say that you'd rather see children naked than in burkha's? Aaron, c'mon, man. That's stupid!

Ha ha! Ever heard of "projection"? Im nto the one angry.

You said, "He wanted to ... piss me off, and teach me a lesson. He succeeded on all counts." So, uh, you're the angry one. You admitted it.

Look at you and how you are writing!

What about how you're writing? You were so angry you couldn't even spell "not" right.

Look at the crappy tone Frank has, and compare both of those to everythin I wrote in this post.

Yup, you sure are angrier than Frank.

Nice try.

Didn't even have to try. It's obvious.

Nobody owned me for anything and thats why I made this post which exposed all of Franks bullshit. Youre obviously very pissy over this.

No, but it's funny seeing you pissy over it.

Now you are accusing me of pedophilia too, huh?

Just say you wouldn't have sex with a 16 year old and I won't call you a pedophile. But still you'd rather see children naked than clothed in a burkha.

Quit projecting.

I'm not.

The only people that keep bringing up pedophilia and sexualized children are you and Frank.

And you're the one who keeps bringing up the "naked city or a burkhatown" scenario. When it's all said and done, you want to see children naked. Besides, Frank is protecting these children so they wouldn't be dressed so loose. What's wrong with that? I wouldn't want my daughter dressed in those Armani clothes. But you would rather have them naked.

I proved it in this post.

You've done no such thing, but express your perverted views.

If anyone is gonna be likely to molest any kids, its gonna be a Christian like you.

Well, if Frank and I want to see children in Burkhas that's not likely to happen. But you want to see children naked. I think it's obvious who would end up molesting children.

Atheists arent known for their pedophilia.

You accused me of begging the question before. This begs the question all over the place.

Obviously you dont understand anything about libertarianism and self-ownership. I am personally against 60 year olds marrying 2 year olds. I already said that in my post.

So what if you're against it? You wouldn't make it illegal. That's government intervention.

The problem is that you are the type of person who thinks you can impose your standards of taste onto everyone else through the barrel of a gun.

If I found out an older man was molesting a child, I would hope he dies. I don't see a problem with that at all.

Youre begging the question.

I'm not because you are against those who are against homosexual marriage.

I think that government should not exist whatsoever.

So let there be homosexual and underage marriages, correct? What's the problem then? Although, I see it as a problem for you, you don't.

Man you are sad. Youre the one trying to do damage control for your own ridiculous self in my comments.

You're projecting, because you tried doing that in Frank's blog.

How about this: since you support Franks censoring of me, and you want to come in here and insult me with all kinds of ad hominem and glib comments, I will return you the favor.

Go right ahead. It's your blog.

Watch your conduct in my comments or I will delete all your comments and turn on moderation, therefore giving you a taste of the medicine that you want Frank to dish out to me.

If that's what you want to do then do it. I don't care. Seeing you piss and moan makes me happy enough.

Thanks for playing, you lose, goodbye :P

Whatever, porno-boy.

P.S. you just got your ass handed to you by the two comments that followed yours. See, youre on my turf now, genius.

I don't care what these losers have to say to me.

It was fun. Now calm down. And take a deep breath. But you wouldn't be holding your breath if you see naked children, huh?

What a loser.

Aaron Kinney said...

Wow Frank you are dense. You just made a post condemning me for something that Olly already refuted in an earlier comment. Allow me to quote what he said:

Frank himself is railing against the sexualization of children, and he's absolutely right, sexualizing children is immoral -- but the problem lies not in the nudity itself, but in the perception of what nudity means in our society. Nudity = Sex in Western Culture because Christianity and other religions hold the human body in such shame. There are many cultures in the world where nudity is not directly associated with sex.

You Christian's really want to eradicate these things you see as immoral? How about working towards a more progressive society, that sees nudity much more naturally and clinically; it's precisely because you object so much, and make it into such a taboo, that nudity at any age is all of a sudden an issue.

Again, I'll speak slowly here so you can understand me, nudity does not equal sexuality, unless YOU YOURSELF equate it that way.


QED, loser.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Anonymous (7:28 PM, March 21, 2007) for your comment!

I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid.

And I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.

Wait! I know what it is!

T-H-E-I-S-M-T-A-R-D-A-T-I-O-N

Not so hard to pronounce after all.

R'tard.

Frank Walton said...

Hi Aaron,

Wow Frank you are dense. You just made a post condemning me for something that Olly already refuted in an earlier comment. Allow me to quote what he said:

Frank himself is railing against the sexualization of children, and he's absolutely right, sexualizing children is immoral -- but the problem lies not in the nudity itself, but in the perception of what nudity means in our society. Nudity = Sex in Western Culture because Christianity and other religions hold the human body in such shame. There are many cultures in the world where nudity is not directly associated with sex.

You Christian's really want to eradicate these things you see as immoral? How about working towards a more progressive society, that sees nudity much more naturally and clinically; it's precisely because you object so much, and make it into such a taboo, that nudity at any age is all of a sudden an issue.

Again, I'll speak slowly here so you can understand me, nudity does not equal sexuality, unless YOU YOURSELF equate it that way.

QED, loser.


You talk about me strawmaning you? This is a strawman if I ever read one. I don't equate nudity with sexualization. It depends how the body is being presented. I'll be up front with you, sex is good, but adultery and lust are wrong. The human body is good (the Bible even knows that. Read Song of Solomon), exploiting it is wrong. For instance, you like watching misogynistic material like pornography where women are treated as nothing more than sex objects.

What you're doing now, Aaron, is you're putting a position on me that I never held. But you have to pretend I hold it so you can get back at me after I clobbered the ever living daylights out of you. Try to be fair okay? For instance, I'm totally fair by taking you at your words. You think that children are better off naked than wearing Burkhas! LOL! That's is just amazing, Aaron! I mean, really! I'm not saying you want sex with these children, but, uh, again, you'd rather see them naked than dressed in Burkhas. Do you understand what you're saying?! Does it at all compute in that head of yours? YOU WOULD RATHER SEE CHILDREN NAKED THAN CLOTHED IN BURKHAS! Oh brother, that's just sad. Anyway, if it makes you feel better continue with your stramens. Toodles porno-king.

Frank

Aaron Kinney said...

Anonymous 7:28pm,

Burkhatown. At least, children are clothed. You'd want to see them naked. A nudist colony entails nude children. And you admitted that you'd rather live in a nudist colony.

I dont specifically want to see naked children. You are trying to pigeonhole me. My basis for preferring a nudist colony over burkhatown has nothing to do with naked children.

I didn't say that you wanted to have sex with anybody, including children. But, uh, you want to see children naked. No argument there.

When did I say that I wanted to see children naked? I never said that. You still dont understand why I would choose the nudist colony over burkhatown.

But what happened after they sinned? GOD CLOTHED THEM! He provided their clothing, because Adam and Eve were full of shame. Try again.

Can you cite the chapter and verse in the Bible where God clothed them? Last I checked they covered themselves, which in fact supports Olly's and my argument.

So you don't think it's stupid to say that you'd rather see children naked than in burkha's? Aaron, c'mon, man. That's stupid!

Okay, since Im a totally stupid moron, can you explain to my why this is stupid?

You said, "He wanted to ... piss me off, and teach me a lesson. He succeeded on all counts." So, uh, you're the angry one. You admitted it.

I clearly explained what conduct of Frank's it was that pissed me off: it was the censoring of my responses while he simultaneously continued to level accusations against me.

What about how you're writing? You were so angry you couldn't even spell "not" right.

Everyone makes typos. I dont spellcheck my comments. Sorry buddy, but you havent pissed me off yet. Like I said in my previous post, it takes a lot to upset me, and you havent hit that threshold. Not by a long shot ;)

Just say you wouldn't have sex with a 16 year old and I won't call you a pedophile. But still you'd rather see children naked than clothed in a burkha.

I wouldn't have sex with a 16 year old. I wouldnt even have sex with a 21 year old.

The only people that keep bringing up pedophilia and sexualized children are you and Frank.

Frank keeps bringing up the children issue. He is also the one who resurrected my old nudist colony/burkhatown statement. Otherwise I wouldnt be talking about it right now.

Besides, Frank is protecting these children so they wouldn't be dressed so loose.

Agreed, and in fact I never challenged him on that. I actually agree with him on that issue. Dont you understand that?

What's wrong with that? I wouldn't want my daughter dressed in those Armani clothes.

Neither would I. Ive repeatedly tried to make this clear but you and Frank keep strawmanning me on this issue.

You've done no such thing, but express your perverted views.

My view that mandatory burkhas are worse than mandatory nudity? Yea, thats real perverse LOL

Well, if Frank and I want to see children in Burkhas that's not likely to happen. But you want to see children naked. I think it's obvious who would end up molesting children.

Then why is rape and pedophilia more of an issue in societies where burkhas are mandatory than in societies where nudity is acceptable?

Atheists arent known for their pedophilia.

You accused me of begging the question before. This begs the question all over the place.


Can you please explain to me how this begs the question?

If I found out an older man was molesting a child, I would hope he dies. I don't see a problem with that at all.

I agree with you here. But you missed the point of my statement. When I said that you want to impose your tastes at the barrel of a gun, I was referring to nudism itself, not the sexualization or molestation of children.

I'm not because you are against those who are against homosexual marriage.

Double negative. Simplify it by saying "you are in favor of homosexual marriage." And yes I believe that homosexuals should be able to marry eachother if they want. Does that also make me perverse by your standards?

So let there be homosexual and underage marriages, correct? What's the problem then? Although, I see it as a problem for you, you don't.

Homosexual marriages are not a problem in my opinion. Adults marrying children are a problem, because of reasons that Olly explained earlier. In short, children are not capable of making those decisions. Besides, homosexual marriage and underage marriage are very distinct and seperate issues. Dont confuse or try to equate the two.

You're projecting, because you tried doing that in Frank's blog.

Attempting to correct strawmen and pigeonholing is not "damage control."

If that's what you want to do then do it. I don't care. Seeing you piss and moan makes me happy enough.

I wont censor you based on disagreement. I only threatened to censor you if you continued your ad hominem. Thank you for not putting too much ad hominem in your latest response, by the way.

Whatever, porno-boy.

Yes I watch the occasional porno, even with my girlfriend present. Is there something wrong with watching pornos? Have you ever watched a porno?

I don't care what these losers have to say to me.

Well I guess you dont care that you got thoroughly refuted by them and that its here for all to see. Glad we are in agreement on that point :)

Aaron Kinney said...

Frank,

You talk about me strawmaning you? This is a strawman if I ever read one. I don't equate nudity with sexualization. It depends how the body is being presented. I'll be up front with you, sex is good, but adultery and lust are wrong. The human body is good (the Bible even knows that. Read Song of Solomon), exploiting it is wrong.

Wow you just totally defeated your own argument. That was funny.

What you're doing now, Aaron, is you're putting a position on me that I never held. But you have to pretend I hold it so you can get back at me after I clobbered the ever living daylights out of you.

So are you admitting that a nudist colony does NOT automatically equal sexualization and perversion?

This is the first time ever that you mentioned "the way its presented" and some kind of contextual argument. I think you are shifting and I think that I wasnt strawmanning you at all.

But lets assume for a second that you are correct, and that I was strawmanning you. It would mean that you actually agree with me and Olly in that nudism does not garuntee perversion or sexualization.

Good job on the backtracking, though.

Aaron Kinney said...

It looks like I have more supporters in my comments section than Frank has in his. Plus, this is probably the first time Ive had Christians defend me when I bickered with Frank, which is a good sign. :D

Anonymous said...

The ever ignorant Frank said,

...the Bible even knows that...

Just a second...ok, buahahahahaha!

The bible even knows that. THAT was funny. The bible says what's in the bible is true too, do you believe everything you read?!

Oh wait, you're a Christian. Sorry, my bad.

You have my support Aaron, I've grown tired of Frank's complete arrogant-double-speak-cirular-argument crap.

Frank Walton said...

Aaron,

Wow you just totally defeated your own argument. That was funny.

LOL! No, that was funny.

So are you admitting that a nudist colony does NOT automatically equal sexualization and perversion?

Ha! So in some sense you know I didn't totally defeat my own argument, because you're willing to admit that I'm not equalling nudity to sexualization. But I'll answer, just for you, Kinneypoo. Sexualization? Yes. Perversion? No. Because not everybody in the nudist colony are the same. Some of them may like this nudity they see and pervert it. Coming from you, I find it hard to believe it would NOT be a perversion. You obviously have a problem with lust, openly admitting that you watch pornography and engage in adultery. And as was seen here, you like women acting like sluts. However, would it be okay to live in a colony without the perversion then? Of course. Is it possible? No. Men are too wicked.

This is the first time ever that you mentioned "the way its presented" and some kind of contextual argument. I think you are shifting and I think that I wasnt strawmanning you at all.

Sure, you think that, Kinneypoo. But I didn't contextualize it until you did. After all, you guys unfairly put the "nudity=sexualization" stamp on me.

But lets assume for a second that you are correct, and that I was strawmanning you. It would mean that you actually agree with me and Olly in that nudism does not garuntee perversion or sexualization.

"Perversion or sexualization"? You just said, perversion and sexualization earlier. Anyway, to answer your question here, Yes.

Good job on the backtracking, though.

As we've seen I didn't do that. However, it seemed like you did plenty of backtracking about not wanting to see nude children in a nudist colony. But then you think it's not stupid to see children naked than in a Burkha. LOL! You're a handful, Aaron. It's like you think a nudist colony doesn't entail nude children. What's next, a Burkha colony doesn't entail children in Burkhas?

Anyway...

Frank

Frank Walton said...

bahnsenburner,

Hmm, it seems that you're following Corey's question about internal and external justification. He's a part of my crew, you know.

Frank

FredK said...

Aaron, slap yourself in the head for participating in Frank's blog and for trying to reason with this idiot. I am sure your mother told you many things that apply to this situation that you have ignored.

don't play with snakes.

Don't play with fire or you will get burned.

don't associate with losers. You are defined by the people you associate with.

And on and on. Frank doens't deserve the attention you are giving him. In fact, he is little more than a attention whore. You are playing his game.

Let it go, and ignore the asshole from now on. talking with Frank is the intellectual equivalent of repeating the 2nd grade.

Aaron Kinney said...

Ha! So in some sense you know I didn't totally defeat my own argument, because you're willing to admit that I'm not equalling nudity to sexualization.

I admitted nothing of the sort. What I was trying to do was coax a blatant admission out of you; a backtrack of your own doing.

However, would it be okay to live in a colony without the perversion then? Of course. Is it possible? No. Men are too wicked.

So would you say that all nudist colonies in existence today (of which there are many) are full of perversion? Got anything to back that claim up?

Aaron Kinney said...

fredk,

You are absolutely right. I shouldnt have taken the bait. Its become a three ring circus. Oh well, at least most of the readers of our blogs are seeing it my way.

FredK said...

Anyone who sees Frank's character assassinations, straw men attacks, and absolutely childish rants as credible don't deserve the time of day.

disassociate yourself from this moron.