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:
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...
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.