In his post, he says:
Assert Aynisphat ( ياسر عرفات) born Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Aynisphat al-Qudwa al-Husseini (محمد عبد الرؤوف القدوة الحسيني) and also known by the Kunya Abu Aaron Kinney
(أبو عمّار), is Chairman of the Pop off and Lament your Objectivist pseudo-philosophy (PLO) (2004-); and president of Kill The Afterlife (KTA) (2005-).
What’s with the Arabic-sounding names for "assert" and "Ayn"? Is this ad hominem attack more of a racial/ethnic/Arabic slur or a religious/Islamic slur? And what does Ayn Rand have to do with Arabs? I am not sure about any of this, but either way I don't like it. I wanted to write a reply to his post, but I don't know if I can keep it civil. I refuse to write a post in response to Manata that uses Manata's degree of personal attacks and insults, and I don't know if I can keep from doing that this time.
Manata is a textbook example of how not to be a Christian. For it is obvious that unless you already are a Christian, you will be turned off by the high level of insults and jokes Manata writes at the expense of the subjects of his posts. I honestly don't know what Manata's aim is in his insulting and seemingly racist style of writing: To entertain his Christian audience (which seems to be working), to piss off as many non-Christians as possible (which is definitely working), or to merely soothe his apparent insecurities (which doesn't seem to be working at all).
Regardless, I think his act of assigning Arabic names to me deserves an explanation. They seem discriminatory based on either race or religion (or both). They also are misplaced, since I am Caucasian (not Arabic), an atheist (not a Muslim), and a libertarian (not a Randist).
I am not going to provide Manata with a proper response until this issue is settled. Manata wants to play the morality game, but only while his opponent is operating under the distraction and stress of insulting and racist charges. I would love nothing more than to tangle with Manata on the morality issue, but to do so while he is heaping so much derision on me would be far too degrading. Manata knows that I have repeatedly asked him to tone down the ad hominem, and he once said he would try to do so when dealing with me, but it looks like he either forgot about what he said in the past, or he was lying to me. I've done nothing to provoke this new level of insults from him.
I hope that you, the reader, will take the time to click on the link to Manata's post, read what he wrote, and judge for yourself if Manata is trying to insult me by equating me with an Arab or a Muslim, and therefore slinging ethnic/racial or religious slurs. What do you all think?
Well, there's 2 wordplays on 'Aynisphat'. The more obvious 1 is 'Anus fat'. The other is 'Ayn is Pretty Hot and Tasty'.
I'd opt for the former, as the latter is somewhat...eeeewwww.
Manata always gives me a headache. What w/strawmen, circular logic, & his peculiar brand of moral relativism.
Ahhh, I see. I got the "assert" and the "Ayn" part but I didnt get the rest of that wordplay. Good observation.
However, I think its less likely that Manata would refer to Ayn Rand as pretty hot and tasty. Honestly, I wouldnt consider Ayn Rand hot or tasty either.
Manata is just trying to ruffle your feathers. It is a rather poor attempt at any coherent argument, so he must have thought himself cute and focused more on trying to sound cool and smart refuting your argument. The Arabic association to you is a tight-assed conservative's way of slinging an insult at you by associating you with a heathenistic Islamist who shuns the mighty Christ Jesus Holy Ghost God with a big dick who we all know is mightier and better at smiting than the lowly pissant Allah the puny coward butt-humper God.
It didn't work if you ask me. If I were Manata (I'm not, thank godless) I would go back to heavy drug usage.
In this we see a main problem with theist attempts at moral systems. They simply suck ass."
See Kinney, when your fellow atheists (and you) take shots at me I don't write a blog entry and cry about it.
Btw, if you care about being consistent, can you tell the big, bad atheists to not be such big ol' meanies to me?
Oh yeah, how do you know that *you* exist in reality as you think you do? maybe you're a butterfly dreaming your a man?
"See Kinney, when your fellow atheists (and you) take shots at me I don't write a blog entry and cry about it."
Isn't this EXACTLY what he's been doing? I wouldn't pursue this much further Aaron since as they say: Don't argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down on your level and win by experience.
I don't cry about it, I make them look silly.
Anyway, I *always* include an actual critique along with my posts. Kinney's post was obviously an attempt to get around having to deal with my analysis of his moral system.
Anyway, you guys are welcome to try for actual criticisms besides *simply* name calling. My blog is open for comments.
Manata are you serious???? You think Im trying to dodge answering your sorry excuse for a criticism?
Hold on a second, let me quote my self:
I am not going to provide Manata with a proper response until this issue is settled. Manata wants to play the morality game, but only while his opponent is operating under the distraction and stress of insulting and racist charges. I would love nothing more than to tangle with Manata on the morality issue, but to do so while he is heaping so much derision on me would be far too degrading.
So now you are calling me a liar too, huh?
Manata, I have dealt with your heaping ad hominem before, and of course we both know that I have flung insults at you too. However, this degree of racist/Islamic insulting is too far. Manata, its like youre trying to find the breaking point; the limit of how much personal poo flinging your oopponent will take.
You know full well what you are doing Paul. I wouldnt expect you to write a serious reply to a post I made about you if I included black and/or white trash insults in it. In fact, I wouldnt even throw any racist insults at you to begin with. Know why? Im too moral.
Paul, I want you to explain why you did what you did, and then take it back. If you do that, I will be more than happy to reply to the serious portions of your post. Its like I said earlier. I would love to tangle with your moral arguments, but Im not going to do so when your conduct is so disgusting. Im not going to give you a proper reply until you stop acting like a Klansman.
No, I will not "take it back." How childish.
I am willing to concede that Paul may not have been using racist terms. But they are discriminatory of an entire group of people and are bigoted nonetheless. Paul thinks its funny to equate me with an Arab and/or a Muslim. That is, at minimum, an ethnic/cultural slur.
Regarding your linked posts, they do not prove that Finley is a racist. For example, I have links to atheist blogs where the authors are democrats. Does that make me a democrat? No! In fact, I am not a democrat, and linking to their sites due to my support of their atheism doesnt make me fully aligned with all their views.
Second, whether or not reggie finley is racist has nothing to do with manatas insults directed at me.
Manata threw slurs at me that, if nothing else, appear racist at first glance. Has Finley done that to anyone before, like give someone an Uncle Tom sounding name or something? I dont think so.
Reggies link to Johnny skeptic is a far cry from what Manata did. Nice try though.
I'd give Paul the benefit of the doubt, but even so, his satire is about as distasteful as his theology.
Aaron and I dismantled Paul months ago. Why is he digging up ass-whoopings again?
The funny part is that he never gave me the rebuttal he promised. The funnier thing is that I pointed out his racism, although as aversive. This is obvious and blatant, although it isn't quite racism, but faithism (and cultural, which for the Muslims very nearly covers the entire Arab culture, so is damn close to racism).
I don't see how the "Atheism Sucks" blog is racist. It was calling Reggie on a good point, though we can't be POSITIVE that Mr' Finley was aware of johnny Skeptic's racist remarks.
Interesting. Never heard a BAX quoting Chuang Tzu before.
Judging from your site, you must've have learned fallacies at the knee of Holding.
By the way, Aaron, I feel I should remind you that "race" is a social construct which has no genetic, biological foundation. The term "caucasion" is archaic and no longer used by any biologist worth his/her credentials. When it was being used though, Arabs were considered Caucasion. The whole Caucasion = white thing is exasperated by the gov't use of the term to mean white.
Picky? Probably, but you know how I feel about teh subject, and I just wanted you to be aware that you made an error (arab not caucasion) that I'm sure would never have occured had you known.
Perhaps it was Pliny the younger, perhaps someone else. The legend comes to me through Robert A. Heinlein. There was an ancient curse, whereby the cursed subject was said to produce a little frog every time he opened his mouth. I don't read Paul Manata or anyone of his type regularly because it almost invariably reminds me of this curse.
To me, people like Paul fall into two categories: either they are completely bamboozled and blind to their own externally programmed prejudices, or they are actively attempting to bamboozle others for their own enrichment and hierarchical domination.
BTW, "Arian" is another meaningless term. Good thing your name is Aaron :-)
Some wear the "cloak" of xianity but are still gang bangers, racists, etc. underneath. Religion may get some people "off the hook" in their own minds, but rarely is there a pure and total transformation when someone is "saved." I have seen this happen with people in my own family. This is one of the things that repulses me about xianity and all religion for that matter. It just gives the person a release from personal responsibility of having to follow any kind of morals because they can be "forgiven" for immoral acts and behavior over and over and over again.
Post a Comment