Frank says that an anonymous commenter "utterly demolished" me in the comments section of my previous post. The anonymous commenter had this to say:
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?
Frank Walton expanded on the same accusation:
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.
But I am the one who gets the last laugh, thanks to my esteemed colleague Olly who "utterly demolished" anonymous with his own comment, and consequently pre-demolished Frank's latest accusation before he even posted it:
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.
Olly for the win! I couldn't have said it better myself.
It's a shame that Frank is so blissfully unaware that he is shooting baskets after the game ended. I feel kind of bad for him, especially since his latest post makes ample use of big, bold, italicized fonts - a sure sign that he is too sure of himself and his argument (or is that a sign of him "losing it"?).
I wonder how Frank would respond to a Muslim's charge of perversion due to his lack of support for headscarves, or for that matter, burkhas? Frank is completely unable to see the point that I am trying to make when I use the nudism/burkha dichotomy.
Do I want to live in a nudist colony, period? No. Would I rather live in a nudist colony than in burkhatown? Yes. Are nudists pedophiles? No. Indeed, many nudist colonies legally exist in the US today where entire families, including children, peacefully exercise their nudism.
Another fact worth pointing out is that pedophilia is not known to be rampant among nudists, yet pedophilia is known to be a problem for the clergy. I also think that law-abiding nudists would be rather offended by Frank's accusations. After all, Frank's accusations apply even more to those who actively advocate and practice nudism than to myself, who merely said that I would prefer the extreme of nudism to the extreme of burkhas.
My original argument was about gender-based disparity in decency standards, and Frank wanted to strawman me into some pedophilia argument. I actually took the bait, got censored by him, and I still won thanks in large part to Olly, who shot Frank down before he got off the runway.
But one question in my head still remains. You see, so far I'm the only one to answer the "nudist colony or burkhatown?" question. I think Frank should answer it, as well as his Christian supporters.
Dude, Aaron, seriously, now, you have to let go. You're just hurting yourself buddy. I answered your question. Had you looked it up when you asked me you knew I said I'd rather live in a Burkhatown than a nudist colony. However, given your presupposition that you would "rather live in a nudist colony than in Burkhatown", you'd rather see children naked than dressed in Burkhas! LOL! I find that to be a problem, Aaron. It's just so sad how you're trying to make that implication not as serious as it really is. I'm just following where your logic goes, my friend. Dude, you gotta stop watching the pornos. Anyway, I already answered Olly here. His assessment was false.
In the nudist/burkha dichotomy, I see it as less about wearing clothes, than about the amount of freedom each option allows. I don't think that it's any stretch to say that a society in which people are allowed to be nude is one which minimally (if at all) restricts their freedoms. By way of contrast, a society in which people are forced to cover their bodies completely is, by definition, one in which freedoms are restricted.
Given the choice between the two, I really don't think it's surprising that anyone would choose the option that is associated with more freedom. I know that I would.
Aaron, dude, seriously, don't give to much more time to Frank Walton. You are only fueling his fire. Frank Walton gets off on this stuff. His problem is the same as all Xians. He has no arguement and must submit himself to character attacks in order to hide the fact that he has no answers. He doesn't approve comments and he quotes people out of context. Then he makes post claiming that he ruined them. Frank Walton tried to do this to me and he hid the entire post because realized that he looked like a total idiot. When someone comes at him with a logical argument he either hides it (like he did to me) or he goes for a character assasination (like he did to you.) The fact is Frank Walton has nothing, and he thrives on being outrageous. The more time you devote to him, the more you will feed his delusions. Aaron, any idiot could see the point that you were making here. Of course Frank is not just any idiot. If anyone wants to see another case of Frank twisting in the wind, dancing, and dodging, then check out this post called Frank Walton gets schooled.
Of course you wont find this conversation on his site because.... GASP!!!! He didn't approve. What an idiot!
I agree with angelsdepart. I've seen Frank do this to a lot of people. He's basically just another Xian troll.
By way of contrast, a society in which people are forced to cover their bodies completely is, by definition, one in which freedoms are restricted.
And a society in which people are forced to uncover their bodies completely is, by definition, one in which freedoms are restricted.
Wow, some school lesson you taught me. I just about forgot who you were. I guess it wasn't all that significant to me. Anyway, indeed, you're right, Aaron Kinney gave me more fuel for the fire. Usually, I like to bait people, and I love it when they take it. However, in this situation, Kinney provided me the bait, and pretty much snagged himself in my fishing line. Like I said, he makes it way too easy for me. I just posted a new post on him here.
Frank, I really never expected you to learn a lesson, as I mentioned before, you are an idiot. Are you saying that you only post comments from people that take your bait? That is very balanced. Your site is just about character assasination. You still have not answered one question in mine or Aarons blog directly. You hide any statements that are damaging to your argument and you quote people out of context. I have a feeling that you are an Atheist yourself. It would make sense. You are playing the part of the idiot Christian to try to make all the other Christians look bad. Good job hoss, you are succeding!!! I applaud your site! It only shows how ignorant Christians are. I have posted about 5 comments on your site that show what an idiot you are. All of them followed your "rules." Only 1 was ever allowed. Nice Frank, nice! I vote Frank Walton for "The biggest douchebag in the Universe award!" With any luck he will beat John Edwards.
Aaron, I just read on Franks site that you had sex out of wedlock and that you watched a porno!!! Gasp!!! Well you are truly going to hell now!!! I guess you better concede to Frank and accept Jesus before it's to late. Wait a minute, Frank doesn't even know how to lead you to Jesus, all he knows how to do is insult you!!! NOW WE'RE ALL SCREWED! What are we going to do with out Frank's "man in the sky" to tell us what is right and wrong? I suppose we will just have to live our lives. Hey Frank, haven't us evil heathens sufficiently pissed off your god? It's a good thing that god has you to protect him. Apparantly he is not capable of doing it himself/herself.
To Frank Walton:
(This same text is posted on both Aaron Kinney's blog and Frank Walton's blog.)
From my limited experience stumbling through the blogs dealing with Atheism vs. Christianity (I don't like that we're against each other, but that's tough to get around), there arise a few stereotypes of Christians that Atheists detest - even more, usually brush off and ignore. Atheists will classify many Christians as either:
- a bleeding heart who feels sorry for all non-Christians, and gives "Jesus loves you" verses in the hopes that Atheists will somehow suddenly realize that they will see the error of their ways and jump at the chance to become a Christian. They usually have a pretty good holier-than-thou thing going, but they feel sorry that you aren't exactly like them
- a caustic, nitpicking, person who cannot see any sort of reason beyond what the Bible lays out. These usually take the holier-than-thou to the next level, not even considering any Atheists' discussion or argument because they're obviously "stupid Atheists" that just don't see. Usually prone to outbursts or condescending, brush-off remarks.
Neither of these stereotypes will actually get anywhere - if a Christian adopts one of these stances, anyone is likely to be turned OFF to anything the Christian says or does.
If you would humor me, then I would advise that you strive to avoid falling into something similar to these categories.
Once again, this is MY experience. I do not claim anything I say to be absolute. I can only learn from what I have seen and am given. But it would likely do you good to remember that when asked which was the greatest commandment, Jesus responded with two closely related commandments rooted in one word: love (Matthew 22:36-40). I would urge you to make sure that if you claim to be a Christian - a follower of Christ - you do your best to have your actions reflect what He obviously thought was the most important part of life: love.
In case you were wondering, this is in response to your entire attitude that I have seen on your blog as well as Aaron Kinney's.
I went to Frank's site to see the original post. He actually has the Armani picture posted!!! He is contributing to this "perversion" himself. I left this comment which I am sure he will not approve.
"Good job posting the picture of the half naked girls. You are really combating this stuff aren't you. Armani should be in a lawsuit for posting these ads, as should you for the same reason. Justify it anyway you please."
Frank is not only an idiot, but a hypocrite as well!
Thank you for the input. And yes, I also mentioned the armani pic that Frank posted on his blog while simultaneously condemning the very same pic. How ironic!
Thank you for the comment. I appreciate you bringing a reasonable 3rd party perspective to this argument. I will take to heart what you have said, and hopefully Frank will too (but I wont bet on it).
Your latest post about me is, frankly (pun intended), underwhelming.
The quotes you posted from me are things that I said that I still stand by. If you think that me enjoying porno and out of wedlock sex is immoral or perverse, then good for you. I totally disagree of course, and I dont think that we will ever reconcile that difference.
I laugh at you for deliberately waiting until marriage for sex, and you laugh at me for having sex before marriage and watching porn. Big whoop.
You think Im a pervert for preferring a nudist colony, while I think you are a repressive, self-hating person for preferring burkhatown. Again, big whoop.
However, you posted nine statements of straight strawmen attacks:
Aaron Kinney passing by an adult female:
"Hello, ma'am, you know, I'd rather see you naked than dressed in a Burkha."
Aaron Kinney passing by an adult male:
"Hello, sir, you know, I'd rather see you naked than dressed in a Burkha."
That is just blatant strawmanning. You still dont understand my point. Ive never said anything like the things you are putting in my mouth.
My choice of a nudist colony over burkhatown is a personal one based on myself, and NOT based on what levels of dress or undress other people around me would be in. It has nothing to do with who I would or would not see naked. While forced nudism and forced burkhas would both be oppressive, at least with nudism I would feel like Im in the natural state that God made me in. A forced burkha would feel more oppressive than forced nudity in my opinion.
I got my message across, as did you. Im satisfied with what Ive said and I dont feel like youve added any new material for me to address. I imagine you feel the same way.
I wasnt the one putting words in anyones mouth and making up fake quotes. I wasnt the one using tons of exclamation marks and crazy font sizes and bold and italics.
And more significantly, this is one of the few times that Ive actually had some Christians side with me in an argument against a theist.
So I think that the blog readers have spoken, and I think that more people (atheist and Christian) identify with my side of the argument than yours.
While thats merely an argument from popularity, my blog is all about gaining popularity and bringing people to my side of the fence. I think I accomplished that goal in this instance.
I'd worked up a pretty good screed about Frank's willingness to show racy pictures of young girls on his blog and his extra-extra-eager jump from "nudist colony" to "pedophilia," but I couldn't get this out of my head...
Read the following paragraph out loud, but do it in a random Trey Parker voice from "South Park."
"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."
Aaaaaaaand, scene. From "nudity" to "sex with kids" in about three seconds, all courtesy of Mr. Frank Walton.
KA and Rev. Jenner Hull,
'tis true. I say I would prefer a nudist colony and they think i wanna see naked kids. Then I say that topless boys make me want to vomit and that its "even worse" than topless girls, and they think im saying that I WANT to see naked girls, despite my "even worse" statement.
And I did point out that pedophilia is known to be a problem for clergy, but not known to be a problem for nudist colonies.
And Im not the one posting "sexualized" images of little girls from perverse catalogs.
And a society in which people are forced to uncover their bodies completely is, by definition, one in which freedoms are restricted.
That's a good point; however, all nudist colonies that I've heard of are run by the "clothing optional" policy. That is, whatever state of coverage a patron wishes (or does not wish) to engage in is freely chosen.
The situation that you've described would be freedom-restricting, and thus immoral, so I wouldn't willingly choose it on moral grounds. But if I had a gun to my head, I believe I'd still side with Aaron, for the reason that (paraphrasing Penn Jillette) It'd be more entertaining to see anyone naked, including you, Frank.
It'd be more entertaining to see anyone naked, including you, Frank.
Careful, Frances might get the wrong idea on that 1.
Heres something interesting: According to Sacred Slut, the terms "porn, sex, nude, dildo, vibrator" etc are more popular google search terms than the word "jesus".
Whats even better is to compare this with the fact that America is over 70% Christian.
Oddly enough, Ive never googled a single sexual term in my life.
Ok, I haven't been around a hole lot lately due to lacross practice and games for my son, talent show practice and the show itself, carting 3 kids around and a damn good book I wasnt able to put down("meeting the shodow' based on the works of Carl Jung) and pack leader classes that I offer at the community center. I just havent had a lot of time for blogging.
Damn, I missed a lot here!
Anyway, as a mother of three and a radical anarchist feminist, the problems in society are not porno and nuddist colonies! The problems are sexual repression and the over sexualizing of children and nudity! All products of patriarchal religious ideologies!
Aaron, there is NOTHING wrong with watching porno and pre-marital sex. I have engaged in them as well and am NOT ashamed! I and everyone else here is a sexual animal! It is a part of our bioligical make-up. The better we all understand that, the better off we all will be! When sex becomes taboo, it throws our understanding and natural sexual morality off balance.
And for the record, there are no records of atheist child molesters and rapists, but there is an extremely long list of christian ones. Christian morality is un-natural and corrupt and until you christians have cleaned up your own sexual scandles you shouldn't point fingers, cuz it only makes you look like the HUGE ass hypocrites you are.
if you ever set up a nudist colony, let me know :-).
For quite a long time, I've wondered what you look like (in fact, you don't even show any photo of yourself in your profile, but only one of your car, which is a pity). However, even in my wildest dreams didn't I imagine I could see you naked (LOL!) :-)
Maybe I'll be able to when I come to your colony... (By the way, what are you going to call it? Aaron's Paradise?)
(Yet, don't expect much of me: I'm a very ugly girl :-) .)
Lots of love,
If you wanna see pics of me, look in my links section on the right hand side of my blog. Near the top there is a link to my MySpace page where you can see pics of me in my profile under the photos section.
Additionally, Frank Walton has posted a pic or two of me in his blog posts over this whole debacle, as well as my Blasphemy Challenge submission on YouTube.
Thanks for stopping by and lending your support everybody! :)
how mnay angels can dance on the head of a pin?
pins exist, angels dont. ;)
You should have seen the old days when Frank was running around posting crap on websites and wailing about some imposter who whould post "mormons are dogs" and such then he'd have all these made up friends like Tino Huggins and Cory Washington. He was REAL stupid in those days before it was obvious to him (how that ever happened I'll never know) that people were calling out his bullshit at every turn, and that wasn't even on his stupid blog. He wouldn't allow comments until just lately, now he moderates them.
I thought that RRS jr was a fake. I also thought that atheism sucks! sucks was a fake too.
I think you are all fakes.
RRS Jr is Frank's blog.
He made it after he found Atheism Sucks! Sucks.
You can ask Sapient if you don't believe my blog is real.
I love that Frank gets all fired up about this but then post near nude pictures of underage girls on his website. I wish there was a way to make him understand what an idiot he is!
Aaron, listen to reason. We are real atheists. Not fake ones. We've been going at it against Franky for a long time now. He's too scared to even comment in my blog. What does that say about him? He's a fundy coward.
Post a Comment