Manata Ja Ja Redux
Aaron Kinney Permalink
14 comments
Manata is at it again:
I've applied a rear naked choke hold to Aaron Kinney (see the two posts below this one). He's tapped out and now passed out.
Actually, I got sick of his insulting behavior before he started posting about me obsessively. I guess he misses the attention. Well maybe I'll give him some. Now it's time for me to write a "devastating critique," and show that Manata shouldn't play with adults, as he might get hurt. Observe Manata's total oblivion:
He accused me of "quote mining," apparently forgetting that he's the one who asked me for quotes!I think he's upset because all my sources were from atheists and evolutionists.
To borrow a phrase from myself, "WTF?" He doesn't know what quote mining is! He couldn't have made it any more obvious. And all this time, he's talking about how he's whooping my intellectual ass. This, my friends, is irony. Oh, the irony. Now I will quote from the evil, secular Wikipedia:
Quote mining is the practice of compiling quotes from large volumes of literature or spoken word. The term is used derogatorily to accuse the "quote miner" of cherry picking and misquotation, where favorable positions are amplified or falsely suggested, and unfavorable positions in the same text are excluded or otherwise obscured.
The term is particularly used by proponents of the theory of evolution to denounce proponents of creationism, because creationists sometimes present long lists of quotes of mainstream scientists who allegedly acknowledge their criticisms.
The expression is also sometimes used in a slightly weaker sense, merely meaning that a quote is being used to support an idea that the original author rejects. In this second case, even a quote which is accurate can be considered a mined quote.
Manata went on for three posts, all proud of himself and finally feeling intellectually adequate, until I ruined his bliss and exposed his ignorance. He didn't understand my criticism, and he spent three posts attacking the wrong thing, gloating about how he was vanquishing me with his intellectual superiority. Ironically, during this time, he was burying himself deeper by continuing his quote mining for all three posts. Whoops!
He tries to equate ancient materialism with evolution with one quote... What is this guy doing? He even went so far as to change his song. At first, he called evolution a religion, but now it seems he's calling evolution an ancient philosophy. Quite a big difference there. Which one is it Paul? I'm convinced now that religion is a mental disorder (just kidding, I was convinced of that long ago). With post titles like "Not Ready to Let 'em up From The Mat Yet..." I got to wonder, who's he wrestling?
Anyway, Manata thinks he's standing on top of the mountain waving his sword and beating his chest in victory. What he doesn't know is that the sword he waves is paper and the real warriors are fighting in the valley below.
Post a Comment
14 Comments:
I'm not sure how manata could get around to the concept of evolution being an ancient philosophy, when it's about 170 years old-hardly ancient. And I've never understoon how anything based on the scientific method could be considered religion.
Vantilsghost-
Thanks for that imagery. I've never been able to quite place my finger on the character that Paul presents here online (consciously or subconsciously), but I see it clearly now.
Paul Manata is the Ultimate Warrior of Christian apologetics.
Sometimes I almost feel bad for him, but then I remember that Christians look up to him. Then I just shake my head in disbelief.
I'm glad he's a Christian. He would make atheism look bad.
I didn't know that Paul was into B&D, but there is precedent for this in Christianity's past (cf. the Inquisitor's horrific torture chambers). He also shares an affinity with Roman Catholic priests who have a tendency toward homosexual abuse of trust. What a strange and perverse specimen he makes.
Looks like an evolutionist wrote that entry.
Anyway, two things to point out:
1. You've accused Manata of 'quote mining' but haven't shown that to actually be the case. All you've done is assert that that is what he's done.
In order for your criticism to have any weight at all, you would need to interact with the quotes and show how he's 'quote mined'.
Now you may reply that these people accepted evolution (referring to the 'weaker' form) and using their words to refute their 'theory'. However, that speaks nothing as to whether or not they thought evolution was a philosophy or religious in character in the history of thought. Nevertheless, even in it's 'weaker' form, it would not *necessarily* be any kind of fallacy to use someone's words against them.
2. Now I guess I have a new term for Dawson. See our discussion on Jesus' two natures and his misquote of bible verses which were pointed out.
Thanks
Thanks Kinney, for yet another chance to embarrass you. I'll be responding shortly.
Hint: you should have proved I quote mined, but I know that's hard to do when you haven't read the material that I have. All those books are in my library and I'll gladly battle you on context.
VTG,
care to offer an actual argument? Or do you just cheer from the stands/
Paul, all I need to do is point out to all the evolutionists that you quote mined. It is self evident.I dont think we get anywhere battling on context.
You will insist that your quotes are in context regardless of how I dismantle them.
In the end, all the evolutionists will agree with me and all the superstitionists will agree with you.
But why are you suddenly so obbsessed with me? Especially right after I gave up on you?
Well Groundfighter, I mentioned quote mining in the comments of some blog somewhere. I wasnt making entire posts about it, cause I was tired of Paul. But after him making three posts embarrasing himself, I decided to expose his ignorance of the term "quote mining" and thats what THIS post was about.
This particular blog entry is about Paul not understanding a simply and common term in the evolution/creation debate circles. This post was about showing the silliness of Pauls imagined intellectual skills. He believes in an invisible sky-ghost, after all.
throwing down the gauntlet:
Bottom line, Kinney, *prove* I quote mined.
Maybe I'll just assert that God exists, have atheists make fun of me for asserting, but have those same atheists *assert* that i quote mined.
It's on your shoulders now, Kinney. Prove it. Put up, or shut up.
Paul said:
throwing down the gauntlet:
Bottom line, Kinney, *prove* I quote mined.
Maybe I'll just assert that God exists, have atheists make fun of me for asserting, but have those same atheists *assert* that i quote mined.
It's on your shoulders now, Kinney. Prove it. Put up, or shut up.
Fine. I'll get around to it in a month or so when Im tired of thinking. ;) Right now Im on a big morality push, and I will be out of town all weekend. So be patient.
And since Im so nice about answering your questions, will you answer mine? "But why are you suddenly so obbsessed with me? Especially right after I gave up on you?"
Oh, I indeed saw that post. Now,
(1) Prove that I didn't know what quote mining was (saying so doesn't make it so).
(2) Prove that I indeed quote mined.
(3) Since I know you have not read probably 99% of the books I cited, and I have, then how would you even know I "quote mined?"
C'mon Aaron, you can do it. I'm giving you a shot to do battle with someone you call an idiot. I decimated you in my posts and your responses prove that you didn't even read my critiques in detail.
Furthermore, my quotes constitue probably 7% of my response to you, what about the rest? Even if you showed that I quote mined that has nothing to do with the reast of what I wrote and, therefore, you cannot claim to have made my entire posts null 'n void just by critiquing one aspect of them, that's called the fallacy of hasty generalization.
So, will Aaron ever step up to the plate or will he just admit that he should spend his time attacking, say, Jason Gastrich? Now's your time Aaron to finaly put your money where your mouth is. If you doubt what I'm saying then I challenge you to take your response to my original article and then my follow-up responses to your local atheist philosophy professer. Ask him, putting convictions aside, whose arguments and critiques were substantive and whose were not. A beat down is a beat down, even if you disagree with the one who won; you know, just like my debate with Sansone. You know I decimated him but you still agreed with his ultimate conclusion over against mine.
Fine. I'll get around to it in a month or so when Im tired of thinking.
You mean when you've received your orders from Amazon and read just sections of the book to try and sound intellectual in your response? ;-)
And since Im so nice about answering your questions, will you answer mine? "But why are you suddenly so obbsessed with me? Especially right after I gave up on you?"
Qutesion one assumes I'm obbsesses.
Question two is based off one.
So, I'm afraid I can't answer them.
I responded to you so you can see why I don't let you guys comment. Your arguments and posts are ridiculous. They are so intellectually sloppy and the arguments so bad, that i don't have the time. My posts should show you that you're out of your league. So, debate some highschool youth group, after you've defeated 25 of them then I'll set you up with some Arminians from campus crusade, if you defeat them you can battle Gastrich, if you defeat him then you can battle some others, eventually I'll give you another shot. ;-)
Paul (et al.):
Want proof of quote mining? Go here.
Want proof Paul didn't know what quote mining was? Well, beside the fact that he never once alluded to the actual meaning, and enclosed the term in quotation marks (lol), the context of his rebuttle consistently shows that he thought quote mining merely meant "using quotes" (perhaps in abundance).
Also, I really fail to see how Aaron's not possessing those books is at all a question of his character or abilities. Are you seriously bragging because you've read books? You really reach for absolutely anything you can get a hold of, hunh? Explains the "rear naked choke hold."
A response is expected and appreciated. Perhaps I misunderstood your post. Maybe you can provide clarification. But I highly suggest you avoid popping shit about me. If that is all you're capable of, then please, by all means, keep my name out'cha mouth unless I autograph my dick. Thank you.
Aaron:
I hope you read the post too. Afterward, if you scroll down a post, I have another that also happens to directly involve you.
I swear I'm not stalking. And I won't be obsessed enough to make it three.
"dumb",
Thanks for the above ammunitian as I use it to show your hypocrisy. You pick on me for being mean and rude to the poor atheists, but then use words like you did above about me? It looks like the gangsta can give but can't take. Anyway, I appreciate your posts. Here's an example of how you insert foot in mouth. You write:
"Speaking of redundancy, there is no further need to continue. The basic point here is that Paul made a statement (evolutionism is not a scientific theory, but a religion/philosophy) which Aaron challenged, and Paul presented no evidence to support his claims."
Aaron didn't challenge but actually asked "I'd like to see the sources for this one." So you see, "dumb," my purpose was to show that I did not come up with this idea on my own, as Kinney implied. But, I'll save the more detailed analysis for your upcoming refutation.
Peace out my brotha from anotha motha
<< Home