Sunday, January 16, 2011

Chinwendu's tears

It looks like Randal Rauser is now accusing me of the following:
Do you agree with me as well that it is inappropriate to put a picture of my daughter on the triablogue website? I love to debate, and I have had all sorts of people on my website, but nobody ever went so far as to drag my daughter into it.
and
Yesterday on the Triablogue website an individual posted a picture of my daughter and wrote something about an 8 year old being lobotomized. Apparently nobody thought that was inappropriate. It was only after I made a request that the picture was taken down. I have now removed all pictures of my family from my website. I have never experienced such hostility from anyone before.
and
I certainly didn’t anticipate anybody doing that, let alone a fellow “brother in Christ”. Imagine what fun they could have with a child that has a disability.
By way of response:
  1. Just so people know, this is the post to which Rauser is referring.

    I've already replaced the original photo with another photo. (Originally, there was a photo of Rauser in what looked like a plush and trendy setting. Rauser was holding what looked like a coffee mug. If I recall, his daughter was on his lap. Update: Of course, Steve rightly points out in the combox: "I'd add that Randal is the one who identified the girl as his daughter. What's obvious to him isn't obvious to a bystander.")

  2. Not that it's likely Rauser will believe me, but I wasn't intentionally "dragging his daughter" into the debate. Rather I used the picture because I thought the posh setting fit well with the image of a sophisticated suburban progressive Christian professor sipping his cafe latte and so forth. For better or for worse, his daughter didn't cross my mind at all.

  3. At worst, he might construe it as an unintentional or inadvertent swipe at his daughter. But why immediately jump to this conclusion? Does Rauser give me the benefit of the doubt, especially as a "fellow brother in Christ"? Nope.

  4. Ironically, I notice Rauser gives a lot of the atheist commenters on his website far more leeway than he does conservative Christians. He's so inimical toward us, yet so welcoming and friendly toward many atheists.

  5. As has been the case throughout this whole debate, Rauser's reaction is once again over the top - e.g. "nobody ever went so far as to drag my daughter into it," "I have never experienced such hostility from anyone before."

    Calm down, R-dawg. Please, chill. Relax. Chillax. I ain't skewering your kith and kin, yo.

    Although I'll admit I am skewering your strange brew of café Christianity au progressive, espresso Christianity con Rauser, passionfruit blended Rastafarian Rauserian Christianity, or whatever people wanna label it.

    BTW, perhaps Rauserian Christianity deserves a spot on this liberal and progressive minded list.

  6. Again, such a reaction (or should I say overreaction) shows Rauser's knee-jerk imputation of poor motives to "a brother in Christ." But is this in keeping with Rauser's own call for a higher standard in tone and discourse? Is Rauser displaying the sort of tone etc. that Rauser demands others, particularly other Christians, display toward him?

  7. In case this is what he's trying to imply, I didn't remove the picture out of a request from Rauser. Rauser never contacted me - or, as far as I know, anyone I know - and asked me to take down the picture. A friend pointed out the comment, I read it myself, and then I took down the photo out of courtesy to him.

  8. Mind you, I don't think it's unethical or immoral for me to have posted the picture in the first place. After all, it was a picture that was on Rauser's own website which Rauser himself had originally put on his own website. It's not as if I somehow hacked into his home network, downloaded private photos of his family, and subsequently posted them online. No, all I did was take a photo that he had already made available in the past on his own public website, and reposted it in my post. It's a public photo which Rauser himself (or someone who manages his website for him) made public.

    BTW, sheeple Frege (mind if I call you Gottlob?) made a comment which seems to assume the photo in question was a private one: "If you disagree, then send Randal pictures of your family and let him post them in his own satirical articles."

    (On an entirely different note, Frege also wrote: "[A commenter with the moniker] Some1 doesn't realize their IP address is logged...coward." I'm not "Some1." But I should point out that it's possible "Some1" could be using an app for online anonymity such as Tor to avoid this. Not to mention, unless Frege is his real name, by Frege's own lights, does this mean Frege is cowardly hiding behind a moniker? If Frege is his real name, then why not his full name - is Frege behaving cowardly by failing to disclose his full name?)

  9. I think Rauser's example about the lobotomized eight year old being "inappropriate" is rather ridiculous: "Yesterday on the Triablogue website an individual posted a picture of my daughter and wrote something about an 8 year old being lobotomized. Apparently nobody thought that was inappropriate."

    First, there's no necessary connection between "a picture of [Rauser's] daughter" and "an 8 year old being lobotomized." If Rauser is drawing the connection, and pronouncing it "inappropriate," then I'd think it reflects paranoia more than reasonableness.

    At the risk of stating the obvious, what I posted was a parody. A parody of what Rauser himself wrote. As such, it's closer to, say, someone taking issue with Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" because it involves cannibalism. "Gasp! How could Swift joke about babies being eaten?! How utterly inappropriate!" Alas, I didn't expect a progressive Christian to be so uptight. But maybe it's the stuffy prof in him speaking.

    Plus, I could make the same allegation of inappropriateness about what Rauser originally wrote and on which my satire was based. Here's what Rauser originally wrote: "her legs had been amputated and somebody had rammed a large blade up her vagina." So, if what I wrote was inappropriate, then wouldn't what Rauser first wrote be inappropriate as well? How is "an 8 year old being lobotomized" inappropriate, while "legs . . . amputated" and "a large blade [rammed] up her vagina" appropriate or at least less inappropriate?

    However, if you ask me, I'd think anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension ability would understand that what Rauser originally wrote was itself meant to be an evil in the context of his story about Dr. Z, just like what I parodied was meant to be in the context of my story about Prof. R. It's not as if either one of us is striking an approving stance or somehow endorsing these things even in the context of the story or satire.

  10. Finally, this is the original post on which I based my parody. Please check it out first, then check out my parody.

    Now please check out commenter Chinwendu's comment:
    Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 11:16pm

    Dear Dr. Randal Rauser, greeting to you from Little Congo. I am Congolese and mother to Abweti, the young girl in you pictur. She is carrying her half brother, Abidemi. This her father son. I write to you to say I have wet eyes and hurt heart to see you post a pictur of my daughter in your battle of the head with you enemy. I do not think approprate to do this. I lived through our war and was treat vary badly by men of Pascal Lissouba, but I should say I never been treat this badly. Shame on you.
    On the one hand, Rauser chastises me for posting a picture of him and his daughter.

    But on the other hand, Rauser himself posted a picture of what appears to be a young Sub-Saharan African girl or woman and likely either a younger sibling or her own child (son or daughter). Given that Rauser or someone on his website has either named or left named the jpeg file "A-victim-of-the-civil-war-in-the-Congo.jpg," I'll presume the individuals are from Congo.

    So I ask: why is my posting the picture I posted wrong while Rauser posting the picture he posted fine?

    Moreover, I could similarly say of Rauser, in his use of the woman and child from Congo picture: "Imagine what fun Rauser could have with a child that has a disability." Would Rauser sanction this sort of "tone" let alone statement?

    As Steve pointed out, Rauser is a playactor.

21 comments:

  1. Drah. Muh. The good prof even deleted my contribution to the discussion, which contribution I thought was a perfectly fair question. Apparently our Randy's liberal sensibilities run just so deep. Oh, well.

    Do you believe "Chinwendu" is legit, or some wiseacre making a point? Either way, I love it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hm, that's a real shame! But please feel free to post your comment here if you like, aztexan (if you don't already have your own blog or don't want to post it there or whatever).

    I don't know that I can answer her real vs. fictional status. But as far as her uncanny wisdom and sense, I'd say Chinwendu would find a kindred spirit in Botswana's Mma Precious Ramotswe. What's more, her prowess in combat easily surpasses Mace Windu's. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, I confess to playing the wiseacre, myself. You see, in the comm-box of "The Day Mother Africa Cried and Dr. Z's Soul Died" (or whatever), I openly questioned the real reason behind the good doctor's apostasy. If memory serves it went along these lines:

    Are we quite positive that Dr. Z lost his (obviously spurious) "faith" due to the tragedy Randal unfolds? Could it be the trauma that put Z "off of God" was years of daily dealings with all that Third World p[*$$]y? "Yoinks!" indeed. "Nurse! Purell and a barf bag, stat!" every day for years. Just saying.

    Now, I didn't use "*$$" in place of letters. But this was on a liberal forum, and that particular nickname is as tame as it is ancient. And while the essence of my quip might be considered crude by some knee-jerkers, I don't see how it wouldn't have made just as much sense had Z been a proctologist, urologist or, for that matter, a dentist. It was not I, after all, who chose to make Z an OBGYN.

    It would seem Mr. Rauser objects strongly to feline euphemisms for the v**ina, but has no qualms about yanking our heartstrings - or firing our gag reflex - by graphically describing the mutilation of same.

    Rauser, I demand you cease and desist this fascist censorship! A man has a right to be heard, and we will not accept your dictatorial tyranny, you oppressive pig! We demand hope and change we can believe in! We shall overcome! YES WE CAN!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. P. Chan: >>What's more, her prowess in combat easily surpasses Mace Windu's. :-)<<

    I had wondered if they might be related! A lady who can kick some tail and sell the hell outta some malt liquor is definitely my kinda gal!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Plus, I could make the same allegation of inappropriateness about what Rauser originally wrote and on which my satire was based. Here's what Rauser originally wrote: "her legs had been amputated and somebody had rammed a large blade up her vagina." So, if what I wrote was inappropriate, then wouldn't what Rauser first wrote be inappropriate as well? How is "an 8 year old being lobotomized" inappropriate, while "legs . . . amputated" and "a large blade [rammed] up her vagina" appropriate or at least less inappropriate?

    So I ask: why is my posting the picture I posted wrong while Rauser posting the picture he posted fine?"


    Your questions point out that Professor Rauser is a Liberal Pharisee Hypocrite.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Patrick Chan,

    Something is wrong with your brain if it never registered that attaching pics of Randal with his little girl to a polemic piece wasn't a good idea. It is just basic common sense dude. And yes, I'm being sarcastic about your brain...sarcasm is ok. I grant that your intentions/motives were good. I just think that you used bad judgement. I suggest that you admit it as a bad decision, and maybe Mr. Rauser will admit some things he did wrong. And then you chaps can have a real debate, instead of a food fight.

    Truth United and Divides,

    Your lips are dripping with vitriol and hatred, why? Seek Christ and his grace, so that you can be liberated from your self-righteousness project.

    ReplyDelete
  7. >>Your lips are dripping with vitriol and hatred, why? Seek Christ and his grace, so that you can be liberated from your self-righteousness project.<<

    Have you "Gott" any idea how self-righteous you sound? You must be making an ironic joke. Right?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Aztexan,

    There is none righteous, no not one. If reminding each other of this constitutes self-righteousness, there can be no preaching or exhortation.

    TUTD has been spouting off at the mouth for some time now, and someone needs to call him/her out.

    Just the other day someone thought TUTD was calling Carl Trueman a liberal. TUTD was really just spouting off in detest of liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The following is applicable to Randal Rauser:

    "Your lips are dripping with vitriol and hatred, why? Seek Christ and his grace, so that you can be liberated from your self-righteousness project."

    Hat tip: Gottlob

    ReplyDelete
  10. Aztexan,

    There is none righteous, no not one. If reminding each other of this constitutes self-righteousness, there can be no preaching or exhortation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. TUTD,

    I agree it does apply to Randal...and all men. It's the Gospel.

    ReplyDelete
  12. As Steve pointed out, Rauser is a playactor.

    Well, I'd say Steve is being extremely gracious with his characterization, because after carefully reading through all the various related articles and combox discussions Rauser comes across to me as an emotional bully, and a straight up punk.

    I realize this will probably not strike some as a particularly "charitable" observation, but it's my well considered opinion.

    Were Randal Rauser and Glenn Peoples separated at birth? Birds of a feather...

    In Him,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gottlob, how was it inappropriate of Patrick to use a photo which Randal himself put online?

    Firstly, it wasn't a picture of Randal's daughter. It was a picture of Randal with his daughter. So it's not as if Patrick was singling her out; rather, he was singling out Randal, and happened to use a picture that also featured his daughter, because the setting of that picture was the most ironic one he could find. Ie, Randal constantly gets on his high horse about social justice, the plight of the poor etc, berating us for not taking a more active role in solving these problems (as if he knows what we do already). Yet he has photos taken of himself sitting in coffee-houses that are probably parts of a franchise that has wiped out countless local coffee shops, sipping a latte made with coffee beans which are undoubtedly not fair trade. In other words, Randal is a hypocrite.

    Secondly, if Randal didn't want his daughter's picture on the internet, then he shouldn't have put it there! But since he did, I don't see how using that picture (when his daughter is not even the focus) is a problem. This just suggests how naive and stupid Randal is. He puts photos of his loved ones online, but then has a fit when someone posts them somewhere else. That's just idiotic. Randal doesn't have enough sense to protect his daughter in this basic way? I'm glad my parents were not as thick as he is.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bnonn,

    Just because something is public, it follows not that all uses of it are legitimate or much less morally permissible. Do you agree with this basic distinction?

    If not, do you condone urinating in the floor of public libraries? After all, if they didn't want you to urinate on the floor, you'd think they'd station guards in every room. Why wouldn't they provide such basic protection of their facilities?

    Perhaps posting family pictures on the internet isn't wise...you should contact James White of Alpha and Omega ministries and tell him what a fool he is. Actually, I'll just forward him your comments, so he's clear on your opinion of him having pictures of his daughter on the website. And to think, of all James White's polemic encounters, no one has stooped to Patrick's level.

    Had those pictures been private and Patrick acquired them, then he'd be guilty on two counts and not one. You have attempted to argue that he is only guilty of one count if he's guilty of both. Your argument is jejune.

    You continue to miss my point against Patrick, which is that common sense should have told him that a picture featuring Randal *and* his daughter was not appropriate for polemic purposes. If you can't see why this violates common decency (much less Christian decency among professing believers), then you are "naive and stupid."

    If espousing high moral ideals and failing to meet them is what makes one a hypocrite, it looks like all Christians are. You'll need to distinguish how Randal is any different, or else admit your own hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'd add that Randal is the one who identified the girl as his daughter. What's obvious to him isn't obvious to a bystander.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Gottlob: >>You continue to miss my point against Patrick,...<<

    So, Gottlob, does that then give you the green light - yellow light, rather - to piss the point with your peepee analogy?

    *rimshot* Thank you, ladiesn'gennelmen, I'll be here all weekend. Tip your waitress.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Gottlob said:

    Just because something is public, it follows not that all uses of it are legitimate or much less morally permissible. Do you agree with this basic distinction?

    1. Of course, it doesn't have to be morally permissible. It can simply not be morally impermissible. It can be morally neutral.

    2. Even if I were to agree for the sake of argument that "Just because something is public, it follows not that all uses of it are legitimate or much less morally permissible," it doesn't therefore exclude the possibility that some of its uses could be morally permissible. Or to put it another way: without further delineation the claim "just because something is public doesn't necessarily mean its use is morally permissible" is as reasonable as the claim "just because something is public doesn't necessarily mean its use is morally impermissible."

    3. So you'd need to explain how to adjudicate between what's morally permissible vs. impermissible here.

    If not, do you condone urinating in the floor of public libraries?

    1. Importantly, just because something is a social faux pas, or just because something is illegal, doesn't necessarily mean it's immoral.

    2. At the risk of stating the obvious, urinating on almost any floor - public library floor, private library floor, a florist's floor, the thirteenth floor (then again, maybe the poltergeist would give you this one) - is generally frowned upon! It'd be frowned upon even if you went into a restroom and relieved yourself on the restroom floor. In fact, perhaps more so, since you wouldn't exactly be very far from a urinal if you were in a restroom. Anyway, not only is your example irrelevant, but now I'm extremely wary of ever inviting you to my place since I take your example as a veiled micturitive threat against my clean and shiny dorm room floor!

    3. While we're on the topic, would urinating in public places always be immoral? Say you're driving across America. Say you're on a freeway in the middle of nowhere. Miles away from the nearest rest stop let alone town. Say you really had to pee. Would it be immoral to pull over on the side of the road, duck behind a tree or some other object that'd give you cover, and relieve yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  18. no one has stooped to Patrick's level

    Alas, I'm the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world. Moreover, thanks to Gottlob taking drastic urinary measures against me, I'll no doubt soon be the urea of the planet as well. At this rate, I might as well dive headfirst into an outhouse pit in a Mumbai shanty town and end it all.

    You continue to miss my point against Patrick, which is that common sense should have told him that a picture featuring Randal *and* his daughter was not appropriate for polemic purposes.

    1. Falling back on "common sense" in and of itself isn't an argument. Rather, what's sensible or insensible here is the very bone of contention.

    2. Plus, as Steve pointed out, Rauser is the one who indicated it was his daughter in the photo with him. It's not obvious to an unconnected party like me that it's his daughter.

    Your argument is jejune.

    Well, your talk about pee is jejune! What's more, it reeks of toilet humor. Indeed, I take great umbrage that you'd bother bringing up urine in the first place, especially on a Christian blog. Common sense should have told you that talking about urinating on floors is not appropriate for polemic purposes. Good day, sir!

    ReplyDelete
  19. BTW, Bnonn has further responded over on his blog here.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Gottlob said:

    "Just because something is public, it follows not that all uses of it are legitimate or much less morally permissible. Do you agree with this basic distinction?"

    Of course, the logic is reversible. Why assume that Patrick's use is illegitimate or impermissible? Where's the argument?

    Rauser put this in the public domain for all the world to see. So what's the big deal?

    ReplyDelete
  21. And to think, of all James White's polemic encounters, no one has stooped to Patrick's level.

    Ad arguendo that one has to "stoop" to Patrick's level, obviously Gottlob is totally unfamiliar with the history of numerous of White's opponents in the past. Their blatant usage of his sister's conversion to Rome comes to mind. Gottlob, if you want to be taken seriously, say things that are factual, please.

    ReplyDelete