Monday, November 15, 2010

Little pansy

On the one hand

Avalos says,

As an atheist, I don‘t deny that I am a moral relativist (TCD 232).

On the other hand

Avalos says:

RE: Triablogue. Here again, Parsival shows non-expertise. On August 6, 2010, Paul Manata of Triablogue tried to supposedly expose my non-expertise in epistemology and metaethics. But Triablogue had to take the post down due to flagrant ethical violations brought to their attention by the persons they were quoting in the post. Did Parsival not hear about that? So how much of an expertise in metaethics was shown by the operators of Triablogue if they themselves had to delete a post due to ethical problems?

i) How can Avalos ascribe “flagrant ethical violations” to a post when he’s a moral relativist?

ii) It wasn’t taken down due to ethical problems. It was taken down because Avalos, acting like a little pansy, contacted some of the individuals who panned his incompetent argument as a pressure tactic to censure Manata’s post.

I think Hector’s basic problem is that he suffers from a social inferiority complex. He’s ashamed of his humble origins. Ashamed of his lowly background as a poor Mexican preacher-boy. Ashamed of the lower class Pentecostalism he used to espouse. When you’re trying to impress the faculty at Harvard Divinity School, that’s not the sort of thing you want to be reminded of.

(Of course, from a Christian standpoint, poverty is nothing to be ashamed of. Joseph and Mary were poor. Jesus was poor.)


  1. That does come off as a pansy move.

  2. Sorry, are we able to know why the post was taken down?

  3. Well, I didn't take it down, so that's not for me to say.

  4. So, why did Manta take the post down? Normally I appreciate it when you guys show the others to be sniveling little cowards who constantly censure their posts with no comment. I don't expect it from you. Why would you succumb to the pressure? And more to the point (since with you I generally assume there is a legitimate reason), why would you bash someone for being a "pansy", then not give the reason for why you dropped the post in the first place. It just doesn't come off right.
    You're better than this.

  5. I did this post, Paul didn't. Paul did the one which was taken down, I didn't. I'm not answerable to or for him, and he's not answerable to or for me. I didn't put it up or take it down.

    Mind you, I think his post was entirely appropriate. But it wasn't my call one way or the other.

    Since Paul didn't share with me all his reasons, since Paul is under no obligation to share his reasons with me (it's ultimately none of my business), and since, even if he did share his reasons, that wouldn't entitle me to share his reasons with a third party, your demand is unreasonable.

    In the meantime, Paul's reasons for taking it down are independent of my reasons for calling Avalos a pansy.

  6. Avalos ran to the philosophers and complained to them, because he needed to save face. The set of emails was utterly embarrassing. And even though the post is gone, the blow to his ego still pains him. I removed the post for no other reason than two of the philosophers asked me if I would. In further private email they did not have the best things to say of Avalos, and still thought his argument was ridiculous and that I had answered it. One of them wondered why I even needed them since my initial refutation should have been sufficient for Avalos. I said Avalos won't listen to argument, he only listens to say-so's by experts. They thought this was unfortunate. Anyway, Hector knows what's up.

  7. Thank you for the clarification. As I suspected, there is a good reason.
    Steve: I do realize the post is yours, not Paul's, but Triablogue seems to me like a cooperative--when one is under attack, all are under attack. Hence I used "you" as an address to the blog.
    Keep up the good work.