The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Kentucky Atheist Teacher @ChrisRenfrow Wants to Repeal Statutory Rape Laws?

Posted on | September 6, 2013 | 184 Comments

The statutory age of consent in Kentucky is 16, the same as in Florida, where accused sex offender Kaitlyn Hunt is in jail awaiting trial for her lesbian affair with a 14-year-old girl. The “Free Kate” online crusade that Hunt’s parents started in May argues that Hunt, who was an 18-year-old high school senior at the time of her crimes, is a victim of homophobic prejudice. Hunt’s supporters say she should not be prosecuted because she and the younger girl were “peers,” and that having sex with a 14-year-old was merely a “high school romance.” So . . .

Say hello to a high school English teacher who got into a Twitter argument about whether sex with 14-year-olds should be illegal:

Self-described “proud atheist” Chris Renfrow teaches at Fern Creek Traditional High School in Louisville, Kentucky, and seems to have an oddly contemptuous attitude toward statutory rape laws:





After this Twitter argument had continued a while, someone started CC’ing me into the argument, along with Jeanette Runyon, who has been a real warrior in the fight to stop the “Free Kate” campaign to overturn Florida’s age-of-consent law. When someone in the argument pointed out that Renfrow is a high school teacher, I tried to warn him that he had wandered into a minefield, i.e., “Like, maybe this isn’t exactly a smart use of social media for you, hint, hint.”

Rather than take heed of his best interests, however, Renfrow then began to spew ad hominem attacks. Well, OK, then . . .

[DELETED: See update below]

Perhaps Kentucky’s Most Famous Atheist School Teacher™ would like to explain to the parents, taxpayers and school board members in Louisville why having sex with 14-year-olds shouldn’t be regarded as an actual crime, because, y’know, “grey area” and stuff.

[DELETED: See second update below]

The greatest thing about the First Amendment? Arrogant fools have the right to expose themselves as idiots, and then to whine like little bitches when they get called out for their foolishness.

UPDATE: According to Renfrow’s LinkedIn profile, he was recently laid off from his teaching job and is now seeking employment in the retail field, so I’ve deleted the contact information for his former employers. We wish Mr. Renfrow luck in seeking a retail position. Maybe they’re hiring at Toys ‘R’ Us or Chuck E. Cheese . . .

UPDATE II: Longtime commenter Diana Deeley complained about the use of the photo; so I deleted it. Of course, Diana didn’t see how Kentucky’s Most Famous Atheist School Teacher™ was deliberately taunting Christians — “superstitious,” he said to one — and personally attacking Jeanette Runyon, when he imagined he might conduct himself in such a haughty manner with impunity.

I may have more to say later, but for now am pleased to note the accuracy of my prophecy: Renfrow and his fellow atheists are now whining like little bitches, just as I predicted.

 

Comments

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Well…what do we expect when we’ve allowed the Left to run roughshod over the Culture for the last century???

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    I think that was good decision only for the sake of his poor daughter who has enough problems living with such a Narcissistic, Nihilistic, First-Class, Grade-A arsehole.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Actually, considering his personality, maybe you should send him a case of those smelling salts, as well.

  • OhioAtheist

    Thank you for responding. I’d rather deal with the author than those who resort to name calling and other childish things, in lieu of intelligent discourse.

    I’d also like to point out that the assumption should not be made that I support Chris’ assertions. I actually do not, but I do take exception to what I consider to be a grave, and possibly intentional, misrepresentation.

    1. I was not appointed Grand Inquisitor, nor am I claiming to be. I’m simply a guy asking for clarification on a statement. It happens all the time, and in this case is done in good faith. I’m not hear to pick a fight. I just want things to be represented fairly, and I have my doubts here.

    2. “Renfrow states flatly that he is against criminalizing sex ‘solely based on age,'” No, he is not. He is distinguishing between forcible rape (i.e., sex forced upon someone against their will) and statutory rape (rape that is not forcible, but is illegal intercourse for other reasons, in this case, age). Rape can be one or both types. His point is that statutory rape is arbitrary (i.e., based on age), and in some cases, perhaps unreasonable. For example, you could have two people born two days apart, have sex one day legally (both 17), illegally the next day (one turns 18, the other still 17), and legally again the third day (both now 18). In this case, is their age difference of one day a mitigating factor for charging one of them for statutory rape? That seems to be his point. Now to his contention about seniors and freshman, no, I don’t agree with that at all. But your article title suggests that he wants to abolish statutory rape entirely. I do not see any statement he made to support that claim.

    “Renfrow did not specify any particular reform he had in mind, but rejected criminalizing sexual conduct “solely based on age,” i.e.,
    he “wants to repeal statutory rape laws.” I’m not sure how else I
    should characterize such an argument or why Renfrow, having so adamantly
    attacked statutory rape laws, objects to my characterizing his argument
    thus.”

    No, he did not specify any reform, so you jumped the gun and drew conclusions anyway. And since you weren’t even part of this Twitter discussion, and the questions was never asked, he was in no place to specify, anyway. You re-interpreted his statement to be as inflammatory as possible (without actually know what he really means), and I find this to be disingenuous. When you say “I’m not sure how else I should characterize such an argument,” then why are you characterizing it at all?

    I strongly urge you to reconsider these types of posts. They are highly inflammatory, arguably libelous, and can irreparably, and often, unfairly, damage a person’s career, family, and livelihood. Lawsuits have been filed over situations similar to this. I’ve seen them. It’s not pretty.

  • DaveO

    First you argue that you are not a troll, then you behave exactly like a troll – straight out of the manual, less the criminal offense of doxing.
    Stay away from the gold paint. It makes you lie, and then define down rape. Then it makes you threaten the owner of the blog with vague legal actions.
    Seriously, stay away from the gold paint. You can’t outcrazy Robert Stacy McCain.

  • Jeanette Victoria

    It’s my birthday today that must be it

  • La Pucelle

    There are far too many narcissists who need medical treatment and/or hospitalization claiming the mantle of “atheism” to justify their self-obsession. Not unlike Neal Rauhauser claiming Assburgers when he’s really just a textbook sociopath, come to think of it.

    I have to hand it to gentlemen such as Keith Burgess-Jackson, an actual atheist who has been openly calling out these pseudo-atheist mental midgets for years.

  • http://deadrepublicanparty.wordpress.com/ rmnixondeceased

    happy birthday. I hope you got a pistol.

  • Dianna Deeley

    I would say that depends. If the senior is respectful, affectionate and well-behaved toward the freshman, maybe it’s all right. Maybe. Though I’d still be very skeptical.

    But if the senior is rude, crude, bullying and exploitative toward the freshman? I would hope someone would report the situation!

  • Julie Pascal

    You may be honestly asking for clarification but I’d like to point out that what you claim an honest person will do (and thus prove his honesty) or not do (and thus prove dishonesty) is far far from the truth.

    Someone’s willingness to engage you means nothing at all about anything at all other than that person’s willingness to engage you.

  • Jeanette Victoria

    Already have weapons just going to shoot a photo of the milky way

  • GottaQHFilly

    Pimping?

  • paulzummo

    Bitching about being downvoted is an automatic downvote.

  • La Pucelle

    You were also engaging in a phenomenon known as “Kafkatrapping” (“How long have you been beating your wife?”). That isn’t actual freethinking, in spite of what you were conditioned to believe. It is actually a logical fallacy and a sign of sloppy, amateurish thinking and pseudo-intellectualism.

    You might want to rethink your “atheism”. It might be self-congratulation or even narcissism, instead?

  • Kirby McCain

    She looked!

  • Kirby McCain

    Not quite as old as my zircon encrusted tweezers.

    Dirty Love is one of my favorites because it’s as close to commercial as he ever gets and he rips it.

    Saw him at the Fox in Atlanta.

  • OhioAtheist

    No Kafkatrapping here, sorry. The entire point of my argument is that Mr. Renfrow’s Twitter statements have been framed in such a way as to portray him as having said something he did not. The authors conclusions are disingenuous. Any other arguments are spurious, at best.

  • OhioAtheist

    “In Internet slang, a troll (/?tro?l/, /?tr?l/) is a person who sows discord
    on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1]
    by posting inflammatory,[2]
    extraneous, or off-topic
    messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4]
    or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5]
    or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

    -Source, Wikipedia

    Please explain how my original and subsequent comments fit any of these criteria.

    Starting arguments? No. Just seeking clarification. In fact, some of the comments against me would fit the bill perfectly. (suggesting I FOAD, hold my breath, calling me a special snowflake, etc.)

    Upsetting people? Well, I can’t control how people fell about my comments, but simple disagreement is not worthy of being upset. If the author and his readers live in a box and don’t want to read opposing viewpoints, I can’t help that.

    Posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages? No, in fact I consider the blog itself to be inflammatory. I’m simply calling out the author on this.

    Extraneous or off-topic? Nope, right on topic. My comments address the heart of the issue.

    Let’s be honest here. People don’t like to hear conflicting viewpoints, and they will often use silencing techniques (or use buzzphrases like “trolling” or “special snowflake” to silence. Your cognitive dissonance is irrelevant.

    I’m trying to make a point here. That’s it. I’m sorry that you don’t like that viewpoint. Having read the other comments on here, I don’t expect you too. But I am here to engage in civil discourse. Some (or all) of you are not.

  • La Pucelle

    Nice try, but no. For one, you approached the whole thing with your mind already made up, and you were arguing in bad faith from the start. Adjust your attitude before arguing if you want to be taken seriously instead of being treated like a troll.

    And you’re backing the wrong horse here. Renfrow’s own words:

    “If it is solely based on age, it is not. A Sr that has sex with a Fr is not a criminal”.

    You can play semantics games all you want, but they don’t hold up to scrutiny. Yes, we know that high school kids have sex, and we know that seniors “date” freshmen. But his first line right there shows that isn’t what he was arguing. If he had said “based on grade level” he would have had a point, but he did not. He wrote age. Pretending that wasn’t his “intention” or creatively “reinterpreting” his own words to not magically mean what he said won’t change that, I’m afraid.

  • http://deadrepublicanparty.wordpress.com/ rmnixondeceased

    Ahhh … self appointed Grand Inquisitor of the Internet. Just as ill-informed, pedantic and foolish as ever other self appointed asshat inquisitor.

  • http://deadrepublicanparty.wordpress.com/ rmnixondeceased

    You are denser than uranium. Grow up and admit your actions, if not to others, then at least to yourself. Continually lying to yourself is very bad for you.

  • Pingback: Your Teen May Not Be Safe in Her Old Kentucky Home Room | Regular Right Guy()

  • Finrod Felagund

    Eventually you get to NAMBLA levels, where they say things like ‘Sex before eight or else it’s too late!’.

    Sadly I wish I was kidding on that one.

  • Kurt Savage

    You have taken a position alongside and in support of Mr. Renfrow. Whom, regardless of stating specifically or not, wants to see K.Hunt go free after raping a child.

    You want a specific statement from him as to his intent? Then I want a specific statement from you as to your intent.

    Should Kaitlyn Hunt be free, or in jail? An answer of Free or in Jail would suffice to explain your intent here.

    The problem is, it’s a no win situation for you now. If you state “In Jail”, it’s what everybody wants to hear. But then why the emotional reaction on your behalf to rush to the defense of Mr. Renfrow, the guy that thinks 18 year olds being on top of 14 year olds is ok?

    You wonder why the down votes still?

  • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

    I thought it was an automatic latching on to a mother’s breast. Hrmm…