OK, Brian Bunnyhurt, I'm calling you out

The BBQ Pit
1

I don’t usually do this, but get your Mormon-hating, ZOG-finding, incomprehensible-posting butt down here. In particular, I’m referring to this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=63683
where you hijack a thread with your “Jews control the world” conspiracy theories, but, there are a bunch of other threads I could point to instead. Brian, you have this tendency to find conspiracies under rocks, post theories without facts to support them, and speak in this pseudo-intellectual tone that tries to hide the fact that a lot of your posts are frankly meaningless. I refer of course, to this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=63766
where you assert that religion, by its existance, shows that God doesn’t exist. At least, I think that’s what you mean…you seem to be as vague as possible, slipping into further vagaries when someone disagrees with you.

Brian, you have 388 posts, and what have you added to the boards? If I wanted broad assumptions and unsupported theories, I’d talk to my family. Please, think before you post. If the thought seems silly, don’t post it. If you don’t know if the thought is silly or not, ask someone, and please, before you post, run the post through a reading comprehension test…if it requires a 30th grade reading level, consider simpler wording.

2

Gee, and here I thought it was just me having an “over-sensitive” attack or being incredibly stupid in not comprehending anything the bunny said.

3

Brian Bunnyhurt is a strange cookie. I have actually gasp found myself agreeing with him, in this thread about abortion. He made quite a few valid points about the government passing laws on public morality, and presented quite a lucid argument.

Other times he reads like a paranoid schizophrenic on a bad acid trip. This thread is IMHO the all time Bunnyhurt classic, which I believe inspired a pit thread. I believe what unites these disparate view is a violent anti-religion stance coupled with an isolationist American-first stance (note that these do not usually go hand in hand). He hates Israel because it is a somewhat religious institution. He hates it because it gives a vindication to fundamentalist Christians waiting for the Second Coming. He doesn’t like abortion because it is just one more thing that Christians are doing to interfere with the American government.

Anyway, I would be interested to hear what he has to say about the nature of his belief system. I refuse to rant until I get personally insulted.

4

edwino, give it time…give it time… you’ll be insulted. I don’t care what beliefs someone has. I will respect that in anyone, but when somebody does not stand by their belief and cannot make a stand on what they say, and if proven wrong refuse to at least acknowledge it, forget it. In everything I’ve ever seen him talk about, he is insulting, waffling, spineless and self-contradictory. There are threads that he has joined in on that I refuse to even go into anymore simply because I can’t handle beating my head against the wall anymore. I will debate things to the end of the earth, but I don’t like arguing for argument sake. Brian does, and it’s just a waste of my time. My hat is off to those who have more patience with him than I do. YMMV.

5

You think that’s bad, pal? Check out this thread.

Basically, it’s two pages of him claiming that “reason” takes precedence over “facts”, unable to understand that you can’t have the former without the latter.

Also, it shows that his idea of a “cite” is providing the dictionary definition of one word in his claims, thinking that it would explain everything and provide all the evidence he needs for his braindead assertions.

To Mr. Bunnyhurt: You’re a lowlife sweaty ballsack sucking diarrheally-spawned hunk of anti-fact sewage. I’m impressed that you can type so effing much without saying a single Goddamned thing at all. Of course, it’s commendable that you can type at all without opposable thumbs, but I’m sure you have tentacles to hit the keys with, or perhaps you use the point atop your head. I don’t know whether your goal in life is to get everyone to hate you or to win the Grammy for “Most-stupidest”… either way, you’re doing a damn good job of it.

Here’s a cite for you.

6

Okay, obviously I need to take a few lessons from Spoofe, and a few others, in “Pit Talk”. Too many years working for the government has made me automatically “be nice” even when it’s not deserved.

7

The true irony is that Brian’s insistence that facts are unnecessary and that his beliefs must be taken as truth are the earmarks of a gasp raving fundamentalist.

Sua

8

Hey Brian - ever think that your wife’s family didn’t rejecte you because you weren’t Jewish, but rather because you’re a semi-sentient, bottom-feeding slimeball?

Honestly - I feel sorry for the poor girl. Not only did she lose her family, but she’s stuck with you.

On the other hand, it’s good we see eye to eye on one point:

Sound like as good a justification for the existance of Israel as any.

On the other hand, your assertion that it was the Jews fault that they were killed, because they had the temerity to be different form their surroundings… well, you’ll have to work on that one a bit.

Asshole.

9

My impression of Brian Bunnyhurt is that he is in the midst of a normal momment in the development of an intellectual. It is the momment that comes between

A) Figuring out that you are smarter than most people

and

B) Figuring out that there are still alot of people out there both smarter and better informed than you.

All smart people do this. For some, the distance from A to B is a matter of days; for others it is a matter of years. BB seems to be used to overwhelming people with words, rhetoric, and extreme positions. People with little intellectual bent are easily convinced by the sort of rhetoric BB seems to rely on, and I suspect that he has never been seriously challenged before.

He makes another mistake common of people stuck in this point of intellectual development–because he sees himself as intelligent and other people as stupid, he assumes that when people disagree with him it is because they are too slow to get it, not because he hasn’t conveyed himself properly. He dosen’t seem to understand that it is the writer’s job to make himself understood, not the readers, so when people act baffled by his rambleings he dosen’t listen and try to discover the reason for thier confusion (it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with his presentation)but instead chalks it up as more proof of what idiots all of us are.

His attitude towards religion seems to me to be that of someone who grew up in a very religious area and who thinks he is being rebellious or shocking when he says things like “Religion is anti-ethics”. He dosen’t seem to realize that most of his arguements are old, tired ones that we have been through 18 times and where we are polishing out the details. It is like the first year philosophy student (pre-Matrix I need a new example) who runs up to the professor and says “I just had this incredible Idea! What if we were all, like, brains in vats, and um, all this around us was just like, um, an illusion?” and expects to be praised for this truly revolutionary idea. (The fundy equivilant of this, of course, is the one that runs up and presents Pascal’s wager, expecting a total triumph as we are all blown away).

He will either grow up or get bored shortly-GD is no place to play if you lack respect for the intellectual abilities of others. I am thinking he is about half done with his education, and when he is all the way done he will look back on this period and cringe a bit. The rest of us do.

10

Well said, Manda Jo. You are 100% pure-D correct.

11

Is he going for the deliberate obtuseness award, or is he just full of crap?

12

Well, I agree with Brian Bunnyhurt. Israel should be dismantled…

…and replaced with a giant Wal-Mart. We could put up the Golan Heights Shopping Center, the Chase Manhattan West Bank, and of course, the Gaza Strip Mall.

I eagerly await the image of the Three Wise Men following a Starbucks. :smiley:

13

I like brian as much as I like most posters. he has a pretty logical mind and can, most times, pick a flaw in anothers argument or promote on of his own.

Like many posters, though, he is not infallible. I myself fall into the flaw I see in him: an inability to see when one is wrong.

He’s added much to some of the threads I’ve been in, I thought, though I sorta hijacked his infinity thread and then failed to come up with anything interesting to get it back on track. :frowning: Sorry, man!

Some of his views on religion, though, are far from tolerant. Myself, I also find a distaste for such things. But I have a hard time presenting them unerringly because, I think, such views cannot be represented 100% accurately or are not 100% correct (either way, hard to say).

Fight the good fight, brian, just be prepared to be wrong. I’ve butt up against too many heads here to still think I know what’s going on in all counts.

[sidenote]Facts, spoofe, are not the be-all end-all of arguments. And they are derived from reason; reason is not derived from facts. Whether or not reason alone can explain all facts remains to be seen. Remember as well that facts, taken out of contexts or quotes chopped arbitrarily can result in whatever “facts” or “quotes” you want. Reasonable arguemnts do not fall prey as easily and are, IMO, a better way to present an argument. An argument that relies solely on reason is a strong one; and argument that relies solely on facts calls the data into question. An argument that relies on both is most applicable to debating (unless we are debating principles in which case “facts” are hard to come by).[/sidenote]

14

Brian is a young man who thinks deeply but not carefully. He allows “grand ideas” to overwhelm consideration and blind him to any holes in his position. This blindness can make him immensely frustrating to engage in debate.

I have seen no reason to consider him malicious, but I have not read some of the threads mentioned by others.

15

But when he says things like “Australia’s crime rate is far lower than America’s” and then is proved to be completely wrong, and STILL refuses to admit he was wrong and/or provide a cite for his claims… that’s when you know something is wrong.

16

I’d like to back up arl in saying that a logically sound reasoned argument from clearly laid out axioms is far preferable in many debates to a data slugfest. One knows the assumptions and can argue the logic from the former. The latter comes down to a “my cite says, your cite says” comparison.

Naming no names, but I’ve seen more than a few individuals taking to quoting an opinion or line of reasoning and just adding the word “cite?” after it. Sorry folks, but this is not an acceptable counterargument.

I thought that this was a particularly egregious example. Read Brian’s actual post, then consider whether the requesting of a cite is really appropriate.

To his credit, I thought that BB actually handled that request in a rather amusing fashion, producing a bizarre Swedish website “from [his] pyjamas”.

pan

17

Aynrandlover,
My problem with him isn’t that he can be an interesting poster, or has funny moments. My problem with him is that he claims facts that aren’t true, he makes factual assertions w/o proof, he stereotypes large groups of people, and that he seems so convinced that religion is the cause of all the problems in the world that he gives it only negative motives, and can not discuss it reasonably. He also acted like a scumbucket by claiming that Jews were responsible for the Russian pograms and the holocaust because they “didn’t fit in”. That’s why he’s an asshole.

18

pan:

Bear in mind that usually it’s not intended as a counterargument. It’s intended as a request for, well, a citation. It may imply doubt, perhaps (or more accurately, doubt may be inferred), but generally the pattern goes like this:

Poster 1: Makes assertion.

Poster 2: Asks “Cite?”

Poster 1: Provides cite.

Poster 2: Says “Thank you.”
I suppose some people could be more explicit in their requests. But here, as anywhere, assertions must not be allowed without support (unless, of course, they are explicitly opinion).

19

But if someone makes claims, and bases his whole argument around such claims, it’s only common sense and decency to provide some means of backing up those claims… especially if they’re dubious.

Try this…

“My reasoning tells me that all homosexuals are pedophiles.”

“My reasoning tells me that the Moon landing was a hoax.”

“My reasoning tells me that all liberals are ignorant.”

All three are arguments that are easily demolished with a little fact or two.

Remember, I’m not talking about “What did God mean when he…?” or “What’s wrong with prostitution?” Those are subjects that are based on reason (or personal belief). But Mr. Bunnyhurt, while he DOES throw his voice around in those sort of debates, also comes into a debate in which a firm grasp of the facts and numbers is necessary, and absolutely refuses to back up his claims with anything… and he even mocks those who ask for a cite.

He has poor debating skills and a poor grasp of reality, IMOSHO. He can’t understand that his personal views on things aren’t universally shared by everyone else.

Oh, yes, we should ALL follow his genius-level example…

“God says we should kill all gay people.”

“Cite?”

“Hehehe… yeah, go to http://www.whatthefuck.com for your cite… hehehehe… that’ll confuse 'em, I’m so funny! Hehehe…”

:rolleyes:

20

Not the case or, clearly, the hoax wouldn’t be around in the first place. What happens when citations and “facts” are brought into a debate as the leg the debate stands on is that the facts applicability and reliability are what end up being debated.

It was my contention in a pedophilia thread, for example, that it is not inherently abusive when the act occurs between an adolescent(around 13yrs+) and an adult, but appears that way due largely to existing societal condemnation. I was then provided cites and claims that it is inherently abusive, because look at this case and this case and…

Perhaps you can see that the citation requests I was given are impossible to produce. As well, existing citations on the topic of pedophilia would be largely useless as well since my contention was one involving the culture surrounding sex itself.

In some cases, as sua sponte (unrelated to sua bo diddly, haha) once made clear, cites indeed can clear up misunderstandings. In an abortion thread I made a claim, was asked to back it up, and could not do so. In the process of search I found that my claim was false; I withdrew my argument.

In many cases, cite tactics go something like this:
“[assertation]”
“Cite please? :rolleyes: I’d love to hear this one, [etc]”
“[cite]”
“That cite is so biased”

Here is my :rolleyes:. If you cannot form a reasoned argument at some level, your argument probably isn’t that strong (and surely isn’t yours anyway, you’re just playing cite editor).

IMO cites, if used at all, should provide a specific context around the reasoned argument itself. Remove the cites and the argument should remain valid, if perhaps more general.

Brian, however, to the best of my knowledge, uses cites even less than me. that amounts to, most likely, none since I can only recall three posts where I actually cited something to support an argument.

Lastly, if a cite would clear things up conclusively then the thread would be a GQ, not a GD. I take my leave pretty quickly of GD threads that require citations.