# OK, Brian Bunnyhurt, I'm calling you out **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 19, 2001, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-brian-bunnyhurt-im-calling-you-out/58535 "2001-03-19T02:51:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2001, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-brian-bunnyhurt-im-calling-you-out/58535/21 "2001-03-22T20:23:09Z")
**arl** , you are, generally speaking, absolutely right. Cites are too often called for in GD, and the call for cites are too often used as a way to beat down someone else’s argument without going to the bother of defeating the argument with rational discussion. However, this criticism doesn’t apply to **Brian**. In many, if not most, instances, **he’s** the one to first posit “facts”, and use them as the base of his arguments. Even worse, when his “facts” are disproven _by cites provided by other people_, he refuses to acknowledge them. One example - in the first thread he started on the board, he advocated the “dismantling” of Israel, and said it was necessary for three “factual” reasons: 1. Israel was founded by Western colonial powers, and thus it is our responsibility; 2. The Israelis want to leave, and “millions” “were leaving as fast as they could get the money”; and 3. Because of our support of Israel, we had no allies in the Arab world. I walked into that thread, and said, “huh. New poster, seems sincere, but is way off on his facts.” I and others in the thread, provided citations that all three of these facts were wrong - Israel declared independence by itself; Israel had a high net immigration rate; and America had plenty of allies in the Arab world. All citations were from either government sources or encyclopedias, etc., not biased sources. No effect. He just piled on more bad “facts” - Canada’s and Australia’s immigration policies, the Big Jewish Conspiracy to control the media, etc. It truly got bizarre. Yes, facts and citations cannot be the be all and end-all of any debate. However, they are certainly useful, and, if nothing else, they can place everyone on the same starting page for the debate. As I repeatedly pointed out to **Brian** in that thread, there is a valid debate about our policy towards Israel and even Israel’s right to exist, but we can’t even start that debate until we agreed on what the situation actually was. Sua ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2001, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-brian-bunnyhurt-im-calling-you-out/58535/22 "2001-03-23T08:45:38Z")
Aynrandlover… I agree that one shouldn’t just flush an argument with a bunch of URLs. I rarely use cites, myself… aside from the rare instances when one is absolutely necessary. But, as I pointed out with my first example, there are times when an assertion REQUIRES a reliable cite in order to stand on its legs. In the first thread I linked to, Mr. Bunnyhurt made the assertion that “Australia’s crime rate is much lower than America’s.” I pointed out that this is not the case, and provided a cite to back that up. How is this an inappropriate usage of citing? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2001, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-brian-bunnyhurt-im-calling-you-out/58535/23 "2001-03-23T16:31:22Z")
You’re right, I agree with both of you. Never been in a thread with Brian like that. ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2001, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-brian-bunnyhurt-im-calling-you-out/58535/24 "2001-03-26T10:06:23Z")
Yeah - I agree too in those cases. I’m trying to draw a distinction here though between an argument that rests on factual axioms an one that rests on belief axioms. Any ideal debate should proceed as follows: axioms/postulates reasoning conclusion So then we come down to two types of debate - those in which the axioms are supportable and those in which they are subjective or part of a belief system. **Sua** ’s example was the first type. **Brian** apparently made some erroneous factual statements about Israel and used those axioms to support his reasoning. Absolutely right that he should be called on that. Cite needed. **Spoofe** ’s example was also the first type. **Brian** apparently made some erroneous factual statements about relative crime rates and used those as his axioms to support his reasoning. But in **my** example **Brian** said… > [@](#): > > Society has long tolerated the assumption that women would become “whores” if given the chance … … and a cite was requested. Now this is manifestly **not** an empirical piece of data, but an opinion. Part of a belief system. It is entirely **reasonable** to base an logical argument on this opinion, **provided that you explicitly state your assumption** before you start. And that is what, in this example, **Brian** did. When I saw the word “cite?” after this quote, it just caused me to roll my eyes and conclude that the requester of the cite didn’t really understand the nature of the argument. So **andros** - I hope you see where I am coming from now. Requests for cites to pieces of factual information on which arguments rest are necessary. Requests for cites supporting non-factual belief-based opinions are not necessary, or desirable. Your pattern ought to be the way cite reqests are sought.Their request as an _alternative_ to argument is, however, becoming increasingly and undesirably common. pan ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2001, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-brian-bunnyhurt-im-calling-you-out/58535/25 "2001-03-26T16:35:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kabbes \* > I’m trying to draw a distinction here though between an argument that rests on factual axioms an one that rests on belief axioms. > > But in **my** example **Brian** said… > > > [@](#): > > > > Society has long tolerated the assumption that women would become “whores” if given the chance … > > … and a cite was requested. Now this is manifestly **not** an empirical piece of data, but an opinion. Part of a belief system. It is entirely **reasonable** to base an logical argument on this opinion, **provided that you explicitly state your assumption** before you start. And that is what, in this example, **Brian** did. When I saw the word “cite?” after this quote, it just caused me to roll my eyes and conclude that the requester of the cite didn’t really understand the nature of the argument. I think we are on the same page, **kabbes** , but the example you give from **Mr. Bunnyhurt** isn’t a belief axiom. He wasn’t assuming that women become whores if given the chance. He was stating a presumed “fact” - that society makes an assumption. This is testable, either through sociological surveys or through analysis of societal archetypes expressed in art, popular culture, etc. And if he is going to base his argument on this “fact”, people are allowed to call him on whether the fact is right. (Ironically, in this case, his fact may well be right, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t support it if challenged.) As for the larger issue of calling for citations, as I stated above it certainly is abused on this board, but I submit that **Brian** has brought a lot of it on himself. I, for one, don’t ask **Polycarp** or **Tomndebb** for citations, even when I disagree with them, because they have shown themselves in the past to be intelligent, honest, and well-informed posters. If I disagree with them or with people of their ilk, **I** provide the citation - I need support before going up against them. 😉 **Brian** , OTOH, has been presenting invalid axioms as fact from the moment he started posting (I believe the Israel and Mormon threads were his first posts on this board). So he has become the boy who cried “wolf” - the assumption is that he is ass-talking, and he has created that assumption himself by ass-talking repeatedly in the past. Do people go to far in demanding so many cites from **Brian**? Sure. Is it unreasonable? IMO, no. Sua ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2001, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-brian-bunnyhurt-im-calling-you-out/58535/26 "2001-03-26T17:03:34Z")
> [@](#): > > He wasn’t assuming that women become whores if given the chance. He was stating a presumed “fact” - that society makes an assumption. This is testable I reckon that’s the way I see it too, **Pan**. It’s very hard sometimes to determine which statements should be prefaced by “IMO”–more so when dogmatics like Bunny are involved. If I were to say “all lawyers suck,” it’s pretty obviously subjective. If I say “all women are whores,” that’s subjective too–and untrue, and should be backed up (somehow at least; not necessarily with research). If I say “all women are genetically predisposed to whoredom,” I would think I’ve moved beyond the bounds of subjectivity and into the realm of empiricism. You’re right–there’s a big fuzzy gray line, and I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. It’s just difficult sometimes when someone like Brian comes along. He seems to try to make _everything_ he says sound like Moses ont he fucking mount. When he’s shown to be wrong, he refuses to admit it, instead backtracking to “it was only my opinion.” So, I can only assume that everything he says is opinion–and opinion from ignorance. But that’s just my opinion. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2001, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-brian-bunnyhurt-im-calling-you-out/58535/27 "2001-03-26T22:01:02Z")
Whenever I see an erroneous factual claim made by Little Child (my pet name for him, coming in part from the tantrum he threw at my proving him wrong), I generally make sure that he either A: understands that he’s wrong, or B: understands that he should probably have a sourcebook or two beside him the next time he wants to state that erroneous fact. Whenever I see him making a subjective statement that’s completely off-base (lots of those), I either ignore it or I make it perfectly clear to him that he probably doesn’t have a firm grasp of the whole issue. However, given his tendency to respond to cogent points and practical arguments with windbaggery, I usually just ignore him. ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2001, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-brian-bunnyhurt-im-calling-you-out/58535/28 "2001-03-27T10:49:29Z")
windbaggery? I _like_ that word. And it is rather aposite for our Mr **Bunnyhurt**. Incidentally I think that we are all in agreement - I was just trying to make a wider point about the request for cites and the nature of debate on these boards. But I think that I’m rather preaching to the converted here anyway. So I’ll return to the actual OP. Ironically one of my beefs with **Brian** is almost the opposite of the complaint here. I find that he has a tendancy to quote a myriad deep and chewy cites with no indication of the part of the website that supports his argument. He then quotes a huge chunk that seems to have no relevance whatsoever. He therefore demands more of my time than I am really willing to grant him, based on my experience of him. I think that this is related to the same point, in that the cite is just an illusion and not really supportive. But I’d thought I’d call it anyway. So maybe we should offer this constructive advice for **Brian Bunnyhurt** :[list=1][li] Seek to identify your axioms and separate them from your argument.[/li] [li] Either back up those axioms with facts, or admit that they are opinion[/li] [li] Cites should be targeted and directed.[/li] [li] Try to develop the skill of clear and concise prose. Short paragraphs help, as do sentences that are about 12 words long on average. Avoid unnecessary clutter.[/li] [li] When making an argument, try to identify a logical structure. Present your argument based on that structure.[/list=1]Really this is just about good communication skills, useful IRL as well as on these boards![/li] pan ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2001, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-brian-bunnyhurt-im-calling-you-out/58535/29 "2001-03-27T11:02:14Z")
> [@](#): > > windbaggery? (snip) > > And it is rather aposite for our Mr Bunnyhurt. I disagree, but rather than expand, I’ll just say that we’ll just have to agree on disagreement (it’s 3:00 AM, I’m tired, bored, annoyed, not too terribly happy, and not in the mood to dig up examples). ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2001, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-brian-bunnyhurt-im-calling-you-out/58535/30 "2001-03-27T11:06:53Z")
No **SPOOFE** - actually we agree. Or to put it another way, I disagree that you disagree. > [@](#): > > _apposite_ - well put, appropriate In other words, I think that you chose a good word to describe him. pan ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2001, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-brian-bunnyhurt-im-calling-you-out/58535/31 "2001-03-29T21:52:15Z")
I’m going to say this here rather than ruin [a perfectly good GD thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=65389) or open a brand new Pit topic. Hope nobody minds my late entry, but I’m sure BB is keeping up with this thread, even though he’s perhaps shown a tiny shred of good judgment by staying out of it. Brian, you dumbass, I wasn’t accusing you of being “selfishly ill-intentioned” in that thread. I was merely pointing out that your post was so amazingly incomprehensible, illogical, and generally moronic that it could well have been written (and I use that term _very_ loosely) through a haze of bad Turkish hash. I don’t give a rat’s ass whether you’re a pothead or Barry Fucking McCaffrey. But I am sick and tired of your half-baked, scattertbrained, conspiracy-minded jihads. I know ignorance has to exist for the rest of us to fight it. But god_damn_, boy, put down the bong or the diesel exhaust pipe or whatever it is that’s made you such an idiot and take a breath of fresh air every once in a while. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-brian-bunnyhurt-im-calling-you-out/58535.md?page=1)