Lolcow Brandon Hill | Brandon Victorian | DecKrash -

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Brought to our attention by Chan the Wizard, Brandon is a remnant of oldschool Youtube where video responses were king. He's also a co-author of a few books on Amazon such as Lifemates. Mostly vampires and furry alien shit. He also recently stepped to the defense of Andrew Dobson.

He's been around since 2008, that means you'll find all kinds of disjointed arguments arranged out of order in all kinds of nooks and crannies you wouldn't look in anymore. If you take a look at his actual videos, you'll see an ocean of videos sperging about almost nothing but religious shit and doing readings of his furry porn sci-fi. Oh, also, the occasional book/movie review. I don't have much shit to dump on this guy but here's his argument against science that I found:

By the way, in the "about" section on Youtube, he literally wrote "I'm a special snowflake."

Links:
Amazon
LinkedIn
DeviantArt
Twitter
Youtube
Planet Pancakes webcomic

 

[MayMay]

You know, we need a text version of that first image, possibly as a copypasta. It's like the Navy Seal decided to be pseudo-intellectual.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

You know, we need a text version of that first image, possibly as a copypasta. It's like the Navy Seal decided to be pseudo-intellectual.

Spoiler: Wish granted.

"I know this isn't a real debate. You wouldn't survive a real debate. Your arguments are that weak. I'm not being arrogant; it's just the truth. And I'd like to ask ... are YOU kidding??? Read your history, PLEASE! Mendel, Gallileo, Newton, Kepler, Planck, Pascal, Descartes ... should I continue from this VERY long list of scientists who were Christian/theist, because there are a LOT more. Oh, and good job on the name-calling. you look SO intellectual doing it. Now, concerning your "proof of science," you are saying that science shows its own validity because by showing that it has improved the quality of life and increased lifespans, it justifies itself as a valid way of gaining knowledge. Unfortunately, it doesn't follow that just because it has improved the quality of life, etc., the knowledge that science itself gives is valid. And also, your argument is viciously circular, because it says that science is valid because of science."


~DecKrash, 3 years ago.

 

[cumrobbery]

Spoiler: Wish granted.

"I know this isn't a real debate. You wouldn't survive a real debate. Your arguments are that weak. I'm not being arrogant; it's just the truth. And I'd like to ask ... are YOU kidding??? Read your history, PLEASE! Mendel, Gallileo, Newton, Kepler, Planck, Pascal, Descartes ... should I continue from this VERY long list of scientists who were Christian/theist, because there are a LOT more. Oh, and good job on the name-calling. you look SO intellectual doing it. Now, concerning your "proof of science," you are saying that science shows its own validity because by showing that it has improved the quality of life and increased lifespans, it justifies itself as a valid way of gaining knowledge. Unfortunately, it doesn't follow that just because it has improved the quality of life, etc., the knowledge that science itself gives is valid. And also, your argument is viciously circular, because it says that science is valid because of science."


~DecKrash, 3 years ago.

I couldn't decipher a single coherent thing from that

 

[Sanae Kochiya]

Spoiler: Wish granted.

"I know this isn't a real debate. You wouldn't survive a real debate. Your arguments are that weak. I'm not being arrogant; it's just the truth. And I'd like to ask ... are YOU kidding??? Read your history, PLEASE! Mendel, Gallileo, Newton, Kepler, Planck, Pascal, Descartes ... should I continue from this VERY long list of scientists who were Christian/theist, because there are a LOT more. Oh, and good job on the name-calling. you look SO intellectual doing it. Now, concerning your "proof of science," you are saying that science shows its own validity because by showing that it has improved the quality of life and increased lifespans, it justifies itself as a valid way of gaining knowledge. Unfortunately, it doesn't follow that just because it has improved the quality of life, etc., the knowledge that science itself gives is valid. And also, your argument is viciously circular, because it says that science is valid because of science."


~DecKrash, 3 years ago.

Is this man a fucking creationist?

If this man starts spouting Kent Hovind and Carl Baugh-related psuedo-crap then I will tear the living shit out of him. The only thing that irks me more than the defense of mediocre and laughable wish-fulfillment artwork (that isn't funny to laugh at) from people with inflated egos are people who willfully ignore science and decry people who study it.

They're both demonstrations of a vastly overblown superiority complex, but the latter is just flat out insulting to people who dedicated their lives to studying and researching good science.

EDIT: Just quickly skimmed through his dA page. On my phone so I can't really link stuff very well without it being weird, but he has mainly a lot of:

Plugs for his novels.
That Project Pancake webcomic.
Some small little mini story I didn't look at.
A bunch of sketches, either inked, shaded, or colored.

It doesn't look like he digitally inks his stuff, giving his artwork a kind of amateurish feel. Also, the sketches themselves aren't too impressive, but I'm not really an art critic.

... His shading seems a lot better than Dobson's though.

EDIT 2: Scrolled through his Amazon quickly. OK, for the record, this is just my personal opinion, but anyone who thinks "Starmage" and "Ravensong" are acceptable last names should stick with a random name generator.

Anyway, he has only a few reviews on his books, the most being 6. They all are, like, 4 to 5 star reviews so that kinda put me off at first. I mean, I doubt that they're all fake sockpuppet reviews but some of them just read really weird (like who uses the word "trepidation" in a review)? Another of the reviews also shills his dA account so yeah, make of that what you will.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Anyway, he has only a few reviews on his books, the most being 6. They all are, like, 4 to 5 star reviews so that kinda put me off at first. I mean, I doubt that they're all fake sockpuppet reviews but some of them just read really weird (like who uses the word "trepidation" in a review)? Another of the reviews also shills his dA account so yeah, make of that what you will.

He's been on Youtube and DeviantArt since at least 2008 so it's not shocking that in spite of all his anti-success that he would occasionally pick up a couple of cronies over the years.

Is this man a fucking creationist?

If this man starts spouting Kent Hovind and Carl Baugh-related psuedo-crap then I will tear the living shit out of him. The only thing that irks me more than the defense of mediocre and laughable wish-fulfillment artwork (that isn't funny to laugh at) from people with inflated egos are people who willfully ignore science and decry people who study it.

They're both demonstrations of a vastly overblown superiority complex, but the latter is just flat out insulting to people who dedicated their lives to studying and researching good science.

I've seen people randomly post "I used to be a Fundamentalist" so he might be that. Creationism isn't out the door though; I haven't gone through all of his shit, much of which is more than an hour long.

 

[Gensdupays]

What is it with fundies turning out to be furries?

 

[Meowthkip]

What is it with fundies turning out to be furries?

There's actually not as many fundie furries as you might think; they're pretty much a minority. They're just louder than the regular old hippie and sexual deviant furries.

Also they they have a much higher chance of being quality lolcows.

 

[glutenfreebooty]

What is it with fundies turning out to be furries?

Anyone who vehemently condemns others for a perceived sin is overcompensating for their own fuckedupedness. Fundies are the example of this idea.