Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

[Rizla]

He's making a documentary of him writing his paper. It's just a lot of paper shuffling and professing his love for chocolate and an energy drink. The highlight so far being his using a Dictaphone like a cell phone to diction[sic] his thoughts on Aronra. The fact he's already recording it seems to have eluded him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=51mp3YHMGdw#t=278s

 

[Gnug215]

Hello League of Reason,

knowing my first post (s?) will be in aproval and doubting to be allowed to start of with a new (-comer) topic as first, I'll echo my 'Hello @all' right here - wherefore I got aware of you.

Too being around since 13.03 and getting to know the board a bit I'm pretty impressed by the generosity and patience that's been exposed

greets ~ Vivre

Welcome aboard!

And yes, sadly, because of spammers, eeeeverything that comes in has to be approved first. So to anyone reading this, Vivre just made two posts on the previous page.

Oh, and Vivre, do not mistake generosity and patience for... what do you call that desire to slow down to see car wrecks? Ah well, I'm sure you know what I mean.

 

[pookylies]

Can I just say how grateful I am that the moderators have let me off the naughty step. Whatever I did to earn my punishment, I promise not to do again. Can I also apologise to Englebert. I'm not sure how anybody could confuse your well meaning and considered posts with my drivel (I suspect LoR's Sherlock Holmes department needs reviewing). In any case, I promise to behave myself, especially as the submission of Jay's major research paper is imminent.

 

[Vivre]

@Gnug215

thanks for your well~come

I swayed many a days if I shall or shan't ... but there've already been several other topics where I would have liked to tune in ... now I can.

Oh - and pointing towards crashing sensations I crossed this WAKE UP! in my inbox some days ago - but mind you, it's not meant for cute kitty-eyes ;-)

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Now that pookylies is back, I can ask a question he can answer.

Jason101[/url]"]My secretary , english teacher mate and two academic mates at the univeristy of Manchester will proof read my paper .

Which are you?

 

[Gnug215]

To Gnug.


Thanks for your comment. Its tone did seem to be more pleasant and agreeable than the prickly jabbing I have so far received from the moderator, although its length left me deferring a reply. I am procrastinating by watching Jason’s ongoing soap opera and happy to defend him to some degree, but the length at which I would have to reply to your comment left me wondering how much time I should be prepared to spend defending someone who at times is indefensible.

I have made some efforts to support my views in one or two other comments so far. Perhaps we can agree that they would also apply to comments that you have made about Jason so I don’t have to repeat them at too much length. I have made a point about his forums being reasonably open for people to discuss and talk about the relevant issues. There are probably more open forums online that are completely unregulated, but as Christians go on youtube, I can’t think of many (if any) channels more open to comments than Jay’s. I will elaborate further on this point and attempt to substantiate it with further evidence in response to prolescum’s post as it was there that I was making it.

You have surgically dissected and disassembled several of Jay’s recent posts and videos. This is not a particularly difficult thing to do. There is all sorts of imbalanced lunacy and contradiction in his comments. If you are looking for consistency or rational discourse you will find the former to be completely lacking anywhere in Jay’s online activity and the latter to come in random unpredictable fits and starts.

We have a combination of attention seeking, genuine apologetics, lunacy, an internal battle with the difficulties of his chosen religion, the desire to be a youtuber, interest in philosophy, some humanity, probably a little mischief, some depression, a whole selection of other factors and a propensity to self destruct in Jay. We might get some sensible, pertinent and interesting philosophical discussion from him one day and a moronic self incriminating diatribe the next. It’s difficult, no impossible, to defend him from some of the things that he says, but I do have some sympathy for his position. I have also seen him say some good things and that have heard him make some persuasive and correct arguments. His appearance on this forum certainly displays the usual crazy peaks and troughs common to many of his channels and at times in greater contrast here too. Your assessment of him by the demonstrable troughs is understandable.

‘Soap opera’ is one phrase I might deem appropriate as a description of his online activities. Dissecting and responding to every word Jay utters or writes will soon become an impossible and thankless task. He makes up to 50 videos a day on occasion. The approach that you have taken, whilst appropriate for many youtubers or bloggers, will soon become an impossible one to maintain because of the sheer volume of continuous content from Jay’s end. Evaluating and responding to everything will become a full time profession.


There is plenty more to say to respond to all of your post, but I will move to the conclusion as concision in this instance might be more appropriate and fruitful than extending this response too much further.


“I admire your defense of another person, but as I think I have demonstrated in this post, his behavior is indefensible.”

His behaviour is at times indefensible yes, but not always.

“You say he's trying to do the best by his beliefs, but what does that say about his beliefs?”

It says that they are not necessarily helpful in his life and some are irreconcilable, with views that I and many others hold - but not all and neither was my contention that his beliefs are all defensible, but that he is not a bad person.

“Well, actually, in spite of not being a fan as such of Christianity, which is Jason's professed belief, I think you would agree with me when I say that I don't think Christianity is behind Jason's outrageous outbursts.”

I would not necessarily agree with you actually. Christianity is a complex construct that has a deep effect on many people and I think it certainly does play its part in much of his behaviour. Indeed I would suggest that it is the ‘basis’ of some of his behaviour. However, I would share some agreement with you here and would not assign all the blame to Christianity. There are usually levels of complexity in such cases, rather than pleasant and simplistic conclusions.

“Jason Burns is a good man, trying to do the best by his beliefs.”

If you are a good man, but your beliefs are bad, what might happen? What happens if you have invested the greatest part of your life in beliefs, of which some at least, are proving questionable or difficult? What kind of human reactions can that cause? What happens if the lifelong stability of work, mind and soul is shaken to its very core? Are these easily negotiable circumstances? Some people find their way through them with ease and aplomb. Does everybody? What about those who have committed completely and utterly, not only spiritually, but emotionally, educationally, financially, socially, morally and even to the point of making it an occupation?

Hi Engelbert,


I am glad you appreciate my post (even though it was very long - sorry!).

First, I will just quickly say that the prickly jabbings from the moderator are somewhat understandable, given the skepticism about your appearance on these boards. It is a coincidence, and those can happen, but we have a lot of bad experiences with those around here. Among other, we've had a trolling user who came back like... 20 times with new names. So the real-identity-guessing-game is quite frequently played here.

But I suggest we all give each other the benefit of the doubt and move on with the subject. (Especially since I think you have responded sincerely and seriously so far.)

And the subject right now is Jason.

Yes, I accept that some of your other comments are valid as responses to my post as well, so I will try to keep that in mind. I don't actually want to go too much into depth with things now, and I don't want to inundate you with more Jason quotes.


Anyway, first I'd like to make a comment about Jason's channel being open to comments. Here I think you need to understand where "we" (as in, the skeptics/atheist community, I suppose) are coming from: most atheist channels on YouTube that I know are VERY open and free. Sure, there is some blockage around the place, but that's usually of direct trolls, spammers and the like. What usually ISN'T banned is someone who simply has an opposing view.
Your opening comment on this site was about many people getting banned, but if you look at the bans, I'm sure you'll see a pattern. Usually, it's the trolly, silly, spammy posters that get banned. There have been plenty of Christians and creationists on this site that have not been banned. All the ones that did behaved trollishly.
A final note on this point: I don't mean to be cheeky, but calling Jason's channel "open to comments" seems like a bit of a joke now, given all the people he's banned, wouldn't you say? Granted, I haven't seen what all of them have been banned for, and I'm sure some of them would be justified according to "normal" channel rules that people have in place (such as, against trollers and spammers). But from what I hear, a lot of reasonable posters have been banned, so in this case, it seems people are being banned simply for disagreeing with Jason - and THAT is something that usually has the sketpics/atheist community seeing red.
So all in all, I respectfully disagree on the point of Jason's channel being open.

Oh, and apologies, but I must point to this video as new evidence for his erratic personality:



Here he makes demands to... well, seemingly all atheists. This video had me shaking my head so hard, snot came out. (Ok, not true, I just have a cold, so there is a lot of snot coming out. Sorry for oversharing.) But seriously... who makes such outlandish demands? He is going to monitor ALL atheists websites and blogs? Does he think there are only 10, maybe?? And he wants atheists to use logic and reason properly?

No atheist will ever, ever take this guy seriously. I hope you can understand that.

Now, I can understand that he might still be a pleasant guy to some, probably those people that agree with him and such, but that's usuallyhow it is, isn't it? However, If I were a Christian and he treated me friendly, I'd appreciate the friendliness, but I wouldn't actually want to be friendly with such a person. The instability and erraticness is too much. Again, as I said in my first post: trust is key in human relations.

His behaviour is at times indefensible yes, but not always.

True, I agree. That can usually said about everyone, I guess. I don't think anyone as "pure good" or "pure evil", but I will make an overall categorization of sorts about whether or not a person is... someone I'd want to befriend. Well, there are more than two categories, really, but Jason would in my book fall into one of the most negative ones, in spite of whatever good he might come up with - mostly because I wouldn't be able to trust him AT all, and I'd wonder about his mental condition.

It says that they are not necessarily helpful in his life and some are irreconcilable, with views that I and many others hold - but not all and neither was my contention that his beliefs are all defensible, but that he is not a bad person.

Well, if the categories are limited to "good" and "bad", then I'd have to place him quite firmly in the "bad person" category. There seems to be more bad and crazy in him than good and sane, in my view. But granted, I haven't seen all of him, so I haven't seen the good.

I would not necessarily agree with you actually. Christianity is a complex construct that has a deep effect on many people and I think it certainly does play its part in much of his behaviour. Indeed I would suggest that it is the ‘basis’ of some of his behaviour. However, I would share some agreement with you here and would not assign all the blame to Christianity. There are usually levels of complexity in such cases, rather than pleasant and simplistic conclusions.

I agree, but I think what I really wanted to say was more along the lines of: I don't Christian dogma states that you must make outrageously inane/insane YouTube videos and generally behaving like he does. I hope you get where I'm going with that, if not, I will elaborate.

If you are a good man, but your beliefs are bad, what might happen? What happens if you have invested the greatest part of your life in beliefs, of which some at least, are proving questionable or difficult? What kind of human reactions can that cause? What happens if the lifelong stability of work, mind and soul is shaken to its very core? Are these easily negotiable circumstances? Some people find their way through them with ease and aplomb. Does everybody? What about those who have committed completely and utterly, not only spiritually, but emotionally, educationally, financially, socially, morally and even to the point of making it an occupation?

Interesting points, and something to think about.

I can't say where Jason is in all this, or how he's affected by it - I honestly don't know him well enough- but well, my assessment of Jason is that his erratic behavior is ingrained in his personality, and that he would be this way whether he were atheist or Christian, Buddhist or pizza delivery man.

He would have to work long and hard to earn my trust, and to prove that he wasn't essentially a "bad person".

 

[Gnug215]

Can I just say how grateful I am that the moderators have let me off the naughty step. Whatever I did to earn my punishment, I promise not to do again. Can I also apologise to Englebert. I'm not sure how anybody could confuse your well meaning and considered posts with my drivel (I suspect LoR's Sherlock Holmes department needs reviewing). In any case, I promise to behave myself, especially as the submission of Jay's major research paper is imminent.

Hi, welcome back.

Regarding the Sherlock Holmes thing, I make a brief mention of that in my recent post to Engelbert, you might want to check that for some clarification.

 

[Gnug215]

@Gnug215

thanks for your well~come

I swayed many a days if I shall or shan't ... but there've already been several other topics where I would have liked to tune in ... now I can.

Oh - and pointing towards crashing sensations I crossed this WAKE UP! in my inbox some days ago - but mind you, it's not meant for cute kitty-eyes ;-)

Haha, ah yes... bless the Russians and their dashboard cameras.

 

[pookylies]

Now that pookylies is back, I can ask a question he can answer.

Jason101[/url]"]My secretary , english teacher mate and two academic mates at the univeristy of Manchester will proof read my paper .

Which are you?

Haha. None of the above. I offered to proof read Jay's paper because as the man himself has said (and others can testify to the fact) writing is not his forte. It seemed a shame that the whole process could potentially fail because of poor english. However, he declined my very kind offer

 

[Inferno]

I offered to proof read Jay's paper because as the man himself has said (and others can testify to the fact) writing is not his forte.

This might sound mean, but what exactly IS Jay's forte? His videos are quite dreadful, his reasoning flawed, ... What's left?

Jay's major research paper is imminent.

Didn't he say himself that it might take him longer than suspected? I'm not sure what "longer" is, but it sounds... well, longer... than imminent.

 

[pookylies]

I offered to proof read Jay's paper because as the man himself has said (and others can testify to the fact) writing is not his forte.

This might sound mean, but what exactly IS Jay's forte? His videos are quite dreadful, his reasoning flawed, ... What's left?

Jay's major research paper is imminent.

Didn't he say himself that it might take him longer than suspected? I'm not sure what "longer" is, but it sounds... well, longer... than imminent.

On one of today's videos he said he expected to complete his paper by 10 April (but, in reality, who knows). In terms of Jay's forte, a cursory glance at the viewing/comment figures on this site should be enough to answer that question.

 

[pookylies]

Can I just say how grateful I am that the moderators have let me off the naughty step. Whatever I did to earn my punishment, I promise not to do again. Can I also apologise to Englebert. I'm not sure how anybody could confuse your well meaning and considered posts with my drivel (I suspect LoR's Sherlock Holmes department needs reviewing). In any case, I promise to behave myself, especially as the submission of Jay's major research paper is imminent.

Hi, welcome back.

Regarding the Sherlock Holmes thing, I make a brief mention of that in my recent post to Engelbert, you might want to check that for some clarification.

Thanks for that nice welcome back. Most of you guys seem like really cool dudes. You and Prolescum are my favourites so far

 

[Inferno]

In terms of Jay's forte, a cursory glance at the viewing/comment figures on this site should be enough to answer that question.

So I remain with nothing? :| That wasn't helpful...

 

[Jen Martense]

This might sound mean, but what exactly IS Jay's forte? His videos are quite dreadful, his reasoning flawed, ... What's left?

Comedy. The ass crack video was... unforgettable.

 

[Metalgod]

Wow! This guy is crazier than a rat in a tin shit-house!

 

[pookylies]

In terms of Jay's forte, a cursory glance at the viewing/comment figures on this site should be enough to answer that question.

So I remain with nothing? :| That wasn't helpful...

Well, I'm not Jay's manager (despite what others may think). In fact, you would struggle to find a comment of mine in support of his views. But he sure knows how to manufacture a drama.

 

[*SD*]

On occasion, I sometimes feel like making a few videos dismantling Jason's stupid arguments, if they can even be classed as such. It would be fun perhaps, but at the end of the day I have to pinch my self and ask what would be the bloody point....

 

[Prolescum]

(Transcript for Prolescum and the record ;-) )

That's worthy of some awe. Thank you!

Wow! This guy is crazier than a rat in a tin shit-house!

He's also a member here. Let's try to refrain from this kind of exclamation

You and Prolescum are my favourites so far

I'm nothing if not a mouthy sod. Now, where's my Deerstalker?

 

[*SD*]

Jason has compiled a list of DEMANDS, which MUST be met (Or Else!)



This one is a real gem, a treat to watch.

Wait a minute, I use "dirty tactics"? What does he think he's talking about now?

I can't debate whether Jesus rose from the dead until Jason meets my challenge of prerequisite evidence that God, magic, Jesus, and transcendental souls ever existed to begin with, or that the Bible is anything more than a compilation of fables. Is that the 'dirty tactic' he's bitching about? That I expect him to substantiate his assertions?

Whoa, the Magic Sandwich is a 'sexy' show? Because we don't have enough women?!

He will monitor all the atheist websites and blogs? ALL of them? Is Jason omniscient?

"We only want people who can reason properly, and engage in proper discussion."
Damn, my irony meter just sparked and exploded with a wicked arc and raining sparks.

"These are my final words to the atheists"
....until I draw my next breath and turn my webcam on again.

Yes, Jason is a fan of presup, aka circular reasoning. I came across a website that advocates the presup approach, and it even admits that it is circular, but goes on to argue that it's perfectly ok to employ circular reasoning - provided you are arguing in favor of Christianity. Happy to mention the site (not sure of the rules, still haven't read the FAQ) and I'm sure it's a site Jason would lick his monitor over. So, AronRa, you have two choices -

1 - Stop "doing underhanded tactics" and engage in "scholarly academic and democratic debate" with this "world-class" scholarly academic

2 - Ignore the chap and concentrate on people who actually understand the nature of debate, or even conversation/dialogue for that matter. I follow your videos and general work, and as a big fan of yours I can assure you this guy isn't worth your time.

All the best and keep up the good work!

 

[Prolescum]

Happy to mention the site (not sure of the rules, still haven't read the FAQ)

You can link to any legal, relevant site. You can post excerpts or link/embed images and videos. We just prefer moderation (don't post whole articles, quote and cite; reams of videos, except specific video threads or use hidden tags [How-To]; motivational posters, we have a funny pictures thread for that).