Although I completely agree with your point - that HDR is a tool, and can be used for both high and low quality shots - I actually really like the second example you gave for what "bad" HDR looks like. It seemed like an artistic use with a rather gorgeous result to me. Your main point stands, though.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a photographer, and the only thing I know about photography is what I learned in college computer vision courses and overheard from friends.)

I'm actually a photographer and I like the over-the-top HDR shots (even the example linked). It really depends on personal taste, and what it is you're after.

A lot of people dismiss them because they're "unrealistic" (which they obviously are) but I ask you is an oil painting unrealistic? For example this:

http://snapzlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Oil-Painting...

Clearly that is a painting, but if exactly the same picture was acquired using HDR everyone would dismiss it as being terrible?

My point is that you can use HDR to get realistic looking pictures, but you can also use HDR for "artistic" reasons, like painting using your camera. A lot of photographers are dismissive of the latter because they want to pretend photography is a practical rather than artistic endeavour.

wouldn't most people also think that was a pretty bad painting?

Not if you live in Wisconsin.

HDR can look natural when used correctly, but if the camera's doing it automatically I bet we'll start to see lots of casual photographs abusing it.