jay dyer melts down when he isn't allowed to run down his scripted dialogue trees
what an insufferable spaz
he is an autist. He started sperging as soon as thomist said the Cappadocians are scholastic which is a basic error tbh, I have watched many dyer videos and as soon as his opponent makes an error he starts sperging at them as a gotcha, but as annoying as his sperging is the thomist guy did make an error that made him look ignorant. Im just saying we need actually trained defenders of the faith that are not just reading primary sources and aquinas, they need to have an actual education on philosophy and theology to be able to avoid obvious errors.
He started sperging as soon as Wagner tried to explain his position. I don't even know what they're talking about but Dyer's engagement from start to finish is just refusing to debate on the grounds that Wagner's definition is wrong (refuses to reconcile this), his justification is wrong (because those writers did a hecking scholasticism, so we have to dismiss everything they say) and then this gem:
"[The Cappadocians] were scholastics?"
"Yes, they explicitly quote Aristotle's categories
when it comes to how they explain relation."
"So, so just,
just quoting Aristotle makes you, a scholastic?"
"No, uh what I'm saying is..."
"That was your argument. You argued they were scholastics because they cite Aristotle"
Brutally bad faith retard level mischaracterization here. Wagner was clearly saying that something about how the Cappadocian fathers use Aristotle's categories was consistent with scholasticism in a way that subjects something they said about relations to scrutiny. He is here to have that conversation (scholasticism itself is not actually the issue). Dyer spends the rest of the clip trying not to have that conversation in the most annoying and obvious way he can muster.
His ending own of I know the exact source of this quote has no relation to the actual debate as well, just because you know the source of the information does not mean you have a proper interpretation or understanding of the text. Example being prots reading the bible just being able to quote chapter and verse does not prove you have the correct interpretation.
It's relevant because he wanted to talk about how these ideas about relations of the trinity are addressed by specific commenters. Of course it helps to know if someone is wrong about a certain idea not being used in the relevant text.
Total semantic death. It's like he's not even allowed to let Wagner say his whole thought because that would be conceding the debate.
we run shit nigger. Catholic means UNIVERSAL nigga fuck u talmbout. 
