Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stiff" data-source="post: 16919" data-attributes="member: 297">what an insufferable spaz <img src="/forum/data/assets/smilies/icon_eek.gif"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":eek:" title="eek&nbsp; &nbsp; :eek:" data-shortname=":eek:" />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:&quot;[The Cappadocians] were scholastics?&quot;&quot;Yes, they explicitly quote Aristotle's categories when it comes to how they explain relation.&quot;&quot;So, so just, just quoting Aristotle makes you, a scholastic?&quot;&quot;No, uh what I'm saying is...&quot;&quot;That was your argument. You argued they were scholastics because they cite Aristotle&quot;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.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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stiff, post: 16919, member: 297"] what an insufferable spaz :eek: 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 [B]when it comes to how they explain relation[/B]." "So, so just, [B]just quoting Aristotle makes you, a scholastic[/B]?" "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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification