Andrew Wilson Defends Jay Dyer Against David Wood

Añadido: 2026-05-17

[00:00:00]Did you I'm sorry. Did you just give me a bait prompt because you actually wanted to talk about Jay Dyer and then do burden shifting? That's fine. If you if you want to talk about Jay Dyer, we can talk about Jay Dyer. Just say, "Andrew, I actually gave you a [ __ ] prompt and I would prefer to talk about Jay Dyer." You can do that.

[00:00:16]>> Um, you know what? I'll talk about Jay Dyer with you. No, because uh you're not really I mean answering sometimes like >> what am I not answering >> if you're answering the prompt as sometimes in ridiculously insane situations? Uh so you're not >> and >> what is logically inconsistent?

[00:00:35]>> The affirmative you're saying yes.

[00:00:37]>> No, I'm saying sometimes. So can you can you tell me I'm sorry what what did I say which was a contradiction or logically unound? Anything? Nothing. Um, yeah, just the idea that if someone is wrong about something and you agree with the truth, you are somehow affirming their lie.

[00:00:54]>> If you know it's a lie, how would you not be? I don't I don't get that.

[00:00:57]>> You can affirm the the truth of the statement regardless of their intentions.

[00:01:01]>> But you do know that they're lying.

[00:01:03]>> You can know someone is lying and even though they're lying, they're actually stating what is true and you can agree with the truth of their statement. You don't have to affirm a lie.

[00:01:12]>> I see. So if it's the case, then let's say a woman gets splashed with acid on her face and her Dowinist brother uh gets driven there by an Orthodox priest and on the way he tells the priest the entire way, "Man, oh man, she's hideous and no man's ever going to want her."

[00:01:29]When he gets to the hospital room, he is moved by his sister's plight and says, "Sweetheart, you're still beautiful."

[00:01:34]Should the Orthodox priest go ahead and affirm that lie? What do you think, David? Should he be like, "You know what? He's right, honey. We really are beautiful. What do you think? Or do you think he should like reject that and be like, "Nah, look, you're an ugly bitch."

[00:01:47]Like, which thing do you think you should do, David?

[00:01:50]>> Um, yeah. Anything you actually want to get to >> that I want to get to this. Can you answer the question, please?

[00:01:57]>> Um, I will grant that lying is acceptable in certain situation or affirming lies in certain situations, >> including with a Dowinist rapist who lies about Christians.

[00:02:10]Yep. Sometimes.

[00:02:12]>> Oh, sometimes.

[00:02:14]>> Matter of fact, I'll I'll just give you I'll just give you I'll give you a simple I'll give you a simp I'll give you a simple example here that doesn't require uh all this stuff. Just >> um >> someone's running down the street, they go one way and you know we can affirm a lie that they went a different way that's going to prevent someone from being killed. Prevent a girl from being killed. Yes. Yes, you can do that. That sort of thing. So >> I you you concede the prompt. I understand. Yes, I win the prompt. You concede. Sometimes it is the case that Orthodox Christians >> Well, no, because because if it if the topic if there's an affirmative and a negative, then it's uh you're saying sometimes yes, sometimes no. So, it's same thing.

[00:02:48]>> I'm sorry. Can you show me anywhere that I agreed to take the negative position, a pure a pure negative position anywhere when I agree to this debate prompt, David? And what's wrong with me taking a sometimes position?

[00:02:59]>> Then we then we would agree on a sometimes position. So sometimes >> then sometimes it is okay. Okay, great.

[00:03:04]I'm glad I'm glad that you agree with me, David. And I'm glad that we got very in very weird situations, you're saving someone's life by affirming a lie or something like that. Um, yeah, fine.

[00:03:14]Now, let's try and figure out um the the range of the situations. Suppose a DA guy um is in full panic mode because Avery's just wrecking DA like destroying their entire careers and stuff like that, showing up to their mosques and so on, challenging them, embarrassing them, and so on. And for for years, one of the things you notice about da'ah is that they um their first goal, if you bring up an argument, whether it's against Islam or for Christianity, their goal tends to be first and foremost to discredit the person rather than to refute the argument. They're not primarily interested in refuting the argument or showing a good response.

[00:03:55]They want >> Yeah, that sounds like typical Dowinist to me. Sure.

[00:03:58]>> Yeah. So, they try to discredit the person. And so if they can't deal with the um arguments and so on, they start saying, "Well, Avery is a grifter." And they lay out their case for Avery being a grifter, which is that he doesn't spend his time um attacking other Christian groups and denominations. And so >> just so I hang on, just so I'm clear, we are talking about Jay Dyer again. Now, >> you can you can use it as a complete hypothetical here. Hypothetical. We're trying to figure out.

[00:04:25]>> Okay, but that is but but this isn't a hypothetical. This is in fact what's going on, right?

[00:04:29]>> You gave hypotheticals out. Leave Jay Dyer out of it. I'll give a h complete hypothetical. So, um, >> is this a hypothetical though? Because it sounds like you're talking about Avery, who I know, and with a situation that's actually happened.

[00:04:39]>> That would be an example of the situation, but this happens all the time. This happens all the time. This has happened before that. It was happening before that with different people, right? So, you got Sam Shimon, you got Sam Shimoon helping Malik out, stuff like that. It's a situation that happens over and over again. Very common.

[00:04:51]>> Sure.

[00:04:51]>> Yeah. So um situation da guy is telling lie to discredit a person so that Muslims don't trust him and hopefully Christians don't even trust him to help avoid having to deal with that person's argument. So he makes up something about someone and then should orthodox Christians support that lie because they don't let's say they don't like the person.

[00:05:20]>> Yeah. in this hypothetical I would say they should not but it's purely hypothetical of course.

[00:05:25]>> Okay. So that's good to know. So >> but it's just baked into the hypothetical. But let me ask you a different hypothetical. Avery does not actually tell us like you don't what your Christian denominations even are.

[00:05:38]None of you guys actually tell anybody that. So, inductively, I understand why it is that Jay thinks that you're trying to cast the widest net possible in order to capture the largest amount of audience that you possibly can in order to gain money. That inductively makes sense to me. Is it true? I wouldn't say that it's true. I don't think that Avery does that. I don't think that that's the kind of guy he is. But inductively, I can't say that Jay has an unreasoned position, even if I disagree with it.

[00:06:08]What you've done is you've taken it a step further though. You have said that Jay is purposely colluding with Dowinist rapists in order to undermine you. Even though all that happened in fact is that he agreed with a specific set of propositions and then you got upsetty spaghetti that Dowinist decided that they were going to use that against you.

[00:06:28]Like that's [ __ ] Jay's problem.

[00:06:31]>> Um yeah, the fact that you I mean of all the people in the world that you could agree with, you agree with the guy who's Let let let let's just I mean I don't I don't know how anyone would disagree with this. If you are so obvious if you are so obviously and so obviously enrages someone that you just go after his wife and so on. um probably not the most unbiased source of information on someone. And then if you go out and agree with that person with that person on his next attack on Avery, which which you can read in the you can you can read in the context is in response to the Ortha Bros. He's offering you guys something. He's trying to get you to agree with him. He's saying, "Hey, Orthros, I see you're I see you're mad at Avery right now." Yeah, that's because he's a guess what? He's a grifter. This is what And he says he says this and then you affirm it. This is this it's not like they just independently come to come to >> you're just saying the same [ __ ] You're not actually demonstrating this claim though. You're not showing how Jay Dyer is responsible because he believes this thing, right? And somebody gave him a specific set of propositions he agreed with. He said bingo how it is that he's emboldening them or gave them permission to use this in order to hurt Christians everywhere. has specific. No, no, no, no, no, no. They were they were baiting they were baiting you. They were baiting you guys into agreeing with them. They were baiting them into agreeing with you and then you did >> calm down.

[00:08:00]>> Calm down.

[00:08:01]>> Right. Whatever you think the nefarious evil trap was that Jay Dyer got sprung on him is irrelevant to whether or not he agreed to a specific set of propositions cuz he agreed with them.

[00:08:13]And then that's used against you. You don't like it. I get that. But you haven't demonstrated how Jay is now siding with him. Jay considers because he's an Orthodox apologist, he doesn't consider most of the online Christians to uh be any better than most of the Muslims. He considers them to be Protestants just like they are dogmatically. He might think that they have better moral propositions because they do. Uh and I think he would agree that they do. But that doesn't mean that dogmatically he thinks that they're correct. His great commission is to go after all false dogma, which would include yours, apostate prophets, all of the Dowinists, all of the Muslims, in fact, everybody who's not Orthodox.

[00:08:52]That's his commission. That's what he's there to do. That includes Avery. That includes Avery.

[00:08:58]>> Avery. Now, I again, I like Avery. It's not my commission to do this, but it is Jay Dyer's. If Jay Dyer has inductively reasoned out that he believes that Avery is a grifter, whether I agree that he's a grifter or not, uh the inductive reasoning for what Jay gave is fine. And if he agrees to a set of propositions and says bingo, for you to say that he's going out to embolden a bunch of Muslims to destroy you is one step too far. And you can't seem to tie that together.

[00:09:26]When are you going to tie it together?

[00:09:27]>> That's not what that's not what I'm saying, though. Um so let let's let's change it. Let's change it a little bit.

[00:09:32]Um, if DA guys are tossing something out there and I would say obviously obviously fishing for an Orthobo during the Ortho versus Avery controversy and he's tossing something up because they always do this. They always do this.

[00:09:50]Anytime there's some conflict, they jump in there and they go after the person that >> I don't care about their motivation.

[00:09:57]>> Hang on. I just let you talk for like four minutes straight.

[00:09:59]>> Yeah, but their motivation is irrelevant. You didn't let me talk. I'm I'm I'm I'm modifying it. I'm modifying it. So, if these guys are obviously fishing, that has nothing to do with Jay, their motivation, but they're obviously fishing trying to get the people who are already mad at Avery to help them to help them. So, they say, "Hey, Avery's a grifter." And what they want is some Christians to agree, yes, Avery is a grifter.

[00:10:27]and you go with it because you've made your induction >> because you agree.

[00:10:32]>> Yeah. You you go to them and say you DA guys are absolutely correct about this person that you're attacking because he can't answer that and that that should be fine, right?

[00:10:42]>> Yeah. So if you agree with it, if you agree with it, it should be fine.

[00:10:44]>> Yeah. Let me just ask back the same exact question. So if a Dowist says Gretchen Whitmer is a who ruined Michigan and I went bingo. I went bingo, right? I am now affirming all Dowinist beliefs because they're setting it.

[00:10:58]>> I've never said that. Quit straw man.

[00:10:59]Quit straw maning me. I've never said that he's responsible that he's affirming that Muhammad's a prophet.

[00:11:04]Then hang on.

[00:11:05]>> He's assisting them >> assisting them.

[00:11:09]>> He assist He's assisting them discrediting Avery. It's already being used. It's already being used. They're already using They're already using You see You see the Orthod >> How's that J? because he went to them and agreed with them and affirm this about this guy based on their >> respon how is it his responsibility of what they do which is nefarious with what he said did he say go use this to discredit Avery can you show me that >> how how how are you not getting this if they said this again if someone said 80% of what Andrew says is a lie and these again these are this not just a random person who's come to this conclusion it's a person who is known for just making crap up about Daniel goes to him and says, "Bingo, you're bingo. You're absolutely correct.

[00:11:55]He lies 80% of the time."

[00:11:58]>> And then they use this. You're saying >> there's there's no problem with him because there's no problem with him because they use it.

[00:12:03]>> Yeah. If they use that to affirm ideology I did not agree with or agree to.

[00:12:08]>> No, they're just affirming an attack on why no one responsible for that. I I wouldn't be responsible for that.

[00:12:14]>> No, Daniel. He's >> Yeah. Yeah. But I'm just interjecting myself here as the Daniel character.

[00:12:20]Okay.

[00:12:21]>> Or somebody else, right? I'm on the the receiving end of this.

[00:12:26]>> Can you tie in how Jay Dyer would be responsible for these guys using him saying bingo to them to a specific set of propositions? How the hell is it that Jay is now responsible for these guys using that in a nefarious way?

[00:12:41]>> Because he handed it to them. He gave it to them again with them. No think uh if let's suppose it's one isolated Christian who just hates you because you you you always bake this guy and he can't answer you can't answer you and again he spends all his time calling your wife a [ __ ] because obviously obviously he can't answer you so he's just trying to attack you in any way and then of all the people Daniel could go and agree with he goes to this particular person who's been calling your wife a war and therefore should be pretty darn obviously not the most reliable person and says bingo when the guy says you lie 80% of the time you wouldn't see any connect like he has no respon Daniel would bear no responsibility for this for this being used to discredit you >> by those guys >> interesting I know that you love philosophy which is why it's so bizarre that you don't seem to understand basic logic >> it is in fact the case >> this isn't even logic >> it is logically this is common sense here >> this is a logical induction you're making an induction how are you not >> you're not making a logical induction here David, >> I'm What are you even talking about?

[00:13:47]>> I'm saying that you're saying uh event A leads to event B which leads to event C.

[00:13:52]That's inductive reasoning.

[00:13:54]>> That's inductive logic.

[00:13:56]>> That's not that's not even that's not even what we're talking about. It's bad.

[00:14:00]It's bad to go to a person who has nothing who has nothing but bad intentions and to affirm and to affirm and to affirm what they're claiming about someone when they are obviously obviously just trying to discredit.

[00:14:15]>> But David, now you're now you're making now you're making a normative claim.

[00:14:19]Yeah, that's that would be a normative claim. And so now that you're making a normative claim, that's at least logic, right? We're getting into the domain of logic, at least in ethics.

[00:14:28]>> No. Yes. Not required for any logic here. Someone someone >> No logic is required for you to make normative claims. Really?

[00:14:35]>> Oh my goodness.

[00:14:36]>> No. No. You don't need logic for normative claims.

[00:14:38]>> You heard it here, folks. You heard it here. You heard it here. So, you can go out. You can go out. You can go out. You can go out to Andrew Wilson's worst enemy. Affirm whatever that person is making up. Believe it. And then that person can use what you said to discredit this person, even though it's all complete nonsense with no evidence.

[00:14:57]And you've done nothing nothing incorrect. It's a good idea. Help the DA guys as much as possible.

[00:15:02]>> I say any if if any of you have a statement of agreement with anybody who doesn't like David Wood, you're not allowed to say anything to them about how you agree with them because they might use it nefariously against the beliefs of someone. If someone is known for if someone is known if someone is known for making things up, going after people's families, things like that, and then and then you go and agree with that person's latest thing that he made up.

[00:15:33]>> Yeah.

[00:15:35]>> Yeah. I think that's wrong.

[00:15:37]>> Yeah. Great. I'm glad that you vibed that out.

[00:15:39]>> You see, you seem to agree with that earlier, but now no.

[00:15:42]>> Well, no. Oh, I agreed to a specific propositional set until we started giving it specifics because I do that. I actually listen to the proposition like the one that you gave me that I beat you on earlier just like I'm beating you on this one because you can't actually draw the the logic to its conclusion. If it is the case that somebody like I go right now and I say David Wood's a lying to some guy some Dowinist who really [ __ ] hates you and has also called you a lying let's say. Are you saying that I am now responsible for emboldening Dowinist? And if so, how could I ever criticize you in such a way publicly where Dowinist couldn't use that against you? David, >> if you went >> No, answer my question. How could I ever I'm going to be specific. How could I ever publicly [ __ ] criticize you without worrying about Dowinish using it in a way which is critical of you, thus hurting the anti-Muslim message? answer that.

[00:16:39]>> I want an answer to my question. How could I ever >> I'm not saying you can't criticize you, David.

[00:16:46]>> I'm not saying you can't criticize.

[00:16:48]>> I want you I want you to answer the question I'm asking. How could >> It's got nothing to do with what I'm saying.

[00:16:52]>> How could I ever criticize you ever that where Dowinists couldn't use that against you as a criticism from the quote orthobros publicly? How could I ever do what I'm saying?

[00:17:06]>> I'm asking you a question. Dude, dude, it's not what I'm freaking saying. I'm talking about going and and and agreeing with someone.

[00:17:13]>> You can criticize all You can criticize all you want. That has that that's not affecting how peopleize you.

[00:17:20]>> I'm asking if I can Can I Can I say anything?

[00:17:23]>> I'm not asking you. Hang on. Hang on.

[00:17:24]I'm not asking if I can criticize you.

[00:17:26]I'm not asking any of these other things. I'm asking one question that I want an answer to. It's a question. I don't care about your straw man.

[00:17:35]>> It can't be a straw man. I thought you know logic. Straw man.

[00:17:38]>> It can't be a straw man. If it's a question, >> then it's irrelevant.

[00:17:41]>> That's not what I'm saying.

[00:17:44]Let me repeat for everyone.

[00:17:46]>> I'm not saying you can't criticize someone or that if you do criticize someone, you are responsible for pe for how people use that. It's not the situation. It's not the topic. Ask the question.

[00:17:57]>> It's not the topic.

[00:17:58]>> I don't It is the topic. How could I ever criticize David Wood?

[00:18:02]>> You can. YOU CAN. YOU CAN do it. You can ask if I can. No one's stopping you.

[00:18:08]Criticize me all you want. You can >> not asking if I can. I'm asking how I ever could without the potential of a Dowist using it against you.

[00:18:18]>> It that's irrelevant. What are you What are you even talking about?

[00:18:20]>> [ __ ] question.

[00:18:23]>> I don't understand what the heck you're talking about.

[00:18:25]>> You don't understand this question. I'll ask it again in really small words.

[00:18:29]How How can you How can you criticize How can you criticize me in a way that wouldn't be used by Da Yawa guys? You can't. They They would use anything.

[00:18:37]They would use anything. What's your point now? Great. Nothing to do with the topic. Let's actually get back to the topic.

[00:18:42]>> So, let me make sure I got this right.

[00:18:43]So, no matter what Jay said in criticism of of Avery, Dowin could have used that whether he responded to one or not.

[00:18:50]>> They could have used that. Absolutely.

[00:18:52]They could have. They could have. Now, let's talk about the actual situation.

[00:18:55]Actively going out. Actively going out.

[00:18:59]What if do you seriously not see the difference between you you looking at someone saying I think David is a is a is a total lying douche and then dawa guys using that versus dawa guys who let's say are calling my wife a [ __ ] uh doxing my wife saying they're going to grape her and stuff like that and these guys and then the next criticism that they make up about me I go and I say you guys are right on the money and then they use that you see you see no difference you see no difference >> I don't see any difference in the quote responsibility See, if I say I do, if you seek out, you seek out someone to affirm what they're saying. Now, you're actually saying you guys are correct on this.

[00:19:37]>> Let me know when I can answer. Here's the answer. The answer is really simple.

[00:19:41]>> If it is in fact the case that I bear responsibility for agreeing to a set of propositions with a Dowinist and then he uses that against you. If it is in fact the case that I just make a set of propositions and a Dowinist agrees with them and uses that against you, you say one of those is okay and one of those isn't, which makes no [ __ ] sense, David. A bunch of Mormons come out against Islam. Okay, that's what they do. They come out, they're against Islam. They say it's completely false.

[00:20:08]It's untrue. Would you take Mormons to task on their beliefs even though they're attacking Islam?

[00:20:14]>> If they're attacking Islam and they're correct, I would agree with their attacks. I would agree with an atheist if he was a if he >> would take more my that's not my question. My question is would you take Mormons to task even though they're attacking Islamists on their beliefs even though it is the case that they're attacking Islamists?

[00:20:33]What do I I would I would leave that to someone who studies Mormonism. I I this is what I mean. I can't get my mind around the idea that I'm going that I'm going to focus on a bunch of stuff that I don't I don't know about. So you would leave that to somebody who actually >> someone who studies that subject >> like Jay Dyer >> if if if he if he knows Mormonism.

[00:20:52]Absolutely.

[00:20:52]>> Yeah. Great. Got it. So you're saying here if Jay Dyer goes and attacks these Mormons and says your [ __ ] beliefs are just as false as their beliefs. He's he's not in error. Correct.

[00:21:06]>> Um no more no more. I mean, I'm not doing I'm trying to figure out the math of what is worse. I think Islam is worse than Mormonism. But if you're talking about >> I understand. Okay. But they both >> I would I would have I would have zero problem I would have zero problem with Jay. That needs to be done. That's a that's a important branch. The reason, what if he said, "The reason you [ __ ] Mormons are going after these Muslims and instead of arguing your own belief structure, right, is because specifically it brings you in a lot of [ __ ] money and you can't actually defend your own beliefs. You can only attack these beliefs." Is Jay now justified in making that claim about them?

[00:21:51]I don't know what what if what if it's Mormons who say no that the the guys who defend Mormonism are against the objections of Eastern Orthodox or those guys over there. Go debate with them. I I I I think of Christian I think of Christians as a body and I in particular if I >> hang on I want I want an actual answer because I didn't get one. Would Jay if he went to Mormons and said you're all a bunch of [ __ ] grifters with a false belief structure. All of your belief structures are completely [ __ ] false, you stupid ass Mormons. All of you.

[00:22:24]Okay? So, I'm going after your beliefs and their beliefs. And the only reason I think that you're attacking Muslims is because you will not defend your own ideology against somebody who's competent. Does that sound like a reasonable induction to you?

[00:22:39]>> No.

[00:22:40]>> No. Of course not.

[00:22:42]>> No. No. Of course not. No. You're assuming you could have you can have Mormons. You got the Mormon church.

[00:22:49]You've got the you've got the Mormon church, right? You've got the Mormon church.

[00:22:53]>> And if some Mormons say, "Hey, you know, but you know what what I think I'm here for is to uh reach Muslims or to refute Islam or something like that." We've got other guys other guys who focus on defending Mormonism. If you want to debate, debate the guys who actually focus on it.

[00:23:09]>> All inductions have assumptions. You can't name an induction anywhere that >> my only point there is you shouldn't assume grifter. It could just be some people some people focus on different things.

[00:23:19]>> My question is why shouldn't he assume that if it's the case that they will >> because there are better explanations.

[00:23:25]There are better explanations.

[00:23:27]>> What is the better explanation to >> some people don't study certain things and they leave that to other people so that they can focus. Let let me let me just let me break it down right now. I >> I can only study a few things, right?

[00:23:40]I'm one person. I have a certain amount of time in a day. I have a certain amount of time left in my life. With one exception, with one exception, every male in my family dies right around 50.

[00:23:50]I'm 50. So, I don't know if And they all die of heart attack. So, I don't know if I've I'm dying this year, a year from now, two years from Yeah. But let's assume not a single Muslim not or a single Mormon not one single Mormon >> will debate their ideology but they will always debate against Muslim ideology but refuse all of them refuse to defend their own ideology who are part of this anti-Muslim Mormon alliance. Would you think that it would be fair that the reason that they refuse to defend their own ideology is because they probably can't and they make a lot of money in impact though attacking Islam.

[00:24:34]>> Doesn't that seem fair?

[00:24:35]>> No.

[00:24:36]>> No, it doesn't.

[00:24:37]>> No. No. There could be.

[00:24:39]>> All right.

[00:24:39]>> Because there could be other reasoning.

[00:24:41]You're good. Because you're making because you're making tons of Because you're making tons of money or something like that. What if it's just what if it's just that's not what these guys are interested in?

[00:24:51]>> Yeah. I listen it could be it could be many other like what if it's hey the world is full the world is full of people attacking Mormons and stuff like that. We need to deal with this.

[00:25:00]>> It could be it could be 10,000 other reasons. That wouldn't make the induction bad. David, >> it does if it's not the the best explanation.

[00:25:07]>> Well, it says who's going to make the determination the best explanation other than the subject who's making the induction.

[00:25:14]>> Here's the thing. Look. Yeah. Here's the thing. I would switch topics, too.

[00:25:18]>> I'm not I'm not changing I'm not changing the subject, right?

[00:25:21]>> Um it it's like it's like uh let let me let me give a parallel here. It's like when if you um if you say anything in support of Israel or something like that, someone says you're being paid.

[00:25:34]Well, you can you can say that and so on. Suppose you just know you're not being paid. Suppose you know you're not being paid, but someone is saying, right? Then, you know, you might start thinking, okay, if if they're saying it about me and I'm not getting paid and they're saying it about this guy and, you know, he's he's my friend. I know he's not getting paid and this guy's not getting paid. Okay, maybe people are making a sloppy uh hasty uh hasty inference here and maybe they should be considering the fact that maybe some people just disagree with them and disagree with that position and they affirm that position and that's why that's why they're saying these kinds of things. So, here's what I'm saying.

[00:26:05]You're saying what you're doing is for the grift. It's for the grift. It's for money or something like that. And I'm thinking, I mean, I know my entire history, I've always been like this.

[00:26:14]I've never been concerned about the differences between different uh different groups and so on. I've always just been kind of these are the basics of Christianity and if you believe if you believe in those basics, I consider you a Christian. And here's what I believe I am on this earth to do because everything in my experience sort of pushed me in this direction. And you get this guy who comes along and nope, you're not doing this. Therefore, you're a grifter. And I see him doing that that doing that with other people like Avery who rolls up in front of people call me a grifter. I bring them up.

[00:26:47]>> I bring them up, defend myself, drag their face to the mud, and enjoy it the entire time. I don't demonstrate. Hang on. Hang on. Stop.

[00:26:56]Because I can demonstrate it's not relevant.

[00:26:58]>> So the inference is false. David Wood gave me a [ __ ] prompt which I beat him on within I don't know maybe 30 minutes by his on his own prompt which was a bait prompt which is hilarious.

[00:27:09]From there what here's what we determined. We don't know if Jay Dyer had a set of facts uh about uh anything to do with this particular Muslim attacking Avery. We have no clue if he knew any of this. Um, David Wood has called him a cult leader and then backtracks on that and says, "No, no, no. I don't mean an actual cult. I mean this is different kind of cult." But then can't explain how he's not the same kind of cult leader as Jay based on the same types of posts that their various audiences make. It's [ __ ] crazy.

[00:27:40]That's the second point. The third point is is that we have more facts about what happened between the stream with Avery and why it would would be that Jay would assume that you guys who won't defend any of your positions ever on anything but utilize them to bludgeon the opposition may perhaps be grifting especially when it comes to the fact that when we take these sets of evidences for why where you draw your inferences which you don't know anything about whether or not Jay had any idea no clue at all if Jay had any idea about these various attacks on Avery. Your whole [ __ ] attack on him is just based on one thing, which is that he said bingo to a Muslim about him believing that Avery's a grifter and they're now using it against you. Even though by your own logic if he had said the exact same proposition, Muslims would still be using that against you.

[00:28:32]You say both of these things are actually incorrect. But isn't it awful convenient that it leaves no pathway for which to attack you in your pro-Muslim alliance because it'll always help Muslims if we do so? That's really weird, man. It's a very convenient set of facts for you which seems to uh put you in a position where you just can't be [ __ ] attacked ever. You can't be attacked because if we do, it's just going to embolden the Muslims. So Jay Dyer, who's an orthodox apologist whose entire job is to refute all of your worldviews, if he ever agrees with anybody that you're grifting or that you're liars or that your whole worldview is false, then that's actually enabling Muslims and so there's an orthodox Muslim alliance. And that is actually the position. I reduced it multiple times. You're never able to defend it ever. All you're trying to do is create a situation in which you're completely immune from criticism by then pivoting and saying this emboldens our enemies against the pro-Muslim alliance.

[00:29:36]Now, to make some caveats here and try to put out uh a few olive branches, right? I don't have any problem with Avery. I like the guy. I've talked with him on the phone a bunch of times, okay?

[00:29:48]Uh never been anything but nice to me, never been anything but kind to me.

[00:29:52]Okay? I like inspiring philosophy. I like those guys. Okay, I do. Um, but when your buddy gets up at the bar, you get up with them. That's how it works.

[00:30:01]That's always how it works. And in this particular case, the most interesting part of this is that I find out that you guys actually really don't have any facts of the matter at all to make any reputations about why it is that Jay Dyer thinks you're all a bunch of grifters. Uh, you gave me a [ __ ] prompt and then said Jay came in to debate you about you being griing. You you wouldn't bring up theology. You gave me a [ __ ] prompt. Then when I beat you on the prompt, shifted right to Jay Dyer, which is [ __ ] crazy. It's like everything you say is circular and it refutes itself over and over and over again. When we get into inferences themselves, we do evidentiary based inferences, find out there's more facts on my side than facts on your side. It's like I don't even know uh where you go from here because all you're stating ultimately is that any criticism which ever comes your way with its agreement with a Muslim then that is now an attack on your group and so you're immune from criticism. Now that my friend is what sounds like a [ __ ] cult. So I'll just leave it at that.

[00:31:06]All right guys, well you heard it here.

[00:31:08]Um, feel free to agree with anything the Dawa clowns are saying about everyone.

[00:31:15]If you think uh if you think it's uh if you think it's true, just roll with it and help him take out. Help him take out.

[00:31:22]>> I gotta get I gotta get get rolling here. David, you have a good night.

[00:31:25]>> All right. You, too.