Jay Dyer wrecks Islamic apologist Dr. Shabir Ally

[The Theosist]

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQO8Ul4r3KQ[/yt]

[Vetus Ordo]

Dr. Shabir Ally is to Sunni Islam what Bp. Barron is to Catholicism. A controversial figure, to say the least. As for Jay Dyer, I have no idea who he is. I checked him out and it seems the man has changed his religious affiliation at least five times now.

In any case, videos that are entitled A "wrecks" B in a debate aren't generally worth anyone's time.

[The Theosist]

Dr. Shabir Ally is to Sunni Islam what Bp. Barron is to Catholicism. A controversial figure, to say the least. As for Jay Dyer, I have no idea who he is. I checked him out and it seems the man has changed his religious affiliation at least five times now.

Bishop Barron is not controversial outside of tiny traditionalist circles and far-left fringe groups. And there's nothing controversial about the Muslim's claims concerning the Bible and Jesus Christ in this video, nor his presuppositions and arguments; they are standard to Islamic apologists and their attacks upon Christianity.

In any case, videos that are entitled A "wrecks" B in a debate aren't generally worth anyone's time.

The video isn't titled that. I titled this thread "Jay Dyer wrecks Islamic apologist Dr. Shabir Ally" because that's exactly what happens in the video. It is a lesson in someone trained in Western academic philosophy and having the truth on his side systematically demolishing the world view of a religious hack and his false claims. Of course you'll claim it not worth your time, because you're afraid to watch it and unable to respond to its content.

Generally, people who erroneously use the term entitled in a way that smacks of hypercorrective pretence are not entitled to a response, but in this case I've made an exception.

[Fleur-de-Lys]

In any case, videos that are entitled A "wrecks" B in a debate aren't generally worth anyone's time.

The video isn't titled that. I titled this thread "Jay Dyer wrecks Islamic apologist Dr. Shabir Ally" because that's exactly what happens in the video. It is a lesson in someone trained in Western academic philosophy and having the truth on his side systematically demolishing the world view of a religious hack and his false claims. Of course you'll claim it not worth your time, because you're afraid to watch it and unable to respond to its content.

Generally, people who erroneously use the term entitled in a way that smacks of hypercorrective pretence are not entitled to a response, but in this case I've made an exception.

Vetus Ordo is not a native speaker of English. Nevertheless his use of the word entitled is perfectly correct.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/entitled

entitled
in British English
(?n?ta?t?ld)
ADJECTIVE
1. having a title or name
a book entitled Decorative Designs
2. having the right or permission to do something
You are entitled to a refund.
They are entitled to travel first class.

It is your own response that smacks of hypercorrective pretense.

[The Theosist]

In any case, videos that are entitled A "wrecks" B in a debate aren't generally worth anyone's time.

The video isn't titled that. I titled this thread "Jay Dyer wrecks Islamic apologist Dr. Shabir Ally" because that's exactly what happens in the video. It is a lesson in someone trained in Western academic philosophy and having the truth on his side systematically demolishing the world view of a religious hack and his false claims. Of course you'll claim it not worth your time, because you're afraid to watch it and unable to respond to its content.

Generally, people who erroneously use the term entitled in a way that smacks of hypercorrective pretence are not entitled to a response, but in this case I've made an exception.

Vetus Ordo is not a native speaker of English. Nevertheless his use of the word entitled is perfectly correct.

No, it is not, modern usage by the same people who have dropped the dative whom and employ their as a singular pronoun aside, and the amusing thing about the example in your citation is that the word is not serving the function of an adjective. Regardless, it muddies the language and cedes clarity for the sake of sounding fancy.

Or is that
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/irregardless
?

Bye, sock puppet.

[Fleur-de-Lys]

In any case, videos that are entitled A "wrecks" B in a debate aren't generally worth anyone's time.

The video isn't titled that. I titled this thread "Jay Dyer wrecks Islamic apologist Dr. Shabir Ally" because that's exactly what happens in the video. It is a lesson in someone trained in Western academic philosophy and having the truth on his side systematically demolishing the world view of a religious hack and his false claims. Of course you'll claim it not worth your time, because you're afraid to watch it and unable to respond to its content.

Generally, people who erroneously use the term entitled in a way that smacks of hypercorrective pretence are not entitled to a response, but in this case I've made an exception.

Vetus Ordo is not a native speaker of English. Nevertheless his use of the word entitled is perfectly correct.

No, it is not, modern usage by the same people who have dropped the dative whom and employ their as a singular pronoun aside, and the amusing thing about the example in your citation is that the word is not serving the function of an adjective. Regardless, it muddies the language and cedes clarity for the sake of sounding fancy.

Or is that
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/irregardless
?

Bye, sock puppet.

These are nothing but baseless and erroneous assertions revealing a deep ignorance of language. My point stands.

[The Theosist]

In any case, videos that are entitled A "wrecks" B in a debate aren't generally worth anyone's time.

The video isn't titled that. I titled this thread "Jay Dyer wrecks Islamic apologist Dr. Shabir Ally" because that's exactly what happens in the video. It is a lesson in someone trained in Western academic philosophy and having the truth on his side systematically demolishing the world view of a religious hack and his false claims. Of course you'll claim it not worth your time, because you're afraid to watch it and unable to respond to its content.

Generally, people who erroneously use the term entitled in a way that smacks of hypercorrective pretence are not entitled to a response, but in this case I've made an exception.

Vetus Ordo is not a native speaker of English. Nevertheless his use of the word entitled is perfectly correct.

No, it is not, modern usage by the same people who have dropped the dative whom and employ their as a singular pronoun aside, and the amusing thing about the example in your citation is that the word is not serving the function of an adjective. Regardless, it muddies the language and cedes clarity for the sake of sounding fancy.

Or is that
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/irregardless
?

Bye, sock puppet.

These are nothing but baseless and erroneous assertions revealing a deep ignorance of language.

That's a mere assertion. You haven't demonstrated which of the things I've said is baseless and erroneous or why, nor have you indicated what this supposed deep ignorance of language is. If you're appealing to the postmodern notion that popular usage determines correctness, you can shove it.

By the way, Allah is still the Enemy, Mohammed a false prophet, and Islam a doctrine of devils.

My point stands.

Your "point" is merely to cite a dictionary that also claims irregardless as a word and the following use of literally as valid:

1. ADVERB [ADVERB before verb, ADVERB adjective]
You can use literally to emphasize a statement. Some careful speakers of English think that this use is incorrect.
[emphasis]
We've got to get the economy under control or it will literally eat us up.
The views are literally breath-taking.
2. ADVERB [ADVERB before verb]
You use literally to emphasize that what you are saying is true, even though it seems exaggerated or surprising.
[emphasis]
Putting on an opera is a tremendous enterprise involving literally hundreds of people.
I literally crawled to the car.

Go back to your pots and pans.

[The Theosist]

Witness the desperate attempts by Vetus and his sock puppet to distract from a video that essentially demolishes Islam by showing its conception of God to be incoherent and its Antichrist claims about Jesus false.

[Vetus Ordo]

Of course you'll claim it not worth your time, because you're afraid to watch it and unable to respond to its content.

It's not worth my time, or anyone's, because of three main things:

1. Dr. Ally is not an orthodox representative of Sunni Islam. I've watched him before with Dr. James White and I felt it was a waste of time;
2. Dyer is a man that changes his religion quicker than you change a baby's diaper. I don't feel motivated to spend 2h30 hours of my life listening to another internet apologist that is set to "demolish" another religion but can't make up his own mind about what he believes;
3. These issues have been debated to death. It's only profitable to learn about this divide between Christian and Islamic theology from mature and serious debaters from each camp like Fr. Pacwa, Dr. White, Abdullah Kunde or Dr. Ataie, for instance. Even better is to dive into the traditional sources and theological schools yourself and enrich your perspective in that matter. Polemics and debates can only go so far.

Bye, sock puppet.

Go back to your pots and pans.

Always the cad, Kreuzritter.

You want to be banned again, don't you?

[Fleur-de-Lys]

These are nothing but baseless and erroneous assertions revealing a deep ignorance of language.

That's a mere assertion. You haven't demonstrated which of the things I've said is baseless and erroneous or why, nor have you indicated what this supposed deep ignorance of language is. If you're appealing to the postmodern notion that popular usage determines correctness, you can shove it.

You fail to support any of your claims with actual evidence. Though some may fall within the range of personal opinion regarding mere stylistics, your assertion that the word entitled in the dictionary entry cited is not functioning as an adjective is objectively false. The fact that you do not understand something as simple as what an adjective is reveals a deep ignorance of language.

Your "point" is merely to cite a dictionary that also claims irregardless as a word and the following use of literally as valid:

1. ADVERB [ADVERB before verb, ADVERB adjective]
You can use literally to emphasize a statement. Some careful speakers of English think that this use is incorrect.
[emphasis]
We've got to get the economy under control or it will literally eat us up.
The views are literally breath-taking.
2. ADVERB [ADVERB before verb]
You use literally to emphasize that what you are saying is true, even though it seems exaggerated or surprising.
[emphasis]
Putting on an opera is a tremendous enterprise involving literally hundreds of people.
I literally crawled to the car.

Go back to your pots and pans.

No, my point was that Vetus' use of the word entitled was perfectly correct. The dictionary entry was evidence to support that claim. (See how that works?) So now you want to argue that the dictionary is not an authority, because it includes modern usages considered incorrect, even though it makes note of that fact in the case of literally. That is irrelevant. Vetus' use of the word entitled is not a recent innovation, nor is it considered incorrect. Or can you demonstrate otherwise with actual evidence, not just more belligerent blustering?

[Fleur-de-Lys]

Witness the desperate attempts by Vetus and his sock puppet to distract from a video that essentially demolishes Islam by showing its conception of God to be incoherent and its Antichrist claims about Jesus false.

You are the one who turned this discussion to language. I was responding to the tangent you created.

Far be it from me to try to take on the intellectual magnitude of a YouTube video.

[abc123]

2. Dyer is a man that changes his religion quicker than you change a baby's diaper. I don't feel motivated to spend 2h30 hours of my life listening to another internet apologist that is set to "demolish" another religion but can't make up his own mind about what he believes;

Aren't you on your 3rd or 4th? Traditional Catholic to Anglican/Reformed back to Catholic to Hopeful Fatalist/Muslim?

Those in glass houses and such.

[Vetus Ordo]

2. Dyer is a man that changes his religion quicker than you change a baby's diaper. I don't feel motivated to spend 2h30 hours of my life listening to another internet apologist that is set to "demolish" another religion but can't make up his own mind about what he believes;

Aren't you on your 3rd or 4th? Traditional Catholic to Anglican/Reformed back to Catholic to Hopeful Fatalist/Muslim?

Those in glass houses and such.

Not really.

Unlike Dyer, and many others that haunt religious forums online, I've never left the Church I was born in, nor do I make a living out of cheap polemics on YouTube. Do not confuse my recognition and acceptance of the inescapable paradoxes of Traditional Catholicism with changing religion.

What about you?

[The Theosist]

These are nothing but baseless and erroneous assertions revealing a deep ignorance of language.

That's a mere assertion. You haven't demonstrated which of the things I've said is baseless and erroneous or why, nor have you indicated what this supposed deep ignorance of language is. If you're appealing to the postmodern notion that popular usage determines correctness, you can shove it.

You fail to support any of your claims with actual evidence.

As do you. I'm still waiting for that explication of what is baseless and erroneous - and why.

Though some may fall within the range of personal opinion regarding mere stylistics, your assertion that the word entitled in the dictionary entry cited is not functioning as an adjective is objectively false.

No, it's not "objectively" false. Entitled in a book entitled Decorative Designs is a form of verb, a participle, and not an adjective any more than coloured in a rose coloured red; only the phrase entitled Decorative Designs as a whole in functioning similarly to an adjective, and to take the lone verb as functioning as an adjective would  render entitled Decorative Designs unintelligible. It's an entirely different matter from something like the rose is coloured, full stop. And neither Websters nor the Oxford English Dictionary list the first sense of entitled as an adjective.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitled
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/entitled?q=entitled

The fact that you do not understand something as simple as what an adjective is reveals a deep ignorance of language.

That the author of the entry for entitled in the Collins dictionary has the same grasp on the logic of grammar as you reveals how worthless it is.

No, my point was that Vetus' use of the word entitled was perfectly correct. The dictionary entry was evidence to support that claim. (See how that works?)

It's an appeal to an authority that has undermined its own reliability through inclusion of nonsensical words and usages in its publications. They are so because that sense of correctness of language is not determined by usage but the logically coherent rules that govern parts of speech to make consistently intelligible sentences when pieced together. Your source is therefore epistemically worthless to me when it comes to determining that correctness. Being the work of boors, it's even more worthless to me when it comes to stylistic correctness. See how that works?

So now you want to argue that the dictionary is not an authority, because it includes modern usages considered incorrect, even though it makes note of that fact in the case of literally. That is irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant. It's most relevant.

Vetus' use of the word entitled is not a recent innovation, nor is it considered incorrect. Or can you demonstrate otherwise with actual evidence, not just more belligerent blustering?

No, it's an archaism that has become all-too common. Most style guides, like the Associated Press Stylebook, address it and confirm it is to be avoided in this function.

[The Theosist]

Witness the desperate attempts by Vetus and his sock puppet to distract from a video that essentially demolishes Islam by showing its conception of God to be incoherent and its Antichrist claims about Jesus false.

You are the one who turned this discussion to language. I was responding to the tangent you created.

No, you picked out a quip while completely ignoring the actual subject.

Far be it from me to try to take on the intellectual magnitude of a YouTube video.

Obviously. Jay Dyer would wipe the floor with you.