The Bogosity Podcast

C’mon Shane, if you allow carrots, the next thing you know, they’ll be growing rutabegas. You’ve got to draw the line somewhere, ya know?

Ok how is a vacation a fucking punishment?

Okay, at the beginning I said “the jurors believed she was innocent” when I meant “the jurors believed she was guilty.” The sad part is, I was reading from a script…

Buenas Noches! I would just like to give a huge thumbs up for the superb information you have here on this post. I will be exploring more of your site for more awesome information soon.

How do you do, nice Weblog, i will recommend! I have bookmarked for future reference! Best regards

Not that it makes any difference but according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics over the period between 2000 and 2009 violent crime dropped 15.2% and property crime dropped 16.1%. So it’s not quite the same numbers used in the article you sourced which was from 1997 to 2005.

I only mention it because you said over the last decade crime rates dropped over 20% and this is not quite true. For your own credibility I think it would be wise to go beyond quoting an article you find online and instead check more up to date sources or at least talk about the correct period of time instead of saying “over the last decade”. I mean you can’t really say “over the last decade” when you mean ‘over a decade that ended five years ago’.

So keep up the good work but maybe tighten down on the fact checking a bit more.

I just found another chart at the Bureau of Justice Statistics that says that the percentage of crimes reported to the police has been increasing! (lol?)

What their chart shows is that the violent crimes and property crimes has been increasing as a percentage of total crime reported to the police (it looks like about a 5% to 7% increase). So, from the chart, it looks like 48% of crime reported in 2006-2007 was violent and 38% was property.

I just mention it because I was wondering if a rise in other types of crimes could account for the rise in prison population. Turns out it totally doesn’t.

You make an excellent point, Bignuncio. Thanks!

To the anonymous coward (probably FSAthe1st himself):

FSAthe1st didn’t even get it right in the one and only comment he made where he gave his definition–after a LONG time of myself and another user trying to get him to say it. And the only reason we were even talking about the Law of Nations to begin with is that he dishonestly cited I.8.10 of the Constitution, which says, “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations,” as a justification for his drivel justifying a clear breach of jurisdiction just because he doesn’t like a certain news outlet.

He also blatantly quote-mined I.8.14, which says, “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;” he quote-mined it to remove everything after the word “government.”

He was caught in lie after lie after lie and could only resort to evasion and personal attacks. He is an absolutely worthless individual who lies like a creationist to support his delusions.

He was blocked for making a blatantly homophobic comment, and your comment is being deleted for repeating it. Insinuating that two men engaged in ANY sexual activity as though it were an insult IS homophobia. FSAthe1st is a disgusting homophobic liar, AND SO ARE YOU.

Do you REALLY think this campaign of continued harassment makes him/you look BETTER?

Hello Mr Killian…

Let’s deal with your nonsense, one sentence at a time, shall we?

“FSAthe1st didn’t even get it right in the one and only comment he made where he gave his definition–after a LONG time of myself and another user trying to get him to say it.”

Your dishonesty is clear for all to see. Not only did you see fit to try and get me to play a pathetic game of misdirected nonsense on the issue of the FCPA and constitutionality, but you decided to, after TELLING me in no uncertain terms that you DIDN’T want me to quote anything, accuse me of getting something wrong because I HADN’T quoted it directly. That’s called hypocrisy.

Moving on.

“And the only reason we were even talking about the Law of Nations to begin with is that he dishonestly-”

No dishonesty intended. YOU on the other hand ARE dishonest in making claims that I have been INTENTIONALLY dishonest, a claim that you repeat time and time again.

Your problem is you are pathetically literalist on the point of view of the constitution. I can’t really say I’m all that surprised however.

“-cited I.8.10 of the Constitution, which says, “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations,” as a justification for his drivel-”

Drivel? Mr Killian, you of all people have NO place accusing ANYONE ELSE ON THIS PLANET of drivel. Your nonsense on the nature of constitutionality is drivel in and of itself. You are aware, are you not, that not even the supreme Justices can agree on the sdame definition of constitutional clauses when deciding the outcome of cases? And yet here you sit, arrogantly proclaiming that YOU are the one who is right.

“-justifying a clear breach of jurisdiction just because he doesn’t like a certain news outlet.”

WRONG. This is another of your nonsensical and unfounded claims, just like in this podcast where you assert, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that these senators are out for a witch hunt. You have no evidence for this, and so this is another instance of blatant hypocrisy. You really are unable to help yourself.

“He also blatantly quote-mined I.8.14, which says, “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;” he quote-mined it to remove everything after the word “government.””

I misquoted. I apologise for misquoting… But not to you. Because you’re the last person who deserves an apology out of me.

However, YOU are also guilty of quote mining, and the evidence has been presented in the video I’ll be releasing on the NHS later tonight. Another instance of hypocrisy.

“He was caught in lie after lie after lie-”

Just because you claim it to be so doesn’t make it true. YOU are the one who has lied. YOU are the one who has been hypocritical. And if you’re going to tell me that the example of you claiming you were BLESSED and thanking people for their PRAYERS while attacking Creationists is A LIE… Look at your own BLOG for the evidence. YOU are the liar here, not me.

“-and could only resort to evasion and personal attacks. ”

And if ever anyone needed evidence for this blatant hypocrisy, here it is. You have the nerve to accuse ANYONE ELSE of personal attacks? Yeah… You’re as hypocritical and dishonest as they come, Mr Killian.

“He is an absolutely worthless individual who lies like a creationist to support his delusions.”

On the contrary, the only person lying like a Creationist here is YOU, Mr Killian ,and I have the EVIDENCE in the videos I have so far produced. It’s there for all to see. You’re just too much of a coward yourself to go see it, which makes your claim that I’m a coward even more evidence of hypocrisy. You really know how to dig a hole for yourself you disgusting little individual.

“He was blocked for making a blatantly homophobic comment-”

And this accusation is a FALSE one but it DOES demonstrate a very important point. YOU do not know how to look up definitions of phrases. The phrase, which I will not repeat here although I dont doubt for a minute that you’re too cowardly to let these posts stay up, can ALSO refer to “A useless discussion or meeting involving mental masturbation whereby the egotistical, boring participants try to demonstrate they’re the smartest persons in the room.”

Your decision to IGNORE this definition and accuse me of something that was NEVER intended in the first place reeks of the WORST kind of dishonesty. You sir are immoral and deceitful in the extreme.

“Insinuating that two men engaged in ANY sexual activity as though it were an insult IS homophobia.”

If the insinuation were true, that wouyld be one thing, but to JUMP TO A FALSE CONCLUSION JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO CENSOR SOMEONE YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT AGAINST is pathetic and laughable. Your bigotry and deceit knows no bounds Mr Killian. You disgust me to the core. EVIL is what you are… EVIL.

“FSAthe1st is a disgusting homophobic liar, AND SO ARE YOU.”

WRONG, sir. WRONG. YOU are the liar, as has been demonstrated here, in these comments (and EVERY ONE OF THEM HAVE BEEN CAPTURED AS EVIDENCE BECAUSDE I KNOW YOU WILL DELETE THEM LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE, AND THEY WILL GO INTO MY VIDEO TONIGHT, SIR). IGNORING BY CHOICE an ALTERNATIVE definition for a phrase DOES NOT MAKE ME A HOMOPHOBIC LIAR… It makes YOU look like the CLOSED MINDED egotistical asshole you TRULY are.

Every comment has been captured for evidence… Delete away.

“Your dishonesty is clear for all to see. Not only did you see fit to try and get me to play a pathetic game of misdirected nonsense on the issue of the FCPA and constitutionality, but you decided to, after TELLING me in no uncertain terms that you DIDN’T want me to quote anything, accuse me of getting something wrong because I HADN’T quoted it directly”

No, LIAR, I said you got it wrong BECAUSE YOU GOT IT WRONG! What you posted WASN’T EVEN CLOSE! This is just more of your dishonest bullshit because you just can’t admit that you’re completely ignorant on the subject.

But thank you for posting here, because everyone can plainly see that you have NO points at all, just bogus justifications for your bullshit. You post NO evidence; all you have is abuse and personal attacks. You were shown WRONG about the law. You were shown WRONG about the Constitution. And your lies are STILL on the thread for everyone to read and see.

And you STILL cling to your “alternative definition” bullshit to cover your homophobia. Pathetic.

One last thing, Mr Killian…

“To the anonymous coward-”

You have no business calling anyone else a coward. You’re the coward here. You refuse to watch my videos debunking your laughable nonsense. Your excuse that you won’t waste your time on my videos because I don’t know what the Law of Nations is, is a joke. I KNOW what the Law of Nations is… It’s the concept of international law, as set down by organisaions like the United Nations and the World Bank. My brief comment to you was to select a few choice words. You DISHONESTLY took them literally as if I didn’t know what I was talking about because I hadn’t quoted the exact text of the Wikipedia article I went and looked up at the time…

But it doesn’t even matter. The Commerce Clauses apply along with 1.8.10 in allowing the FCPA to come into existence, and your literal interpretation of the Constitution will not change that.

There is no ONE correct way to interpret the constitution, and only a closed minded fool would believe otherwise.

No doubt you’ll delete this comment too, so it too has been captured so I can demonstrate you for the coward we all know you are when you DO delete it.

Or you might surprise me and leave it up… But I doubt it.

“No, LIAR-”

Still as dogmatic as ever, I see. Call me all the liars you want. It doesn’t make it so.

“I said you got it wrong BECAUSE YOU GOT IT WRONG!”

Zzzzzzzzz…

“This is just more of your dishonest bullshit-”

Like your dishonest bullshit about the NHS? That’;s going to be covered in the video you’re too cowardly to watch as well.1

“You post NO evidence; all you have is abuse and personal attacks.”

This is coming from you? More evidence of hypocrisy. That’s all you seem to know, Killian.

“You were shown WRONG about the law.”

Nope… You’re incapable of interpreting what you see in the light of modern day concepts and realities. That’s not my problem if you’re stuck in the 18th century.

“You were shown WRONG about the Constitution.”

Go tell that to the folks at USConstitution.net who gave me their advice. See, if they had told me I was wrong, I would have accepted it. They did not. They looked it up and gave me clear information, which is in the video you’re too cowardly to watch, and therefore I can accept it.

“And your lies are STILL on the thread for everyone to read and see.”

Actually they are only LIES in the eyes of you and your pals who are too closed minded to accept that they TOO might be wrong, just like you are.

“And you STILL cling to your “alternative definition” bullshit to cover your homophobia. ”

Still haven’t looked up Urban Dictionary then, I take it? See Killian, it’s not MY definition… It’s a COMMON definition. You still cling to your Homophobia accusation in order to not have to address the statements I made, like the coward you are continuing to show yourself to be.

“Pathetic.”

Indeed it is when someone cannot even be bothered to have his belief systems challenged, isn’t it Killian?

Oh… And by the way… Killian.

My videos show the comments YOU DELETED… And they were from my ORIGINAL account on YouTube. They demonstrate that YOU are the disghonest one here… You say my comments are up still? NOT ALL OF THEM. Many of those comments that were taken down were explanations of some of the lies YOU told about me being homophobic.

By the way… Homophobia is one of the worst possible things anyone can commit in today’s society. I’m NOT a homophobe… Far from it. This stunt of yours is a pathetic attempt to silence me because you have no stomach to deal with my responses to your bullshit.

Coward.

Do you deny insinuating that Virgil and I engaged in sexual activity as a means of disparaging us and our positions? That IS what you did, and that IS homophobia. YOU ARE A HOMOPHOBE. DEAL with it.

“Do you deny insinuating that Virgil and I engaged in sexual activity as a means of disparaging us and our positions?”

Yes, unequivocably, and for the very reason I have already posted. I ACCUSE you both of engaging in a reciprocal congratulatory act of mental masturbation in order to inflate your own egos and try to show everyone else on your channel and on this blog that you are the smartest persons present. THAT is what I meant when I referred to the phrase “Circle Jerk”, and I have REPEATEDLY CLARIFIED THIS. For you to infer ANYTHING else from this is DISHONEST and DISINGENUOUS… But is of absolutely no surprise whatsoever.

Nothing in that sentence makes ANY reference to homosexuality, the ONLY way you can infer such from that is in the choice of the word masturbation, and only THEN by QUOTE MINING IT to REMOVE the word “Mental” from the sentence.

I dare you to do that. It will show your dishonesty to run even further, Killian.

And I stand by my accusation.

Further, if you cannot be bothered to go look up a definition that is generally accepted in colloquial terms among internet forum participants, then there’s nothing that can be done to help you out of your dogma.

“YOU ARE A HOMOPHOBE. DEAL with it.”

Arrogant, egotistical, self-righteous and self-aborbed pig. That is what you are. What gives you the RIGHT to be the judge of what I do and do not have a problem with?

I will be the JUDGE on what I find objectionable and have a problem with when it comes to sexuality… NOT YOU.

NEVER AGAIN MAKE THAT MISTAKE.

I find it amusing that, rather than claiming that there was a misunderstanding and trying to clear the air, FSAthe1st has decided to use this to launch more assaults on the character of his opponent. In addition, he has failed to quote any deleted comment in part or in whole that would support his accusation of censorship as a means of controlling the debate.

Kid, you made a homophobic comment and never once retracted it in place of another more appropriate comment. There are other words to describe what you apparently wished to express, such as ’sycophant’. Are you so bull-headed that you can’t possibly conceive of how your comment might have been seen that way? That you won’t change, retract, or attempt an alternative resolution?

And by the way, neither Shane nor myself tried digging up a dead loved one in order to score cheap shots. The closest I got was an indirect offhand comment that could apply to anyone. You tried to personally attack Shane using memories of when he lost his wife. Either you repeated the accusation without checking it first, or you knew it was baseless and a sensitive spot that would get a reaction. In any case, I don’t think anyone would fault Shane for banning you after that.

“Your dishonesty is clear for all to see. Not only did you see fit to try and get me to play a pathetic game of misdirected nonsense on the issue of the FCPA and constitutionality, but you decided to, after TELLING me in no uncertain terms that you DIDN’T want me to quote anything, accuse me of getting something wrong because I HADN’T quoted it directly. That’s called hypocrisy.”

Incorrect. We accused you of getting it wrong because you answered the question thusly: ‘As for the question about the Law Of Nations, well… It refers to common law among nations. States within a larger human society.’ This is the wrong answer, as was explained to you many times in the comments. Once this was pointed out to you, your response was this- ‘You’re not confusing it with international law, are you?’ In fact, no-one even used the word quote in relation to this topic after that point. When it was pointed out that you had misread the Wikipedia article you used as a source (even that typing ‘Law of Nations’ in Wikipedia redirects to ‘Public International Law’), you changed subjects and reasserted your original claim that the FCPA did not cross jurisdictional barriers. The reason we posed this question to you was as something of a litmus test, much in the way you have that list of questions creationists must answer before debating you on your page. If you cannot interpret the language of the constitution accurately, then how can you be expected to properly understand and debate the laws within? You’re expecting us to take your argument seriously when you’re effectively at the same level as a creationist who does nothing but quote Kent Hovind verbatim. And didn’t know he was in prison.

“No dishonesty intended. YOU on the other hand ARE dishonest in making claims that I have been INTENTIONALLY dishonest, a claim that you repeat time and time again.”

You made the claim without researching it until afterwards. You didn’t add caveats, pose it as a possibility instead of a standard claim, or propose that it could all depend on what was meant by ‘The Law of Nations’. You literally said ‘Besides, Clause 10 in A1 S8 permits the FCPA.’, ‘Yes, that gives the US power to set and punish crimes committed overseas.’ You didn’t state at any point that your research was incomplete, even went so far as to mock anyone who disagreed with you. ‘You’re a dogmatist. You don’t even understand what it is that clause is telling you, do you?’ THAT was the dishonesty concerning the constitution. I’m not even covering the baseless accusations of fraud that you made when you started getting REALLY desperate.

“Your problem is you are pathetically literalist on the point of view of the constitution. I can’t really say I’m all that surprised however.”

The only thing that’s being done here is interpreting the words in the constitution using the meanings that they had at the time they were written. This is done for every other work of literature using an archaic dialect written at a different time. Do the contents of Middle English literature change because the words have different meanings now, or some are unused? If a British book referring to ‘chips’ or ‘biscuits’ is read in America, does that change the food that was intended by the author? If one were to be consistent, one must apply a methodology or philosophy consistently instead of when it’s simply convenient. If you were to read old or foreign literature the way you apparently prefer to read the constitution, all language would be effectively meaningless.

“Drivel? Mr Killian, you of all people have NO place accusing ANYONE ELSE ON THIS PLANET of drivel. Your nonsense on the nature of constitutionality is drivel in and of itself. You are aware, are you not, that not even the supreme Justices can agree on the sdame(sic) definition of constitutional clauses when deciding the outcome of cases? And yet here you sit, arrogantly proclaiming that YOU are the one who is right.”

Argument from authority fallacy. Who agrees and disagrees with a particular argument has nothing to do with the arguments veracity. Otherwise, one might argue that you could never contradict Einstein by considering quantum mechanics, or that Christianity was correct because it is the most popular religion, or that belief in the supernatural was correct because the majority of the planet believes in something, and so forth. An argument stands and falls based on its own merits. To call his stance ‘drivel’, you would have to point out a fundamental flaw in it rather than apparently relying on the supposed authority of others. Frankly, after you mis-quoted amendment 10 (‘Re-read amendment 10… … clearly states that powers not expressly granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are reserved for the States or for the People. Nothing in it says anything whatsoever about powers not being granted by the Constitution being disallowed PERIOD, as you so indelicately put it.’), the Law of Nations, Article I Section 8 Clause 14, and so forth, accusing the one who’s actually used the correct definitions and terminology of producing drivel is rather hilarious.

“WRONG. This is another of your nonsensical and unfounded claims, just like in this podcast where you assert, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that these senators are out for a witch hunt. You have no evidence for this, and so this is another instance of blatant hypocrisy. You really are unable to help yourself.”

Kid, you started this conversation with the conclusion that the senators were right and supported by the constitution. This was before you read the constitution, understood how it applied, understood the terminology, and so forth. You have consistently attempted to argue this conclusion while gathering evidence afterwards. Frankly, a vendetta against the company is the most likely motivation for your actions and one of the more generous ones.

Wiktionary defines a witch hunt (aside from the literal definition) as ‘An attempt to find and publicly punish a group of people perceived as a threat, usually on ideological or political grounds.’, ‘A public smear-campaign against an individual.’, or ‘a campaign to punish dissident persons’. The senators have called for investigations for which they do not have jurisdiction or standing. The result of these investigations would harm News Corp while giving the senators the appearance of being tough on corrupt business practices. It also implies that the parent company of News Corp was connected to or involved in the crime. As such, all three definitions described above would apply.

“I misquoted. I apologise for misquoting… But not to you. Because you’re the last person who deserves an apology out of me.”

2 weeks after the fact? I don’t know whether to find that funny or depressing. And who are you apologizing to if not ShaneDK? Are you so childish that you won’t own up to a mistake to the person you wronged?

“However, YOU are also guilty of quote mining, and the evidence has been presented in the video I’ll be releasing on the NHS later tonight. Another instance of hypocrisy.”

You have already claimed to have a record of all comments involved in this conversation. How about, instead of referring to a video where you have the ability to control comments, you provide even one example of quote mining? It shouldn’t be too hard. All you have to do is show Shane quoting the source, quote the original source with the context, and explain how this changes the meaning in the context of the discussion. And this time, don’t take 5 hours to do so.

“Just because you claim it to be so doesn’t make it true. YOU are the one who has lied. YOU are the one who has been hypocritical. And if you’re going to tell me that the example of you claiming you were BLESSED and thanking people for their PRAYERS while attacking Creationists is A LIE… Look at your own BLOG for the evidence. YOU are the liar here, not me.”

As I’m writing this comment, I get a 403 error when I check Shane’s blog. However, if you had actually investigated this claim yourself, you could easily quote the entry where this occurred or even post a specific link. At least then, I might be able to look it up in Google cache. For now, all we have is your word, which hasn’t fared very admirably in this discussion. In all likelihood, someone else made the claim and you decided to use it because it sounded good rather than investigating it.

However, let’s be hypothetical and give you the benefit of the doubt. Assuming he made the claim that you did, this would indicate that he was using it as a verb. According to dictionary dot com, the third definition for blessed as a verb is ‘to bestow good of any kind upon: a nation blessed with peace.’ Secondly, thanking a group of religious people for their prayers doesn’t necessarily mean that one is condoning religious practice. Otherwise, one might argue that receiving Christmas gifts from relatives of a different religion is wrong. From an atheist, it is gratitude for their goodwill, and this is assuming that you’re quoting accurately. If I may ask, do you scream at anyone who sympathizes with you and says that they’ll pray for you? Finally, thanking a religious person for help or goodwill while attacking the arguments of creationists or pointing out how someone is lying does NOT mean that someone is being hypocritical or wrong. You have made many videos attacking creationists. By this logic, if you have ever benefited from the charity/goodwill of someone who belonged to the Christian religion or even a creationist, you are a vile hypocrite.

Finally, in case you didn’t know, this would have been almost immediately after a drunk driver took the life of his wife. You cannot have investigated that claim even an iota without finding that out. Either you didn’t investigate the claim appropriately (apparently, your modus operandi), or you knew it was the last place you should step. Either way, your conduct by this point was disgusting. You demean the rest of us by counting yourself as an atheist.

“And if ever anyone needed evidence for this blatant hypocrisy, here it is. You have the nerve to accuse ANYONE ELSE of personal attacks? Yeah… You’re as hypocritical and dishonest as they come, Mr Killian.”

If you’ll notice, he accused you of only being able to resort to personal attacks rather than debate the points. I think we can count this as another quote mine. Secondly, there’s a world of difference between calling someone an idiot for not knowing what ‘reserved for’ means and trying to look for a personal sore spot.

“On the contrary, the only person lying like a Creationist here is YOU, Mr Killian ,and I have the EVIDENCE in the videos I have so far produced. It’s there for all to see. You’re just too much of a coward yourself to go see it, which makes your claim that I’m a coward even more evidence of hypocrisy. You really know how to dig a hole for yourself you disgusting little individual.”

On the off-chance that people don’t see your shot on shiteo productions, why don’t you try quoting a few instances here? You know, where people are coming to download the podcast. Those same people you apparently want to convince so badly. Or are you afraid that they won’t stand up to scrutiny in a place where you can’t delete comments?

“You have no business calling anyone else a coward. You’re the coward here. You refuse to watch my videos debunking your laughable nonsense. Your excuse that you won’t waste your time on my videos because I don’t know what the Law of Nations is, is a joke. I KNOW what the Law of Nations is… It’s the concept of international law, as set down by organisaions(sic) like the United Nations and the World Bank. My brief comment to you was to select a few choice words. You DISHONESTLY took them literally as if I didn’t know what I was talking about because I hadn’t quoted the exact text of the Wikipedia article I went and looked up at the time…”

You refuse to debate any creationist who won’t answer the questions posted on your main page. This is to demonstrate that said creationist actually has a basic understanding of the concepts argued and won’t be a waste of your time. Hypocrite much?

As we’ve already covered, and I’ve already quoted, you didn’t try to emphasize a few select words. Your definition was completely wrong and made no mention of the actual meaning of the term as it was used when the clause was written. At the time, you really didn’t know what you were talking about. Considering that you made the video before you left the comment with your definition, it’s a safe bet that you didn’t know what you were talking about then either. “But it doesn’t even matter. The Commerce Clauses apply along with 1.8.10 in allowing the FCPA to come into existence, and your literal interpretation of the Constitution will not change that.”

There is only one commerce clause;  ”To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. At the time, the word regulate meant ‘to make regular’. You can confirm this by examining the way the word was used in print at the time of the constitution’s ratification, such as in the Pennsylvania Gazette. In what way does the ability to ‘make regular’ trade with foreign nations, among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes give the federal government the ability to cross jurisdictional barriers? And we’ve already pointed out how you misused Article I Section 8 Verse 10. I guess your apology for misquoting earlier was a hollow one.

“There is no ONE correct way to interpret the constitution, and only a closed minded fool would believe otherwise.”

By that logic, there is no one correct way to interpret the Theory of Evolution. Guess you better apologize to all of those creationists, eh?

The entire point of having a constitution is to have a strict, codified set of laws. If the laws can be interpreted to mean anything, then they effectively mean nothing and there’s no point to having a constitution. We can either interpret the laws and language as they were used and applied at the time, or we have no reason to interpret the constitution in the first place. Also, as I said before, to apply this approach to the language of any other piece of literature would render anything not written in one’s native tongue to be meaningless.

“Like your dishonest bullshit about the NHS? That’;s going to be covered in the video you’re too cowardly to watch as well.1”

Why don’t you actually post some of it here? At the very least, give something that might indicate you have anything more than a misguided vendetta.

“Nope… You’re incapable of interpreting what you see in the light of modern day concepts and realities. That’s not my problem if you’re stuck in the 18th century.”

If I ask you to pass me a napkin, and you think I’m speaking of a diaper, should I condescend to you about how you can’t speak proper English? The sections you’re trying to interpret were written in the 18th century using the dialect and meanings of the time. As I said before, if you were to apply this method to any other piece of literature from the period, or before one’s own time, then you would effectively render all literature meaningless.

“Go tell that to the folks at USConstitution.net who gave me their advice. See, if they had told me I was wrong, I would have accepted it. They did not. They looked it up and gave me clear information, which is in the video you’re too cowardly to watch, and therefore I can accept it.”

Argument from authority fallacy and Argument from ignorance fallacy. Are these the people who told you that Article 8 Clause 10 concerned the government making rules for itself? Or that the 10th amendment didn’t restrict the powers of the federal government? Or that the law of nations referred to ‘common law among nations’? Frankly, if they’ve been your source for all of this, you have little reason to place such faith in their information.

“Actually they are only LIES in the eyes of you and your pals who are too closed minded to accept that they TOO might be wrong, just like you are.”

Quote mining the Constitution and making accusations without prior investigation or proof is lying. We’ve already covered and QUOTED your lies here. That’s a hell of a great deal more than you’ve done here.

“Still haven’t looked up Urban Dictionary then, I take it? See Killian, it’s not MY definition… It’s a COMMON definition. You still cling to your Homophobia accusation in order to not have to address the statements I made, like the coward you are continuing to show yourself to be.”

Why don’t you quote the statements you feel weren’t addressed? You keep making accusations without proof. At least we cite our sources.

“My videos show the comments YOU DELETED… And they were from my ORIGINAL account on YouTube. They demonstrate that YOU are the disghonest(sic) one here… You say my comments are up still? NOT ALL OF THEM. Many of those comments that were taken down were explanations of some of the lies YOU told about me being homophobic.”

The only comments that were deleted were the ones that instigated your ban and the ones made afterwards using sockpuppets to circumvent your ban. This is common practice in any forum where people make comments that violate the rules and make sockpuppets to circumvent said bans, including Youtube’s own TOS. However, if you feel such comments were so important in this matter, why don’t you quote them here? If you felt Shane was going to delete your comments, then why are you commenting in the first place? Certainly a copy/paste job is easier than typing out a full comment.

You know, I don’t understand why FSAthe1st can’t make his arguments here in text format like any normal person. I mean, it’s certainly not hard. If I can make a big one like that, he certainly can.

And I don’t understand why you can’t just go ahead and watch the video. Posting a big wall of text like that…

“I find it amusing that, rather than claiming that there was a misunderstanding and trying to clear the air, FSAthe1st has decided to use this to launch more assaults on the character of his opponent.”

And so the hypocrisy continues. Virgil0211, you do not surprise me in the slightest. So now you come on here and continue your reciprocal congratulatory act of inflating your own egos and try to show everyone else on your channel and on this blog that you are the smartest persons present. I stand by this accusation. You want to turn it into an accusation of homophobia, I’ll call you out for the liars that you BOTH are.

“Kid, you made a homophobic comment and never once retracted it in place of another more appropriate comment.”

Someone else who doesn’t know how to do a Google search. If you’re too lazy to look it up and see you’re wrong, that’s not my problem… It’s yours.

“Are you so bull-headed that you can’t possibly conceive of how your comment might have been seen that way?”

No more bull headed than the guy who insists, despite repeated explanations to the contrary, that I’m homophobic. In my book that’s called blinding arrogance.

“And by the way, neither Shane nor myself tried digging up a dead loved one in order to score cheap shots.”

Virgil0211 I will tell you this once and once only. DON’T EVER TRY TO PULL A STUNT LIKE THAT ON ME AGAIN. The FACT of his hypocrisy is NOT changed by the CIRCUMSTANCES behind it. I will NOT let you dishonest fucks attempt to derail that fact by trying to pull on the heart strings. It’s IRRELEVANT. It is ALL about HYPOCRISY, of which the BOTH of you are GUILTY.

“The closest I got was an indirect offhand comment that could apply to anyone.”

That is a flat out lie, and I demonstrated that in the video that neither of you have the guts to watch, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out.

“You tried to personally attack Shane using memories of when he lost his wife.”

I pointed out an instance, one of many, I might add, of hypocrisy. I would NEVER be so hypocritical in his situation to claim that I am BLESSED while bad mouthing religious people. I would rather disassociate myself from the religious crowd in the first place… Which is easier here as we don’t have so many of them here.

“In any case, I don’t think anyone would fault Shane for banning you after that. ”

Except the dishonest piece of shit banned me for a false accusation of HOMOPHOBIA. You keep on about ME retracting accusations, and yet the ONLY one here to have EVER retracted an accusation is you. HE has NEVER retracted a false accusation against me, and the evil little bastard never will, because he is too dishonest to do so.

It doesn’t surprise me that as soon as that dishonest asshole Killian goes away… YOU show up to take over for him.

“Incorrect. We accused you of getting it wrong because you answered the question thusly: ‘As for the question about the Law Of Nations, well… It refers to common law among nations. States within a larger human society.’ This is the wrong answer, as was explained to you many times in the comments.”

So you keep saying… Yet I explained it CORRECTLY in the video I posted… A video that neither of you had the guts to watch. As I already told you two thick heads, I was NOT going to be drawn into explaining it in a comment that was limited to 500 characters on YouTube. My only mistake is that I should have stuck to my guns and refused to do it anywhere other than in video form.

“When it was pointed out that you had misread the Wikipedia article you used as a source (even that typing ‘Law of Nations’ in Wikipedia redirects to ‘Public International Law’), you changed subjects and reasserted your original claim that the FCPA did not cross jurisdictional barriers.”

That would probably have something to do with it being my POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE. You two insisted on jumping all over the place while accusing me of the same thing. I simply redirected the subject BACK where it belonged to begin with.

“The reason we posed this question to you was as something of a litmus test, much in the way you have that list of questions creationists must answer before debating you on your page. If you cannot interpret the language of the constitution accurately, then how can you be expected to properly understand and debate the laws within?”

There is no ONE way to interpret the constitution. Any SANE person can tell you that. Your Litmus test failed in what you had intended to do because you went off on a TANGENT.

“You made the claim without researching it until afterwards. You didn’t add caveats, pose it as a possibility instead of a standard claim, or propose that it could all depend on what was meant by ‘The Law of Nations’. You literally said ‘Besides, Clause 10 in A1 S8 permits the FCPA.’, ‘Yes, that gives the US power to set and punish crimes committed overseas.’ You didn’t state at any point that your research was incomplete, even went so far as to mock anyone who disagreed with you.”

No surprise there, that you would accuse me of the very thing the two of you are guilty of. First of all, YouTube character comments are severely limited. I do not like to use them. A forum such as USConstitution.net doesn’t have those kinds of limits. Verbosity is useful as it allows people to expound at great length within a single post. That I was terse in my responses is due to limited length. If you wish to claim I’m being intentionally dishonest, well, I can’t convince you otherwise… Nor would I bother, because frankly, you made your minds up long before I ever commented on the video. ANYONE who disagrees with you is a liar, after all.

“THAT was the dishonesty concerning the constitution.”

No. I was being sincere in my convictions. I stand by them. If there is any dishonesty here, it is in you two goons accusing me of such without actually bothering to check if I am actually using a different interpretation. The two of you immediately jump to the same conclusion over and over again, and that is the LIAR! nonsense. You are alienating everyone who might otherwise have had an interesting debate with such open hostility, and if you want to turn that back on me, I’ll make it very simple for you.

Mr Killian was openly hostile toward me from the VERY FIRST POST he EVER made on ANY of my videos. I don’t forget unwarranted hostility like that, and I ALWAYS make sure it is returned measure-for-measure. If it seems like I’m being hostile to the dishonest piece of shit now, just know that, while you might not see it that way because the two of you are pals, he has been every bit as hostile toward me AND people who disagree with him, and it’s time he got a taste of his own medicine.

“The only thing that’s being done here is interpreting the words in the constitution using the meanings that they had at the time they were written.”

So the two of you are what USConstitution.net refers to as Historical Literalists. Thank you for making my point for me. And once again, that is NOT the ONLY correct way to interpret the Constitution. If you don’t think so, then I don’t know what to tell you.

“Do the contents of Middle English literature change because the words have different meanings now, or some are unused?”

Are you seriously trying to tell me that because certain BOOKS are written with certain meanings that they had at the time, that the US Constitution, a DOCUMENT THAT IS MEANT TO GUIDE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THROUGHOUT ITS OWN HISTORY, must be treated as though it MUST be interpreted ONLY through the eyes and meanings of those who had written it? Great… So how do you deal with Multi-national corporations? And how do you deal with extra-planetary territorial disputes when they eventually arise? There’s nothing in the Constitution giving Congress enumerated powers to set laws governing the definition and punishment of piracy and felonies committed in SPACE. See the problem you Historical Literalists have?

“And so the hypocrisy continues. Virgil0211, you do not surprise me in the slightest. So now you come on here and continue your reciprocal congratulatory act of inflating your own egos and try to show everyone else on your channel and on this blog that you are the smartest persons present. I stand by this accusation. You want to turn it into an accusation of homophobia, I’ll call you out for the liars that you BOTH are.”

You may want to actually respond to the argument presented against you before you attempt to gloat. It doesn’t change what you said, or the fact that you haven’t attempted to apologize or retract your original statement. Personally, I don’t have a problem with your comment. I would’ve allowed you to hang yourself, but I can see how someone can and how it goes against the rules of Shane’s channel. Don’t automatically assume that Shane and I agree completely on everything. Then again, you don’t seem too interested in listening to anyone else.

“Someone else who doesn’t know how to do a Google search. If you’re too lazy to look it up and see you’re wrong, that’s not my problem… It’s yours.”

How does that have anything to do with my comment? I simply pointed out that, while you could’ve used plenty of other terms to express what you meant with the same level of derision, you went for the one that referred to homosexuality in a derogatory manner. Shane also has a no-tolerance rule for using racial slurs. If you want to argue that, then that’s fine, but don’t act like you’re unique in this.

“No more bull headed than the guy who insists, despite repeated explanations to the contrary, that I’m homophobic. In my book that’s called blinding arrogance.”

If it talks like a homophobe and makes derogatory comments like a homophobe…

“Virgil0211 I will tell you this once and once only. DON’T EVER TRY TO PULL A STUNT LIKE THAT ON ME AGAIN. The FACT of his hypocrisy is NOT changed by the CIRCUMSTANCES behind it. I will NOT let you dishonest fucks attempt to derail that fact by trying to pull on the heart strings. It’s IRRELEVANT. It is ALL about HYPOCRISY, of which the BOTH of you are GUILTY.”

Then back it up. Post some relevant quotes. Why don’t you actually quote where you got this accusation from in the first place, or link to the damning blog entries? Why is it that, instead of addressing other parts of my argument, you focus only on the peripheral comments? I simply pointed that out to explain why your behavior was unacceptable. My counter-argument was in the two paragraphs beforehand, at least in the second comment where I covered this subject.

And why are you angry that I pointed out how much lower you went with your insults? Did you really not know the circumstances?

“That is a flat out lie, and I demonstrated that in the video that neither of you have the guts to watch, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out.”

Then why don’t you quote me here? You DID remember to keep my retractions and apologies in your video, right?

“I pointed out an instance, one of many, I might add, of hypocrisy. I would NEVER be so hypocritical in his situation to claim that I am BLESSED while bad mouthing religious people. I would rather disassociate myself from the religious crowd in the first place… Which is easier here as we don’t have so many of them here.”

One of many? Are we resorting to the Nephilimfree style of debate? Why is it your apparently biggest arguments seem to fall apart when placed under minor scrutiny?

First, I’ve already pointed out how blessed has non-religious meanings. You’re assuming that a non-religious person used a word in a religious sense due strictly to the fact that the word has religious meanings. You haven’t proven your case, and you certainly don’t have enough to make a claim of hypocrisy here.

Secondly, Shane’s videos were primarily criticizing creationist arguments and scam artists. You do realize that not all religious people are creationists, right? Hell, I’ve already explained to you the problems with your argument. I don’t understand why you ignored everything I said and just re-stated your original argument.

“Except the dishonest piece of shit banned me for a false accusation of HOMOPHOBIA. You keep on about ME retracting accusations, and yet the ONLY one here to have EVER retracted an accusation is you. HE has NEVER retracted a false accusation against me, and the evil little bastard never will, because he is too dishonest to do so.”

Let’s look at the comment announcing your sentence: ‘FSAthe1st has been blocked for HOMOPHOBIC COMMENTS.’ (emphasis mine). No different than if he had banned someone for using a racial slur. You did make a homophobic comment, and you have never retracted or apologized for it. The accusations came later, when you continued to defend your use of a phrase that referred to homosexuals in a derogatory manner. Frankly, he has every right to do so when such language is apparently important to you.

“If a British book referring to ‘chips’ or ‘biscuits’ is read in America, does that change the food that was intended by the author?”

The difference between a book (and I’m assuming it’s not a book by which an entire country sets its own rules) and the US Constitution is that the Constitution is intended to grant rights to the Federal Government, to the States, and to the People. A book talking about chips and biscuits is not likely to ever be one on the subject of conferring powers to any continuing government centuries down the line when the entire political and economic landscape will have changed.

“If one were to be consistent, one must apply a methodology or philosophy consistently instead of when it’s simply convenient.”

Except that’s not what happens in reality. In order to ensure the rights of the people and/or to ensure that the US Economy is not damaged in some fashion, the Constitution has had to be re-interpreted multiple times. I will be expanding on this in a video that neither of you will get to see (because of your policy on not watching them) in which two cases that hinged on people’s rights (or privileges, if you like) go against the US Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and it thus has to be interpreted one way or another to allow a ruling.

“Argument from authority fallacy.”

Sorry, but NO. Since the US Justices in the Supreme Court are the principle decision makers whenever there is a dispute over Constitutional interpretation, this argument from Authority is NOT a fallacy. I suggest you think about it a little more before throwing knee-jerk reactions like this one.

And I re-iterate my point. Mr Killian is NOT a US Supreme Court Judge. If he WERE, then I might put a little more stock in what he’s saying, but as it is, he is an individual off of the streets of North Carolina, and as such, is no better qualified than I am to discuss which interpretation of the Constitution is the correct one. This is why I sought advice… And this is why when he makes statements as though they were fact based on HIS own interpretation of the documents, REFUSING to see from anyone else’s point of view, and throwing around accusations such as YOU LIAR! every 5 minutes, I don’t put much stock in what he is saying.

“Who agrees and disagrees with a particular argument has nothing to do with the arguments veracity.”

This is not a classroom on Biology or Physics, where the evidence is abundantly clear. This is on the issue of INTERPRETING a document that does NOT seek to cover every eventuality and therefore, at one point or another, be INTERPRETED. My point remains. What makes you or he think that you are right, and anyone else who interprets the constitution differently, INCLUDING those Supreme Court justices whose JOB it is to do so (for which you accuse me of an Argument from Authority fallacy) are wrong? You have not presented a metric for determining what makes you right and the rest of the planet wrong.

“accusing the one who’s actually used the correct definitions and terminology of producing drivel is rather hilarious.”

To you, maybe, but then you two are biased toward your own point of view, and you continue to engage in behaviours that reinforce each others’ egos in this fashion. The Constitution is a WRITTEN document that was DRAFTED by people at a time when multi-nationals, air transport, international commerce, United Nations, space travel and multi-government co-operation did not exist in the form that they do today, if they even existed at all back then. So again, I ask, what metric do the two of you use to claim that your INTERPRETATION of the Constitution is the right one and everyone else’s is wrong?

You have never answered this, or any other question I have put to you, directly or honestly, preferring instead to play games with words and try to accuse me of the very thing that the two of you are doing.

“Kid, you started this conversation with the conclusion that the senators were right and supported by the constitution.”

WRONG. And stop with the Kid nonsense. You want me to give you ANY respect, you give up that shit here and now.

As for your ASSERTION that I concluded they were right, that’s completely unfounded. My whole point THIS WHOLE TIME, was that making a claim that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was unconstitutional is a bogus one, and I know I’ll never convince the two of you of this, but I can demonstrate it. I’ll be putting together a much lengthier video for other people to see what it is I’m talking about, but it’s not intended for the two of you, especially as I know such effort would be wasted.

My POINT remains that whatever the motivations of the Senators is, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act REQUIRES that ANY corporation that is headquartered in the USA adhere to strict practices governing what their employees OR any subsidiary company that they own is doing overseas. I won’t go into why this is within the bounds of the Constitution here, because I don’t want that asshole to start his LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE nonsense all over again (it frankly gets on my nerves and makes me want to pull my teeth out every time he wants to play 8 year old like that), but the explanation will be provided for open minded people to look at.

“Frankly, a vendetta against the company is the most likely motivation for your actions and one of the more generous ones.”

I’ve never hid my dislike for Faux News or for an empire that allows such a dishonest channel to exist… But that’s not my motivation, and for you to claim otherwise is more dishonesty.

I’ll say it again. If it turns out that they have not broken any laws in this matter, then fair enough, and I told you this in the YouTube comments. I even acknowledged in the video that neither of you will ever bother watching, that piercing the Corporate Veil twice might well be necessary, and that the British were looking into that, but you wouldn’t have seen that bit because neither of you have the stomach OR the open minds with which to actually go look at what your critics are saying, making excuses about how I don’t understand enough to warrant your time.

“Wiktionary defines a witch hunt (aside from the literal definition) as ‘An attempt to find and publicly punish a group of people perceived as a threat, usually on ideological or political grounds.’, ‘A public smear-campaign against an individual.’, or ‘a campaign to punish dissident persons’.”

Which is precisely why I accuse Mr Killian of hypocrisy…

“The senators have called for investigations for which they do not have jurisdiction or standing.”

That does not constitute a witch hunt… Merely an issue of jurisdictional dispute. And again, as I’ve stated so many times I’m beginning to turn blue, there IS a way to demonstrate proper jurisdiction, but none of you are interested in that. You continue to claim otherwise. I’ll explain to the others though.

“The result of these investigations would harm News Corp while giving the senators the appearance of being tough on corrupt business practices.”

This is an assertion, nothing more. Undoubtedly while there is POSSIBLE harm to News Corp, it doesn’t follow that this is going to make the Senators look tough on Business Corruption, NOR do you have any concrete or even a reasonable basis to assume is the case.

“It also implies that the parent company of News Corp-”

News Corp has no parent, as far as I know. News International is the company that owned NOTW, and News Corp is the parent company of News International. News Corp is the company the DoJ are being called to investigate.

“-was connected to or involved in the crime.”

Again this is your assertion. Launching an investigation into an accident doesn’t automatically imply fault of one of any number of parties, so why should launching an investigation into a multi-national whose subsidiary company was involved? It could also imply possible negligence. That’s not a connection to the crime, but it is still actionable under the FCPA.

And again, I won’t go into the FCPA as neither of you are interested.

“As such, all three definitions described above would apply.”

Another assertion. Even with all of the above, you have no basis to jump to this conclusion. And this is all you two have done, is jump to conclusions. This is what you accuse the senators of doing. This is another instance of hypocrisy, and that’s why I object.

“2 weeks after the fact?”

The amount of time that passed is not at issue here.

“I don’t know whether to find that funny or depressing.”

That’s not my concern.

“And who are you apologizing to if not ShaneDK?”

Anyone ELSE that might read the comments and see how I’ve made an error. He doesn’t deserve an apology for JUMPING TO A CONCLUSION THAT I WAS BEING WILLINGLY DISHONEST.

He will NEVER apologise to me, so why the fuck should I EVER apologise to that monstrosity?

“Are you so childish that you won’t own up to a mistake to the person you wronged?”

Is HE so childish that HE won’t own up to a catalogue of false accusations that he has made to ALL of the people HE has wronged?

The answer to that question would be yes, and so the answer to YOUR question would ALSO be yes, until he cleans up his act. Horrible little oaf.

“You have already claimed to have a record of all comments involved in this conversation.”

And I do. They’ve been presented in the video itself.

“How about, instead of referring to a video where you have the ability to control comments, you provide even one example of quote mining?”

Is there something wrong with you? No, I’m serious, is there something wrong with you? First of all, you have repeatedly accused me of deleting comments. Now you do it again. The ONLY person guilty of deleting comments, aside from you when you were testing the comments system, was Mr Killian. I do NOT delete comments unless under VERY specific circumstances, and ALL of them relate to Doc Dropping, Sock accounts, Spam or Death Threats. Killian deleted the supposedly offending comment I made. I would have left it there for all to see. All of his venomous comments all over my video that you initially claimed I took down are still there for all to see, so they can see what kind of a person they’re dealing with.

And by capturing screenshots and posting them on a video, there is little doubt that the comments DID exist. Can’t say that about a re-post in a comment that is equal to or less than 500 characters.

I find it hilarious that the two of you are so afraid to go watch my videos.

“As I’m writing this comment, I get a 403 error when I check Shane’s blog.”

Well I’ve got the screen capture, as well as access to the original page. It’s right there. Maybe you should have someone take a look at your internet connection.

“However, if you had actually investigated this claim yourself, you could easily quote the entry where this occurred or even post a specific link.”

Made a video. You’re too lazy to go look at it. Or you’re too scared. It has to be one of those things.

Anyway the blog is www.shanekillian.blogspot.com and all you need to do is search for the word ‘blessed’ and the evidence is there. Thank you and end of discussion.

“For now, all we have is your word-”

That would be because neither of you has the stomach to go watch the videos I made. It’s easy to claim that all you have is my word when you avoid going to anything that might actually back up what I’m claiming, isn’t it?

As for that huge long paragraph you posted, splitting hairs on the definition of words… Let’s not be hypocrites again by engaging in that sort of nonsense when you demand precision level research and responses from your critics. The double standard makes me sick.

“You have made many videos attacking creationists. By this logic, if you have ever benefited from the charity/goodwill of someone who belonged to the Christian religion or even a creationist, you are a vile hypocrite. ”

Then it’s just as well that I haven’t then, isn’t it? None of my family are religious, and none of my friends. So nice try.

“Finally, in case you didn’t know, this would have been almost immediately after a drunk driver took the life of his wife.”

Once again… NEVER TRY TO PULL ON MY HEART STRINGS. It does NOT change the facts.

The fact that he lost his wife in an act that should never have been allowed to happen does NOT change the FACT that he is a vile little pig who goes around accusing people of every sin under the sun, calling them names as he accuses others of doing, and behaves as though HE is ALWAYS right, and ANYONE who disagrees with him is not only WRONG, but STUPID, IDIOTIC, DISHONEST, and any other insult he can come up with off the top of his head. He is a vile little man who does NOT know how to apologise for ANYTHING and ALWAYS thinks the sun shines out of his arse. THAT DOES NOT CHANGE BECAUSE OF SOME UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES IN HIS LIFE.

Now are you going to continue making excuses for the FACT that he behaves so shockingly to people who aren’t even being hostile to him in the first place? And before you pipe up, I’m not even referring to myself. I’m OPENLY hostile to this evil little cretin, because he has given me MANY good reasons to be over the comments section of TWO separate videos now, but there are others, some who have only asked for clarifications, who he has seen fit to personally attack and insult.

THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE. Get your friend to change his attitude, and I MIGHT change mine in response. Otherwise, NO DEAL.

“And why are you angry that I pointed out how much lower you went with your insults? Did you really not know the circumstances? ”

No idea whatsoever until you mentioned it.

“On the off-chance that people don’t see your shot on shiteo productions, why don’t you try quoting a few instances here?”

Because I shouldn’t have to. You don’t see ME demanding that everyone who makes a video go ahead and reproduce the entire content of it on some comments section, so why should YOU get that privilege? Double standards again.

And when are you going to stop with the childish comments?

“Are you seriously trying to tell me that because certain BOOKS are written with certain meanings that they had at the time, that the US Constitution, a DOCUMENT THAT IS MEANT TO GUIDE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THROUGHOUT ITS OWN HISTORY, must be treated as though it MUST be interpreted ONLY through the eyes and meanings of those who had written it? Great… So how do you deal with Multi-national corporations? And how do you deal with extra-planetary territorial disputes when they eventually arise? There’s nothing in the Constitution giving Congress enumerated powers to set laws governing the definition and punishment of piracy and felonies committed in SPACE. See the problem you Historical Literalists have?”

That’s when you AMEND THE CONSTITUTION! Just like it says in Article V. The ONLY way the meaning of the Constitution can change is through this process–NOT because people have decided that the words really mean something else! So why do you keep ignoring this process of amendment?

“And who are you apologizing to if not ShaneDK?”

“Anyone ELSE that might read the comments and see how I’ve made an error.”

Then why did you apologize in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FORUM where no one reading your ACTUAL quote-mine will see it?

See, this is the behavior of a LIAR. An HONEST person would have apologized–or at least clarified–AT THE TIME and AT THE PLACE of the original posting.

And you wonder why we think it’ll be a waste of time to watch your bullshit videos!

“So you keep saying… Yet I explained it CORRECTLY in the video I posted… A video that neither of you had the guts to watch. As I already told you two thick heads, I was NOT going to be drawn into explaining it in a comment that was limited to 500 characters on YouTube. My only mistake is that I should have stuck to my guns and refused to do it anywhere other than in video form.”

If you had explained it correctly in the video, then you shouldn’t have had any problem explaining it in the comments section. You certainly would have known that your answer was incorrect on its face. If a creationist gave a Hovind definition of evolution, then claimed he explained it correctly on a video he had made before that point, wouldn’t you raise an eyebrow?

You are right on one thing, though. You would be better off debating in a text forum. Easier to keep records, easier to double-check claims, easier to cite sources, faster to make, etc. I don’t see any advantage to making your arguments in video form when there’s an easily available forum for such purposes. Then again, perhaps our goals are different.

“That would probably have something to do with it being my POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE. You two insisted on jumping all over the place while accusing me of the same thing. I simply redirected the subject BACK where it belonged to begin with.”

No, you were trying to divert attention from the fact that you didn’t understand what you were citing and had been caught. And again, you still haven’t countered the fact that the senators in question are trying to prosecute a crime committed by British citizens working for a British company on British soil, or explained how this is not crossing jurisdictional barriers. You also haven’t cited a single part of the constitution that, interpreted with the meaning of the words at the time, would support congress having the power to cross jurisdictional barriers. In fact, the reason you were asked for the meaning of the law of nations in the first place was that you were attempting to support your assertion by citing I.8 Cl. 10. It was, in fact, the end of your very first comment in that thread; ‘Besides, Clause 10 in A1 S8 permits the FCPA.’ If anything, it certainly wasn’t you attempting to steer any conversation back on track. You spent most of your time attempting to hock your video. When you get right down to it, you were simply re-asserting your original claim after your evidence had been refuted. Is this the action of a rational person, or a rationalizing person?

“There is no ONE way to interpret the constitution. Any SANE person can tell you that. Your Litmus test failed in what you had intended to do because you went off on a TANGENT.”

Of all the items in the constitution, the meaning of the term ‘law of nations’ is not a point of contention. Its meaning was central to one of the clauses you cited as supporting your argument. If you couldn’t define law of nations, and therefore cannot properly define the clause you’ve just cited, how can you be said to have any argument? How is the proper interpretation of your evidence a tangent?

Even then, one may as well argue that you can interpret Origin of Species to be a recipe for biscuits by that standard. I think I’ve already explained this to you. The fact that you haven’t supported your personal interpretation of the constitution is simply one more nail in the coffin.

“No surprise there, that you would accuse me of the very thing the two of you are guilty of. First of all, YouTube character comments are severely limited. I do not like to use them. A forum such as USConstitution.net doesn’t have those kinds of limits. Verbosity is useful as it allows people to expound at great length within a single post. That I was terse in my responses is due to limited length. If you wish to claim I’m being intentionally dishonest, well, I can’t convince you otherwise… Nor would I bother, because frankly, you made your minds up long before I ever commented on the video. ANYONE who disagrees with you is a liar, after all.”

Both Shane and myself had no problem explaining what was meant by the law of nations in less than 500 characters. Even then, your response didn’t fail for lack of detail. It failed because it was incorrect and had nothing to do with the actual meaning.

If you really believe that, then why are you here? Shane and I disagree on the mechanics of fiat currency, yet I do not call him a liar, nor vice versa. VSPQD, Shane, and myself disagree on what is an ideal amount of government, yet we have never called each other liars. I have disagreed vehemently with friends and family on topics ranging from politics to the supernatural, yet I have never called them liars. The only time I use that label is if I can show that someone has been dishonest. I’ve already provided quotes to demonstrate this.

“No. I was being sincere in my convictions. I stand by them. If there is any dishonesty here, it is in you two goons accusing me of such without actually bothering to check if I am actually using a different interpretation. The two of you immediately jump to the same conclusion over and over again, and that is the LIAR! nonsense. You are alienating everyone who might otherwise have had an interesting debate with such open hostility, and if you want to turn that back on me, I’ll make it very simple for you.”

An interpretation that involves incorrect definitions? Why don’t you actually explain and support your interpretation rather than using it as a nebulous excuse for all of your mistakes? If I agree with most people that dog feces don’t taste very good, does that mean I’m somehow engaging in groupthink?

“Mr Killian was openly hostile toward me from the VERY FIRST POST he EVER made on ANY of my videos. I don’t forget unwarranted hostility like that, and I ALWAYS make sure it is returned measure-for-measure. If it seems like I’m being hostile to the dishonest piece of shit now, just know that, while you might not see it that way because the two of you are pals, he has been every bit as hostile toward me AND people who disagree with him, and it’s time he got a taste of his own medicine.”

I was there when he first commented on one of your videos. The video you made was condescending and hostile towards the person it was directed at, and the only apparent reason for said hostility was the fact that this person disagreed with you politically. You fired the first volley. If you want to talk about the discussion that started this, you started with the condescending remarks with ‘You can’t just cry “Constitution” when it comes to the law just because you don’t like something.’ When Shane pointed out that your argument was based on ignorance of how the constitution works, that’s when you started flying off the handle. In fact, that was about when you tried to argue that ‘reserved for the states’ didn’t mean restricted from the federal government.

Frankly, the only thing of substance you’ve contributed so far has been vitriol. Everything you’ve cited in support of your arguments has been countered without riposte, and you’ve cited no further evidence. In fact, you’ve re-cited evidence in what appears to be an attempt to stonewall without providing new reasoning or arguments. Then again, if your intent was to insult someone, then you’ve apparently done that just fine. If your intent was to prove a point, you’ve got a long way to go.

“So the two of you are what USConstitution.net refers to as Historical Literalists. Thank you for making my point for me. And once again, that is NOT the ONLY correct way to interpret the Constitution. If you don’t think so, then I don’t know what to tell you.”

That’s the genetic fallacy. Simply grouping your opponent in with a larger group doesn’t mean that their arguments have been refuted. If you have ready-made defenses, counters, and points to make, then make them. If you want to argue for an alternative interpretation, then do so. Don’t simply assert that there’s more than one correct interpretation. Frankly, it would be easier for you to just argue for your own interpretation than to argue that more than one interpretation is correct, as you would either then have to argue for two interpretations apart from the one you’re arguing against, or concede that yours and mine could be valid if yours could be shown to have veracity and you’d have to support it traditionally anyway. That is what you should be talking about, rather than this lame attempt at diversion.

“Are you seriously trying to tell me that because certain BOOKS are written with certain meanings that they had at the time, that the US Constitution, a DOCUMENT THAT IS MEANT TO GUIDE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THROUGHOUT ITS OWN HISTORY, must be treated as though it MUST be interpreted ONLY through the eyes and meanings of those who had written it? Great… So how do you deal with Multi-national corporations? And how do you deal with extra-planetary territorial disputes when they eventually arise? There’s nothing in the Constitution giving Congress enumerated powers to set laws governing the definition and punishment of piracy and felonies committed in SPACE. See the problem you Historical Literalists have? ”

First, establish how multi-national corporations would require changes to the constitution. The constitution still covers property rights and makes interstate/international trade regular. A corporation that conducts business in another country would be subject to the laws of either country for actions that take place in those countries, much the same way multi-state LLCs are governed by the individual state charters. Territorial disputes in space will be handled in the same way extra-national territorial disputes will be handled, and have been since the founding of the country. If there is an item for which the constitution requires expansion or change, then it can be changed either through amendment or treaty, the latter being the more likely route for items which involve extra-planetary disputes. Frankly, you’re reaching a bit if you have to leave Earth’s atmosphere to find a good criticism.

And secondly, that’s a straw-man. I said that words are written with the intended meaning they had at the time. The passage of time and the evolution of language doesn’t change the meaning that was intended at the time the constitution was authored. One cannot argue that language changes simply because it’s more convenient. If that were the case, then there would be no point to even having a written constitution.

“If I ask you to pass me a napkin, and you think I’m speaking of a diaper, should I condescend to you about how you can’t speak proper English?”

Really?! This is the best you can do?

“You refuse to debate any creationist who won’t answer the questions posted on your main page.”

Evolution is NOT open to interpretation. The US Constitution, BY ITS VERY NATURE, IS. End of discussion.

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”

Right, so…

“In what way does the ability to ‘make regular’ trade with foreign nations, among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes give the federal government the ability to cross jurisdictional barriers? ”

Again with this claim of crossing jurisdictional barriers. I’m not going to explain it to you since neither of you are ever going to watch the videos I’ve prepared on the subject, nor the subsequent one I’ve got planned, so the discussion on this subject is over. I’ll cover your remaining nonsense.

“If you had explained it correctly in the video, then you shouldn’t have had any problem explaining it in the comments section.”

Since you can’t be arsed, the discussion on this particular point is done. Moving on…

Mr Killian, you HORRIBLE LITTLE MAN. I was apologising to Virgil, being present at the time. YOU do NOT deserve a SINGLE THING FROM ME, and your continued hatred proves that.

“If you really believe that, then why are you here? Shane and I disagree on the mechanics of fiat currency, yet I do not call him a liar, nor vice versa.”

You and Mr Killian are pals, and you like to stroke each other’s egos. He wouldn’t call YOU a LIAR and claim your videos are BULLSHIT! Everyone outside of your little group however is fair game.

“And again, you still haven’t countered the fact that the senators in question are trying to prosecute a crime committed by British citizens working for a British company on British soil, or explained how this is not crossing jurisdictional barriers.”

Keep chanting this claim like a mantra. Since you never watched the video, you’ll never know.

“I guess your apology for misquoting earlier was a hollow one.”

As was your apology for insulting me.

Anyway… I’ll leave you to your delusions that I have been willingly dishonest and a homophobic bigot. I’m going to rejoin the sane world of the living.

“The difference between a book (and I’m assuming it’s not a book by which an entire country sets its own rules) and the US Constitution is that the Constitution is intended to grant rights to the Federal Government, to the States, and to the People. A book talking about chips and biscuits is not likely to ever be one on the subject of conferring powers to any continuing government centuries down the line when the entire political and economic landscape will have changed.”

Yes. The document is important. It may have to change at some point through the process of amendment or treaty. Now, why does this change the intended meaning of the words at the time of authorship and ratification?

“Except that’s not what happens in reality. In order to ensure the rights of the people and/or to ensure that the US Economy is not damaged in some fashion, the Constitution has had to be re-interpreted multiple times. I will be expanding on this in a video that neither of you will get to see (because of your policy on not watching them) in which two cases that hinged on people’s rights (or privileges, if you like) go against the US Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and it thus has to be interpreted one way or another to allow a ruling.”

Argument from common practice fallacy, argument from consequences fallacy. This has nothing to do with whether or not the meaning intended at the time of authorship/ratification is changed. Like I said, simply doing so out of convenience dispense with the entire point of having a constitution in the first place.

“Sorry, but NO. Since the US Justices in the Supreme Court are the principle decision makers whenever there is a dispute over Constitutional interpretation, this argument from Authority is NOT a fallacy. I suggest you think about it a little more before throwing knee-jerk reactions like this one.”

And I suggest you respond to the whole of my argument instead of picking and choosing which parts you want to reply to. It’s irritating.

You were referring to the authority of the US supreme court to support your claim. Not their arguments, not the evidence they supported, not specific rulings, but just their positions as USC justices. That is an argument from authority fallacy in every sense of the word.

“And I re-iterate my point. Mr Killian is NOT a US Supreme Court Judge. If he WERE, then I might put a little more stock in what he’s saying, but as it is, he is an individual off of the streets of North Carolina, and as such, is no better qualified than I am to discuss which interpretation of the Constitution is the correct one. This is why I sought advice… And this is why when he makes statements as though they were fact based on HIS own interpretation of the documents, REFUSING to see from anyone else’s point of view, and throwing around accusations such as YOU LIAR! every 5 minutes, I don’t put much stock in what he is saying.”

See what I mean? You’re evaluating arguments based on their positions. You will assume that one person is more correct than another because of who they are and not their arguments. Should I take medical advice from Christina Hendricks because she happens to be more attractive than my doctor? Should I take the advice of the biology teacher Ken Ham over some fat limey with a computer when it comes to the topic of evolution? Do you see how absurd that line of reasoning is, yet?

“This is not a classroom on Biology or Physics, where the evidence is abundantly clear. This is on the issue of INTERPRETING a document that does NOT seek to cover every eventuality and therefore, at one point or another, be INTERPRETED. My point remains. What makes you or he think that you are right, and anyone else who interprets the constitution differently, INCLUDING those Supreme Court justices whose JOB it is to do so (for which you accuse me of an Argument from Authority fallacy) are wrong? You have not presented a metric for determining what makes you right and the rest of the planet wrong.”

Amended, not interpreted. There’s a reason a mechanism for change was included.

Secondly, we have been debating individual points with you every time. The only way you would have a counter-argument would be if you could find anything that actually allowed for someone to re-interpret the meaning of a text written in a different dialect as the words changed. So far, the only argument you’ve come up with is that it would be inconvenient otherwise, which is the argument from consequences fallacy.

Finally, I have not directly argued that they were wrong. That’s a straw-man fallacy. I simply said that your attempt to use them as a support for your argument based solely on their positions as USC justices was fallacious. To argue interpretation, I’d have to look at each individual ruling and argue the points on individual merits. Their position as USC justices has no bearing on whether or not their view is more or less correct, nor does it change the argument’s merits.

“To you, maybe, but then you two are biased toward your own point of view, and you continue to engage in behaviours that reinforce each others’ egos in this fashion. The Constitution is a WRITTEN document that was DRAFTED by people at a time when multi-nationals, air transport, international commerce, United Nations, space travel and multi-government co-operation did not exist in the form that they do today, if they even existed at all back then. So again, I ask, what metric do the two of you use to claim that your INTERPRETATION of the Constitution is the right one and everyone else’s is wrong?”

That’s the reason the constitution was made to be altered through amendment and treaty. What basis do you have for arguing that the meaning of words can change over time? How can people consent to a document that changes meaning, often without any input in how it changes (assuming one were using the ‘living text’ interpretation)?

I’m not saying my interpretation is right and everyone else’s is wrong. I’m saying that the whole practice of ‘interpretation’ is irrelevant apart from what the meaning and effect of the constitution was at the time of ratification. This is because the only document for which this is apparently a valid interpretation is the constitution, as such an interpretation would never be valid for evaluating any other form of literature. The argument that the constitution is too important to keep it limited to the terms of the time isn’t a justification for a living text, but an argument from consequences fallacy. If that’s the only argument one has for interpreting the constitution other than what its meaning at ratification was, then the practice of interpretation is irrelevant.

By the way, as you seem to be implying this with your posts, this doesn’t mean that the constitution can’t or shouldn’t ever change. That’s what amendments and treaties are for. It’s the reason you can argue that the American constitution absolutely wasn’t founded on Christian values because that statement was in the treaty of Tripoli, which became part of the constitution upon ratification.

“You have never answered this, or any other question I have put to you, directly or honestly, preferring instead to play games with words and try to accuse me of the very thing that the two of you are doing.”

This has been answered several times. I count two in this comment, one of which was in the segment before this one. Did you skip over those answers?

“WRONG. And stop with the Kid nonsense. You want me to give you ANY respect, you give up that shit here and now.”

Reason like a child, and I shall treat you like a child. Why would I want the respect of someone who won’t research his assertions before he makes them?

“As for your ASSERTION that I concluded they were right, that’s completely unfounded. My whole point THIS WHOLE TIME, was that making a claim that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was unconstitutional is a bogus one, and I know I’ll never convince the two of you of this, but I can demonstrate it. I’ll be putting together a much lengthier video for other people to see what it is I’m talking about, but it’s not intended for the two of you, especially as I know such effort would be wasted.”

If such is the case, then why are you even here? Why are you picking and choosing which arguments you’ll reply to? Why can’t you just make your arguments? Why do you keep beating that dead horse? Are you afraid people won’t see things your way if you can’t keep up the accusations?

“My POINT remains that whatever the motivations of the Senators is, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act REQUIRES that ANY corporation that is headquartered in the USA adhere to strict practices governing what their employees OR any subsidiary company that they own is doing overseas. I won’t go into why this is within the bounds of the Constitution here, because I don’t want that asshole to start his LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE nonsense all over again (it frankly gets on my nerves and makes me want to pull my teeth out every time he wants to play 8 year old like that), but the explanation will be provided for open minded people to look at.”

So far, the only things you’ve cited in support of this have been the commerce clause and clause 10. The former relies on the ‘living text’ interpretation that changes the meaning of the word regulate from ‘make regular’, as it was used at the time, to ‘restrict/control’. The latter relies on reinterpreting ‘on the high seas’ to mean ‘overseas’. This is weaker than the former as ‘on the high seas’ has not changed its meaning from the time it was ratified, and the law of nations doesn’t cover the actions of foreign employees of a foreign company breaking foreign laws. If you have more support for this that you think rescues your argument then, by all means, present it. That is, if you want to provide it for open-minded people, unless you were to assert that only the people on your channel were open-minded.

“I’ve never hid my dislike for Faux News or for an empire that allows such a dishonest channel to exist… But that’s not my motivation, and for you to claim otherwise is more dishonesty.”

I said it was the most likely one given your behavior. I didn’t say it was for sure. You’ve straw-manned my argument again.

“I’ll say it again. If it turns out that they have not broken any laws in this matter, then fair enough, and I told you this in the YouTube comments. I even acknowledged in the video that neither of you will ever bother watching, that piercing the Corporate Veil twice might well be necessary, and that the British were looking into that, but you wouldn’t have seen that bit because neither of you have the stomach OR the open minds with which to actually go look at what your critics are saying, making excuses about how I don’t understand enough to warrant your time.”

Am I to assume that you will be taking those criteria for debating creationists off of your page and that you will now gleefully click on every video a creationist sends you?

Obviously, we don’t have any problem with debating you. Otherwise, we wouldn’t respond to your comments here. Don’t be insulted just because someone prefers a text medium, or assume that it’s out of cowardice or anything. Really, repeatedly asserting this just makes you look childish. Either debate the points or return to your own channel so your subscribers can stroke your ego.

“Which is precisely why I accuse Mr Killian of hypocrisy…”

Another quote-mine? Really?

Am I to assume this means you’ve dropped your accusation that Shane has made a baseless claim, or are you falling back on lame rhetoric?

“That does not constitute a witch hunt… Merely an issue of jurisdictional dispute. And again, as I’ve stated so many times I’m beginning to turn blue, there IS a way to demonstrate proper jurisdiction, but none of you are interested in that. You continue to claim otherwise. I’ll explain to the others though.”

The use of the FCPA is a jurisdictional dispute. Using the power of the federal government to pursue, very publicly, a third party for political reasons is a witch hunt. This was already explained to you, so I don’t understand how you missed it.

“This is an assertion, nothing more. Undoubtedly while there is POSSIBLE harm to News Corp, it doesn’t follow that this is going to make the Senators look tough on Business Corruption, NOR do you have any concrete or even a reasonable basis to assume is the case.”

Federal investigations don’t cost companies money? News to me.

I didn’t argue that it was the inevitable result, but instead the intent. Either it’s a show to appear tough on corporate corruption, or an attempt to go after a parent company for the unrelated actions of a subsidiary solely based on the fact that it’s the parent company. This is being called for without any evidence of a connection between the two. How is this not a witch hunt?

“Again this is your assertion. Launching an investigation into an accident doesn’t automatically imply fault of one of any number of parties, so why should launching an investigation into a multi-national whose subsidiary company was involved? It could also imply possible negligence. That’s not a connection to the crime, but it is still actionable under the FCPA.”

The investigation would be carried out by the insurance investigator. The police would investigate if there was evidence that the accident was related to the commission of a crime, but this requires probable cause. To initiate an investigation in a matter such as this, you need enough evidence to prove probable cause. That’s the primary difference.

Negligence in what way? It was a subsidiary company operated and staffed by British citizens operating in Britain. You still haven’t established how the FCPA would be able to cross jurisdictional boundaries.

“Another assertion. Even with all of the above, you have no basis to jump to this conclusion. And this is all you two have done, is jump to conclusions. This is what you accuse the senators of doing. This is another instance of hypocrisy, and that’s why I object”

Even if you were correct that this were an assertion, this does not somehow make the rest of your arguments valid. You have failed thus far to provide any reasonable proof of your points. The only one who jumped to a conclusion here was you. And get it right. I accused them primarily of showboating and attempting to manipulate the public. Is it really that rare to find a politician who engages in these activities on a regular basis?

“Is there something wrong with you? No, I’m serious, is there something wrong with you? First of all, you have repeatedly accused me of deleting comments. Now you do it again. The ONLY person guilty of deleting comments, aside from you when you were testing the comments system, was Mr Killian. I do NOT delete comments unless under VERY specific circumstances, and ALL of them relate to Doc Dropping, Sock accounts, Spam or Death Threats. Killian deleted the supposedly offending comment I made. I would have left it there for all to see. All of his venomous comments all over my video that you initially claimed I took down are still there for all to see, so they can see what kind of a person they’re dealing with.”

I accused you of being unwilling to step out of your safety zone, not of deleting comments. Again, what does this have to do with your inability to post supporting quotes if you apparently have them all documented?

“I find it hilarious that the two of you are so afraid to go watch my videos.”

If we were afraid to watch your video, we’d be afraid to debate you. By that token, I find it hilarious that you’re so afraid to provide your evidence here.

“Well I’ve got the screen capture, as well as access to the original page. It’s right there. Maybe you should have someone take a look at your internet connection.”

Better yet, why don’t you provide a hyperlink to the offending entries?

“Made a video. You’re too lazy to go look at it. Or you’re too scared. It has to be one of those things.”

Post a link. You’re too lazy to copy/paste, or you’re too scared. It has to be one of those things.

“Anyway the blog is www.shanekillian.blogspot.com and all you need to do is search for the word ‘blessed’ and the evidence is there. Thank you and end of discussion.”

Finally! Maybe we can get to the bottom of this.

Wait… There’s no evidence here that he meant it in a religious sense. The most you might say is that it came after a thank you for prayers and well-wishes, but that’s about it. From someone who was recovering from an injury and had just been to his wife’s funeral.

Is that all you have? Really? A thanks for prayers and well-wishes, and using the word blessed in a way that obviously means the secular definition? Come on. This CAN’T be your only evidence.

“As for that huge long paragraph you posted, splitting hairs on the definition of words… Let’s not be hypocrites again by engaging in that sort of nonsense when you demand precision level research and responses from your critics. The double standard makes me sick.”

All I pointed out was that blessed had a common, secular definition, along with copypasta from dictionary.com in support. I haven’t demanded precision level research from you. I don’t expect anything approaching that until you can properly define ‘reserved for’, ‘on the high seas’, and ‘law of nations’ properly.

“Then it’s just as well that I haven’t then, isn’t it? None of my family are religious, and none of my friends. So nice try.”

Nice try with what? It was an example of how your logic was absurd, not an accusation. Do you need me to explain the difference?

“Once again… NEVER TRY TO PULL ON MY HEART STRINGS. It does NOT change the facts.”

What facts? You’ve provided none, and I wasn’t using it as a counter to any point of data. Trying to paint it as such is little more than a blatant straw-man.

“The fact that he lost his wife in an act that should never have been allowed to happen does NOT change the FACT that he is a vile little pig who goes around accusing people of every sin under the sun, calling them names as he accuses others of doing, and behaves as though HE is ALWAYS right, and ANYONE who disagrees with him is not only WRONG, but STUPID, IDIOTIC, DISHONEST, and any other insult he can come up with off the top of his head. He is a vile little man who does NOT know how to apologise for ANYTHING and ALWAYS thinks the sun shines out of his arse. THAT DOES NOT CHANGE BECAUSE OF SOME UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES IN HIS LIFE.”

The fact that you’re incapable of properly debating a topic and got called an idiot when you attempted to do so doesn’t make the person using the insult a bad person. If it did, you’d find a far more vile individual staring back at you in the mirror.

Again, Shane and I disagree on the mechanics of fiat currency and the significance of bank reserves in the current inflation rate. This has not led to any anger or other problems between us. VSPQD, Shane, and myself disagree on ideal levels of government, but this hasn’t caused anything like what you’re describing. Frankly, I’m willing to bet there are quite a few creationists who would describe you in such a way.

And again, all I said was that it was a sensitive topic, and one hell of an accusation to make on such little evidence. Whatever you think he may be guilty of, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re a vile excuse for a human being if you think that deliberately trying to reopen old wounds like that is anything even remotely resembling acceptable behavior. See: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

“Now are you going to continue making excuses for the FACT that he behaves so shockingly to people who aren’t even being hostile to him in the first place? And before you pipe up, I’m not even referring to myself. I’m OPENLY hostile to this evil little cretin, because he has given me MANY good reasons to be over the comments section of TWO separate videos now, but there are others, some who have only asked for clarifications, who he has seen fit to personally attack and insult.”

Why don’t you quote them? And this time, make a better effort than your last one. That was just disappointing.

“THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE. Get your friend to change his attitude, and I MIGHT change mine in response. Otherwise, NO DEAL.”

Why don’t you try being the bigger person and apologize first. After all, the most you might accuse him of is having a hair trigger, especially without quotes to support your other accusations. You haven’t criticized that behavior when it’s displayed against creationists, and have displayed just as much vitriol toward that group yourself. After all, the most he called you was stupid and ignorant, usually after a refutation or pointing out that you got a definition/concept wrong. He didn’t try hitting some sore spot with you, like insulting your girlfriend. If you want to get pissed off at someone, get pissed off at me. I’m the one who tried to hit below the belt.

“No idea whatsoever until you mentioned it.”

You missed the line in the preceding paragraph that said “my wife’s funeral was yesterday”?

“Because I shouldn’t have to. You don’t see ME demanding that everyone who makes a video go ahead and reproduce the entire content of it on some comments section, so why should YOU get that privilege? Double standards again.”

It’s only a double-standard if it’s being applied by the same person. Secondly, I’m not asking you to reproduce the entire contents of your video. I’m asking you to support your arguments. Assuming you took the time to plan out and edit your video, you likely have your arguments in text form already. This would simply make it easier.

“And when are you going to stop with the childish comments? ”

Shot on shiteo is a slang term for a low-budget/low-quality movie that used to be distributed on very low-quality VHS tape. I didn’t come up with the vernacular, and my fatigued brain was having difficulty thinking of another term for a low-quality video that wasn’t a bit longer. Blame my lack of imagination or the childish geek subculture to which I belong.

“Really?! This is the best you can do?”

Is this all you can muster for a response?

“Evolution is NOT open to interpretation. The US Constitution, BY ITS VERY NATURE, IS. End of discussion.”

You have yet to establish how it is open to interpretation, why it is open to interpretation, and provide evidence. And again, you failed to define a basic term that ISN’T a point of contention when discussing interpretations of the constitution. You cannot fall back on that excuse as a reason for why you failed to define the basic terms. The debate over the constitution is no excuse for your incompetence.

“Again with this claim of crossing jurisdictional barriers. I’m not going to explain it to you since neither of you are ever going to watch the videos I’ve prepared on the subject, nor the subsequent one I’ve got planned, so the discussion on this subject is over. I’ll cover your remaining nonsense.”

Why? You apparently don’t have any problem discussing the other topics. Is this one not as well researched as your others?

“You and Mr Killian are pals, and you like to stroke each other’s egos. He wouldn’t call YOU a LIAR and claim your videos are BULLSHIT! Everyone outside of your little group however is fair game.”

And what about evensgrey? Ryudarragh? Any one of the many anarchists who comment on his videos claiming that minarchism is a contradictory stance on government? What about those who discussed the likelihood of Neanderthals having some interbreeding with early homo-sapiens on the ‘Is Evolution Scientific’? Video series? All have disagreed with Shane, and none of which led to insults. Obviously, your theory has some flaws.

“Keep chanting this claim like a mantra. Since you never watched the video, you’ll never know.”

And keep advertizing your video as if it makes up for your lack of argument.

“As was your apology for insulting me.”

I was genuinely contrite about what I did, and I will apologize again if necessary. You, on the other hand, repeated your misquote almost immediately after you apologized for making it.

I really am sorry for what I did. It was vile of me to do so, and I should have known better.

“Anyway… I’ll leave you to your delusions that I have been willingly dishonest and a homophobic bigot. I’m going to rejoin the sane world of the living.”

‘If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.’—Samuel Adams

Whaddya know. I posted a link to this discussion here, and was even considering jumping in on the debate on his videos. The second I began commenting, the guy blocked me.

And he has the nerve to accuse others of dishonesty by using quote-mining?