AS274: David Smalley of Dogma Debate and Andrew Torrez

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:29 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Atheistically Speaking. This is episode 274 and I am your host Thomas Smith. Okay, well, I want to do two things. A, I want to say as little as possible about the upcoming episode you're about to hear, because I don't want to color anyone's perceptions ahead of time, but I also need to... I need to say something, and I think it would be this. First off, I'm not, this isn't an episode I'm exactly proud to be an Atheistically Speaking episode. I will say that I, you know, it's going to be David Smalley, you've seen the title likely by now, I did, I was very critical of David two times actually in this show, and therefore I see it as an absolute obligation to give David equal time on here to defend himself.

0:01:20 Thomas: So there's no question about my including this as an episode. However, if you are someone who maybe doesn't care about, I don't know, atheist infighting or what I guess could be viewed as some sort of feud, even though I wouldn't characterize it as that. I would characterize it as I was critical of a public exchange of David Smalley with an expert, and I gave my criticism on it. And now I'm having David on to defend himself, to say what he wants to say to me and to Andrew. So So, posting it is absolutely a no-brainer for me. It needs to be done. It would be unfair to not give him his time, but I am conscious of the fact that people might view this as a boring kind of infighting among atheists.

0:02:10 Thomas: So, I will say if that's how you view it, feel free to skip this one. I am consciously not making it a two-parter, even though it's very long. I'm going to just make it one part. I don't want to draw it out any more than it needs to be However, I do need to note that this is full unedited audio. I did not want it to appear edited, unfair to David, anything like that. This is raw, uneditted audio. You will hear things that will suggest it was uneditated, but that is by design. I absolutely did not want to edit and open the opportunity for me to selectively edit or provide, you know, some sort of bias that way. So it is the full conversation, no edits. Bits. All right, so without trying to color it anymore ahead of time... Thank you I give you my conversation with David Smalley of Dogma Debate and Andrew Torrez of Opening Arguments. Here you go.

0:03:18 Thomas: Joining me right now, first off, is from the hit new podcast, Opening Arguments, Andrew Torrez. How are you doing, Andrew? [0:03:25] Hey, Thomas, I'm great. How are you?

0:03:27 Thomas: Rolling in that podcast dough from [0:03:29] Oh, the [0:03:30] yeah Hello, new launch. And then also, I wish you were under different circumstances, but joining me for the first time, David Smalley. You all know him. How you doing David?

[0:03:38] how are you are Doing well. Happy to talk to you. I am happy [0:03:42] you sure about that? To talk. I've almost approached you to come on the show many times, but the first time I tried to talk to you, I don't think you responded and then that, then I thought, "Okay, he [0:03:54] Wait, doesn't want [0:03:54] wait, to [0:03:55] what come on" [0:03:55] do you mean? The first time you tried to talk to Yeah.

[0:03:57] me, I didn't respond Listen, Oh, it's okay, I, I'm not trying to [0:03:59] listen, uh, I [0:04:00] listen sent [0:04:00] The you a Facebook message, uh, it was pro, could have been four years ago, so I wouldn't even worry about it.

[0:04:06] way you worded it was No. [0:04:08] you tried What No, I'm, I'm not at all blaming you, you're a [0:04:10] I'm busy guy, you're popular guy. [0:04:11] saying is you said I tried to Talk to you and you didn't Respond. It sounded like we were Yeah.

[0:04:14] at a conference or something and you just walked off and didn't No. [0:04:18] say it yet. I No. [0:04:19] don't know No. [0:04:19] if you've been like an email or a It's [0:04:20] message or something.

0:04:21 Thomas: Just a message that you probably, I, I, but anyway, where after I did that I didn't want a buggy anymore, so that's, that's kind of why I haven't approached you to come on the show, but I have, there've been a number of times when I've thought, "Ooh, I should have Smalley on to talk about something" and then never followed through. So, so thus the first time you're on, it's under not the greatest circumstances, but uh, I'll let you go ahead and start [0:04:41] No, us off. You, you, [0:04:42] for you [0:04:42] anybody know?

[0:04:43] out there that's interested in that, I love doing other podcasts. I mean, I really do. I love sitting and talking with people, you know, having interviews about, you know, how I started the podcast, even the stuff that I do, the equipment I use, how I travel with everything all over the country. I've done over 50 live broadcasts. I love talking to other podcasters. So I don't ever want anyone to think I don'T want to do the shows. I do have to, you KNOW, carve out specific times to do it because my schedule is so Yeah. [0:05:09] crazy. You know, no one should ever worry about asking me to be on the show. I'd love to do it.

0:05:12 Thomas: Yeah. I understand that. That's cool to say. Okay. Well, do you want to start us out? I [0:05:17] Yeah. Yeah, I do. Because I didn't I hadn't heard of the show of your show yet. And, you know, every time I do anything where I take a stance on something, someone, you know, obviously, I people disagree. And that's good. And I don't mind. And people point out when I'm wrong. And and that's fine. I am constantly shown where, hey, you made a mistake here. And I go, oh, okay, well, I'll look into that for next time.

And sometimes I go update whatever I've put out to say that was actually wrong. That happens to me all the time. When I live with a microphone in front of my face and the vast majority of my radio shows are live radio, meaning I'm not recording a podcast and editing for later. It just goes out and it's done. And then I [0:06:02] deal with the backlash through the next 150 emails that come in over the next six days and certainly [0:06:07] so and so yeah can relate. I understand. Yeah, definitely.

[0:06:10] So I'm I'm I'm not, I mean, and and I sit across from people and I have for the last four years now who constantly tell me I'm wrong, who tell me I'm immoral, who tell me I have no basis for even knowing anything.

And and I don't, it doesn't bother me to be to be told I'm wrong, um, and so that's why why I think your your podcast really really got to me, because, um, the first time I heard of you was, so we have a membership thing, right, and, um, it's where registered fourth listeners sign up behind the scenes and get extra content and, um, anytime someone cancels we have a group of people, we have contractors and staff members who reach out to those people, go, hey, you, you know, was this an accident?

Did your card expire? Or did David say something stupid? And [0:06:59] usually they respond with, oh, I'm sorry. It was, you know. My card expired or whatever. And then they reactivate. Now, this is literally my livelihood. It's all I do. And that's how I pay my mortgage and continue to feed my children. And so we got a cancellation. And one of our folks reached out and said, uh, you know, same same standard message, uh, what's going on here, and the response was, um, I canceled because, uh, David Smalley was a complete asshole to a really nice guy on Facebook and I'm not going to continue to support this. And so the person responded and said, oh my gosh, there must be a misunderstanding, what what happened, and the guy replied and said, well, well, I never saw the post myself.

[0:07:46] I just heard this other podcast where a guy was talking about David and it sounds like David was an asshole. So I'm canceling my membership. And shortly after that, we got another one of those where someone canceled and refused to be a part of it. So we reached out to that person and said, did you read the post? Did you see what happened? And they were like, no, I never saw it. But this guy named Thomas talked all about it.

And it sounds like David was really out of line and really horrible, and so that's when I had to take notice of what you did, what you were doing, of what you were saying.

And so I asked someone to send me a clip of what was going on, so they sent me the first couple of clips, and then I was like, okay, I've got to go back and listen to this show, like, I people do stuff a lot, they'll write stuff about me or do a show about me and say I'm [0:08:32] an idiot if I disagree with them on one thing. I'm an idiot, right. I'm completely stupid. I'm sure you get that too. I

0:08:37 Thomas: Yeah, sure. [0:08:38] mean And I, I don't, I, I don't think I said you were an [0:08:40] let idiot. Did I? Did I ever say, [0:08:41] me get I [0:08:41] no mean, [0:08:42] let yeah [0:08:42] me me get there but sure [0:08:43] they'll so [0:08:43] Make it they'll make a judgment about my entire character, or they'll laugh at me, they'll make fun of me. And to some level, I mean, I'm a public personality, I know people can have their opinions, whatever.

But when, when those opinions are reaching out to, I'm sure you have a few thousand listeners as well, and then that starts, they start taking your interpretation of the events, and then they start canceling their support for me based on things you said without them actually looking into the reality of what happened. Now you're having a negative effect, not just on me as a person, but on my ability to support my family, on my show, on my business. So now you've, you know, you [0:09:23] I don't [0:09:23] do you don't see that [0:09:24] it. You have any part in that, you think that's just me [0:09:26] No, no, miss [0:09:27] no. Let okay [0:09:27] me get there.

Okay [0:09:28] Let's sure [0:09:28] get there because sure [0:09:29] I do have some fault in this. Absolutely. But the problem is the way you went about it, Thomas, was and you admitted this on the show, that it was completely one-sided, that you were biased, that you're friends with Andrew. But the way you told the story was so slanted and made me seem so horrible that it Was completely unfair to me. A couple of things, and I'll just start off. I have some of these clips and I want to go through them.

0:09:57 Thomas: Uh [0:09:58] And, you know, have either one of you heard or both of you heard my episode number 259, the shortest show I've ever done, where I'm I'm basically just talking about being respectful over social media. Yeah, that's uh, well, it's unfortunate that you don't know this, but I did a follow-up episode on that, so like [0:10:15] Oh, okay. That, that one, that one was likely even worse than whatever you're about to play me, so [0:10:19] Oh, just [0:10:19] God. Fair fair [0:10:20] Okay. Warning [0:10:20] So and I'll come right and understand, yeah, I I fully admit I did, uh, laugh a bit [0:10:27] I about the exchange, I made, I made, made fun of you, I accept, I fully understand, yeah [0:10:31] usually refrain from assuming, but I'm assuming you listened to my show and yeah [0:10:36] then made fun of me again going, oh, yeah, David Smalley saying be nice when he was horrible to my friend on Facebook.

0:10:41 Thomas: I mean exactly [0:10:41] Of and [0:10:42] course. No, I had [0:10:43] and I had listeners ask me to do a commentary on your show, I listened to it, I also listened to the PZ debate, and I did a [0:10:50] I'd commentary on both, and what I said was, I think your message was great and I don't think you lived up to it, that's all I said in [0:10:57] like to cut in for a minute because Thomas is, this is Andrew. I mean, Thomas is incredibly – I think he is trying to give you the maximum benefit of the doubt here and I think he's being exceptionally respectful.

I wouldn't characterize either of his episodes as particularly mocking or – and I'm I'm interested, David, you said that I think you have some disagreements or parts where you think he's been unfair to you. I know we're going to get into that on a factual basis. But I just would – I would slightly disagree with his own characterization as reacting to the show and laughing about it because I don't think it was undertaken in a mean-spirited way. [0:11:45] As Thomas said, right, he was asked by listeners to comment on your episode 259 and he

0:11:52 Thomas: The blog [0:11:52] – post [0:11:53] yeah. But yeah sure [0:11:54] And he commented on that, and I think that, you know, I think he's sort of bending over backwards to describe that. Well, wait, wait. What does of course you do mean? I mean, come on. Because, I mean both of you, you guys are already friends, right? And the way Thomas read, the way Tomas even went about reading our Facebook post was just ridiculous. Okay. So, go [0:12:20] no, ahead yeah [0:12:20] no. Wait, wait wait. I'd like to respond to that first one first. The stuff that you said to me first on Facebook was so—look, Andrew, let me just tell you this. If you would have either sent me a message or posted publicly right off the bat, hey, David, I'm an attorney, and I think your legal analysis is a bit off here. Step one, this is the case. Step two, this isthe case. I would have been like, wow, you know, he's right about that.

I think I'm wrong on a couple of my points. That doesn't completely change my opinion of the whole Christian mingle thing. But yeah, I think some of the legal analysis I got wrong there. I would have been able to say that easily. That's not what you said. You came at me very condescending.

[0:13:08] You were insulting to me and had such a shitty attitude through Facebook that that made me angry. And my response was, my first response was just, hey, you know, I didn't immediately jump on jump on you. I just said, look, let me just play my audio. Let me go through my thing. OK, so so I have some clips. I want to hear the audio.

But I mean, you've changed the subject a little bit from the first criticism that you had was the way in which Thomas presented you as being one sided. And then when I started to ask about that, you began to talk about the substance of our exchange. So I think you have a fair point. So, so I get that. I want to talk about the second issue, the substance of our exchange, because I think some of the things you're saying are fair.

And some of them are, in fact, things that Thomas has said. [0:13:59] But I want would point out, uh, we had our exchange on Facebook on July 2nd, um, and then three weeks later, uh, you contacted me over Facebook, you sent me a message that said, hey, do you have a copy of our exchange, which I dug up and I sent to you. You did not, you did nothing. Absolutely, I can screenshot it, Andrew, you sent you a link to, Andrew, please let me finish, you sent sent me a link, but it was to Eli Bosnick's comment of what happened. You

0:14:33 Thomas: That's [0:14:34] did not on [0:14:34] send the [0:14:34] me no it was that's [0:14:35] – That's where the discussion where it [0:14:37] took happened [0:14:37] place, yeah [0:14:37] David. Well [0:14:38] I went to his page. I clicked all over. I could not find our that's [0:14:41] exchange. Where it was, it's in a comment below [0:14:43] Yeah.

0:14:43 Thomas: Eli's, uh, it, all this took place on Eli's post, so [0:14:47] I didn't he [0:14:48] even probably [0:14:48] – sent [0:14:48] You you a link to that [0:14:49] didn't yeah [0:14:49] send me a follow-up. I would have gladly – if you just said, hey, I can't find it, I would have gladly dug well [0:14:54] in. But you sent me that, and then you sent мне a link to your blog, like you wanted to get back into the arguments of the legal stuff. No, no, no. I was giving – well, I apologize if that's how you interpreted it. My understanding, and I'm saying this because, again, I think it directly responds to your first point. At this point, andI will screenshot my Facebook page here, what I was trying to do was you reached out.

You said, hey, do you have a link to our conversation on Facebook? It seems to have disappeared, to which I replied, I'll look. Let me know if you want to chat about it. I'm not such a bad guy, to what you then said. I wanted to read back through it before I reached out, but I can't find it.

So then I sent you the link, and then I sent you, again, as a courtesy because I had written a follow-up blog post about it, a link to my blog post, and that was five or six weeks ago, and I hadn't heard back from you on it.

[0:15:44] So from my perspective, and I think this is Thomas' perspective as well, I feel like we reached out to you. I offered on several times to be on the show, or to have you

0:15:59 Thomas: And [0:15:59] our and I should [0:16:00] show note at [0:16:00] yeah the end of the exchange, Eli, uh, was was telling you [0:16:04] at and, uh, and, uh, sorry, what's her name, um, Alicia, or Alicia, Alicia, do you [0:16:10] least know Alicia [0:16:11] Yeah, so Uh, he was, he was talking to her and telling both of you, like, oh, you should have them on the show, you should whatever, you never responded there, so I mean, and you didn't respond [0:16:20] Can't to Andrew [0:16:20] you so [0:16:21] can't what [0:16:21] take me not responding as no, no, no, I don't always, I don't even always see it, I mean, I get, I don't take that, David, I don't take that in any way, uh, as any sort of a negative, but but as a factual matter, right, this conversation took place two months ago, I feel like we reached out to you, uh, and said hey, you know, to the extent that you know [0:16:43] talk about it, do the kinds of things that you talked about in your episode.

We made those efforts. And if there was a miscommunication or whatever, you didn't understand the link I sent, that's fine. But we really did reach out in good faith. See, you're doing it again. Now you're saying, I apologize that you took it wrong, and if you didn't understanding my link, you are doing it again? Well,

0:17:04 Thomas: Do you [0:17:04] that what [0:17:04] is do [0:17:04] what You [0:17:04] you think [0:17:04] just he [0:17:04] said. Sent you [0:17:05] You a link [0:17:05] just to [0:17:05] said nothing [0:17:06] you like yeah [0:17:07] misunderstood my link. I am not trying so [0:17:09] to mischaracterize it. I clicked the link. It went to Eli's post. I scrolled around. I didn't see anything from me on there. I only saw one comment from you, and I didn's see our communication back and forth. And you didn't send me a follow-up yeah [0:17:22] one. I why [0:17:23] mean, didn't [0:17:23] I just you say hey Andrew [0:17:24] don't this [0:17:24] understand.

Is the wrong link [0:17:25] And wait [0:17:25] the issue is you're saying you reached out to me to try to resolve this in some way, when in fact I'm the first person that sent you a message, Andrew, after I heard the podcast you and Thomas did about me. I didn' do that, by the way. Well, you, well you did it what [0:17:41] and well [0:17:41] then I heard you went on his show afterwards and I heard a little bit of that, I don't have any of those clips, I don't think, I don't hold [0:17:47] correct on, also, Andrew, you commented on David's original, um, Patheos post, didn't you?

Yeah [0:17:52] right I mean, so I mean, he commented there, it was more, uh, it [0:17:57] yeah was, hey, I'm a lawyer, I'm, you could pull it up if you want, but this [0:18:00] I never even saw that, I heard that that happened and I didn't even see it, it happened so fast, so many notifications come through, I don't, don't, don't ever take me not responding as me, uh, avoiding someone or not wanting to talk, most of the time my own wife will come to me and be like, hey, did you see that post I made about, I'm like, nope, I didn't see any of it. My schedule is completely slammed.

Either I'm doing publishing or recording audio books or doing shows. I just, I don't have time to be on Facebook nearly as much as I'd like to. I get that. I'm a busy guy, too. My point is not, I certainly didn't draw any adverse inferences from the fact that you didn't respond or weren't around. I just want, I think it's important as you're sort of going through, and the first point you make is this was done in a one-sided way.

[0:18:50] And I would say the necessity of Thomas having to do it in a one-sided way was occasioned by the fact that, and I'll say it neutrally, that we were unable to schedule having you come on any of the shows or having us come on your show. Is that fair? No. I didn't make that your point. I said we were able to do that. To do it. I mean, I can't get any more neutral than that. Absolutely not fair because I was not, Thomas did not ask me to come on his show.

0:19:17 Thomas: Point, I had no involvement on this point, it was just you and him on Facebook and he had talked to [0:19:22] Okay, you and and [0:19:23] so here's you guys [0:19:24] the had [0:19:24] thing. Messaged [0:19:24] And and [0:19:25] so here's yeah [0:19:25] a lot of people. I'm not, I'm not saying you did this. Let me be very clear. I am not saying I'm accusing you of having this intention. I want to be clear about that. So I have a rule. People will intentionally start fights with me or insult me or be condescending to get me to respond to something.

Then we end up in a Facebook spat and then they go, let me come on your show and settle this, because then they I understand [0:19:47] audience that's [0:19:48] by it, yeah, I [0:19:48] you know, twenty five, thirty thousand listeners in get [0:19:51] that week to it, this [0:19:52] and so I, I don't, I intentionally don't do this stuff on my show. I'm not going to let people go, hey, well, you know what? If you've got a small podcast you'd like to launch and and have, you know, double your listeners overnight, just

0:20:03 Thomas: Is [0:20:03] start. All, that's all great, except the fact of the exchange was you were totally wrong and you said fuck you to an expert, so this is not a battle that I brought to [0:20:12] And you, that [0:20:12] that's another problem is that you threw out your show, made it sound like I said, fuck you to an expert because I was wrong and didn't want to admit it. Well, yeah [0:20:23] And when that's [0:20:23] the fact what it [0:20:24] remains looks like [0:20:24] that but [0:20:24] just that's not what happened. Episode 259 was supposed to be the basic understanding that the way you approach someone on social media means all the difference in the world. If you come at someone in a condescending, shitty tone insulting them, you can't really expect to have a productive conversation.

But that's what happened. Andrew came at me in a way that was really – let's [0:20:50] I'll read how Andrew came at you, if you, since we were talking [0:20:52] play about it [0:20:53] the let's read it, okay [0:20:54] clip. Clip, so this sure [0:20:55] is either [0:20:55] so way, yeah [0:20:55] here's, here's the first clip that I have from the show, there's not anything from the Facebook page, this is just what you said of why you couldn't let this go. You know, the David Smalley article was going to be one small thing on the agenda, but now, I don't know, seeing my friend being called names, uh, really, I, I'm going to have to call Smalley out on this. Okay, please tell me a, a name that I called Andrew. Yeah [0:21:22] I think you're taking that a little literally

0:21:23 Thomas: That's kind of literal, you said your arrogance is unprecedented, you said fuck you, being an attorney doesn't make you right a hundred percent of the time, you clearly have no idea what I do for a living, to call me an amateur, so, like, okay, so you're gonna try [0:21:37] did to skate off [0:21:37] I try on the literal, didn't call names [0:21:39] to oh [0:21:39] skate, I have several things I want to play for you, I'm saying that you stacked fallacy upon fallacy upon fallancy and wow, okay [0:21:45] skewed you [0:21:45] this over to one side, making me sound like I was ridiculous, number one, did I call Andrew a name, the said [0:21:52] no you're arrogant [0:21:52] that's is unprecedented, unprecedented, fuck you [0:21:54] not, that's you're not, yeah, that's [0:21:56] nothing, I think most people would, would interpret your arrogance as unprecedented and fuck you as name calling.

If you want to register that that's that's [0:22:04] not name calling, the yeah, yeah [0:22:05] record shall so reflect that. I want to be very, very clear here. One of the things that Thomas did was link to the actual transcript, I did, and [0:22:16] and there's a PDF. So in other words, nobody has to take anyone's word for what was

0:22:26 Thomas: I checked [0:22:26] said. That's and it's a public post [0:22:27] yeah it's still publicly [0:22:28] send visible, and everything, that's [0:22:29] me a link, I, I honestly, I fine [0:22:31] still no [0:22:31] don't, I can't, if you can only link me to Eli's, I'm telling you I've been there, I didn't see it, I'm it's [0:22:35] up, that's there, it's, yeah, it's, but it's I [0:22:37] and again can send [0:22:38] you you a [0:22:38] know PDF [0:22:38] okay did, so I can sent it to you [0:22:40] that's fine, so, so, um, and once people have already heard your spin on it, when they've already heard you minimize the things Andrew said to me, because I'm about to okay [0:22:48] play that, you out [0:22:49] you read what he says and it's very nonchalant, okay, maybe he was a bit snarky, and then you move on, that was the, that was it for me, the way he came at me was completely out of line, was so disrespectful, he of at one [0:23:02] he did not, he did not start off saying, look, I'm an attorney and here's some stuff that you got wrong, it was just a shitty response to me, but you, because you know Andrew and you don't think he's a, he's he's a jerk, you're like, he's nice guy, okay, okay

0:23:16 Thomas: Point, I admitted it was direct, but I mean this [0:23:19] no is, again, this is like a climate change denier saying, hey, climate scientists, you need to come at me in a certain tone otherwise I'm going to be pissed and say a fuck you expert, like, it [0:23:28] and so let me, so I is [0:23:31] think that go [0:23:33] the important, important thing, the important thing to remember here is this, this, I'm sorry, you guys both just keep laughing, it's like you both think this is a game, I'm, I'm trying to explain to you and you won't even let me get through my argument, you won't let me play the clips and tell you what you ahead [0:23:51] guys go [0:23:51] listen and play [0:23:52] listen the clips, yeah [0:23:52] I'm not gonna have, I'm not gonna have a gift gala here where you want to pick apart the word name calling and it's [0:23:59] then pile seven ridiculous [0:23:59] things that's [0:24:00] on top why [0:24:00] top I [0:24:00] of was [0:24:01] it laughing [0:24:01] yeah that's [0:24:01] we're ridiculous [0:24:02] stopping we [0:24:02] like I'm I'm gonna stop every time you make a claim and we're going to address the claim right so your first claim on the substance of the interaction was made right yeah

0:24:13 Thomas: Gotta [0:24:13] I be careful uh when for some reason uh you're not coming through on Skype when Andrew is talking which puts you at a disadvantage so I will do my best to even that out um so David what were you trying to say okay [0:24:24] just want to get through some of these clips okay fine so so we'll let it be said that we think it's that you would say that you weren't name calling Andrew I mean [0:24:33] especially it's it's [0:24:33] and a minor distinction but [0:24:34] if sure [0:24:35] what oh [0:24:35] I did okay sure and if what I did was considered name calling then what Andrew's original post then should be considered no [0:24:41] I've no well let's read it are you going to play it next go ahead [0:24:44] got some things I'd like to get get through okay [0:24:46] here um here's okay [0:24:48] here here's you talking about me saying and I've got them in order so I guess it makes oh [0:24:52] sense to play it this way.

The overall story is Christian Mingle agreed to a settlement in which it's going to provide dating services to gay members, and that's the key word, it's a settlement. This is not, I don't, this is something that David missed in his article, completely false. I use the word settlement just a few lines into my first blog post ever about. And that was another thing that was so frustrating. You told your listeners, I missed the fact that it was a settlement. Here's

0:25:23 Thomas: You [0:25:24] the missed what [0:25:24] actual that meant [0:25:25] mistake you [0:25:26] I made. I overstated the judge's role in approving it. I assumed that's where I made my mistake. I overstated the judges authority in it, right? But I did not miss that it wasn't a settlement, right. I referred to it as a settlement right off the bat, but you and Andrew both repeatedly said that I refused to recognize it was a settlement, which is, again, another false statement. I didn't call him names, and I didn't miss the fact that it was settlement.

Okay, so now we're talking about your actual blog post, which, by the way, where this began, this is the Dogma Debate page on Patheos. It is a post dated July 2, so the same day as the exchange. And it's how I got drawn into this discussion, because you made a controversial blog post.

[0:26:15] Is it fair? Do you agree with that adjective? Absolutely. Okay. I don't want to continue to offend you. It says, Pro-Gay Atheist Sides with Christian Mingle. So I went and read the blog post, and then there was a Facebook post from Eli Bosnick. That was actually how I Got There. It was linked off of Eli's Facebook page. That blog post – so I appreciate that you have now said that you've misunderstood the judge's role in approving the settlement, which I think is correct. It was one of the main points. Right. But I would say as you look into the blog post, your sentence, you've got a couple introductory paragraphs.

[0:27:01] And when you begin your argument, you begin your argument with the sentence, the first problem is the judge's interpretation of UNRWA. And whenever I have said you don't understand that it's a settlement, what I'm saying there is not you didn't use the word

0:27:17 Thomas: Didn't [0:27:17] settlement. Literally use the word settlement [0:27:18] So yeah well [0:27:18] the point is that in a settlement in a class action settlement like this, the only reason that there is any judge approval has to do with fairness to the the absent class members. And so there was no judge interpretation of UNRWA. Uh, and one of the things that I have done is linked, uh, the actual settlement, which is a, you know, a two page document. It's actually signed by a different judge than the judge that was presiding in the case. Um, to me, okay.

And I think again, again, this is one of the things I said in, in our Facebook discussion to, to any lawyer, regardless left, right center, regardless of, uh. Their personal opinions of the issue, I think it would be fair to say that they would characterize looking at that settlement and saying the judge substantively interpreted the California Equal Protection Statute, which is what you mean by UNRWA, that that would be misunderstanding the nature of a settlement.

[0:28:16] Now, again, I'm not saying you didn't use the word. That's what I said. And I said that, I think, with a fair amount of context around it, right?

0:28:25 Thomas: He's going based on me saying I guess that based on my saying you missed it was a settlement [0:28:29] But and that is [0:28:29] it's... what I meant you missed [0:28:30] And the [0:28:31] it you [0:28:31] was clear. Might have used the word but the the whole point of your premise that the judge interpreted it and not only that so that's one point but the other point that it provides some sort of precedent those are both not true of settlements and [0:28:42] I those [0:28:43] know, that's [0:28:43] I a [0:28:43] know. Key point that you miss so it's I mean you can pick apart little words that I might have used that you don't like [0:28:48] Little but I I mean [0:28:49] words, it's really that [0:28:51] little words. And that's funny that you call it that. Because again, these are little things that stack.

You're not even technically right about like you're trying to carve out some little technicality but I mean I don't even I don't even know we can leave it to [0:29:04] Both the listeners but [0:29:04] of we [0:29:06] you have continued to completely conflate me being wrong about legal issues with me not appreciating Thomas's, I mean, disrespectful approach to me on social media because really [0:29:20] yeah need to cover the first if you're going to keep making that claim we need to read the first statement otherwise it's pointless to keep making that claim okay [0:29:27] I'm getting there and well let's get there because it [0:29:29] and uh [0:29:30] this is and this ist what I'm saying I I so you I'm guessing you talked to Andrew before you did the show the but the first one uh yeah [0:29:41] very shit

0:29:41 Thomas: We we [0:29:41] yeah uh I think I think I how did that go I actually don't remember Andrew do you remember yeah [0:29:47] I I think you said and and I should I should point out I mean Thomas and I are now doing a podcast together and have this was [0:29:55] right before all that though [0:29:56] this right [0:29:56] is and [0:29:56] this is two months later right at this this time I had no intention of doing a podcast and I appreciated Thomas's characterization of me as a friend. At that point, I had been on Atheistically Speaking probably I think two or three times as guest appearances.

And I liked Thomas because he's an incredibly nice guy. And I appreciated his characterization of me as a friend, but we were not um sort of talking on a regular basis really [0:30:26] and yeah we had we'd [0:30:26] we're only emailed a couple times [0:30:28] much yeah [0:30:28] we're much closer friends now um yeah [0:30:30] okay well here's here's what you said on the show about how you determined your opinion so I'm just gonna have to go ahead and give credit to pretty much everything I'm gonna say to Andrew Torrez uh he deserves all the credit because reading his posts really helped the overall okay

0:30:45 Thomas: His post he made a blog post about it and he made and all the posts in the Facebook exchange yeah [0:30:50] okay well it just it just keeps on going from there listen to this we need to put this in context which admittedly perhaps David Smalley didn't have. I'm not sure if he knows Andrew or to what extent he clicked. All he'd have to do is click on the name Andrew Torrez. He would see the profile that he's a lawyer. That would be pretty easy. But for this, this is something that Andrew is an expert on.

And this is David, who has just completely bungled basically all the relevant information and has made a total mockery of the the law so okay a total mockery of the law you're laughing at me and on top of that you're right about one thing in there you're right that I did not know Andrew was an attorney so once again back to my episode 259 if Andrew would have posted I'm an attorney here's what you said legally here's where I think you've made a mistake legally I would have immediately said oh you're you're right about that.

[0:31:48] I didn't know. Let me go address my, let me go adjust my post or let me do a follow-up saying, I still disagree with the overall, but I got some of the legal stuff wrong about it. I have corrected my mistakes publicly hundreds of times. And to hear you, and

0:32:04 Thomas: But [0:32:04] to hear you go out, to hear, you go on a podcast, say that I called your friend names, say that I missed that was a, that, that I miss that it was a settlement to you did [0:32:14] laugh, you [0:32:15] to laugh. [0:32:17] No, I that I've made a total and complete mockery of the law and then told an expert fuck you is all a complete misrepresentation of what literally [0:32:25] happened right said amateur fuck you being an attorney doesn't make you right 100% of the time so at that point [0:32:31] okay you knew he was an attorney and [0:32:33] but you said [0:32:33] I understand fuck you Mr. Attorney who's telling me I'm wrong yeah [0:32:36] that but you understand that that was a separate issue what my my argument to him that he's not right 100% of the time is when he said something along the lines of you ask all these attorneys they'll all agree that's it [0:32:48] not true it's is [0:32:49] that true when [0:32:50] a you're [0:32:50] settlement talking about [0:32:51] has whether [0:32:51] no a [0:32:51] precedential settlement yes [0:32:52] value yes a that's [0:32:53] hundred

0:32:53 Thomas: True [0:32:53] percent hold [0:32:53] of attorneys would agree with that. I mean, I'm sorry, I don't know any other way to say this, right? And I have to tell you, I really am. I wish you could see, I wish we could do this in person. I wish, you know, we could pass around a couple of beers because hearing what I perceive to be, again, I am trying not to be unfair to you, what I perceived to be hostility and the, the, you know, sort of overanalyzing, uh, the, the again, strike overanlyzing. I'm not trying to characterize you. You on [0:33:28] seem, let [0:33:29] you me [0:33:29] seem say [0:33:29] really, this [0:33:29] you seemed I [0:33:30] really, let [0:33:30] really mad.

Oh, sure. Me say [0:33:31] Go ahead. That I do David I do understand and I fully take responsibility for I did laugh at your expense because I thought this exchange was ridiculous. I read the entire thing. You can argue that I put a spin on it by reading it, and that's fine. Maybe the way I read it will be a certain way, but I mean, it's my show. I readit the way I did, and I provided the evidence. Yes, I laughed at your expence in this situation, and I understand why that would breed hostility. That's not, that's totally reasonable. I get it.

[0:34:01] Well, you said in your show, and I'm going to play the clip in a minute if we need to, you said that I, I said, fuck you to Andrew because I was mad that I was wrong.

0:34:11 Thomas: That [0:34:12] And is [0:34:12] once, my [0:34:12] and, Analysis. That is my [0:34:13] and That is [0:34:14] that My for [0:34:14] It's a complete misrepresentation of it. So Andrew, let me just ask you directly before I get into your reply, before all of this, let me just ask you why didn't you just say right off the right off the cuff, I'm an attorney, here's some legal facts. By the way, and I think you were a fan of the show, right? You were signed up to be a member, right? So you knew my character already, you know, you, you know me. I've never heard of you, I don't know your personality. The own, my first impression of you is your first response to me on Facebook, my fuck's sake, can we just read that already? We're going to talk about it nonstop, we got to read the first response, otherwise people [0:34:50] question don't [0:34:50] to Yeah.

[0:34:51] you is why didn't you you just say, I'm an attorney. Here are a couple of things I think you got wrong. Sure. I can tell you two things with respect to that. So first, let's go back to your post on Dogman debate. And I want to read the introductory paragraph. It says, as an atheist activist, I am not necessarily against Christianity, but rather I am against injustice.

For example, in a few days I am headed down to Williamstown, Kentucky to protest against a Christian organization, but not because they are Christian. Ken Ham and his Ark Encounter are taking $18 million in tax breaks for a ministry tool disguised as a tourist attraction while simultaneously discriminating against those taxpayers by only hiring Christians. That's an injustice I'm fighting against next week. Okay, so we're all on the same page, all totally in injustice.

[0:35:36] Yeah, right. Go ahead. Now, you continue. But I wonder how many atheists will fight with me when Christians are on the suffering end of that injustice? Only the comments below will tell. And then

0:35:48 Thomas: It [0:35:49] you get into your blog, which again, I think I characterized as provocative with your permission. And if you scroll down three quarters, four fifths of the way down the page into the comment section, you'll see my initial comments, which were first made on your blog before I made the Money Lies Facebook page, which is one, this isn't a court ruling. It's a settlement. So it has zero precedent on any other case. Two, the UNRRA Act only requires that places of public accommodation provide, quote, full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services, end quote, to all customers. Christian Mingle provides dating services to straight people. They didn't provide those capital letters.

[0:36:34] And I want to be clear, I did use capital letters here, and that can be aggressive. Capital letters, exact same services to gay people. Now, after the settlement, they will. That's it. Okay. So that was the substance of the very first thing that I said, okay, which if do you want to say that there's a an aggression in that I put exact same in capitals, I, I tend not to do that because it comes across as shouting, uh, but that was my first interaction.

Then no, I had that, I, I never saw that, that never came across to me. I never saw it, that thing had, I think, 400 comments on, or 300 comment, I didn't, I didn't see that. So that's not, when I talk about your response to me, I'm talking about the Facebook thing that I'm about. Okay. Okay, and I want to do that, but I do want to be clear.

[0:37:20] So I said there were two components. The first is, I am responding to your blog post, which is provocative and which says the Christian, which carries the implication, that's why I read the paragraph, that the Christian Mingle settlement is an injustice on the order of the Ark Park in Kentucky. Okay. And so, yes, my first comment on Facebook, I think Thomas has said this out. I said it in the very, in the, in The Comet stream itself. I re I, I came at you very strong in that comment. I, if you want to talk about that, I am a hundred percent.

0:37:55 Thomas: Was just direct, though, it wasn't. [0:37:56] No, I mean, so [0:37:57] it's, it just for me, for you, apparently this started when you read my post and to be clear, I didn't agree with you that it was provocative. I agreed with you that it was controversial, which isn't necessarily the same thing. I don't feel like I was provoking and throwing myself out there to say, let's fight about this.

When I ask about this, do you think when you said that this settlement is on a par with the Ark Park in Kentucky, weren't you trying to tweak atheists a little bit there? Come on, that's a fair characterization of the post.

What I was trying to do there is have people not be biased and say, look, Look, if a Christian is being coerced or forced or bumped or or heavy handed and forced sort of muscled into a decision to comply, shouldn't we stand up and say, you know what?

[0:38:47] We are constantly fighting people, forcing us to comply. So when Christians are strong armed into this, maybe we should stand up with them, too. That we didn't say, but you didn't saying maybe you said that's an injustice I'm fighting against. Answer. And I wonder how many atheists will fight with me when Christians are on the suffering end of that injustice. Right. And still stand by. So, OK, no, you have every right

0:39:11 Thomas: Wait. [0:39:11] to say Do [0:39:12] that. You still think that this settlement was an injustice on the order that you talked about, that [0:39:17] I mean, I look, if you don't mind, let's let's save the Okay. [0:39:21] details of the legal stuff I'm [0:39:22] for the end, because I'm I'm telling you that I can talk about without any [0:39:29] Personally being offended at all. If I'm wrong about something, I'm right, wrong about it, no big deal, and that's where I got, I think, my most frustration from, you, Thomas, is that my, my anger that happened on Facebook was because of Andrew's disrespectful approach to me.

0:39:47 Thomas: Not, this is not worth listening to until we, until we talk [0:39:49] I've about that actual [0:39:50] been trying Go [0:39:50] to play it for five ahead [0:39:51] minutes Play [0:39:51] Thomas it play [0:39:51] who's it go [0:39:53] been talking and I've been giving him his time, here's ahead, play it, offensive [0:39:58] what he said. David Smalley, you're just wrong about this. CM does not offer straight dating services, that would be a violation of UNRA Act 2, too. CM, you know, Christian Mingle, offers dating services, period. And until the settlement kicks in, they offer them in a way that plainly violates the UNRWA Act.

David, what I'd like to know from you is where was your outrage when Christian-backed dating site eHarmony entered into this exact same settlement six years ago? And given your parade of bizarre, slippery slope horribles hasn't happened in the six years since the eHermony settlement, isn't it possible that you're just engaged in hyperbole now? Okay, so definitely a bit confrontational there. Okay, so slippery slope horribles, uh, that, that whole, that whole sort of [0:40:44] attitude throughout that whole thing was, I would call that aggressive, I would called that offensive, I would cal that insult.

0:40:51 Thomas: Defensive? [0:40:51] You would call that offensive, yeah, it's, it's insulting, it's just, it's being condescending, it's insulting. And keep in mind, you haven't said you're an attorney, so this is my first thing of seeing you, and people. People come to me all the time, people. And again, I will make a post about something or I'll have an opinion about something. Some dude in an armchair in Canada will hear what I had to say, disagree with that one point, and then come to the post just to tell me your arguments are ridiculous. Your arguments are shit. Your agreements are horrible. You're a jackass. You're an idiot. Right, but I didn't do that.

0:41:22 Thomas: Yeah, you didn't do that. [0:41:24] I'm a little bit at a loss here. So you said you've objected to the tone, which I'm really glad you did play the clip because I guess I remember it as being a little more aggressive Yeah, [0:41:39] than that. I mean, it really [0:41:40] as wasn't [0:41:40] I hear that bad. [0:41:42] it again, I'm kind of shocked that – well, anyway, I'll leave that off. It was confrontational.

0:41:49 Thomas: Are you, [0:41:49] I sorry, [0:41:50] will David, [0:41:50] 100%. Are you trying to get in there? I couldn't hear you. [0:41:52] Yeah, How [0:41:52] I just said this is incredible. I mean this is exactly what happened on your show, Thomas, is you downplayed what your friend did. This is a classic example of group psychology. When you have a buddy that goes out and engages you, about I do that condescending thing to you, David? This is a classic example of being defensive about being wrong. I could do that [0:42:09] my same thing [0:42:09] issue to you. [0:42:10] is not about being wrong legally, Then I'm [0:42:12] but saying the same thing when I say this isn't about my friendship with Andrew Torrez. Now we're, now we're at a stalemate. We both made a claim about the [0:42:19] you've psychology [0:42:19] said of [0:42:20] multiple what's happening. [0:42:21] times throughout your show it was about your friend. You even said, I'm not going to stand by and let someone call my friend names when I didn't call your friend any names.

0:42:29 Thomas: Him being my friend was the reason that I was particularly interested in this, sure. It doesn't I you think [0:42:35] I don't You do. [0:42:36] think. You think I admitted that, "Oh, David was actually right here, but because he's my friend, let me just You think I you think this is a bombshell?

[0:42:42] No, And, [0:42:42] I No, I'm [0:42:43] think interested [0:42:43] you're conflating. In it because Andrew is my friend, and then I read I just read the words that were on a public Facebook post that you did. We haven't even gotten to the most fucking absurd thing I've ever heard anyone say, which was, because you're a professional debater long after the fact that you knew he was a lawyer, you said, "Well, because you're a professional debater," Andrew's the amateur in this situation, which is absurd.

[0:43:08] No, I can't, the idea that you are blaming me for this interaction is incredible to me. [0:43:14] no, I don't blame you for the interaction. I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. I'm blaming you for misinterpreting, for, for number one, flat out lying on your show. You said I called your friend names. I didn't. You said.

0:43:25 Thomas: Okay, I'll let [0:43:26] That's. The listeners judge. [0:43:27] Yeah. That's absurd. [0:43:28] Keep laughing We [0:43:28] at me and I'm gone, dude. There's no point. I'm trying to work this out with you. But if I, if I don't, if you're not going to give me a voice, if You're not gonna let me explain what happened on my end, then You're Not Interested in Dialogue, Thomas. Have already covered [0:43:41] Interested. The name calling.

[0:43:42] No. We've covered the named calling. We moved on. We said, you [0:43:45] But think [0:43:45] it's, it's It's not name calling? We think it is. Do we [0:43:48] not. Need to go to rehash [0:43:49] It's that [0:43:49] that and [0:43:50] simple.

It's not that simple, Thomas, but it's that, it is that simple and it is not that It's thing after thing after Thing after thing little tiny things Stacked up to make me sound completely Absurd in this whole thing and then You conflate me being pissed Off at his approach with me Just throwing a fit because I'm wrong about Something which is another complete Misrepresentation of the facts I do Not throw a fit and get angry when Someone shows me I'm wronk I throw a Fit and get angry when someone is an asshole To me in public Let me jump in And I'm going to try and sort of hopefully bring the tensions down a little bit.

The first is I don't think it would be helpful for us – for any one of the three of us to try and psychoanalyze the motives of the other, okay?

[0:44:36] I can tell you that – well, I don'T think – none of us knows what was going on in each other's heads. Thomas, I think, in the interest of full disclosure when he was commenting, wanted to point out his associations and to say, hey, look, I'm a human being. Classic Lockean inconveniences. I recognize that human beings tend to be partial in their own cases and towards their friends, and I want it to be disclosed. I'm not just reading something between person A and person B. I've had a direct interaction with Andrew. So I want you, my listeners, to know that if I have a bias, I have a bias in favor of Andrew. And I think that that's the point of [0:45:22] that disclosure. And I Think that that is an effort to try and weigh

0:45:26 Thomas: And David won't know [0:45:27] in this because [0:45:27] on the he [0:45:28] fairness. Doesn't listen, but I do that all, and I'm, that's okay, I'm not saying you should, I'm just, but I doing that all the time, people actually complain that I go out of my way to contradict myself and talk about my biases and where I'm coming from, so just [0:45:39] Atheistically so you [0:45:40] speaking, know, yeah, [0:45:40] bingo. Do [0:45:42] Okay. So here was my first response after being all the things that you you said about your slippery slope horribles and it was you [0:45:51] Slippery not think that [0:45:51] Slip your post is [0:45:52] Hold it, yeah, [0:45:52] On hold on slippery did [0:45:53] Finish a sentence.

Can I get through any part of my argument without both of you jumping on me? Not when your argument contains false premises. It's not a false premise. I'm saying after you said what I just played that that that frustrated me but didn't send me through the roof. It didn't. It didn's send me to the right. This is my first response when I was. I was a little pissed off a a little frustrated by you being condescending. You didn't identify yourself as an attorney.

You didn't say this was a legal situation. You just said you're slippery slope horribles. And where were you when this happened? You can say that you didn't say I didn't, but that's what happens when you say, where were you when this happened? It's a clear implication that I said nothing about it. Okay. And then you [0:46:36] I say something [0:46:36] did.

0:46:36 Thomas: About it, do [0:46:38] And that's another thing. You're you, you read that. You do you have, uh, yeah, I am skeptical that [0:46:46] And do you have [0:46:46] Let's go. Proof [0:46:46] Let's that [0:46:47] Go. You, well, [0:46:47] Let's go. Listen. Here's what he said. David Smalley, you're just wrong about this. Okay. This is my first response back to you after you saying that to me. Check out this response. Wow, Andrew Torrez, your arrogance is unprecedented. For starters, this is a highly nuanced topic that can have multiple opinions and interpretations. No one has to be just wrong. That's a childish way of looking at it. Secondly, I did rage about this six years ago. Really? Color me skeptical. Okay, first of all, and that's not the end of that clip, but first of all, now you are being disrespectful, Thomas. Now, I've stated I did do this. I'm, take me at my word, I did rage I'm [0:47:26] about it was I'm not [0:47:27] I going to take you at your word. Did you, did you, do you have proof of it?

[0:47:30] did I [0:47:31] and it was on a blog I used, DogmaDebate.com, started off as a debate forum online. It was much like Patheos, and [0:47:42] whenever that happened, I don't remember what year it happened, but I blogged about it over there before Dogma Debate was an actual show. And so, yes, I did. I was very frustrated by that. In fact, I've brought it up in debates and I think I've talked about it on the newest form of Dogma Debate sometime in the last four years. I've bought it back up and said just when, just like when eHarmony and I went into that whole thing about how I thought it was unfair. So I did have the rage about it. OK, it's

0:48:08 Thomas: Want to note that again, a lot of this and your post, um, your 18 minute show, a lot of the category of this was being good skeptics. And I want a note that you just called me disrespectful and, you know, essentially said I was wrong to be skeptical of someone. I said, color [0:48:26] not about me [0:48:26] look, skeptical. And you said, I'm being disrespectful. Do [0:48:29] it is. You think that's true? [0:48:30] Overall, it'S not if you said, I said, well, color me skeptical. I'm scared. Yeah, [0:48:34] I'm I was skeptical. [0:48:34] skeptical. Thomas, throughout this entire show, you laugh, you make a point, and then go.

0:48:41 Thomas: Oh, I always laugh. That's my show, man. [0:48:43] You That's [0:48:43] accuse me. [0:48:44] me of being drunk on Facebook when I [0:48:46] I don't. Did not accuse you of being drunk. You can play the clip. I believe I said maybe [0:48:51] And he was [0:48:52] then David drunk. [0:48:52] Pulte replied. [0:48:54] I'll get to it later because Okay. [0:48:57] it's out of line. You did. You did, Thomas, and it really pissed me off because I don'T drink.

0:49:02 Thomas: Yeah, I didn't know that. See, here's the thing. [0:49:04] This That's really funny because I said maybe he wasn't drunk because that actually would be a good excuse. For the part where you said [0:49:13] is ridiculous. Amateur, [0:49:14] I'm Fuck you, all that. For the point where you say, yeah, no shit, I debate for a living, so that would make you the amateur in this discussion. See if you were drunk, I would actually say, okay, I, I can relate to that. I didn't know you didn't drink. I apologize. I don't know if that's a sorry if that's a touchy subject. I didn't know that about you because I don't. I don't listen to your show. You don't listen to my show. It's fine. We don't know each other. That's okay. Had, [0:49:34] gonna I known what's that. It's, [0:49:36] start Andrew's reply over. Here's what he said. David Smalley, you're just wrong about this. CM does not offer straight dating. Okay, now hold on. When I, when, when I wrote, uh, you're just, when I'm responding to just wrong about this, god damn it, I played his, his, again, hold on, I'm sorry, hold on.

0:49:54 Thomas: Okay. [0:49:54] Whenever Yeah. [0:49:55] I, whenever I said hold on, here he goes. Check out this response. Wow, Andrew Torrez, your arrogance against is unprecedented. For starters, this is a highly nuanced topic that can have multiple opinions and interpretations. No one has to be just wrong. Okay, right there. What I'm getting at there is not necessarily the individual legal arguments, which we can address separately. What I am talking about is this overall opinion that Christian organizations should have to allow gay people to do this and this and that.

I understand both sides of the argument. And and when you look at any Facebook post I've made, if you read the comments on the on the Patheos thing, you'll see that people disagree on this. This is a nuanced thing where some people go, yeah, but equal rights and UNRWA.

[0:50:40] There are parts of UNRWA I don't necessarily completely agree with, but I understand how it's connected very closely with the Civil Rights Act. So I get it. So, again, not yet. Yet this concept of this goes back to that false dichotomy I talked about in my show 259 of me saying immediately when you hear me say I'm on this side, you then paint the picture I'm against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and then, you know, no, argued for, oh it's about I,

0:51:09 Thomas: Because you quoted something that was exactly like someone who argued [0:51:12] understand against, uh, the [0:51:13] but civil [0:51:14] it's rights [0:51:14] on a different issue sure [0:51:15] I understand, let me finish Andrew's reply. That's a childish way of looking, looking at it. Secondly, I did rage about this six years ago. Really? Color me skeptical. Show me proof. Finally, CM is a private company that offers Christian dating. How they believe dating should be. Well, we may disagree with it. That is their right. Allowing our government to step in and determine what services they offer as a private country puts us all at risk of government overreach.

You're fighting for something that will eventually lead to every secular company, company, being in violation of this interpretation of the law. Okay. I'm wrong about that. I know I'm right. I don't mean being forced. What I meant by that, and I could have worded it better, was that this sets a sort of a social precedent, this overall idea that if a company doesn't do what we like, I can go sue them and force them to do it.

[0:52:11] And that's what I want to stay away from. But I was wrong that it sets a legal precedent. And being forced to have Christian options and hiring Christian people. Be careful what you wish for. Okay. So that was my first response. I didn't immediately respond with fuck you.

0:52:26 Thomas: And I didn't say you did, I read the response about [0:52:28] Okay, so here's Andrew's reply to me. So Andrew answers in order. He said, I'm sorry if I'm coming across as arrogant to you. This is what I do for a living. And sometimes it's painful when amateurs get on and start offering extremely confident and extremely wrong opinions. Right there. About the law. You've the [0:52:45] got to law.

[0:52:45] read those That's [0:52:46] next three words about the law. It's not that your opinion is extremely wrong. You can have your opinions. I mean, this is, remember, I wanted to come in, but you were criticizing me for not letting you finish your sentence. When you say, when I begin my first reply with, you're just wrong about this. The reason, the word this, right, the antecedent to that pronoun is your blog post, which is in turn dissecting a legal settlement, right?

When I say you're wrong about this, I don't mean life. I don'T mean your opinions. I DON'T mean other debates you've had on Facebook. I Don'T know any of those. And you and I have never interacted before this. I mean a post that you put out for public consumption that contains demonstrable legal about a settlement.

[0:53:38] That's all I meant. It's all I mean now. So let me ask you this. Do you think you could have conveyed your opinions better to me? Absolutely. I've been very, very upfront about that.

[0:53:54] That's my entire point. Okay. You approaching this the way you did, I then let that get to me and I respond with, I responded with the anger, and the way I responded probably wasn't, I'll just be flat out, it wasn't the best response. And and it's not an excuse, but it's an explanation. I was not, and I want, Thomas, I want you to know this, I want your listeners to know that, I want everyone to know it, and Andrew, I don't want you guys to know.

I was angry at being told I was wrong. But you repeatedly make people think that I threw a temper tantrum because I was proven wrong. And that's just not the case. I was upset because of how Andrew was being condescending and talking down to me.

0:54:36 Thomas: Up for people to interpret, I mean that's, that's up for people who have seen the exchange to interpret, and my interpretation is that you're upset about being wrong, I mean you were upset about, you, you were sure, you're upset with the tone, I mean, yeah, you, you're mad at the tone someone took when you were offering opinions that were of some of a legal topic, something that you're not an expert in, and an expert came and said you're just wrong, and you were just wrong, so yeah, that makes people angry, I get it.

[0:55:03] That I get that, that you, [0:55:04] doesn't well, [0:55:04] make me angry. Stop doing that. I just told you that's not why I'm angry, and now you're saying I understand why that would make you angry. Why are you doing that? I just told you that is not why I'm angry. People tell me I'm wrong all the time. Someone did tell you you're wrong and you, you lashed out. So I don't, I guess I don'T [0:55:19] tell get it.

[0:55:19] me, he So [0:55:19] was, he didn't just tell me I was wrong, and we've already been through this, we've already played it, we've talked about not only how he responded but how you covered it on the show, and you know what, people go back and read it after hearing your interpretation of it, of course they're going to be skewed in how they see it, and most of the people that I've heard from or that were canceling their memberships and refusing to support me financially, um, didn't even read it, they just took your interpretation and made up their minds that I was an asshole, David.

0:55:49 Thomas: Do you really [0:55:50] don't think, [0:55:50] go, Thomas. You know, go ahead. [0:55:51] Can I, I Yeah. [0:55:51] don't want to ask a question. My number one, you started to play, uh, my first reply, fly, right? The number one thing I said was, I'm sorry if I'm coming across as arrogant to you. Yeah, [0:56:05] In fact, that's let [0:56:06] a statement that I repeat later in the thread. You can do, since the thread is available as a PDF, I think it's a searchable PDF, and you can look through for apologize. And I say it two or three times. How did you interpret that? I'm honestly curious. I'll honestly answer you. I interpreted it as sarcasm. Okay. OK, because to me, it continued and I just I just want to play it. OK, well, I do apologize because that that wasn't intended as sarcasm. So, oh, shit.

All right. So here it is. There's an order. He said, I'm sorry if I'm coming across as arrogant to you. This is what I do for a living. And sometimes it's painful when amateurs get on and start offering extremely confident and extremely wrong opinions about the law, particularly those that begin with gross misconceptions about what the law is.

[0:56:55] is. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but you repeatedly describing a settlement as though it were a judicial opinion. And that's kind of like if I came on your podcast and started describing podcasts as if they were some kind of kangaroo. This is not a highly nuanced topic. Just because you happen to have a contrary opinion, go ahead and talk to a dozen other lawyers, and I promise you that none of them will agree with you. Okay.

At that point, you're talking about, we're talking past each other now, because you're talking about the fact, and it's not an opinion, it's a fact, that settlements do not create legal precedent. You are correct about that. I was talking about the overall concept that Christian companies should be forced to do these certain things to comply with, uh, gays, when they, when these private Christian countries don't want to serve certain, or don't want to have to do matchmaking for gay couples.

[0:57:52] So we're talking about two different things. I'm saying that that's what the nuanced topic is. I understand both sides. Where Christian companies go, nope, you can't just say blue dessert is for boys and pink dessert is für a girl. If a girl wants to order a blue dessert, you've got to serve it to her.

0:58:06 Thomas: Me ask you this, David. [0:58:07] I understand that. Let me [0:58:09] Okay. Ask you this. You, no, no. Andrew, I think this is kind of BS because you, you saw what he told you. He was just, why would you expect Andrew was talking about what you just said? Andrew listed what he said you were wrong about. He said, CM does not offer straight dating services. He also said, uh, the part about where's the outrage, uh, the parade of bizarre slippery slope horribles hasn't happened. He told you what he was talking about.

Furthermore, in your response, you answered those items, so it's not as though you just reacted to, like, wow, you're an asshole, I'm mad at you for being an asshole. You reacted and you were still wrong about it. Well, [0:58:44] No, I'm say that whenever he said I was – So when I'm saying it's a nuanced topic, Andrew took that as me saying that this rather or not settlements set a legal precedent is a nuanced top. That's false. It's not a legal. That's not an opinion. That that's what 100 percent of attorneys would agree on. So that's where I'm plus [0:59:03] getting it.

0:59:04 Thomas: A bunch [0:59:04] But of [0:59:04] David, other things, because [0:59:05] what you're calling B.S. But I'm trying to be civil here and explain how Andrew and I at that moment are talking about two different things. What what is bullshit about that? No, I'm [0:59:15] no, I Calling you, I don't think that's true. You addressed the things that you were talking about. You did three points here. You both know what you're talking about. Secondly, I did rage about this six years ago, so you're arguing that fact. You argue CM is a private company that offers Christian dating how they believe dating should be. You're wrong about that. That's not what they're [0:59:33] don't. Doing.

Will you [0:59:34] And I disagree with Andrew on that still. And again, that's why I said I wanted to say the legal stuff for the end, assuming we can get past this bullshit, shit, and I'm looking for you to take some form of responsibility for skewing your audience completely one-sided, giving Andrew a complete pass on his first, on his first response to me, and then completely ridiculing me and making assumptions about me, laughing at me, accusing me of drunk Facebooking, saying that I called your friend name, saying that I didn't, play [1:00:04] it's The audio where I accused you of drunk Facebooking? Sure. [1:00:08] It's the next one after this clip, so I'll finish this one.

1:00:10 Thomas: Sure. [1:00:10] First I Well [1:00:11] asked if you you raged about eHarmony. Okay, that's not that important. Oh, no, it is. And he said, I didn't assume you didn't. So given that you apparently did and given that nothing like what you said would happen has happened over the past six years, why would you double down and say it's going to happen now? I think that is probably the best point you made, that I did rage about it six years ago. Nothing else has happened like that, and now this is happening.

1:00:36 Thomas: Kudos to you for recognizing that, and I'm not being sarcastic, I appreciate that. I think that it's, you know, it's not for me to say, but I just want to say that I respect that. I respect that you recognize that [1:00:46] The aspect of [1:00:47] question would the argument. The [1:00:48] be, is it possible that the whole issue with eH Harmony somehow influenced this settlement, or Christian Mingle, um, succumbing to this settlement or agreeing to this sentiment because they didn't want to go through what eHarmony went through. That would be. Yeah.

And, and, and that answer is no, as a matter of law, which we could talk about from the legal perspective, and not just because of the lack of a, a, uh, a precedential effect from settlements, but something that I've said, I think every time I've talked about this topic, which is to say that the UNRRA Act is one of the most expansive equal protection protection acts at any state level in the country.

And even in the case that I cite to you in this discussion later on, in California, almost 40 years ago, the California Supreme Court held that ladies night at the bar, where drinks are full price for men and half price for women, that that violates the California UNRWA Act.

[1:01:42] And I think even in this thread, I said, so, you know, if you want to start with an argument that says, I think UNRWA goes too far, that's probably your best point to start from. Right. So on other threads, I had that I had That discussion. I also had the discussion with my family about about that. There's a an oil and lube center down down the street from us that does the same thing on Wednesdays. They offer ladies only half price on oil changes.

And I've wondered, would that be a violation of UNRWA if we were in California? Absolutely. And so, you know, I appreciate and it's something, again, I know you don't listen to any of the shows. It's something that I think Thomas and I value very highly, which is putting out our own opinions, flagging our opinions when they're there, offering our listeners an understanding of, hey, this is my bias.

[1:02:41] this is what I'm coming at, but then sort of bending over backwards to try and understand the other side. One of the things I've said countless times on Opening Arguments and a bunch of times in some of the promos that we've done for the show is one of the things you have to do as a lawyer is if you can't make your opponent's case better than they're making it, you're probably going to lose that argument in court.

So I appreciate, I appreciate that idea of wanting to debate on the philosophical points of equal protection statutes. And I think, again, things came out however things came up. But I think it's important from my perspective and from the listeners to be able to piece this together and understand it themselves.

[1:03:33] themselves. This began with your blog post, right? And your blog post is not, hey, I'd like to have a larger discussion about state equal protection statutes and when do they go too far? Your blog post says, this is an injustice on the order of the arc park, right. That's what I had. I'm not a mind reader. I did not previously interact with you in any other way. So that's what I had to go off of. Right. And that's, this is what I explained to PZ.

This is what I had multiple phone calls with people who were We're fighting each other and I'm being a mediator, resolving these types of issues and getting, you know, apologies out of people and trying to resolve conflict because people take it to the public sphere. Now, my blog post was public, but you being a fan of my show, you being assigned a registered fourth listener, contributing monthly to my show.

[1:04:22] If you see that I got I was not. I'm sorry. Let me let me be clear on that. I subscribe to the show on my podcast. I didn't mean that I was a monthly dollar contributor, which is not to say – again, that's not to saying you're not putting out a great show or whatever. It's just to say that I have – I misunderstood you. I thought you said that you were a registered member in one of your responses. So because – I apologize.

I apologize if it came off that way. That's not what I meant to say. I just meant you said, do you know who I am? I debate for a living. And I was like, yeah, you know, to be honest, I've, you know, I heard you do, uh, you know, the followup with site 10 Bruggen Kate, and you've done some other, you know, public debates and things that I, that I really enjoyed.

[1:05:08] So I, I was familiar with you in, in that sense. So just to be clear. And that's the thing. The listeners now are getting all of this with tons of context in between clips, right? You and I didn't have that luxury. And that is what I am saying.

1:05:26 Thomas: One who said, "Fuck you." And you're the one who said all this ridiculous stuff, man. I really, look, you're getting really mad at me for what I did, which was read a complete interaction. Yes, I put a tone on it, but you would have a case if I was selective, if I edited you, if I did anything like that. I read the entire thing. I posted it on on my website. Like, I don't know, man, do you want to get past the [1:05:48] Oh, rest of the clips, or what?

[1:05:49] Yeah, because I think you're still out of line, Thomas. I think that the way you, the way you read Andrew's stuff was very nonchalant. Andrew said this, maybe a little country, maybe a little controversial, anyway, he said this, and then he said that, and Yeah [1:06:01] then you go, and then before you read my stuff, you go, get ready for this reply, but Because it's [1:06:07] You fucking hilarious. Your [1:06:08] Just Next [1:06:09] But reply is hilarious. It's so good.

[1:06:11] I'm saying you've already done it, like, in my first response, here's how you started your, my first réponse to him, "Check out this response," wow, Andrew, you didn't say that before, Andrew's, you know what I mean, it's tons of little stuff like that that you don't even realize is slanting your audience to already agree with you. I think he does. I think, I think she does realize. I mean, I think

1:06:31 Thomas: Yeah [1:06:31] that's, that's the whole point of, of Thomas saying at the outset, hey, uh, Andrew's a friend of mine and I've had him on the show a couple of times, so, you know, this might be coming off as as pro-Andrew, but David [1:06:43] I'm It's [1:06:44] gonna link Also [1:06:44] You Not [1:06:44] Know only that. Forget all that, it's my view that you were being absurd in this interaction. That's my point of view. You can disagree with that, that's, that's totally fine. My point, so picture if in your show you witnessed an interaction, you saw that one person in your interview was being ridiculous, you do you think you would present it any better than I did?

I mean, I maybe [1:07:05] I you could [1:07:05] would sure [1:07:05] do you want to know what I would do, I yeah [1:07:08] would reach out to that person directly, I wouldn't well [1:07:10] wouldn't Andrew talked to [1:07:10] do an entire you if [1:07:11] show blasting them and putting my interpretation on something they said and completely slamming them publicly you [1:07:17] and get to the end [1:07:18] and of the interaction [1:07:19] then, and then couch it all with, well, David's show is so popular he's probably never going to hear this anyway, so that's my excuse to just ridicule and make judgments about his character and accuse him of being a drunk on Facebook

1:07:30 Thomas: I [1:07:30] that didn't [1:07:30] gives accuse you of being a drunk, no [1:07:32] me a license to say whatever, whatever the hell I want about someone, because they might not ever hear this. That's a totally yeah [1:07:37] unfair interpretation. It really is, yeah. [1:07:39] All right. Well, let's just finish this. The private company that offers Christian dating, how they believe dating should be. Well, we may disagree with it. That is their right. Allowing one, allowing our government to step in and determine what services they offer as a private company puts us all at risk of government overreach. You're fighting for something that will eventually lead to everything. I already played all that. Here's your...

1:08:02 Thomas: And by the way, uh, you, you've accused us a lot of times of, like, assuming, uh, giving, putting words in your mouth. You just said that Andrew was fighting for something when he wasn't. I mean, if we want to do the word games of, like, you need to represent everything perfectly fairly and use the exact correct words, you just told Andrew he was fighting for something which he totally wasn't. No, [1:08:22] Yes, he was. He wasn't, you're fighting for, here's your sentence, "You're fight for something that will eventually lead to every secular company being in violation of this interpretation of the law." He said no such thing.

He [1:08:33] Well, he's was [1:08:33] making No. [1:08:33] the case that the judgment he's [1:08:36] – correcting [1:08:36] no, you on completely basic legal things, that's not fighting [1:08:40] he is making for anything, that's [1:08:41] the case that – and again, this is where it gets more nuanced, because my whole concept is I'm not even sure I'm on board with UNRWA in its full effect. And so he's making the case for UNRRA, and I'm making the case, I guess, that these companies shouldn't necessarily be held completely, strictly by UNRUA. But that's not what I'm doing in this interaction. I mean, I'm not making the case for UNRWA because your blog post wasn't making the case against UNRUA.

Your blog post was, the Christian Mingle settlement is an injustice on the order of the Ark Park, and we need to fight against it, or else every secular company in the country will be in violation of this interpretation of the law. And I mean, I, I appreciate and I'm willing to own up, you know, where I've been, you know, I came across as strong in my in my tone.

[1:09:36] And I appreciate, I appreciate your acknowledgement that on the point that I'm making, that is that is the genesis of this discussion, that that you were incorrect. That's all I was arguing about. I was not arguing. It's awesome. I'm arguing about the legal points. Look, it's like this. Let's say we're in public in a parking lot and I bump into you, I'm turning around to look at you, and the first response out of your mouth is, "Watch where the fuck you're going." Okay, now if I, if I had said that, right, please let me finish, I'm trying, I really want to make a case, guys, and I can't at nine word and intervals. Okay, I

1:10:16 Thomas: Your [1:10:16] if perception of, go ahead, we've given you a lot of time, man, go [1:10:19] I ahead, you [1:10:20] if I bump into and you turn to me and go, "Watch where, where the fuck you're going," at this point I know that I was wrong and I'm, I'm true, I want to say, well, I didn't mean to do it, but at this point now you've, now you've been so disrespectful, I really have to dig deep to look past this bowed up chest and "watch where the f**k you're goin," and now there's an attitude that I need to deal with, now I feel like I'm being disrespected. And I'm just going to go, I'm sorry. Know [1:10:48] I didn't What?

[1:10:49] make Yeah, you're right about [1:10:49] that. That actually, David, let me, let me tell you this. I think you're right about that. I think the first interaction by Andrew, was it, was not anywhere near what you're characterizing it as. "Fuck you, man, what the fuck, you're going." It was, "You're just wrong about this," CM, and he explained the facts after that. So it's not, it wasn't, "You're wrong about this, asshole, you're wrong about this, ugly," was none of that. It was, "You're just wrong about this," and then he explained the facts, but [1:11:10] Oh, I will even [1:11:11] well, And grant you, okay, you were a little pissed off after that exchange. I grant you that. That is a prickly way to read it. You don't know who Andrew is. I get it. I actually fully understand. I would probably respond in a similar way. But here's the deal. After that, he gave you an entire post where he said, "I'm sorry, I am coming across as arrogant. I'm a lawyer.

Here's all the facts that you got wrong on this." He went through bullet points of what you got wrong. And your response to that, that entire thing, was to pick the word "amateur" and to say, "Armature, fuck you. Being an attorney doesn't make you right 100% of the time. You clearly have no idea what I do for a living to call me an amateur." That was literally your response after he explained everything.

He said he was a lawyer and we've gotten past the point of bumping someone and saying, "Oh, you know, fuck you," and then there's attitude. And [1:11:58] You're partially right. We have gotten past that point. And that's where I said I let my anger continue on, because at that point I'm like half ass skimming his article or his response. I'm mad, uh, because of, he's called me an amateur and I thought I misunderstood, I thought he was calling me an immature in this whole field of, you know, having discussions about things, and he had no idea who I was and had no idea what I do for a living. And and I though he was saying that I was an amateur for disagreeing with him and, uh, right.

1:12:30 Thomas: Then he said, amateur just means not a professional. He explained that point to you and then you still responded, yeah, no shit, I debate for a living. So that would make you the amateur in this discussion, which [1:12:39] Did is [1:12:40] You absurd. [1:12:40] Did you hear what I just said? Well, Yeah, you just made an excuse. I'm telling you, Andrew's next response negates that excuse because after he explained that to you, you still went [1:12:51] Again, off [1:12:51] Again, let on [1:12:51] me him. [1:12:52] play his reply because whenever he said, this is what I do for a living, I wasn't entirely sure that he meant lawyer at first. So just listen. And again, everyone goes into this show listening, knowing he's a lawyer. You started your show off telling everybody he's an lawyer.

1:13:09 Thomas: Your response says being an attorney doesn't make you right 100% [1:13:12] That's of the time. [1:13:12] after You knew [1:13:13] he he was... [1:13:13] said you're telling it out of order again. Listen. I'm [1:13:18] He's not telling not [1:13:19] it. Telling [1:13:19] I'm it out of order.

[1:13:20] Sorry if I [1:13:20] I'm have [1:13:21] Coming it [1:13:21] Here right in front of [1:13:21] So me, by the way. [1:13:23] Andrew answers in order, sorry, do you guys want a resolution on this, or do you just want to keep the pissing So [1:13:28] Man, and your idea [1:13:29] So of a resolution is you don't apologize for anything and we apologize because, well, you know, we were so terrible to you. If that's your idea of resolution, no, I don't want that. So [1:13:38] Once I [1:13:38] Again, you have made a statement that you know what's in my head, you know what I want. Said, [1:13:42] I already if [1:13:43] Said that's [1:13:43] Let's your, [1:13:44] Avoid I [1:13:44] The amateur psychology, you've made a huge, about what we're talking about, assumption, you've make a huge assumption of what you don't, say what people have made assumptions on, let's talk about what that's talking about, Thomas just said your idea said if your idea is this [1:13:59] Yeah, then [1:14:00] he no,I [1:14:00] did say don'twantthat. [1:14:00] yes.

1:14:01 Thomas: I said IF. Do you not understand that? It's like when I'm saying maybe [1:14:05] Thomas he [1:14:05] you was drunk, [1:14:06] spoke you're saying I'm accusing [1:14:08] Dude, you of being drunk. Do I get those things? How do you not see that that's different? [1:14:13] you are, you you need to chill out. You need to kill out.

1:14:18 Thomas: This [1:14:18] You is the [1:14:18] said scene from from uh this is the scene from big lebowski when uh he's got the gun he's like I'm calmer than you are that's exactly what's happening here because you you you are the one who didn't chill the fuck out in this discussion in the facebook interaction you're not taking responsibility for [1:14:32] I it no [1:14:33] Already have. Yes, I did. I took responsibility a few minutes ago. And you just said your idea, let me finish this statement, both of you. Please.

You said said your idea of a resolution is said I said if so you must have missed the if [1:14:50] Let I'm [1:14:50] Me finish this not [1:14:52] Is gonna let you finish something that's wrong david I said if you're [1:14:55] What I do for a dude, dude, let me finish, you said your ideal of a solution is wrong I'm [1:15:02] For you Not Gonna [1:15:03] Let's Let You Finish Something That's Wrong I Said If If Your Idea Of A Resolution Is This Then I'm Not Going To Do It That's What I Said Why Would I Let You finish something where you instantly start off wrong? Does that,

1:15:15 Thomas: What would be the benefit of that? Seriously, I'm literally asking you, what Would be the Benefit of Letting You Finish a Statement Where You Missed the First Word and You're Already Wrong? Like, I'M NOT trying to be rude. I WASN'T trying to be rude the first time. I was merely correcting the fact that I said IF. You [1:15:31] Listen, you said if at the end of it, Thomas, and that's why you've got to let other people speak, you started off saying it that way and then at the end you said if, here's what you just said, agreeing with him, and uh, and then he said amateur just means not a professional, so, Andrew, I'm gonna find it because it was just, this is the scene from, uh, said you've made a huge, you've a huge assumption, you've made a assumption of what you think I want, say what people have made assumptions on, let's talk about, that's what Thomas just, Thomas said your idea, I said if, you so and drew answers in order, sorry, do you know, [1:16:10] Guys it's [1:16:10] Keep entirely possible that you didn't [1:16:12] Pissing hear the [1:16:12] Me so

1:16:13 Thomas: IF, [1:16:13] So your if [1:16:14] Your idea of a resolution is you don't apologize for anything, oh, look at that, do you see what happens when other people speak, Thomas, listen to that again, so, so you're, your idea of a resolution is you don't apologize for anything and we apologize because, well, you know, we were so terrible to you, if that that's your idea of, I [1:16:30] Really mean, really, like, what's the fucking point? So, you're mad that I put it at the end?

1:16:36 Thomas: Is [1:16:36] You're that it? [1:16:36] Not gonna, you're not gonna take responsibility, see No, No, I [1:16:39] This was, [1:16:39] You yeah, I was wrong. I said [1:16:40] Said it [1:16:40] It at [1:16:40] You the end. [1:16:41] Were wrong, your wrongness pisses me off. And then you act like I'm ridiculous and you won't even let me tell you what actually happened without constantly David, [1:16:50] And incessantly interrupting me.

1:16:53 Thomas: I've let you talk a long time. I'm looking at the audio file right here. I've got barely, I mean, I'm talking more now, but the whole point of that was I said if before you butted in, I didn't correct later, the if was, I made that clear in that statement. You are right. I didn't say it at the beginning. I said at the end. If that's your idea, then I don't want it. Does that drastically change it to you? I mean, if you want to just focus on minutiae like that, what's the point? Like [1:17:18] It's There's no point [1:17:19] not In having [1:17:19] minutiae.

1:17:19 Thomas: A discussion, you [1:17:21] And that's the problem. You may misinterpret something that I said by 3% and then act like it's no big deal. Well, if you take six of my statements and misinterpret all of them by three percent, you've stacked up an 18 percent problem here. And I've got to go back and nitpick each individual thing to say the entire way you're going about this is incorrect. And we can talk about the legal things. Like, honestly, Thomas, I think if you had never been involved in this and Andrew reached out to me directly and said, here's some legal things I think you got wrong. I would have been directly talking with him going, oh, wow, that's cool. That's great. That's interesting. Let me update this. Let me go tell people that this is a new, I, I Really [1:18:00] stopped Think that's true, you think with the way that ended where he did a whole post where he corrected everything he said, you didn't respond, Alicia started responding kind of, I don't [1:18:09] reading Know, yeah [1:18:09] it. I just On [1:18:09] stopped Your behalf [1:18:10] reading.

1:18:10 Thomas: I guess, I, and then [1:18:11] I quit, Yeah [1:18:13] I They [1:18:13] quit dealing with it because this happens to me all the time. People decide that because they think I'm wrong about one specific thing, they start being shitty to me. They get Start [1:18:23] disrespected. Being shitty [1:18:24] Hold To [1:18:24] on, hold You [1:18:25] on. Oh [1:18:25] Can I, can I, My [1:18:26] Can God [1:18:26] I jump Go [1:18:26] in for one Ahead [1:18:27] second?

1:18:27 Thomas: Yeah, yeah [1:18:27] There's I [1:18:28] no point. Guys, if I'm going to be laughed at, there's no Point even continued. Look, no one's laughing at you, Did I [1:18:33] okay? Laughed at him, yeah, I'll [1:18:34] All Take responsibility [1:18:35] right. Yeah [1:18:36] I'm not laughing at you, OK? One of the things that I've heard you say a couple of times that is interesting to me, and I just wanted to ask you about it, is you've said, people do this to me all the time, right? That was the sentence that you just said. And I kind of feel like maybe maybe one of the things that happened here is you're using your prior experience of interacting with people on Facebook and that that's colored. I mean, I think you've said you didn't read my posts very carefully or whatever. And so I No, he [1:19:16] Guess I understand that. But what I fail to understand is why I'm responsible for how other people have treated you online.

Line, I mean, I really am sorry if people like pick a fight with you to try and come on your show or something stupid like that, like I don't know, that's not me, uh, I think Thomas knows that's not me, that's really, that's interesting Thomas, because I think you're right about that, I think I did take what you usually do to me online and I added that to you and I apologize, okay, well I, I, but Andrew, but I mean are you sincere about that, absolutely I'm sincere, okay, but here's the thing I'm trying to ask.

So I want to, I just want to say, I, I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Do you think you did the same thing? I don't think I took prior interactions and attributed them to you.

[1:20:02] Right. I think for what, for what I would apologize is I think, uh, my first, uh、 my first post on the, on Eli Bosnick's Facebook, which not my first interaction with you, But the first one you saw was was aggressive. And if indicated that you are sick of people doing that and that that was a part of your response. That's a good that's a great point. That's good. That is that is

1:20:29 Thomas: Was sick [1:20:29] fair. Of you doing it, I mean he even said that [1:20:31] No, He said, said, I'm [1:20:32] no. Let me let me be fair. Let me be clear to David here. In my first reply, I say number one. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. No, what Thomas just said is really pissing me off. Andrew, you and I are working through this and we're trying to get to a resolution. And Thomas, I just feel like you're instigating more shit. No, I don't Not like, go ahead [1:20:52] think that's Go [1:20:52] helpful.

1:20:52 Thomas: Ahead, that's [1:20:53] I don't think that's helpful. In your reply, you explicitly stated that you don't like people. In point one, I said – and here, again, I'm trying to live up to the same kind of transparency that I see from Thomas in his shows, which is to say, I am sorry I'm coming across as arrogant.

This is what I do for a living and sometimes it's painful when amateurs get on and start offering extremely confident and extremely wrong opinions about the law, particularly those that begin with a gross misconception of what the law is. Is. So your point was that I may have been reacting to my prior interactions online and I didn't think that I was, but you pointed that out to me and I think you're correct on that.

[1:21:40] I think that you are correct and I offer a sincere apology to you for that because I do do think that those prior interactions were why, uh, the first thing I did was, was come across very, very strong. Um, yeah. So, yeah, I think we both did that. I think, I thank you. You started off sort of like, God, here goes another asshole who doesn't know the law, make this dumb ass thing. And you're like, I gotta, you know, get this.

And so you come at me a little stronger. And then I see that as, well, here it goes another who thinks, you know, I'm wrong about one thing. So it was going to make, you all these insulting jabs at me throughout the way and then I add to that and so I think I think we both did that and that's again we both also had an audience watching which is why I talked about in my show that if you think someone's made a mistake [1:22:27] Just reach out privately and say hey here's who I am here's what's going on if they tell you to fuck off you don't get a response whatever then I get it but at least give someone the benefit of the doubt of being a human being who can respond and say, yeah, I was wrong about something on the legal front. Not dedicate an entire podcast to laughing at someone and making fun of them and misrepresenting where their anger was. Because my anger was never at being wrong.

My anger was at the attitude I felt like I was getting from you. Okay. So there are about three things that I want to break down in that. I was trying very hard not to interrupt. One of the things that, uh, I frequently do is if there's a sentence and it has something that I think is incorrect in it, I want, I wanna stop the sentence and correct that problem.

[1:23:16] I, I apologize that, you know, in this conversation that, that seems to be, um, that, seems to have led to some frustration on your part. So I'm trying not to do that. But the problem is now there are a bunch of things and it's hard to sort of go back and remember each one individually. The important things I think there are, you characterize the first interaction as the bumping into someone on the street and the person turns and yells, hey, fuck you.

Do you know where you're going. And, and I would say, again, it's not important to me, like who dropped the F-bomb first, but I think my, and again, people are judging their own case, right? They tend to be partial to themselves and minimize their conduct to others.

[1:24:02] I feel like, I mean, when I said, I thought this escalated quickly, right. That was not just, you know, being funny because as Thomas knows I'm not funny. It surprised me the degree of escalation and hearing you here tonight, it still surprises me when you say things like, when I say a slippery slope parade of horribles, that's a phrase that lawyers and debaters often use to describe things, right? You seem to have taken offense to that. I'm still befuddled, honestly, and I would like to ask you this question at the offense that you took to the word amateur, because I've helped coach my son's baseball team and the head coach is a former professional baseball player.

[1:24:53] And if you were to call me an amateur baseball player, that's correct, right? I'm an amateur baseball player, I do not get paid to play baseball. So I'd like to do that. But the third that, um, just, it just can't stand is you've, you've said Thomas has misrepresented you and, and there just is not other than, uh, the definition of the word name calling. I mean, I, I don't think there's anything that you can say about Thomas that counts as misrepresentation, right? You can say, I don't like the laughing. You can say, I don't like the tone. And we can have a discussion about that, but you've accused him of misrepresidenting you. And what he's done is link to your words and that's representing what's misrepresenting is [1:25:39] He's saying that my anger was all about me being told I was wrong and that is just not true, it

1:25:48 Thomas: A judgment call, I made a judgment call, you can say that it's wrong, that's fine, that's [1:25:51] Is Not misrepresentation though, I [1:25:53] A misrep representation that's a mis representation is saying you said something you didn't say, well that could also be really a lie, I mean misrep presenting it is adding extra shit to something I said, telling people that I had reasons that you have no way of knowing what my reasons were. So you're going out publicly on a microphone telling people what my motives were about something that was false. That's a misrepresentation of the entire thing. It's a misrepresentative of my view.

It's Mean it's [1:26:20] your, Just it's not true, I mean I [1:26:21] your I witnessed a public interaction, I made a judgment about it. I have a show, we both have shows. I have a show where I, uh, talk about my views, and my view was, uh, what it was. I said what I thought. You did. I read your words in their entirety. I read the entire post. I put no, uh, I didn't edit. I didn' didn't change words around, uh, so that's just false. I didn't, that's a misrepresentation of me to say that I misrepresented you, actually. [1:26:46] commentary

1:26:47 Thomas: Oh. [1:26:47] and assumptions that you made during your show misrepresented my motives? Assumptions can't misrepresent. I mean, I don't want to be hung up on this word, but again, maybe it's being a lawyer because misrep representation is a legal term with legal significance. To misrep resent you is to say that you, or to imply, or take something out of context that suggests strongly to the listener that you said something that you didn't say. And I don't think there's any evidence of that. Okay. And the bit about your motives, right, is again, Thomas's listeners know that he's not psychic. So I think the reasonable person would interpret a comment about motives as Thomas's opinion and conclusion.

[1:27:38] And this was labeled, again, I know you're not a listener of the show, but this was labelled a Tom and Terry episode. And that's where Thomas gives his opinions about stuff, so I mean, I think listeners would expect him to offer his opinion. Okay, here's another clip. And then David Smalley replied, "Amateur, fuck you." Being an attorney doesn't make you write a hundred percent of the time. You clearly have no idea what I do for a living to call me an amateur. Okay, I have to point out that it

1:28:07 Thomas: There's [1:28:07] Actually says You, assuming he has no idea what you do for a living, you're misrepresenting. Andrew, dude, we do this all the time, this is conversation. You completely misrepresented him, he knew exactly who you were. I mean, we could bitch about these little details, [1:28:18] Armature.

1:28:18 Thomas: But I mean, really, we, we didn't get to substance, do [1:28:24] He said, armature? Fuck you. And I think what's so funny about that is that it also says edited.

[1:28:35] So he edited the comment. Look, Smalley might have just been drunk, I'll be honest. He could have just been drunken, but then we just need to not drunk Facebook or something. Any You, is that a bombshell [1:28:48] Any To you or something?

[1:28:49] Regrets there? Yeah, No. [1:28:50] But He might have just been drunk. I don't know you. Had I known that you don't drink, I wouldn't have said that. Obviously, I would have said he might have been high or something, but [1:28:59] The, you, you, one of your first thing, one of you're first comments is that I went ad hominem on Andrew, which saying he might, do you really? Okay. We just don't, we don't see eye to eye, man.

[1:29:11] Yeah, and David, I think Thomas has tried to point, ask, you know, whether show where you two were talking about it. Or am I going to get to say, what, do I not get to answer this? You just played a clip and gave commentary. Do I not get to speak? I didn't get to give commentary. Thomas, damn,

1:29:28 Thomas: David, [1:29:28] Guys, go ahead. Why don't you talk? Go ahead. I'm serious. Go ahead and say what you were going [1:29:33] This to say. [1:29:33] Is, this is why people don't engage their critics, this is why, this is why most of the time when you tweet about someone or talk shit about someone, they just ignore you. This is, what well, I gave an example in my own thread of somebody who I engaged in exactly the same way. And in fact, I was a bit more sarcastic to him than I was to you. And that person is now a patron of Opening Arguments, and we engaged in exactly the same ways. So I would suggest that a large part of this is you seem to be thin-skinned about a lot of stuff, David. I mean, I don't know. You're engaged.

[1:30:20] I And so you came out with a really strong post on Patheos, but you got upset when I gave you a strong reply. You're here accusing us of misrepresenting you, and then you're flying off the handle every time we try and answer that. I don't know. I mean, I'm happy to let listeners, you know, sort of a judge this exchange, you know, for themselves. But being thin skinned has nothing to do with it. It's about Thomas coming on his show, acting like you were just simply correcting some facts I got wrong. And David Smalley flew off at the handle and he can't even spell and he's probably drunk. I mean, no, no. And that's what I wanted. And we got mad at at interrupting.

[1:31:08] I honestly think this I think that we interpret because I knew exactly what David meant. And I think a lot of people would. I'd be curious how many people take your perspective. But when I heard Thomas say maybe he was drunk, I honestly interpreted that as exculpatory, right? So when

1:31:29 Thomas: That's [1:31:29] you how I [1:31:30] listen meant it, actually. [1:31:31] to And [1:31:31] People, when you're engaged in an argument with somebody or a discussion on Facebook and all of a sudden they're the first person to drop an F-bomb and they start misspelling stuff, you're thinking like, oh, well, you know what? And again, let me [1:31:42] this is because offer [1:31:43] Thomas this [1:31:43] and I up, [1:31:43] both David.

[1:31:44] drink, Let [1:31:44] right. Me offer this up. This is what was behind that. I'll tell you. I am being honest. It is up to you if you want to believe me.

Uh, I had an interaction with a listener where I had had a drink before I did it and I, I was a little uh, aggressive with the listener on Twitter and I got, I got mad at what he was saying because he was uh, telling me that I was wrong to be concerned with, a I think it was either Milo or I don't know, some, some shit that some alt-right person was saying, and I flew off the handle a bit.

And then I, I, I later, I recognized it. I said, you know what, I'm sorry. I just had a drink. I apologize. My temper was short. I honestly meant that as like, that would be a perfectly acceptable excuse. Now we might see alcohol differently. You and I don't know. I don't know where you're coming from. I don't know if you see that as some indictment of your character. It wasn't meant that way. I'm a hundred percent. Honestly, it's not how I meant it. [1:32:34] So is that an apology?

1:32:36 Thomas: No, because I just told you how I ment it. I mean, I, I'm, I guess I'm, I apologize if you see that as a [1:32:42] I indictment [1:32:43] know that's a bullshit of your, your character.

[1:32:43] apology. Yeah, because I'm, I'm not sorry [1:32:46] This about it. [1:32:46] entire Oh. [1:32:47] show, that's what you've done. When you dedicated the episode to talk about this, yeah, you said you were one-sided. You said you Were Bias. Later on, you say Andrew is the nicest guy in the world. Later on you say, call me Bias, Andrew is my friend. But throughout the show, you continue to be condescending. You continue to laugh. You continue make judgments about my motivations. You continue to, you know, joke about me being drunk and laugh.

And this whole thing was just, it was just a, just the entire show was just a slam on me and my character. And then lying to your listeners, telling them that I'm mad and threw a fit because I'm wrong. Just flat out. You said that you flat out said it. And this is, this is the clip of it. You don't have to have the same opinion as every expert experts disagree.

[1:33:36] You can have a different opinion. That's totally cool. You can even, if you want, you can have a different opinion on climate change, but you need to take the attitude that you're going to maybe learn when you're not an expert in life, when you'RE not the expert, take the attitude that YOU'RE going to possibly learn from the expert. I think telling the expert fuck you, you arrogant, you know, whatever, for having a more informed opinion than me, I think that's when you've lost it. Can we agree that that is when you bought? I have [1:34:13] a huge problem with it. You think I don't know that, Thomas? I bring

1:34:19 Thomas: I, I [1:34:19] in think you, you probably do [1:34:20] science know it, and and you didn't [1:34:21] experts live up [1:34:22] on to it. [1:34:24] my show all That's [1:34:25] the time. I'm fine, that's [1:34:26] always asking questions about science and they teach me. I learn from people all the times. I've had Black Lives Matter discussions with Alex and with Michael Woods in studio to where I say something and then they prove me wrong and I come back and say my opinion has completely evolved on this because new information fun. Yeah.

[1:34:42] is You [1:34:42] now available to me. But you're talking there like David Smalley's position is, I am right, even in the face of experts, and if they think they're right, I'm going to say fuck you to them. Know what, uh, here's two things, okay. I take that on. For one, here's something, I, I can't apologize for, and I do mean it, I apologize that I didn't take more time to develop, saying uh, more construct, like, more helpful things and more, more positive things about you and your show first. I'm sorry I didn't do that. I think that I take it for granted that most of my listeners know who you are. They are familiar with the show. We have a lot of co-listeners.

They like you. They liked your show. I take that for granted. I'm sorry I did. I should have started off with David Smalley is someone who has a history of having people on who might disagree with him, might prove him wrong, whatever. I, I think I did say it later on. I don't think you listened to the whole show. It sounds like you didn't. Or, or wait, did you say you did? Either [1:35:37] I way, [1:35:37] don't at one [1:35:38] remember.

1:35:38 Thomas: Point, I believe I said, if David apologized for this interaction, my entire criticism of him would go away. I did say that in my show. I hope it was the one you've heard. It could have been the other one, but I think it was the one he heard. And I meant that. And I apologize that I didn't make that more clear.

But I think you're trying to get me to apologize for something that is not anything that I, I mean, I think we're gonna have to let listeners judge. I do a show, I gotta be entertaining, I gotta uh, I've got to give my opinion. I presented the entire exchange word for word, the entire thing. Didn't edit, didn't, I mean, I might have flubbed on a word here, there, uh, and I present the whole evidence. I even linked it later.

Later on, here's the PDF, and I provided [1:36:25] I my opinion and my judgment of what you did. You can say that my judgment was wrong, but that's not misrepresenting someone. That's [1:36:33] do being wrong [1:36:33] have in their judgment. All [1:36:35] a clip from the two of you together. This was someone sent me that, of course, added fuel to the fire. This is you and I don't even remember what's on here. I haven't heard it since they sent me back in July.

[1:36:47] But it's with you and Andrew together on the show. Approve the settlement was magistrate judge. Judge. See, this is why we need experts. [1:36:57] I would have had no idea about all that. It sounds it's so what it sounds to me like is, you know, more about this than your average person.

[1:37:08] Yeah. I mean, look, not everything's like this, but I'm right. I think that's why it is one of these things. Like it just same with like tax accounting. I took I was an accountant. That's what my degree is in just it's really fucking hard like there's certain things that are really complicated that unless you want to do a ton of research and even then you may be misled on uh you know you need an expert.

Okay, so this what this reminds me of is my 16-year-old son comes into the kitchen and goes, "Hey, I want to take this cheeseburger," you know, "into the studio to eat while while I'm editing audio." And I go, "No, man, you're not taking that in there." And he turns to me and says, "I can't even eat in my own house."

[1:37:57] And I go, "Come on, dude, nobody is saying that." You guys on this show are laughing and acting like, "Yeah, you know, there's gonna be experts. Ha ha ha." Some people don't even realize that experts are necessary. Some stuff is really hard. And it's just this petty condescending laughter once again at my expense like I don't value experts or that I somehow think I'm smarter than all the experts. Hey David, can I ask you a question? Sure.

See if I wanted to do that, I could, you know, take umbrage at the little sigh and whatever there, but that's fine. Um, you've repeatedly said that in my first comment I should have identified myself as a a lawyer and reached out to you. The question I have is you read a news story about a legal settlement.

[1:38:46] I know you didn't know me at the time, but why didn't you reach out to a legal expert before writing a 5,000 word blog post about it? Because I'll tell you, because I thought I understood it. So I didn't think there was a need to reach out. Okay. And, and have you, have you I mean, have your, have yourself at all? My blog post wasn't attacking an individual.

My blog wasn't going after the character of someone accusing them of having character flaws that should be laughed at and ridiculed publicly. I was talking about an overall idea that I disagree that Christian companies should have to conform to, you know, fit in with gay rights. And that's a nuanced discussion that I think we can have. And I go back and forth on it.

[1:39:32] And I often argue with myself publicly about it and go, well, on one hand, this, on the other other hand, this, I'm not sure where I stand on it.

1:39:38 Thomas: Right, that's great, and [1:39:39] Throughout here's what [1:39:40] that you should do. We've got to wrap this up, so I'm trying to go [1:39:42] blog ahead. [1:39:42] post, I did make some legal statements that were incorrect. And I appreciate people wanting to reach out and correct me if they reach out incorrect the actual fact. But the way you did it, again, it was so aggressive. It was condescending. I felt like it was inappropriate. That set me off. And then I took it too far. So I think we both made mistakes. I apologize for my part in it.

But Thomas, I think the way you ridiculed me, the way you laughed at me, the way you misinterpreted the things I said was was drastically inappropriate. And the fact that it started costing me financially is the time I actually had to take notice and say, Thomas, stop doing this to people. Have your opinions, have your have your ideas of things. But going after people, the ad hominem way that you did attacking me was zero ad Zero [1:40:32] homino. Ad hominem.

[1:40:33] Fought. Here's where I lost [1:40:35] Well, it. David, I would not have gone after you the way I did if you didn't say, "Yeah, no shit, I debate for a living," so that would make you the amateur in this discussion, after you already knew you were speaking to an expert. That sentiment says it doesn't matter if you're an expert, I'm a debater, I- [1:40:52] What?

1:40:52 Thomas: So you're- [1:40:53] That- The- [1:40:53] Actually- Amateur, that's- [1:40:54] Means is, I was so pissed off already, that's where I made the mistake. I, I didn't, I was no longer even concerned about- Fine, you- [1:41:03] I- Made a mistake. I'm laughing [1:41:04] Was- at [1:41:04] I- the mistake [1:41:05] Was- you made. They- [1:41:05] Not, I was no longer ever concerned about the legal situation, that is something we could talk about later. I was pissed off that someone was being so disrespectful to me and being- Just weren't. So let's, let's wrap it up that we're going around, we see this differently. Uh, I- [1:41:19] You're- I'm- [1:41:20] Still- Yeah, [1:41:20] Laughing, that- Because that's ridiculous. You were the one who were worse. Andrew came up and said you're just wrong about this, that was the extent of him being awful [1:41:28] Was not to you [1:41:29] The as [1:41:29] Extent you've made it out.

[1:41:31] That was still refusing to, Andrew himself has even said he takes responsibility for it. He was adding other shit that other people have said Yeah, [1:41:39] to it what's happening there [1:41:40] and is Andrew is a very nice guy who's willing to [1:41:42] I-

1:41:42 Thomas: Give you as much as he can in order to have a resolution. I'm not willing [1:41:46] and to do that, so that's why [1:41:47] I'm- we don't have a solution. [1:41:49] Not, I've given as well. I've said where I was wrong. You [1:41:53] I've- have said, [1:41:54] I've- oh, we both. You've made it [1:41:56] Give about 50-50, [1:41:56] I've- which is [1:41:57] Given Andrew absurd. [1:41:58] credit for making good arguments. I've said I was wrong on some of the legal statements. You are refusing to take any responsibility at all for the way you slammed me on your show and misinterpreted I [1:42:08] my argument.

1:42:09 Thomas: Take responsibility for slamming you on my show. I slammed you on the show. I made fun of this interaction. I don't know what, I'm not sure what you want me to be sorry about. I mean, if you, if you had gone about this differently, I wouldn't have done it if you [1:42:22] If Would. Oh, [1:42:23] you had gone about this differently, I wouldn't be saying the things I'm saying. And if Andrew had gone abut his first response to It's [1:42:28] me, everyone's [1:42:29] I'm fault. Yeah, it's someone else's fault, I- [1:42:30] saying everyone has some skin in this game. If Andrew wouldn't have started off the way he did He wouldn't have got the response he did out of me. If you hadn't have done what you did, I wouldn't be talking to you the way I'm talking to you right now. But you're refusing any to apologize for anything that you've done.

1:42:47 Thomas: Apologize. I did offer an apology. I sincerely apologize I didn't set it up a little better to make it more digestible. [1:42:53] But I [1:42:53] don't should have been [1:42:54] apologize. More positive on you there [1:42:55] But you don't apologise for the assault on my character. There's Was no [1:42:58] no assault [1:42:58] assault on your [1:42:59] on character [1:42:59] your character.

1:42:59 Thomas: I don't apologize for anything I said. I really don't. I mean, I, I- [1:43:02] Done. Yeah, [1:43:03] Take care. Okay, [1:43:03] Well, See, I- What does one say? I don't know. I want thank Andrew a lot for being with me. I want thank David actually a lot, coming on, maintaining his composure, probably better than I did, I think it was very composed. I just think we fundamentally disagree agree. So I want to put it to you guys. Do you, do you think I owe David more of an apology than I gave him? And here's what I'll say. When I think about the fundamental issues now, I'm not, I'm not perfect. I'm saying I went about everything perfectly. I, you know, I could have said things better. Of course, I, I'm sure I could've said things in a better way to make, to make this happen better. And I do sincerely mean it when I say I apologize. I didn't set it up more positively for David and emphasize, and it seems like this was of no value to him, but I mean it.

1:44:11 Thomas: I could have emphasized, look, David is a guy who normally gets this right, who has experts on his show like he said, and I, and I meant that, and I, I'm, I guess I'm a little disappointed that he saw that as a zero apology, because I do mean it, and I do think it would have shaped the way my criticism was received after that if I had shaped it more as, uh, here's a particular case where I think David slipped up, and, and in my mind slipped up in a really big way, which is why I was so tenacious about this and didn't give up, because the things he said to Andrew, in my mind, were absurd, and I'm not going to apologize for laughing at them. I'm not going to apologize for my opinion that they were ridiculous. You can disagree. He can come on and disagree as to my analysis and say, "Look, I wasn't reacting that way because I was wrong," which was his whole thing.

1:45:05 Thomas: His whole argument, and getting back to what I started saying, his entire argument was, I, I characterized it as him reacting badly after being shown wrong, when in reality, he was reacting to Andrew's tone. And I, okay, he can say that. I'm glad he came on the show to say that, because maybe some of you see it that way. Maybe all of you see it that way, for all I know, I'm not sure, but I don't see it that way.

I look at Andrew's tone and I see, wow, there's really not much there. You know, there is a point, I think the biggest bombshell in this debate for me was when David said it was right around minute 1:06, I think, or not minute 10 6, but one hour and six minutes, I think he said, Andrew didn't just say I was wrong and then he went on to say, you know, his tone, etc. And the first comment on Andrew's post on Facebook was literally, "David, you're just wrong." Like, it couldn't more contradict what David just said. He said, "David, you're wrong on this." I get it, that's direct, but, but that is just saying you're wrong. That, that is literally an expert just saying you are wrong. He didn't call him names.

He did, you know, like I, I get that David might've taken it the wrong way, but I mean, this is my opinion. I gave my opinion, even if, even if I changed my opinion as a result of this debate, which I honestly haven't, I haven't changed my, my opinion on that original situation because I don't think David provided very good, good arguments, personally.

1:46:39 Thomas: But let's pretend I even did change my mind. I still, I still don't know that I would apologize for expressing my opinion because I didn't misrepresent him. If I had done anything that misrepresented David, if I had, maybe I omitted like a good sentence that he had to make him look worse, that would absolutely warrant an apology. I didn't, I referenced the interaction in its entirety, I later made it available via PDF. I just don't think you could possibly say, well, you could say it, but I don't think you would be right to say that I misrepresented him. So I gave an opinion, and if I thought I was wrong, I would apologize. I don't think I'm wrong. I think he really reacted badly to someone saying he was wrong, and even after he found out that this was an expert, he couldn't handle the disagreeing views.

1:47:34 Thomas: He wasn't able to poke holes in the facts and he resorted to saying horrible things. And to say one more thing, David kept trying to get off on, well, I didn't read his, I skimmed his comment. I didn't, you know, well that's fine. You can skim comments. You cannot read the comments on a post where you explicitly ask for comments, which was his original Patheos piece. You CAN do that, but you need to take responsibility for it. When someone perceives you a certain way under the expectation that when you're responding to Andrew on Facebook, I think it's okay for me to assume you're reading his comment before you're lashing out on him. That's a reasonable assumption for someone to make because that's the reasonable thing to do. Alright, so let me know. I'm very open to your criticism.

1:48:19 Thomas: I am open to being wrong about this. I really am. I've reflected an enormous amount on this. I really have, and I think that I could apologize for little words here and there. Like, I could, but I just don't. I think, that's making a mountain out of a molehill, if that's the correct phrase.

I think that when you look at David's larger claims and his arguments, him trying to get me to apologize for my entire criticism of him based on a couple breadcrumbs of things I said wrong, I don't accept that. So, absolutely, please comment if you think I'm wrong. You can send me a message, an email, whatever you want, however you want to comment. The website would be a good place to do it publicly if you want other people to see it.

If you don't want other people to see, feel free to email atheisticallyspeaking at gmail.com. Let me know, I'm, I am open to arguments if someone If someone convinces me that I need to apologize. And I know that's gonna be hard to do because David couldn't. I admit that I, you know, I have my view on this. I'm not 50-50 on this, but I'm open to new arguments. If you really think I owe David an apology, let me know and I will apologize. I'm sure he's very angry with me. I'm not going to be too willing to accept it, but I can easily be convinced that I am wrong. I really can.

And if I'm wrong, I will apologize to him publicly for whatever it's worth. So, one more thing I want to say is I never had any intention of getting people to unsubscribe from David's podcast or from the bonus, whatever, however his thing's set up. That didn't even occur to me, to be honest. I merely was objectively, in my mind, doing my best to give my opinion, to give an honest assessment of this interaction.

1:50:04 Thomas: I also want to say that I do think David has a good show. I mean, honestly, this interaction and the way he talks to people and debates with people has turned me off. So, I don't listen to his show. I listened for a little while and I stopped because I was turned off by that. But I absolutely do not begrudge him his audience. I encourage you, if you like his show, absolutely support his show! I have no problem with that. No problem whatsoever. I'll tell you this, I would rather support his show than Dave Rubin's show, because I at least think that David Smalley has contradictory guests. He challenges people. His show's more interesting, whereas Rubin is just a shelter for the alt-right, pretending that you're having a conversation. But anyway, that's a separate topic. So I only bring that up to say that I don't harbor ill will against him.

1:50:53 Thomas: My intention is not to pick his pocket in any way. I believe what I believe. I have my views on him, his show, his demeanor, and you can make whatever decision you would like to, and I know you will, because you are independent thinking people. Which, by the way, is another thing I meant to tell David at the time. I should have said, David, do you really think my audience and your audience are such sheep that me merely reading the words you wrote with a slightly shitty tone is going to convince them of some great injustice against you? Seriously, like, I do this show and people complain about my views all the time, people argue with what I've said, people argue, argue with my guests, people argue with me.

1:51:39 Thomas: That's this show. That is you guys. You are independent thinkers. I can't make you think anything about David Smalley if you don't want to, like if you do not actually believe it. There is no way I could do that. If this was some smear job, I would have gotten a bunch of you independent thinkers saying, hey, you just smeared David Smalley. You just completely smeared him. I did not get that because I merely read what he said And I gave a judgment on what he said. I provided the link to the PDF of what he said. That's not a smear job. So I think he gives you guys in his audience too little credit for being critically minded people who are not sheep. I don't think you are sheep. I think it's the opposite. I have a hard time convincing anyone of anything on this show.

1:52:25 Thomas: I, oh, well, I'll stop talking. Andrew and I are going to record a Patreon bonus content where we're going to discuss the entire thing, probably more candidly. So for patrons over at patreon.com/atheist, you know, we're kind of gonna decompress. Record together, talk about what went wrong, what went right, that sort of thing. Feel free to check that out if you have no interest in this entire debacle. You know, more power to you. I don't blame you, really. And I look forward to in future episodes, getting back to some of the things I want to talk about, science, philosophy, disagreements, arguments, not arguments like this. But hey, I mean, I needed to give him his fair time, and I hope I did. And yeah, so thank you for listening.

1:53:12 Thomas: This has been Atheistically Speaking. Thank you to all my patrons. It's been too long. I'm not going to bother reading patron names this week. Sorry about that, but it's too long of an episode. Thank you for... Thanks for listening. And I'll see you next week.