You’re going from emphatically saying killing clergy is an objective to going “violence will be necessary in some cases to politically marginalize them” like the least convincing attempt at a motte-and-bailey that I’ve ever seen.
Edit: Removed points that I didn’t think were useful
I didnt say killing priests was a goal unto itself. I said you have to plan for it.
Further, the idea that i am the one doing motte and bailey on this one is hypocritical when my interlocutors can seamlessly go from “Repressing the clergy is bad as evidenced by X” to “Okay so X proves that you have to repress the clergy but you have to do it differently” without a mention from you.
You’re misrepresenting the position of most of your opponents here when most people agree with the motte in the motte-and-bailey (which is the point), and furthermore even if we assumed that they were entirely hypocritical (which they are not), your appeal to that would be a crass deflection just as it is in our present situation.
from emphatically saying killing clergy is an objective to going “violence will be necessary in some cases to politically marginalize them” like the least convincing attempt at a motte-and-bailey that I’ve ever seen
Thank you for pointing this out. I had the strange feeling of arguing with a shifting target when I was writing some of my replies in this thread. When I read it all again to double-check, I realized that that was what was going on, but it’s nice to see someone else point it out explicitly.
You’re going from emphatically saying killing clergy is an objective to going “violence will be necessary in some cases to politically marginalize them” like the least convincing attempt at a motte-and-bailey that I’ve ever seen.
Edit: Removed points that I didn’t think were useful
I didnt say killing priests was a goal unto itself. I said you have to plan for it. Further, the idea that i am the one doing motte and bailey on this one is hypocritical when my interlocutors can seamlessly go from “Repressing the clergy is bad as evidenced by X” to “Okay so X proves that you have to repress the clergy but you have to do it differently” without a mention from you.
You’re misrepresenting the position of most of your opponents here when most people agree with the motte in the motte-and-bailey (which is the point), and furthermore even if we assumed that they were entirely hypocritical (which they are not), your appeal to that would be a crass deflection just as it is in our present situation.
Thank you for pointing this out. I had the strange feeling of arguing with a shifting target when I was writing some of my replies in this thread. When I read it all again to double-check, I realized that that was what was going on, but it’s nice to see someone else point it out explicitly.