Posted: Mar 10, 2020 11:20 pm
Nevets wrote:Thomas is intelligent.
You have a history with Thomas?
Nevets wrote:He can spaeak for himself.
I didn't suggest he couldn't. What I did say is that you are - ONCE AGAIN - making up other peoples' positions for them. And I already talked to you about that before:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2735910
Spearthrower wrote:...you keep strawmanning... actually, it's worse than strawmanning because a strawman is a weak rendition of an existing argument. You don't even bother strawmanning existing arguments, you just make up wholesale positions for other people even though they've made no suggestion whatsoever that is their position.
Pull that kind of crap enough, and you're going to find your stay here becomes ever less comfortable.
Nevets wrote:But it was his assertion "That was quite typical for pagan leaders being granted lands and fiefdoms in Christian lands."
If they are merely, "pretending" to be loyal to those that grant them lands, then this is an "allegation".
You've cited what he said, and then you've completely made up content that is not present in Thomas' post. The sentence in red is nothing to do with what Thomas said.
Where does he say they are 'pretending'?
Where has he made any allegation at all?
Answer: he hasn't - you're making up a position for him and then demanding he defend it.
That doesn't float. It's bullshit, and it's well into a couple of dozen iterations of this, starting with Theropod.
Nevets wrote:Are "you" alleging that those that granted them the lands, did not also want loyalty in return? Did they grant the lands, and titles, out of charity?
You're still doing it. No, I am not alleging anything, nor is Thomas - you don't make up our positions for us.
Nevets wrote:But i should be having this debate with Thomas.
It's not a debate - you can't hold a debate with someone where you think you can play both parts.