Nuremberg was after the holocaust. You can’t just skip over the fact that Charlie Kirk has not instigated a holocaust, nor can you assume that he would have. That’s not even a logical fallacy, it’s simply not even true. Accusing me of a logical fallacy is rich in irony. Seriously, it’s so dumb I don’t even know what to say.
Stating not breaking laws is equivalent to doing no harm / doing nothing wrong is the logical fallacy, specifically “appeal to law”.
Saying a genocide has to happen in order for someone’s evil to be justified however, is insane. By your logic, attempted murder shouldn’t be a crime either, because no one got killed.
Nuremberg was after the holocaust. You can’t just skip over the fact that Charlie Kirk has not instigated a holocaust, nor can you assume that he would have. That’s not even a logical fallacy, it’s simply not even true. Accusing me of a logical fallacy is rich in irony. Seriously, it’s so dumb I don’t even know what to say.
Stating not breaking laws is equivalent to doing no harm / doing nothing wrong is the logical fallacy, specifically “appeal to law”.
Saying a genocide has to happen in order for someone’s evil to be justified however, is insane. By your logic, attempted murder shouldn’t be a crime either, because no one got killed.
I can’t believe I’m discussing whether or not it is wrong to kill someone for the crimes they may or may not ever commit…
Still on that “appeal to law” fallacy huh?
Since apparently you can’t be arsed to look it up, here’s a direct link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_law