Dutch wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote
> > usual suspect posing as chico chupacabra > wrote:
> >>Derek wrote:
> >>
> >><...>
> >>> That being so, according to Dutch's view, Nazis had
> >>> the moral right to experiment on Jews long before
> >>> their alleged legal right was put in place.
> >>
> >>Non sequitur
> >
> > The conclusion follows from the premises and is
> > therefore not a non sequitur.
>
> No it doesn't follow, for the reasons I elucidated. The Nazi regime was not
> part of the legitimate evolution of human rights, it was a era spawned by
> insane murderers. You need some new material Derek, this old Godwin crap was
> tired the first time around, it's really lame now.

AFAICS that does nothing to refute the following logic:

[A] "Where legal rights exist moral rights ALWAYS
precede them."

[b] "The Nazis had the legal right to abuse the Jews
because they rewrote the laws"

[A+B] "That being so, Nazis had a moral right to experiment
on Jews, which proceded their legal right to do so."

If premises [A] and [b] are both true then premise [A+B]
must also be true. If premise [A+B] is false then premise
[A] and/or premise [b] must also be false.