"Dave" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> 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.

Dave, strictly speaking, you are correct, but as I have said previously,
when I made the statement "Where legal rights exist moral rights always
precede them." I was thinking about the normal process of evolution and
development of legal rights, not about something like the criminal Nazi
Regime [Godwin]. Think about it in those terms and you'll see what I mean. I
used the absolute term "always" and I probably should not have, because it
gave the sophists like Derek something to latch onto. On the other hand it's
funny to watch him freak out about it. You can choose to refuse to accept my
explanation and conclude that I believe that the Nazis had a legitimate
moral right to do what they did if you like, but I find that a little silly.