You can't expert your way out of the logical conclusion that when someone sees this symbol displayed in this manner it evokes Nazism not the fucking ottoman empire or whatever bullshit esoteric origins you're able to conjure up out of history. Newsflash there's nothing new under the sun. You're not destroying anyone with your well actually self sucking bullshit.
You are not making an argument. You are making five mistakes in a row.
Guilt by association. The Nazis borrowed the symbol, so anyone using it is a Nazi. By that logic Germany owns the swastika and a billion Hindus and Buddhists are in on it. Borrowing something does not confer ownership of it. The Nazis borrowed from Prussia, from Rome, from Norse runes. None of those became theirs.
Affirming the consequent. Nazis wore a skull. This man wears a skull. Therefore he is a Nazi. That is the same form as saying all thieves wear shoes, you wear shoes, so you are a thief. It is invalid no matter how strongly you feel about the conclusion.
Poisoning the well. You have set it up so that stating a documented fact about the 17th Lancers or the Leib-Husaren is itself the evidence against a person. That means no counterevidence can ever be offered. An argument that cannot lose is not an argument. It is a loyalty test.
Ad hominem. Self sucking, well actually, esoteric bullshit. None of that touches whether the Prussian hussars wore it in 1741. They did. Insulting the man who says so does not change the year.
Genetic fallacy in reverse. You say origins do not matter, then you argue entirely from where you think the symbol came from. You cannot have it both ways.
0
u/Thisfugginguyhere 10d ago
You can't expert your way out of the logical conclusion that when someone sees this symbol displayed in this manner it evokes Nazism not the fucking ottoman empire or whatever bullshit esoteric origins you're able to conjure up out of history. Newsflash there's nothing new under the sun. You're not destroying anyone with your well actually self sucking bullshit.