Hitler was alleged to commit genocide, he killed himself before confessing or being convicted of the murders.
I get what you are saying about lacking the link to the murders, which is accurate. Saying somebody isn’t something unless they have been tried and convicted is a bit high of a bar when they die before that could happen.
In this case you are right, it is more accurate to say Ángel Díaz Balbín was suspected of being a serial killer based on his prior conviction which is true.
That’s like saying gravity isn’t actually gravity and didn’t do gravity things unless a scientist tests it exhaustively and then says “gravity exists.”
Anyone can see gravity does indeed exist and does gravity things, it’s the extent of the properties of gravity that need to be left to the experts.
Hitler did genocide. No question.
How much did he genocide? Quite a lot, but we don’t have precise numbers.
So yes, Hitler did do genocidal things regardless of whether or not he had a court convict him of those things, and no, we don’t need “allegedly” as pedantry or exploiting an irrelevant technicality.
*Alleged serial killer. He was murdered before confessing or being convicted of the other murders.
Hitler was alleged to commit genocide, he killed himself before confessing or being convicted of the murders.
I get what you are saying about lacking the link to the murders, which is accurate. Saying somebody isn’t something unless they have been tried and convicted is a bit high of a bar when they die before that could happen.
In this case you are right, it is more accurate to say Ángel Díaz Balbín was suspected of being a serial killer based on his prior conviction which is true.
Dear Lord. Godwins law coming in hot today.
That’s like saying gravity isn’t actually gravity and didn’t do gravity things unless a scientist tests it exhaustively and then says “gravity exists.”
Anyone can see gravity does indeed exist and does gravity things, it’s the extent of the properties of gravity that need to be left to the experts.
Hitler did genocide. No question.
How much did he genocide? Quite a lot, but we don’t have precise numbers.
So yes, Hitler did do genocidal things regardless of whether or not he had a court convict him of those things, and no, we don’t need “allegedly” as pedantry or exploiting an irrelevant technicality.
thatsthepointiwasmaking.gif
Idonthinkso.gif
Your mistake was using “Hitler” and “allegedly”, an incredibly poor choice.
The rest of your argument is plausible.
Ain’t no nuance for the wicked.
Sorry, even lemmygoers can struggle with reading comprehension. I feel your pain, brx
Ted Bundy type argument lmao
The Nuremberg trials were all about deciding whether Hitler had committed genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
deleted by creator
There is direct evidence to support hitler commiting genocide, so we don’t need to convict him.
Try reading the whole comment.