So it was entirely up to the Jews of Germany to resist Hitler and overthrow the totalitarian regime? It’s not that I disagree with you, I’m argumentative in nature — but you have moved your position from ‘there are certain laws that are so immoral they must be resisted’ to ‘it is the job of those people under those laws to resist laws affecting them’. In essence you’ve moved from active to passive in your stance.

That’s not a problem per se, but when it is applied universally you get problems emerging such as ‘why should men care about a law that applies only to women’ or ‘why should we, the german people, care about a law that applies only to Jewish folk’.

And that’s where the problems of subjective reasoning begin. I think it’s more important to pay attention to the methodology of laws than the laws themselves — and that’s where this discussion began. I’m not defending Trump, I’m defending the universal principle of innocence until proven guilty. Some people would prefer us believe he is guilty now and see a trial as unnecessary, some people think he’s above the law and shouldn’t be tried.

I think we should stick to the law and defend its principles. Resisting both a push towards the court of popular opinion as a replacement and exoneration and defence by lionisation and public office.