You presented a common argument in response to my post, even if you weren't personally advancing it; I addressed that argument with the rhetorical liberty that

You presented a common argument in response to my post, even if you weren't personally advancing it; I addressed that argument with the rhetorical liberty that I was speaking in a dialog continuing the original exchange in which that argument was advanced. (This causes less indirection dereferences for people who do believe that argument trying to understand why I don't.) The crux of why that argument is wrong is that it begs the question is precisely the same fashion, but dresses up that fallacy is faux predictive powers (eg, we can know what would happen if history changes) and emotional reaction to Nazis, which makes it wronger than the post I was originally replying to. In all honesty, your post is so full of weasel words, it's unclear what point, if any, you're actually trying to make.