You just cannot give up an argument that you have already lost. You and MR should be very happy together. I am done.
I still have no idea what argument you think you've made that I've already lost. I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about at this point. You could at least elaborate. But feel free to walk off with the ball, if that's what you prefer.
Edited to add.
I have gone back and re-read all your posts, and I assume that you're referring to "I think that there is a huge difference between the idea of forcing people to leave a country and actually killing them."
I've explained precisely how I think the one bleeds into the other (requiring only time, a world war, and the emergence of a stong nation state with a government which understands it can intervene in the life of its people and the economy): the fundamental requirement of either case, being the thinking of them as 'other' and 'less than', already being present in Wagner's conception of the Jews.
You, however, have merely asserted that the two are different. I see no posts arguing
that point, just restatements of it as if it's obvious and un-arguable.
Edited again to add:
I missed your post (perhaps a timing issue) in which you wrote "A closer comparison might be that if you are going to rob someone's house, you might as well kill them while you are at it (which is silly)"
an argument, not an assertion, so it deserves consideration. The problem with any of your examples is one of lack of time and development between the two situations. I crash a car; I think it appropriate to push said car off the bridge. Ridiculous comparison! Then: I rob a house; I kill the guy whilst I'm at it... Clearly a silly comparison to make! I agree that saying the one implies the other would be ridiculous, because in these examples, both crimes are immediate actions, separated by no time or socio-economic or personal development at all. So of course they are non-sensical situations.
A better example, I would argue, would be: why do the police get very, very interested in cases of animal cruelty? Because they know that torturing animals is indicative of a potential psychopath and a psycopath is quite likely to go on to commit serial killing. Here, we have one criminal commiting one type of crime which eventually
and over time develops
into another type of crime.
My argument is not that Wagner was a Nazi, in other words, just as little Bobby Cat-Killer, isn't a serial murderer.
But the one can develop into the other, because the underlying psycopathy that allows the crime in either case is already present (in the case of anti-semitism, it's the ability to regard the Jew as not fully deserving of the rights and protections that you yourself are entitled to).