This slippery slope bullshit is getting real tiring. I can't even discern at this point if you're actually looking to debate a point but are woefully inept at avoiding logical pratfalls or if you're just being factitious and are trying to evoke passionate responses from people that aren't going to defend a Nazi (i.e. "shitposting").
I don't recall claiming that "if you let X happen, then this other terrible thing will happen."
I have been arguing a variety of points, sone of which are not related to each other:
0. Nazis ought to be silenced.
1. The rule of law is superior to mob justice and worth supporting.
2. There were laws that were likely applicable to this situation.
3. Those laws have been enforced in Washington state.
4. How Nazis were beaten mid 20th century depends on what stage the conflict was at.
5. When the allies were in a position to enforce their laws rather than summarily shoot people they did. (the Nuremburg point)
6. As implied by 2 and 3 above, enforcing law the Nazi on this corner did not require the physical force that so many people seem to think is analogous to liberating the Netherlands or something.
7. It is wrong to think that, as some seem to be arguing, Nazis are fundamentally different than you or me. As demonstrated throughout the world in the last 120 years and the study of the atrocities during those years, we all have the capacity for great evil, but just need the wrong circumstamces to bring it out.
8. 7 is one of the reasons why mob justice is so abhorrent.