I have done my thinking. I am implying that >>1 hasn't. The ironic question is a classical technique in debate, ranging back thousands of years. It would do you good to learn of it.
Law does not work by logical deduction. Law works by literal rules, written down exactly. If you want to accuse someone of breaking a law, you have to point out the exact law, and show how it was broken. That is what I want to see, not vague statements and generalizations.