4 ms·

Tear gas and more lethal gasses were extensively used in WWI. Afterwards the various belligerents came to an agreement on which weapons were acceptable, and the

Tear gas and more lethal gasses were extensively used in WWI. Afterwards the various belligerents came to an agreement on which weapons were acceptable, and they specifically decided to include tear gas in that ban. There were various reasons they did this (fear of escalation to lethal gasses was the biggest concern) but one specific reason was the indiscriminate nature of the gas as well as the fact that it can cause unnecessary suffering. It is true that the Geneva Convention only bans tear gas for warfare, and allowed it for military riot control. The CWC then banned it even for those military applications in the 1990s. Some of the arguments made against the use of tear gas in military applications (in the 1920s and 1990s) also make good arguments for minimizing or eliminating its use in law enforcement settings. Rationalists like to reduce everything to a simple black and white argument, which tends to inject imprecision and bad understanding into the discourse.

gruez 2y ago
>one specific reason was the indiscriminate nature of the gas What are you talking about? The canisters launched by police are probably as discriminate as you can be when firing into a crowd. Are you expecting some sort of weapon that can precisely target the rioters in a crowd but leave everyone alone? >as well as the fact that it can cause unnecessary suffering. In the sense that "tear gas is just mustard gas", or "protesters have every right to be there and therefore any sort of discomfort is 'unnecessary suffering'"? What amount of "suffering" would you find acceptable?
fc417fc802 2y ago
I largely agree with what you wrote. > Rationalists like to ... But then you tacked this on to the end and it's entirely unnecessary. The linked article is actually a very good one about recognizing bad faith use of labels. It just doesn't really apply in this case because the original point (at least by my reading) wasn't a gotcha relying on the definition of a label but rather was using a label that the author believes is legitimate to point out the seeming inconsistency. Of course whether or not the label is legitimate is itself perfectly reasonable to discuss.
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  My problem with the linked argument -- and specifically, with the idea of linking it and not so much the argument -- is that it takes a statement with validity and then tries to use a kind of rhetorical trick to argue that it's false. It is not false, which is the entire point of my post, and those rhetorical cookbook tricks harm understanding and lead us away from truth, because the world is full of nuance and complexity.

gruez 2y ago

>one specific reason was the indiscriminate nature of the gas What are you talking about? The canisters launched by police are probably as discriminate as you can be when firing into a crowd. Are you expecting some sort of weapon that can precisely target the rioters in a crowd but leave everyone alone? >as well as the fact that it can cause unnecessary suffering. In the sense that "tear gas is just mustard gas", or "protesters have every right to be there and therefore any sort of discomfort is 'unnecessary suffering'"? What amount of "suffering" would you find acceptable?

fc417fc802 2y ago

I largely agree with what you wrote. > Rationalists like to ... But then you tacked this on to the end and it's entirely unnecessary. The linked article is actually a very good one about recognizing bad faith use of labels. It just doesn't really apply in this case because the original point (at least by my reading) wasn't a gotcha relying on the definition of a label but rather was using a label that the author believes is legitimate to point out the seeming inconsistency. Of course whether or not the label is legitimate is itself perfectly reasonable to discuss.

matthewdgreen 2y ago
My problem with the linked argument -- and specifically, with the idea of linking it and not so much the argument -- is that it takes a statement with validity and then tries to use a kind of rhetorical trick to argue that it's false. It is not false, which is the entire point of my post, and those rhetorical cookbook tricks harm understanding and lead us away from truth, because the world is full of nuance and complexity.