4 ms·

This isn't a case of a noncentral fallacy. > "Tear gas is bad because it violates the Geneva convention" makes as much sense as "MLK is a bad person because he

This isn't a case of a noncentral fallacy. > "Tear gas is bad because it violates the Geneva convention" makes as much sense as "MLK is a bad person because he's a criminal". Not really, no. The Geneva Convention has specific reasoning and rationale for making tear gas illegal during warfare, which does apply to tear gas and make perfect sense. That's not the same thing as saying taxation is theft, or MLK is bad.

gruez 2y ago
>Not really, no. The Geneva Convention has specific reasoning and rationale for making tear gas illegal during warfare, which does apply to tear gas and make perfect sense. Mind elaborating? The arguments in sibling comments seem to be some variant of "avoid escalating to more dangerous chemical agents". I don't see how that's relevant to protests. Are we seriously expecting the protesters to escalate to mustard gas because the police used tear gas?
- mandmandam 2y ago
  Even if mustard gas escalation is unlikely in protests, the reasoning behind banning the use of tear gas on protesters still matters: 1. The ban sends a clear message: chemical weapons of any kind are too dangerous to use on people. That's a good and important message to send. 2. If a government uses tear gas on its own citizens but condemns it in war, it creates a moral contradiction (even if the government don't see it that way). 3. Normalization - just as in war, allowing tear gas domestically could open the door to more severe measures over time. Maybe not mustard gas, but you know, that's not the only possible escalation. 4. When the government are describing peaceful protesters as "terrorists", and abducting them pending illegal deportation, arguing to give them carte blanche on using sonic and chemical weapons to suppress protest is... Well, it's kinda fascist. I don't know a nicer way to say it. Context matters.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >1. The ban sends a clear message: chemical weapons of any kind are too dangerous to use on people. That's a good and important message to send. This is begging the question. The topic being discussed is whether "all chemical weapons (including tear gas) are bad". You can't use "we should ban all chemical weapons because it sends a clear message that all chemical weapons are bad" as a reason to justify that, it's circular reasoning. > 2. If a government uses tear gas on its own citizens but condemns it in war, it creates a moral contradiction (even if the government don't see it that way). It's only a moral contradiction when people fall for the non-central fallacy that all chemical weapons are bad. Pepper spray is technically a "chemical weapon", but the average person isn't going to think that someone using a pepper spray is somehow comparable to Germans flooding the front lines with mustard gas. >3. Normalization - just as in war, allowing tear gas domestically could open the door to more severe measures over time. You can literally say that about any other bad thing that police does. It's not specific to tear gas, or the geneva convention. >4. When the government are describing peaceful protesters as "terrorists", and abducting them pending illegal deportation, arguing to give them carte blanche on using sonic and chemical weapons to suppress protest is... Well, it's kinda fucking fascist. I don't know a nicer way to say it. This is obvious a derail, and has nothing to do with the use of tear gas, or the geneva convention. Moreover none of those things are actually against the geneva convention. But that's fine, because you can still object to those things even if they're not banned by the geneva convention.
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      > This is begging the question. It's not. It's about setting a clear legal line. > It's only a moral contradiction when people fall for the non-central fallacy that all chemical weapons are bad. Who's begging the question here? > You can literally say that about any other bad thing that police does. Maybe police shouldn't be doing bad things? ... And maybe supporting them when they do bad things is also bad? > This is obvious a derail, and has nothing to do with the use of tear gas, or the geneva convention. Fascists and chemical weapons are not separate questions, because fascists are known to use extreme measures when suppressing dissent; systematically escalating past all previous reasonable lines.
      - 2y ago

gruez 2y ago

>Not really, no. The Geneva Convention has specific reasoning and rationale for making tear gas illegal during warfare, which does apply to tear gas and make perfect sense. Mind elaborating? The arguments in sibling comments seem to be some variant of "avoid escalating to more dangerous chemical agents". I don't see how that's relevant to protests. Are we seriously expecting the protesters to escalate to mustard gas because the police used tear gas?

mandmandam 2y ago
Even if mustard gas escalation is unlikely in protests, the reasoning behind banning the use of tear gas on protesters still matters: 1. The ban sends a clear message: chemical weapons of any kind are too dangerous to use on people. That's a good and important message to send. 2. If a government uses tear gas on its own citizens but condemns it in war, it creates a moral contradiction (even if the government don't see it that way). 3. Normalization - just as in war, allowing tear gas domestically could open the door to more severe measures over time. Maybe not mustard gas, but you know, that's not the only possible escalation. 4. When the government are describing peaceful protesters as "terrorists", and abducting them pending illegal deportation, arguing to give them carte blanche on using sonic and chemical weapons to suppress protest is... Well, it's kinda fascist. I don't know a nicer way to say it. Context matters.
- gruez 2y ago
  >1. The ban sends a clear message: chemical weapons of any kind are too dangerous to use on people. That's a good and important message to send. This is begging the question. The topic being discussed is whether "all chemical weapons (including tear gas) are bad". You can't use "we should ban all chemical weapons because it sends a clear message that all chemical weapons are bad" as a reason to justify that, it's circular reasoning. > 2. If a government uses tear gas on its own citizens but condemns it in war, it creates a moral contradiction (even if the government don't see it that way). It's only a moral contradiction when people fall for the non-central fallacy that all chemical weapons are bad. Pepper spray is technically a "chemical weapon", but the average person isn't going to think that someone using a pepper spray is somehow comparable to Germans flooding the front lines with mustard gas. >3. Normalization - just as in war, allowing tear gas domestically could open the door to more severe measures over time. You can literally say that about any other bad thing that police does. It's not specific to tear gas, or the geneva convention. >4. When the government are describing peaceful protesters as "terrorists", and abducting them pending illegal deportation, arguing to give them carte blanche on using sonic and chemical weapons to suppress protest is... Well, it's kinda fucking fascist. I don't know a nicer way to say it. This is obvious a derail, and has nothing to do with the use of tear gas, or the geneva convention. Moreover none of those things are actually against the geneva convention. But that's fine, because you can still object to those things even if they're not banned by the geneva convention.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > This is begging the question. It's not. It's about setting a clear legal line. > It's only a moral contradiction when people fall for the non-central fallacy that all chemical weapons are bad. Who's begging the question here? > You can literally say that about any other bad thing that police does. Maybe police shouldn't be doing bad things? ... And maybe supporting them when they do bad things is also bad? > This is obvious a derail, and has nothing to do with the use of tear gas, or the geneva convention. Fascists and chemical weapons are not separate questions, because fascists are known to use extreme measures when suppressing dissent; systematically escalating past all previous reasonable lines.
    - 2y ago