4 ms·

> 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 fallac

> 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.

gruez 2y ago
>It's not. It's about setting a clear legal line. Which one is it? Are you sticking to the exact wording of the law (ie. that all chemical weapons are banned), or the principle (that we shouldn't use substances like mustard gas against combatants)? If you're going to stick to the exact wording, you should also note that the geneva convention only applies to conflicts between countries, so chemicals weapon use by police forces don't contravene it. There's no "legal line" being broken. >Who's begging the question here? It really isn't, given that I have plenty of other objections that don't depend on using the non-central fallacy, and the comment you replied to doesn't even mention the non-central fallacy. >Maybe police shouldn't be doing bad things? ... And maybe supporting them when they do bad things is also bad? I'm not sure how you got the impression, given that I specifically said otherwise in my previous comment: "But that's fine, because you can still object to those things even if they're not banned by 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. None of this has anything to do with the geneva convention or the use of tear gas. Moreover this presumes that if it wasn't for tear gas, police would stand down, when realistically speaking they'll just escalate to more lethal weapons.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  > this presumes that if it wasn't for tear gas, police would stand down, when realistically speaking they'll just escalate to more lethal weapons. When cops use tear gas on peaceful protesters, a sizable segment of the population shrugs. That's nor the case when "more lethal weapons" are used. Do you have stocks in tear gas manufacturers or something? This endless sea lioning is super weird. Every attempt to explain what the noncentral fallacy actually is and why it doesn't apply here just seems to leave you more confused, so I'mma stop trying. Good luck!

gruez 2y ago

>It's not. It's about setting a clear legal line. Which one is it? Are you sticking to the exact wording of the law (ie. that all chemical weapons are banned), or the principle (that we shouldn't use substances like mustard gas against combatants)? If you're going to stick to the exact wording, you should also note that the geneva convention only applies to conflicts between countries, so chemicals weapon use by police forces don't contravene it. There's no "legal line" being broken. >Who's begging the question here? It really isn't, given that I have plenty of other objections that don't depend on using the non-central fallacy, and the comment you replied to doesn't even mention the non-central fallacy. >Maybe police shouldn't be doing bad things? ... And maybe supporting them when they do bad things is also bad? I'm not sure how you got the impression, given that I specifically said otherwise in my previous comment: "But that's fine, because you can still object to those things even if they're not banned by 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. None of this has anything to do with the geneva convention or the use of tear gas. Moreover this presumes that if it wasn't for tear gas, police would stand down, when realistically speaking they'll just escalate to more lethal weapons.

mandmandam 2y ago
> this presumes that if it wasn't for tear gas, police would stand down, when realistically speaking they'll just escalate to more lethal weapons. When cops use tear gas on peaceful protesters, a sizable segment of the population shrugs. That's nor the case when "more lethal weapons" are used. Do you have stocks in tear gas manufacturers or something? This endless sea lioning is super weird. Every attempt to explain what the noncentral fallacy actually is and why it doesn't apply here just seems to leave you more confused, so I'mma stop trying. Good luck!