> 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 u

> 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!