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.
>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.
> 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.
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.
> 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!
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.