Violence is often the solution, but it shouldn't be the first solution we try.
It's stupid to assert that law enforcement should be completely unarmed. There's absolutely legitimate situations where it's in the public's best interest. Now, the situations that do require it aren't super common, but they exist.
In the US at least, law enforcement is overarmed. We'd cut back on a lot of unnecessary violence if, say, officers kept their guns in the trunk rather than on their hip.
Police Union: How could you trample on the sacred rights of the police to escalate any situation into multiple fatalities?
Or you could do what Finland does, and make an independent investigation every time the police shoots someone.
Violence is always the solution. If there's an example for major changes implemented without at least an implicit threat of violence, that's the absolute exception. All big changes always require (the threat of) violence.
So, a such a situation would require Special Weapons? And maybe Tactics?
SWAT teams exist ostensibly for this reason, but arming everyone works too.
That works a lot better in countries where everyone and their mom doesn't have a gun. Though good god we don't train cops enough to justify giving them a gun
Anyone who thinks violence has never solved anything should open a history book
The credible threat of violence is often much more powerful than violence itself. See unions, the civil rights movement, mutually assured destruction.
Society is very often an implicit contract of "do what we want or else." Without the "or else", the powerful have no reason to listen.
violence doesn't "solve", it is about eliminating the problem.
It's their failure to solve or even recognize and formulate the problem that pushes some people to use violence.
Honestly, yes. Dunno why you were sittin' at a healthy karmic 0 because that is literally what violence is for. It doesn't solve a problem, it staunches it for the current government. Violence isn't a solution even when people think it is; it's a fascist band-aid
Violence is almost always the solution. Civilization is an effort to find a better solution. But people who reject the systems we've built up seem to forget why we built then.
Civilisation is about pooling resources to make a consistent supply of beer and food. It makes no clear preference between violence and peace. Crops are easier to grow during peace, while war affords more land to grow crops. So the optimum strategy for a civilisation is to alternate between periods of peace and war.
Yeah, to uphold the status quo of the few owning everything and controlling everyone
That's not why we built them. They got hijacked for that, and they need fixing.
They were built so we had an alternative to killing each other over disputes.
That's not why we built them
Isn't it though? The police were created to hunting down escaped slaves. The government was set up to keep the wealthy land owners in charge (only they could vote afterall). Schools were created to meet the needs of growing industry.
I'm struggling to find anything that was built specifically for the people and not the rich.
The USA didn't invent the concept of police or government.
The first police were appointed to investigate and punish minor crimes commited agains civilians.
A more accurate morality would be "Violence should never be the first course of action".
Violence should never be employed
against someone who is not harming you or infringing on your rights
against a party genuinely willing to negotiate
when your use of violence will seem excessive to onlookers such that they will turn against you
Can't discuss a fascist away, but you can get rid of him by violent means. Violence is sometimes morally acceptable if not outright required even.
Who has the moral authority to decide when or when not to use violence?
Usually whoever has the most accumulated violence. History is written...
Moral authority is always dubious, violence or not.
We failed to make Russia bend the knee with soft power.
Rearming Europe, after decades of trying without, is necessary because there's an ongoing war in Europe.
We overestimated our influence without an army, and that's even with the army of turkey and USA on our side in case we'd get attacked.
Violence is necessary, just unwanted. If someone hits my wife then I'm not going to use my words to solve the situation.
It's complicated because if you give everyone a gun, then there's a shooting happening every day. Give nobody a gun, then we don't know how to defend our countries.
Pros and cons to be outweighed, depending on the larger context.
There's a reason why we're taught about MLK instead of Malcolm X.
They're well aware of how little nonviolent protest accomplishes in the end.
A very good example of an exception, no doubt. Shall we tally up the number of times it took violence to drive out the British, though?
For everyone who says something like that, i try to remind them of this little things called WWII
violence is never the solution, but it works in a pinch for sure : )
Of course the solution to peace is not having war, but if someone attacks you, don't just stand there and do nothing.
Self defense is a thing. I notice most these comics that end up on my front page pretty much suck. Oh a .ml post. I see. Is there a non .ml version of "comics" somewhere?
First panel: I agree with the aspiration to avoid violence but allow for circumstances like self-defense or defense of a vulnerable party.
Second panel: I do agree we shouldn't give them weapons, at the least not lethal weapons, certainly not military-grade weapons.
Third panel: If you want to be capable of preserving your national sovereignty, having a military is required, therefore justified in that context.
Fourth panel: While the two previous questions logically follow from the position stated in the first panel, the last question makes no sense and is a complete non-sequitur from the stated position. [i.e. "Violence is never a solution" --> "oh, so do you mean it's a solution in this one case? !? !" <--non-sequitur]
complete non-sequitur
I don't think I agree? We don't see a response to the two questions, but it's implied that the answer to them is no. This then fills out the sequence to get to that point
I mean... I do agree police shouldn't have weapons. They're less likely to die at work than an Aborist.
Yes I believe violence is never the solution, but since there are people out there that don’t share my ideas, I need to keep some police officers around to keep me safe and some military personal to keep my country safe.
this is ironically, a fallacious argument.
The implication here is that violence literally never solves problems. The actual implication is that violence generally doesn't provide a reasonable solution to problems, which everybody would be inclined to agree with, even in the case of military/police conflicts.
Have a better argument next time :)
I was never for increasing funding for the military until the US started threatening Canada
Violence is always an option.
But...
Violence is not the answer, it is the question. And, when circumstances call for it, the answer is "yes".
Oh, bullshit.
Another strawman comic meant to express the author's political opinions and nothing more. I should start collecting these, the 4 panel ones all have the same 4 panels
A comic meant to express the creators opinion? Wow?!?!?! That's never happened before.
Yeah thats my point, they're lame and when done in this format entirely uncreative
You should look up what a “straw-man” argument is as it is not possible for this to be one.
So true, the characters could not be made out if straw
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
Web of links
