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.
That's definitely fair
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
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.
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.
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
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
-
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?
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.
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.
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.
Yep. Violence isn't the solution, it's the last resort.
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?
I mean... I do agree police shouldn't have weapons. They're less likely to die at work than an Aborist.
Arm the pizza delivery drivers!
hiro Protagonist with his sword.
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 understand what the cartoonist is trying to imply--that there are no true pacifists and people who say they're against violence are hypocrites who actually like violence when it's used to protect their privileged position. They just didn't do it right.
First, true pacifists do exist, who would answer "yes" to the first two questions--and which would make the last question ridiculous. So if the cartoonist's goal was to criticize the hypocrites, they just needed to show the first person answering the first two questions with an unqualified "no" to show they didn't really mean what they said in the first panel.
Not a non-sequitur, since she's suggesting that the second person would believe that police and armies are exceptions to the rule. Given that these are, definitionally, the only parties in most modern states legally allowed to commit violence, and that the primary function of same is to maintain the status quo, be it borders, property, or laws themselves, ths last panel does nearly follow from the previous two. It is certainly a bit of a strawman, though, since he did not actually respond yet. The strawman here, however, is intentional, as a means to suggest to the reader that perhaps violence is justified in more than these two cases.
For everyone who says something like that, i try to remind them of this little things called WWII
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".
I was never for increasing funding for the military until the US started threatening Canada
Thats somehow so upside down philosophically. In human history we established states and gave them the monopoly of violence, so that we don't crush each others heads all the time (at least inside the state) or so that some guy who is stronger or has better weapons can't just take all our stuff because he wants to.
This is exactly what police do via civil asset forfeiture/seizure.
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
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
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'm having trouble parsing what you're saying. Who is implying what?
the people who say "violence isnt the option" imply that the issue is that violence never fully solves issues, because it doesnt. That's true. It only gives you power, which is a useful tool in asserting control, which is ultimately what leads to solutions.
The people who are on the other side, are arguing that this is an absolutist statement, and therefore, must literally mean "violence is not the answer" i.e. you should fuck each other until a solution arises. Which is obviously a facetious argument.
"violence is never the answer" is not a particularly good phrase, but when commonly understand my the broad population, it's not as problematic. Though it is sort of poetically true.
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.
Oh, bullshit.
Violence is only the answer when violence is already employed and you need to defend yourself. Ukraine is allowed to be violent against the aggressor. Police is allowed to be violent against insurrectionists.
But are the people allowed to be violent when the police use excessive force?
...cuz the cops be doing that a lot
But do it in a smart way. A single person using violence against someone stronger than him, is dumb.
Something like BLM movement is smart.
Just trying to resist arrest, however angry it may make you, is dumb. Unless of course you'd be sent to gulag. Then do resist.
You need to use power in a smart way to gain the upper hand.
This ideology becomes an issue when someone is finding ways to attack you that don’t quite constitute violence.
People need food, water, shelter, sense of belonging in society, etc. Bigots have gotten very good at using whatever means they can to attack each of these without ever physically throwing a punch; defunding someone’s means of living, evicting them, harassing them, etc.
Ideally, the law, and hence the police (who hold guns) would retaliate on each of these things.
In that case, what's your view on Luigi?
It's like Twitter and other online plataforms, where advocating or talking about violent acts is forbidden, unless you are an army or a government organization.
Even if youre acab, violence is the solution sometimes. This is a horrible argument against police. What do you do to nazis? You beat the shit out of them. See you solved the problem of a nazi being in your eyesight with violence. I myself am a fan of reformed police tho which is only used in cases like someone clearly not abiding by the law(not going to court, etc) and imvestigations(which is more like detectives and stuff not police)
Yes, I think we should abolish the police and dismantle the army. That's, like, the whole point. They're responsible for most of the violence!
Utterly dumb. Or is there a special meaning I'm just not getting?
