Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
Web of links
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 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
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
How about this:
Violence is never a good solution but a necessary one and one any functioning government will prevent its populous from using against themselves or else they would no longer function as a a government so the best we can ask for is a government that does the least harm and considering we have had a longer span of peace than any preceding civilisation then we can conclude a violent uprising would cause more harm than good so we should except the status quo given it's net benefit to the collective, however there will inevitably be those who society is less beneficial too so much so that a revolution would be beneficial but the individual cannot rule the collective because that would be a dictator and no stable society could exist when one man has grievances against it can dismantle it so we must always weigh the the against the benefits heavily before considering any sort of rebellion while simultaneously keeping in mind the overwhelming likelihood that it will outright fail given the powerful by definition have more power than the weak and include the resulting loss in our calculation.
What do you think? To wordy or will it catch on?
I found some of these on the floor, I think you dropped them: ,,,,,,.,.,.,,.,,,.,.,
I'm not against violence as a solution. It just shouldn't be the first solution you come up with, or the second.... Or the third.
Violence as a solution is a last resort.
For everyone who says something like that, i try to remind them of this little things called WWII
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
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.
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".
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.