You're viewing a single thread.
About the last panel, I mean, ok, but isn't that what the banker is doing too? Isn't that what everybody does for everything? So therefore the only sin is coercion?
But the banker thought it was ok when he did it but not when the “robber” did it. Which represents (so it is claimed) a poorly grounded belief system, since what the banker does is (it is argued) the same as what the robber does.
Permanently Deleted
We found the Philosophy Defense Attorney.
I think the rich should be taxed fwiw, but this particular argument doesn't work.
The thing is, it’s not an argument (at least, in the context of this comic), it’s a joke. It’s not intended to stand up to scrutiny, it’s intended to humorously contrast with your expectations (which, whether it succeeds or not is really a matter of opinion - I happen to kinda like it).
It can be both, and it was.
"It's just a joke" is how people avoid scrutiny for dumb arguments.
Anyone familiar with the creator of this comic knows that this is something they seriously believe. Adding humor to it doesn't change that.
The thing is, it’s not an argument (at least, in the context of this comic), it’s a joke. It’s not intended to stand up to scrutiny, it’s intended to humorously contrast with your expectations (which, whether it succeeds or not is really a matter of opinion - I happen to kinda like it).
I never said the banker created the threat of poverty, indeed, I never even said I agreed with the premise of the comic. “Philosophy cop” is supposed to be a cop, why would you be surprised that he tries to arrest someone on shaky grounds? That happens even in real life, non-joke contexts. Honestly, if you try to take the comic seriously rather than as a joke, the more surprising element would be that the cop was not only called out by internal affairs, but purportedly should expect to be punished for his misdeeds.
the banker didn't create the threat of poverty
Ye the medical industry created that
No, the banker didn't create the threat of poverty, that existed before the banker arrived.
The masked robber, however, did being the gun and threaten the other person. If the robber was never there, the threat wouldn't be there either.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
Apparently, being consistent in your beliefs and actions is the most important thing.