• mrbubblesort@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • philomory@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • robo
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        deleted by creator

            • philomory@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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).

        • philomory@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.