• 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.