A more accurate morality would be “Violence should never be the first course of action”.
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: ,.,.,.,.,.,.,
The equalizer is Collective Power of all the people uniting in-person and online
A government is a collection of people working together to maintain power.
It does not include everyone because they simply do not need everyone, given the trillions of dollars they have they could easily afford to pay for as many people as they need if that was the most efficient use of their money, given they can increase to the size of the population under one unified cause we can assume a fragmented group of people with there own agendas would be a less effective force than the majority of stable government’s
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.
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.
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.
The threat of violence is always there.
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!
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.
I understand what the cartoonist is trying to imply…
I actually don’t think you do. They are a pacifist, as is shown by their desire to demilitarize the world. They clearly think that violence is currently used primarily to maintain the status quo, and they depict that in a negative light quite obviously.
What they were actually implying is that a lot of people claim to be against violence despite, in fact being pro-state-violence
That’s my point and why I say they didn’t do the cartoon right. If they wanted to say what you explained, we’d have to see the first person answering “no”. As it is, the cartoon implies that anyone who says violence isn’t the answer is lying/hypocritical.
Violence is never the solution, however tolerance should not extend to the intolerant.
If you think a large nation completely dismantling its military would prevent war, you’re just an idiot.
Oh, bullshit.
Complete the following sentence:
“Live by the sword, ___ __ ___ _____.”
shit on my chest
fish on my couch
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.
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.
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
