Yes I believe violence is never the solution, but since there are people out there that don’t share my ideas, I need to keep some police officers around to keep me safe and some military personal to keep my country safe.
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
1039 points (93.3% liked)
Comic Strips
15918 readers
1933 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
To keep the peace it's all or nothing. Nobody has weapons or everybody has weapons. Since the former is pretty hard to achieve, the latter must happen.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Utterly dumb. Or is there a special meaning I'm just not getting?
this is ironically, a fallacious argument.
The implication here is that violence literally never solves problems. The actual implication is that violence generally doesn't provide a reasonable solution to problems, which everybody would be inclined to agree with, even in the case of military/police conflicts.
Have a better argument next time :)
load more comments
(2 replies)
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
load more comments
(7 replies)
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?
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
load more comments
(18 replies)
I mean... I do agree police shouldn't have weapons. They're less likely to die at work than an Aborist.
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]
load more comments
(6 replies)
I was never for increasing funding for the military until the US started threatening Canada
Plot twist, you're American.