• robo@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, the banker didn’t create the threat of poverty, that existed before the banker arrived.

    The masked robber, however, did bring 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?

      • robo@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the rich should be taxed fwiw, but this particular argument doesn’t work.

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