• Fox@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can someone explain the difference between “poetic language” and “dialectically coming to the truth”?

    • krellor@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dialectically thinking would be to consider the issue at hand, and to form multiple positions to interpret or explain the situation, often contradictory or opposing positions.

      The banker example has the philosophy cop browbeat the banker with a single line of reasoning. What he could do is take the bankers position himself, flesh it out, and argue both points (and others) to find the most sound position, that is often a nuanced blend of the others.

  • mrbubblesort@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    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
      3
      ·
      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@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?

        • 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.

          • 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).

  • Jables@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    What a terrible comic. It very much gives a “I just found out about communism” vibe. Without banks, you wouldn’t even have the choice to get a loan to purchase a house or get starting capital for a business. And about the interest part, do you expect them to be a non profit? How will the banks pay their workers? I agree that the rates are too high, but come on, it’s a service that you choose to make use of.

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      do you expect them to be a non profit?

      Well of course not, I expect them to not exist as private entities. If they’re so big that their failure would cause the collapse of the economy, they should be federalized to prevent the greedy fucks from playing fast and loose with other people’s money to make themselves rich.

      it’s a service that you choose to make use of.

      Imagine you’re in a plane crash, and you wake up on an island…

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

      Did you miss the part where the comic defends the banker by attacking his attacker’s method of attack?

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or you could, y’know, house people without them needing to take a loan.

      Banks are not the be-all-end-all of resource distribution.

      • Jables@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I never said they were the be-all-end-all of distribution. This comic implies that banks somehow are responsible for providing money to people to buy housing. This is a way larger systemic issue. People should be paid enough to be able to purchase property.

        • Lupus108@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          People should be paid enough to be able to purchase property.

          What are you? A commie?