this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
359 points (94.1% liked)

Comics

5918 readers
109 users here now

This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.

Rules:

1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules

2- Be civil.

3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.

4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine 🇵🇸 . Zionists will be banned on sight.

5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.

Guidelines:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
359
Philosophy Cop (static.existentialcomics.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by cypherpunks@lemmy.ml to c/comics@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] philomory@lemm.ee 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago

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

The masked robber, however, did being 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?