Panel 4: That is a hellaciously true statement. 200,000 years of sapient life. 10,000 years of civilization. @2,000 years since a number of people said “Can’t we all be kinder to each other?”
And it still often comes down to who is holding the most guns.
Taxil, you’re right in that conflict over resources is a constant in life, for literally every part of it, from each little individual cell to entire swaths of species across all ecosystems. Not being able and willing to fight equates to being at the mercy of those who are.
Gtgtgt, you’re right in that just because it’s baked into our DNA by millions of years of evolution, doesn’t mean it’s all there is. Humanity is a hypersocial species, and our survival hinges a lot more on cooperation than it does on competition (although not so much that one voids the other; I’d say it’s an 80-20% split).
My point is that justifying any kind of human behavior through a misplaced essentialist argument that it’s “only natural for people to be like this” is an egregious manifestation of bad faith.
Example: “It’s in women’s nature to be quiet and subservient. Look, their DNA shows they produce less testosterone. Women’s nature is to stay home and tend to children.”
Whatever the “natural” (with quotes, because we’re as much part of nature as standing aside to it) argument for anything, most of our subjective experience is conditioned by our human society way more than those “natural” objective conditions. And human society is something we collectively produce, whether we want it or not, through our everyday behavior. Thus, we choose everyday to reproduce it or try to change it. (Whether we succeed in changing it is another debate.)
People who appeal to nature or tradition are either people who have a vested interest in protecting status quo or people who’ve come to believe the former’s justifications, either out of despair or laziness (which in this case is the same as stupidity).
Then, there’s a secondary point: where is conflict inscribed in our DNA? Where’s the conflict gene? What’s the control sequence? How and when does it express?
Believing that whatever human behavior is encoded in our DNA is just plain dumb. That’s not how DNA works. (However, I didn’t interprete Taxil’s remark litterrally.)
That is flattering, but really, I just read stuff and puke it up in comment sections. I encourage your to read and make your own puke instead of using other people’s : D
Oh this is a thing in philosophy really. Existentialism deals with it in particular. What with the maxim that existence precedes essence. (Sartre)
There’s the notion that there should be a perfect ideal chair and that all other chairs are simply imperfect representations of the ideal. So there is an ideal woman and all women are simply copies of the ideal. There should exist an ESSENTIAL woman.
So you have Suzy who is a bit of a tomboy. Less than an essential woman. But who, simultaneously, cannot rise above her essential nature as a woman. It’s an absurdly contradictory view.
Existentialism merely claims that it is the human agent that creates these subjective notions of value (meaning). There’s nothing innate about the concept of “chair” or “woman” in nature. They’re, how you might say, emergent properties. Ones which only exist because we have a subjective concept of them.
Oh and . . . yeah, HR Daedalus rubs me the wrong way because he’s really into Platonic idealism. Which is basically the complete opposite. (Reality is an inferior copy of the Ideal realm.)
I think I’m particularly odd because I’m basically an existentialist who also thinks predetermination is a thing, and that really free will is an incoherent concept. (Which means that while I think essentialism is basically bogus, it’s still impossible to transcend your nature. Weird huh?)
As well, while struggle may be a natural – and perhaps even essential part of life – that is not the same thing as violence. For example, animals compete for resources, but they rarely kill each other over them. Quite often one will back down instead of it resorting to violence, or after a brief struggle one backs off, or they may even find a way to co-exist. “Fine, you eat that now… but I know you won’t eat it all so when you leave I’ll have what’s left.”
Animals typically only kill when they actually intend to eat their kill.
Yes, I know, some cats kill without any intention of eating. Those are predators without any need to eat their kill. They will do it as much as they think it’s their duty to their pride as anything. Animals in nature don’t have that luxury.
Human pride and greed is what prevents us from backing down, or coming to sensible compromises. The overwhelming majority of when humans kill each other is not because we NEED to, but simply because we WANT to. Killing is so easy for us, especially with modern weapons, that it is almost our default response.
That has nothing to do with ‘nature’. That is our CHOICE.
While I agree that humanity has done much to mitigate certain “natural” pressures acting upon it, and should continue to do so, studies have shown that a great deal of behavior (seemingly the majority) it determined by genetics. I am also curious if, by your comments, it is safe to assume that you believe in the existence of free will?
Twin studies (separated at a young age/at birth), dog breeding, and fox breeding studies have shown that things such as docility/aggressiveness have genetics as a major contributor (actually the primary contributor, but reasonably discussing such a controversial topic doesn’t seem fit for a comment section of a webcomic).
While a “conflict gene” is perhaps a gross oversimplification, certain genes deal with certain behavior. On a cellular level, this can deal with how reaction cascades from certain environmental stimuli proceed. Genes can influence things such as spatial organization and cross-talk of certain enzymes. Such cellular organization can influence intercellular communication, such as between neurons. If the cellular level seems unconvincing due to it being an individual cell or a colony of identical (or near identical) cells, then there is the genetic influence upon how an organism develops, particularly it’s brain. Genetic influences upon such things as autism, basically genes affecting the wiring of the brain, can cause differences in behavior, no? There is also the genetics behind the development of the brain between different taxa, does this not influence behavior?
I agree that certain people use arguments of “nature” to protect their “status quo,” but they often seem to have certain gaps in their understanding or work upon unsupported presuppositions. Humanity should continue to move past certain “wild” limitations. But simply ignoring (or bashing) the evidence for something doesn’t mean it’s just going to go away, and how it works will fall within your lines of thinking. Also, “stupidity”? While there are people who do argue without much backing, dismissing an entire line of thought (without much backing) is not conducive to reasonable discourse.
From what you say about how you “read stuff,” along with what you say from it, I’ll guess that it’s more of people talking about “science,” rather than people talking about scientific principles or the accounts of the evidence for principles themselves.
@ Gabi (or anyone who wants to read this, I suppose): While things worded well can be quite helpful, please keep in mind that we should first look to what is said, not how it is said.
If you would like to read further on the subject of genetic influence upon behavior, I would suggest reading up on the breeding of foxes in the Soviet Union. “Fun” thing about it is that they were actually doing it while giving false pretexts to the Soviet Union, stating that it was just raising them for fur. This was due to Lysenkoism holding sway in the political climate, causing some to even die for studying Mendelian genetics (like Nikolai Vavilov). But now we have learned a great deal about genetics, behavior, and genetic linkages (regarding traits that are linked by virtue of spatial relation if not direct influence). An added bonus is that the docile breeds of foxes can be purchased as Pets!
From a certain standpoint, nothing that can ever be done by a living being could ever be “unnatural”.
It is somewhat amusing to see people make the old naturalistic fallacy, but I guess what they’re really trying to get at is that a certain line of behaviour follows as some sort of default setting that effectively undertakes itself without effort applied specifically to change it. And I suppose within that context and definition, it can technically be true… if still useless for justifying anything.
Cerby stated the problem of “just the way it is” perfectly:
“Not being able and willing to fight equates to being at the mercy of those who are.”
Logically, if I am willing to use force and you are not, I win. Unless you can magically make EVERYONE unwilling to use force at once, those willing to use force will ALWAYS win.
Yes, saying “that’s just the way it is” is not an explanation, but it’s not hard to understand. The classic, Gandhi-style non-violence only works in very specific times and places (Gandhi himself knew this – his non-violence was CALCULATED, not ethical; he knew the British well enough to be sure it would work on them, and he wrote about why he chose non-violence).
In fact, while I understand the desire for non-violence, I would say those with the fallacy are those who think full non-violence can EVER be achieved. ONE person willing to be violent is all it takes…. good luck with that.
On the flip side, we also exist in a society where the primary deterrent to crime is not police action, not the threat of physical reprisal, but rather fear of social ostracization and/or economic consequences. Culture, not prison, is the first and best defense against crime in affluent first world countries. So it’s also fair to say that mankind has meaningfully changed over the hundreds and hundreds of years.
Study a little more history. Being branded an outlaw and shunned by virtually all of society is not a new idea. In fact, it’s a lot more common as you leave first-world nations and travel into the past. You don’t do business with thieves or oathbreakers because you can’t trust them, no matter how good the offer may seem.
Police action is not a significant deterrent because the police only manage to solve a tiny fraction of crimes. Physical reprisal is sort of a deterrent, but it’s relatively easy to pick out targets who won’t be able to fight back right away, and any who go after the criminal later have just as much to fear from the police as the criminal does, if not more. That just leaves social consequences, and social consequences only matter so long as they’re inflicted by people who’s opinions the punishee cares about.
You might consider physical reprisal to be the best deterrent on an individual level: it’s the only one of those options (police, social, etc.) that can be effectively enacted by an individual.
If anything, it’s probably more effective today than ever for the disadvantaged: as a fraction of a person’s buying power, a gun is far cheaper than a sword and/or armor were in their heyday, and “being the biggest and strongest” has never been an option for most of the population.
I’m not trying to be rude, but this is quite ridiculous:
“On the flip side, we also exist in a society where the primary deterrent to crime is not police action, not the threat of physical reprisal, but rather fear of social ostracization and/or economic consequences.”
But going back to the original problem, as long as there is scarcity, there is potential benefit to violence, and there will ALWAYS be scarcity.
While I agree that such social pressures are a far BETTER mechanism when they can work, I can point to MANY societies in history where they worked FAR FAR FAR FAR better than ours today. There is a significant sub-culture in this country where crime is CELEBRATED, where that social pressure is flipped exactly on its head, and that’s only the most extreme example among several.
Yes, that sub-culture is the richest people, who consider themselves completely above the law. Oh if the common vermin do something we must be punished, but if the rich do something… it is their right as the rich.
I think it was Sun Tzu who said this?
Something about preparing for war in a time of peace and preparing for peace in war. Even if you wish for peace, you must prepare for war.
Machiavelli said:
“Thus it happens in affairs of state, for when the evils that arise have been foreseen (which it is only given to a wise man to see), they can be quickly redressed, but when, through not having been foreseen, they have been permitted to grow in a way that every one can see them. there is no longer a remedy. Therefore, the Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only put off to the advantage of others . . .”
Tecumseh said:
“You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices today than any of you to secure peace.”
Well you get the point. It’s a recurring thing with military writers.
It’s written into our DNA, it’s a fatal genetic disorder. One of the most difficult to cure. No one is asserting genetic fallacy, that it’s GOOD. Rather what is being asserted is that fixing it is going to require fixing our genetic code.
I could also point out that “Can’t we all be kinder to each other?” is a very shallow interpretation of Jesus’ teaching that misses the most important parts, but I’m not looking to start a flame war.
FPS’s don’t teach trigger discipline, Xan ether has some real world experience which his dislike comes from (might also explain his stupid tool analogy earlier) or he simply educated himself by talking to people online who actually know about fire arms.
I don’t think you need any training or experience to know that keeping your finger on the trigger all the time can lead to a nasty accident. Even I know that, and I’ve only handled real guns twice in my life (nor have I ever played an FPS). It’s just common sense.
As someone who shoots both video game and real world guns, you’d be surprised at how often even supposedly experienced shooters who’ve been around guns all their life need to be reminded of basic gun safety. Whether you’re a novice or a veteran, it’s just so easy to end up resting your finger on the trigger. Pulling it unintentionally? Just the same.
As you said, common sense isn’t. It doesn’t take much to do something really stupid and tragic with a firearm in your hand. Lots of people who were in such situations use the term “accidental discharge”. The truth is that it’s really just neglect and irresponsibility.
@Messenger
That little bit does little to inspire confidence in the pro-gun folks in my country, given how common accidental discharges are behind the other major causes of gun deaths. There’s lots of nattering about “responsibility” but it rings hollower and hollower to me every day. It baffles me that you can claim veterancy or mastery of anything when you forget the basics.
Power is super cool and attractive. It’s also really destructive when mislaid. And most people have zero business being in any position of power, period. Especially when that power is little more than a hobby for most people that’ll never see any legitimate use.
Have you never once been distracted while driving? Operated a tool without full safety gear? Taken a medication without researching all possible side effects? Negligence is, by definition, easy.
You claim that you don’t want others in positions of “power”, but fail to comprehend how omnipresent power is. A car exerts thousands, even millions, of times the force that a gun does: just look at the truck attacks throughout Europe to see how easy it is to convert that violent ends. The currents flowing through the walls of your house are more than sufficient to electrocute. Bombs are easy to make; so are guns, when it comes right down to it (google the phrase “Table Leg Typewriter” if you want to see just how easy a felony is). If “most people have zero business” with power, then you should have much higher priorities, especially if accidents, not malice, are the justification you use.
Don’t run from the power offered to you and then complain when you’re at the mercy of those who didn’t.
TV, movies, and video games. People who don’t know gun safety see that the trigger finger is supposed to go on the trigger. So they put it there. All the time.
Gun safety isn’t exciting, or macho, or badass, or whatever, so they don’t really show it. They RARELY talk about it. Why should they? It’ll just eat up space in whatever story they’re showing.
And besides that, video games and the like don’t just omit basic but important knowledge, it also presents falsehoods and misconceptions. My particular pet peeve, found time and time again, such as in Borderlands, Borderlands 2, Counter-Strike:Global Offensive, Destiny, and Overwatch, is completing a revolver reload by just flipping the cylinder closed. You shouldn’t do that. The sharp swinging and closing of the cylinder can damage several parts of the gun to the point of rendering it inoperable.
However, that’s how you see people in TV, movies, and video games do it, and real people who don’t know better end up doing it as well.
If your action is flimsy enough that flipping it shut can damage it, then it’s probably not suitable for combat. The forces involved in flipping it shut vs. what someone high on adrenaline is likely to do to it aren’t that much different. There were several designs in WWI that were excellent target and sporting guns that failed miserably in combat because when men were yanking on the action like their life depended on it they would fail in subtle or not-so-subtle ways.
In my experience there are two problems with flipping a swing-action revolver shut though. Firstly it only takes a small bobble of your flipping motion to send shells flying everywhere, and secondly when you’re in a hurry it’s hard to be sure that it closed all the way. If it’s not closed all the way that’s really quite likely to damage the gun when fired, even the non-flimsy ones. If you’re lucky, all that’ll happen is that it will fall open again and spill your shells all over the floor. Hopefully your enemy is too busy laughing at you to shoot back at that point.
No revolver is likely to get damaged after its cylinder is flipped one, two, a few times unless its manufacture was particularly poor. Regardless of whether it’s “suitable for combat” or not, flipping the cylinder closed repeatedly is going to put stress on its cylinder crane, cylinder stop, and ejector rod. Damaging any one of those can turn your gun into an expensive paperweight.
That may not be something out of your experience, but that’s the consensus of many gunsmiths, experienced shooters, and firearm instructors, hence the advice to other people. It’s good that you’re telling people not to do it anyway, but the far more practical and real reason is the one you reject. People scoff at the possibility of having to repair their firearms until they actually experience the cost and inconvenience of one.
Arguable either way in this case depending on how likely it seems that she’s armed and how skilled she’s likely to be. The drunken wobbling and her hands down on the desk should probably prompt relaxing a bit though. Also, she and Xan should have stepped apart before saying anything. Being right next to each other like that is a poor tactical decision.
Matt Helm: “A gun i snot a magic wand. All you can do with it is shoot it. If they refuse to do what you tell them, then you either shoot them or you lose the initiative, which can be a Vary Bad Thing in that sort of situation.”
Sam Vimes: “Never, ever threaten anyone with your sword unless you really mean it, because if he calls your bluff you suddenly don’t have many choices and they’re all the wrong ones.”
Except Carol does have a gun and unless I see them take it off her I’ll assume she could pull it out at any time. This may be a trap. She knew they’d come and demand to see HR so she takes them there and the shock of what they see gives her the distraction to turn the tables.
Thank you for that, I didn’t realize it was Carol’s gun and was wondering why Shanna was the one pointing hers at Carol even though I thought Xan had Shanna’s gun in the previous panel. Ugh, it’s too early.
I missed that detail too. I really hope Carol has got something up her sleeve or this showdown will be as disappointing as Iver vs. Gravedust. Hell even Taro got to shoot Bandit before she took him down.
Right, that is her gun that Xan has… thanks for pointing it out SteelRaven.
During the break-in, they only had one gun.
Carol purchased a gun here, which looks reasonably identical to the one Xan is holding.
Furthermore, on the next page she left it sitting on her desk before falling asleep. And it is no longer there.
Pulling a gun takes a while when the other person already has theirs out. Moreso if hers is in her purse or desk. Fumbling around for a a dozen or so seconds is a great way to get yourself shot several times.
I mean, not that I think Xan necessarily has the experience to take her weapon beforehand or the willingness to outright murder Carol. However much Carol is the bad guy, she’s not presently threatening them and they’re already breaking and entering. She has the law on her side and way way more money.
It’s not really a fun situation for either of them.
I’m also wondering if she has one of those buttons under her desk like bank tellers do to be able to call security up to her office. Still don’t know how much good it will do her, though.
Yeah, security button would be scary too. If I were in Xan’s shoes, I don’t really want to shoot Carol that much. Because, frankly, that’d be murder and it wouldn’t give me what I want. I’d need her cooperation, not her blood.
Carol is desperate and cornered, so I wouldn’t really trust her not to press the button or go for a weapon.
Panel 4: That is a hellaciously true statement. 200,000 years of sapient life. 10,000 years of civilization. @2,000 years since a number of people said “Can’t we all be kinder to each other?”
And it still often comes down to who is holding the most guns.
Conflict is built into all life’s DNA, it’s just the way life is.
My fallacy sense is tingling.
Or:
That’s why we should let people with genetic disease suffer or women die in childbirth. It’s in our genes! We can’t help it!
You’re both right, in a sense.
Taxil, you’re right in that conflict over resources is a constant in life, for literally every part of it, from each little individual cell to entire swaths of species across all ecosystems. Not being able and willing to fight equates to being at the mercy of those who are.
Gtgtgt, you’re right in that just because it’s baked into our DNA by millions of years of evolution, doesn’t mean it’s all there is. Humanity is a hypersocial species, and our survival hinges a lot more on cooperation than it does on competition (although not so much that one voids the other; I’d say it’s an 80-20% split).
My point isn’t about violence vs. non-violence.
My point is that justifying any kind of human behavior through a misplaced essentialist argument that it’s “only natural for people to be like this” is an egregious manifestation of bad faith.
Example: “It’s in women’s nature to be quiet and subservient. Look, their DNA shows they produce less testosterone. Women’s nature is to stay home and tend to children.”
Whatever the “natural” (with quotes, because we’re as much part of nature as standing aside to it) argument for anything, most of our subjective experience is conditioned by our human society way more than those “natural” objective conditions. And human society is something we collectively produce, whether we want it or not, through our everyday behavior. Thus, we choose everyday to reproduce it or try to change it. (Whether we succeed in changing it is another debate.)
People who appeal to nature or tradition are either people who have a vested interest in protecting status quo or people who’ve come to believe the former’s justifications, either out of despair or laziness (which in this case is the same as stupidity).
Then, there’s a secondary point: where is conflict inscribed in our DNA? Where’s the conflict gene? What’s the control sequence? How and when does it express?
Believing that whatever human behavior is encoded in our DNA is just plain dumb. That’s not how DNA works. (However, I didn’t interprete Taxil’s remark litterrally.)
Gtgtgt, can I quote you? I love the way you put that into words.
That is flattering, but really, I just read stuff and puke it up in comment sections. I encourage your to read and make your own puke instead of using other people’s : D
Oh this is a thing in philosophy really. Existentialism deals with it in particular. What with the maxim that existence precedes essence. (Sartre)
There’s the notion that there should be a perfect ideal chair and that all other chairs are simply imperfect representations of the ideal. So there is an ideal woman and all women are simply copies of the ideal. There should exist an ESSENTIAL woman.
So you have Suzy who is a bit of a tomboy. Less than an essential woman. But who, simultaneously, cannot rise above her essential nature as a woman. It’s an absurdly contradictory view.
Existentialism merely claims that it is the human agent that creates these subjective notions of value (meaning). There’s nothing innate about the concept of “chair” or “woman” in nature. They’re, how you might say, emergent properties. Ones which only exist because we have a subjective concept of them.
Oh and . . . yeah, HR Daedalus rubs me the wrong way because he’s really into Platonic idealism. Which is basically the complete opposite. (Reality is an inferior copy of the Ideal realm.)
I think I’m particularly odd because I’m basically an existentialist who also thinks predetermination is a thing, and that really free will is an incoherent concept. (Which means that while I think essentialism is basically bogus, it’s still impossible to transcend your nature. Weird huh?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_(existentialism)
As well, while struggle may be a natural – and perhaps even essential part of life – that is not the same thing as violence. For example, animals compete for resources, but they rarely kill each other over them. Quite often one will back down instead of it resorting to violence, or after a brief struggle one backs off, or they may even find a way to co-exist. “Fine, you eat that now… but I know you won’t eat it all so when you leave I’ll have what’s left.”
Animals typically only kill when they actually intend to eat their kill.
Yes, I know, some cats kill without any intention of eating. Those are predators without any need to eat their kill. They will do it as much as they think it’s their duty to their pride as anything. Animals in nature don’t have that luxury.
Human pride and greed is what prevents us from backing down, or coming to sensible compromises. The overwhelming majority of when humans kill each other is not because we NEED to, but simply because we WANT to. Killing is so easy for us, especially with modern weapons, that it is almost our default response.
That has nothing to do with ‘nature’. That is our CHOICE.
While I agree that humanity has done much to mitigate certain “natural” pressures acting upon it, and should continue to do so, studies have shown that a great deal of behavior (seemingly the majority) it determined by genetics. I am also curious if, by your comments, it is safe to assume that you believe in the existence of free will?
Twin studies (separated at a young age/at birth), dog breeding, and fox breeding studies have shown that things such as docility/aggressiveness have genetics as a major contributor (actually the primary contributor, but reasonably discussing such a controversial topic doesn’t seem fit for a comment section of a webcomic).
While a “conflict gene” is perhaps a gross oversimplification, certain genes deal with certain behavior. On a cellular level, this can deal with how reaction cascades from certain environmental stimuli proceed. Genes can influence things such as spatial organization and cross-talk of certain enzymes. Such cellular organization can influence intercellular communication, such as between neurons. If the cellular level seems unconvincing due to it being an individual cell or a colony of identical (or near identical) cells, then there is the genetic influence upon how an organism develops, particularly it’s brain. Genetic influences upon such things as autism, basically genes affecting the wiring of the brain, can cause differences in behavior, no? There is also the genetics behind the development of the brain between different taxa, does this not influence behavior?
I agree that certain people use arguments of “nature” to protect their “status quo,” but they often seem to have certain gaps in their understanding or work upon unsupported presuppositions. Humanity should continue to move past certain “wild” limitations. But simply ignoring (or bashing) the evidence for something doesn’t mean it’s just going to go away, and how it works will fall within your lines of thinking. Also, “stupidity”? While there are people who do argue without much backing, dismissing an entire line of thought (without much backing) is not conducive to reasonable discourse.
From what you say about how you “read stuff,” along with what you say from it, I’ll guess that it’s more of people talking about “science,” rather than people talking about scientific principles or the accounts of the evidence for principles themselves.
@ Gabi (or anyone who wants to read this, I suppose): While things worded well can be quite helpful, please keep in mind that we should first look to what is said, not how it is said.
If you would like to read further on the subject of genetic influence upon behavior, I would suggest reading up on the breeding of foxes in the Soviet Union. “Fun” thing about it is that they were actually doing it while giving false pretexts to the Soviet Union, stating that it was just raising them for fur. This was due to Lysenkoism holding sway in the political climate, causing some to even die for studying Mendelian genetics (like Nikolai Vavilov). But now we have learned a great deal about genetics, behavior, and genetic linkages (regarding traits that are linked by virtue of spatial relation if not direct influence). An added bonus is that the docile breeds of foxes can be purchased as Pets!
From a certain standpoint, nothing that can ever be done by a living being could ever be “unnatural”.
It is somewhat amusing to see people make the old naturalistic fallacy, but I guess what they’re really trying to get at is that a certain line of behaviour follows as some sort of default setting that effectively undertakes itself without effort applied specifically to change it. And I suppose within that context and definition, it can technically be true… if still useless for justifying anything.
Cerby stated the problem of “just the way it is” perfectly:
“Not being able and willing to fight equates to being at the mercy of those who are.”
Logically, if I am willing to use force and you are not, I win. Unless you can magically make EVERYONE unwilling to use force at once, those willing to use force will ALWAYS win.
Yes, saying “that’s just the way it is” is not an explanation, but it’s not hard to understand. The classic, Gandhi-style non-violence only works in very specific times and places (Gandhi himself knew this – his non-violence was CALCULATED, not ethical; he knew the British well enough to be sure it would work on them, and he wrote about why he chose non-violence).
In fact, while I understand the desire for non-violence, I would say those with the fallacy are those who think full non-violence can EVER be achieved. ONE person willing to be violent is all it takes…. good luck with that.
On the flip side, we also exist in a society where the primary deterrent to crime is not police action, not the threat of physical reprisal, but rather fear of social ostracization and/or economic consequences. Culture, not prison, is the first and best defense against crime in affluent first world countries. So it’s also fair to say that mankind has meaningfully changed over the hundreds and hundreds of years.
Study a little more history. Being branded an outlaw and shunned by virtually all of society is not a new idea. In fact, it’s a lot more common as you leave first-world nations and travel into the past. You don’t do business with thieves or oathbreakers because you can’t trust them, no matter how good the offer may seem.
Police action is not a significant deterrent because the police only manage to solve a tiny fraction of crimes. Physical reprisal is sort of a deterrent, but it’s relatively easy to pick out targets who won’t be able to fight back right away, and any who go after the criminal later have just as much to fear from the police as the criminal does, if not more. That just leaves social consequences, and social consequences only matter so long as they’re inflicted by people who’s opinions the punishee cares about.
You might consider physical reprisal to be the best deterrent on an individual level: it’s the only one of those options (police, social, etc.) that can be effectively enacted by an individual.
If anything, it’s probably more effective today than ever for the disadvantaged: as a fraction of a person’s buying power, a gun is far cheaper than a sword and/or armor were in their heyday, and “being the biggest and strongest” has never been an option for most of the population.
I’m not trying to be rude, but this is quite ridiculous:
“On the flip side, we also exist in a society where the primary deterrent to crime is not police action, not the threat of physical reprisal, but rather fear of social ostracization and/or economic consequences.”
But going back to the original problem, as long as there is scarcity, there is potential benefit to violence, and there will ALWAYS be scarcity.
While I agree that such social pressures are a far BETTER mechanism when they can work, I can point to MANY societies in history where they worked FAR FAR FAR FAR better than ours today. There is a significant sub-culture in this country where crime is CELEBRATED, where that social pressure is flipped exactly on its head, and that’s only the most extreme example among several.
Odd, that small section in the middle (beginning with “But”) was supposed to be at the end… weird.
Yes, that sub-culture is the richest people, who consider themselves completely above the law. Oh if the common vermin do something we must be punished, but if the rich do something… it is their right as the rich.
I think it was Sun Tzu who said this?
Something about preparing for war in a time of peace and preparing for peace in war. Even if you wish for peace, you must prepare for war.
Machiavelli said:
“Thus it happens in affairs of state, for when the evils that arise have been foreseen (which it is only given to a wise man to see), they can be quickly redressed, but when, through not having been foreseen, they have been permitted to grow in a way that every one can see them. there is no longer a remedy. Therefore, the Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only put off to the advantage of others . . .”
Tecumseh said:
“You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices today than any of you to secure peace.”
Well you get the point. It’s a recurring thing with military writers.
Si vis pacem para bellum.
This is a case of “aught vs is”. Taxil’s statement explains the “is”. Gtgtgt’s statement justifies the “aught”.
I suppose I’ll rephrase his statement.
It’s written into our DNA, it’s a fatal genetic disorder. One of the most difficult to cure. No one is asserting genetic fallacy, that it’s GOOD. Rather what is being asserted is that fixing it is going to require fixing our genetic code.
Nah, conflict is built into the fact that entropy is a thing.
yeah uh Jesus wasn’t the start of that but ok
I could also point out that “Can’t we all be kinder to each other?” is a very shallow interpretation of Jesus’ teaching that misses the most important parts, but I’m not looking to start a flame war.
Yep.
Panel 5: Get your booger hook off that bang switch, Shanna, unless you plan to shoot her right here and now!
There’s only one killer in that room, guys, and it’s not the one behind the desk.
…Why did this post as a reply?
To be fair, it works rather well as a reply.
I do notice that for all he dislikes guns, Xan is maintaining some amount of trigger discipline. Perhaps a lot of first-person shooters?
FPS’s don’t teach trigger discipline, Xan ether has some real world experience which his dislike comes from (might also explain his stupid tool analogy earlier) or he simply educated himself by talking to people online who actually know about fire arms.
I don’t think you need any training or experience to know that keeping your finger on the trigger all the time can lead to a nasty accident. Even I know that, and I’ve only handled real guns twice in my life (nor have I ever played an FPS). It’s just common sense.
(Cue comments about how common sense isn’t.)
As someone who shoots both video game and real world guns, you’d be surprised at how often even supposedly experienced shooters who’ve been around guns all their life need to be reminded of basic gun safety. Whether you’re a novice or a veteran, it’s just so easy to end up resting your finger on the trigger. Pulling it unintentionally? Just the same.
As you said, common sense isn’t. It doesn’t take much to do something really stupid and tragic with a firearm in your hand. Lots of people who were in such situations use the term “accidental discharge”. The truth is that it’s really just neglect and irresponsibility.
You only need to screw up once.
Actually, this is a time when I think harsher language works against the point. You only need to *forget* once.
@Messenger
That little bit does little to inspire confidence in the pro-gun folks in my country, given how common accidental discharges are behind the other major causes of gun deaths. There’s lots of nattering about “responsibility” but it rings hollower and hollower to me every day. It baffles me that you can claim veterancy or mastery of anything when you forget the basics.
Power is super cool and attractive. It’s also really destructive when mislaid. And most people have zero business being in any position of power, period. Especially when that power is little more than a hobby for most people that’ll never see any legitimate use.
Hence why I use the term “supposedly”. Following your thoughts, “veterancy” and “mastery” = “responsibility” more than “power”.
Have you never once been distracted while driving? Operated a tool without full safety gear? Taken a medication without researching all possible side effects? Negligence is, by definition, easy.
You claim that you don’t want others in positions of “power”, but fail to comprehend how omnipresent power is. A car exerts thousands, even millions, of times the force that a gun does: just look at the truck attacks throughout Europe to see how easy it is to convert that violent ends. The currents flowing through the walls of your house are more than sufficient to electrocute. Bombs are easy to make; so are guns, when it comes right down to it (google the phrase “Table Leg Typewriter” if you want to see just how easy a felony is). If “most people have zero business” with power, then you should have much higher priorities, especially if accidents, not malice, are the justification you use.
Don’t run from the power offered to you and then complain when you’re at the mercy of those who didn’t.
Up till more recently, allot of people went by action movies :P
^ This.
TV, movies, and video games. People who don’t know gun safety see that the trigger finger is supposed to go on the trigger. So they put it there. All the time.
Gun safety isn’t exciting, or macho, or badass, or whatever, so they don’t really show it. They RARELY talk about it. Why should they? It’ll just eat up space in whatever story they’re showing.
And besides that, video games and the like don’t just omit basic but important knowledge, it also presents falsehoods and misconceptions. My particular pet peeve, found time and time again, such as in Borderlands, Borderlands 2, Counter-Strike:Global Offensive, Destiny, and Overwatch, is completing a revolver reload by just flipping the cylinder closed. You shouldn’t do that. The sharp swinging and closing of the cylinder can damage several parts of the gun to the point of rendering it inoperable.
However, that’s how you see people in TV, movies, and video games do it, and real people who don’t know better end up doing it as well.
If your action is flimsy enough that flipping it shut can damage it, then it’s probably not suitable for combat. The forces involved in flipping it shut vs. what someone high on adrenaline is likely to do to it aren’t that much different. There were several designs in WWI that were excellent target and sporting guns that failed miserably in combat because when men were yanking on the action like their life depended on it they would fail in subtle or not-so-subtle ways.
In my experience there are two problems with flipping a swing-action revolver shut though. Firstly it only takes a small bobble of your flipping motion to send shells flying everywhere, and secondly when you’re in a hurry it’s hard to be sure that it closed all the way. If it’s not closed all the way that’s really quite likely to damage the gun when fired, even the non-flimsy ones. If you’re lucky, all that’ll happen is that it will fall open again and spill your shells all over the floor. Hopefully your enemy is too busy laughing at you to shoot back at that point.
No revolver is likely to get damaged after its cylinder is flipped one, two, a few times unless its manufacture was particularly poor. Regardless of whether it’s “suitable for combat” or not, flipping the cylinder closed repeatedly is going to put stress on its cylinder crane, cylinder stop, and ejector rod. Damaging any one of those can turn your gun into an expensive paperweight.
That may not be something out of your experience, but that’s the consensus of many gunsmiths, experienced shooters, and firearm instructors, hence the advice to other people. It’s good that you’re telling people not to do it anyway, but the far more practical and real reason is the one you reject. People scoff at the possibility of having to repair their firearms until they actually experience the cost and inconvenience of one.
Arguable either way in this case depending on how likely it seems that she’s armed and how skilled she’s likely to be. The drunken wobbling and her hands down on the desk should probably prompt relaxing a bit though. Also, she and Xan should have stepped apart before saying anything. Being right next to each other like that is a poor tactical decision.
Threatening to shoot someone if they make one wrong step doesn’t work nearly as well if your finger isn’t on the trigger.
“HR? Should be down the hall and to the right. Nobody’s in right now, though….”
They want to go to Human Resources? And I thought they were the good guys!
(I know that’s not what they meant, don’t worry)
My soul for an edit button! I fell into a noob html trap.
Unfortunately, Xan, guns aren’t a silver bullet. You have to pay extra for those.
Matt Helm: “A gun i snot a magic wand. All you can do with it is shoot it. If they refuse to do what you tell them, then you either shoot them or you lose the initiative, which can be a Vary Bad Thing in that sort of situation.”
I do not snot.
“A gun is not…”
You don’t snot? Not even when you have a cold?
;)
Sam Vimes: “Never, ever threaten anyone with your sword unless you really mean it, because if he calls your bluff you suddenly don’t have many choices and they’re all the wrong ones.”
Pretty sure there is a line in the Anarchist Cookbook which almost verbatim “Never point a gun at someone you don’t fully intend to shoot.”
Except Carol does have a gun and unless I see them take it off her I’ll assume she could pull it out at any time. This may be a trap. She knew they’d come and demand to see HR so she takes them there and the shock of what they see gives her the distraction to turn the tables.
Xan has her gun, he grabbed it while she was having that nightmare.
Thank you for that, I didn’t realize it was Carol’s gun and was wondering why Shanna was the one pointing hers at Carol even though I thought Xan had Shanna’s gun in the previous panel. Ugh, it’s too early.
I missed that detail too. I really hope Carol has got something up her sleeve or this showdown will be as disappointing as Iver vs. Gravedust. Hell even Taro got to shoot Bandit before she took him down.
Right, that is her gun that Xan has… thanks for pointing it out SteelRaven.
During the break-in, they only had one gun.
Carol purchased a gun here, which looks reasonably identical to the one Xan is holding.
Furthermore, on the next page she left it sitting on her desk before falling asleep. And it is no longer there.
Pulling a gun takes a while when the other person already has theirs out. Moreso if hers is in her purse or desk. Fumbling around for a a dozen or so seconds is a great way to get yourself shot several times.
I mean, not that I think Xan necessarily has the experience to take her weapon beforehand or the willingness to outright murder Carol. However much Carol is the bad guy, she’s not presently threatening them and they’re already breaking and entering. She has the law on her side and way way more money.
It’s not really a fun situation for either of them.
I’m also wondering if she has one of those buttons under her desk like bank tellers do to be able to call security up to her office. Still don’t know how much good it will do her, though.
Yeah, security button would be scary too. If I were in Xan’s shoes, I don’t really want to shoot Carol that much. Because, frankly, that’d be murder and it wouldn’t give me what I want. I’d need her cooperation, not her blood.
Carol is desperate and cornered, so I wouldn’t really trust her not to press the button or go for a weapon.
Human Resources is rather easy to contact though.
No need for a gun, Carol’s already wasted.
“HR Is currently Asleep and not mentally here, can you take a rain check.”
“You see in this world there’s two kinds of people my friend – those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig”
“Mmmkay, but he’s not really presentable at the moment.”
“You see, in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.” -The Man With No Name
Panel 3, obligatory “That’s alcohol abuse where I come from!”