Comic Strips

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]

Oh, bullshit.

I mean... I do agree police shouldn't have weapons. They're less likely to die at work than an Aborist.

I was never for increasing funding for the military until the US started threatening Canada

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.

Violence is only the answer when violence is already employed and you need to defend yourself. Ukraine is allowed to be violent against the aggressor. Police is allowed to be violent against insurrectionists.

Violence is always an option.

But...

Violence is not the answer, it is the question. And, when circumstances call for it, the answer is "yes".

Thats somehow so upside down philosophically. In human history we established states and gave them the monopoly of violence, so that we don't crush each others heads all the time (at least inside the state) or so that some guy who is stronger or has better weapons can't just take all our stuff because he wants to.

It's like Twitter and other online plataforms, where advocating or talking about violent acts is forbidden, unless you are an army or a government organization.