[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 96 KB, 552x768, O68zMtpKJfSk_dqT_lDFtxcEYPMQP5ZoRxGjiGvzOYM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13226441 No.13226441[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

would you allow your gf to go to the library dressed like this?

>> No.13226446

>>13226441
Sure, since I'd be coming with her to have lewd public sex between shelves.

>> No.13226450
File: 88 KB, 1280x720, 1555786707861.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13226450

>>13226441
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>> No.13226453

I would not allow my gf to go to the library at all, or any public place in which there are other men.

>> No.13226456
File: 37 KB, 750x577, face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13226456

>>13226450
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>> No.13226458

>>13226441
I'd remind her to put on her pumps as the library requires footwear. Otherwise none of my business.

>> No.13226461

>>13226446
this

>> No.13226464

No, they don't leave people in without shoes.

>> No.13226472

>>13226441
If she can honestly justify it via the categorical imperative, sure

>> No.13226483

>>13226472
>honestly
>categorical imperative
She's just going to point out you're killing grammar a la a nietzscheboo again, bro. Stop before she makes you a solecism.

>> No.13226492

>>13226472
Precisely what all subsequent philosophers dropped after snatching up the Kantian will..

>> No.13226495

>>13226441
I wouldn't allow my gf to wear open-toed shoes among other men, let alone go totally barefoot...

>> No.13226496

>>13226492
>a lot of people do it => correct

>> No.13226510

>>13226496
>is=>ought
Get the fuck out of our Kantian foot club, pseudoHume

>> No.13226519

>>13226510
I'm saying the categorical imperative should NOT be ignored simply because subsequent philosophers didn't like

>> No.13226521

>>13226496
precisely where
>Kant = Calvin
sad, but true
If (you) don't want her dress that way employ some other, more honest means
like jealous rage, which is what's being masked in the first place

>> No.13226526

>>13226519
You're saying >>13226492 is in opposition to that. He can't get rid of Nietzsche or Crowley any more than you can.

>> No.13226540
File: 200 KB, 600x600, 1554030369371.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13226540

>tfw no gf (male)

>> No.13226545

>>13226540
Well at least you don't have to worry about her wearing slip ons at the library.

>> No.13226546

>>13226526
Wait, I'm confused. I first said if she can justify it (dressing that way) via the CI, it is permissible. The guy then said everyone after Kant dropped it after taking Kantian will. I made a sarcastic post challenging the idea that mass action makes said action "right." I then clarified that the CI should be (imo) not ignored I.e. a valid criteria

>> No.13226549
File: 303 KB, 517x515, it hurts.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13226549

>>13226441
WHY ALWAYS LOOK WHY NEVER TOUCH

>> No.13226551

>>13226441
hmmmmm............ pusy

>> No.13226557

>>13226546
He never said it was right, he just said it happened. Are you female or something?

>> No.13226559

>>13226546
I'm 'the guy'
My response
>>13226521

>> No.13226572

Fun fact, I used to go to all my local libraries to practice my PUA game on solid 5's back when PUA was all the rage.

>> No.13226573

>>13226441
Of course

Full disclosure. I have lots of library exhibitionist porn

>> No.13226578

>>13226557
>Precisely what all subsequent philosophers dropped after snatching up the Kantian will..
Why would someone post this if not to challenge the authority of the CI? I mean, sure he didn't say it is wrong or right, but what else can I gleam from that post?

>> No.13226582

>>13226573
Stop. You only post this way to be an asshole to me.

Put on your collar right now :3

>> No.13226583

>>13226578
>>13226559
I see now, I think. Sorry