[ 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: 54 KB, 500x747, wr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4824747 No.4824747[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

what sort of philosophical stance is this?

This photo was posted on STFU, Conservatives Tumblr page last night. The reason why I'm sharing it is not because of the photo itself (which is epic in it's own right), but for the comments it generated.
One person wrote, "but then again, its kind like putting a meat suit on and telling a shark not to eat you".
STFU responded (with bolded text):
"We (men) are not fucking sharks!
We are not rabid animals living off of pure instinct
We are capable of rational thinking and understanding.
Just because someone is cooking food doesn’t mean you’re entitled to eat it.
Just because a banker is counting money doesn’t mean you’re being given free money.
Just because a person is naked doesn’t mean you’re entitled to fuck them.
You are not entitled to someone else’s body just because it’s exposed.
What is so fucking difficult about this concept?"
Bravo.

>> No.4824759

10/10 trolling

>> No.4824769
File: 155 KB, 800x648, will power bar.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4824769

>>4824747
>what sort of philosophical stance is this?
I'm not sure if it's a particular "philosophical" stance, but maybe just that of an intelligent, rational being. I do like what the tumblr "blog" (to use the term loosely) had to say; but i don't understand why they feel the need to use such crude language in saying it (it really seems to hurt their credentials and gives off the feeling of an insecure adolescent). Not to mention the fact that I'm conservative and I hold this very same position. I don't understand how/why it would be called "STFU, Conservatives."

>>4824759
I don't think you know what "trolling" is, anon.

>> No.4824778

>>4824769
I think I do, and I think he (i.e. you) are doing a very good job of it.

>> No.4824781

>>4824747
Both sides are arguing on different levels.

Neither side disagrees that women shouldn't be raped, regardless of what they're wearing. One side just advocates caution given the fact that there are terrible people out there. The other side takes this as "victim blaming"

The entire disagreement is just a breakdown in communication.