Fucking liberals

...

-_-

Being this fucking stupid.

it's true, I bet she was in favour of women's suffrage and everything

> The Sun

What a fucking shit rag of a tabloid. This is literally the source of news for people who masturbate while doing 70mph in a white van.

The Sun is like the ultimate pleb filter of newspapers. If you read the Sun, you're a dumb cunt who peaked at fucking nursery.

It's clear that whoever wrote this has never read the novel. sage

fuck off these threads are shit
why are you faggots bumping it, it's /pol/-tier

The Sun printed the truth about Hillsborough. Criminal and illiterate scousers waged a lengthy campaign to smear the good name of the police and the sun, sadly successful

thanks for containing your bait in the bait thread.

>he was a good boy he dindu nuffin

Yeah until he started fucking murdering people

Just like humanity..

bump

top kek, i am not sure who's baiting who anymore :(

all of them? stereotyping individuals because they belong to a group is racist, sweetie

youtube.com/watch?v=inqdiNVzQcc

Wasn’t he a victim though? He was an abomination brought into the world through no fault of his own because of a psycho Doctor

what the fuck? is everyone at the sun a brainlet?

Yes

Despite working at the Sun, they aren't the brightest.

ba dum tss :)

So this is the power of private media...
Great post

audible keks

I'm willing to bet that this joke has been made many times before yet this is the first time I've seen it.

>reads anything other than the morning Star
Boo

This has been a common interpretation of Frankenstein's monster ever since Frankenstein came out in 1818. Why are The Sun doing this?

Isn't that literally what the book was about? That man is an irresponsible, unloving creature and has no business playing God? The Monster kills no one except Frankenstein's brother, after Frankenstein abandon's the monster, leaving him to discover who and what he is on his own.

The monster kills his fiance, and his best friend, among others.

she was asking for it desu

Yes and no. From what I remember, the monster kills several innocents (Frankenstein’s bride and a kid, to name a few) in his effort to ruin Frankenstein’s life. He’s certainly a victim, but his actions were monstrous.

Right wingers fuckin REKT

reddit.com/r/books/comments/82ne2p/the_sun_uk_tabloid_accuses_snowflakes_of/

Is 'The Sun' like the Onion?

I would trust a tabloid journalist before I would trust a scouser to be desu

Thanks god I'm an independent minded individual who reads nyt, vox the guardian and cares profoundly about Russian trolls, the plight of Marginalized victim groups such as trannies and upper middle class brown bitches

is The Sun like a british clickhole or something?

So, some snowflake lecturer runs to The Sun of all places to complain about his students. Nice society we have here.

Also, that is exactly what the book is about.

It's a Murdoch owned tabloid. I would say yes to answer your questions but people do legitimately get 100% of their news and opinions from there.

as always, were not enough

literally the point of the book

Samefag

you slip once again scouser

Please contain your edge

It wasn't though. The book is ultimately about how monsters justify their horrible actions. The monster is not a victim. We're all born into varying degrees of shitty circumstances. Good people deal with them and shitty people blame their creator.

please contain your pl titles

>le football was invented in 1992 meme

>smear the good name of the police

>The book is ultimately about how monsters justify their horrible actions

Most murderers feel righteous while committing murders. They always have some way of justifying their actions to themselves so they don't feel like a monster. Frankenstein's monster is no different. He uses his abandonment as an excuse do things he knew was wrong and that's what really made him a monster. He realizes this at the end and it drove him commit suicide.

Ah, so it's literally a dark mirror of a tragic hero. An unthinking "god" creates a man whose fatal flaw is that everyone will hate him. He tries to fit into society, to learn, to help others and to be good. After continuously being driven out, shot at, berated, abused, and abandoned by his creator, he first seeks company in a similar person. In time he realizes he would just be dooming someone else to his same fate, so decides to take vengeance.

It is literally the story of Genesis in which God is not kind, is not omnipotent, is not omniscient, who has created a world that is not good.

The point of the novel is still that, for all his faults, Frankenstein's Monster is not the monster. The monster is man, and Frankenstein's creation becomes more monstrous only in so much as he becomes more like man.

But Frankenstein's Monster was not born, he was made.

So the same way people have been reading Frankenstein since it was fucking published?

Why should the distinction matter?

Do you not know what a samefag is? Or did you really believe Liverpoo and its murderous supporters are not disliked intensely by just about everybody?

Because you cannot say that men are responsible for their actions, but not their creations. Frankenstein is the villain, and the monster is a classical tragic hero.

That's what I thought, but this headline is so stupid and hits so many random notes ("snowflakes") that I thought I must not have known what the Sun was. There's a free conservative newspaper published in my town and even it has more class than this.

Is this fucking real?

the only thing she suffered was byron's big syp dick

>No, you!
Heh, you really triggered that lib user.

Why does the monster being created by a human mean the monster can't be considered responsible for his own actions? No matter how awful somebodies circumstances and upbringing they're still held to account for the evil they do. The monster shouldn't be treated any differently. He murdered innocent people with full knowledge that it was wrong.

I'm not saying that Frankenstein himself isn't culpable. Neither one of them are any good and it's a mistake to view this with a black and white lens.

I did not say he was not accountable for the evil he has done, but it is not enough to say that they are both capable. We need to be able to say which is worse, and Frankentsein's actions are worse by far, for he shares in all the works of his creation and he is solely responsible for the creation itself. This is the idea of scandal, and you should become more familiar with it. Unless we view the corrupter as worse than the corrupted, evil will never cease.

the main thing is that Frankenstein's monster isn't a blank slate; he's an abomination and people treat him like that although he has human capacities. He furthermore never wanted to be created, therefore - although him killing people is of course bad - Frankenstein has the moral responsibility because he did not think before creating his monster, he merely did so to satisfy his God complex.

You have it backwards. He is a blank slate. He is first driven by curiosity; he wants to know what he is. Only after he is abandoned does he desire company. The worse he is treated, the worse he becomes. Only his appearance was pre-determined. Now, since he had done good and had the capacity good, we can blame him for his rejection of doing good. But the blame doesn't just fall on Frankenstein, but all humanity.

No, right wingers are literally this stupid

Frankenstein is a Satan figure attempting to supplant God in the order of creation and the monster is a literal moral monster for submitting to his passion and murdering innocent people. Each sin is unique to the individual and they're both bad. Why do we need to say one is worse than the other?

As far as I know, nobody living has ever consented to being created. The monster is no different to us in that regard. Some people grow up in awful circumstances but the difference between good and bad people is how they respond to them. The monster responded poorly.

The monster was created fully as it was. It had no chance to grow and it had no help in doing so. A human being, no matter how wretched, is born among his peers. The monster was denied what is necessary to live, companions and a world of its own. It was altogether apart from the human species and thus could never be happy among it.

>Only his appearance was pre-determined.
He is not a true blank state because he lacks the visage of humanity; that is the irony. Internally, he has the same capacities of man, but because he lacks the semblance of humanity he is rejected.

It is ridiculous to say that all sin is equal. Frankenstein is not a Satan figure. The criticism is not of the monster, but uses his failings to represent the cycle of evil present in society. We must say some things are worse than others, because there is an order to it. If one evil comes before another, then we accomplish little if we only stop the latter. Again, look up the concept of scandal.

That's not what blank slate means. Blank slate refers only to one's mind, because the way others perceive you is not a trait of yourself but of them. If he's only had one hand, then he would be limited. But he was fully capable.

Trannies are an actual marginalized victim group though, as opposed to upper middle class anything

I'm not saying that all sin is equal by asking why we should bother arguing over which sin is worse. A person can only be culpable for their own sin so I think the question is irrelevant and pointless.

I don't understand what you mean by orders and cycles of evil, and Frankenstein being considered a Satan figure for attempting to become like God is probably the least controversial statement on any literature in the history of mankind. Maybe you have a really good reason for saying otherwise and perhaps you should share it.

But the Monster *is* a victim.

Frankenstein didn't ask to be born hated and loathed though. And the one he did ask for he didn't get.

Nobody asks to be born and hated, yet everybody is born and many of us are hated.

In this case it is the innate opportunity of a human being, that we are all granted. The monster thought he had this, but in reality he never did.

The monster didn't ask to be born hated and loathed though. And the one he did ask for he didn't get.

>and many of us are hated.
I said born hated and loathed. Not even your /r9k/ness can earn you the intense loathing and alienation the monster suffered

The monster was treated as many lepers were throughout history.

If you really want to be pedantic and point out special cases, I can too by saying people loathed the monster due to his otherness, not for any disease he carried.

While the monster genuinely thought that he was cut off from humanity and had no chance at real companionship, this wasn't a certainty. The world is a big place with many caring people and he could have conceivably made friends but he gave up. He gave up on humanity like all monsters do. He started hating society and desiring revenge. That is why he is a monster.

I literally just told you why we should care. Why do you repeat your dumb question? A person is not only culpable for their own sin, they are culpable for all sin they foster.

Consider what happens to you when someone slights you in some minor way. You will feel angry, you will become distracted from whatever you were thinking about before. Your outlook of the day might even change. If you are not mindful, you will become sour, and you will start to be less kind with everyone you meet. If each individual is responsible for their choices, then they must also be responsible for all the consequences of their actions. If everyone considered morality to end at their hand, no good would be done.

As regards the orders of evil, it was you who brought it up, when you said Frankenstein is a Satan figure trying to supplant God in the order of creation. Satan is the most evil because he seeks to invert the order completely. The extent to which you sow discord and value things in the wrong order is the origin of your sin.

Nobody really knew the monster. Everybody was scared off because he looked bad so why would you think it was something about his essence that turned people away from him?

Sure but that is the irrational fear of the unknown that is different to the rational fear of catching diseases from lepers (or from any sick people from that matter)

You're on some weird social justice shit. If a guy shoots up a school we don't hold the guy who cut him off in traffic earlier that day accountable because the school shooter is entirely responsible for his own actions.

Who's on Page 3 today, lads?

Nobody should be giving this story the time of day. Not least because the exact same story came out in The Times 2 days ago.

Both Murdoch owned newspapers, coincidence?

But he did. And at the time, it was still argued (and is still argued) whether there is this innate opportunity. Frankenstein's Monster was purposefully shown to be more than ordinarily capable--very literate, very eloquent, very strong, etc. His appearance was literally artificial and superfluous to everything society says is most important in life. The monster had more capability than other people, and it was through their fear that they spurned him. Notice how it is only the blind man who accepts him, showing that it is truly the rest of humanity that is blind.

>Concern for animal rights causes students to sympathize with the murderous creature.
I bet Mary Shelley is spinning in her grave

So I read Frankenstein years ago, and I started reading it again until I read there's different editions for the book.

Which is the most recommended?

Why, if someone is wholly responsible for their own actions, can someone else not also share in the blame? You are assigning metaphysical properties to sin that are nowhere implied.

And in your shooter example, do you think that maybe part of the reason we keep getting such damaged individuals in our society is in part because we do not hold ourselves accountable? We are our brother's keeper. Unless you are living apart from all society, no one is independent. To the extent that the guy who cut off the shooter contributed to the event, that is the extent he is culpable. Of course, such a small thing is ovewhelmed by the enormous evil of the shooting. But some people certainly had a larger impact on the life of the shooter than others. His parents, his friends, his neighbors share in the guilt. His tormentors. The school officials who let the situation continue because it's too much work to change things. Evil begets evil. Until we recognize it in ourselves, how can we stand against it?

Nice "media" you have there. Quite the "fourth estate."

I know the guy who drew this irl

wow really?
can i suck your dick

>hormone therapy
>against your will
Nice delusion, gaylord