|
On June 11 2017 07:56 Tumblewood wrote:
and one more thing: why the fuck do i, as mafia, claim so i can stay alive longer (because obviously i can't survive all game off a fakeclaim) and then lynch my teammate the day of the claim? completely defeats the purpose.
you act like you knew it was going to land on fidei when you claimed. nope.
|
TW, there was no way I wasn't claiming today regardless of HF's claim. I green checked grack, what am I gonna do to stay hidden in that scenario? Magically flip a tunnel on him over nothing? Wow no1 will notice that or ask for explanation that I don't have without claiming. So your negative that he forced me to claim and lost us a check is irrelevant.
|
How does it feel to know you're going to die in 24 hours without shooting and there's nothing you can do about it?
|
Oh hell yes I am just going to shoot you. There's like 8 holes in my shitty claim that I have no real means of explaining away. I have no fucking clue why anyone bought it.
|
On June 11 2017 09:07 Holyflare wrote:
Guy called me mafia. He was blatantly mafia.
See you in obs in 72 hours after I am done shitting up the thread with gifs.
|
On June 11 2017 09:11 Holyflare wrote:
You wanna know something funny though? I'm not actually the blue
:D
:D
:D
:D
Gl tube I believe in you.
I had you pegged as vet since about 4 hrs into the game.
|
|
|
On June 11 2017 09:21 Prison Break wrote:
so any odds it's BTDT + ritoky now? guy legit did nothing but go "lynch TW then HF also PB is scum" then leave
![[image loading]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/b4b2b1afa493a3fcfb94427d070b7f34/tumblr_mj67sytwow1s5k8dbo1_500.gif)
|
|
|
UTILITARIANISM
by
John Stuart Mill
(1863)
Chapter 2
What Utilitarianism Is.
A PASSING remark is all that needs be given to the ignorant blunder of supposing that those who stand up for utility as the test of right and wrong, use the term in that restricted and merely colloquial sense in which utility is opposed to pleasure. An apology is due to the philosophical opponents of utilitarianism, for even the momentary appearance of confounding them with any one capable of so absurd a misconception; which is the more extraordinary, inasmuch as the contrary accusation, of referring everything to pleasure, and that too in its grossest form, is another of the common charges against utilitarianism: and, as has been pointedly remarked by an able writer, the same sort of persons, and often the very same persons, denounce the theory "as impracticably dry when the word utility precedes the word pleasure, and as too practicably voluptuous when the word pleasure precedes the word utility." Those who know anything about the matter are aware that every writer, from Epicurus to Bentham, who maintained the theory of utility, meant by it, not something to be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself, together with exemption from pain; and instead of opposing the useful to the agreeable or the ornamental, have always declared that the useful means these, among other things. Yet the common herd, including the herd of writers, not only in newspapers and periodicals, but in books of weight and pretension, are perpetually falling into this shallow mistake. Having caught up the word utilitarian, while knowing nothing whatever about it but its sound, they habitually express by it the rejection, or the neglect, of pleasure in some of its forms; of beauty, of ornament, or of amusement. Nor is the term thus ignorantly misapplied solely in disparagement, but occasionally in compliment; as though it implied superiority to frivolity and the mere pleasures of the moment. And this perverted use is the only one in which the word is popularly known, and the one from which the new generation are acquiring their sole notion of its meaning. Those who introduced the word, but who had for many years discontinued it as a distinctive appellation, may well feel themselves called upon to resume it, if by doing so they can hope to contribute anything towards rescuing it from this utter degradation.
The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral standard set up by the theory, much more requires to be said; in particular, what things it includes in the ideas of pain and pleasure; and to what extent this is left an open question. But these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded- namely, that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.
Now, such a theory of life excites in many minds, and among them in some of the most estimable in feeling and purpose, inveterate dislike. To suppose that life has (as they express it) no higher end than pleasure- no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit- they designate as utterly mean and grovelling; as a doctrine worthy only of swine, to whom the followers of Epicurus were, at a very early period, contemptuously likened; and modern holders of the doctrine are occasionally made the subject of equally polite comparisons by its German, French, and English assailants.
When thus attacked, the Epicureans have always answered, that it is not they, but their accusers, who represent human nature in a degrading light; since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable. If this supposition were true, the charge could not be gainsaid, but would then be no longer an imputation; for if the sources of pleasure were precisely the same to human beings and to swine, the rule of life which is good enough for the one would be good enough for the other. The comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beasts is felt as degrading, precisely because a beast's pleasures do not satisfy a human being's conceptions of happiness. Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification. I do not, indeed, consider the Epicureans to have been by any means faultless in drawing out their scheme of consequences from the utilitarian principle. To do this in any sufficient manner, many Stoic, as well as Christian elements require to be included. But there is no known Epicurean theory of life which does not assign to the pleasures of the intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments, a much higher value as pleasures than to those of mere sensation. It must be admitted, however, that utilitarian writers in general have placed the superiority of mental over bodily pleasures chiefly in the greater permanency, safety, uncostliness, etc., of the former- that is, in their circumstantial advantages rather than in their intrinsic nature. And on all these points utilitarians have fully proved their case; but they might have taken the other, and, as it may be called, higher ground, with entire consistency. It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognise the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.
If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account.
|
|
|
because you murder puppies for fun.
|
yo if u wanna leave me alive feel free, i'll gladly take the stats and hammer nerds if there's a split vote while posting nonsense, sounds like fun!
|
|
|
what was the first thing everyone ever ate when they moved out on their own?
mine was a fuck ton of raw cookie dough
|
i do miss that kind of rebellious high you used to get when you were young and on your own and were doing shit your parents had outlawed you from your entire life. the whole fuck the system mentality, hard to re-create when you start getting old.
|
the key to reading grack is to look at which finger he is wearing his decoder ring on! if it is the index finger or pinky he is mafia! if it is thumb or ring finger he is town! if it is the middle finger then he is an otter!
|
and otters are alignment indicative! loot at this shit
![[image loading]](https://media.giphy.com/media/LWwuNkheHAUNO/giphy.gif)
|
this place is a buzzkill, it's almost like you guys have a game you're taking seriously goin on or some shit.
|
tfw the guy trolling the thread will have more activity tomorrow than half the players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.pbh2.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/funny-gif-wave-fail.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZNfFpPv.gif)
![[image loading]](https://media.tenor.com/images/4573ea75b1943393af9b2c3f09a97dfb/tenor.gif)
