EPTlike I was feeling bad about the TW lynch, but he kept going at HF which didn't make sense to me
Newbie Student Mafia XXVI - Page 135
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Prison Break
326 Posts
like I was feeling bad about the TW lynch, but he kept going at HF which didn't make sense to me | ||
|
Prison Break
326 Posts
| ||
|
ritoky
United States6851 Posts
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) | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
| ||
|
ritoky
United States6851 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZNfFpPv.gif) | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
Grack probably isn't mafia | ||
|
Tubesock
United States2726 Posts
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 It could be though. Need to reread their interactions with confirmed town HF and TW. I never liked emotion types of TR's. Too many people have exploited that. | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
Ritoky outing gives us another mislynch, no? | ||
|
Grackaroni
United States9846 Posts
HF dies. Ritoky dies. 5-1 so we have two lynches left to hit the final scum. | ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
| ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
| ||
|
Grackaroni
United States9846 Posts
On June 11 2017 09:35 Holyflare wrote: Well one person outs as blue so that narrows down your pool a lot. lol Ritoky isn't stupid. | ||
|
Tubesock
United States2726 Posts
Grack how does that not narrow our pool by a lot? | ||
|
ritoky
United States6851 Posts
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. | ||
|
ritoky
United States6851 Posts
| ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30774 Posts
I fully expect him to still kill me. But there is another blue out there. | ||
|
Prison Break
326 Posts
| ||
|
Prison Break
326 Posts
| ||
|
LightningStrike
United States14277 Posts
| ||
|
Conversion
United States3308 Posts
| ||
| ||
