This forum is no longer for looksmaxxing

[Deleted Member 80538]

Water
@over0 @Tumor @BlendedBlade🧿 @twinkdestroyer @Knight @dipenhydramine @Travis Bickle

 

[BlendedBulge]

This forum is a joke rn

 

[Deleted Member 72600]

cause unhinged nsfw cartoon meme funny haha

 

[over0]

We're all iq maxxing rn, let me explain

The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.

 

[Deleted Member 76607]

Water


Degay is a 60kg twink, he’s my abused bitch And he called himself a cuck

 

[dipenhydramine]

meowww

 

[dipenhydramine]

Water


@dipenhydramine is a 60kg twink, he’s my abused bitch And he called himself a cuck

 

[Deleted Member 80538]

We're all iq maxxing rn, let me explain

The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.

Your so wrooong

The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.17 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚒𝚝 18 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚒𝚝 + 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚎𝚕 𝚏𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚐𝚎 + 𝚞𝚙 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚛𝚊 + 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚢𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚗*𝚜 𝚠𝚊𝚗𝚝 𝚜𝚘𝚖𝚎 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚌𝚊𝚔𝚎 + 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚍𝚘𝚗’𝚝 𝚔𝚗𝚘𝚠 𝚖𝚎 𝚜𝚘𝚗 + 𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚊 + 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚊 + 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚌𝚘𝚌𝚔 + 𝚎𝚢𝚎 𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝 𝚍𝚘𝚗’𝚝 𝚋𝚎 𝚊𝚏𝚛𝚊𝚒𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚑𝚒𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 Like 𝙻𝙸𝙺𝙴



hm: @Travis Bickle @twinkdestroyer @JeezyTheSnowman @BlendedBlade🧿 @Tumor @larp67 @ov17 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚒𝚝 18 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚒𝚝 + 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚎𝚕 𝚏𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚐𝚎 + 𝚞𝚙 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚛𝚊 + 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚢𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚗*𝚜 𝚠𝚊𝚗𝚝 𝚜𝚘𝚖𝚎 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚌𝚊𝚔𝚎 + 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚍𝚘𝚗’𝚝 𝚔𝚗𝚘𝚠 𝚖𝚎 𝚜𝚘𝚗 + 𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚊 + 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚊 + 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚌𝚘𝚌𝚔 + 𝚎𝚢𝚎 𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝 𝚍𝚘𝚗’𝚝 𝚋𝚎 𝚊𝚏𝚛𝚊𝚒𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚑𝚒𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 Like 𝙻𝙸𝙺𝙴

hm: @Travis Bickle @twinkdestroyer @JeezyTheSnowman @BlendedBlade🧿 @Tumor @larp67 er0

 

[over0]

Your so wrooong

The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.17 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚒𝚝 18 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚒𝚝 + 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚎𝚕 𝚏𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚐𝚎 + 𝚞𝚙 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚛𝚊 + 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚢𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚗*𝚜 𝚠𝚊𝚗𝚝 𝚜𝚘𝚖𝚎 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚌𝚊𝚔𝚎 + 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚍𝚘𝚗’𝚝 𝚔𝚗𝚘𝚠 𝚖𝚎 𝚜𝚘𝚗 + 𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚊 + 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚊 + 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚌𝚘𝚌𝚔 + 𝚎𝚢𝚎 𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝 𝚍𝚘𝚗’𝚝 𝚋𝚎 𝚊𝚏𝚛𝚊𝚒𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚑𝚒𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 Like 𝙻𝙸𝙺𝙴



hm: @Travis Bickle @twinkdestroyer @JeezyTheSnowman @BlendedBlade🧿 @Tumor @larp67 @ov17 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚒𝚝 18 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚒𝚝 + 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚎𝚕 𝚏𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚐𝚎 + 𝚞𝚙 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚛𝚊 + 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚢𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚗*𝚜 𝚠𝚊𝚗𝚝 𝚜𝚘𝚖𝚎 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚌𝚊𝚔𝚎 + 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚍𝚘𝚗’𝚝 𝚔𝚗𝚘𝚠 𝚖𝚎 𝚜𝚘𝚗 + 𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚊 + 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚊 + 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚌𝚘𝚌𝚔 + 𝚎𝚢𝚎 𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝 𝚍𝚘𝚗’𝚝 𝚋𝚎 𝚊𝚏𝚛𝚊𝚒𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚑𝚒𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 Like 𝙻𝙸𝙺𝙴

hm: @Travis Bickle @twinkdestroyer @JeezyTheSnowman @BlendedBlade🧿 @Tumor @larp67 er0

I mean I think a fair point here is

17 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚒𝚝 18 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚒𝚝 + 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚎𝚕 𝚏𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚐𝚎 + 𝚞𝚙 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚛𝚊 + 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚢𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚗*𝚜 𝚠𝚊𝚗𝚝 𝚜𝚘𝚖𝚎 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚌𝚊𝚔𝚎 + 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚍𝚘𝚗’𝚝 𝚔𝚗𝚘𝚠 𝚖𝚎 𝚜𝚘𝚗 + 𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚊 + 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚊 + 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚌𝚘𝚌𝚔 + 𝚎𝚢𝚎 𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝 𝚍𝚘𝚗’𝚝 𝚋𝚎 𝚊𝚏𝚛𝚊𝚒𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚑𝚒𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝙻𝙸𝙺𝙴

it's obviously water that Nigel farage is a a little lizard man

@wolfpack

thots?