I fail to see how you can be pissed with a 10 min 5-0. But if you say so.

https://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/thumb/e/ea/Soldier_Battalion%27s_Backup.png/250px-Soldier_Battalion%27s_Backup.png

https://i.imgur.com/VBqLxyW.png

Ahh yes gimmie that huge 26$ stack of cash.

3100 pictures. What the actual fuck

banned

Discord is still shit but its not changing.

holy there are some old as fuck players in a couple of these

River is called river because in the early versions of the map with water there was actually a river outside of the glass windows. Used to have rubber ducks and shit around there as well.

Shit house on blands was originally called "maintenance" for a very short period of time because it says that over it, then people just said that's a fuckign shit call for a house > shit house. Its also a shit place to get stuck in.
Pride rock looks like pride rock from the lion king movies. Haunter is also knows as launchpad to some people.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/414688503524229133/414688684684869632/image.png

So its not actually a big deal if no one dies? K glad we got that sorted.

Move to Canada then its not an issue.

Willing to play if some team needs me.

I mean sure, but that is one of the many rabbit holes. At what point does the scale tip into where it was worth the gain of living standard to the deaths of people? Because if you want to take it to an extreme you can argue that the MOST effective way would be to kill off literally everyone but a single person and have them have an absurdly high standard of living. Overall living standard is amazing, and there is no poor people, or any people for that matter, to drag it down.

In the same way you can justify slavery as a good thing because it causes a net gain in living standard. Or killing off the bottom 40% of a population to increase "average" living standard. The ideas are almost endless but they can all be justified by just saying "well the standard of living went up and there is more utility available"

But this tftv really isnt the place for a debate of this nature.

It gets more into actual philosophy but the tl;dr (of a very complex argument that really should not be tl;rd'd) is that you cannot really say that one person, or group of people is more or less valuable then any other person, or group of people regardless of the outcome, real or perceived. In the Stalin case how would one choose what people are the ones that deserve the gain of utility over the loss of life, or if there isn't a standard to go by and its all just random, then are you really maximizing the utility gain from the actions? For all you know 90% of the people you kill might have a IQ of 150+ and bring the society to a new age in the next 10 years, if that was the case then you would actually be lowering the utility of the society and not raising it.

There are a lot of issues and holes in a utility based argument just due to all of the rabbit holes and "what if's" that you can pull from it, but I am not really sure if the class would be able to get into them in a 30 min time slot so it would really just muddle things and become really hard to have an actual discussion on anything. This also assumes that anyone even brings up the utility monster as a counterpoint.