gonna have to disagree with this one, merv.

Any study of biology, genetics, chemistry, health, or science in general shows that there are universal goods for the human species.

Health is good for everyone, family is good for everyone, friends are good for everyone. These are ends, and apply universally to humanity. Means, however, differ.

One person may be good by helping the poor in Palestine, another may be good by arresting criminals as a police officer, and yet another may be good by providing shelter to victims of abuse.

This is where each person has a different "place" in society, so to speak. Different people may, and must, use different means to a certain extent to achieve our universal ends, the ultimate end being happiness - individual and cumulative.

I have been doing my own personal study on that issue. It seems that people who put both first are happiest of all.

If we put both first, we miss the point of prioritizing, which is to decide which one will be chosen if there is a conflict where one must be picked over the other (like a primary 5 drop).

I think it's a relatively easy decision if the good choice is pleasurable and the bad choice is unpleasurable. But what if the good choice is unpleasurable (at least short term) and the bad choice is pleasurable?

Then, you adjust your pleasure filters. Pleasure can be received from almost everything.

If you've met some of the netdeckers I know, you can be assured they didn't catch it from women.

then that can only mean...

Absolutely not. What takes more thought? Playing a deck you didn't build or playing a deck you built? Duh, playing the deck you didn't build. You don't know the reason cards were put together in this deck so you have to either read up on it and study (learn, grow, get better) or practice with it (learn, grow, get better.) There is no shame in net decking. You just miss out on the PRIDE of building a new deck that wins. Pride is great, but it's not everything. Just nice to have. That's all.

Okay, let's break this down. What is happiness? Sustained pleasure. What you're arguing isn't pleasure vs. happiness, you're talking about stability and the ability to sustain happiness. It's true that drugs are a very bad way to sustain happiness and sure as hell aren't stable. Just like someone who's addicted to sex and seeks it out in casual sex and prostitutes probably doesn't lead a life of stable and sustained happiness. However, both drugs and sex can be a part of a perfectly happy, perfectly stable life. Sex is easier to balance into that equation than drugs, obviously. However, I think you get my point.

Which also goes to show that relationships with your friends and family are pleasurable. Charity is pleasurable. Blah blah blah.

Well, I doubt the original deck builders spent much time with women either. :p Always busy fiddling with their deck.

-Mike

It may be true that Hedonism as understood by the common, uneducated populace may be looked down upon. However, it is a mostly misunderstood/ misrepresented school of thinking.

To drop a little knowledge...originally the hedonists were a group who believed that you should follow your desires and live for pleasure. However, that is as far as most people have knowledge. The second part is the most important part: one is to limit life to its most simplistic form, finding pleasure in non-materialistic, non-offensive/hurtful things that life has to offer.

Mostly the hedonists were gardners who wore simple robes, did not drink, did not have sex, and much like a monk, neglected the outer world for inner peace. The did give into their desires, but they limited their desires to simple, humble goals. The hedonists were actually more conservative than other schools of thought like the stoics.

Yes, but they were probably thinking about the boobies on some of their cards. Does this count for anything? :surprised

Err... Wow, I didn't even mean it like that. :noid:

But, uh, no. lol

-Mike

I could go two ways here.

Politically correct outrage: "I think the Germans stopped that program around 1945."

Pure stu madness: "But what if my sister is really hot?"

You decide.

Mmm... Teamwork.

Uh... anyway...

It seems to me that netdecking is a perfect example of how different things make different people happy.

I would get no pleasure (or happiness) from playing with a netdeck. It wasn't my idea, I didn't make it, it doesn't have the little piece of me that goes into all my decks.

However, if Ranmasolo goes to a 10k and wins with New School, thats his business.

Frankly, I'd rather lose with a Beetle deck than win with New School.

And my sister is ugly, so no eugenics there I'm afraid. I'm just going to have to accept that there are no females perfect enough for me to create the master race with. (Sigh, except Keira Knightley...)

Does anyone understand British humor?

Chuck Norris can.

Chuck Norris also knows what real happiness means. It means "not being roundhouse-kicked to death by Chuck Norris".

And that, my friends, ends the thread.